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

[Ovinomancer]

The default assumption in my game is that the party is working cooperatively towards the gossips of play (having fun and creating memorable stories). Sometimes, this kind of inter-party conflict can be fun and can create memorable stories, but only if all parties involved are aware and concerting, otherwise you are prioritization your own fun over theirs. Accordingly, if you rake an action that negatively affects another player’s character in my game, then you must state your goal and approach to that player, who then adjudicates, deciding if you succeed, fail, or calling for a check, and narrates the results. That way, if the other player is ok with this bit of roleplayed inter-party conflict they can allow it to succeed or to have a chance of succeeding, and if not they can rule that it fails.

Gossips of play is my new favorite typo.

 

[Guest 6801328]

@Cadence: props for well-reasoned contributions.

@Ovinomancer: man would I love to be in one of your campaigns

I think I learned that pvp rule (“target of pvp narrates result”) from @iserith. It’s brilliant in every way. Used to spectacular success with a group of teenagers recently.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think I learned that pvp rule (“target of pvp narrates result”) from @iserith. It’s brilliant in every way. Used to spectacular success with a group of teenagers recently.

That’s who I got it from too. Works like a charm.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let me explain the difference I see. The player that has previous knowledge of a module can play through it without problem, so long as the play isn't disruptive. By this, I mean that the player is using foreknowledge at a macro level to chart a path through the adventure instead of engaging with it. I wouldn't have a problem with a player, knowing a door is trapped, declaring a specific action to check the door for traps, for instance. At this point, the door is introduced into the game and the action is reasonable, regardless of the motivation. The action can be adjudicated with the rules, so this knowledge will still be tested by the play loop. On the other hand, if a player draws a sketched map prior to entering the dungeon (frex) and points to a door on the sketch saying, "avoid this door, it's trapped," then we're at the point of the player being disruptive. I'll admit there's a fuzzy line between the two, but, in general, since I'm not looking for "metagaming" if something actually registers with me, it's likely crossing the line.

Right, so there is a difference of degree here between us at most. Not that checking whether doors are trapped in a dungeon (as opposed to say, in a grocery store) is unusual behaviour. (Though were I that player I wouldn't be the first to jump to do it and let the people who have not played the module before to figure things out first.) But this means that you actually have a line where using the OOC knowledge becomes unacceptable. With the map one could easily just make up a backstory on the spot how the character had seen a map by an old adventurer and thus can draw it, or they saw it in a dream or whatever.

Setting info, though, is usually at a level that isn't very detailed or precise. Further, it's usually a catalyst for adventure rather than the point of it. So, here, even if a player pushes towards a certain location because of some setting detail there, that's just a cue to me as GM that this is something that the player cares about and I can use that to create adventure around that. Rarely would a setting detail rise to the level of being disruptive unless I, as GM, have made it so. If you don't do that, it won't ever be a problem -- in other words, don't make adventures that hinge on a setting detail being secret, make adventures that use the setting detail as a thematic element. Even NPC plotlines are loose enough that you can do this very easily. I've found that if you willingly tell the players this info and then figure out what adventures are possible, you'll find that there's still a huge amount of things that are fun, engaging, and challenging that don't rely on keeping secrets and monitoring players for possible knowledge of said secrets. And additional work necessary is outweighed by the work saved from playing hall monitor to player action declarations.

I agree that building mysteries around the things the players actually know is generally not a good idea, but there is knowing that is not not related to directly mysteries. If one character maxes their knowledge skills and int and another dumps their int and doesn't take knowledge skills then it is unfair for the latter player for just bypass this limitation by drawing on their OOC knowledge of the setting. Furthermore, sometimes setting descriptions contain things that simply are not common knowledge and it would be unreasonable for the characters to be aware of them.

As for hall monitoring, it is not really not something that needs to be done. Players tend to get this. We can easily examine this from the player perspective too, I would feel like a dick if I used my OOC knowledge to bypass obstacles in a module or declare that my character mysteriously knows things they shouldn't know.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And for some of us, there is no line - we’re perfectly happy running modules for players who have played or read them before with no special dialogue about how they should or shouldn’t draw on knowledge from their past experiences with the module necessary. The simple reminder that it is risky to assume things about the current game based on outside knowledge and that it is smart play to verify assumptions before acting on them that applies to all players is perfectly sufficient.

So if you were running a module, you would be OK with a player arriving with a copy of that exact same module and their character mysteriously knowing everything beforehand?

 

[Guest 6801328]

So if you were running a module, you would be OK with a player arriving with a copy of that exact same module and their character mysteriously knowing everything beforehand?

This falls under the “jerk fallacy” category. Any role playing style...really any cooperative game...is vulnerable to jerks, so it doesn’t really illuminate anything to ask what happens when jerks take something to an extreme.

 

[Charlaquin]

So if you were running a module, you would be OK with a player arriving with a copy of that exact same module and their character mysteriously knowing everything beforehand?

Well, as I tend to tweak and personalize modules, that player would find the module as-written is not an entirely reliable source of information about what’s going to happen. Likely they would find fairly quickly that the adventure they were playing followed the same broad story beats as the module they were reading, but there were a lot of differences in the specific details. At that point, the most effective strategy would be to treat the written module as a very rough guide, and to take steps to verify assumptions based on information found therein before acting on them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This falls under the “jerk fallacy” category. Any role playing style...really any cooperative game...is vulnerable to jerks, so it doesn’t really illuminate anything to ask what happens when jerks take something to an extreme.

I am just trying to figure out at what point using OOC knowledge makes you 'a jerk.' There seems to be a line for you, I'm just not sure where it is. Why is reading the module and using that information 'jerk' behaviour, but doing the same with the Monster Manual or the setting book is not?

 

[Charlaquin]

I am just trying to figure out at what point using OOC knowledge makes you 'a jerk.' There seems to be a line for you, I'm just not sure where it is. Why is reading the module and using that information 'jerk' behaviour, but doing the same with the Monster Manual or the setting book not?

Personally, I wouldn’t consider it jerk behavior. Some folks prefer getting all the spoilers before consuming a movie, book, or game for themselves, and I think that’s valid, for RPGs as well as it is for other forms of media. Just don’t expect the module as-written to map 1:1 with the module as I run it. Some things will be the same and some things will be different (again, I like to describe my customizations as “same beats, different details.”) The best way to reduce risk is to verify assumptions before acting on them, but if you’re comfortable risking your assumptions leading you wrong, you’re more than welcome to do so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Personally, I wouldn’t consider it jerk behavior. Some folks prefer getting all the spoilers before consuming a movie, book, or game for themselves, and I think that’s valid, for RPGs as well as it is for other forms of media. Just don’t expect the module as-written to map 1:1 with the module as I run it. Some things will be the same and some things will be different (again, I like to describe my customizations as “same beats, different details.”) The best way to reduce risk is to verify assumptions before acting on them, but if you’re comfortable risking your assumptions leading you wrong, you’re more than welcome to do so.

OK. That is consistent. Bloody bizarre, but consistent.