D&D 5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

[iserith]

Now, I, the player, know that a Protection from Evil/Good will hedge out those monsters. I know that, but, it's very unlikely that my paladin would. That's a pretty esoteric piece of information. And, honestly, I asked the DM directly if my character would know that and he agreed with me that it was pretty unlikely, so, no.

As DM, I would take no position on that as your DM did. I can describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions. What are you trying to do?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Now, that's true.

Here's a thought. Let's put things to the test with a real play example.

I'm playing in a Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign. In the campaign we have discovered that some of the monsters (it appears to be mostly bugbears IIRC, or at least goblinoids), are infested with Intellect Devourers.

Now, I, the player, know that a Protection from Evil/Good will hedge out those monsters. I know that, but, it's very unlikely that my paladin would. That's a pretty esoteric piece of information. And, honestly, I asked the DM directly if my character would know that and he agreed with me that it was pretty unlikely, so, no.

So, now, in your game, what narration could I make to determine whether or not I knew that piece of information? How would you want your players to phrase things? In my group, I just stepped out of character, asked the DM directly and had a sidebar about it. But, I'm thinking that's not what you folks would want.

So, how can my paladin determine that Protection from Good/Evil is the way to hedge out Intellect Devourers.

((This is a much better example than the ubiquitous trolls and fire thing IMO, since trolls and fire is likely so commonly known - trolls aren't exactly rare. But, this is a far more esoteric bit of D&D trivia and I can't see it being common knowledge))

You asked @iserith but I'll answer:

If the player wants to immediately cast ProtE&G that's fine.
If the player wants to do so and narrate the reason why ("Maybe this will work!" "The leader of my order once told this story..." "I get this voice in my head that tells me...") that's fine.
If the player wants to NOT use this strategy, because it would bother him/her to use information that his/her character wouldn't have, that's fine too.
If it would bother ME for the player to do this, I would alter the adventure.

Basically I just don't care, at all, what information the players care to use. I think it would be a little cheesy to buy the adventure and read it, but aside from that I just don't want to be policing why players make decisions, nor trying to distinguish between new players who luck out versus old players using some kind of "forbidden knowledge." It doesn't detract from the game (IMO) to use such information, and doesn't add to the game to try to prevent it.

 

[Hussar]

Truly astonishing how many times we have to go around on this one, huh?

Well, yes, because it's pretty bloody unbelievable. It's like if someone rolls an attack roll and there's only one target on the board, are you completely unable to figure out what's going on? The player is talking to an NPC and drops an Insight check and it's totally opaque? You cannot possibly divine what the player intends?

You want me to believe that there are DM's out there that are this oblivious?

Or, put it another way. Which would you rather I believe? That some DM's out there are so oblivious to the action in the game that they cannot possibly discern why a player would make a specific skill check from context, or that some posters on the boards are completely unwilling to admit any flaws in their chosen argument?

 

[Hussar]

As DM, I would take no position on that as your DM did. I can describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions. What are you trying to do?

I am trying to find out if my paladin knows if Protection from Evil can hedge out an Intellect Devourer. How do I do that?

 

[iserith]

See, @iserith, if all you said was, "I play this way" and left it at that, no one would argue with you. It's that you keep banging the "just written in the book" drum, all the while ignoring any and all criticisms that gets you all this push back.

Yeah, not so much, man. There's like four of you and I've got most of you blocked. I had you blocked till the forum reformatting. I say how I play. I say why, providing rules that support my position. That's it.

From my personal perspective, the primary reason I'm arguing with you @iserith? You want the blunt, honest truth? It's that the worst DM's I ever played with all used identical arguments that you use. Almost word for word verbatim. In every edition. The DM's whose tables were the most dysfunctional pieces of wasted time all looked EXACTLY like what you are advocating. The DM's defended their practices by nearly directly quoting you (granted, it wasn't because it tended to predate this argument by a decade or two). So, yeah, when I see someone banging this drum, and it's a drum that's been banging for decades, I really want to push back because this play style has led to nothing but failed games and so, so much wasted time.

Yeah, I'm not those guys or gals and, if we were talking about some other game, I might be saying how I play some other way, providing rules that support another position. It's not like I run or play every RPG the same way.

And now that you've self-diagnosed the source of your objection, perhaps you can work on that for the benefit of all future discourse.

 

[iserith]

I am trying to find out if my paladin knows if Protection from Evil can hedge out an Intellect Devourer. How do I do that?

I don't know, man, you're the player here and that's on you. Maybe ask the wizard.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, yes, because it's pretty bloody unbelievable. It's like if someone rolls an attack roll and there's only one target on the board, are you completely unable to figure out what's going on? The player is talking to an NPC and drops an Insight check and it's totally opaque? You cannot possibly divine what the player intends?

You want me to believe that there are DM's out there that are this oblivious?

Or, put it another way. Which would you rather I believe? That some DM's out there are so oblivious to the action in the game that they cannot possibly discern why a player would make a specific skill check from context, or that some posters on the boards are completely unwilling to admit any flaws in their chosen argument?

The part I find unbelievable is that you (and others) still think it's the same thing in fewer words. Despite having it explained, over and over and over again, in a thousand different ways, that it's not.

I just don't know what to do with that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I am trying to find out if my paladin knows if Protection from Evil can hedge out an Intellect Devourer. How do I do that?

Just decide for yourself?

(You may, after all, be wrong, if the DM switched up what Intellect Devourers are....)

 

[5ekyu]

Now, that's true.

Here's a thought. Let's put things to the test with a real play example.

I'm playing in a Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign. In the campaign we have discovered that some of the monsters (it appears to be mostly bugbears IIRC, or at least goblinoids), are infested with Intellect Devourers.

Now, I, the player, know that a Protection from Evil/Good will hedge out those monsters. I know that, but, it's very unlikely that my paladin would. That's a pretty esoteric piece of information. And, honestly, I asked the DM directly if my character would know that and he agreed with me that it was pretty unlikely, so, no.

So, now, in your game, what narration could I make to determine whether or not I knew that piece of information? How would you want your players to phrase things? In my group, I just stepped out of character, asked the DM directly and had a sidebar about it. But, I'm thinking that's not what you folks would want.

So, how can my paladin determine that Protection from Good/Evil is the way to hedge out Intellect Devourers.

((This is a much better example than the ubiquitous trolls and fire thing IMO, since trolls and fire is likely so commonly known - trolls aren't exactly rare. But, this is a far more esoteric bit of D&D trivia and I can't see it being common knowledge))

Hmmm...

So here you are describing an attempt to separate player knowledge from character knowlede. I believe some of those involved here dont believe in thator value it - if the player knows it they can use it.

But this leads to a number of things i wonder - are these tangential to or practially needed for the kid of stye being portrayed.

Player knowlede = character knowledge - does that remove cases that are touchy?

Telegraphing hidden stuff - apparently not just traps and doors but also deception and traits all fall under the telegraphs needed.

Reliance on player-GM side auto-success.

How much are these all inter-related or dependencies?

 

[Hussar]

I don't know, man, you're the player here and that's on you. Maybe ask the wizard.

Hang on a tick. I asked you a direct question.

What action can I, as the paladin player in the game, declare in order to succeed? You keep insisting that the players MUST declare actions. I honestly don't know what actions I can declare here. I really, really don't. So, I'm asking you directly, as the prime advocate for this style of play, what action can I declare in this situation?

I don't need brush offs or sidebars about unrelated stuff like how it doesn't bother one DM that I use OOC knowledge in game.

I am DIRECTLY asking, "What action can I take to allow my paladin to learn/know that Intellect Devourers can be hedged out by Protection from Evil/Good"?

If I say, "I ask the wizard if Protection from Evil/Good will hedge out these creatures", that's good enough for an autosuccess in your game? How did you know that the wizard knew that?