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

[Bihlbo]

I see the OP's situation as more of a DM issue than a player issue.

It's likely the DM can still salvage it. Or at least, will later learn how it could have been done.

 

[R_J_K75]

People assume things that have no validity all the time.

True enough.

 

[practicalm]

. 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.

Using player knowledge that the character had no way to acquire is a bane of role playing.
I don't like it and I prefer players that do not take advantage of it.
The character didn't read the book, how would the character know that name?

My preferred approach would have been to have your character attempt some in game tests to detect her being a lich.

I have the same problem when a player rolls poorly on a search, then everyone wants to make a search roll. The character doesn't know what the player rolled.
For groups where suddenly everyone wants to search once they see a poor roll by one player, then group tasks come into play and a plurality of the characters need to succeed.

 

[R_J_K75]

"I've got a bad feeling about her. Can I get a feeling if I should trust her? Or perhaps since I've studied in history have I ever heard of her name or someone matching her description?"

Happens all the time in real life. I've met people at bars, parties, work, etc that I could tell were sketchy and knew enough to keep my distance or just came right out and told them to stay away from me or Im gonna kick their ass. So I think the "I've got a bad feeling based on nothing more than intuition is definitely plausible.

 

[Cadence]

actually from the late middle ages onward which is the best equivalent to FRs tech level, people did a lot of stunning things already.
if you can build a pocket watch (1400) a bicycle is piece of cake, yes it would not have rubber tires. In ancient Rome they had hydraulic ballistas, with a leather piston running inside a brass cylinder.

Yes. And I would expect a character designed to have inventor tendencies who said they were spending down-time working on inventions and making some rolls to see how successful they were to come up with something really cool as they gained levels.

Using "the character says anything the player has them say" lets them drop inventions in ex nihilo . To me, it feels like its missing the entire point of role playing in dungeons and dragons in a campaign world.

 

[R_J_K75]

I have the same problem when a player rolls poorly on a search, then everyone wants to make a search roll. The character doesn't know what the player rolled.
For groups where suddenly everyone wants to search once they see a poor roll by one player, then group tasks come into play and a plurality of the characters need to succeed.

Ditto, that gets on my nerves too. I honestly preferred years ago when the DM did alot of rolling behind the screen and told you when you found something because they operating on the premise that as an adventuring party you always have a modicum of awareness and constantly looking for stuff. We didnt have to actively tell them we were searching x, y or z every single time, it was only the very specific stuff we told them we were searching or when they asked what we were doing.

 

[iserith]

Using player knowledge that the character had no way to acquire is a bane of role playing.
I don't like it and I prefer players that do not take advantage of it.
The character didn't read the book, how would the character know that name?

Can you imagine there's a reasonable explanation in the context of a fantasy world in which the character think an NPC is a lich just by hearing his or her name? Or do you think the only possible way the character could have reached this conclusion is because the character read a book that exists only in the real world?

I have the same problem when a player rolls poorly on a search, then everyone wants to make a search roll. The character doesn't know what the player rolled.
For groups where suddenly everyone wants to search once they see a poor roll by one player, then group tasks come into play and a plurality of the characters need to succeed.

The reason "metagaming" may be happening in this example is because of how the DM adjudicated the action described by the player. Once again, this is an instance of the DM creating a situation where "metagaming" is incentivized, then expecting the players not to "metagame."

If the DM either called for no roll (because there's no uncertain outcome and/or no meaningful consequence for failure) or narrated the result of the failed check as being progress combined with a setback (the character finds something but it costs them or hinders them in some way) then the incentive to "metagame" is removed and the DM doesn't have to worry about the players "metagaming."

 

[jasper]

Ideally, the DM should have guessed that using a famous character who has a secret would have just been a bad idea. However, once used, ideally the DM should have recognized immediately that using that name, sex, and race combination would clearly lead to this assumption, and had the quick wit to change something. For instance, the real so-and-so uses a disguise at all times.

um. um. HA HA. LOL. I quit reading Realm fiction before 3E; so looking at Amazon and some wiki, It appears she was not created until this decade. So are you hinting DMs must know ALL the Realms lore?

 

[Mort]

It's likely the DM can still salvage it. Or at least, will later learn how it could have been done.

In this particular situation, there is almost certainly nothing to "salvage."

The recognition was almost certainly an intended consequence. And even if it wasn't the only way the players could "muck this up" would likely to not know when to quit and end up in a TPK near TPK (which is a kind of resolution)!

As to doing this in a general sense (inserting character easter eggs etc.). If you're playing in an established world, or a world where the players have explored before - not only do I see this kind of easter egg as not a problem, I see it as a fun reference to history/past events!

My current campaign is in Greyhawk and the PCs are 6th level, there is a lot they haven't seen, don't know. The players on the other hand (most of them anyway) have adventured in this same world to epic/near epic levels - they know, have seen, a lot. For example, the current characters passed through an area where past characters had carved out a little kingdom/established a dynasty. You better believe I played up the nostalgia with tons of references to past campaigns/characters. It wasn't for the characters benefit, it was for the players - fun was had by all, and then they moved on.

The point is, nothing wrong with throwing in a bit of player but not character knowledge if it adds to the fun of the campaign.

 

[BluejayJunior]

Can you imagine there's a reasonable explanation in the context of a fantasy world in which the character think an NPC is a lich just by hearing his or her name? Or do you think the only possible way the character could have reached this conclusion is because the character read a book that exists only in the real world?



The reason "metagaming" may be happening in this example is because of how the DM adjudicated the action described by the player. Once again, this is an instance of the DM creating a situation where "metagaming" is incentivized, then expecting the players not to "metagame."

If the DM either called for no roll (because there's no uncertain outcome and/or no meaningful consequence for failure) or narrated the result of the failed check as being progress combined with a setback (the character finds something but it costs them or hinders them in some way) then the incentive to "metagame" is removed and the DM doesn't have to worry about the players "metagaming."

The DM didn't adjudicate any action by the player or character. The player just blurted out that the NPC is a lich to all other players. The DM had no input into the conclusion. Without knowing more about the character's background, it's hard to say whether or not the character would no anything about the NPC. If they are not from the Sword Coast or Thay, it is unlikely. And I'm not sure Valindra is well known as being a lich, especially outside of those regions. Even if you can make a reasonable explanation for why the character might know about Valindra, it still kinda takes the fun out of the game to spoil that surprise for everyone.
Yes, players do get to decide what their characters think, but there is an expectation of separation between character and player knowledge about some things. If players are constantly using what they know about the game to make choices for their character when they character would have no reasonable source for that knowledge, I'm going to stop playing with them.