Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8191274" data-attributes="member: 6921763">I agree... up until the colon... I would argue that after the colon is an example of policing how someone at your table is required to roleplay.&nbsp; Maybe that policing happens just once at session zero, or maybe you need to speak to a player outside the game for violating this requirement (as you go on to say below), but it still is policing.I'll refer us all back to the definition of roleplaying as explained by rules of D&amp;D 5e: &quot;it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.&quot;Yes, the player can certainly use the character creation process to inform how they play their character.&nbsp; To be clear, I don't think I've seen too many players not do that.&nbsp; But, again, I'll stand by the assertion that the 5e DM has zero role in telling a player how to play their character.&nbsp; IMO, it's a big waste of DM time and energy to worry about how someone is playing their character.&nbsp; Someone's INT 6 character, for example, coming up with smart tactics does not rise to the level of violating the goals of play, IMO.&nbsp; To argue otherwise, to use your logic, &quot;you're not really playing the role playing game described by the [5e] books.&quot;&nbsp; I don't subscribe to your logic, though.&nbsp; If you want to police adherence to PC stats for your own roleplaying purposes as a 5e house rule at session zero, and that is fun for your table, go for it!&nbsp; That's a big goal of play:&nbsp; for everyone to have fun.As for a player &quot;exhibiting unreasonable levels of knowledge about the monsters in the setting&quot;, that's a metagaming issue.&nbsp; I've learned that - to paraphrase Fight Club and [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] - the best way to deal with metagaming is not to worry about metagaming.&nbsp; Players in our games are welcome to use whatever knowledge they want.&nbsp; However, what the player, and hence their PC, thinks they know and what is actually true in the game world could be very different things.&nbsp; If the player, via the PC, acts rashly without testing metagame assumptions in-game, they might find their PC in dire circumstances.&nbsp; Monster variants are one way to deal with that.&nbsp; Players learn very quickly to engage with the game world rather than act upon brash metagame assumptions.Brings me back to this point which ties back to the OP:&nbsp; If a DM finds themselves saying:&nbsp; &quot;Your character wouldn't know/do/say that&quot;, immersion is broken.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8191274, member: 6921763"] I agree... up until the colon... I would argue that after the colon is an example of policing how someone at your table is required to roleplay. Maybe that policing happens just once at session zero, or maybe you need to speak to a player outside the game for violating this requirement (as you go on to say below), but it still is policing. I'll refer us all back to the definition of [I]roleplaying[/I] as explained by rules of D&D 5e: "[I]it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks."[/I] Yes, the player can certainly use the character creation process to inform how they play their character. To be clear, I don't think I've seen too many players [I]not [/I]do that. But, again, I'll stand by the assertion that the 5e DM has zero role in telling a player how to play their character. IMO, it's a big waste of DM time and energy to worry about how someone is playing their character. Someone's INT 6 character, for example, coming up with smart tactics does not rise to the level of violating the goals of play, IMO. To argue otherwise, to use your logic, "you're not really playing the role playing game described by the [5e] books." I don't subscribe to your logic, though. If you want to police adherence to PC stats for your own roleplaying purposes as a 5e house rule at session zero, and that is fun for your table, go for it! That's a big goal of play: for everyone to have fun. As for a player "exhibiting unreasonable levels of knowledge about the monsters in the setting", that's a metagaming issue. I've learned that - to paraphrase Fight Club and [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] - the best way to deal with metagaming is not to worry about metagaming. Players in our games are welcome to use whatever knowledge they want. However, what the player, and hence their PC, [I]thinks[/I] they know and what is actually true in the game world could be very different things. If the player, via the PC, acts rashly without testing metagame assumptions in-game, they might find their PC in dire circumstances. Monster variants are one way to deal with that. Players learn very quickly to engage with the game world rather than act upon brash metagame assumptions. Brings me back to this point which ties back to the OP: If a DM finds themselves saying: "Your character wouldn't know/do/say that", immersion is broken. [/QUOTE]

Verification