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

[Seramus]

What? I can’t tell if you’re confused or just trying to...something.

Unless I am misunderstanding, I think she is saying the players have to be quiet if they want their characters to be quiet.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Unless I am misunderstanding, I think she is saying the players have to be quiet if they want their characters to be quiet.

I guess it's possible that I'm misunderstanding, but I thought @Charlaquin meant that everybody is speaking using present day language and idioms and grammar, and adding metagame commentary ("Natural 20! Critical!"), and even non-game asides ("WHERE'S THE CHEETOHS!??!!?") and the players all just interpret/filter as necessary to "hear" things in-character. The player says "Natural 20!" but what the other players hear/see is blood spray across the room as the character lands a mighty blow.

Which is the point I was trying to make to @Maxperson: if "Natural 20! Critical!" doesn't yank you jarringly out-of-character, then neither should, "She's a Lich; I read that in a novel." It's a choice to be affected differently by those two things.

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless I am misunderstanding, I think she is saying the players have to be quiet if they want their characters to be quiet.

I guess it's possible that I'm misunderstanding, but I thought @Charlaquin meant that everybody is speaking using present day language and idioms and grammar, and adding metagame commentary ("Natural 20! Critical!"), and even non-game asides ("WHERE'S THE CHEETOHS!??!!?") and the players all just interpret/filter as necessary to "hear" things in-character. The player says "Natural 20!" but what the other players hear/see is blood spray across the room as the character lands a mighty blow.

You are both essentially correct. What you say translates, through the clouded mirror effect, to what occurs in the fiction. So, when you make references to real-life pop culture and technology, your character makes equivalent references to something in the setting that would evoke a similar reaction. When you talk about being low on HP, your character says something in-fiction that communicates similar information about their wellbeing. And when you talk, out loud, about whether or not you should kill this guard, so do your characters (unless you’re actually using Telepathic Bond or something).

I don’t see how it’s “policing” anything to rule that what you say translates to what your characters say.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is the point I was trying to make to @Maxperson: if "Natural 20! Critical!" doesn't yank you jarringly out-of-character, then neither should, "She's a Lich; I read that in a novel." It's a choice to be affected differently by those two things.

Combat does pull me out of character, yes. I prefer as few rolls as possible when I play. When I DM, I'm flipping around between so many characters and out of character that in-character isn't even really much of a thing. I can't immerse myself like I can as a player.

 

[Seramus]

I don’t see how it’s “policing” anything to rule that what you say translates to what your characters say.

Well, it seems like you are saying the players cannot talk about in game things without their characters also talking.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, it seems like you are saying the players cannot talk about in game things without their characters also talking.

Oh oh oh oh. Now I see what you were saying. Through this whole thread we've been talking about policing character's thoughts, so when you used the word "policing" I thought you were using it in that context.

But you're really talking about something entirely different. Yes, it sounds like it's a table rule that is enforced not by telling players what they can and can't do, but rather through consequences. And it's not any kind of constraint on character thought, nor a constraint on what actions they can take based on what they are supposed to know or not know. I suppose any sort of rule enforcement could be called "policing", so you could apply the word here as well, if you wished.

 

[Seramus]

Yes, it sounds like it's a table rule that is enforced not by telling players what they can and can't do, but rather through consequences.

Yeah. It seems like the players are not prevented from doing anything, but their characters will take potentially unwanted actions in game. So the end result looks like conditioning players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah. It seems like the players are not prevented from doing anything, but their characters will take potentially unwanted actions in game. So the end result looks like conditioning players.

It takes some getting used to, that's for sure. I don't (usually) play this way and when I do I forget and have lots of "oops" moments.

But I'm hyper-sensitive to DMs telling me what my character thinks (I even get prickly about stuff like, "you think he's lying"), and rules like this one don't bother me at all.

 

[Seramus]

and rules like this one don't bother me at all.

The heart likes what it likes!

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah. It seems like the players are not prevented from doing anything, but their characters will take potentially unwanted actions in game. So the end result looks like conditioning players.

I don’t understand. In what way would characters take unwanted actions? If you don’t want your character to take an action, literally all you have to do is not say your character takes it...