Assumptions Based on Anime, WoW, or Other Non-D&D Fantasy

[DRD1812]

Has anyone else had trouble with players making assumptions based on non-D&D fantasy knowledge? I'm talking stuff like this with the giant eagles (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/the-eagles-are-coming). I'll just find myself sitting there like, "Naw man. They're not going to take you to Gondor. Those are rocs. They're going to eat your dumb ass."

How do you untrain such "knowledgeable" players? More importantly, how do you do so without making them feel targeted and unfairly punished?

[Millstone85]

Giant eagles exist in D&D 5e. They are neutral good, understand Common though they can't speak it, and may thus be convinced to carry renowned heroes to Rodnog of whatever country needs help.

It is just that rocs are also a thing.

[Unoriginal]

Has anyone else had trouble with players making assumptions based on non-D&D fantasy knowledge? I'm talking stuff like this with the giant eagles (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/the-eagles-are-coming). I'll just find myself sitting there like, "Naw man. They're not going to take you to Gondor. Those are rocs. They're going to eat your dumb ass."

How do you untrain such "knowledgeable" players? More importantly, how do you do so without making them feel targeted and unfairly punished?

Just tell them their assumption is wrong.

"A Goblinoid army? It means we're going to fight orcs."

"D&D orcs aren't goblinoids. In fact, they're enemies."


"I cast Cure Wound on the Ogre Zombie to damage it."

"5e Zombies aren't harmed by healing spells."


"We're going to the elf city? Man, I hate those psycho-rigid jerks with a broomstick in the backside who don't tolerate anyone doing anything out of place."

"Actually, D&D Elves are chaotic. They love freedom and aren't big on rules."

[DRD1812]

Just tell them their assumption is wrong.

What, just explain it to 'em like a rational human being? It'll never work!

[MrStabby]

The worst ones are the monsters that rip-off earth mythologies yet are a little different. At the first sign of a vampire going to town and buying a massive amount of garlic...

[Jerrykhor]

If they feel 'targeted' or 'unfairly punished' after assuming stuff, I would tell them that they can assume anything they want at their own risk. It has always been like that, its not the DMs job to make sure the player don't make wrong decisions.

[Zilong]

What, just explain it to 'em like a rational human being? It'll never work!

Sadly, with my a couple of my players at least, rational explanations do not actually work :smallannoyed:

[Millstone85]

So, about the text under that single-panel comic.

Most of it is about subverting D&D knowledge rather than non-D&D knowledge, with trolls as an example. Though when it gets back to giant eagles, it does seem to treat them as a literature problem instead.

Anyhow, as I understand it, the routes suggested are:
* Insist that something isn't common knowledge to the characters, or "No guys, you wouldn’t know to use fire". Though the author doesn't recommend that one.
* Use other pieces of lore to create an odd case, like a troll with an armor of fire resistance or the half-dragon template.
* Create an odd case out of straight homebrew, like a subspecies with a weakness to cold instead.
* Make that common knowledge flat out wrong. Maybe giant eagles aren't any friendlier than regular eagles and rocs.

All valid approaches. The part that irks me is "Chances are your players don’t have Knowledge (ornithology) anyway". I may not know my birds, but what if my confirmed adventurer of a character is proficient in the Nature skill? That has to be incorporated in the encounter design, otherwise I feel like the DM is the one failing to separate character knowledge from player knowledge.

[Spore]

It is a common assumption when world B is similar to world A in a lot of ways. Why not assume more is common? As a DM however you can play with that idea without outright telling them what is up because that is bad storytelling.

A giant avian creature flies to grab your group? Surely this is a predator known as a roc trying to kill you. Avoid it like the plague. Because this would be the natural response of anyone other than the chillest druid or scholar.

Fighting an iron golem? Legends say (actual 3.5 monster manual says) that they are immune to magic so I think you have to go get personal with this one. Why is it not an Dark souls Iron Golem (http://darksouls.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_Golem) that is vulnerable to Lightning (or Radiant) Magic? Why can't it be a Warcraft construct that actually gives you back spells and spell slots because its exhaust is full of ley energy? (https://wow.gamepedia.com/Omnotron_Defense_System)

[DarkKnightJin]

It is a common assumption when world B is similar to world A in a lot of ways. Why not assume more is common? As a DM however you can play with that idea without outright telling them what is up because that is bad storytelling.

A giant avian creature flies to grab your group? Surely this is a predator known as a roc trying to kill you. Avoid it like the plague. Because this would be the natural response of anyone other than the chillest druid or scholar.

Fighting an iron golem? Legends say (actual 3.5 monster manual says) that they are immune to magic so I think you have to go get personal with this one. Why is it not an Dark souls Iron Golem (http://darksouls.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_Golem) that is vulnerable to Lightning (or Radiant) Magic? Why can't it be a Warcraft construct that actually gives you back spells and spell slots because its exhaust is full of ley energy? (https://wow.gamepedia.com/Omnotron_Defense_System)

That last one would be pretty sick.
"The golem turns to [mage] and opens its chest. Roll me a Dex Save." Player fails, and expects he's getting hurt bad. "The golem expends a massive wave of hot steam, and.." pause for effect. "You get back 2 of your expended 1st level spell slots."

Just the look on their face would be amazing to see.

[Pelle]

I have more issues trying to avoid assumption based on the D&D MM. I tend to reskin/homebrew most of my creatures.

You often see that the players make the wrong assumption by listening to their conversation. If you notice, just ask them why they make their assumptions, what they base it on. You don't have to spoil the real answers, but try to make them understand what the characters would and would not know in the setting. If they then act on their wrong assumptions, they are at least more likely to understand that it is their own fault.

And if you try to subvert the stereotypes, you have to work hard to show the differences. "These short stocky bearded people living in the mountain? Dwarf is a racist term, no these are the secular mercantile non-militaristic Mountain People" If you don't do anything to demonstrate this clearly, they will continue to be the typical MM Dwarves in the players' mind...

[Contrast]

If they feel 'targeted' or 'unfairly punished' after assuming stuff, I would tell them that they can assume anything they want at their own risk. It has always been like that, its not the DMs job to make sure the player don't make wrong decisions.

The problem is players doing stuff their characters wouldn't.

So in OPs example - if in his world giant eagles are just large birds of prey, there's no reason a players PC would treat them like a player basing their expectations off LotR (or indeed, as has been noted, the MM) would. So its not the DMs job to make sure the player doesn't make wrong decision, but it is their job to let them know when they're basing those decisions on an inaccurate understanding of what their character knows.

That said, if your player still wants to do the dumb thing after you've clarified what they know in character, that's up to them.

[DarkKnightJin]

The problem is players doing stuff their characters wouldn't.

So in OPs example - if in his world giant eagles are just large birds of prey, there's no reason a players PC would treat them like a player basing their expectations off LotR (or indeed, as has been noted, the MM) would. So its not the DMs job to make sure the player doesn't make wrong decision, but it is their job to let them know when they're basing those decisions on an inaccurate understanding of what their character knows.

That said, if your player still wants to do the dumb thing after you've clarified what they know in character, that's up to them.

Basically, the old addage of " If the DM ask you 'Are you really sure?', think REAL HARD about what you're trying to do."
If they're smiling like a villain while they aks this.. whatever it is you were planning.. drop it.

[Pelle]

Basically, the old addage of " If the DM ask you 'Are you really sure?', think REAL HARD about what you're trying to do."
If they're smiling like a villain while they aks this.. whatever it is you were planning.. drop it.

The problem with "are you sure?" is that it doesn't clear up any misunderstandings. It may make players think through the consequences one more time, but that doesn't help if their reasoning is based on the wrong premises...

[DarkKnightJin]

The problem with "are you sure?" is that it doesn't clear up any misunderstandings. It may make players think through the consequences one more time, but that doesn't help if their reasoning is based on the wrong premises...

If you ask them after you explain that they are making assumptions and arriving at a wrong conclusion, and they still want to do it..
They deserve what they get.

[dejarnjc]

It's pretty easy to ask "what does my character know about these creatures?".

[Joe the Rat]

Damn I'm lucky. For D&D knowledge, my players so often ask "do I know x?" when they encounter a new thing.

But I also quite deliberately tweaked elements of lore and a couple of creature details to suit my world.

For non-D&D knowledge and lore... Well, they might be stories in the World. But stories, lore, and facts are not 100% in agreement. You may have heard stories of vampires being vulnerable to silver (various tales, older editions), but it's an Int(Religion) check to separate stories from what is true (it ain't).

When players are operating on bad info from real-world lore and don't ask, l take highest passive knowledge to decide if someone would likely know better and redirect them... Or let them walk into a situation blind.

[Corpsecandle717]

Hell as a player I have to deal with this just jumping from 3.5 to 5.0, lol.

I think a good approach when you hear players making plans based on out-of-game knowledge is to just start asking, "How does <character name> know that?"

The knowledge skills exist for a reason, so get the players in the habit of using them. It will train/remind them that you are the provider of information outside their character's experience.

[GlenSmash!]

I think the DM could just, you know, set the scene so the players know the stakes.

"Flying towards you from the horizon is a Giant Eagle. A large and Dangerous Predator. What do you do?"


Side Note: even in LotR Giant Eagles are Large and Dangerous Predators and anybody trying to use them as a Taxi would be in for a bad time.

Gandalf is a BAMF and he goes out of his way to be extremely polite to those birds.

[Luccan]

The worst ones are the monsters that rip-off earth mythologies yet are a little different. At the first sign of a vampire going to town and buying a massive amount of garlic...

To be fair, D&D vampires used to work more like popular vampires. In fact, most D&D monster used to work a lot more closely to their roots, because that's where D&D got those monsters from. It's only in recent years they've started to really push off from old school stuff (and vampires still follow several old-school rules, so it makes some sense to assume they follow all of them).

[Unoriginal]

To be fair, D&D vampires used to work more like popular vampires. In fact, most D&D monster used to work a lot more closely to their roots, because that's where D&D got those monsters from. It's only in recent years they've started to really push off from old school stuff (and vampires still follow several old-school rules, so it makes some sense to assume they follow all of them).

5e vampires are actually going back to the roots.

[Luccan]

5e vampires are actually going back to the roots.

From 4e? Because I recall 3.5 being pretty close too. Unless you mean garlic and things like that weren't part of old-old vampires, which could be true. D&D vampires are definitely based on their pop-horror rules, some of which might be more recent inventions.

[DMThac0]

Alright, so the problem is "re-training" your players to not make assumptions based on popular culture and only work off of what you/the books give them as information.

Option 1: Let them make the assumptions, and let them act on those assumptions. You, as the DM, will then do your due diligence and adjudicate the actions letting them know if they succeed or fail based on the information of the setting you are in. I say it that way because homebrew can, and does, break away from the information of the DMG/MM/PHB.

Option 2: You can look at the player(s) and say: "How does your character know that?" or "Are you sure?" or some such thing. This will lead to a bit of confusion as your player (not the character) does know that, that's what pop culture has drilled into their brains.

Option 3: You look at the player(s) and tell them "Your character doesn't know this." After hearing this often enough the players may feel like you're taking their creativity away from them. It may also come off as the attack you're trying to avoid as the player is going to, most probably, take it personally.

Personally I would go with the first one for multiple reasons. First is consistency; you don't have to worry about what the players do and don't know, instead you are telling and showing them. Second is because it lets the players explore their options, this game is about creativity, ingenuity, and trying to win, mistakes are bound to happen. Lastly; because sometimes the other forms of media may have done it in a more entertaining way. Just because the MM says the zombies in D&D act more like the ones from classic lore doesn't mean they can't end up like the one zombie PI who solves mysteries by eating brains. The key is consistency, every time they encounter that particular thing it should always act the same as previous encounters (minor quirks being the exception).

[Luccan]

Option 4: If it's inaccurate, tell them and either correct it or let them roll for valid info they might know. This is related to "you don't know that", except you explain why that's the case. Of course, this is for newbies. Vets should know better and be asking questions.

[Unoriginal]

Option 4: If it's inaccurate, tell them and either correct it or let them roll for valid info they might know. This is related to "you don't know that", except you explain why that's the case. Of course, this is for newbies. Vets should know better and be asking questions.

Seriously, just tell them "your assumption is wrong, it doesn't like that in this setting", if the PCs have any reason to know that.

Communication is important. PCs will know the basic info on the world they live in, even if the players have forgotten.

[Baptor]

Lots of good suggestions here.

If it were me, I think I'd correct them once and tell them "This world (whatever it is) is not necessarily like the games you've played or books you've read. The multiverse is a vast and varied place, and not even all D&D worlds are the same. It's not safe to make assumptions like that. In the future you should ask me what your character knows about a monster or something like that. You'd be surprised what your characters actually know about their own world. This one was a gimme - but from now on if you act on assumption from a video game, there might be consequences."

It sounds harsh, but to me it's like opening the door without checking for traps. I'll give you one based on the idea you've never played D&D before but after that you need to take some initiative.

[GlenSmash!]

Communication is important. PCs will know the basic info on the world they live in, even if the players have forgotten.

This is so often the key to long term game success (and by success I mean consistent fun for the whole table, DM included). It's why I stress having a session 0 to iron out as many assumptions as you can before even going into the game.

Frequent check ups with your players on their satisfaction goes a long way to.

[Cealocanth]

You specify what pre-made fantasy universe you're running, or what the details of your custom game universe are, and include your player input on the creation or choosing of a game world so that there is a context for what monsters, races, places, and classes are in the world. If your players really want to play in a gameworld where anything from any genre or premade game world is an option, I recommend you play something like RIFTS.

[DRD1812]

You specify what pre-made fantasy universe you're running, or what the details of your custom game universe are, and include your player input on the creation or choosing of a game world so that there is a context for what monsters, races, places, and classes are in the world. If your players really want to play in a gameworld where anything from any genre or premade game world is an option, I recommend you play something like RIFTS.

I dunno man. It seems less of an "anything is possible" problem than a "the specific way I imagine things is the way it ought to work" problem. It's trying to seduce the dragon all over again. :(

[Tanarii]

I think a good approach when you hear players making plans based on out-of-game knowledge is to just start asking, "How does <character name> know that?"
Of you ask this question, you're the one causing uncecessary separation of player/character knowledge. That cant happen without someone forcing it to happen. "Metagaming" of this kind is almost always caused by the DM.

[Nifft]

The players need to be able to cast detect genre.

[Corpsecandle717]

Of you ask this question, you're the one causing uncecessary separation of player/character knowledge. That cant happen without someone forcing it to happen. "Metagaming" of this kind is almost always caused by the DM.

Is that a bad thing? As player I've always been annoyed when a 'fresh' adventurer has too much insight. I've always felt that was the purpose of knowledge rolls.

[Tanarii]

Is that a bad thing? As player I've always been annoyed when a 'fresh' adventurer has too much insight. I've always felt that was the purpose of knowledge rolls.
It's usually a bad thing because ARGLE BARGLE METAGAMING!

"knowledge" rolls are not actually a 5e thing. But the purpose of ability checks in general is whatever the DM wants them to be. Certainly they can try to use Ability (Lore) checks to create player/PC separation if that's what they and the table want.

Personally I have had to stop playing at tables where a DM tried to make me roll a check to see if my PC knew something I already know from having played D&D for 30 years, and am basing my decisions on. Or tried to tell me I couldn't do that because "metagaming". I could see what kind of table it was going to be.

[Corpsecandle717]

It's usually a bad thing because ARGLE BARGLE METAGAMING!

"knowledge" rolls are not actually a 5e thing. But the purpose of ability checks in general is whatever the DM wants them to be. Certainly they can try to use Ability (Lore) checks to create player/PC separation if that's what they and the table want.

Personally I have had to stop playing at tables where a DM tried to make me roll a check to see if my PC knew something I already know from having played D&D for 30 years, and am basing my decisions on. Or tried to tell me I couldn't do that because "metagaming". I could see what kind of table it was going to be.

I see, this seems like a table preference thing. I'm not a big fan of characters acting on knowledge that they shouldn't have, things like 'this beast is resistant to fire' when there's no indication it would be. Though I have sat at a table where a DM used it as an overbearing mechanism to control the players, that didn't last long. I guess like most things it's about finding that happy medium.

[Tanarii]

I see, this seems like a table preference thing. I'm not a big fan of characters acting on knowledge that they shouldn't have, things like 'this beast is resistant to fire' when there's no indication it would be. Though I have sat at a table where a DM used it as an overbearing mechanism to control the players, that didn't last long. I guess like most things it's about finding that happy medium.I agree its a preference. My preference is that the DM and players don't invent "knowledge they shouldn't have" in the first place. I personally find it to be an unnecessary addition to the game that hampers immersion. It's not the natural state of things, so it gets in my way and pulls me out of things and emphasizes that it's a game a bit too much.

But it's only a problem if someone starts screaming about it.