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

[R_J_K75]

This is akin to someone buying the module, reading it, and then using that knowledge to cheat through encounters.

I actually had a player do that once. I had an idea shortly after we started. After he said to me wow you skipped alot of that adventure, I asked him how he knew? As he went to media play and bought it he read it before giving it to me to run.

 

[Cadence]

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.

And so the player has the character collect saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal and put them together in the right amounts... or start collecting food molds to find penicillium... or start purifying acetone and bleach... or start cultivating Clostridium botulinum... or experimenting with different shaped wings and the air flow speed over and above the wings in just the right ways... or experiment with magnets and wires and spinning in just the right way... etc...

 

[iserith]

And so the player has the character collect saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal and put them together in the right amounts... or start collecting food molds to find penicillium... or start purifying acetone and bleach... or start cultivating Clostridium botulinum... or experimenting with different shaped wings and the air flow speed over and above the wings in just the right ways... or experiment with magnets and wires and spinning in just the right way... etc...

Sure. And like any other task a character undertakes, the DM determines if the outcome is uncertain (or not) and if there's a meaningful consequence for failure (or not) and narrates the result of the adventurer's actions. The character might well be wrong about what those tasks will achieve in the world of swords and sorcery in which the character lives. Or the character might be right. It's up to the DM.

 

[R_J_K75]

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.

Fair enough. I was under the impression the DM immediately verified the the NPC was a lich after the PC blurted it out. Perhaps I read the OP wrong.

 

[Cadence]

Let me ask you this. As a DM, I introduce a character that has a name matching someone from a novel or other FR resource. You make assumptions about that character. It turns out it is another character of the same name, just like there are plenty of John Smiths in the world. (Maybe a coincidence, I heard the name somewhere and it stuck in my subconcious, maybe intentionally.)

I confess to sometimes having fun with unrelated names. A D&D-esque murder mystery once had many of the townsfolk with names from Star Wars and Star Trek and were reminiscent of them. I think the only way it would have helped them though is if they new which of the characters I disliked the most at the time and thus had be the villain.

 

[billd91]

This was probably something you should have pulled your DM aside for - recognizing a character you, personally, read about in a novel appearing as an NPC - to ask if it's something your character might know about. Novels can definitely include elements for the reader that wouldn't be common knowledge to characters in the setting - that good ol' 3rd-person, omniscient point of view. No doubt, the character was included as an NPC so that people who remember that Salvatore book can nod and say "Oh, yeah," and feel good about understanding some of the narrative context. But that doesn't mean your PC should know about it.

Role playing as if you're separating your own personal knowledge from what your PC might know is a skill. But it's a worthwhile one to pursue developing if you're interested in a lot of in-character focus. If you're playing more of a kick in the door/murder hobo campaign, it won't be as important. Figure out what kind of game you're group is involved in and work in the appropriate direction for this sort of circumstance.

 

[iserith]

Fair enough. I was under the impression the DM immediately verified the the NPC was a lich after the PC blurted it out. Perhaps I read the OP wrong.

Even if the DM did though, that's fine in my view. It just brings the players and their characters to the next decision point: What, if anything, do you do about it? And the game marches on...

 

[Bihlbo]

1. Do you think I did anything wrong and how am I supposed to play this? I can't like forget that she is an evil lich.

Of course you did wrong. Of course! You can just assume anything, but the whole reason there's a system of rules is to keep you from jumping to conclusions and running with your assumptions. "I have 18 Int so I assume I've heard her name before and know her best-kept secret" is no different than "I have 18 Str so I assume I kill the entire tribe of troglodytes and loot all their treasure." No need to play the game! Just ask everyone what they expect will happen and pretend that's fun, somehow.

You didn't do anything in the game world, as your character, to find out she's a lich. As a player you have to grab that knowledge nugget, wrap it in greasy foil, and slide it back behind the frozen peas in the freezer of your mind. You still have it, but you'll never see it again. Because you don't actually know she's a lich. Your DM might have changed the lore for this game, or this could be before she became a lich, or she's lying about her name. So that knowledge is something you can think of as a possibility, but it's not a given. And as you play, you have to remember that your character does not have your knowledge. Your character doesn't think of her being a lich as even a possibility.

Part of the fun of D&D is discovering new things. Even when it's something you expected, assumed, or knew because you read some other book, it's fun to go through the process of finding out what the DM has in store for your game. That discovery might not come until the lich reveals her true nature and kills your favorite NPC, but even that is lots of fun. That's the story you're telling through the process of playing the game, and it's an important element. You completely sidestepped it and shot a big hole in a lot of potential fun for your entire gaming group by blurting out that she's a lich.

Step-be-step, here's how you should have played it:
1. I don't really know she's a lich. My character doesn't even think it's possible. I'll keep this to myself and find out what the DM has in store for this character.
2. My character meets a friendly elf and learns her name. What would I do if this were anyone else?
3. The DM is going to drop hints about this character if she has any backstory at all. I should pay attention to those. Maybe I'll make some good rolls to find out she's a lich, or that she's something else entirely.
4. I accept that if she's a lich we'll get to have a cool enemy, and she'll be more connected to us if she was once a friend. This will make the game better, and I shouldn't ruin it.

2. What do you think of our strategy to eliminate her?

I think it doesn't matter. The DM already let you use metaknowledge to sidestep most of the challenge she presented. Just grab the piece of paper with her stats and run off with it. There, she's defeated. Might as well.

 

[jsaving]

I see no real way of separating character and player knowledge.

Ordinarily the point of role-playing would be to play someone who is different from yourself rather than rolling a character who is you with some character levels. When people act, which is basically what role-playing is, you wouldn't typically "break immersion" by failing to separate your mind from theirs, such as a movie-remake character remarking on what a newly introduced NPC did in the original version of the movie.

However not every player cares all that much about acting or is equally proficient at it. Some may want to play a thinly disguised version of themselves, with the point of the gaming session being to let players fight foes with powers they wish they had. Others may care more about winning/power than role-playing and see any advantage they may have, including player knowledge, as fair game. Still others may like role-playing in theory but not be especially good at it, creating situations where metagame knowledge is blurted out and is then met by awkward silence by people who feel like a line was crossed without being able to fully articulate why they feel that way.

However I see the OP's situation as more of a DM issue than a player issue. As DM your job is to meet players where they are, read the mood of the table, and present your adventures accordingly. If it's known that players read fantasy novels (a really common thing around gaming tables) then choosing to import a fantasy-novel character into your campaign will always carry the risk that players will know who the character is and what their twist is going to be. If the OP's DM was shocked by that then I would respectfully suggest it's mainly the DM rather than the OP who made an error in judgment.

 

[GMMichael]

Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible...

Okay, "infinitely" is a bit audacious, but still, go ahead and spoil the DM's plan. See what happens

I see no real way of separating character and player knowledge. The best way to avoid inappropriate overlap between the two is for the DM to mix things up.

Or, you could role-play.

1. the DM describes the environment
2. the players describe their characters’ actions
3. the DM describes the result
By having your character react to something that isn’t part of the DM’s description, you’re upsetting the play-loop. This can be frustrating for the DM because it feels like you aren’t interested in playing the game as presented.

Sound advice. But:

You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character.

Characters have histories that, in theory, go all the way back to the moment of their birth (or conception). So players have a lot to consider beyond what the DM is describing. Why did the player say "she is a lich?" Let's just chalk that up to momentary indiscretion. Why did the character say "she is a lich?" Maybe that character has met one or two Valindras or Shadowmantles in the past, and they were liches? Maybe the character saw some graffiti (wizard's mark, and all that) that said "Shadowmantle = LICH!" We just don't know, because the player invents the backstory.

Absolutely you did something wrong IMO. . . As a player I always played from the standpoint of my character and what knowledge they may or do have no matter how familiar I was with the game and the setting. This was just always ingrained in me as player very early on and used self control to separate player vs. character knowledge. I don't think a DM should have to necessarily mix things up to accommodate trigger happy players but in reality this is usually what it comes down to.

I wouldn't quite say "wrong." Maybe "unseemly." Wrong is detracting from the fun that the other players have. Oh, wait...
I'd modify Hriston's rule number 2 to say: the player describes what the character would do. That way, you're playing from the standpoint of your character.

So, OP:

1. Yes, you actually can forget that she's an evil lich. Well, your character can. If you somehow said "she's a lich!" in-character, that will have to be your new nervous tick throughout the campaign.

2. Since you said "we are probably no match for her," I find your strategy to eliminate her to be foolhardy, at best.