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

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yes, and you know what the DMG calls rules set down by DMs that are not specifically covered by the game rules?

Table rules.

 

[iserith]

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.

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

We have gone over this several times. How the knowledge skills work, how there are information gathering spells and other such features, how there are in-game items that yield information and how information gathering in the setting is an important part of many adventures. I doubt that the intent ever was to bypass any of this via OOC knowledge. You may disagree, but the fact is that overwhelming majority of the players interpret it the same way than I so that is the intent the writers ended up communicating, be it intentionally or not. (I believe it is intentional, as I don't think the writers would be so incompetent that they would miscommunicate this badly. )

 

[Guest 6801328]

Let's imagine the authors had one of these three ideas in mind when writing the rules:

1. The game should be played so that OOC knowledge is not used, as many players have long believed.
2. Times have changed, and we now think it's better if OOC knowledge is allowed, so we had better communicate that.
3. Actually, either way is fine, so let's avoid any language that might give the impression we're favoring one approach or the other.

Which of these is most supported by the text?

 

[iserith]

We have gone over this several times. How the knowledge skills work, how there are information gathering spells and other such features, how there are in-game items that yield information and how information gathering in the setting is an important part of many adventures.

Intelligence ability checks with relevant skill proficiencies, information-gathering spells and items, and gathering information in the setting are all useful and important in my games which have no table rules prohibiting a player's use of their hard-won skill and knowledge. Thus, your conclusion makes no sense.

I doubt that the intent ever was to bypass any of this via OOC knowledge. You may disagree, but the fact is that overwhelming majority of the players interpret it the same way than I so that is the intent the writers ended up communicating, be it intentionally or not. (I believe it is intentional, as I don't think the writers would be so incompetent that they would miscommunicate this badly. )

Where's your evidence that the "overwhelming majority of players interpret it the same way?"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let's imagine the authors had one of these three ideas in mind when writing the rules:

1. The game should be played so that OOC knowledge is not used, as many players have long believed.
2. Times have changed, and we now think it's better if OOC knowledge is allowed, so we had better communicate that.
3. Actually, either way is fine, so let's avoid any language that might give the impression we're favoring one approach or the other.

Which of these is most supported by the text?

I don't know. Two is right out, so it is either one or three. In the case of one it would de so internalised assumption for the writers like it is for many players that they don not even explicitly spell it out. There is a lot of that in 5e, as I said the actual roleplaying/GMing advice in is super sparse. It could also be three, but definitely with the knowledge that the most players play in the manner of option one, so most of the game is written with the assumption that that is what is generally done, whilst not explicitly disallowing other ways to handle things.

 

[Charlaquin]

We have gone over this several times. How the knowledge skills work, how there are information gathering spells and other such features, how there are in-game items that yield information and how information gathering in the setting is an important part of many adventures. I doubt that the intent ever was to bypass any of this via OOC knowledge. You may disagree, but the fact is that overwhelming majority of the players interpret it the same way than I so that is the intent the writers ended up communicating, be it intentionally or not. (I believe it is intentional, as I don't think the writers would be so incompetent that they would miscommunicate this badly. )

This argument might make sense if such abilities were useless in games where characters’ actions aren’t restricted on the basis of player knowledge. But they’re not, so their isn’t evidence that the intent is for characters’ actions to be restricted based on player knowledge.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let's imagine the authors had one of these three ideas in mind when writing the rules:

1. The game should be played so that OOC knowledge is not used, as many players have long believed.
2. Times have changed, and we now think it's better if OOC knowledge is allowed, so we had better communicate that.
3. Actually, either way is fine, so let's avoid any language that might give the impression we're favoring one approach or the other.

Which of these is most supported by the text?

Three seems to be the best supported interpretation of the text to me.

 

[iserith]

This argument might make sense if such abilities were useless in games where characters’ actions aren’t restricted on the basis of player knowledge. But they’re not, so their isn’t evidence that the intent is for characters’ actions to be restricted based on player knowledge.

What I find amusing is that in discussions where Intelligence is lamented as being a "dump stat" and totally useless in D&D 5e, I'm always arguing the other way. If the players can find value in recalling lore or making deductions, they will take those actions and the DM can adjudicate using Intelligence ability checks as needed.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know. Two is right out, so it is either one or three. In the case of one it would de so internalised assumption for the writers like it is for many players that they don not even explicitly spell it out. There is a lot of that in 5e, as I said the actual roleplaying/GMing advice in is super sparse. It could also be three, but definitely with the knowledge that the most players play in the manner of option one, so most of the game is written with the assumption that that is what is generally done, whilst not explicitly disallowing other ways to handle things.

I find it interesting that you reject an interpretation of the rules in which they offer strong guidelines as too rigid and myopic, yet acknowledge that for your interpretation to be accurate the rules must leave a lot of internalized legacy assumptions unstated and offer little concrete roleplaying or DMing advice. Yet you refuse to consider the possibility that the guidelines you reject as being the concrete advice you find to be lacking and the legacy assumptions are unstated because they are not intended.