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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

"You try to wear down Max, but it doesn't work."

"Wait, don't I get a roll?!"

"Nope, some things just aren't possible."

 

[Maxperson]

"You try to wear down Max, but it doesn't work."

"Wait, don't I get a roll?!"

"Nope, some things just aren't possible."

When someone can actually prove me wrong, and it has happened here, I admit it. In this case they have no support for their method and I have some(not a lot) of support for mine. You aren't going to be able to wear me down without a shred of support on your side.

 

[Charlaquin]

When someone can actually prove me wrong, and it has happened here, I admit it. In this case they have no support for their method and I have some(not a lot) of support for mine. You aren't going to be able to wear me down without a shred of support on your side.

My dude, the rules you’re citing don’t support your position. Your only argument is that Intelligence checks exist and therefore must have a reason for existing, which in no way demonstrates that intelligence checks must be made to establish character knowledge before certain actions can be declared. DMs who allow players to declare any action they wish with or without establishing any justifying knowledge still have use for Intelligence checks, so your argument doesn’t work. The rules clearly state that the player describes what their character does, and gives no provision against acting in circumstances where out of character knowledge might be relevant. You quite simply don’t have a leg to stand on here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My dude, the rules you’re citing don’t support your position. Your only argument is that Intelligence checks exist and therefore must have a reason for existing, which in no way demonstrates that intelligence checks must be made to establish character knowledge before certain actions can be declared. DMs who allow players to declare any action they wish with or without establishing any justifying knowledge still have use for Intelligence checks, so your argument doesn’t work. The rules clearly state that the player describes what their character does, and gives no provision against acting in circumstances where out of character knowledge might be relevant. You quite simply don’t have a leg to stand on here.

The rules for the GM disallowing an action if they felt that prerequisite conditions were not met have been quoted pages ago. People quibble that it doesn't apply because the example was a different type of an action, but I don't buy that. But as I have said, in this game (and in this edition in particular) roleplaying and GMing advice is super light, so we are arguing about the 'true meaning' of couple of such scattered sentences.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The rules for the GM disallowing an action if they felt that prerequisite conditions were not met have been quoted pages ago. People quibble that it doesn't apply because the example was a different type of an action, but I don't buy that. But as I have said, in this game (and in this edition in particular) roleplaying and GMing advice is super light, so we are arguing about the 'true meaning' of couple of such scattered sentences.

The rules for a GM to say an action fails have been cited. No actions have been dusallowed. In the example cited, if the PC had more move speed, the action would have succeeded, so it clearly is not disallowed. Instead, the example is one from the core play loop on page 4 of the PHB: player declares action, GM decides success, failure, or uncertain. If uncertain, use mechanics to determine success. In all cases, GM narrates outcome. If an action is disallowed, there is no outcome. The example has an outcome: the PC moves, but isn't close enough to attack successfully.

Quite simply, the rules do not say what you contend. Nothing was disallowed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The rules for a GM to say an action fails have been cited. No actions have been dusallowed. In the example cited, if the PC had more move speed, the action would have succeeded, so it clearly is not disallowed. Instead, the example is one from the core play loop on page 4 of the PHB: player declares action, GM decides success, failure, or uncertain. If uncertain, use mechanics to determine success. In all cases, GM narrates outcome. If an action is disallowed, there is no outcome. The example has an outcome: the PC moves, but isn't close enough to attack successfully.

Quite simply, the rules do not say what you contend. Nothing was disallowed.

This is simply wrong. The action in the example does not fail. It is disallowed and the GM instructs the player to choose another action. How this might apply to other situations might be unclear, that in this instance the action was disallowed is not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is simply wrong. The action in the example does not fail. It is disallowed and the GM instructs the player to choose another action. How this might apply to other situations might be unclear, that in this instance the action was disallowed is not.

TIL that telling a player that their action declaration would fail and being nice enough to offer a chance to change action declarations is actually disallowing the action.

Question, though, if I don't offer the redo and just narrate failure, is this disallowing the action as well?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

TIL that telling a player that their action declaration would fail and being nice enough to offer a chance to change action declarations is actually disallowing the action.

The paragraph in question starts with: "Sometimes mediating the rules means setting limits," so it is just not about nice to the player, it is about setting limits, i.e. decreeing whether the action can be attempted in the first place.

Question, though, if I don't offer the redo and just narrate failure, is this disallowing the action as well?

Technically no, but in a lot of situations this is a meaningless difference. Only if expending the action or failing instead of just not doing it has actual impact would the distinction matter in practice. But in some situations it makes more narrative sense to just disallow the action and let the player choose something else as their character might not be confused about whether the thing is possible even if the player might have been.

 

[jasper]

I’d describe the AL DM guide as a set of table rules shared across all AL tables.

I have no problem with this. I give you an internet cookie. Of course it is a no bake raisin oatmeal one.

 

[jasper]

It doesn’t strike you as odd that, if their goal...or even one of their goals...was to prevent OOC knowledge use, they didn’t just say that?

You seem to be suggesting that the passage “disallow something that seems outside the rules” gives you the license you want, but nothing in the rules says anything about using OOC knowledge.

No. Not odd. They left a lot of things out. Remember "Rulings not Rules". And I KNOW since I am the DM using OOC is cheating. SO I can tell Bob (who is two chapters ahead in a homebrew) that his current Adventure League pc CANNOT know that.