Player Knowledge Mandatory?

[Fenrazer]

Gone are the days of fourth edition, where didn't matter if you had several bad stats, because you could always make use of your major stats, Even if it's in melee combat. I especially enjoyed combat with wisdom focus classes. I had an avenger who just messed everything up (in a good way), and even though most of his attacks were with A massive oversized blade, he still swung it using wisdom.

As a result, the Dungeonmaster didn't half to work so hard to make your key attributes relevant. I always assumed that when I fought using wisdom, that I was a cunning fighter, who could predict the way enemies would move, and counter it. It always felt more skilled that way, and lead to really good use of the imagination.

That's basically gone and fifth edition. You could cast spells with your key attribute, but that's pretty much it. The ability stats are back to being as useful as 3.5, and I feel that this edition is very limiting in that respect. With that in mind, I was hoping that you guys could give me some input about something that's going on in my game.

My Dungeonmaster is fond of riddles, and while I love a good riddle, the way that they are being used as frustrated me from time to time. Not that I don't like to think about it or try and solve it, but, and while I love a good riddle, the way that they are being used as frustrated me from time to time. Not that I don't like to think about it or try and solve it, but, he is encouraging players to solve it using their own intellect.

Obviously this is meta-gaming.

Some people love these riddles, just like I do, but one of these people happens to be the dumber character in our game person in our game.

Whereas my character has decent intellect, but is not awarded for stuff like that, due to the fact that this is meta-gaming.

Furthermore, the Dungeonmaster feels that it's not rewarding enough to figure it out using in game stats, because he feels that it's just rolling to get an answer handed to him.

Where do you sit on this topic? Is it OK to mitigat where do you sit on this topic? Is it OK to meta-game if it is engaging some players? Do you feel that it is fair that a ham fisted character which used Int or Wis as a dump stat is rewarded, or that characters who are super intelligent just can't rely on that stat?

What do you think?

[Cybren]

You have a lot of thoughts but I think the general premise that you 'can't use your stats' is wrong; the entire function of most stats is class ability dependent, aside from saves, HP, and initiative, people want ability scores because their class abilities tell them they want them.

I feel on the subject of riddles and roleplaying and stats: that's really a character decision, but solving a riddle doesn't really correlate to anything other than having heard the riddle before. Most riddles (especially most riddles written by amateurs, which DMs are) tend to be tricks where knowledge isn't what helps you, just realizing the linguistic twist is. As a tangential example, no matter what your int score is, unless you're an mentat human-computer capable of recording and storing a few thousand separate variables, you aren't going to Intelligence Check your way into figuring out the solution to petals around the rose. (http://www.borrett.id.au/computing/petals-j.htm)

What I would probably do is, if I think my character wouldn't have figured out the riddle, say it out of character and let someone else answer in character. I don't think "metagaming" is a problem. I think "being a crummy person that exploits knowledge in an unfun way" is, but having metagame knowledge of something isn't the source of being a crummy player, it just is ammunition a crummy player can use.

[Rysto]

In my opinion, the alternative is worse: if I'm not allowed to use my real-world intelligence unless I'm playing a character with a good INT score, I'm basically restricted to only playing a wizard. For me, roleplaying a stupid character would get very old for me very quickly. I don't want to have to sit out every time the GM throws a puzzle at the party. I want to be able to try clever tactics in combat. Playing a stupid character would bore me, but so would playing nothing but wizards.

[2D8HP]

In my opinion, the alternative is worse: if I'm not allowed to use my real-world intelligence unless I'm playing a character with a good INT score, I'm basically restricted to only playing a wizard. For me, roleplaying a stupid character would get very old for me very quickly. I dump INT for the reason you cite.
As how can I role-play a PC that's smarter than me?
It just breaks verisimilitude for me to play a PC of above average intelligence.
"Playing" dumb is easy.
Playing smarter is impossible

[CantigThimble]

While making character stats matter is important so is having player involvement and micromanagement. We obviously don't want the fighter to roll his small unit tactics skill to see how many hp and spell slots an encounter costs us, we want to play out our actions turn by turn. At the same time we don't want to describe how our rogue searches the room, checking under floorboards, inside the pillow, ect. We just want to roll search and be done. So the question is which micromanagement is fun and which is boring or frustrating? The points of contention there are most often puzzles and social situations. Some people want to roleplay out most of it and roll occasionally other people don't feel up to making speeches and would rather try to describe their point or purpose and let the roll decide their delivery. Puzzles are like this, some people love micromanaging their way through them others would rather abstract.

[RickAllison]

I have a fun story sort of about this. I had a swashbuckler aarakocra who loved his shinies. Having the highest Perception and Investigation of the party thanks to Observant and Expertise, he tended to tear apart rooms looking for traps and treasures while the rest of the party solved the puzzle. In one case, it was riddles and the rest of party was rather stumped on one that had an avian-theme, when they suddenly heard me speak up, saying the answer with perfect confidence. In- and out-of-character, I was given very funny looks, to which I responded by flapping my bird-man's wings at them.

Just because I know the answers to the other riddles OOC does not mean I'll pass up the perfect chance to establish that my person is a bird in more ways than just flying in combat. At the same time, it only surprised the other players because my rogue only paid attention to puzzles when all other distractions were handled. This one just stuck out because it was the kind of puzzle that he would have probably heard before.

[mephnick]

So the question is which micromanagement is fun and which is boring or frustrating?

Exactly, I know the RP comes first, but the G is the important part of the hobby. It's a game and fun should be the overriding priority. Pretending I can't recognize a troll is boring. Not taking part in solving a riddle because I'm playing a barbarian is boring. Requiring myself to screw up every social encounter because I'm a low-CHA fighter is boring. At some point not meta-gaming becomes more intrusive than meta-gaming.

[mgshamster]

Exactly, I know the RP comes first, but the G is the important part of the hobby. It's a game and fun should be the overriding priority. Pretending I can't recognize a troll is boring. Not taking part in solving a riddle because I'm playing a barbarian is boring. Requiring myself to screw up every social encounter because I'm a low-CHA fighter is boring. At some point not meta-gaming becomes more intrusive than meta-gaming.

One thing my table does to help with it is to allow other players to recognize things or help, but say it's a different character who does that thing. Or, conversely, we find a way to make your character contribute in their own way.

Let's take the troll example. If you as a player instantly recognize it, then either the studied wizard is the character who had the knowledge or your PC does. Out of character, you can say that you guys need to deal fire; in character, it's either the wizard who yells it out in an educated manner or the barbarian says it as a tribal story or tribal song.

Not every word or action by the player has to be from that player's character, nor does it have to be said in that exact manner by which ever character says (or does) it.

Another example from when I was a player - we were in a trial and another player's PC was on the stand. I came up with a great idea for something for him to say (he couldn't think of anything), but his character had a decent charisma and int and could have come up with it. So I typed it up and the othe player read it out loud "in character."

[RickAllison]

Exactly, I know the RP comes first, but the G is the important part of the hobby. It's a game and fun should be the overriding priority. Pretending I can't recognize a troll is boring. Not taking part in solving a riddle because I'm playing a barbarian is boring. Requiring myself to screw up every social encounter because I'm a low-CHA fighter is boring. At some point not meta-gaming becomes more intrusive than meta-gaming.

"Thog think riddle-man talk-talk of puny humans. Puny humans crawl when Orc-Cubs stand, they think they can stand next to Orc-swords, then they lean on staff when they have lived past usefulness."

For the fighter, I love the image of the brazen warrior who refuses to keep quiet, even when his lack of tact could be detrimental. Think of Bolin, from Legend of Korra. Although his lack of social niceties would have alienated him in normal elite circles, he became close to Varrick because he appreciated the forwardness and honesty he brought to the table.

For the trolls: "Thog happy when trolls are here to eat. With other meat, Thog must kill and then cook. With troll, Thog kill and cook!"

[BurgerBeast]

While making character stats matter is important so is having player involvement and micromanagement. We obviously don't want the fighter to roll his small unit tactics skill to see how many hp and spell slots an encounter costs us, we want to play out our actions turn by turn. At the same time we don't want to describe how our rogue searches the room, checking under floorboards, inside the pillow, ect. We just want to roll search and be done. So the question is which micromanagement is fun and which is boring or frustrating? The points of contention there are most often puzzles and social situations. Some people want to roleplay out most of it and roll occasionally other people don't feel up to making speeches and would rather try to describe their point or purpose and let the roll decide their delivery. Puzzles are like this, some people love micromanaging their way through them others would rather abstract.

I think you've demonstrated a common fallacy in the gaming world. It's certainly true that most players would prefer to "play out" a combat, but just "one-roll resolve" a search. I think we can agree on that. Where we disagree is on whether this is because fighting is because fighting is interesting in-game while searching is boring in-game. Again, they are, but it's not the whole story.

What makes combat interesting is that it provides a long term goal (the victory condition) with a series of round by round actions that provide an opportunity to role-play (to enter the mind of your player and then choose the action that you think the character would take), see a tangible result that affects progress toward the victory condition, and then repeat.

This is critical. As a player and DM, I love combat. Most of the people with whom I play view me as someone who doesn't like to role-play. To the contrary, I love role-playing, and this is evidenced by how much I love combat. Combat provides the most meaningful role-playing in most games - by this I mean it provides the most frequent opportunity to make high-stakes decisions and see the consequences, and then make additional decisions based on previous outcomes.

Recognizing this, we can start to see what makes something boring or interesting in game. It's not just that combat is combat and searching is searching. It's that combat involves multiple decisions, each with visible consequences, and the stakes are high. I would add that it also involves characters or NPCs what are making decisions at the same time that affect the outcome.

So a search can be just as interesting, if it is structured in such a way as to provide those same key elements.

No one is going to argue (I hope) that you should make searching a room into a complex interactive mutli-step process every time. But when the situation calls for is, it's more exciting. It's also worth pointing out that the same is often true of combat. If the PCs have defeated all but the last goblin, who has a slower movement speed than the entire party, and he decides to flee, is it worth "playing out" the chase and capture? Not really, I'd say. On the other side of the coin, is it worth "playing out" a search for a magical item in a small town in which a small number of people are cooperatively working to keep it hidden from the PCs? Yes, it is.

But now back on topic: I think it is absolutely imperative that a GM forces the players to use their own mind and never roll intelligence checks to "see if they can figure something out" because at that point you're not role-playing freely. Meaningful choice is the core of the game, and there is no good reason to take it away. Furthermore, as was said earlier, the ability to come up with a good idea, or solve a riddle, is not something that follows from rigorous deductive reasoning, so it's common for so-called less intelligent people to find solutions or come up with ideas that a so-called more intelligent would not.

[Fenrazer]

I'm seeing what, I think, can be summed up as people essentially saying, "we don't always go by stats because it's boring".

Is that a correct assumption?

I disagree with the notion that one cannot role-play someone more intelligent than them. Being intelligent doesn't require that you act differently than the normal person. There are a lot of ways to accomplish this as well, anything from just being arrogant and always having the right answer, to catch phrases that imply you are speaking in layman's terms for the benefit of those listening, or if you were to come to a conclusion that could solve one of the riddles, you are speaking in layman's terms for the benefit of those listening, or if you were to come to a conclusion that could solve one of the riddles by way of dice rolls in tandem with your stats, you could pull a Sherlock Holmes and just attribute it to elementary or something similar. By way of dice rolls in tandem with your stats, you could pull a Sherlock Holmes and just attribute it to elementary or something similar.

In addition, you could start every conversation or sentence with a phrase like In addition, you could start every conversation or sentence with a phrase like, simply put, or to the point.

Meta-gaming a solution from a character who's dumb status intellect would require something similar, to justify them holding such knowledge.

If we could find a way to justify that meta-gaming, using the intellect of the player to bring the conclusion out through the mouth of an idiot character, then any similar justification would be easy, and more sensible, if it were describing how Someone of great intellect came to a conclusion.

[Corpus]

Exactly, I know the RP comes first, but the G is the important part of the hobby. It's a game and fun should be the overriding priority. Pretending I can't recognize a troll is boring. Not taking part in solving a riddle because I'm playing a barbarian is boring. Requiring myself to screw up every social encounter because I'm a low-CHA fighter is boring. At some point not meta-gaming becomes more intrusive than meta-gaming.

Requiring myself to screw up every melee encounter because I'm a low-STR Bard/Cleric is boring ... except those are "the rules".

Roleplaying is more ambiguous, and differs from player to player (table to table). Recognizing that a Fighter/Barbarian can pump Str/Dex/Con and dump Int/Wis/Cha with very little consequence (saves being an exception) while a Bard/Cleric/Wizard cannot ignore Str/Dex/Con is important.
How important depends on you, your group, and your DM.

We don't allow an 8Cha character to interact (roleplay) with NPC's as easily as a character with a 14Cha. Just like you can't club someone as easily with an 8Str as you can with a 14Str. It's not fair to the players that don't stat dump and maybe want a charismatic fighter.

Low Int/Wis can be more difficult to manage from a roleplaying perspective. Usually the lack of skills and low Will save (in past editions) were often enough of a balance on their own. As for puzzles, we don't usually worry about who can solve a puzzle based on their characters stats. But you better not pull out an abacus when it comes to dividing treasure if you have an 8Int :)

Mephnik, used your above quote as it directly related to how we play. Not challenging anyone else style of play or what they do/don't enjoy. Simply providing my perspective to the OP.

[RickAllison]

Requiring myself to screw up every melee encounter because I'm a low-STR Bard/Cleric is boring ... except those are "the rules".

Roleplaying is more ambiguous, and differs from player to player (table to table). Recognizing that a Fighter/Barbarian can pump Str/Dex/Con and dump Int/Wis/Cha with very little consequence (saves being an exception) while a Bard/Cleric/Wizard cannot ignore Str/Dex/Con is important.
How important depends on you, your group, and your DM.

We don't allow an 8Cha character to interact (roleplay) with NPC's as easily as a character with a 14Cha. Just like you can't club someone as easily with an 8Str as you can with a 14Str. It's not fair to the players that don't stat dump and maybe want a charismatic fighter.

Low Int/Wis can be more difficult to manage from a roleplaying perspective. Usually the lack of skills and low Will save (in past editions) were often enough of a balance on their own. As for puzzles, we don't usually worry about who can solve a puzzle based on their characters stats. But you better not pull out an abacus when it comes to dividing treasure if you have an 8Int :)

Mephnik, used your above quote as it directly related to how we play. Not challenging anyone else style of play or what they do/don't enjoy. Simply providing my perspective to the OP.

Adding onto this, it is important to note that the fighter can interact socially just fine. An example of how it might differ is convincing a king to support your battle plan. If the fighter creates a battle plan that looks like it will work and be to the king's advantage, the fighter won't even need to roll for it. By contrast, a bard optimized for Persuasion would have a greater likelihood of convincing him to take a ridiculous chance in battle.

[mephnick]

Mephnik, used your above quote as it directly related to how we play. Not challenging anyone else style of play or what they do/don't enjoy. Simply providing my perspective to the OP.

Sure, but I thought the OP was saying that players should intentionally act sub-optimally to avoid meta-gaming. If I know the answer to the riddle I shouldn't shrug my shoulders and say "Grug not know, Grug dumb." It's like players shooting fire at a fire elemental because they aren't "supposed to know" it won't do anything. I've seen it happen at the table and it's ridiculous. It becomes its own form of meta-gaming.

Perhaps I read it wrong, I'm totally for the stats/rolls determining everything. However, if you actually put a riddle in your game you should probably be ok with some loss of verisimilitude or meta-gaming because it pretty much never works well.

[mgshamster]

It's like players shooting fire at a fire elemental because they aren't "supposed to know" it won't do anything. I've seen it happen at the table and it's ridiculous. It becomes its own form of meta-gaming.

When we come across something like this, we take a few moments to discuss how likely it is for a character to know or have heard about a particular creature. A lot of times, I let my players decide whether their own character may have a history of the knowedge.

For example, in our CoS game, we have a noble who hunted undead, a mercenary fighter, and a guild artisan (locksmith) sorcerer. When we came across a shambling mound, even though we all knew the stats (because we just happened to face one in out Out of the Abyss game), we all decided that our characters wouldn't know anything about this creature. As such, the sorc fired off his signature spell anyways, Witch Bolt, even though we knew lightning damage would help it rather than hurt it. We thought it would make for a more fun game doing that.

Another example happened tonight in our Out of the Abyss game. My players came up against a Basilisk, and this time none of the players knew the exact stats for it (at least not for 5e). However, since we had one underdark Druid and one lore bard who has extensively studied the underdark, we decided that they should know some details about this infamous creature.

For us, it's all about what makes for a better story and a more enjoyable game. Sometimes having that metagame knowedge makes the game more fun. Sometimes pretending our characters are ignorant despite player knowledge is more fun.

If I'm playing a character who's sheltered and has minimal knowledge of the world outside his little town, then I definitely won't be acting on my own knowledge of the game. It all depends.

About the only time we universally forbid metagame knowledge is when a character absolutely wouldn't know something, like when the party splits up - one group absolutely doesn't know what's happening to the other group, and they can't make actions based on it.

[Corpus]

Adding onto this, it is important to note that the fighter can interact socially just fine. An example of how it might differ is convincing a king to support your battle plan. If the fighter creates a battle plan that looks like it will work and be to the king's advantage, the fighter won't even need to roll for it. By contrast, a bard optimized for Persuasion would have a greater likelihood of convincing him to take a ridiculous chance in battle.

For sure, a great example of a (assuming low charisma) character being able to increase their standing with an NPC. The King may not like the fighter, but isn't going to throw away a good plan because of it. It may even lead to the King gaining respect for the otherwise rude or unkempt fighter.



Perhaps I read it wrong, I'm totally for the stats/rolls determining everything. However, if you actually put a riddle in your game you should probably be ok with some loss of verisimilitude or meta-gaming because it pretty much never works well.

Ya, we do the same. Most everyone will get involved in a puzzle regardless of their characters mental stats.

One way to look at it Fenrazer, someone with a low Int/Wis may have a different way of looking at things that helps them solve a problem others are having difficulty with. They still see patters, and can picture a word puzzle in their head ("look at the pretty colours"). They just do it in a way that is different from an intellectual.

[JellyPooga]

Exactly, I know the RP comes first, but the G is the important part of the hobby. It's a game and fun should be the overriding priority

This I agree with.


Pretending I can't recognize a troll is boring. Not taking part in solving a riddle because I'm playing a barbarian is boring. Requiring myself to screw up every social encounter because I'm a low-CHA fighter is boring.

This I cannot disagree with more. It's a characters' flaws that makes them fun to roleplay just as a characters strengths make them fun to game with.

Pretending I don't recognise a troll, to take your example, because my character doesn't turns a combat that would pan out exactly as expected into one where the outcome is less than certain. There's also the challenge involved in trying to get into the headspace of someone in that situation.

Playing the flaw opens up the opportunity to roleplay circumventing that flaw. Playing without it closes all those doors. Closed doors are what's boring.

[ClintACK]

Riddles are tough in D&D. There's a long tradition of them -- D&D was inspired by Lord of the Rings, and the riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum is a spectacular part of that. To say nothing of "Speak Friend and Pass."

But at the table, riddles either seem to be too trivial to be a real challenge or else the party is completely stumped, and action comes to a grinding halt. (Not unlike the LotR party at the entrance to the Mines...)

One alternative is illustrated in the Critical Role episode with the Sphinx ("A Name is Earned") -- they are fighting a battle and gathering clues from around the room and making guesses all at the same time.

Another good one is to *end* a session on a Riddle. Let the players noodle over the riddle on their own time between sessions. The players who like riddles will ponder it, the ones who don't will be happy not to sit there for an hour talking about the stupid riddle. :)


Re: use of that Intelligence score? -- Knowledge checks. Don't give the party the answer straight out, but use "passive" Knowledge ranks to hand out the clues you want the party to have about the riddle. Or let them roll for possible additional hints. Or answer general questions only from Players whose Characters have a high enough Intelligence or relevant Knowledge. If a different Player wants to know, let them RP asking the Knowledgeable Character.

Again, going back to the Mines of Moria, Gandalf with his epic-level Intelligence and Knowledge is stumped. The earnest little hobbit comes up with the idea that maybe it's just the word for friend in one of the languages of the people who were using the door. But Gandalf is the one who says the word -- because he's the one who speaks Sindarin. So the player of the average-intelligence Rogue guessed that it was the elvish word for friend, and then Gandalf's player had the Knowledge/Intelligence to provide the answer.



As a tangential example, no matter what your int score is, unless you're an mentat human-computer capable of recording and storing a few thousand separate variables, you aren't going to Intelligence Check your way into figuring out the solution to petals around the rose. (http://www.borrett.id.au/computing/petals-j.htm)

Curse you! Took me more than two hours last night. :)

[Fenrazer]

Sure, but I thought the OP was saying that players should intentionally act sub-optimally to avoid meta-gaming. If I know the answer to the riddle I shouldn't shrug my shoulders and say "Grug not know, Grug dumb." It's like players shooting fire at a fire elemental because they aren't "supposed to know" it won't do anything. I've seen it happen at the table and it's ridiculous. It becomes its own form of meta-gaming.

Perhaps I read it wrong, I'm totally for the stats/rolls determining everything. However, if you actually put a riddle in your game you should probably be ok with some loss of verisimilitude or meta-gaming because it pretty much never works well.

Hyperbole much?

The target number for something as simple as knowing fire wont harm fire will be ridiculously low, and even if you were to roll low, it could just be representative of the character being distracted. Target numbers should always reflect how common the knowledge is. If your DM is using the same target numbers for that, as say, the specific weakness of some infernal being on a different plane, then you may want a different DM. If they DONT do that, as I suspect, your argument is invalid. It's not ALWAYS a measure of their actual intelligence.

And I dont see why Grug would immediately go to "Grug Dumb" when Grug could ask questions, or there could be something more relevant and less depressing. If I dont know about something, or am not sure if I have the answer, I simply wait for other people to contribute. I dont just say "I dont know. I'm dumb."

Bottom line: it's ridiculous, IMO, to put in scenarios where a person can throw away the rules intended to protect the players and the DM, simply because they happen to know the answer. What happens if the riddle is in a premade campaign and they have already run it. Do they spew it up from their knowledge of the last time they ran it? Why does the line stop there, anyway? If a professional martial artist plays a Sorcerer, should he just be able to forego his rolls and kick butt, simply because he knows how to fight? If someone on the swim team joins the game, should they skip rolling endurance where swimming rolls are done, simply because they personally know how to keep their wind while swimming?

Therein is the problem. We arent our characters. I install window treatments for a living, and can usually guess the size of a window without measuring it within an inch. My Warlock has no expertise in anything so lame, so it would make no sense for him to be able to draw on that knowledge. Their capacity in anything is quantifiable by their stats, and a failed roll doesnt mean they have to act like an idiot. It could be as simple as they are distracted, they didnt sleep well, they realized they forgot something, or any other reasonable answer.

[mgshamster]

The target number for something as simple as knowing fire wont harm fire will be ridiculously low, and even if you were to roll low, it could just be representative of the character being distracted.

What's the target number for knowing that using fire is an actual tactic used by firefighters?

Now, because this is D&D, it probably won't work, but actual fires require fuel and oxygen to continue burning. Using controlled fires can deprive an uncontrolled fire of those two things, thereby helping to get them under control and stop them. I wonder how useful that tactic may be in a game. :)

[RickAllison]

What's the target number for knowing that using fire is an actual tactic used by firefighters?

Now, because this is D&D, it probably won't work, but actual fires require fuel and oxygen to continue burning. Using controlled fires can deprive an uncontrolled fire of those two things, thereby helping to get them under control and stop them. I wonder how useful that tactic may be in a game. :)

It's more valid than you think. Continual Flame from the SRD:


A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered or hidden but not smothered or quenched.

So flames do require oxygen in D&D.

[Vogonjeltz]

Pretending I can't recognize a troll is boring.

Is there any setting where trolls aren't just common knowledge or mythology or whatever?

If you're roleplaying a country bumpkin who doesn't know diddly about routine monsters, then by all means, pretend not to know what a troll is because that is the role you chose to play.

If on the other hand, you're a professional adventurer, or worldly persona, then you probably can just go ahead and say you've heard of/seen a large number of creatures that exist in the world.

The important thing is that this includes simply hearing about a thing, people can have easily heard stories or rumors many many times growing up even if they never themselves encountered such a creature.