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

[iserith]

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

That's a reach. Some might say an overreach, when judged by what the game says the DM's role is.

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?

In order to make this case, you have to prove that a character establishing what the character thinks is actually an attempt to recall lore. Which you haven't and can't do using the rules. But you shouldn't be insulted because anyone can add a table rule to the game to broaden the DM's role. That's a thing you can do and, it appears, have done. I wouldn't do it because I think the DM has enough power and I don't want to take anything from the players, but you're free to do so.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

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?

The problem with this analogy is that the result of "recalling lore" is a thought in the character's head, which only the player controls. If the player wants the thoughts to be correct then maybe asking the DM to adjudicate is a good idea. However, when the player says, "I recall the time my uncle Frank told me about trolls" not only might the information about trolls be wrong, but the player might not actually have an uncle Frank. He/she is free to believe that, or at least to roleplay that their character believes that (the player may know perfectly well that there's no uncle Frank) but there is still nothing to adjudicate.

Now, if the character travels back to their home and looks for uncle Frank, well now that's an action declaration (likely a long chain of them), so maybe it's time for the DM to do some adjudication. Maybe there's zero impact on the game, so lo and behold there's uncle Frank. Or maybe it's important to the plot that this character has no connections to their previous life, so no uncle Frank is to be found. Or maybe...for reasons I can't quite think of at the moment...the DM decides the outcome is both uncertain and has consequences, so asks for some kind of roll.

If it turns out there's no uncle Frank...and to further illustrate how this works...the player is free to start explaining to the other players why this alleged uncle Frank does not seem to exist. But those reasons are also not automatically "true" in-game, not without DM adjudication.

(To be honest, this discussion now reminds me of the "5 Int Genius" thread, in which, if I recall correctly, you were similarly unwilling to concede that character thoughts are distinct from game mechanics.)

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I actually don’t disagree with this. “I think back to the stories Uncle Trollsbane used to tell me to try and remember if there’s a trick to killing them” is an adjudicatable action, and a good way to try and verify any suspicions you might have about troll weaknesses. I just don’t see any support in the rules for the idea that the player must declare such an action as a prerequisite to attacking a troll with fire or acid. Not that such a requirement can’t or shouldn’t be added as a table rule. Just that I don’t see support for it in the game rules.

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.

I think that’s something the DM should probably hash out with the players. Personally, if a player said, “I remember my uncle telling me trolls are weak to fire,” without first making a declaration of action to verify that trolls are weak to fire, I’d take that as them establishing that their uncle may not be a reliable source of information. Maybe he was right. Maybe he was telling tall tales. Or maybe your memory is flawed. You can say you remember your uncle saying trolls are weak to fire, but as long as that information is coming from the player’s own head and not from the DM, it’s a risk to assume it’s accurate, because it might well not be.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can see it now.
Troll: Appears
Trollsbane Jr.: Don’t worry everyone, my father was a trollslayer, he told me these things are vulnerable to fire and acid!
Troll: Is actually immune to fire, neutral to acid, and weak to cold

- one near-TPK later -

Sir Littlepants: What was that your father said about trolls and fire again?
Trollsbane Jr.: maybe that’s just Northern trolls?

 

[Maxperson]

That's a reach. Some might say an overreach, when judged by what the game says the DM's role is.

Some wrong people might say that. The game is clear that memory and recall of lore are intelligence ability checks. The DM role of the DM is to decide whether the attempt is automatically successful, automatically fails, or is in doubt and requires the roll.

In order to make this case, you have to prove that a character establishing what the character thinks is actually an attempt to recall lore.

All that requires is for memory or lore be in the statement anywhere, which it 100% is if the player is drawing on what an uncle told him.

 

[Maxperson]

I actually don’t disagree with this. “I think back to the stories Uncle Trollsbane used to tell me to try and remember if there’s a trick to killing them” is an adjudicatable action, and a good way to try and verify any suspicions you might have about troll weaknesses.

Page 237 of the DMG is very clear. Intelligence ability checks are used for both memory(the uncle told me) and reason. Examples include lore recall(the uncle told me). You can disagree with it all you want, but RAW backs me up on this.

I just don’t see any support in the rules for the idea that the player must declare such an action as a prerequisite to attacking a troll with fire or acid. Not that such a requirement can’t or shouldn’t be added as a table rule. Just that I don’t see support for it in the game rules.

Gamist play works for a lot of people. Others like the game to involve more realism and sense, which requires reasons for things like that.

 

[iserith]

Some wrong people might say that. The game is clear that memory and recall of lore are intelligence ability checks. The DM role of the DM is to decide whether the attempt is automatically successful, automatically fails, or is in doubt and requires the roll.

What you haven't shown is that the DM can adjudicate an attempt to recall lore simply from something a player establishes the character thinks. "I think this NPC is a lich..." or even "This NPC is a lich..." are not statements the DM can adjudicate. To try and force a check here because you don't like the fact that the player is in your view "metagaming" is DM overreach. It's not even clear what a failed check would mean in this case since the player can continue to think and act as if the NPC is a lich if the player wants to.

"I try to draw upon my time at the wizard academy to recall whether this NPC is a lich..." is a statement the DM can adjudicate.

 

[Maxperson]

What you haven't shown is that the DM can adjudicate an attempt to recall lore simply from something a player establishes the character thinks. "I think this NPC is a lich..." or even "This NPC is a lich..." are not statements the DM can adjudicate. To try and force a check here because you don't like the fact that the player is in your view "metagaming" is DM overreach. It's not even clear what a failed check would mean in this case since the player can continue to think and act as if the NPC is a lich if the player wants to.

Player overreach(bringing out of game knowledge into the game without justification) does not equate to DM overreach.

"I try to draw upon my time at the wizard academy to recall whether this NPC is a lich..." is a statement the DM can adjudicate.

So is, "I know she's a lich due to what I learned at the academy." The player doesn't have to state it as a possibility for the DM to adjudicate it.

 

[iserith]

Player overreach(bringing out of game knowledge into the game without justification) does not equate to DM overreach.

What does that even mean?

So is, "I know she's a lich due to what I learned at the academy." The player doesn't have to state it as a possibility for the DM to adjudicate it.

There is no support for this idea in the rules, however hard you might try to find it. If you can get your players to agree to give up their ability to establish what their characters think, then it's a workable table rule.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So is, "I know she's a lich due to what I learned at the academy." The player doesn't have to state it as a possibility for the DM to adjudicate it.

No. The player is not declaring an action to be adjudicated; they are narrating what is going on in their head. But because it isn't an action that can be adjudicated by the DM, the DM is under no obligation to verify that this "memory" is accurate, or to have the game proceed in accordance with that supposed memory.

That's the part you're missing. When the player states they remember something, that in fact is what they remember. It might wrong.

Earlier I pointed out the problem with trying to call this an "action declaration" and intervening in their roleplaying: all that will accomplish is to teach the player to stop roleplaying in those circumstances, and just declare actions.

When the player states an attempt to remember something, signaling to the DM that they want to know what if anything they remember, then the DM can step in and perform their function.