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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

It is mostly confusing and somewhat amusing really. Biblical literalist attitude to the PHB and awkward attempts psychoanalyse people is quite a combination.

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.

The workshop section has some good stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

No. Recalling lore is a task. A task may or may not call for an ability check.

Semantics. When a player wants to do something, like have his PC remember something, the DM decides whether or not an ability check is called for.

No. The player says the character thinks the NPC is a lich. The player has not established that the character is trying to recall lore. There is nothing here for the DM to adjudicate.

Unless there is something that happened in the moment to allow the deduction, the PC is using his memory to "think" it. There was absolutely nothing in the OP to give the PC the ability to deduce that she was a Lich. So either the PC was using his memory to recall her name or face, or the player was trying to metagame his player knowledge into the situation.

 

[iserith]

Semantics. When a player wants to do something, like have his PC remember something, the DM decides whether or not an ability check is called for.

No, when you say that "recalling lore is explicitly an ability check in 5e" you are wrong. Not every task has an ability check. It's up to the DM to decide. An ability check is not a task, nor a task an ability check.

Unless there is something that happened in the moment to allow the deduction, the PC is using his memory to "think" it. There was absolutely nothing in the OP to give the PC the ability to deduce that she was a Lich. So either the PC was using his memory to recall her name or face, or the player was trying to metagame his player knowledge into the situation.

The rules of the game don't care about how the player makes the decision to act. If the player smartly tries to have the character recall lore to verify the assumption, then the DM could call for an ability check if the outcome was uncertain and there was a meaningful consequence for failure. But if the player doesn't do that, the DM doesn't have anything to adjudicate.

If the DM is declaring for the player that the character is trying to recall lore, then the DM has stepped outside the role prescribed by the game. Only the player can say what the character thinks, does, and says, and the DM can only adjudicate actions after the player has described them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Semantics. When a player wants to do something, like have his PC remember something, the DM decides whether or not an ability check is called for.

Unless there is something that happened in the moment to allow the deduction, the PC is using his memory to "think" it. There was absolutely nothing in the OP to give the PC the ability to deduce that she was a Lich. So either the PC was using his memory to recall her name or face, or the player was trying to metagame his player knowledge into the situation.

Sure, if the player declares an action of trying to remember something, the DM can call for a roll. "Can I recall anything about that name, Valindra Shadowmantle?" would qualify. (And honestly I'd just let a player say, "Do I recognize that name?")

But stating out loud that so-and-so is a lich is an action declaration only in the sense of speaking out loud. Again, as I noted earlier, this may require an ability check if they party is trying to be stealthy, or if they don't have any shared languages, etc. But there are no RAW constraints on what the player wants their character to believe. None.

I realize that doing this breaks your house rule, but it doesn't break any real rules, however badly you want it to.

(And before you go into your logic-defying theory that the presence of knowledge skills implies that OOC knowledge is disallowed, be forewarned that this is exactly the sort of over-analysis of the text that Crimson seems to hate, and they'll likely come after you for rules-lawyering.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Welp, this thread has about run its course. And a lot faster than usual this time. Normally we get at least one or two spin-off threads. Maybe because the topic was focused on metagaming this time instead of action resolution? Who knows.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Welp, this thread has about run its course. And a lot faster than usual this time. Normally we get at least one or two spin-off threads. Maybe because the topic was focused on metagaming this time instead of action resolution? Who knows.

I'd like to think it's because most of the usual suspects have been been converted to the cause, and there's only a handful of stubborn traditionalists left.

 

[Maxperson]

No, when you say that "recalling lore is explicitly an ability check in 5e" you are wrong. Not every task has an ability check. It's up to the DM to decide. An ability check is not a task, nor a task an ability check.

Bingo! Not the player, the DM. If the player says he remembers what his Troll slayer uncle told him, the DM decides whether that happens without a roll or requires a roll, not the player.

The rules of the game don't care about how the player makes the decision to act. If the player smartly tries to have the character recall lore to verify the assumption, then the DM could call for an ability check if the outcome was uncertain and there was a meaningful consequence for failure. But if the player doesn't do that, the DM doesn't have anything to adjudicate.

As long as the player indicates an action, such as recall, he doesn't have to phrase it as an action. If the player says, "I remember my uncle telling me about trolls.", that's an attempt to recall, even if not phrased that way. Recall of lore is an ability check if the DM says so. The DM does have something to adjudicate at that point.

 

[iserith]

Bingo! Not the player, the DM. If the player says he remembers what his Troll slayer uncle told him, the DM decides whether that happens without a roll or requires a roll, not the player.

A player saying what the character thinks isn't anything the DM can adjudicate. The player decides what the character thinks which is not the same as recalling lore.

As long as the player indicates an action, such as recall, he doesn't have to phrase it as an action. If the player says, "I remember my uncle telling me about trolls.", that's an attempt to recall, even if not phrased that way. Recall of lore is an ability check if the DM says so. The DM does have something to adjudicate at that point.

This isn't an attempt to recall lore. It's an attempt by the DM to overstep the DM's role.

 

[Maxperson]

A player saying what the character thinks isn't anything the DM can adjudicate. The player decides what the character thinks which is not the same as recalling lore.

If what he thinks is based on a memory, it's an adjudicatable action.

This isn't an attempt to recall lore. It's an attempt by the DM to overstep the DM's role.

No, it's not. And frankly it's insulting that you to keep saying that. Perhaps you give up that part of your role, but we don't. The player has no ability to adjudicate his own attempts to recall lore, which every single memory brought up by the player is. The player can't get around actions by phrasing things as already done. Otherwise a player at a river can just say, "Once I'm across on my raft I look for the troll from the top of the tree on the far side of the river." and lo and behold, since he didn't declare an action, he automatically built the raft with no roll and made it across the river with no roll and climbed the tree with no roll. If the player says, "I remove the loot from the dragons body." does the dragon just end up dead with no fight?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Bingo! Not the player, the DM. If the player says he remembers what his Troll slayer uncle told him, the DM decides whether that happens without a roll or requires a roll, not the player.

As long as the player indicates an action, such as recall, he doesn't have to phrase it as an action. If the player says, "I remember my uncle telling me about trolls.", that's an attempt to recall, even if not phrased that way. Recall of lore is an ability check if the DM says so. The DM does have something to adjudicate at that point.

Look at it this way, Max: if the player agrees with you about OOC knowledge then this situation isn't going to happen in the first place. You'll have made your table rule, and everybody will agree to it.

But if this situation arises it's because a player disagrees with you, and their inclination is to do their own narration to explain an action they plan to take. If the DM responds by telling them their narration was actually itself an action declaration, and they have to roll dice if they want to be allowed to take the action they want to take, they likely result is that next time the player will just keep his/her mouth shut, and not try to justify their action declarations with roleplaying. Then, if you want to continue to try to exorcise evil metagaming from your game, you will have to become even more draconian, demanding explanations, or simply disallowing actions. The player...who clearly has notions about how the game is played...is either going to be even more devious, or just find another game.

Now maybe that's the outcome you want: to drive away from the table anybody who doesn't share your playstyle preference. But note that an anti-metagaming approach to DMing cannot accommodate players who use OOC knowledge, but our approach to DMing can happily accommodate players who want don't want to use OOC knowledge.