D&D 5E (2014) player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Cadence]

That the GM does not get to decide what the characters think; they only get to decide what the truth is.

Why is that apparently so hard to understand?

Is the DM allowed to tell a player what they know if they attempt to recall what they know about something (resulting in a knowledge check)?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's a straightforward reading of very plain and simple rules.

If you need a mechanic to resolve a character's instant response to a harmful effect, that's a saving throw. An ability check resolves the outcome of a task that the character actively attempts to accomplish, when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure.

Well, that's your interpretation. PHB simply talks about using innate talent and training to overcome a challenge and attempting an action. To me your reading is needlessly pedantic and restrictive and leads to completely unnatural outcomes.

Who plays Indiana Jones?

Did you have to stop to actively think that or did the answer just pop into your mind when you read the question?

 

[iserith]

Well, that's your interpretation. PHB simply talks about using innate talent and training to overcome a challenge and attempting an action. To me your reading is needlessly pedantic and restrictive and leads to completely unnatural outcomes.

If you're going to paraphrase rules from Chapter 7, I would advise you to read the very next sentence: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

Who decides when a character attempts an action? The player. (PHB Introduction, plus Chapter 8).

Who plays Indiana Jones?

Did you have to stop to actively think that or did the answer just pop into your mind when you read the question?

The game is a conversation wherein the DM and players have specific, defined roles in that conversation. The player has to describe to the DM what they want to do before the DM can narrate the result. The DM can't say what the character does and the player can't say how what they do turns out. This is fundamental to the entire game and is found in the section very aptly titled "How to Play."

Having to tell the DM you're trying to recall lore or make deductions may not be your preferred aesthetic and you might have table rules to handle it some other way, but the rules give us clear instructions on what to do here.

I don't mold my reading of the rules to how I play the game. I mold my play to what the rules tell me to do. (If I don't like it, I don't play that game.) If the rules supported your position, I would be arguing in your favor and playing how you do, if I found it to be fun. But they don't, so I don't.

 

[Cadence]

DMG, page 235. In this chapter, entitled "Running the Game," the designers draw a line between the rules of the game and table rules for how the game is played. In the section called "Table Rules," it is suggested the DM set expectations about "Table Talk," which is (no surprise) about how players will talk at the table. One such bullet point to cover in setting these expectations is as follows:

"Decide how you feel about a player sharing information that his or her character wouldn't know or that the character is incapable of sharing as a result of being unconscious, dead, or far away."

Have you always known that quote and just remembered it, or just stumbled across it, or been saving it for some reason? It feels like it would have saved me about 4 or 5 questions about 40 pages ago when I was trying to go through the stances of different editions.

In any case, thank you for pointing it out!!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you're going to paraphrase rules from Chapter 7, I would advise you to read the very next sentence: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

Who decides when a character attempts an action? The player. (PHB Introduction, plus Chapter 8).



The game is a conversation wherein the DM and players have specific, defined roles in that conversation. The player has to describe to the DM what they want to do before the DM can narrate the result. The DM can't say what the character does and the player can't say how what they do turns out. This is fundamental to the entire game and is found in the section very aptly titled "How to Play."

Having to tell the DM you're trying to recall lore or make deductions may not be your preferred aesthetic and you might have table rules to handle it some other way, but the rules give us clear instructions on what to do here.

I don't mold my reading of the rules to how I play the game. I mold my play to what the rules tell me to do. (If I don't like it, I don't play that game.) If the rules supported your position, I would be arguing in your favor and playing how you do, if I found it to be fun. But they don't, so I don't.

I know what it says and your reading is still myopic. Your interpretation of what an 'action' or 'attempt' mean are overly pedantic and literal. The players description can just be 'I go to see what's in the next room' and that may trigger a roll to recognise a prominently visible feature in said room. Perhaps you should heed these words from the introduction: "But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure." It's not a bloody spreadsheet.

 

[Cadence]

Bear in mind we're not talking about eliminating the divide in practice. We're just talking about leaving it to the players, instead of trying to enforce a mandatory divide.

It feels like some of the posts above by someone or other have pretty much advocated for it not being worth the trouble for anyone thinking about the divide unless they had there identity tied up in it. ;-) I could be mistaken.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Have you always known that quote and just remembered it, or just stumbled across it, or been saving it for some reason? It feels like it would have saved me about 4 or 5 questions about 40 pages ago when I was trying to go through the stances of different editions.

In any case, that k you for pointing it out!!

That quote doesn't really even address the actual topic, except it clearly establishes the default assumption that the player and character knowledge are separate things. That is not questioned. It merely talks about how to handle sharing such information between the players. i.e. it is about whether to take players to other room when their characters are not around or something like that. It is not about using OOC knowledge in IC, it is about whether you try to keep players ignorant of things their characters would not know and not vice versa.

 

[Cadence]

This is kind of a red herring, as the AL-specific rules are table rules. Whether they forbid use of OOC knowledge or not doesn’t really reflect on what the 5e rules themselves say.

I'm embarrassed to say I hadn't figured out who or what AL was until this point... :-/

 

[iserith]

I know what it says and your reading is still myopic. Your interpretation of what an 'action' or 'attempt' mean are overly pedantic and literal. The players description can just be 'I go to see what's in the next room' and that may trigger a roll to recognise a prominently visible feature in said room. Perhaps you should heed these words from the introduction: "But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure." It's not a bloody spreadsheet.

I think you got some work to do to explain why a "prominently visible feature" is not simply included in the DM's description of the environment.

Also, the bit you're quoting is in reference to the previous sentence about the game having more structure and the DM and players taking turns in combat. If you keep cherrypicking things to try (and fail) to prove some kind of point about your preferred gameplay being supported by the rules, it may reflect poorly on you. You don't need to follow the rules if you don't like the kind of play doing so produces. That's why we can make table rules, as you have done with your "no metagaming" stance.

 

[iserith]

That quote doesn't really even address the actual topic, except it clearly establishes the default assumption that the player and character knowledge are separate things. That is not questioned. It merely talks about how to handle sharing such information between the players. i.e. it is about whether to take players to other room when their characters are not around or something like that. It is not about using OOC knowledge in IC, it is about whether you try to keep players ignorant of things their characters would not know and not vice versa.

So I guess what you should have said is that no evidence will convince you that the "no metagaming" position a group takes is a table rule, since direct evidence that the game treats this issue as a table rule isn't enough to convince you. If that is the case, then reason is not going to work here.