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

[Charlaquin]

It is. But it's connotations necessarily are not. i.e. it is a statue of a creature and a succesfull religion roll reveals it to be Oliloloroth, the goddess of marsupials and courage.

Alternatively, you could just describe it as such if the character would likely just know that information (for example, if they are an acolyte of Oliloloroth, or if Oliloloroth’s depiction has appeared and been recognized before). And, of course, players who know of Oliloloroth might recognize its depiction based on the description and take action to verify if this OOC knowledge is accurate, while players unfamiliar with Oliloloroth can also take actions to try and figure out what it is or recall lore about it.

No, it is just that you're over-interpreting the rules. It is not a legal document, the game is not a spreadsheet and I know that you think that you got the absolute truth from words written in a casual tone, the rules lawyers always think that. Doesn't make it so though.

The thing is, Iserith’s interpretation is consistent with the rules whether they are interpreted technically or naturalistically.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because it is not about what you think it is about! It is not about using OOC knowledge IC. You are simply misinterpreting the text.

How is a statement about players sharing information that their character wouldn't know not a statement about "using OCC knowledge IC"? What else could it be?

I also think you're completely mis-using the term "rules lawyer". Unless, that is, you consider any and all references to the actual rules of the game "rules lawyering".

It's usually used in the context of a player using superior mastery of the rules to pressure a DM into ruling a certain way.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, it is just that you're misinterpreting the text.

"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."

It establishes that player having information that their character couldn't know is a thing. This is given as basic assumption, the text doesn't question this, it is assumed to be the normal state of affairs regardless of how this 'table rule' matter is handled. This is merely deciding whether the player should be allowed to share information with other players about things their characters would not know. That's the point. Whether to keep player in the dark about things their characters wouldn't know, not the opposite.

At no point in this conversation has anyone disputed that it is possible for players to have information that their characters don’t or can’t.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Alternatively, you could just describe it as such if the character would likely just know that information (for example, if they are an acolyte of Oliloloroth, or if Oliloloroth’s depiction has appeared and been recognized before).

Of course like with any task, the GM giving an auto success is always an option. Being an acolyte of Oliloloroth would certainly be sufficient grounds for that.

And, of course, players who know of Oliloloroth might recognize its depiction based on the description and take action to verify if this OOC knowledge is accurate, while players unfamiliar with Oliloloroth can also take actions to try and figure out what it is or recall lore about it.

No, unless their characters knew of Oliloloroth, which of course is possible.

The thing is, Iserith’s interpretation is consistent with the rules whether they are interpreted technically or naturalistically.

Still no.

 

[iserith]

They can describe that action if they want, I might even lower the DC if they did. But they can roll regardless, because entering the room and thus seeing the thing was sufficient action to warrant the roll. Because that's how memory works.

But if I'm a player in your game I may soon realize that if I play my character instead of let you play it for me, I might get a lower DC on my ability check. That seems like an incentive for me to tell you to stop playing my character.

Also, however you think memory works has no bearing on what the rules of the game say.

 

[Guest 6801328]

At no point in this conversation has anyone disputed that it is possible for players to have information that their characters don’t or can’t.

And that's despite the snarky comments to the effect of "if people don't know the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge then (insert disparaging comment here)".

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course like with any task, the GM giving an auto success is always an option. Being an acolyte of Oliloloroth would certainly be sufficient grounds for that.


No, unless their characters knew of Oliloloroth, which of course is possible.

Still no.

So, at this point you’re giving up on making actual reasoned arguments and just saying “no, you’re wrong”?

 

[iserith]

Because it is not about what you think it is about! It is not about using OOC knowledge IC. You are simply misinterpreting the text.

Yes it is. It's even phrased in the same way that some of you talk about this issue ("a character wouldn't know"):

"Decide how you feel about a player sharing information that his or her character wouldn't know..."

^ So there's your "metagaming."

This part: "...or that the character is incapable of sharing as a result of being unconscious, dead, or far away..." deals with the separate issue of whether there can be table talk between players whose characters aren't in the same room (or dead or whatever).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How is a statement about players sharing information that their character wouldn't know not a statement about "using OCC knowledge IC"? What else could it be?

It is obviously about maintaining that 'real unknown' that we have talked about so much. Like whether to to hide from the other players that the rogue pocketed part of the loot if their characters didn't notice it and stuff like that.

I also think you're completely mis-using the term "rules lawyer". Unless, that is, you consider any and all references to the actual rules of the game "rules lawyering".

In this context referring to an overly legalistic manner of reading the rules, possibly involving weaseling with the meaning of words such was done with 'think' and 'know'.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know if I want to answer until I find out when you became aware of the quote.

Given the lack of explicit mention against it elsewhere that I could find (unlike 2e and before, for example), I have already been buying your argument that the rules were silent on it being bad, and it feels likely it was intentionally left out. This would have made me come to that conclusion earlier. I'm not sure why there would be so much worry about players having knowledge here and sharing it, if it didn't impact what the characters did. It feels like if they had just meant "secrets" they would have said so.

I'm not convinced that if a wave of folks reading PDF copies of modules they were playing to get an advantage became a thing, that Crawford wouldn't say something about how they didn't mean to encourage something that extreme. (Now, maybe if they were paying for the extra module copies...) Similarly if there came a wave of folks who chose low INTs but kept a copy of the MM open on their phone. I guess someone could always ask him on Twitter.

We could, I suppose. I imagine he might say that they included the discussion of metagame thinking in the DMG so that DMs and their groups can decide for themselves how they feel about use of OOC knowledge. But who knows, I don’t always find his takes on the rules to be consistent with my understanding of what they say. See the earlier discussion of passive Perception.