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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Since the question I posed was about incorrect player knowledge backfiring in game, what you'd do as a DM does yet again not answer the question.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to be cheeky. You see, I only DM. I don't feel comfortable answering questions about the players' side of the table.

Basically, is there any line for you where a player exploiting knowledge their character hasn't learned from play a bad thing?

Nope. I don't police players. Period. I run the world. Players run their characters.

 

[iserith]

Considering that according the wiki she was in Neverwinter as an agent, the idea that anyone would know she was a lich while she was in the city is extremely unlikely.
Her role as an agent would mean keeping the secret of her true form to be critical.

Unlikely but not impossible? If so, then we're just talking about what the DC is for trying to recall the lore.

 

[GMMichael]

That's your choice, but there's nothing really in the rules that mandates the player must have his or her character think a certain way or base their actions on anything other than what the player decides.

Flaws, alignment, ideals, traits, and bonds. Just...chiming in.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The player can have the character think, say, and do whatever the player wants for any reason the player wants. It's just that what the character thinks, as established by the player, might be wrong.

To be clear though, the player may establish that his or her character thinks the NPC Is a lich, but doesn't actually know for sure. The character hasn't been "given" any information that is reliable until verified through in-game action. So what is different from this reality and what it is you say you prefer? The character is still in the same spot and has to interact or otherwise take action to figure things out or risk being tragically wrong.

The issue there is that it places the onus on the DM running the published adventure to start making major adjustments on the fly if they want to avoid rewarding the player for bringing OOC knowledge of that level to their character.

I’m always amused by how alien people find @iserith’s DMing style.

Its a little weird, but I reckon it wouldn't be too hard to learn to cater to it.
Its their opinions on roleplaying, and separation of IC and OOC knowledge that I find more troublesome.

 

[iserith]

Flaws, alignment, ideals, traits, and bonds. Just...chiming in.

Still no requirement that those be adhered to, though the game does incentivize doing so with Inspiration (if the DM uses that rule).

 

[iserith]

The issue there is that it places the onus on the DM running the published adventure to start making major adjustments on the fly if they want to avoid rewarding the player for bringing OOC knowledge of that level to their character.

It doesn't require the DM to do anything except faithfully adjudicate the actions of the characters as described by the players just like anything else. So the character thinks the NPC is a lich and tells all his friends. Okay. What do they do about it?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The issue there is that it places the onus on the DM running the published adventure to start making major adjustments on the fly if they want to avoid rewarding the player for bringing OOC knowledge of that level to their character.

Isn't that simply one of the natural risks of using someone else's adventure?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Isn't that simply one of the natural risks of using someone else's adventure?

I would not regard a player disrupting the game by bringing in and acting on OOC knowledge as a "natural" risk.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I would not regard a player disrupting the game by bringing in and acting on OOC knowledge as a "natural" risk.

I disagree. If I'm spending my time with someone, it's because I believe my time will be better spent as a result of that person's presence. As is the basis of friendship.

If my friend uses OCC knowledge, it is because he/she believes the game will be better if he/she does. I trust my friends. Obviously something was wrong with the adventure (it was boring, too obvious, etc.) or my friend has a better idea. I go with it. We have a good time.

If my friend's wrong, and his/her idea wasn't better than the written adventure, That's fine, too. People make mistakes.

If I don't trust my friend's motive, it's my fault for choosing to spend my time with that person. At least I know better and will not waste more of my time with him/her in the future.

 

[iserith]

I would not regard a player disrupting the game by bringing in and acting on OOC knowledge as a "natural" risk.

I think you are on the hook to show how this disrupts the game though. It may be a violation of your table's social contract, but the game is perfectly playable without said social contract (if there is one).

Players are free to establish what their characters think. It doesn't make what they say the characters think true, however. And since no particular knowledge is required for a character to attack this NPC, then it doesn't even matter to the resolution of the action that the player and thus the character knows anything about the NPC's true nature.