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

[Charlaquin]

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 said I don’t disagree with that.

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.

There’s nothing unrealistic about a character attacking a monster with fire, whether or not they know it’s weak to fire. Granted, some people prefer to require that players establish knowledge of such things with a check first, and that’s ok. It’s just not any more or less realistic. You don’t need to justify your play preferences.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some wrong people might say that. The game is clear that memory and recall of lore are intelligence ability checks.

Well, it’s clear that Intelligence is the appropriate ability to use when an attempt to draw on memory, logic, or education needs a check to be resolved.

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.

True.

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.

Sure. Some folks prefer a clearer statement of intent to take action, while others might accept more implicit declarations of action. Either approach is valid.

 

[iserith]

Sure. Some folks prefer a clearer statement of intent to take action, while others might accept more implicit declarations of action. Either approach is valid.

"It seems like you're bringing player knowledge into the game - make an Intelligence check so I can deny your action declaration based on that knowledge if you fail." Definitely table rule territory.

 

[Charlaquin]

"It seems like you're bringing player knowledge into the game - make an Intelligence check so I can deny your action declaration based on that knowledge if you fail." Definitely table rule territory.

Oh, yeah, for sure! I was trying to engage with what Maxperson was saying directly, rather than the unstated implications. At some point the obfuscating language will exhaust itself and the real root of the disagreement will have to be explicitly stated.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Only because you choose to be bothered by it, and to think things are unrealistic and make no sense.

Take the OP's story. Let's say you're at that table when it occurs, and since you know those FR novels backwards and forwards, your reaction to the player yelling out "She's a lich!" is to think, "Oh, great, way to break character, Elliot."

Then the DM explains, "No, Elliot's character was...(insert backstory that explains how he knows who Valindra is)".

Oh. So suddenly it turns out Elliot was in character. You just used your own metagame knowledge to conclude he wasn't, which was a mistake. Sure, maybe most people in Faerun don't know who Valindra is, but certainly some do. It's actually entirely plausible that a PC would recognize the name.

But in this case, as we know, it really was OOC knowledge, because he told us. Right? Just the fact that it bothers you for that reason means you are (wait for it) metagaming: you're using your out-of-game knowledge to decide that the character's action was unrealistic, even though we just determined that it could just as easily have been completely explicable and, thus, realistic. If you were in-character, your reaction would have been, "Are you 100% sure? How can we verify that? What should we do? GAH we're just lowly adventurers she is going to STEAL OUR SOULS!!!!" But, no, you were in the metagame, worrying about whether that knowledge came from a legitimate source.

You dirty metagamer you.

When I'm playing D&D and somebody acts on some knowledge that I don't know, or maybe that I do know but don't think my character would know, or even that is presented in a way that I know they only know because they've memorized the Monster Manual...honestly I barely even notice. I'm thinking, "Cool, he knows some interesting naughty word" and I'm not really distinguishing between the player and the character, and I don't really care where the info came from. So, no, there's zero impact on my sense of realism.

 

[Maxperson]

Only because you choose to be bothered by it, and to think things are unrealistic and make no sense.

Take the OP's story. Let's say you're at that table when it occurs, and since you know those FR novels backwards and forwards, your reaction to the player yelling out "She's a lich!" is to think, "Oh, great, way to break character, Elliot."

Then the DM explains, "No, Elliot's character was...(insert backstory that explains how he knows who Valindra is)".

Um. I am the DM.

Oh. So suddenly it turns out Elliot was in character. You just used your own metagame knowledge to conclude he wasn't, which was a mistake. Sure, maybe most people in Faerun don't know who Valindra is, but certainly some do. It's actually entirely plausible that a PC would recognize the name.

But in this case, as we know, it really was OOC knowledge, because he told us. Right? Just the fact that it bothers you for that reason means you are (wait for it) metagaming: you're using your out-of-game knowledge to decide that the character's action was unrealistic, even though we just determined that it could just as easily have been completely explicable and, thus, realistic. If you were in-character, your reaction would have been, "Are you 100% sure? How can we verify that? What should we do? GAH we're just lowly adventurers she is going to STEAL OUR SOULS!!!!" But, no, you were in the metagame, worrying about whether that knowledge came from a legitimate source.

This is simply untrue. I using my knowledge of the PCs and their backgrounds, which is entirely in game, to determine.

 

[Maxperson]

What does that even mean?

It means that the players trying to gain advantage through player knowledge is overreach. Or players trying to grab "power." Or whatever else you want to call 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.

There isn't any ability of theirs to give up. Nowhere does it say that they have that ability to use out of game knowledge like that. Nor is there support for it.

 

[Maxperson]

"It seems like you're bringing player knowledge into the game - make an Intelligence check so I can deny your action declaration based on that knowledge if you fail." Definitely table rule territory.

Yeeaeaaaaah, not what I do.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Um. I am the DM.

This is simply untrue. I using my knowledge of the PCs and their backgrounds, which is entirely in game, to determine.

I give up.

Some day you will understand. Or not.

 

[Maxperson]

Some day you will understand. Or not.

Right back atcha. Have a good night.