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

[Crimson Longinus]

You seem to have a very strange assessment of what constitutes importance and what constitutes technicality.

If the question is about using OOC knowledge IC the text being quoted not addressing said topic at all hardly is a technicality.

 

[iserith]

The difference here is rather important, not merely technical. It is not at all about whether the character can use the knowledge the player has. It is about whether the players share openly information between them regardless of whether their characters know it. These are completely different things, certainly you must see that?

Even if that was true, you'd still have a lot of fruitless work ahead to show that the game gives a dusty flumph about the reasoning behind a player's action declaration and whether that reason came from the player's knowledge or the character's knowledge.

It's a table rule, plain and simple. And it's outlined in the section I provided earlier. Why not be happy that a seemingly significant concern of yours was addressed at all?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's just internet debate 101. If it refutes my point, you're reading too myopically. If it supports my point, you're not reading myopically enough.

It is ultimately the same thing both times: you projecting a meaning to the words that they do not actually contain.

 

[iserith]

It is ultimately the same thing both times: you projecting a meaning to the words that they do not actually contain.

Sorry, no. The rules are plain for all to see, even to some posters who otherwise share your viewpoint on parsing player and character knowledge.

The situation presented in the original post is covered by the section of the DMG I quoted and this is a table rule to be resolved by the group.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well it did. First of, merely observing the item didn't trigger the skill check, thus you need to try to specifically try to discern things about every item in the vicinity to trigger the skill check.

There is no skill check hiding under a rock waiting to be triggered by the right magic words. A check is a tool I use to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of an action.

Furthermore, depending on how the player worded their examination, the check would only reveal a one part of the things that there was to know about this item.

Necessarily so, as there is theoretically unlimited information one could learn about any given item. Tell me what you want to learn about something and how you go about trying to learn it, and I will resolve that action according to the rules of the game and my own best judgment. There is no point at which you’ve got all the information there is to gain about a thing, you just have to navigate the world by imagining it as a real place and using your intuitive understanding of how the world works and how your character thinks to make the best decisions you can. That’s roleplaying.

Thus this requires examining every item separately and making several examination attempts for each item and even then you cannot know whether you missed something.

That’s just silly. If there’s specific information you want to know about something, say what you want to learn and how you try to learn it. There’s no secret information waiting there for you that you’re going to “miss” if you don’t ask the right questions. I describe the environment, you describe how you want to interact with the environment, I describe how it reacts to you. It’s very simple and functional if you’re actually playing the game instead of trying to prove a point on the internet.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sorry, no. The rules are plain for all to see, even to some posters who otherwise share your viewpoint on parsing player and character knowledge.

The situation presented in the original post is covered by the section of the DMG I quoted and this is a table rule to be resolved by the group.

I find debating these rule quotes exceedingly tiresome, but if you try to use them as bludgeon on a debate then you better make sure that they actually say what you think they say. I don't care what the books say, it still bugs me if someone tries to misrepresent them in order to act superior on the internet. You are simply over-interpreting the simple casually written language. The rigidity or the structure you see simply isn't there. Furthermore, your understanding of that 'table rule' is simply confused.

The truth of the matter is that actual roleplaying and game mastering advice in D&D 5e is exceedingly sparse, and there really is not much to go by.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If the question is about using OOC knowledge IC the text being quoted not addressing said topic at all hardly is a technicality.

Ok, I'll bite.

The passage addresses the transmission of information OOC. I think your argument is that we have been debating about the use of OOC information, and therefore these two things are unrelated (if I've got that wrong, please clarify.)

Let's see, why might WotC think tables might want to make a house rule about said transmission? What might players do with that information that would make it worth creating a rule about it?

Could it be that they might...use it?

For example, if my character is in one room and learns something that might be useful to your character, on the other side of the dungeon, and I tell you about it (OOC) across the table, you then have that information.

Now, if it's assumed, or even RAW, that players won't use OOC information, this isn't a problem at all. So why would you bother to need a house rule to decide whether or not that's allowed at your table? You wouldn't.

Obviously the purpose of addressing OOC transmission of information is really about OOC knowledge getting used in the game.

It pains me that we have to argue about this.

 

[iserith]

I find debating these rule quotes exceedingly tiresome...

The debate, such as it was, was over a while ago. And I'm not "acting superior." That may just be your perception of my tone perhaps because I'm saying things that go against a group identity you've likely had for a long time. I get it. I'm sure it's not pleasant. But this does not change anything about what the rules say, nor do what the rules say have any bearing on your game if you don't want to use them. Have your fun however you and your players like. If they like you playing their characters for them and calling for unprompted "skill checks," go right ahead. Lots of people play that way.

The truth of the matter is that actual roleplaying and game mastering advice in D&D 5e is exceedingly sparse, and there really is not much to go by.

Or maybe there's a whole book on it that experienced DMs from previous editions rarely bother to read. That's kind of a meme on our D&D Discord because honestly very few people actually read the DMG so far as I can tell.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or maybe there's a whole book on it that experienced DMs from previous editions rarely bother to read. That's kind of a meme on our D&D Discord because honestly very few people actually read the DMG so far as I can tell.

I don't want to ruin the long term collector's value of mine by cracking the spine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok, I'll bite.

The passage addresses the transmission of information OOC. I think your argument is that we have been debating about the use of OOC information, and therefore these two things are unrelated (if I've got that wrong, please clarify.)

Let's see, why might WotC think tables might want to make a house rule about said transmission? What might players do with that information that would make it worth creating a rule about it?

Could it be that they might...use it?

For example, if my character is in one room and learns something that might be useful to your character, on the other side of the dungeon, and I tell you about it (OOC) across the table, you then have that information.

Now, if it's assumed, or even RAW, that players won't use OOC information, this isn't a problem at all. So why would you bother to need a house rule to decide whether or not that's allowed at your table? You wouldn't.

Obviously the purpose of addressing OOC transmission of information is really about OOC knowledge getting used in the game.

It pains me that we have to argue about this.

We have talked about maintaining real secrets and surprise quite a bit. We have talked about whether the other players should know if the rogue pockets the loot even if their characters missed that. Some people use notes or take people to other room to maintain such secrecy. These are common practices and talk to whether bother with such things or just do everything open and let the players just pretend they don't know in character is pretty normal. So in my mind it is about that. But you're right, it really doesn't say what the aim of such a rule would be. But that it specifically talks about sharing the information between players, I feel my interpretation is likely to be what the writer had in mind. Because if it was about using OOC information IC then certainly that would be an issue outside sharing the information between the players as well? Most of our exmaples here have had nothing to do with information sharing between players, they have been about using OOC information gained from other sources. But yeah, it is couple of vague sentences, so who really knows? I am really glad that no one of us is forced to run a game based on DMG advice alone, because that is pitiably sparse and vague.