I feel like I've already posted a lot about this.Thanks for the clarification. So what is reasonably knowable? Some folks suggested the DM provide cinematic sequences to give the PCs key information. Do you think that is necessary, in the case of the guard? Or is it sufficient for the PCs to be able to learn that information via their own investigations?
It seem to me that "reasonably knowable* is obviously context-sensitive. But building on prior replies to you I can give an example of what I think clearly doesn't count - the investigation-equivalent of being sent on a the gorgon-killing quest by the King of Thracia. Now the game is not player-directed or player-controlled: it's the players, via their PCs, following the GM's breadcrumbs.
I'm not talking about the character's knowledge in the fiction. I'm talking about the player's knowledge in the context of playing a game.There's a vast gulf between blind (i.e. knowing nothing) and transparent (i.e. knowing everything). Most if not all real-world interactions fall between these two extremes, it makes sense that in-fiction interactions would also.
Ideally, your character would have about the same degree and amount of information that a real person would have if in the same situation.
Here's a parallel. In the real world, I know that I have no chance of out-fighting @Manbearcat. He is an experienced martial artist and athlete more generally; I am a mild-mannered scholar who cycle commutes 30 km a couple of times a week. But, if the D&D-model of pemerton confronts the D&D-model of @Manbearcat, there is a chance the former can win (in virtue of lucky rolls). And whoever is playing the pemerton PC knows this, in virtue of knowing the game rules. Likewise, the player of the AD&D Dwarf knows that they have a certain percentage of identifying new stonework, etc.
Likewise, when I start a session of Moldvay Basic with the GM telling me that my PC is at the entrance to a dungeon, I the player know that the dungeon contains threats, and treasures, which it is the goal of the game to try and avoid (in the case of the former) and obtain (in the case of the latter).
This is all knowledge that enables me to play the game. Otherwise I am just saying stuff about what my PC does that then prompts the GM to say more stuff. Maybe that's a fun experience (although I personally don't enjoy it much, unless the GM is a very compelling storyteller). But it barely counts as playing a game. And it certainly does not have the player-directed and player-controlled nature of a sandbox.
See, here's an alternative way to start a session, that I personally find more compelling. It also illustrates how the players can rely on their knowledge of game systems to drive the action - which, to preempt the usual howls of protest - is not a synonym for "getting everything they want for their PCs": [Burning Wheel] First Burning Wheel session | Roleplaying Actual PlayFor example, absent prior information, on walking up to the guarded gate of a strange town for the first time your character (and thus you-as-player) has no way of knowing whether either or both of the guards on duty are bribe-able, how seriously they take their duties, how competent they are as warriors, what if any unusual orders they got this morning, etc. etc.; and thus your options are:
--- stop and watch the guards for a while* and see if anyone else pays them off
--- try and enter town normally, i.e. without bribing a guard
--- try bribing a guard anyway and see what happens
--- go around the town walls and see if you can find an unguarded entrance
--- bail out, come back after dark, and sneak into town somehow
--- or something else, there's loads of possibilities.
* - though hanging around and watching might arouse suspicion as well, depending on circumstance.