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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

But the action can be attempted -- the GM is telling the player that it will fail. Failure is an outcome, so ckearly tge action can be attempted. It's quite a stretch to go from telling a player their action will fail if attempted to saying this is the GM not allowing the action at all.

I mean, it's pretty obvious that if the player insists that the GM will shrug and narrate the outcome as the PC moving towards the target but isn't able to get close enough to threaten. That's not dusallowing the action, it's adjudicating it. You confuse the GM offering a takeback in the face of failure as the GM prohibiting the action. This, if applied more widely, either leads to absurdity it soecial pleading.

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.

I think the is a very meaningful difference between trying and failing and not being allowed to try at all. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But the action can be attempted -- the GM is telling the player that it will fail. Failure is an outcome, so ckearly tge action can be attempted. It's quite a stretch to go from telling a player their action will fail if attempted to saying this is the GM not allowing the action at all.

I mean, it's pretty obvious that if the player insists that the GM will shrug and narrate the outcome as the PC moving towards the target but isn't able to get close enough to threaten. That's not dusallowing the action, it's adjudicating it. You confuse the GM offering a takeback in the face of failure as the GM prohibiting the action.

The attack action cannot happen. It cannot thus even be attempted. Sure, the move part could, but would be a different attempt. This is perfectly clear.

This, if applied more widely, either leads to absurdity it soecial pleading.

It leads to believable setting where characters in the world do not absurdly attempt bizarre things for no sensible reason. The players cannot have perfect knowledge of the setting, such as the distance here or whether it is common knowledge that the High Priest of Hyperion is a secret mind flayer. And when there is confusion about such matter it ts the GMs job to clarify the situation so that the player can have their character attempt an action that is sensible in that situation.

I think the is a very meaningful difference between trying and failing and not being allowed to try at all. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

Sometimes there is, sometimes there really isn't in practice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The attack action cannot happen. It cannot thus even be attempted. Sure, the move part could, but would be a different attempt. This is perfectly clear.


It leads to believable setting where characters in the world do not absurdly attempt bizarre things for no sensible reason. The players cannot have perfect knowledge of the setting, such as the distance here or whether it is common knowledge that the High Priest of Hyperion is a secret mind flayer. And when there is confusion about such matter it ts the GMs job to clarify the situation so that the player can have their character attempt an action that is sensible in that situation.

Sometimes there is, sometimes there really isn't in practice.

Ah, I understand now. You're taking the explicit prerequisites for a specific action (melee attacks require being within melee reach) and have extrapolated that to an implied authority to refuse any given action for any given reason. I had not expected this was your argument. I clearly disagree specific restrictions imply general ones, of course, and think, again, that if applied this leads to either ridiculous outcomes or special pleading.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, I understand now. You're taking the explicit prerequisites for a specific action (melee attacks require being within melee reach) and have extrapolated that to an implied authority to refuse any given action for any given reason. I had not expected this was your argument. I clearly disagree specific restrictions imply general ones, of course, and think, again, that if applied this leads to either ridiculous outcomes or special pleading.

Or maybe it's because the DMG gives the DM the authority to do so.

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

The DMG explicitly gives DMs the power to override the rules and do what he wants.

 

[iserith]

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 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.

A group's stance on "metagaming" is a table rule. If you don't allow it, it's a "table rule." If you do allow it, it's a "table rule." It's specifically called out in the section on table rules. Each group has to decide this for themselves. There are the rules of the game and the table rules for how the game is to be played.

As far as the DM, and not the rules, being in charge, that's correct. The DM can mediate between the rules and players or not. Or add table rules. This doesn't mean the rules support the idea the DM can just deny the validity of someone's action declaration simply because they don't have knowledge the DM thinks they need to attempt the action. That sits at the level of table rules.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or maybe it's because the DMG gives the DM the authority to do so.

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

The DMG explicitly gives DMs the power to override the rules and do what he wants.

That logic makes all house rules official rules.

I thinketh not.

To expand on that, that passage is evidence that you have the authority to enforce a non-OOC knowledge rule, if that's what you want to do, even though doing so overrides other rules. And which all of us have been saying all along you have the authority to do (preferably if your table agrees to it).

What that passage is not evidence for is that you are supposed to play without OCC-knowledge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That logic makes all house rules official rules.

I thinketh not.

The rules say that the GM is ultimately in charge. What exactly that entails is up to interpretation. To me mind adjudicating whether the action declaration is valid is certainly part of the normal GM duties and not a house rule. And what criteria the GM should use for making such decisions is up for each GM to decide. But I really don't think this is super useful thing to argue about, the rules are simply not structured or written in clear enough manner that ultimate 'truth' of such things would in any real sense to be contained in them, they're written in casual and conversational tone (and that's a good thing, reading them would be horrible otherwise.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

The rules say that the GM is ultimately in charge. What exactly that entails is up to interpretation. To me mind adjudicating whether the action declaration is valid is certainly part of the normal GM duties and not a house rule. And what criteria the GM should use for making such decisions is up for each GM to decide. But I really don't think this is super useful thing to argue about, the rules are simply not structured or written in clear enough manner that ultimate 'truth' of such things would in any real sense to be contained in them, they're written in casual and conversational tone (and that's a good thing, reading them would be horrible otherwise.)

For pages and pages and pages you and Max have been trying to demonstrate that your way is the way you are supposed to play D&D.

If you've changed tack and now you just want to argue that you are allowed to play that way, I agree.

 

[Maxperson]

That logic makes all house rules official rules.

I thinketh not.

It wasn't "logic" at all. It was RAW, and you're
you're welcome to think what you like about it. It will still be RAW after you are done thinking.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For pages and pages and pages you and Max have been trying to demonstrate that your way is the way you are supposed to play D&D.

If you've changed tack and now you just want to argue that you are allowed to play that way, I agree.

I think it is the way you are 'supposed' to play in the sense that this was how the writers of the rules assumed it to be played*. This is the way of playing the overwhelming majority of the players inferred, so if that was not the intent the writers did a terrible job communicating it. But if we are discussing RAW in legalistic sense and apply 'the death of the author' and ignore other such context then I really don't think the rules are rigidly enough written to withstand such scrutiny and to yield any concrete answers.

(* Not that they really care how people use the products as long as they pay for them.)