The tension between player knowledge and character knowledge

[Christew]

Break-off thread based on OP request.

How do you manage the inherent tension between player knowledge and character knowledge at the table?
- Tactical metagaming vs RP informed combat
I think this is a tough one because it is a fine line. In Frogreavers example below, is that an abstraction of a savvy combatant using knowledge of reach and timing to best engage an enemy or a player unreasonably capitalizing on the mechanical underpinnings of the combat rules? I think here I'd default to the former. It's tough to guage intent and if it could be fine it should be fine.

- Characters knowledge of monster stats/abilities vs players
I think the tavern construct is an interesting angle here. Do we hand wave character knowledge of vampires because they would have heard stories in taverns? Would that be an effective source of objective information about vampires or a melange of tall tales, outright falsehoods, and grains of truth? I think practicability becomes a concern here. Differing character knowledge has some verity to it and could be a great source of fun, but is that worth the prep/table time it would require?

- Player abilities vs character abilities
I have seen this most clearly with puzzles. The 20 INT wizard is played by a person with no puzzle acumen while the 8 INT barbarian is played by an avid puzzler. Does the barbarian stay silent because solving the puzzle is not something his character would do? Do we just take the table as an abstraction of the party instead of the player as the character? Here I think I default to the former for reasons of practicability, though I have whispered puzzle hints/solutions to the highest INT character before.

Quotes from other thread for context.

I think there's a fine line here. Obviously tactical combat in a turn based game is going to rely to some degree on leveraging your turns, your turn order in the initiative list, etc. For example, many combos require leveraging that turn order. First do X then do Y. All of that is metagame info. It's not actually present in the fictional world. So how exactly do you want to see that needle threaded?


... metagaming is fine. If I (the player) know what vampires are and i live in a world where they're not real and were only made up in the last few centuries, wouldn't a man who lives in a world where vampires are real know even more? Wouldn't my character, who frequents taverns and travels and fights for a living hear tell of the fearsome vampyr and all the evils they can do?

This "roll to see if you know what you know" thing is pointless. It's not role-playing, not really. It's just arbitrarily enforced character ignorance. It's deciding what a character knows based on randomness or fiat rather than having the player work out for himself what might be reasonable for his guy to know. It's annoying and tyrannical. "Sorry Jim, you may be the hero of seven kingdoms and a legendary warrior, but you rolled poorly on the knowledge check so you don't get to know that the dragon that breathes lightning is in fact resistant to lightning."

As for mechanics, my character may not know what legendary actions are or that a dragon has them but they know dragons are real big and real strong and you have to be careful around them. My character may not know that Johnny is on his last death save but he knows how long it takes for a guy to bleed out and he doesn't want his friend to die. My character may not know that the DM just rolled a 16 but he does know that the enemy swordsman's blow isn't gonna get blocked unless he casts shield.

As a DM, my baseline assumption is that characters know more or less everything their players know because trying to second guess your players at every turn is unproductive. "Bob, would JIM know that counter spell has a range of sixty feet???" Who cares? Just play the game, let players be tactical if they want to be, it's not ruining anyone's fun.


Let's start simpler. I'm 60ft away from an enemy. Instead of trying to get there as fast as I can. I get there almost as fast as I can and stop 35 ft away from the enemy instead of 30, because I know they are a melee enemy with a 30ft max movement speed and so that enemy can't move and attack me next turn. Isn't everything about that interaction based on metagame knowledge about turns and movement distances within the turn and actions within the turn, etc.

Solid Tactic about stopping just shy of his movement distance. Fairly rudimentary and common as well, but so detached from the fiction that the only way you arrive at this tactic is out of character knowledge about turn structures.


For me personally, this would depend.

As you’re presenting it: yes, it’s Player knowledge and not Character knowledge. That is something I prefer to not do (not judging, just stating my preference), as I’ve stated, I prefer to RP.

However, this could similarly be done with character knowledge. For instance, the idea for the character could just be “I know about how far I need to be to engage and attack in melee, so I’m going to stay out of that range, and take up a defensive stance (Dodge Action), while sizing up this opponent.”

I’m in no way saying this all needs to be expressed this way during a turn; I’m fine giving the benefit of the doubt to Players (and DMs) with just declaring the actions.

Now if Player A took their turn to do the above, and then Player B points out “those are Orcs, they can Dash as a BA. You should just stay back.” That’s something I’d be annoyed with (unless Player A’s character was somehow familiar enough with Orcs that they would know that info, even though Player A was unaware of it; such as a new player with a Ranger who’s favorite enemy is Orcs)..

There’s plenty of space, of course, between your example and doing that, but the principe holds: the encounters are designed to the character’s abilities and I appreciate that.

No, this doesn’t actually make sense, logically. I live in a world with at least thousands of different creatures that I don’t know anything about. The simple fact that I exist, and they exist, does not give me knowledge on them in anyway.

Moreover, you and I have been exposed to vampires in multiple ways (different movies, tv shows, books, different editions of D&D possibly). Nothing says the farmer living in the in-game world has ever had any exposure to them, much less to that extent.

Further, I’m pretty sure every one of those different instances of learning about vampires had different (sometimes contradictory) information about them (compare Lestat to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, to Lost Boys, to Twilight, to 3E D&D). Assuming that in-game farmer knows not just ALL of that and MORE (as you claim they should), but that they also should know what’s relevant to 5E D&D vampires, without ever having seen a vampire or been exposed to the movies, books, rulesets, etc., just doesn’t make sense.

Is your character a traveling fighter, who frequents taverns seeking tales of monsters? Was this part of their background? When back at town, do you make a point of your character going to the local tavern, and questioning travelers and entertainers on new stories? If so, then roll a d20 and we’ll see what they picked up, if anything, about this specific type of creature that they’re currently facing.

[Abracadangit]

This always seems to me like a Session Zero debate, that should be settled before the campaign really gets underway.

Some people really dig the idea of a campaign that's all about RP and in-world authenticity. If the PCs spot a basilisk, they have all agreed to look right at it unless somebody rolls a knowledge check saying that's a bad idea, in which case they can quickly educate the rest of the party.

For other groups, combat/dungeons/puzzles are challenges to be won that exist sort of outside the realm of RP. Of course you can narratively fluff your actions or spells or ideas, but the actual planning and execution is done by the players, who are trying to win the battle/solve the puzzle/overcome the dungeon with whatever resources are available to them. If they can come up with a way to wrap it in RP fluff, great. If not, nobody loses sleep over it. And in the aforementioned basilisk example, anyone who's played D&D and knows what a basilisk is will avert their eyes, while RP reasons take a backseat.

I don't think there is anything intrinsically right or wrong about either of those approaches, so long as everyone in the group is on board with what that approach is. Personally, I prefer Approach 2 for a multitude of reasons, but sometimes I hear about people playing an Approach 1 kind of game, and think to myself "That sounds like it could be fun, maybe to try once!"

Where this gets difficult is when not everyone in the game is on that same page. PCs approach the basilisk, the rogue is like "I'm not looking it in the face," DM is like "Well how does your rogue know that." And the rogue PC says "I mean... why is that important. I'm not gonna voluntarily risk petrification to 'boost immersion,' or whatever." DM explains Approach 1, rogue says screw that, now we're having an argument.

If everyone agreed to be in the same kind of game, then these issues seldom occur. But if the aim of this thread is to pick which one you prefer, I vote Approach 2.

[KorvinStarmast]

Characters have lived their whole lives in a world with supernatural things in it. They'll have some knowledge about some supernatural things that exist in their world. Stories, lore, rumors, the songs the shaman sang, legends that everyone has heard, news and stories that bards and minstrels share, lots of cultural inputs. But there's a lot of gray area.

Enter: Nature, History, and Arcana checks.
Enter: Background.

Sometimes, the character knows that a troll regenerates, sometimes they don't, or maybe they've heard a story about acid being particularly harmful to a troll.

Most characters won't know much about anything that's from "outside of this world" but some, like GOO warlocks and those with good Arcana scores will tend to know more. (I have in mind aberrations, but monstrosities would be similar in many cases).

Incomplete knowledge is a better basis than no knowledge" and the extent of it being resolved, where there is uncertainty (PHB, Chapter 7), via a skill check.

[Demonslayer666]

I ask my players to play their characters from the character's perspective as best as possible. Only common creatures like goblins and orcs should be common knowledge. Only troll hunters should know how to fight trolls. I ask that they try to avoid meta gaming. If they think their character might know, I may give them a knowledge roll.

I also ask players not to dog-pile rolls, and only roll when their character would realistically get involved. Just because the wizard failed their history check, doesn't mean the rest of the party should roll.

Folklore and tavern information would likely be wrong as often as right. Even Volo has stuff wrong in his guide.

Characters would likely remember certain stuff more than their player would. They lived it. I help out with that, but also recommend taking notes.

I also dislike playing D&D and testing player skills. I think that shows favoritism, and picks on those less gifted or those that don't give a crap about using tactics in combat. For example: a very wise and experienced cleric (8th level and 20 wis) ends their turn next to a cliff amidst enemies and friends. The player is not a fan of tactical combat, the battle mat is flat and does not represent the cliff with anything more than a line. Despite her cleric being experienced and very wise, the DM pushes her off the cliff without previously warning her of the obvious eminent danger when she ended her turn. Her character would be painfully aware of the danger. The player unintentionally got her character killed due to the level of abstractness and the DM testing her memory.

Some would say that's how you are supposed to play D&D. I don't care for it. Feels like gotcha DMing. "haha! you forgot I said that blue line was a 700' cliff! Now you are dead!" I could almost see the DM writhing his hands as he rushed to take his turn.

That said, I do like riddles, but I make them light and fun, not critical for advancing the game. Know your table. :smallcool:

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing that goes a long way to fix these rough-patches are mechanics that make suboptimal play optimal.

Advantage is (unfortunately) the mechanic 5e uses. You do something stupid, you get Advantage, and now you're better off than if you did the smart thing. That's obviously not how it works, but that's how it should ideally work.

My experience with it is extremely limited (mostly limited to heresay), but from my understanding, FATE is a system that takes this into account. The game is more optimal when you take risks and act in-character for both your strengths and your weaknesses, as it rewards you for both. At least, that's with my very-limited understanding of it.


An example of something you could do is someone trying to kill a Gelatinous Cube the way their character would instead of the meta-gaming player. The DM sees the struggle, hurts the player in the moment, and rewards them an experience coupon that's worth an average session's worth of experience. Not so worthless now, eh?

[KorvinStarmast]

I ask my players to play their characters from the character's perspective as best as possible. Only common creatures like goblins and orcs should be common knowledge. Only troll hunters should know how to fight trolls. I ask that they try to avoid meta gaming. If they think their character might know, I may give them a knowledge roll.
Using an overly broad term like that is not helpful.


Folklore and tavern information would likely be wrong as often as right. Even Volo has stuff wrong in his guide. yeah, but sometimes it is right. Be open to both possibilities.


I also dislike playing D&D and testing player skills. There are degrees of doing that, it's not a step function. The players are human. Many/most humans get a stroke, or a feel good moment, when they get better at something, get good at something, or succeed at something. There is room in D&D to accommodate that.

[Kurt Kurageous]

At my table this is a non-issue. There is no tension because there is no meta.

You character knows more about the world they live in than you do. Your character knows things that don't fit in our world. You know a lot of things that don't belong in their world. So it's a fair trade.

What you know as a player is the only benefit you get for having played D&D. It's the legacy your character inherited. This knowledge includes everything you know about my world and the conflicts within it.

New players are the only ones who don't know things like how to shut down regeneration on a troll. But they might know to use sunlight and stake a vampire. I can't deny the newb's one lore contribution because reasons. And I don't deny more experienced players the opportunity to mentor new players. That's part of the fun.

Your character is your avatar. It's you in that world if you were a (race)(class) with lived experience as a (background). Pretending anything else is overly complicating the game. Maybe that's fun for you.

[da newt]

I think there is no one right answer to this - everyone has their opinions and no one opinion is worth more than another. Personally I prefer a game that rewards Player knowledge and skill, but also like to see Players self-nerf their PCs when the RP calls for it. As a DM I try to persuade my Players to discuss strategy / knowledge in character to reinforce this ideal. I don't mind / shut down table talk, but I prefer to encourage it to be RP talk.

As someone who prefers to play a PC who knows some stuff, I always try to include a hunger for knowledge / lore in my PC's backstory but tailor it to the PC - my goblin doesn't know or care about history or social norms crap, but he loves stories / info about monsters and magic crap so he actively seeks out that sort of stuff. This way I feel justified RP-ing 'I heard basilisks can turn you into stone if you look at them' or 'I heard vampires hate garlic.'

As a Player I don't like it when a DM dictates my PC's ignorance - I understand, but I don't like it.

[Valmark]

Using the turn system/order and carefully using reach and movement to your advantage isn't metagaming- presumably, the combatants aren't actually acting in turns narratively and is instead narrated in whatever way it makes sense at the table. But the characters would know how to do all that because that's what they know they can do- in Frogreaver's example baiting the enemy into overextending themselves is honestly a basic tactic which is usable even without knowing what turns are. Stuff like speed is something you could see IRL as well.

Yes, we (players) base our choices on mechanical stuff- but said mechanical stuff is what they (characters) can do and know they can do most of the time.

Regarding knowledge of monster abilities: Imo it depends on how common that knowledge is. Tipically the characters are adventurers who's retirement plan consists in poking things to death where nobody else can because they are too dangerous until they get settled, tired or dead. Usually they are gonna keep an ear out for said things to learn what to poke them with and how- stuff like vampires and sunlight, or trolls and acid. I might make you roll if you can't recall the difference between a brass, a bronze and a copper dragon but if you come out and say 'I know about white dragons! They breath ice and are immune (resistant?) To frosting!' Sure. And if you ask me 'Hey white dragons are the cold ones right?' I'll say yes with no need to roll (or correct you with no need to roll).

It also depends on the character. High Int/proficient in various knowledges/proficient in Insight/high Wis characters can get away with more then dumber ones.

It is also true that I dislike doing the wrong move because 'My character doesn't know this' since it could lead to character deaths and that'd leave a sour taste in my mouth if I took a liking to the characters.

For puzzles I'd leave checks that the relevant character can make to get further ahead if the player's knowledge doesn't suffice- you cannot be expected to have the same abilities your character does. Same thing for something like talking to people- if you, shy person without a lot of people skill, want to make a charismatic character I can't pretend you can suddenly speak like a trained orator well versed in the arts of flattery and whatever, nor do I have the right to tell the Cha 8 character that they're too dumb and unremarkable to speak (though they'll have a considerably harder time hitting DCs).

[strangebloke]

I think the operative question here is.

As a DM, do you have any means other than fiat to argue that a character couldn't know what their player knows?

Players, in general, have power over their own characters. They're allowed to make decisions like "my character enjoys frog legs" or "my character is naive." If a player says, "watch out, basilisks kill you with their gaze," can you truly say this is unreasonable knowledge for the character to have? As I already said, I know not to look a basilik in the eyes, and Basilisks aren't even real! Grug the Fighter has never met a basilisk before, but doesn't it make sense that he might have heard of one? The only reason I know about Slaad is because I have a hobby of playing DND for a few hours a week. In a world where Slaad are real and dangerous, wouldn't you be more aware of them, not less?

The only way you can reasonably argue that a player can't know something, IMO, is when its something incredibly specific on the order of "That Ice Devil just used his ice wall ability, he can't use it again for approximately 36 seconds!! Or "don't go there, the monster has 45 foot movement speed, you need to stay exactly 50 feet away!"

I also don't like people cracking open the MM during combat, but that's just an egagement thing. Takes too long to read statblocks.

[Segev]

On "charging headlong 60 ft." vs. "moving 25 ft. and making the enemy move 30 feet up to avoid giving them a free round of attacks," you could model that as the difference between a heedless, careless rush forward and moving forward while staying ready to make attacks.

You are, in combat, playing a game, and it's better to find explanations in the narrative for what's happening on the game layer than to make bad gameplay moves just because the theoretical "best move" if you were not playing a game would be different. It's a potential flaw in the game design, but probably a forgivable one based on the needs of playability, and you should just accept it and play the game. If you find too many cases where counterintuitive moves in the game layer make you unable to have verisimilitude in the narrative layer, then you should look to altering the game rules to make them encourage more believable gameplay choices.

[pwykersotz]

My 2cp:

Tactical stuff? Do it. If you want to optimize your actions, I'm on board. It's fun, and combat is detailed enough for some reasonable depth in 5e. You don't have to, but if you have fun with it, go ham. I can count on 0 fingers the number of times over the past 12 years of GM'ing that encouraging the players to be suboptimal tacticians if they don't want to be has improved the game. Some players will take suboptimal paths because it's more fun, and I like that because they like that. But I would never try to force it.

Monster lore? When I was a new GM, I was frustrated that my players were just as genre savvy and knowledgeable about D&D monster statblocks as I was. I could never surprise them with creature abilities. But nowadays I expect it and use it to build the mystery. Curse of Strahd plays with some solid use of this. Strahd doesn't take damage from being outside in the day because it's always cloudy. And (I don't remember if this is core to the module or a fan interpretation) he can go into any house he wants because he's the rightful ruler of Barovia. All things belong to him. But for the most part, having system mastery feels good, so I just let the players who have it use it.

Player vs Character? I don't see why people care so much. If there's a puzzle and the players can figure it out, great. If they need to roll, the person with the high stat has the best chance, and often they will roll with advantage for the party helping. If the low Int Barbarian solves a puzzle the wizard couldn't, then we laugh, make jokes about a broken clock being right twice a day, and move on. But usually this is just a problem with how the GM structures calling for rolls. If you don't want this happening, use group checks, require proficiency to roll, or some other factor. And if you're playing AL and need to be super-RAW, then just recognize it's just the cost of doing what you're doing. Explain it to the players, and move on.

[pwykersotz]

As a DM, do you have any means other than fiat to argue that a character couldn't know what their player knows?

That's an interesting point. Of course not, the GM doesn't control our reality, but the player's knowledge of the game world is always imperfect. Custom monsters and effects are entirely reasonable. If you say "Trolls are weak to fire!" and the GM calls for an Arcana check and you fail it, you can run with that assumption sure, but you might be running up against a troll weak to radiant instead.

I don't generally support too much bait and switch, but it's fun on occasion. And there's an unwritten rule at all tables I run and play at that "Don't trust what you know from the MM too much. The GM has probably messed with it."

[Xervous]

but you might be running up against a troll weak to radiant instead.


Smelling of Doritos and Mountain Dew, haunting basements, pale skinned and fond of starting arguments?

[strangebloke]

That's an interesting point. Of course not, the GM doesn't control our reality, but the player's knowledge of the game world is always imperfect. Custom monsters and effects are entirely reasonable. If you say "Trolls are weak to fire!" and the GM calls for an Arcana check and you fail it, you can run with that assumption sure, but you might be running up against a troll weak to radiant instead.

I don't generally support too much bait and switch, but it's fun on occasion. And there's an unwritten rule at all tables I run and play at that "Don't trust what you know from the MM too much. The GM has probably messed with it."

The worry here is that at some point it might feel like you're doing it intentionally to screw with them. "Oh this player thinks trolls hate fire, does he? Well I'll show HIM! :smallfurious::smallfurious:"

It's a hallmark of a combative DMing style that everyone knows is bad. But if on the other hand I've clearly stated that these are mutant trolls, the product of foul magick taint infecting the countryside with its weemish powers then yeah, its pretty clear that these trolls aren't like other trolls and you shouldn't be annoyed when they don't behave like normal trolls.

Or to put it another way, be creative, do your prep work, and don't be too annoyed if your players figure your weird encounter out. Mastery is fun for your players!

And of course, if you are really good, you'll play not just to their expectations based on the monster manual, but also their expectations based on genre. You'll heavily foreshadow that the barkeep is a vampire, but the party still thinks its the old widow on the hill who is said to be a great beauty. That's the really fun thing to do. Metagaming isn't your enemy, its your friend and can make for some delightful twists.

[pwykersotz]

Smelling of Doritos and Mountain Dew, haunting basements, pale skinned and fond of starting arguments?

:smallbiggrin:


The worry here is that at some point it might feel like you're doing it intentionally to screw with them. "Oh this player thinks trolls hate fire, does he? Well I'll show HIM! :smallfurious::smallfurious:"

It's a hallmark of a combative DMing style that everyone knows is bad. But if on the other hand I've clearly stated that these are mutant trolls, the product of foul magick taint infecting the countryside with its weemish powers then yeah, its pretty clear that these trolls aren't like other trolls and you shouldn't be annoyed when they don't behave like normal trolls.

Or to put it another way, be creative, do your prep work, and don't be too annoyed if your players figure your weird encounter out. Mastery is fun for your players!

And of course, if you are really good, you'll play not just to their expectations based on the monster manual, but also their expectations based on genre. You'll heavily foreshadow that the barkeep is a vampire, but the party still thinks its the old widow on the hill who is said to be a great beauty. That's the really fun thing to do. Metagaming isn't your enemy, its your friend and can make for some delightful twists.

Mostly agree. You're talking to the wrong person if you're looking to accuse someone of combative DM'ing. :smalltongue:

But no, metagaming isn't my friend, nor is it my enemy. It's a tool that is sometimes obnoxious, sometimes fun, but always there and must be accounted for if I am going to craft the best adventures and get the most fun out of my 3 hours a week with my players.

[strangebloke]

Mostly agree. You're talking to the wrong person if you're looking to accuse someone of combative DM'ing. :smalltongue:
Oh, I more meant there's a risk that you'll be perceived as playing in this way, even if its not exactly your intent.

But no, metagaming isn't my friend, nor is it my enemy. It's a tool that is sometimes obnoxious, sometimes fun, but always there and must be accounted for if I am going to craft the best adventures and get the most fun out of my 3 hours a week with my players.
Fair enough. I just like to stress the positive side to it. Your player's meta-knowledge is there one way or another, and you have to deal with it. Trying to split their brains and pretend they don't know what they know isn't really possible.

[KorvinStarmast]

Using the turn system/order and carefully using reach and movement to your advantage isn't metagaming- presumably, the combatants aren't actually acting in turns narratively and is instead narrated in whatever way it makes sense at the table. But the characters would know how to do all that because that's what they know they can do- in Frogreaver's example baiting the enemy into overextending themselves is honestly a basic tactic which is usable even without knowing what turns are. Yep.

As a DM, do you have any means other than fiat to argue that a character couldn't know what their player knows? A good way to frame this.

Player vs Character? I don't see why people care so much. Tension is probably my best answer, though depending on the table and the time, there is also a vestige of "DM vs Players" in this disagreement. This isn't new. It's been a thing since the Greyhawk supplement was published in 1975. DMs discovered that those who had the books and were up on monsters were harder to surprise, and harder to give the "this is dangerous and deadly" vibe to than those who had not.

Under Monstrous Tricks and Combination Monsters, E.G.G. offered this (among other things)

Fire-resistant mummies. Many players will get used to frying these monsters with oil. But watch the fun when they run into one of these critters!


There is an element of tension that comes with going into the unknown and dangerous underground ruin that loses its edge when what's down there is known or at least familiar. The entire process of discovery used to be a part of the joy of the game. See also "No Spoilers" or "Spoiler Alert" warnings in the internet age.

The depth and degree of how much, or how little, of this tension makes for an enjoyable game varies since it's a matter of taste, just as how deep into horror one goes is a matter of taste in a variety of RPGs.

(For a CRPG example, the very first time you run into the Butcher in Diablo (the original) is a whole different experience, in terms of feel, than it is once you've played the game through and have an idea of what you are up against - same with those wolves and that boss who spit acid in the catacombs, and the illusion weavers).

[Demonslayer666]

Using an overly broad term like that is not helpful.

yeah, but sometimes it is right. Be open to both possibilities.

There are degrees of doing that, it's not a step function. The players are human. Many/most humans get a stroke, or a feel good moment, when they get better at something, get good at something, or succeed at something. There is room in D&D to accommodate that.
It may be too broad from your perspective and on its own, but it was an understood and unwritten rule already at our table when I added it to my sessions 0. It works especially well when examples are given, like fighting trolls, and 'to roleplay your character' isn't a foreign concept to them.

Yes, I did say the info could be right or wrong. I did not say it was always wrong.


I think the operative question here is.

As a DM, do you have any means other than fiat to argue that a character couldn't know what their player knows?

...

Yes. They have never encountered it before, being first and foremost. Lack of experience (low level), low knowledge skills or not proficient, rarity of monsters...just to name a few.

[strangebloke]

Yes. They have never encountered it before, being first and foremost. Lack of experience (low level), low knowledge skills or not proficient, rarity of monsters...just to name a few.

But I've never met a basilisk. Does my character only exist on screen? Is it mechnically optimal to spend multiple sessions reading aloud the in-universe version of Volo's Guide to Monsters?

[pwykersotz]

Tension is probably my best answer, though depending on the table and the time, there is also a vestige of "DM vs Players" in this disagreement. This isn't new. It's been a thing since the Greyhawk supplement was published in 1975. DMs discovered that those who had the books and were up on monsters were harder to surprise, and harder to give the "this is dangerous and deadly" vibe to than those who had not.

There is an element of tension that comes with going into the unknown and dangerous underground ruin that loses its edge when what's down there is known or at least familiar. The entire process of discovery used to be a part of the joy of the game. See also "No Spoilers" or "Spoiler Alert" warnings in the internet age.

The depth and degree of how much, or how little, of this tension makes for an enjoyable game varies since it's a matter of taste, just as how deep into horror one goes is a matter of taste in a variety of RPGs.

All absolutely true. I don't see how that applies to player vs character though, I see it more an issue that arises when the players attain system mastery. My experience has been that if you're trying to build tension based on the unknown for experienced players, you had probably best create something new.

[Sorinth]

This always seems to me like a Session Zero debate, that should be settled before the campaign really gets underway.

Some people really dig the idea of a campaign that's all about RP and in-world authenticity. If the PCs spot a basilisk, they have all agreed to look right at it unless somebody rolls a knowledge check saying that's a bad idea, in which case they can quickly educate the rest of the party.

For other groups, combat/dungeons/puzzles are challenges to be won that exist sort of outside the realm of RP. Of course you can narratively fluff your actions or spells or ideas, but the actual planning and execution is done by the players, who are trying to win the battle/solve the puzzle/overcome the dungeon with whatever resources are available to them. If they can come up with a way to wrap it in RP fluff, great. If not, nobody loses sleep over it. And in the aforementioned basilisk example, anyone who's played D&D and knows what a basilisk is will avert their eyes, while RP reasons take a backseat.

I don't think there is anything intrinsically right or wrong about either of those approaches, so long as everyone in the group is on board with what that approach is. Personally, I prefer Approach 2 for a multitude of reasons, but sometimes I hear about people playing an Approach 1 kind of game, and think to myself "That sounds like it could be fun, maybe to try once!"

Where this gets difficult is when not everyone in the game is on that same page. PCs approach the basilisk, the rogue is like "I'm not looking it in the face," DM is like "Well how does your rogue know that." And the rogue PC says "I mean... why is that important. I'm not gonna voluntarily risk petrification to 'boost immersion,' or whatever." DM explains Approach 1, rogue says screw that, now we're having an argument.

If everyone agreed to be in the same kind of game, then these issues seldom occur. But if the aim of this thread is to pick which one you prefer, I vote Approach 2.

Well said. This pretty much sums it up, there isn't a right or wrong way to approach. Everyone should be on the same page with regards to how it should be, and it's not even a DM vs Player thing. If different players are taking a different approach it will just as often lead to out of game "drama" too.

In terms of what I prefer, as a player I used to be approach 2, but over the years I've moved more an more towards approach 1 so that would be my vote. As a DM, I care less about which approach we take, just don't say you want to use approach 1 but then act like approach 2.

[Christew]

My experience with it is extremely limited (mostly limited to heresay), but from my understanding, FATE is a system that takes this into account. The game is more optimal when you take risks and act in-character for both your strengths and your weaknesses, as it rewards you for both. At least, that's with my very-limited understanding of it.
FATE and 5e is an interesting juxtaposition. I don't have a ton of experience with it either, but the stunt/aspect/scene mechanics definitely automatically emphasize storytelling over gamesmanship.


As a DM, do you have any means other than fiat to argue that a character couldn't know what their player knows?

The only way you can reasonably argue that a player can't know something, IMO, is when its something incredibly specific on the order of "That Ice Devil just used his ice wall ability, he can't use it again for approximately 36 seconds!! Or "don't go there, the monster has 45 foot movement speed, you need to stay exactly 50 feet away!"
This is a great way to frame the question. I think setting specifics would be another reasonable answer, though.

[Sorinth]

But I've never met a basilisk. Does my character only exist on screen? Is it mechnically optimal to spend multiple sessions reading aloud the in-universe version of Volo's Guide to Monsters?

Isn't that the whole point of making the check in the first place?

Did your character read Volo's Guide to Monsters or did he read a similar book but the author made most of it up in an effort to make it seem cooler and sell more copies? If you assigned attributes/skills a certain way, if you put certain things in your background then the odds of your character having the right information increase, if you didn't make those character choices the odds of your character having the correct information is less.

[strangebloke]

Isn't that the whole point of making the check in the first place?

Did your character read Volo's Guide to Monsters or did he read a similar book but the author made most of it up in an effort to make it seem cooler and sell more copies? If you assigned attributes/skills a certain way, if you put certain things in your background then the odds of your character having the right information increase, if you didn't make those character choices the odds of your character having the correct information is less.

If the DM wishes to enforce a check, they can. But this doesn't mean that they have to, or that they should. As a trivial example, you would never ask someone to roll nature to identify a horse or a dog, that's ridiculous! My +3 Intelligence wizard rolled a one and now they don't know what a dog is? What a silly scenario! Maybe you would call for a check if they were from the underdark and had never seen such an animal, but certainly not normally. Some basic knowledge is always going to be assumed on the part of the character.

So then the question comes. What's fair game?

I'd argue pretty much anything related to system mechanics. After all, for our little PCs, the system is just a description of their world, and they live in it! It'd be pretty weird if Steve, who works at a 7/11 and plays DND for 3-4 hours a week on average knows more about the setting than Throgdor Thewmighty, who has slain 100 foes and has travelled the world and communed with spirits and gods and devils. Even a low-level character like Samwise has heard stories. Not all of it is accurate, of course, but that's... actually pretty descriptive of how accurate my players' knowledge of Volo's is. "Ah, ****, a priestess of Luthic... they're spellcasters, right? Do they have spiritual weapon??"

The key thing here is that fundamentally making a character more limited than the person playing them undercuts the power fantasy of DND. At least IMO, knowledge checks are for when the player wants to know more than what they do. You don't roll to let your character know what your player knows, you roll if your character might know more than the player does. There's a decent chance Thogdor Thewmighty knows more about animals than you do, after all, even if he's not proficient in that skill.

[Brookshw]

Did your character read Volo's Guide to Monsters or did he read a similar book but the author made most of it up in an effort to make it seem cooler and sell more copies? If you assigned attributes/skills a certain way, if you put certain things in your background then the odds of your character having the right information increase, if you didn't make those character choices the odds of your character having the correct information is less.

Excerpt from Akbar's Discount Book of Monsters: It is important to note that Dragons are incredibly fragile creatures. Not only are their wings extremely vulnerable, but to be able to fly they've evolved hollow bones which leave them very weak and easily injured. In addition, their ability to fly (not to mention, breath fire) is the result of a high density of flammable and buoyant gases which permeate their biology and aid them in in gaining lift. This, in turn, makes any dragon, especially the fire breathing variety, extremely vulnerable to fire. It is speculated by some that these weaknesses have led to high mortality rates which resulted in the relatively low population rates we see for the species.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I make a lot of my setting-specific information public on the setting wiki. Players are allowed to use their own discretion as to how much of that their characters know.

As for monster stuff--while in setting, there are wide differences in how well some things are known[1], I'm not going to say anything if the players have their characters be more well informed than the average. And I do default to "knowledge-type checks are degrees of success above a stupidly low bar".

However, I do openly state that lots of things in my setting depart from the books. Especially culturally. Stat-blocks? I'm usually pulling a stat block that "looks right" and using it for something completely different. So player beware. As well, in-setting sources (which is the viewpoint of most of the wiki) are not always right, and certainly not always complete.

In my experience, I have more fun when the question isn't "what do you know" most of the time, but instead is "what do you do with what you know?"

[1] Dilligas Husty, the bard from the Jungle of Fangs area, would have never seen an orc at level 1. Or even heard more than wild tales. Heck, she'd likely have never seen a dragonborn or a halfling. Tsun Azur, halfling paladin from the Sea of Grass, would have never seen an ophidian (yuan-ti). But each would be very familiar with what the other one doesn't know about. And neither of them would know what the heck a trikine[2] was. They're all familiar with all of it now, of course.
[2] a three-headed mutant cow native to the Great Eastern Dustlands, whose milk can be distilled into an incendiary or lamp fuel. And who tend to explode on death.

[Demonslayer666]

But I've never met a basilisk. Does my character only exist on screen? Is it mechnically optimal to spend multiple sessions reading aloud the in-universe version of Volo's Guide to Monsters?

If those answers aren't good enough reasons for you, state why, not other reasons why you would know. I already covered if you think your character would know with possibly allowing a roll, and how that info could be wrong.

In-universe is very subjective. It may or may not exist in a DM's game.

[Sorinth]

If the DM wishes to enforce a check, they can. But this doesn't mean that they have to, or that they should. As a trivial example, you would never ask someone to roll nature to identify a horse or a dog, that's ridiculous! My +3 Intelligence wizard rolled a one and now they don't know what a dog is? What a silly scenario! Maybe you would call for a check if they were from the underdark and had never seen such an animal, but certainly not normally. Some basic knowledge is always going to be assumed on the part of the character.

So then the question comes. What's fair game?

I'd argue pretty much anything related to system mechanics. After all, for our little PCs, the system is just a description of their world, and they live in it! It'd be pretty weird if Steve, who works at a 7/11 and plays DND for 3-4 hours a week on average knows more about the setting than Throgdor Thewmighty, who has slain 100 foes and has travelled the world and communed with spirits and gods and devils. Even a low-level character like Samwise has heard stories. Not all of it is accurate, of course, but that's... actually pretty descriptive of how accurate my players' knowledge of Volo's is. "Ah, ****, a priestess of Luthic... they're spellcasters, right? Do they have spiritual weapon??"

The key thing here is that fundamentally making a character more limited than the person playing them undercuts the power fantasy of DND. At least IMO, knowledge checks are for when the player wants to know more than what they do. You don't roll to let your character know what your player knows, you roll if your character might know more than the player does. There's a decent chance Thogdor Thewmighty knows more about animals than you do, after all, even if he's not proficient in that skill.

I mean you can do the same thing for anything. If a character wants to tie someone up with some rope, some DMs might ask for a check and if you roll a 1 you forget how to tie a knot and the rope just falls to the ground untied.

The problem with these examples is not that there was a check but how you are interpreting a failed check. A failed nature check to identify a horse doesn't mean you don't know it's a horse, it means you miss out on some other information. For example maybe the failure means you don't recognize that this horse is a specific breed that is exclusively bred as mounts for royalty and that a non-royal riding that type of horse is a grave insult.

And yes if Throgdor Thewmighty background was that he worked in the royal stables there would be no need to make a check he would auto-succeed to find out that extra piece of knowledge. That's all just the basics of DMing, what's fair game is naturally up to the DM not least because it can change from one setting to another. If playing in the Sword Coast of FR then every adventurer would know that fire is needed to kill a troll because trolls are common enough. But in some setting where trolls are exceptionally rare then it wouldn't be common knowledge and the character will either straight up not know or make a check.

Throgdor knowing more then Steve about world is the whole point of the skill check. It's to give Steve information that Throgdor might know. But to dismiss the possibility that Steve knows things about the world that Throgdor doesn't is nonsense. If Throgdor is newly arrived to this area because he's such a world traveler his chance of knowing that there is a special breed of horse reserved specifically for royalty is going to be low. He's not from the area but maybe he heard about it, so we roll to find out if Throgdor actually knows or not. Meanwhile Steve who is playing Throgdor because his old character died last session and that character was a prince of this royal line and so knows not only knows about this special breed of horse, but that the horses are descended from Pegasi and that the royals would give nearly anything to someone who could bring an actual Pegasus so that they could breed with it.

[Reach Weapon]

As a DM, do you have any means other than fiat to argue that a character couldn't know what their player knows?
If the DM has already indicated enough familiarity with the creature encountered to accurately deduce it's named type, I don't see why the players should assume less than complete knowledge, or why it wouldn't fall to the DM to explain the extent of that familiarity.

[strangebloke]

If those answers aren't good enough reasons for you, state why, not other reasons why you would know. I already covered if you think your character would know with possibly allowing a roll, and how that info could be wrong.

In-universe is very subjective. It may or may not exist in a DM's game.

What I'm saying is that "they're low level and haven't encountered this monster before" is not sufficient to justify them not knowing what an owlbear is. You can't prove that they wouldn't know about it. Owlbears aren't freakish 1-of-a-kind monsters.


I mean you can do the same thing for anything. If a character wants to tie someone up with some rope, some DMs might ask for a check and if you roll a 1 you forget how to tie a knot and the rope just falls to the ground untied.

The problem with these examples is not that there was a check but how you are interpreting a failed check. A failed nature check to identify a horse doesn't mean you don't know it's a horse, it means you miss out on some other information. For example maybe the failure means you don't recognize that this horse is a specific breed that is exclusively bred as mounts for royalty and that a non-royal riding that type of horse is a grave insult.
Oh sure, but that's skew of my point. A player won't need to make a check unless they're trying to determine something beyond "its a horse."


And yes if Throgdor Thewmighty background was that he worked in the royal stables there would be no need to make a check he would auto-succeed to find out that extra piece of knowledge. That's all just the basics of DMing, what's fair game is naturally up to the DM not least because it can change from one setting to another. If playing in the Sword Coast of FR then every adventurer would know that fire is needed to kill a troll because trolls are common enough. But in some setting where trolls are exceptionally rare then it wouldn't be common knowledge and the character will either straight up not know or make a check.Sure, that makes sense! But this is my point: The impetus should be on the DM to prove why a check is required beyond simple fiat. In this case you've proved why the character couldn't know about trolls so it'd be legit to require a troll-identification roll. But such scenarios are by necessity rare.


Throgdor knowing more then Steve about world is the whole point of the skill check. It's to give Steve information that Throgdor might know. But to dismiss the possibility that Steve knows things about the world that Throgdor doesn't is nonsense. If Throgdor is newly arrived to this area because he's such a world traveler his chance of knowing that there is a special breed of horse reserved specifically for royalty is going to be low. He's not from the area but maybe he heard about it, so we roll to find out if Throgdor actually knows or not. Meanwhile Steve who is playing Throgdor because his old character died last session and that character was a prince of this royal line and so knows not only knows about this special breed of horse, but that the horses are descended from Pegasi and that the royals would give nearly anything to someone who could bring an actual Pegasus so that they could breed with it.
This is well outside the reach of tactical considerations and gets into the specificity of information I talked about earlier. Specific setting/campaign/character information someone would have no way to know in character is a completely different beast from "knowing about vampires." In this case, as I said earlier, its trivial to prove why Throgdor wouldn't know the breed of horse for free.

If the DM has already indicated enough familiarity with the creature encountered to accurately deduce it's named type, I don't see why the players should assume less than complete knowledge, or why it wouldn't fall to the DM to explain the extent of that familiarity.

yeah this is a good rule of thumb. When I do throw some kind of cosmic horror at my party, I will usually refer to it as "a dark, twisting thing" and refuse to name it. Sure, it might be be a modified sorrowsworn or something but if its supposed to be un-nameable, I'm not going to name it, because that defeats the purpose of the mystery.

This is why the "roll to know vampyr" thing is so annoying.
DM: "The vampire ends its turn"
Player: "Okay, since this is a vampire...."
DM: "Hold up, how does jim KNOW its a vampire??"
Player: "I..."
DM: "ROLL RELIGION"

[Carlobrand]

This always seems to me like a Session Zero debate, that should be settled before the campaign really gets underway. ...

Agreed. The game is first and foremost supposed to be fun. That means it should reflect the preferences of the gamemaster and his players, and some DMs and groups are ok with acting on player knowledge. However, telling a player his character cannot act on the knowledge in his own head amounts to an informal rule, and players need to know the rules up-front.

It's also situational. Dragons are the stuff of legend, campfire stories, and bards' tales. I am not going to complain that everyone knows a black dragon spits acid. And, it's not exactly a great leap to assume an ice devil is immune to cold damage. Too, the characters themselves, even at first level, are not neophytes. Fighters start into the game comfortable in armor, skilled in a fighting style, and with a couple of noncombat skills to their credit. I'm perfectly willing to say there's a chance they encountered some more obscure fact about the characteristics of ice devils while listening to the stories of their fellow warriors at some point before they started their adventuring career: make an intelligence check. Certainly a cleric might claim a proficiency bonus since demons are the sort of thing that are likely to crop up in religious training, and a wizard certainly could if he took the Arcana skill. Most folk are pretty reasonable if you literally give them a chance.

Where the debate comes in is what kind of things might be common knowledge and what kind of things require a roll - and how we handle it. My thing is: there's a hell of a lot of knowledge out there, and not all of it sticks. I had to memorize the capitals of all 50 states in the eighth grade; I doubt I could get more than 5 of them correct today, but I do know the capital of the state I happen to be living in. If a wizard wants to tell me that extraplanar beings are a wizard's stock in trade and wizards should just know that ice devils are, curiously enough, immune to fire, I would answer: "You are correct, and that was almost certainly in one of your training classes. Now, do you remember it? Please roll." On the other hand, I as a DM cannot object if he avoids his usual go-to fire spells in this particular combat - his choice of tactics is his own. I might however reduce the experience awarded a bit if a fighter blurts it out to everyone, then fails his intelligence check to see if he knew that, but the team as a whole nonetheless changes their strategy, because that datum made the fight a bit easier for them than it might have been. It really depends on how egregious the issue is.

[Sorinth]

Oh sure, but that's skew of my point. A player won't need to make a check unless they're trying to determine something beyond "its a horse."

Sure, that makes sense! But this is my point: The impetus should be on the DM to prove why a check is required beyond simple fiat. In this case you've proved why the character couldn't know about trolls so it'd be legit to require a troll-identification roll. But such scenarios are by necessity rare.

This isn't a common monster in this setting/campaign so you might not know much about any abilities/weakeness, roll a XXX check. Is that enough "proof" or is that DM fiat.


This is well outside the reach of tactical considerations and gets into the specificity of information I talked about earlier. Specific setting/campaign/character information someone would have no way to know in character is a completely different beast from "knowing about vampires." In this case, as I said earlier, its trivial to prove why Throgdor wouldn't know the breed of horse for free.

Does "knowing about vampires" mean the character knows that casting Banishment on a creature ends the Vampire Charm effect? Because that seems dubious, there's a vast gulf between your grandmother telling you stories of blood sucking creatures of the night called Vampires and therefore your characters know about vampires and tactically useful information like that particular trick.

[Carlobrand]

...Does "knowing about vampires" mean the character knows that casting Banishment on a creature ends the Vampire Charm effect? Because that seems dubious, there's a vast gulf between your grandmother telling you stories of blood sucking creatures of the night called Vampires and therefore your characters know about vampires and tactically useful information like that particular trick.

That would be a wicked argument, and not one that I as a gamemaster am certain I could win. The party observes that one of their number is behaving uncharacteristically, is treating the foe as a trusted friend, etc. when the party had regarded him as a dangerous foe. Without more information than that, the cleric banishes the foe to another plane, reasoning correctly that if the foe is casting some form of charm spell and is not present to communicate with the afflicted party member, the afflicted party member cannot be influenced by the foe, and the worst they'd have to deal with is him raising objection about his trusted friend being teleported away someplace - that and a royally pissed off foe returning to that spot in about a minute. The afflicted party member is not likely to become violent just because his friends in the party teleported away his friend the foeman; at worst he's just going to be very pissed. The party can lead the affected member away and deal with his anger elsewhere. The cleric doesn't even need to know the foe is a vampire; that works on pretty much anyone who tries to charm someone, and using magic to charm people is common enough that most people would suspect magic if a friend started acting strangely. The only clue that the charm was vampiric is the afflicted member becoming free of the spell when the vampire is banished rather than complaining bitterly about his friend being teleported off for the next hour. I would be hard pressed to prove that the cleric acted on specific knowledge of the details of a vampire's charm ability.

Your point is correct: knowledge of the existence of a creature does not translate to detailed knowledge of its specific strengths and weaknesses. But, the devil hides in the details. Making a claim that the player acted inappropriately is likely to lead to the kinds of arguments that really spoil the fun. Best be very, very certain before making such an allegation, and best be prepared to back off if the player can offer some alternate rationale for their actions.

[Sorinth]

That would be a wicked argument, and not one that I as a gamemaster am certain I could win. The party observes that one of their number is behaving uncharacteristically, is treating the foe as a trusted friend, etc. when the party had regarded him as a dangerous foe. Without more information than that, the cleric banishes the foe to another plane, reasoning correctly that if the foe is casting some form of charm spell and is not present to communicate with the afflicted party member, the afflicted party member cannot be influenced by the foe, and the worst they'd have to deal with is him raising objection about his trusted friend being teleported away someplace - that and a royally pissed off foe returning to that spot in about a minute. The afflicted party member is not likely to become violent just because his friends in the party teleported away his friend the foeman; at worst he's just going to be very pissed. The party can lead the affected member away and deal with his anger elsewhere. The cleric doesn't even need to know the foe is a vampire; that works on pretty much anyone who tries to charm someone, and using magic to charm people is common enough that most people would suspect magic if a friend started acting strangely. The only clue that the charm was vampiric is the afflicted member becoming free of the spell when the vampire is banished rather than complaining bitterly about his friend being teleported off for the next hour. I would be hard pressed to prove that the cleric acted on specific knowledge of the details of a vampire's charm ability.

Your point is correct: knowledge of the existence of a creature does not translate to detailed knowledge of its specific strengths and weaknesses. But, the devil hides in the details. Making a claim that the player acted inappropriately is likely to lead to the kinds of arguments that really spoil the fun. Best be very, very certain before making such an allegation, and best be prepared to back off if the player can offer some alternate rationale for their actions.

Banishing the Vampire absolutely makes sense, it even makes sense to do if nobody is charmed as you can have everyone gather themselves, ready an action for when the vampire comes back, essentially getting a free round of actions. So yeah I don't think there would be any accusations or arguments for someone using Banishment on the vampire. They may well discover that it does in fact break the charm as a side bonus. I think the original example was the PC using Banishment on the charmed PC to break the charm, and that's where it makes sense for the DM to say hold up, why do you think that would break the charm?

[KorvinStarmast]

I make a lot of my setting-specific information public on the setting wiki. Players are allowed to use their own discretion as to how much of that their characters know.
It's really cool that this kind of tool is now available; we didn't have this back in the day, and I like being able to look up a little bit but not have to go down the 'lore' or 'canon' rabbit hole. {I am a player in Phoenix' game world}


In my experience, I have more fun when the question isn't "what do you know" most of the time, but instead is "what do you do with what you know?"
Yeah, that works for a lot of tables.

[1] Dilligas Husty, the bard from the Jungle of Fangs area, would have never seen an orc at level 1. Or even heard more than wild tales. Heck, she'd likely have never seen a dragonborn or a halfling. Tsun Azur, halfling paladin from the Sea of Grass, would have never seen an ophidian (yuan-ti). But each would be very familiar with what the other one doesn't know about. And neither of them would know what the heck a trikine[2] was. They're all familiar with all of it now, of course.
[2] a three-headed mutant cow native to the Great Eastern Dustlands, whose milk can be distilled into an incendiary or lamp fuel. And who tend to explode on death. OK, now we have to go to the Great Eastern Dustlands, since Tsun will want to adopt one. :smallbiggrin:

This isn't a common monster in this setting/campaign so you might not know much about any abilities/weakeness, roll a XXX check. Is that enough "proof" or is that DM fiat.
Does "knowing about vampires" mean the character knows that casting Banishment on a creature ends the Vampire Charm effect? Because that seems dubious, there's a vast gulf between your grandmother telling you stories of blood sucking creatures of the night called Vampires and therefore your characters know about vampires and tactically useful information like that particular trick. I have two questions.
What was the first edition of D&D that you played?
Why do you hate your players? :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

There is a reverse metagame. There are things characters know or should know the player hasn't a clue to what it is nor even know they should be asking the DM a question about it.

On the player's side, this is where they can asks for knowledge checks, especially on monsters they are facing. A player may know what a mindflayer can do, but a successful roll gives him permission for his character to act upon that knowledge. Even if the player doesn't know what a mindflayer can do, his character certainly can. A successful roll has the DM tell the player the needed information and the player acts upon it. A DM has to get over it players know to use fire or acid against trolls and silver against lycanthropes without rolls because in gamedom it's too iconic. Why those and not the mindflayer? There is no satisfactory answer.

On the DM's side the DM prompts for a roll. The party encounters a statue. The DM asks the cleric player to roll Knowledge Religion. Success means he recognizes it as this ancient culture's depiction of a deity which can mean something depending on adventure context. Failure means no information given and it's proper for the DM to disallow piggyback and deny the wizard a roll when the player prompts because of the failure, unless the DM deems it possible for the wizard to know. When it comes to battling a monster the DM can prompt for a roll, but usually a player would do it.

Sometimes though, the DM and/or a player needs to get over it generally. Accept the party responds to knowing the monster without a roll because the players know. It might be best for that particular gaming group. It can get just as silly everyone pretending not to know stuff. It's stupid for the wizard player to keep casting Fire Bolt against the Wyrmling Red Dragon because how dare he metagame knowing the dragon is immune.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sometimes though, the DM and/or a player needs to get over it generally. Accept the party responds to knowing the monster without a roll because the players know. It might be best for that particular gaming group. It can get just as silly everyone pretending not to know stuff. It's stupid for the wizard player to keep casting Fire Bolt against the Wyrmling Red Dragon because how dare he metagame knowing the dragon is immune. Overall nice post, and your last paragraph (which I heartily endorse) works great at an actual table where real people actually play, but is not as well received in a theory-crafting-mechanics-obsessed site like GiTP. Thus the optimization and RAW psychosis that 3.x furthered (there were ample serving of that before, let's not kid ourselves) continues to poison the well.

[Sorinth]

I have two questions.
What was the first edition of D&D that you played?
Why do you hate your players? :smallbiggrin:

1e, but 2e is probably the more correct answer as I was quite young when playing 1e and can barely remember it whereas 2e I played for a long time and can remember much better. Does that explain why I hate my players :smalltongue:

[Abracadangit]

There is a reverse metagame. There are things characters know or should know the player hasn't a clue to what it is nor even know they should be asking the DM a question about it.

On the player's side, this is where they can asks for knowledge checks, especially on monsters they are facing. A player may know what a mindflayer can do, but a successful roll gives him permission for his character to act upon that knowledge. Even if the player doesn't know what a mindflayer can do, his character certainly can. A successful roll has the DM tell the player the needed information and the player acts upon it. A DM has to get over it players know to use fire or acid against trolls and silver against lycanthropes without rolls because in gamedom it's too iconic. Why those and not the mindflayer? There is no satisfactory answer.

On the DM's side the DM prompts for a roll. The party encounters a statue. The DM asks the cleric player to roll Knowledge Religion. Success means he recognizes it as this ancient culture's depiction of a deity which can mean something depending on adventure context. Failure means no information given and it's proper for the DM to disallow piggyback and deny the wizard a roll when the player prompts because of the failure, unless the DM deems it possible for the wizard to know. When it comes to battling a monster the DM can prompt for a roll, but usually a player would do it.

Sometimes though, the DM and/or a player needs to get over it generally. Accept the party responds to knowing the monster without a roll because the players know. It might be best for that particular gaming group. It can get just as silly everyone pretending not to know stuff. It's stupid for the wizard player to keep casting Fire Bolt against the Wyrmling Red Dragon because how dare he metagame knowing the dragon is immune.

Agree, especially with the "get over it" clause. This is why I never have a problem with it in my games, when players do this -- part of the fun of playing D&D for years is you know the tropes. The medusa turns you to stone, the troll needs fire/acid to stop regenerating, and so on, and being savvy to those details makes you feel like you know the world because you've been adventuring in it long enough.

There's another unpleasant element which happens in the games with metagame police: players will start trying to come up with clever ways of ACTING like they're discovering the information organically, so they have an excuse to know that thing moving forward. And if you're a DM who realizes that's happening and doesn't think there's a problem, I don't know what to say. Like who's even having fun, at that point.

Plus if you're a DM and you have a problem with people knowing those things, just refluff the dang monster! Turn your displacer beasts into feywolves, or your trolls into bugaboos. Now when your players fight the bugaboo, they won't know how its regeneration works, and they have no reason to guess that it's fire/acid. I don't know why so many DMs want to stick to classic monsters, and then get so frustrated when players know how it operates.

[GeoffWatson]

There are many different vampire legends.
Why would the one your character heard be 100% correct, with every detail from the MM included?

[Carlobrand]

There are many different vampire legends.
Why would the one your character heard be 100% correct, with every detail from the MM included?

How to blow your players' minds: use the Monster Manual as a guide for what is commonly believed in that culture about those monsters, rather than as an accurate source of information.

[Cheesegear]

I think this is a tough one because it is a fine line. In Frogreavers example below, is that an abstraction of a savvy combatant using knowledge of reach and timing to best engage an enemy or a player unreasonably capitalizing on the mechanical underpinnings of the combat rules?

You can't stop this. Just like you couldn't stop it in real life.
People who are in life in death situations regularly, and especially hand-to-hand and martial fighters, know all about reach, moves and counter-moves. The mechanics of a fight, are very well known by those who participate in them. There are manuals and manuals dedicated to real-world weapon statistics and skirmish acumen.

I imagine that adventurers would know this.


Characters knowledge of monster stats/abilities vs players

This is more difficult to work with. Experienced players just know what a hostile's statblock is. You shouldn't have to cast a Lightning Bolt at a Behir to know that it's immune to Lighting. And forcing a player to burn a spell slot just to 'figure it out' seems needlessly pointless. I don't even like when a player who's never even seen a Behir before, casts Lightning Bolt at it. It just feels bad, man. And not in the good way. Maybe I might give a context clue, like y'know, the Bebhir breathes lightning. Typically hostiles that do that tend to be at least Resistant to their own element. Probably.

This is why a lot of DMs prefer to deal with less-experienced players because everything always feels fresh. Once you've fought a monster - even once - and you know its mechanics, it's very difficult, as a player, to unlearn it. And once you - the player - know what's up, having the DM say that you can't do something, because reasons, feels like a punishment, because you know the choice is wrong one to make.

This is actually an RP vs. G argument. I will always side with G. D&D is game first, roleplaying, second. Especially in combat, where it becomes the most game-like.


Does the barbarian stay silent because solving the puzzle is not something his character would do?

A Barbarian with -1 Int can still pass DC 15 Int checks 20% of the time.

Unless you, the DM have ruled that the Barbarian can't roll, for whatever reason, then the Barbarian should be allowed to roll the dice. If you rule that a roll simply isn't required, then the Barbarian should be allowed to speak, because he already has passed the roll by virtue of the fact that the roll wasn't required.


Do we just take the table as an abstraction of the party instead of the player as the character?

This happens all the time when a party member dies.
'Oh my [new] character wasn't here for that, I don't know about this and I don't know what this is about.'

Bulls*. What does your party do when they travel for three hours? What does your party do during Short Rests and/or Long Rests? During 'off-screen' time, I'm just going to assume that the characters don't vanish, and/or spend long periods of time just staring at each other in silence. I have to assume that the characters talk to each other, even when the players don't.

That being said, when a player does have something to add, I can hope that they do it in character. Like, 'Why does your character knows this? You were literally raised by wolves.' I'm not saying you don't know it. I'm just asking how, please roleplay. This is probably the way I most flesh out backstories. A lot of my players don't like writing backstories, and I don't ask for lengthy backstories, either. But there is such a thing as emergent gameplay - which is basically all of D&D - and one of my favourites is having players justify how their characters know something, when they shouldn't. Because the justification is almost always a crazy story (although sometimes it also is 'My Dad told me'...How did he know? 'Uhh...Oh. My Dad was a Ranger...'), and that story is now canon (e.g; Well now that it's canon that your Dad was a Ranger, you can justify a lot of things, and you can also use 'The School of My Dad Told Me' as part of your roleplaying and fleshing out your character in roleplaying situations).

[KorvinStarmast]

1e, but 2e is probably the more correct answer as I was quite young when playing 1e and can barely remember it whereas 2e I played for a long time and can remember much better. Does that explain why I hate my players :smalltongue: No, but thanks for giving me context. I've a good friend who loved 2e, didn't D&D for a long while and then came back for 5e and he's noticed that some of the "feel" is similar, for him. :smallsmile:

What's weird about the stuff E.G.G. wrote for 1e in the DMG, and the reports of how he actually DM'd games, is that he talked a tougher game (DM versus player) than he DM'd ... but as that's second, third, and fourth hand info who can really say? With 2e, the voice (in terms of writing style) changed considerably and (for my money) it was a positive change.

[Frogreaver]

There is a reverse metagame. There are things characters know or should know the player hasn't a clue to what it is nor even know they should be asking the DM a question about it.

On the player's side, this is where they can asks for knowledge checks, especially on monsters they are facing. A player may know what a mindflayer can do, but a successful roll gives him permission for his character to act upon that knowledge. Even if the player doesn't know what a mindflayer can do, his character certainly can. A successful roll has the DM tell the player the needed information and the player acts upon it. A DM has to get over it players know to use fire or acid against trolls and silver against lycanthropes without rolls because in gamedom it's too iconic. Why those and not the mindflayer? There is no satisfactory answer.

On the DM's side the DM prompts for a roll. The party encounters a statue. The DM asks the cleric player to roll Knowledge Religion. Success means he recognizes it as this ancient culture's depiction of a deity which can mean something depending on adventure context. Failure means no information given and it's proper for the DM to disallow piggyback and deny the wizard a roll when the player prompts because of the failure, unless the DM deems it possible for the wizard to know. When it comes to battling a monster the DM can prompt for a roll, but usually a player would do it.

Sometimes though, the DM and/or a player needs to get over it generally. Accept the party responds to knowing the monster without a roll because the players know. It might be best for that particular gaming group. It can get just as silly everyone pretending not to know stuff. It's stupid for the wizard player to keep casting Fire Bolt against the Wyrmling Red Dragon because how dare he metagame knowing the dragon is immune.

I always find it a bit weird when it's argued that in a make believe game that the players can't make believe their character doesn't know something. That said, when the game does become having the character act as though he doesn't know something you do - the player is stuck in the awful predicament of finding a way to justify to everyone why his character acted X way. It just places him in a different kind of metagame. One where the metagame is about justifying your character taking an action when you as the player want him to.

[False God]

I stopped bothering and developed a whole new approach to my games.

My games are now isekais.

I was tired of players who clearly knew what was what having to make rolls to pretend to be informed. It wasn't fun, it was irritating, especially if the knowledge was well known among my players. Double especially if the die rolled poorly. Everyone would groan at the fact that we now had to "role play" that we didn't know fire damage stopped troll regeneration (or other common things like dragons being color-coded for damage immunity).

So what do all those skill points do now you might ask? Just like how their characters know how to cast spells or use special attacks based on their class, their characters "know things". Skill-based knowledge checks just mean a person is extra good at it, their "body" seems to be extra good at diplomacy or deception, even if the IRL person was not.

Character knowledge becomes player knowledge, player knowledge becomes character knowledge. One unified whole.

Nothing has fundamentally changed about my games except that I no longer have to worry about meta-knowledge.

[strangebloke]

This isn't a common monster in this setting/campaign so you might not know much about any abilities/weakeness, roll a XXX check. Is that enough "proof" or is that DM fiat.
Depends on a million things, like "how uncommon are we talking" and "is your player going to accept this." But by far the most important question is: "Why is it worth arguing over?"

I could see an underdark campaign where the players have been sealed underground, venturing to the surface for the first time only to fight a monster of the surface world. The players might know "its an owlbear" but it could be fun in that instance to insist "you have no idea what this is, its terrifying."

Suffice to say that such situations are exceptions that prove the rule.

Does "knowing about vampires" mean the character knows that casting Banishment on a creature ends the Vampire Charm effect? Because that seems dubious, there's a vast gulf between your grandmother telling you stories of blood sucking creatures of the night called Vampires and therefore your characters know about vampires and tactically useful information like that particular trick.
Can you prove they couldn't know how to do that? Because they're 7th level, they've been talking shop with tons of other adventurers for weeks or months now, and vampires are a known thing. Once again I reiterate: the DM needs to be able to prove it to the player, or the player is going to walk away annoyed.

In my view, the DM meddling with a player's control over their own character, their ability to define their features, should be done very carefully and for good reason. Unless they're blatantly breaking the rules and/or disrupting the game by annoying other players, let them do what they want to do.

Sometimes though, the DM and/or a player needs to get over it generally. Accept the party responds to knowing the monster without a roll because the players know. It might be best for that particular gaming group. It can get just as silly everyone pretending not to know stuff. It's stupid for the wizard player to keep casting Fire Bolt against the Wyrmling Red Dragon because how dare he metagame knowing the dragon is immune.
Say it again! You should, its true!

Just get over it, DND isn't surgery, its messy and improvised and wonderfully ad hoc. Sometimes (usually) letting the play go forward is more important than being technically correct.

There are many different vampire legends.
Why would the one your character heard be 100% correct, with every detail from the MM included?
why wouldn't they be?

[RSP]

A couple things on this:

- Not every setting is “commoners know Vampires are vulnerable to Radiant damage.” The DM, not the Players, are supposed to control how their setting works. If the Player is taking their knowledge of the MM into the game, with the excuse of “my character learned this from stories from the tavern”, well that’s just taking the DM’s ability to world build and crapping on it. The DM is the one who determines what stories are told in taverns, not the Players.

- The whole point (as far as I can tell), of having monsters with various resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities, is to alter the challenge they would otherwise be to the characters, and add flavor to the creatures. That challenge is lessened if characters just know what to use or avoid in any given situation. As a DM, why use a Troll, if the Troll’s signature ability, it’s regeneration, is moot? You’re taking away part of what makes it a challenge. The flavor is moot, as the challenge is no longer “can the characters figure this out”, but rather, did the Players study the MM or adventure model enough?

- building on that, I believe encounters should be appropriately suited to the characters (not the Players). I, as a DM, can create encounters appropriate to the characters. I know their level and abilities and can build around that so each is relatively appropriate to some degree of easy, medium, difficult, deadly level, depending on what I’m going for.

I can’t build encounters based off of what Players know, as I don’t really have that insight. Further, my Players tend to have differing levels of experience, so what would be a good encounter built for one Player’s experience, might be a poor encounter for another’s.

- All in all, I feel if a DM is going to put the time and energy into world building and encounter designing, the least a Player can do is not try to undermine that effort. Doing so is just disrespectful to the effort the DM has put in.

Now, certainly, using the knowledge that fire stops a Troll’s Regeneration, is not the same level of a Player knowing that there’s a secret door in a certain the room, because they studied the module the DM is running the night before. But they are both examples of using Player knowledge to undermine the challenge created for the characters.

[Tanarii]

I detest knowledge checks. 5e Lore checks are to determine if you recall info you know right now in the heat of the moment, not determine the state of the character's knowledge. And that applies more generally, ability checks aren't designed to be state-of-your-character checks, they're resolution checks for if you can do something in the heat of the moment. (Note that automatic success with time rules cover things that are not heat of the moment.)

That said, if success or failure at something should depend on a character ability score, there should be a check involved. And vice versa. If there's not check with the ability score involved, it doesn't depend on that ability score. It depends on player and DM fiat.

Player-character separation is a myth. In that it's not something inherent. We have to draw artificial lines, we have to metagame, if we want to pretend that our character doesn't know something we do know. Reacting based on player knowledge of rules information isn't metagaming. Reacting based on the knowledge that you know something you know and your characters doesn't is metagaming.

Its impossible to have your character act as if you the player don't know the thing when you as a player know the thing. The best you can do make a best guess as to how your character might react if you the player didn't know the thing. And folks often get that wrong by just doing the opposite of what they would do. That's not the same thing. That's why ultimately player-character separation is a myth. It's impossible.

[Sorinth]

Its impossible to have your character act as if you the player don't know the thing when you as a player know the thing.

And yet the DM does it all the time with NPCs.

[RSP]

Its impossible to have your character act as if you the player don't know the thing when you as a player know the thing. The best you can do make a best guess as to how your character might react if you the player didn't know the thing. And folks often get that wrong by just doing the opposite of what they would do. That's not the same thing. That's why ultimately player-character separation is a myth. It's impossible.

Completely disagree. The entire nature of the game is the Players are pretending to be a character. When my character faces a demon, I (the Player) don’t freak out - I know it’s pretend.

Likewise, I can separate my knowledge of 5e Trolls from what my character knows, and, though I (the Player) know about the connection to the Regeneration and fire/acid, not use that knowledge, if my character wouldn’t know it.

[Reach Weapon]

- All in all, I feel if a DM is going to put the time and energy into world building and encounter designing, the least a Player can do is not try to undermine that effort. Doing so is just disrespectful to the effort the DM has put in.
As above, if the DM says troll, then it's the DM communicating all the information that carries to the table. If we're respecting the time and energy DMs are putting into confronting characters with creatures with which they are unfamiliar, it might help if the DM actually does that for the players.

[strangebloke]

A couple things on this:

- Not every setting is “commoners know Vampires are vulnerable to Radiant damage.” The DM, not the Players, are supposed to control how their setting works. If the Player is taking their knowledge of the MM into the game, with the excuse of “my character learned this from stories from the tavern”, well that’s just taking the DM’s ability to world build and crapping on it. The DM is the one who determines what stories are told in taverns, not the Players.
I would argue that the topics players look into in their down time is their purview. You might need to step in with a hard "that information isn't known here" in some cases (if they know some obscure detail about the location of some artifact for example) but this isn't something you should do lightly. Players hate being told they have to take actions they know are bad, and this isn't surprising. If they choose to do such a thing themselves, that's another matter entirely, but dictating that something widely known in our universe isn't known in the fictional universe will almost always garner a negative reaction.

Especially because, if a roll is required, the probability of a nominally 'smart and informed' character, even one with a relevant proficiency not knowing the detail is in fact pretty high. If you set the DC of knowing lycanthropes are weak to silver as being 10, a +2 INT level 5 fighter with nature proficiency still fails about 20% of the time. IME such a failed check will be deeply frustrating to a player.


- The whole point (as far as I can tell), of having monsters with various resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities, is to alter the challenge they would otherwise be to the characters, and add flavor to the creatures. That challenge is lessened if characters just know what to use or avoid in any given situation. As a DM, why use a Troll, if the Troll’s signature ability, it’s regeneration, is moot? You’re taking away part of what makes it a challenge. The flavor is moot, as the challenge is no longer “can the characters figure this out”, but rather, did the Players study the MM or adventure model enough?
Resistances and immunities are still tactically interesting if people know about them? Like, obviously? Players aren't always going to have trivial access to fire or radiant damage, and if they do have something like a flametongue or fire bolt, they were probably using it anyway. Heck, people build their characters around immunities and vulnerabilities. Its commonly known that poison and fire and necrotic damage can be resisted commonly. Indeed, in a game like Curse of Strahd players know going in that its helpful to build a character with radiant damage, so they do. Is that metagaming?

- building on that, I believe encounters should be appropriately suited to the characters (not the Players). I, as a DM, can create encounters appropriate to the characters. I know their level and abilities and can build around that so each is relatively appropriate to some degree of easy, medium, difficult, deadly level, depending on what I’m going for.

I can’t build encounters based off of what Players know, as I don’t really have that insight. Further, my Players tend to have differing levels of experience, so what would be a good encounter built for one Player’s experience, might be a poor encounter for another’s.

- All in all, I feel if a DM is going to put the time and energy into world building and encounter designing, the least a Player can do is not try to undermine that effort. Doing so is just disrespectful to the effort the DM has put in.

Now, certainly, using the knowledge that fire stops a Troll’s Regeneration, is not the same level of a Player knowing that there’s a secret door in a certain the room, because they studied the module the DM is running the night before. But they are both examples of using Player knowledge to undermine the challenge created for the characters.

I just think this is taking something that's very trivial altogether too seriously. "Making a knowledge check to know about trolls and fire" isn't an important or interesting part of an encounter. If a player wants to know something and it can be known via knowledge check, the usual thing that happens IME is that one guy will make the check, fail, and then everyone else makes the check, with raw RNG guaranteeing that someone knows about trolls and fire, at which point that character just yells "Burn him so he stops healing himself!!"

like, say you set the DC at 15 (really high for this sort of thing IMO) and the average modifier is a +0, that's a 84% chance of making it in a group of five.

[Segev]

And yet the DM does it all the time with NPCs.

He tries, but it's still difficult. As any player who uses illusion spells can attest.

[Pex]

I detest knowledge checks. 5e Lore checks are to determine if you recall info you know right now in the heat of the moment, not determine the state of the character's knowledge. And that applies more generally, ability checks aren't designed to be state-of-your-character checks, they're resolution checks for if you can do something in the heat of the moment. (Note that automatic success with time rules cover things that are not heat of the moment.)

That said, if success or failure at something should depend on a character ability score, there should be a check involved. And vice versa. If there's not check with the ability score involved, it doesn't depend on that ability score. It depends on player and DM fiat.

Player-character separation is a myth. In that it's not something inherent. We have to draw artificial lines, we have to metagame, if we want to pretend that our character doesn't know something we do know. Reacting based on player knowledge of rules information isn't metagaming. Reacting based on the knowledge that you know something you know and your characters doesn't is metagaming.

Its impossible to have your character act as if you the player don't know the thing when you as a player know the thing. The best you can do make a best guess as to how your character might react if you the player didn't know the thing. And folks often get that wrong by just doing the opposite of what they would do. That's not the same thing. That's why ultimately player-character separation is a myth. It's impossible.

Semantics. It makes no significance difference in the combat if the wizard rolling a knowledge check is doing so to determine what he knows about the abilities of the mindflayer or the check is to determine how much he can remember at the moment the mindflayer appears and the party is saying "oh feces!'

[strangebloke]

He tries, but it's still difficult. As any player who uses illusion spells can attest.

I think playing stupidly on purpose is possible. It's easy to play a big dumb undead monster who just rushes whatever's in his field of vision. It's when you want to play someone who's nominally quite smart but has bad information that things get difficult.

[False God]

I would argue that the topics players look into in their down time is their purview. You might need to step in with a hard "that information isn't known here" in some cases (if they know some obscure detail about the location of some artifact for example) but this isn't something you should do lightly. Players hate being told they have to take actions they know are bad, and this isn't surprising. If they choose to do such a thing themselves, that's another matter entirely, but dictating that something widely known in our universe isn't known in the fictional universe will almost always garner a negative reaction.

Especially because, if a roll is required, the probability of a nominally 'smart and informed' character, even one with a relevant proficiency not knowing the detail is in fact pretty high. If you set the DC of knowing lycanthropes are weak to silver as being 10, a +2 INT level 5 fighter with nature proficiency still fails about 20% of the time. IME such a failed check will be deeply frustrating to a player.


Resistances and immunities are still tactically interesting if people know about them? Like, obviously? Players aren't always going to have trivial access to fire or radiant damage, and if they do have something like a flametongue or fire bolt, they were probably using it anyway. Heck, people build their characters around immunities and vulnerabilities. Its commonly known that poison and fire and necrotic damage can be resisted commonly. Indeed, in a game like Curse of Strahd players know going in that its helpful to build a character with radiant damage, so they do. Is that metagaming?


I just think this is taking something that's very trivial altogether too seriously. "Making a knowledge check to know about trolls and fire" isn't an important or interesting part of an encounter. If a player wants to know something and it can be known via knowledge check, the usual thing that happens IME is that one guy will make the check, fail, and then everyone else makes the check, with raw RNG guaranteeing that someone knows about trolls and fire, at which point that character just yells "Burn him so he stops healing himself!!"

like, say you set the DC at 15 (really high for this sort of thing IMO) and the average modifier is a +0, that's a 84% chance of making it in a group of five.

Everything this, so much this.

That's why I changed the way I run games. Meta-knowledge does not by-and-large, aid the players or their characters. Knowing there's a secret door behind the throne doesn't equate to finding the button that opens it. Knowing where both are still doesn't add up to a whole lot, because the other obstacles after that secret door may still exist.

All you've essentially done is skip a half-dozen "Spot", "Investigation", "Perception" (or their ilk) checks until someone finally rolls high enough to find it. The meta-knowledge just lets people skip the boring part "finding the door" and move on to the interesting part "where the door leads". The challenge isn't the door, the challenge is what the door leads to. Monsters, rooms full of traps, whatever. Even if a player knows every detail about each of those things, those challenges still need to be resolved. Aggressive monsters need to be fought and defeated. Cunning monsters need to be reasoned with or avoided. Traps need to be disarmed or avoided. Those checks are the interesting ones, and they're ones that specific meta knowledge often has little bearing on. So what if you know the treasure demon needs the Magic Treasure, you still have to go get it for them.

The fun and the interesting and the challenge is in the doing not the knowing.


I think playing stupidly on purpose is possible. It's easy to play a big dumb undead monster who just rushes whatever's in his field of vision. It's when you want to play someone who's nominally quite smart but has bad information that things get difficult.

It's especially worsened when it's a smart player combined with a smart character, who is stymied by bad rolls.

[Tanarii]

Semantics. It makes no significance difference in the combat if the wizard rolling a knowledge check is doing so to determine what he knows about the abilities of the mindflayer or the check is to determine how much he can remember at the moment the mindflayer appears and the party is saying "oh feces!'Many times, yes.

But it's an important difference if you assume the character generally knows what the player knows as a starting point. Because in that case, the player (possibly in collaboration with the DM) can determine the character doesn't know something the player does without rolling. And the DM and/or player can decide if the character does know something instead of rolling, then decide if they need a check or not to remember right now. And the DM can call for a roll when the player is forgetting something their character has already been told, or had the information and hasn't put it together but the character might.

That's still kind of semantics, but viewing it differently gives a different view on when you might call for a check at all. As opposed to defaulting to "roll Bear Lore to see if you knows that bears crap in the woods", it follows the standard form of 5e checks:
1) determine if it's automatically successful or automatically a failure
2) if not determine if you have time to succeed without a check
3) if not determine if it's a secret result from the player / time saver for multiple rolls for the same thing done repeatedly by the PC (passive check)
4) set the DC.


And yet the DM does it all the time with NPCs.No they don't.

DMs (try to) have NPCs act as if the DM is doing their best to pretend that the DM doesn't know thing thing that they actually know.
That is very different from the DM having NPCs act as if the DM doesn't know the thing. That's only possible by the DM not knowing the thing.

There's no actual separation. And the first may differ wildly from the second. And there's no way to know when they actually happen to line up, because you can't be in two realities at once to check.

[Segev]

DMs (try to) have NPCs act as if the DM is doing their best to pretend that the DM doesn't know thing thing that they actually know.
That is very different from the DM having NPCs act as if the DM doesn't know the thing. That's only possible by the DM not knowing the thing.

There's no actual separation. And the first may differ wildly from the second. And there's no way to know when they actually happen to line up, because you can't be in two realities at once to check.

"Tell me, again, why you invented a multiverse-portal and brought dozens of yourself here to this dimension?" "See, I run a D&D game, and I wanted to be sure my NPCs weren't acting on information I know and they don't, so I pulled copies of myself that aren't running this game over to have them run the NPCs for me."

[Carlobrand]

...DMs (try to) have NPCs act as if the DM is doing their best to pretend that the DM doesn't know thing thing that they actually know.
That is very different from the DM having NPCs act as if the DM doesn't know the thing. That's only possible by the DM not knowing the thing. ...

That is one powerful confusion spell. I am totally confused.

[Christew]

That is one powerful confusion spell. I am totally confused.
This killed me. +1

DMs (try to) have NPCs act as if the DM is doing their best to pretend that the DM doesn't know thing thing that they actually know.
That is very different from the DM having NPCs act as if the DM doesn't know the thing. That's only possible by the DM not knowing the thing.
I think we are differentiating between true ignorance and the feigned ignorance.

For me, my NPCs are known values -- either I know how much they know because they are a significant actor in the world/narrative or they are undifferentiated until the PCs start talking to them and I figure it out on the fly.

[Segev]

For me, my NPCs are known values -- either I know how much they know because they are a significant actor in the world/narrative or they are undifferentiated until the PCs start talking to them and I figure it out on the fly.

It's not a question of whether you know WHAT they know. It's a question of how they will act given only what they know, despite you knowing more.

Illusions are my go-to for this, because DMs I know who are otherwise very good at DMing will frequently have NPCs and monsters ignore or otherwise act differently with illusions than they would if the spell that was cast instead created a real thing. It's like they can't escape the knowledge that the illusion isn't real, even in the game's narrative, and thus can't figure out how the NPCs and monsters WOULD act if they WERE real.

[Tanarii]

That is one powerful confusion spell. I am totally confused.


This killed me. +1I like it too. :smallamused:


I think we are differentiating between true ignorance and the feigned ignorance. I certainly am. And they will result in different behavior. A lot of folks act like they're the same thing when talking about player-character separation. Like they're good at feigning ignorance, so they can be absolutely sure they're acting as if the character (or NPC) were actually ignorant.


It's not a question of whether you know WHAT they know. It's a question of how they will act given only what they know, despite you knowing more.

Illusions are my go-to for this, because DMs I know who are otherwise very good at DMing will frequently have NPCs and monsters ignore or otherwise act differently with illusions than they would if the spell that was cast instead created a real thing. It's like they can't escape the knowledge that the illusion isn't real, even in the game's narrative, and thus can't figure out how the NPCs and monsters WOULD act if they WERE real.Classic arguments for players seem to always revert to trolls and fire/acid or vampires and various vulnerabilities. But I agree illusions are probably a more common issue, at least on the DMs side. Because people seem to assume the DMs true knowledge won't affect things, or their feigning of ignorance won't affect things in a different way from actual ignorance.

Even multiverse DMs running their monsters won't fix that, if it's announced what the spell is when it's cast.

[Sorinth]

It's not a question of whether you know WHAT they know. It's a question of how they will act given only what they know, despite you knowing more.

Illusions are my go-to for this, because DMs I know who are otherwise very good at DMing will frequently have NPCs and monsters ignore or otherwise act differently with illusions than they would if the spell that was cast instead created a real thing. It's like they can't escape the knowledge that the illusion isn't real, even in the game's narrative, and thus can't figure out how the NPCs and monsters WOULD act if they WERE real.

I mean if you are creating a "thing" which I assume to be monster how would you know they are acting different. Even if it's not an illusion it's often far better to attack the summoner and try to break concentration then to fight the summon. And I've never not seen minor illusion used to momentarily distract a guard fail to distract the guard. I think the problem is more likely that some players/DM have differing opinions on what illusions can do.

Now I'm sure there are times the DM does fail to properly differentiate his knowledge from the NPC, but I doubt anyone would argue that the DM shouldn't at least try. So why shouldn't the players also not at least try even if they aren't 100% successful at it.

[Pex]

Everything this, so much this.

That's why I changed the way I run games. Meta-knowledge does not by-and-large, aid the players or their characters. Knowing there's a secret door behind the throne doesn't equate to finding the button that opens it. Knowing where both are still doesn't add up to a whole lot, because the other obstacles after that secret door may still exist.

All you've essentially done is skip a half-dozen "Spot", "Investigation", "Perception" (or their ilk) checks until someone finally rolls high enough to find it. The meta-knowledge just lets people skip the boring part "finding the door" and move on to the interesting part "where the door leads". The challenge isn't the door, the challenge is what the door leads to. Monsters, rooms full of traps, whatever. Even if a player knows every detail about each of those things, those challenges still need to be resolved. Aggressive monsters need to be fought and defeated. Cunning monsters need to be reasoned with or avoided. Traps need to be disarmed or avoided. Those checks are the interesting ones, and they're ones that specific meta knowledge often has little bearing on. So what if you know the treasure demon needs the Magic Treasure, you still have to go get it for them.

The fun and the interesting and the challenge is in the doing not the knowing.



It's especially worsened when it's a smart player combined with a smart character, who is stymied by bad rolls.

I get the point but can't fully agree. There is fun in the mystery and discovery of the secret door, that moment of "AHA!". I can accept it as a character feature, such as a character proficient/expertise in Perception and Investigation who takes Observant feat the DM just flat out says there's a secret door here, a trap there etc. The player spent the resources and gets to enjoy the fruit of that labor.

However, I have been the player who has already played the module in a previous gaming group the party is playing. The game is different because of different players and PC, but the module sets are the same. Of course I let the DM know. What I do is purposely let the other players take the lead. They do the investigations. I go along with their plans. I do my thing when I know I'm dealing with something not in the module or at least it was never encountered when I played it, so I really don't know what's supposed to happen.

[False God]

I get the point but can't fully agree. There is fun in the mystery and discovery of the secret door, that moment of "AHA!". I can accept it as a character feature, such as a character proficient/expertise in Perception and Investigation who takes Observant feat the DM just flat out says there's a secret door here, a trap there etc. The player spent the resources and gets to enjoy the fruit of that labor.
Frankly, we don't really need dice to enjoy the discovery of the room. That's sort of my rant here. Yes, it is possible to inspect every corner of a room and miss the clue. But...that's lame. My point is more that the dice don't make a good story. If the party takes the time to search the throne and inspect the chest of drawers, they should find the clue. The dice shouldn't get to say that the last 20 minutes of thoughtful investigation were a waste of everyone's time because we all rolled low.


However, I have been the player who has already played the module in a previous gaming group the party is playing. The game is different because of different players and PC, but the module sets are the same. Of course I let the DM know. What I do is purposely let the other players take the lead. They do the investigations. I go along with their plans. I do my thing when I know I'm dealing with something not in the module or at least it was never encountered when I played it, so I really don't know what's supposed to happen.
A player who knows the information can certain take this route, I know I have. But this is different. The player who knows can always suppose information that the party may be missing, sometimes the party overthinks things and misses the obvious. A Player Who Knows can suggest "Hey, what about that old bookshelf in the last room? Something about it is just bothering me."
(As a personal aside, I don't play printed campaigns multiple times for this reason. One or two runs is it. Unless I know it's a DM who mixes things up a little each runthrough. Even DMs who do homebrew worlds but have Their World*TM* I try to avoid playing multiple times.)

But that's kind of my point, A Player Who Knows should be able to reasonably introduce Useful Meta-Information when it is beneficial to the flow of gameplay. They shouldn't be handcuffed into pretending they don't know know because the dice rolled poorly.

To put a point on my point, my complaint is handcuffing knowledgeable players that could provide useful, relevant, and tactical information in situations by insisting on a die-roll between their brain and their character. While TTRGPs use dice to resolve many things, the dice themselves do not make for a good game, and certainly don't tell a good story.

Fate Points and the like are an excellent way to do this if you want to provide some kind of limitation on meta knowledge. To make the Player Who Knows more judicious about when and what information they inject into the game. Just not dice. Having to play the buffoon for no reason other than the random number generator came up short isn't the sort of gameplay I'm interested in engaging in (from either side of the table).

[Christew]

It's not a question of whether you know WHAT they know. It's a question of how they will act given only what they know, despite you knowing more.
I guess I view DM knowledge about setting and narrative intent as absolute, and a given NPC's knowledge as a deliberately defined (by the DM) subset thereof. Making it a functionally known quantity for the DM because they are in control of the operations affecting the unknown value. Again, I strongly differentiate the approach to important NPCs and general NPCs.

Illusions are my go-to for this, because DMs I know who are otherwise very good at DMing will frequently have NPCs and monsters ignore or otherwise act differently with illusions than they would if the spell that was cast instead created a real thing. It's like they can't escape the knowledge that the illusion isn't real, even in the game's narrative, and thus can't figure out how the NPCs and monsters WOULD act if they WERE real.

But I agree illusions are probably a more common issue, at least on the DMs side. Because people seem to assume the DMs true knowledge won't affect things, or their feigning of ignorance won't affect things in a different way from actual ignorance.
I agree that illusions are a difficult space due to rule ambiguity and strong deference to DM interpretation, but I think an assumption of benign DMing over adversarial DMing alleviates most of my concerns. Use illusions to benefit the scene/story, not to "gotcha" players in a game where you hold all the cards.

[Christew]

Frankly, we don't really need dice to enjoy the discovery of the room. That's sort of my rant here. Yes, it is possible to inspect every corner of a room and miss the clue. But...that's lame. My point is more that the dice don't make a good story. If the party takes the time to search the throne and inspect the chest of drawers, they should find the clue. The dice shouldn't get to say that the last 20 minutes of thoughtful investigation were a waste of everyone's time because we all rolled low.
I think this cuts both ways. The dice are the unknown quantity/variability. They should definitely not be in charge of telling the story, but they are a valuable tool in telling an interesting story. A DM knowing when/why to call for dice rolls and having a clear notion of gain/failure and how either will affect the players/narrative at that given point is an ideal solution, but probably not a given at every table.

But that's kind of my point, A Player Who Knows should be able to reasonably introduce Useful Meta-Information when it is beneficial to the flow of gameplay. They shouldn't be handcuffed into pretending they don't know know because the dice rolled poorly.
I get a little uncomfortable rewarding system mastery more than the system already does inherently. I think abstracting the table as a whole is my most comfortable solution to this (i.e. if someone at the table knows detailed info about vampires it is likely someone in the party knows detailed info about vampires). I am not inclined to reward a given player for extra game knowledge, but I will reward the party.

To put a point on my point, my complaint is handcuffing knowledgeable players that could provide useful, relevant, and tactical information in situations by insisting on a die-roll between their brain and their character. While TTRGPs use dice to resolve many things, the dice themselves do not make for a good game, and certainly don't tell a good story.
This. "Roll to limit your knowledge" is never fun for anyone. As always (and mentioned above by many), Good DM + Good Players + Session Zero (with agreed upon expectations) = ideal.

[strangebloke]

I also think that DMs just frankly have different pressures and expectations on them. It's fine to expect DMs to play NPCs who don't act with the DMs full knowledge. To me, this is part of the job, and part of the fun of the job. DMs get the privilege of making many characters and defining everything about them. This is counterbalanced of course, by their increased responsbility to, well. Be responsible with their power. Many a DM has gone mad with the power of getting to make characters that do and know EVERYTHING.

Players only get one character, and are more limited in terms of what they can do. They have responsibilities as well, but its proportionate to their relative power in the game, and they're fundamentally different. One such responsibility to be attached to their character and to try to help the party 'win.' Nobody likes playing with a disaffected player who doesn't really care how things end.

This responsibility (to be engaged and try to win) runs contrary to the responsibility to "not god-mode" and exploit OOC knowledge. If you want to win and you do know vampires are vulnerable to radiant and you do have a way of dealing radiant damage, and you can reasonably justify your character knowing such a thing, its going to be very hard to force yourself to consider the opposite situation where you don't know that thing. You might have chosen the radiant option even without knowing that fun fact.

As far as avoiding metagaming, DMs have many advantages, the most important of which is that they aren't under any impetus to want their guys to win. Yes the DM has the job of making things challenging, but a good DM fundamentally has to be okay with their NPCs getting ultimately beaten by the PCs. This is the order of the universe. They also have the benefit of preparation. It's easy to know how Jimmy the Rat will react when someone lies to him, because I've already prepared notes for what he'd be willing to offer the party if he views them as friends.

In summary, Player/Character separation is conducive to good play for a DM and one of their most necessary skills, but for players its contradictory to their other responsibilities at the table. It's ironically easier to figure out a character's actions when you're not quite so much "in character."

[Christew]

In summary, Player/Character separation is conducive to good play for a DM and one of their most necessary skills, but for players its contradictory to their other responsibilities at the table. It's ironically easier to figure out a character's actions when you're not quite so much "in character."
Great stuff.

I think the previously mentioned player running through a campaign for the second time is an illustrative example. That player becomes a quasi-DM in the second run through in the sense that their stimulus/goal has shifted from novelty/personal success to supporting others' novelty/narrative success.

[False God]

I think this cuts both ways. The dice are the unknown quantity/variability. They should definitely not be in charge of telling the story, but they are a valuable tool in telling an interesting story. A DM knowing when/why to call for dice rolls and having a clear notion of gain/failure and how either will affect the players/narrative at that given point is an ideal solution, but probably not a given at every table.
Certainly, and it can be something that is difficult to learn when a roll is really necessary. I know there are some people who think "More rolling=more fun." and hey if they enjoy that good for them. I'd just personally rather not leave everything up to chance.


I get a little uncomfortable rewarding system mastery more than the system already does inherently. I think abstracting the table as a whole is my most comfortable solution to this (i.e. if someone at the table knows detailed info about vampires it is likely someone in the party knows detailed info about vampires). I am not inclined to reward a given player for extra game knowledge, but I will reward the party.
I always run group XP, and I encourage players (both when I'm DM and when I'm not) to use their system mastery powers for the good of the group.


This. "Roll to limit your knowledge" is never fun for anyone. As always (and mentioned above by many), Good DM + Good Players + Session Zero (with agreed upon expectations) = ideal.
Yep, which is, going back to my first post, why I now run "isekais".

[Tanarii]

Frankly, we don't really need dice to enjoy the discovery of the room. That's sort of my rant here. Yes, it is possible to inspect every corner of a room and miss the clue. But...that's lame. My point is more that the dice don't make a good story. If the party takes the time to search the throne and inspect the chest of drawers, they should find the clue. The dice shouldn't get to say that the last 20 minutes of thoughtful investigation were a waste of everyone's time because we all rolled low. Its also following the RAW. The DMG tells the DM to do exactly that. There's an explicit rule to handle automatic success do to being able to continue doing a task until you succeed by just taking ten times as long, never having to touch the dice.


I also think that DMs just frankly have different pressures and expectations on them. It's fine to expect DMs to play NPCs who don't act with the DMs full knowledge. To me, this is part of the job, and part of the fun of the job. To me, you just said it's part of the DMs job to do something that isn't possible for a human being to do without actually not having the full knowledge. If you said it was part of the DMs job "to expect DMs to pretend to play their NPCs who don't act with the DMs full knowledge" I'd agree.

Because there is a huge difference between pretending you don't know something, and actually not knowing it. There's no reason to think they'll result in the same actions.

[kazaryu]

Break-off thread based on OP request.

How do you manage the inherent tension between player knowledge and character knowledge at the table?
- Tactical metagaming vs RP informed combat
I think this is a tough one because it is a fine line. In Frogreavers example below, is that an abstraction of a savvy combatant using knowledge of reach and timing to best engage an enemy or a player unreasonably capitalizing on the mechanical underpinnings of the combat rules? I think here I'd default to the former. It's tough to guage intent and if it could be fine it should be fine. i generally support tactical metagaming. Ultimately, the largest portion of 5e's rules are there to control combat, specifically tactical combat. Also, most of the fun of combat *is* the tactics. i don't want to reduce player fun by removing information that allows a player to think tactically (unless of course that is part of the monsters tactics. i.e. darkness/invisibility...**** like that). and for that example specifically, i can see how that works in narrative. Its about timing your strike (or spell, or whatever) in sync with an allys. think of like...fighting games, or some hack'n'slash games. where the goal isn't to just spam the attack button. instead you slow down by 200ms, just long enough for the game to register a 'pause'.


- Characters knowledge of monster stats/abilities vs players
I think the tavern construct is an interesting angle here. Do we hand wave character knowledge of vampires because they would have heard stories in taverns? Would that be an effective source of objective information about vampires or a melange of tall tales, outright falsehoods, and grains of truth? I think practicability becomes a concern here. Differing character knowledge has some verity to it and could be a great source of fun, but is that worth the prep/table time it would require? this is, IMO, precisely the role of an intelligence check. For one, the players don't decide how common knowledge of vampires is, the DM does. So sure, the player could say 'hey, i've heard about vampires in like a tavern or some ****'. And the DM may be fine with that, but it absolutely doesn't guarantee that the information they heard was accurate, useful, or that they remember it. Im not sure what you mean by it costing table/prep time though? it makes sense to me that PC's don't know everything. and there should always (or at least commonly generally) be some amount of choice between 'we can go now, unprepared, and hopefully stop future victims. or risk more victims, but wait to see if we can learn more information. That is, assuming a PC doesn't just roll well enough to recall the information.

That being said, i also monkey with monsters some behind the screen. and i don't usually outright tell players what they're fighting. if the player draws their own conclusion, and then metagames off of that conclusion...and they're wrong. then thats on them. Im open about this from the start. so like...not every troll you fight is guaranteed to need fire/acid damage to stop their regen...and not every creature i describe is going to match their description in the book. they may even match other creatures descriptions (although that last part is mostly just due to coincidence. i don't have literally every creatures aesthetic memorized, and i refuse to hold myself responsible if i create an aesthetic description that matches one of the hundreds of mythological creatures out there and it ends up confusing a player that wants to metagame.



- Player abilities vs character abilities
I have seen this most clearly with puzzles. The 20 INT wizard is played by a person with no puzzle acumen while the 8 INT barbarian is played by an avid puzzler. Does the barbarian stay silent because solving the puzzle is not something his character would do? Do we just take the table as an abstraction of the party instead of the player as the character? Here I think I default to the former for reasons of practicability, though I have whispered puzzle hints/solutions to the highest INT character before.

Quotes from other thread for context.

i actually don't think thats a very good example. intelligence isn't a measure of enjoyment of, or even proficiency at, puzzles. an 8 int barbarian might actually quite enjoy puzzles, even if it typically takes them a while to finish one. While the 20 intelligence wizard may despise puzzles, and not like to spend their time on them. The type of puzzle, in particular, can also affect this. one person may enjoy (and be good at) crosswords, but they refuse to try sudoku. So, ultimately, its up to the player what their character is interested in. And i'd never admonish a player for trying to engage with a puzzle they believe their character to be interested in. look at it this way: if its a puzzle designed to engage the players, then their characters stats already don't matter (some DM's do this. they may even give the players a physical puzzle to solve.) and if its a puzzle thats only being solved in character, then the characters stats already reflect how effective they are. if the 20int wizard rolls a 3+11 and the barbarian rolls a 19-1...thats not an indication of the barbarian being smarter than the wizard, its just the barbarian trying something the wizard hadn't gotten to yet. to put it in sudoku terms, if the wizard is going through sequentially starting at 1's and moving up. looking for any obvious entries, but the barbarian just, arbitrarily starts at 5. The barbarian will find the free 5 first. Doesn't mean the wizard missed it, they just hadn't gotten to that step yet.

[strangebloke]

To me, you just said it's part of the DMs job to do something that isn't possible for a human being to do without actually not having the full knowledge. If you said it was part of the DMs job "to expect DMs to pretend to play their NPCs who don't act with the DMs full knowledge" I'd agree.

Because there is a huge difference between pretending you don't know something, and actually not knowing it. There's no reason to think they'll result in the same actions.

That should go without saying, no? DND is a role-playing game. Its all pretend. We're not actually elves and gnomes, however hard we wish otherwise.

My key point is that DMs and players have different responsibilities, and different resources, and this favors some level of player character separation.

[Pex]

Tweaking a troll so that it's lightning that stops regeneration is fine, I suppose, as long as the party gets to learn that in the combat. A troll wearing a ring of fire resistance is also ok. However, it can get to the point where it stops being tweaking and starts being adversarial, to punish the player for the audacity of having played the game before.

[kazaryu]

Tweaking a troll so that it's lightning that stops regeneration is fine, I suppose, as long as the party gets to learn that in the combat. A troll wearing a ring of fire resistance is also ok. However, it can get to the point where it stops being tweaking and starts being adversarial, to punish the player for the audacity of having played the game before.

as far as it becoming adversarial, thats not really determined by the degree of change, but by the reason for said change. Most of the time I alter monsters its because i dislike how they are to begin with, from a narrative standpoint. Or because of something else i've established in my setting. For example, i significantly altered how all angels work so that they're not just...higher tiers of exactly the same thing. (and actually adjusted some of the higher CR ones so that they fit their lore better). I haven't actually run an altered troll, i was just using it as an example, because its a common example made by people that are pro metagaming. 'i've heard about trolls in stories, etc.'

to be clear: i don't alter how monsters work *because* im worried about players metagaming. I just don't feel any obligation to stick to the monster manual in my homebrew setting, so i will make changes that i feel make sense given...well any number of things. however, incidentally, this also means that players that metagame are inherently taking a risk. But other than that, i don't really care if a character just, out of the blue, decides that suddenly it wants to use fire in this fight. There are more important things to focus on as far as fun goes, and i have other ways of hiding my monster's abilities if its important to the current adventure.

[False God]

i actually don't think thats a very good example. intelligence isn't a measure of enjoyment of, or even proficiency at, puzzles. an 8 int barbarian might actually quite enjoy puzzles, even if it typically takes them a while to finish one. While the 20 intelligence wizard may despise puzzles, and not like to spend their time on them. The type of puzzle, in particular, can also affect this. one person may enjoy (and be good at) crosswords, but they refuse to try sudoku. So, ultimately, its up to the player what their character is interested in. And i'd never admonish a player for trying to engage with a puzzle they believe their character to be interested in. look at it this way: if its a puzzle designed to engage the players, then their characters stats already don't matter (some DM's do this. they may even give the players a physical puzzle to solve.) and if its a puzzle thats only being solved in character, then the characters stats already reflect how effective they are. if the 20int wizard rolls a 3+11 and the barbarian rolls a 19-1...thats not an indication of the barbarian being smarter than the wizard, its just the barbarian trying something the wizard hadn't gotten to yet. to put it in sudoku terms, if the wizard is going through sequentially starting at 1's and moving up. looking for any obvious entries, but the barbarian just, arbitrarily starts at 5. The barbarian will find the free 5 first. Doesn't mean the wizard missed it, they just hadn't gotten to that step yet.

On the subject of puzzles:

If you are providing your players with a real physical representation of the puzzle(crosswords and sudokus also count), then it is a player challenge, and the high or low int of the character should have no bearing on the resolution.*

If the puzzles are abstracted or impossible to represent with a real-world companion, then it is a character challenge and all that matters is a die roll.

*Note: the IRL puzzle is still part of the game, or at least a representation of part of the game. So if an IRL puzzle is unable to be solved, a DM should allow a die roll to resolve the puzzle.

Puzzles are notoriously problematic in role-playing games, in large part because many of them are inherently player challenges, not character challenges. That's sort of the problem with this player/character boundary line, some parts of RPGs are actually intended to cross it and challenge the player, not the character.


Tweaking a troll so that it's lightning that stops regeneration is fine, I suppose, as long as the party gets to learn that in the combat. A troll wearing a ring of fire resistance is also ok. However, it can get to the point where it stops being tweaking and starts being adversarial, to punish the player for the audacity of having played the game before.
Or worse, it's to punish the player for critically thinking and resolving a challenge the DM thought was 'really super-duper hard' fairly quickly. In my experience, adversarial DMs take a lot of approaches to punishment, but ultimately it's all wanting to punish creative thinking.

[Abracadangit]

In my experience, adversarial DMs take a lot of approaches to punishment, but ultimately it's all wanting to punish creative thinking.

An elegant distillation of a serious problem.

There are DMs who view the campaign as a way for players to creatively solve problems, with innovative spell uses and/or being resourceful, and there are DMs who see every encounter as having 1 or 2 solutions, and if you try to think outside of their box, they promptly shut it down.

Granted, sometimes it's the player who needs to chill ("No, you can't mage hand the assassin's poison dagger out of its sheath and stab him with it"), but there are so many DMs who struggle with the control thing. Sometimes it's inexperience, but sometimes it's their whole DMing philosophy, which is usually impossible to amend.

[False God]

An elegant distillation of a serious problem.

There are DMs who view the campaign as a way for players to creatively solve problems, with innovative spell uses and/or being resourceful, and there are DMs who see every encounter as having 1 or 2 solutions, and if you try to think outside of their box, they promptly shut it down.
Yep, and often it's because that DM wants to be seen as the "smart one" who is sooooo clever as to have come up with this thing noone else can figure out! It's often paired with worst offenders of DMPCs who seem to always know the answer, have the special resolution or are just right there in a pinch when the party needs to be saved from the totally OP encounter.


Granted, sometimes it's the player who needs to chill ("No, you can't mage hand the assassin's poison dagger out of its sheath and stab him with it"), but there are so many DMs who struggle with the control thing. Sometimes it's inexperience, but sometimes it's their whole DMing philosophy, which is usually impossible to amend.
Well....It'd need to be a Stealth check first, then a Silent Spell(it's V,S). Then it's a Sleight of Hand check to grab the dagger. Then it's an attack roll. I'd allow this, but it's a multi-step process to assassinate and assassin. Those players whose reigns need to pulled often try the "one die roll resolution" for what is actually a really complex attempt. I'd rather 3 reasonable die rolls than one super-hard-almost-impossible roll.

Anyway, yeah, it's all a control thing, wanting to be seen as the best. Adversarial DMs are typically adversarial people. Unfortunately a lot of time can get sunk into a game before a player figures it out.

[Tanarii]

Knowing that D&D trolls require fire and using it isn't critical or creative thinking.

[Abracadangit]

Knowing that D&D trolls require fire and using it isn't critical or creative thinking.

Or... IS IT!?

I kid, it's evidently not, but I think what we're talking about isn't so much that hitting the troll with fire is "creative" in the literal sense of the word, but that it represents a step outside what the DM had planned. Like the DM has this script in their head: "Okay, first the PCs are going to attack the troll, but hoo-boy, the look on their faces when they find out it can REGENERATE"

Then one or more of the PCs is like "Trolls, right? So we have to tag it with fire or acid to disable the regen," and then the DM gets very indignant, "No no no, your CHARACTERS wouldn't know that, so how could YOU know that. I'm gonna need you guys to flail around for at least 3 rounds before someone tries a fire spell."

So in this example, using fire to weaken a troll isn't "creative" in terms of ingenuity, but it's contrary to the DM's plans, so it's "creative" in the sense of being unplanned.

[Tanarii]

I kid, it's evidently not, but I think what we're talking about isn't so much that hitting the troll with fire is "creative" in the literal sense of the word, but that it represents a step outside what the DM had planned. Like the DM has this script in their head: "Okay, first the PCs are going to attack the troll, but hoo-boy, the look on their faces when they find out it can REGENERATE"

Then one or more of the PCs is like "Trolls, right? So we have to tag it with fire or acid to disable the regen," and then the DM gets very indignant, "No no no, your CHARACTERS wouldn't know that, so how could YOU know that. I'm gonna need you guys to flail around for at least 3 rounds before someone tries a fire spell."
So what you're talking about is a failure in critical and creative thinking on the part of the DM.

Relevant: https://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

[Reynaert]

Or... IS IT!?

I kid, it's evidently not, but I think what we're talking about isn't so much that hitting the troll with fire is "creative" in the literal sense of the word, but that it represents a step outside what the DM had planned. Like the DM has this script in their head: "Okay, first the PCs are going to attack the troll, but hoo-boy, the look on their faces when they find out it can REGENERATE"

Then one or more of the PCs is like "Trolls, right? So we have to tag it with fire or acid to disable the regen," and then the DM gets very indignant, "No no no, your CHARACTERS wouldn't know that, so how could YOU know that. I'm gonna need you guys to flail around for at least 3 rounds before someone tries a fire spell."

Yeah, that's the bit I really really have trouble with. If a player knows something that their character doesn't, it's actually very hard to roleplay not knowing it, without falling into the trap of "anti-knowing" it.

What if firebolt is your go-to damaging cantrip? What if your typical fight-opener is to triple-scorching-ray (or fireball) the biggest baddie?

Or even worse, what if there is some (logical or not) line of reasoning that concludes fire is a good option to try first, for someone who actually doesn't know fire is a solution?

It's like going to a job interview where the HR guy asks one of those brainteaser puzzles they seem to love so much, but you already know the answer, and you need to convince them that you're only now coming up with the solution because if you admit you knew it already, you wouldn't get the job.

[Demonslayer666]

What I'm saying is that "they're low level and haven't encountered this monster before" is not sufficient to justify them not knowing what an owlbear is. You can't prove that they wouldn't know about it. Owlbears aren't freakish 1-of-a-kind monsters.
You don't know how common owlbears are in the game until you discuss it with the DM. You can claim they are super duper common all you want, but you as a player do not dictate behavior in the DM's world.



...Character knowledge becomes player knowledge, player knowledge becomes character knowledge. One unified whole.

Nothing has fundamentally changed about my games except that I no longer have to worry about meta-knowledge.

This promotes what I feel is cheating. When you spout off all the resistances the encounter has because you read up on it between sessions, that makes the game a lot less fun for everyone.


Its impossible to have your character act as if you the player don't know the thing when you as a player know the thing. The best you can do make a best guess as to how your character might react if you the player didn't know the thing. And folks often get that wrong by just doing the opposite of what they would do. That's not the same thing. That's why ultimately player-character separation is a myth. It's impossible.
Really? Because I can easily pretend not to know the formula to make gunpowder all day long. It's not impossible. Inaction on knowledge you don't have is easy.

[Segev]

Really? Because I can easily pretend not to know the formula to make gunpowder all day long. It's not impossible. Inaction on knowledge you don't have is easy.

Sure. But is choosing between attacking with firebolt and magic missile "easy" when you know that the creature is immune to fire but your character does not? Or when you know the creature is particularly vulnerable to fire but your character does not?

[KorvinStarmast]

You don't know how common owlbears are in the game until you discuss it with the DM. You can claim they are super duper common all you want, but you as a player do not dictate behavior in the DM's world. With this I'll agree as it's a world building issue.

This promotes what I feel is cheating. When you spout off all the resistances the encounter has because you read up on it between sessions, that makes the game a lot less fun for everyone.
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. (The bit in italics) Or it's a matter of taste.

Really? Because I can easily pretend not to know the formula to make gunpowder all day long. It's not impossible. Inaction on knowledge you don't have is easy. But I can never unlearn two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun. That commercial jingle (or maybe we now call things like that an earworm) is in perma memory.

So too is a troll's regeneration and fire slowing that down.

[Reach Weapon]

This promotes what I feel is cheating. When you spout off all the resistances the encounter has because you read up on it between sessions, that makes the game a lot less fun for everyone.
What information is the DM providing that your hypothetical "cheater" is translating into accurate listings of resistances?

If the DM is trying to dictate character knowledge and experience, ought not they explicitly do that, one way or another?

[PhoenixPhyre]

If player/character knowledge separation is impossible, then does that mean it's not only ok but expected for the DM to have all the creatures act with full conscious knowledge of the players' plans, positions, capabilities, etc? Because the DM is a player as well, and thus what he knows cannot be separated from what the characters know. To me, that's well beyond what's acceptable, and a DM who acted that way would be justifiably open to criticism of being antagonistic and player-hostile. And not role-playing at all.

Role-playing relies on there being a difference (at least in principle) between the character and the actor. Otherwise it becomes a tautology--"acting like the character would" and "acting like I would" are thus identical. And if there's a difference, there must be a difference in knowledge.

And having character knowledge == player knowledge makes a total hash out of the idea of fictional worlds. Because that would imply that the characters know about the history of Earth, plus things like nuclear weapons, etc. Things that do not and cannot exist in <fictional world> and for which the knowledge has never and can never reach <fictional world>. And vice versa--the characters know lots of things (including basic sensory data) that we cannot know. The smell of a trikine's explosive farts. Because trikine don't exist here.

Thus, I cannot accept the idea that player/character separation is a myth. It's foundational to any form of roleplay that does not take place in the current world (with no differences) and with the people sitting around the table. Ie any roleplay at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thus, I cannot accept the idea that player/character separation is a myth. It's foundational to any form of roleplay that does not take place in the current world (with no differences) and with the people sitting around the table. Ie any roleplay at all. The two sets overlap. They are not disjointed sets. (Or whatever the new term is for sets that have zero in common)

[strangebloke]

You don't know how common owlbears are in the game until you discuss it with the DM. You can claim they are super duper common all you want, but you as a player do not dictate behavior in the DM's world.

There's a handy bit of signaling that goes on here. When the DM describes the monster, does he say "an owlbear emerges from the cave, roll initiative." or "a huge beast emerges from the cave, covered in both feathers and fur, with great claws and a sharps beak... Roll Initiative."

But I think that if a DM is going to draw a hard line and claim that something is a rare and unknowable species, they better have a damned good reason. People in medieval Denmark knew what a lion was. Heck, they knew what a rhino was.


This promotes what I feel is cheating. When you spout off all the resistances the encounter has because you read up on it between sessions, that makes the game a lot less fun for everyone.
If the fun of the game is rolling knowledge checks to determine stuff you know OOC then you're a very different person from me.


Really? Because I can easily pretend not to know the formula to make gunpowder all day long. It's not impossible. Inaction on knowledge you don't have is easy.
That's mostly because its not relevant to game mechanics. Neither is a working knowledge of the stock market. Deciding whether to cast fire bolt or not is relevant.


If player/character knowledge separation is impossible, then does that mean it's not only ok but expected for the DM to have all the creatures act with full conscious knowledge of the players' plans, positions, capabilities, etc? Because the DM is a player as well, and thus what he knows cannot be separated from what the characters know. To me, that's well beyond what's acceptable, and a DM who acted that way would be justifiably open to criticism of being antagonistic and player-hostile. And not role-playing at all.

Role-playing relies on there being a difference (at least in principle) between the character and the actor. Otherwise it becomes a tautology--"acting like the character would" and "acting like I would" are thus identical. And if there's a difference, there must be a difference in knowledge.

And having character knowledge == player knowledge makes a total hash out of the idea of fictional worlds. Because that would imply that the characters know about the history of Earth, plus things like nuclear weapons, etc. Things that do not and cannot exist in <fictional world> and for which the knowledge has never and can never reach <fictional world>. And vice versa--the characters know lots of things (including basic sensory data) that we cannot know. The smell of a trikine's explosive farts. Because trikine don't exist here.

Thus, I cannot accept the idea that player/character separation is a myth. It's foundational to any form of roleplay that does not take place in the current world (with no differences) and with the people sitting around the table. Ie any roleplay at all.

I've written about this upthread. But DMs and players have different responsibilities. A DM is supposed to provide challenges, but critically isn't supposed to care about their guys winning. They get a huge amount of latitude as far as making their NPCs and giving them abilities, and they get to roleplay more than anyone, but the price they pay here is that they have to practice player character separation. They need to be disengaged. They need to be okay with the PCs winning. To this end, a DM will often prepare specific notes about how a character will react to a certain sort of stimuli.

Players are not supposed to be detached like this. They're supposed to care about winning. They're supposed to be involved, get hype, get scared. It's a huge part of the experience. They only get to play one character and the rules give them less latitude, but they're allowed encouraged even to win, and win as hard as they can. Obviously someone who powergames too much can be disruptive, but the reverse extreme, the player who doesn't even care whether their character lives or dies and has to be poked with a stick to contribute anything, is far worse.

Player/character separation becomes difficult under these conditions, and overall isn't worth it. It's fundamentally unfun if the player who enjoys puzzles and is good at them is prevented from engaging with the puzzle because his character has 9 INT. Possible, but not much fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

But DMs and players have different responsibilities. A DM is supposed to provide challenges, but critically isn't supposed to care about their guys winning. They get a huge amount of latitude as far as making their NPCs and giving them abilities, and they get to roleplay more than anyone, but the price they pay here is that they have to practice player character separation. They need to be disengaged. They need to be okay with the PCs winning. To this end, a DM will often prepare specific notes about how a character will react to a certain sort of stimuli. Which is how I've played them (NPCs) for longer than I can remember. I didn't ever need some self appointed expert at the Forge to tell me to be a fan of the PCs.

Players are not supposed to be detached like this. They're supposed to care about winning. They're supposed to be involved, get hype, get scared. It's a huge part of the experience. They only get to play one character and the rules give them less latitude, but they're allowed encouraged even to win, and win as hard as they can. Obviously someone who powergames too much can be disruptive, but the reverse extreme, the player who doesn't even care whether their character lives or dies and has to be poked with a stick to contribute anything, is far worse. I have one player who professes that kind of "I don't care if my PC dies and he's disruptive without realizing it. He is fortunate that the game has a pretty casual approach (player side) among most of the players (I'll call this a beer and pretzels kind of game, in tone).

Player/character separation becomes difficult under these conditions, and overall isn't worth it. It's fundamentally unfun if the player who enjoys puzzles and is good at them is prevented from engaging with the puzzle because his character has 9 INT. Possible, but not much fun. Bingo. Player skill is OK; I dislike the attitude that player skill should be shoved aside as only character skill points/ability scores matter. That's probably where my biggest dissatisfaction on the player/character separation tension of the current era resides.

[Reynaert]

Really? Because I can easily pretend not to know the formula to make gunpowder all day long. It's not impossible. Inaction on knowledge you don't have is easy.


Not when you are playing a character who is researching how to make gunpowder. Which is the only way this analogy makes sense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The two sets overlap. They are not disjointed sets. (Or whatever the new term is for sets that have zero in common)

Sure. I can accept that. But the side that says that it's a myth can't. Their position requires that the two are identical. My position is only that there are differences in the two sets.



I've written about this upthread. But DMs and players have different responsibilities. A DM is supposed to provide challenges, but critically isn't supposed to care about their guys winning. They get a huge amount of latitude as far as making their NPCs and giving them abilities, and they get to roleplay more than anyone, but the price they pay here is that they have to practice player character separation. They need to be disengaged. They need to be okay with the PCs winning. To this end, a DM will often prepare specific notes about how a character will react to a certain sort of stimuli.

Players are not supposed to be detached like this. They're supposed to care about winning. They're supposed to be involved, get hype, get scared. It's a huge part of the experience. They only get to play one character and the rules give them less latitude, but they're allowed encouraged even to win, and win as hard as they can. Obviously someone who powergames too much can be disruptive, but the reverse extreme, the player who doesn't even care whether their character lives or dies and has to be poked with a stick to contribute anything, is far worse.

Player/character separation becomes difficult under these conditions, and overall isn't worth it. It's fundamentally unfun if the player who enjoys puzzles and is good at them is prevented from engaging with the puzzle because his character has 9 INT. Possible, but not much fun.

There's large space in between "realizing that your character isn't you and knows some things you don't and vice versa" and "being detached from caring about winning". And that's where fun and role-play lies. Their "will to win" must be tempered by the realization that some things, some means of "winning" aren't appropriate. The rules include meta-rules about how much "game-level" knowledge is appropriate. And each table will differ on those meta-rules.

As for puzzles, I strongly prefer a few things:
1) having all puzzles be in-universe puzzles that require no out-of-universe knowledge. So no word puzzles in English.
2) having puzzles that require multiple people involved and not just "make INT check, win" or "be smart IRL, win". So your INT 9 character can engage, just not using their INT score.
3) mostly avoiding "standard" puzzles altogether. Because they suck.

Personally, I have no issue with most "meta-gaming". In general, I figure that the characters know way more relevant information than the players do, so I'm not going to police any of those boundaries. And I find puzzle monsters to be utterly pointless, so I'm more than happy to give away lots of monster information.

However, I do have big issues with the stance that you can't separate player from character. Because that ruins everything. I have a bad reaction to DM-meta-gaming (using information they've learned by listening to the party plan), because it comes across as antagonistic. And I can't see any way to separate the two under the "myth" viewpoint--if every action is inevitably inflected by what you know and so you should act like you do know it, then DM-meta-gaming is not only normal, it's expected. And that's just wrong. In addition, if player knowledge == character knowledge, the world becomes utterly flat. I, as the world-builder, can't add anything that doesn't exist in the real world (because then that breaks the identity). And I can't insist that there are things the characters cannot know.

The healthy thing is to say "player knowledge and character knowledge are separate sets that overlap significantly. Everyone should be mature about it and not push boundaries in any direction or worry too much about what other people know, subject to world constraints. And the exact boundaries for things that matter should be discussed OOC and consensus reached."

Edit: and I'd say that "will to win" isn't even a totally healthy way to play a cooperative game either. Winning implies that there is such a thing, and the existence of a winner implies that there are losers. And that's an intrinsically competitive mindset, one that can lead to antagonism. I believe that players (including the DM) should want to see the events move along. And even might want the player characters to succeed. But there are many times when success is the least interesting, least fun case. If winning (ie success) is what matters above all, then that means failure is un-fun. Which, yeah. No. Failure should be just as interesting as success, just in a different way. Otherwise, what's the point of rolling? The most important thing isn't winning, it's doing things with interesting consequences, as judged by the group.

The antithesis of fun isn't failure, it's nothing happening. No one should be apathetic, everyone should be interested in the outcomes. But success/failure are orthogonal. If you're only interested in winning/succeeding, that's a warning sign in my eyes.

[Pex]

You don't know how common owlbears are in the game until you discuss it with the DM. You can claim they are super duper common all you want, but you as a player do not dictate behavior in the DM's world.




This promotes what I feel is cheating. When you spout off all the resistances the encounter has because you read up on it between sessions, that makes the game a lot less fun for everyone.


Really? Because I can easily pretend not to know the formula to make gunpowder all day long. It's not impossible. Inaction on knowledge you don't have is easy.

How about knowing the capability of a monster because a player fought it 58 times with 20 different characters among 20 campaigns for over 30 years? Is that cheating when the player casts Burning Hands instead of Thunderwave against the trolls? How many times must a cleric player cast Inflict Wounds on a wight before he switches to Sacred Flame?


If player/character knowledge separation is impossible, then does that mean it's not only ok but expected for the DM to have all the creatures act with full conscious knowledge of the players' plans, positions, capabilities, etc? Because the DM is a player as well, and thus what he knows cannot be separated from what the characters know. To me, that's well beyond what's acceptable, and a DM who acted that way would be justifiably open to criticism of being antagonistic and player-hostile. And not role-playing at all.

Role-playing relies on there being a difference (at least in principle) between the character and the actor. Otherwise it becomes a tautology--"acting like the character would" and "acting like I would" are thus identical. And if there's a difference, there must be a difference in knowledge.

And having character knowledge == player knowledge makes a total hash out of the idea of fictional worlds. Because that would imply that the characters know about the history of Earth, plus things like nuclear weapons, etc. Things that do not and cannot exist in <fictional world> and for which the knowledge has never and can never reach <fictional world>. And vice versa--the characters know lots of things (including basic sensory data) that we cannot know. The smell of a trikine's explosive farts. Because trikine don't exist here.

Thus, I cannot accept the idea that player/character separation is a myth. It's foundational to any form of roleplay that does not take place in the current world (with no differences) and with the people sitting around the table. Ie any roleplay at all.

The DM already does that by virtue of setting up the encounters. He will purposely set up encounters the party can't use their primary attacks sometimes for the challenge of it. Sometimes he lets them shine with an east fight.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The DM already does that by virtue of setting up the encounters. He will purposely set up encounters the party can't use their primary attacks sometimes for the challenge of it. Sometimes he lets them shine with an east fight.

Not necessarily. The ideal (in my mind) is that the encounters are established based on what is in the world and what the antagonists would have access to. If the enemies start going from casting in close range (because the DM knows no one has counterspell) to making sure there's 65+ feet between them and the guy who just picked up counterspell (but not worrying about anyone else) before casting without any way for the new enemies to know that there was a change, that's DM meta-gaming and antagonistic behavior. If suddenly all the locks vanish because the rogue picked up expertise in thieves tools, or if the players come up with a perfect plan (based on what they know) and suddenly the enemy (who didn't know about the plan) has their forces in exactly the right place (defying all their actions before), that's DM meta-gaming.

Sometimes the players have easy wins because that's how the forces were aligned. Other times they struggle because they didn't plan. But the world shouldn't warp itself around OOC knowledge[1]. That's horrible worldbuilding and worse DMing.

[1] it's fine to build a campaign world around conversations with the players. For example, if you have a player with arachnophobia, it's fine to say that no spiders will feature in this campaign. Plenty of other things to encounter. But it's not fine to say that the (established) Forest of Giant Hungry Spiders suddenly doesn't have any spiders in it, just because an arachnophobe joined the campaign. It'd also be a jerk move to force the campaign in that direction, knowing that fact. If the players decide to go there, you can't just scrub all the spiders out. Because that's not what the world is.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure. I can accept that. But the side that says that it's a myth can't. Their position requires that the two are identical. My position is only that there are differences in the two sets. Unfortunately, the stance on the adamant player character separation has a lot of RPG cultural poison in it that reaches back about four decades.

The healthy thing is to say "player knowledge and character knowledge are separate sets that overlap significantly.
I said that with fewer words. :smallbiggrin:

Everyone should be mature about it and not push boundaries in any direction or worry too much about. Should and how it works out often are not intersecting sets. :smallfrown:

The antithesis of fun isn't failure, it's nothing happening. No one should be apathetic, everyone should be interested in the outcomes. But success/failure are orthogonal. Agreed on all points.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unfortunately, the stance on the adamant player character separation has a lot of RPG cultural poison in it that reaches back about four decades.

As does the other side, just in reaction. Both sides are wrong; blame is not a conserved quantity. There is inherently separation, but that separation is not total. How much is good is a matter of taste and table agreement, not some fundamental objective truth of existence. Because, in the end, the ultra-vast majority of all TTRPG things are matters of taste and table agreement.



I said that with fewer words. :smallbiggrin:


I never said I was concise. In fact, prolixity is one of my defining characteristics. Where do you think I got my descriptions of how dragons talk? That one, among others, does derive from my own nature. And here I am using too many words again :smallwink:

[strangebloke]

Sure. I can accept that. But the side that says that it's a myth can't. Their position requires that the two are identical. My position is only that there are differences in the two sets.
It is impossible to truly split your brain. You can do a good job pretending, but ultimately your action will be informed by what you as a person know. IE, if you know trolls are weak to fire, but want to "achieve player-character separation" you might intentionally not use fire, even though you could, and maybe would. In the end, this isn't player-character separation any more than using fire would be. If anything its more deliberately artificial. You can only guess at what you would do if you didn't know.

And, this is the salient point: Its fine to have OOC knowledge inform your actions. It can make your roleplay better. For example, my wife is playing a Zealot in one of our games. The character is extremely devout, but extremely ignorant. My wife knows the lore of the setting, and she deliberately uses this out-of-character knowledge to make her character make intensely stupid, wrongheaded theological claims. She is, in fact, metagaming. She's using OOC knowledge. Sometimes if she figures out something OOC, she'll get in character and then present her solution to the group, but she'll do it using her character's unique brand of insane moon logic.

"It was the halfling that stole the jewels. I know because he almost had that waiter spill water on him, which was bad luck. Why would he have bad luck? Well because there was a cracked mirror in the treasure room, and the halfling must have cracked it while he was in there. I've solved the case."

This kind of interaction is hilarious, and wouldn't be possible if she just sighed, said "my character has 7 INT" and started scrolling twitter. Metagaming is fun. For everyone.


The antithesis of fun isn't failure, it's nothing happening. No one should be apathetic, everyone should be interested in the outcomes. But success/failure are orthogonal. If you're only interested in winning/succeeding, that's a warning sign in my eyes.

Wildly adversarial fun-policing going on here. Players want to win and that's okay. Getting loot and leveling up are part of the appeal of the game, particularly part of DND's specific appeal. That's why there are level ups and loot tables. If people wanted to play a game with 'fun failure' they'd play something like DREAD. Failure in DND isn't fun unless your campaign is structured around that.

Sure, there are usually other elements to fun. Even the 'fun' of winning tiself arguably comes from the challenges being difficult in the first place which is why the game has rules at all. But critically "Roll for Bear Lore"

isn't fun
isn't interesting
isn't a good encounter
isn't actually in the rules
leads to stupid situations where a player has to keep doing stupid things until the DM has decided they've roleplayed their ignorance well enough.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It is impossible to truly split your brain. You can do a good job pretending, but ultimately your action will be informed by what you as a person know. IE, if you know trolls are weak to fire, but want to "achieve player-character separation" you might intentionally not use fire, even though you could, and maybe would. In the end, this isn't player-character separation any more than using fire would be. If anything its more deliberately artificial. You can only guess at what you would do if you didn't know.

And, this is the salient point: Its fine to have OOC knowledge inform your actions. It can make your roleplay better. For example, my wife is playing a Zealot in one of our games. The character is extremely devout, but extremely ignorant. My wife knows the lore of the setting, and she deliberately uses this out-of-character knowledge to make her character make intensely stupid, wrongheaded theological claims. She is, in fact, metagaming. She's using OOC knowledge. Sometimes if she figures out something OOC, she'll get in character and then present her solution to the group, but she'll do it using her character's unique brand of insane moon logic.

"It was the halfling that stole the jewels. I know because he almost had that waiter spill water on him, which was bad luck. Why would he have bad luck? Well because there was a cracked mirror in the treasure room, and the halfling must have cracked it while he was in there. I've solved the case."

This kind of interaction is hilarious, and wouldn't be possible if she just sighed, said "my character has 7 INT" and started scrolling twitter. Metagaming is fun. For everyone.


I never said that using OOC information is wrong. The whole point is that there is a separation, and that most times people shouldn't care about the lines all that much. And that where the lines are in any given case are up to the table. And that policing such things is generally not a good time. But that doesn't mean that the separation is a myth or that any use of OOC information is always fine. There are points in between the extremes. It's not "all OOC knowledge is always fine" vs "OOC knowledge is never fine". There's a huge spectrum in between which both of those binary camps deny. That's why I said they're both wrong.



Wildly adversarial fun-policing going on here. Players want to win and that's okay. Getting loot and leveling up are part of the appeal of the game, particularly part of DND's specific appeal. That's why there are level ups and loot tables. If people wanted to play a game with 'fun failure' they'd play something like DREAD. Failure in DND isn't fun unless your campaign is structured around that.

Sure, there are usually other elements to fun. Even the 'fun' of winning tiself arguably comes from the challenges being difficult in the first place which is why the game has rules at all. But critically "Roll for Bear Lore"

isn't fun
isn't interesting
isn't a good encounter
isn't actually in the rules
leads to stupid situations where a player has to keep doing stupid things until the DM has decided they've roleplayed their ignorance well enough.


I totally agree about "Roll for Bear Lore". Which is why I explicitly said that I don't care about that form of player knowledge.

However, if failure isn't interesting, you shouldn't invoke uncertainty-resolution mechanics where failure is an option. Which means that if failure can't be interesting, no checks, saving throws, or attack rolls should be made. Which breaks the game entirely. If every action is a success, then what's the point of having action-resolution mechanics at all? That's the level of failure I mean.

And the position "either we win or I don't have fun" is a warning sign to me. Because I don't see winning as being well defined anyway in a cooperative game, and that attitude of "if I don't succeed, I lost" is an inherently competitive one. Sure, people should do things that move toward success. That's not wrong. But the insistence that anything other than 100% success is failure and is un-fun is...just no. Success is fun. Failure should be fun. Just in different ways. If it's not, the game has issues (for your table). Because failure is a natural part of the game at all levels. If it weren't, there would be no option for it. You'd have the choices between "succeeded 100% and succeeded 90%"...and that latter one would quickly become identical (in the minds of the winning is the main thing camp) with losing. So then there'd only be succeeded 100%.

[False God]

This promotes what I feel is cheating. When you spout off all the resistances the encounter has because you read up on it between sessions, that makes the game a lot less fun for everyone.

Noone I play with cares. Billy-The-Player "cheating" and reading up on how to better defeat a monster (since I don't run pre-baked encounters or adventures or campaigns) to me is no different than Billy-The-Character spending his downtime going over some notes on adventuring. I don't care. The players don't care. They still have to actually beat it. Having the key isn't the same as unlocking the lock.

I do sometimes adjust monsters before they hit the table for a little variety, but I'll telegraph it. "This Balor is covered in blue flames, instead of the usual red."

I understand my approach probably isn't going to work for folks who like to run the same module over and over again. But frankly the people I play with, by-and-large, don't need to "read up". They've been playing this game for the last 20+ years. And honestly, if they do want to read up between sessions, I still feel like I've succeeded, because now that player's level of knowledge in D&D has increased, both in learning about this monster and learning how to defeat it.

[Tanarii]

If player/character knowledge separation is impossible, then does that mean it's not only ok but expected for the DM to have all the creatures act with full conscious knowledge of the players' plans, positions, capabilities, etc?A != B doesn't mean therefore !A = !B


Thus, I cannot accept the idea that player/character separation is a myth. It's foundational to any form of roleplay that does not take place in the current world (with no differences) and with the people sitting around the table. Ie any roleplay at all.You accept pretending not to have DM/player knowledge is sufficient to count as player-character separation.

I don't. I do not accept that pretending not to DM/player knowledge will result in the same actions as not having it, and therefore they cannot truly be separate. If they were truly separate, it's possible or even likely that totally different actions would happen.

I accept that doing your best to pretend separation and accepting it's not the same thing as separation is many times enhances playing the game and a fine thing ... right up until someone starts complaining about someone else metagaming. At that point, they've usually become too wedded to the myth of total player-separation, failing to understand that pretending to not know something won't necessarily result in the same behavior not knowing it. And they're trying to impose their own personal best guess about behavior resulting from pretending not to know on someone else.

At that point, it's important to make clear:pretending not to DM/player knowledge doesn't automatically result in the same actions as not having it, and it's each person's individual best guess.

[kazaryu]

There's a handy bit of signaling that goes on here. When the DM describes the monster, does he say "an owlbear emerges from the cave, roll initiative." or "a huge beast emerges from the cave, covered in both feathers and fur, with great claws and a sharps beak... Roll Initiative."

But I think that if a DM is going to draw a hard line and claim that something is a rare and unknowable species, they better have a damned good reason. People in medieval Denmark knew what a lion was. Heck, they knew what a rhino was.


knowing what a monster is, is a very different thing from knowing anything useful about said monster in the context of a fight.

ALOT of people would probably recognize a shark on sight. significantly fewer would know to attack their gills. even in the modern age, a person might know what a hippo is, but not realize how dangerous they actually are.

im not saying that you're wrong for ignoring narrative in favor of a more mechanical approach. thats a perfectly valid way to play. im just pointing out a lapse in your logic.

[Reynaert]

knowing what a monster is, is a very different thing from knowing anything useful about said monster in the context of a fight.

ALOT of people would probably recognize a shark on sight. significantly fewer would know to attack their gills. even in the modern age, a person might know what a hippo is, but not realize how dangerous they actually are.

But some of them would. So telling a player "your character wouldn't know that", which is what this discussion is about, is not addressed by your argument.

[RSP]

All of this just comes down to: what kind of game is the DM running?

If they don’t care if Players bring out of game knowledge into the game, cool.

If they do, then, yes, it’s disrespectful to them and the effort they’re putting into running the game to do so.

[kazaryu]

But some of them would. So telling a player "your character wouldn't know that", which is what this discussion is about, is not addressed by your argument.

if the discussion is about whether or not a character would know something, and you're not talking about knowledge checks then....what's the point?

the conclusion drawn from 'but some of them would' is that 'the character might know. and determining what a character knows is the realm of knowledge checks. its why the skills exist. With that being said, there are some creatures in the world that are rare enough that its more than reasonable to assume that a character of a given background just..doesn't know anything about them. especially in a time before mass communication. There are some knowledge checks you just can't pass.


Now, obviously some DM's are going to abuse this. or at the very least are going to be so afraid of meta-gaming that they'll take to to ridiculous extremes. and they're wrong to do so. But, in a homebrew setting, the DM decides the rarity of creatures. and the rarity of a creature decides how likely, or even possible, it is for your PC to know about it.

[MoiMagnus]

I've written about this upthread. But DMs and players have different responsibilities. A DM is supposed to provide challenges, but critically isn't supposed to care about their guys winning. They get a huge amount of latitude as far as making their NPCs and giving them abilities, and they get to roleplay more than anyone, but the price they pay here is that they have to practice player character separation. They need to be disengaged. They need to be okay with the PCs winning. To this end, a DM will often prepare specific notes about how a character will react to a certain sort of stimuli.

Players are not supposed to be detached like this. They're supposed to care about winning. They're supposed to be involved, get hype, get scared. It's a huge part of the experience. They only get to play one character and the rules give them less latitude, but they're allowed encouraged even to win, and win as hard as they can. Obviously someone who powergames too much can be disruptive, but the reverse extreme, the player who doesn't even care whether their character lives or dies and has to be poked with a stick to contribute anything, is far worse.

I will disagree on you conflating engagement in the game and lack of player/character separation.

Probably the most fun RPG sessions I had as a Player were the ones that involved mind control handled as "the GM secretly communicates some changes of character personality to one player, which has to follow them" (fully knowing that those will be temporary and that they are working against the remaining of the team, but abstracting this knowledge away through player/character separation).

You're opposing the player who wants to win at all cost to the player who doesn't care what's happen, while I would put them on two axis, with on the 4 corners:

(1) Players who wants to win at all cost, but doesn't care about the game, the characters, or whatever is happening. They just want to be able to say that they won at the end of the session.

(2) Player who wants to win at all cost, but is fully immersed within the universe and will truly embody his character.

(3) Player who doesn't try to win, and doesn't care about anything within the game either, and you need to poke them to get anything for them.

(4) Player who doesn't try to win, but is fully immersed within the universe, and will try to explore as much as possible of the universe created by the GM, or will try to create some memorable scenes or character interaction (like having a tragic and ironic death for his character).

[KorvinStarmast]

blame is not a conserved quantity. Hehe, I think you've used this line before. :smallsmile:

There is inherently separation, but that separation is not total. How much is good is a matter of taste and table agreement, not some fundamental objective truth of existence. We seem to be in violent agreement.
I never said I was concise. In fact, prolixity is one of my defining characteristics. Where do you think I got my descriptions of how dragons talk? That one, among others, does derive from my own nature. And here I am using too many words again :smallwink: To thine own self, be true. :smallcool:

It is impossible to truly split your brain. FWIW.
Compartmentalizing is for many people a learned skill. I had to learn it and apply it in order to be a safer pilot. (If you are interested in details, head to the (US) Naval Safety Center's aviation sub site and check out the term). How good any given person is at compartmentalizing varies a lot, and some people stink at it. How much that informs TTRPG play is unclear to me, but perhaps that skillset contributes to the variation in how people approach that.

All of this just comes down to: what kind of game is the DM running?
If they don’t care if Players bring out of game knowledge into the game, cool.
If they do, then, yes, it’s disrespectful to them and the effort they’re putting into running the game to do so. Back to "let's clear this up at session zero". +1

Quick note on our use and abuse of terms here in this discussion: I think Tanarii put a finger on it. What seems to have a few of us talking at cross purposes is the adjective total. Where the disagreement is in 'how much do the two sets overlap' (player knowledge and character knowledge as intersecting sets) the at-table problems tend not to become game threatening.

At that point, they've usually become too wedded to the myth of total player-separation, failing to understand that pretending to not know something won't necessarily result in the same behavior not knowing it. And they're trying to impose their own personal best guess about behavior resulting from pretending not to know on someone else. And this is where I've seen some friction arise.

[Christew]

if the discussion is about whether or not a character would know something, and you're not talking about knowledge checks then....what's the point?

the conclusion drawn from 'but some of them would' is that 'the character might know. and determining what a character knows is the realm of knowledge checks. its why the skills exist. With that being said, there are some creatures in the world that are rare enough that its more than reasonable to assume that a character of a given background just..doesn't know anything about them. especially in a time before mass communication. There are some knowledge checks you just can't pass.


Now, obviously some DM's are going to abuse this. or at the very least are going to be so afraid of meta-gaming that they'll take to to ridiculous extremes. and they're wrong to do so. But, in a homebrew setting, the DM decides the rarity of creatures. and the rarity of a creature decides how likely, or even possible, it is for your PC to know about it.
I'm not sure it has to be an either/or (either the player dictates character knowledge or the DM uses knowledge checks to determine character knowledge).

Something like:
1) Does known character background provide a sufficiently plausible explanation for said knowledge? If yes, known, if no, proceed to 2.
2) Establish new character background by asking "How would your character know that?" Depending on the answer either return to 1 or proceed to 3.
3) Call for a knowledge check.

That way you neither DM nor player are dictating character knowledge unilaterally with the RP bonus of actively refining character backgrounds.

[Segev]

Compartmentalization doesn't really help with the actual problem of player/character separation when it comes to, "How would my PC act if I, his player, didn't know this piece of information?" If you know the troll is vulnerable to fire, but your character doesn't, how do you decide whether you'll use a fire spell or a force spell? You can try to figure out what you'd have done without knowing, but if you don't have a firm algorithm for how your character makes decisions that you could hand off to another player and have that player wind up making the same IC decisions you would have with that character every time, it's not as easy as you'd think. Same thing for illusions: the tactics around whether to brave a wall of fire, whether to try to arc over a barricade or aim through the slits in the walls, whether to try to charge past the giant monster to your goal or to pull up and try to sneak around, are all complex enough that it's hard to tell what you'd really risk if you thought the things were real when you actually know they're not. It's not as simple as "do one or the other" when there are myriad possible choices.

This isn't a criticism of anybody. This is an acknowledgement that there's a problem. I actually don't know of any solutions; the best I can do is suggest people be aware of it and then do their best.

[RSP]

Back to "let's clear this up at session zero". +1

Sure, but having a session zero isn’t grounds for a Player to use it as a “gotcha” to act against the type of game a DM is trying to run. Presumably the Player didn’t mention anything like “my character learned radiant damage negates a Vampire’s Regeneration ability in a tavern during his travels” during session zero either, so, whereas I agree these things should be discussed beforehand, I don’t see it as an excuse if it isn’t.

At the heart of it, if a Player is bringing out of character knowledge into a game, and the DM finds that disruptive, the Player should concede to the type of game the DM is trying to run, or not play at that table.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, but having a session zero isn’t grounds for a Player to use it as a “gotcha” to act against the type of game a DM is trying to run. Session 0 can happen any time after Session 1 also. (Well, that's how our groups approach the concept so that we clear things up before the next play session if there's some confusion or disagreement).

At the heart of it, if a Player is bringing out of character knowledge into a game, and the DM finds that disruptive, the Player should concede to the type of game the DM is trying to run, or not play at that table. IMO, that's a best practice.

[strangebloke]

knowing what a monster is, is a very different thing from knowing anything useful about said monster in the context of a fight.

ALOT of people would probably recognize a shark on sight. significantly fewer would know to attack their gills. even in the modern age, a person might know what a hippo is, but not realize how dangerous they actually are.

im not saying that you're wrong for ignoring narrative in favor of a more mechanical approach. thats a perfectly valid way to play. im just pointing out a lapse in your logic.
It's not a lapse.

My argument has never been that a character needs to know something of this variety. My point has been that its justifiable that a character could know such information, and that if the DM doesn't have a compelling reason to rule differently, they should let it slide. Forcing a player to play against their knowledge is IMO unfun. (furthermore, adventurers have a vested professional interest in cultivating monster lore)

I never said that using OOC information is wrong. The whole point is that there is a separation, and that most times people shouldn't care about the lines all that much. And that where the lines are in any given case are up to the table. And that policing such things is generally not a good time. But that doesn't mean that the separation is a myth or that any use of OOC information is always fine. There are points in between the extremes. It's not "all OOC knowledge is always fine" vs "OOC knowledge is never fine". There's a huge spectrum in between which both of those binary camps deny. That's why I said they're both wrong.

I've always acknowledged that there are limits to the usage of OOC knowledge, specifically citing the example of someone reading an adventure module and trivializing the mystery/discovery element of the game for everyone. I've also brought up the idea of a genuinely rare monster that someone might not recognize.

What I will argue is that a character deciding that their character knows something they could plausibly know is fine and should generally be allowed.

if the discussion is about whether or not a character would know something, and you're not talking about knowledge checks then....what's the point?

the conclusion drawn from 'but some of them would' is that 'the character might know. and determining what a character knows is the realm of knowledge checks. its why the skills exist. With that being said, there are some creatures in the world that are rare enough that its more than reasonable to assume that a character of a given background just..doesn't know anything about them. especially in a time before mass communication. There are some knowledge checks you just can't pass.
Because as a DM I just don't use knowledge checks for that. Checks are for difficult things, not trivial things. You don't have to roll athletics to climb, generally, you only roll if its raining out. Remembering bear lore shouldn't require a nature check, that's obviously trivial.

I don't think the above is contentious, but some will argue that knowing about vampires is very hard and should require a difficult roll. I disagree. In any case, these mid-combat knowledge checks always devolve down to everyone rolling, someone succeeding because of hyper-advantage, and then that character yelling "HWAIT! Radiant energy doth make the foul vampyr hurt badly! SMITE HIM good sirs!" It's not really an interesting challenge and you can tell because most DMs will allow you to make this sort of check mid-combat at no penalty.

Heck, everyone could roll religion directly before the fight and odds are they'd get to know whatever they wanted to know anyway.

I will disagree on you conflating engagement in the game and lack of player/character separation.

Probably the most fun RPG sessions I had as a Player were the ones that involved mind control handled as "the GM secretly communicates some changes of character personality to one player, which has to follow them" (fully knowing that those will be temporary and that they are working against the remaining of the team, but abstracting this knowledge away through player/character separation).

You're opposing the player who wants to win at all cost to the player who doesn't care what's happen, while I would put them on two axis, with on the 4 corners:

(1) Players who wants to win at all cost, but doesn't care about the game, the characters, or whatever is happening. They just want to be able to say that they won at the end of the session.

(2) Player who wants to win at all cost, but is fully immersed within the universe and will truly embody his character.

(3) Player who doesn't try to win, and doesn't care about anything within the game either, and you need to poke them to get anything for them.

(4) Player who doesn't try to win, but is fully immersed within the universe, and will try to explore as much as possible of the universe created by the GM, or will try to create some memorable scenes or character interaction (like having a tragic and ironic death for his character).
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to roleplay. I play DND with kids who have autism, and its hard for them. Easier to just focus on the combat.

number 1 and 4 basically don't exist IMO. Even people who are just there for the RP and might let their character die at a specific time still want to 'win' in the sense of having them die at that time as opposed to earlier. In a sense you could say that getting to RP in the manner they want is "winning."

[KorvinStarmast]

(furthermore, adventurers have a vested professional interest in cultivating monster lore) This unfortunately needed to be spelled out. I figured that it was axiomatic for undertaking adventuring as a vocation. Interesting to see various assumptions, my own included, burbling up.

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to roleplay. There are degres of role play, and I have found that I prefer playing with those who do at least some role play, to a lot.

[strangebloke]

This unfortunately needed to be spelled out. I figured that it was axiomatic for undertaking adventuring as a vocation. Interesting to see various assumptions, my own included, burbling up.
To think about it from a simulationist perspective, it's pretty realistic that our party would share stories around the campfire, right? Compare notes?

What does that look like mechanically? Why, everyone making random checks and sharing information!

I'm pretty sure you could get something like 5/6 of the monster manual this way if you bothered. But its obviously pointless and tedious which is imo the real proof for why this style of knowledge check is bad.

There are degres of role play, and I have found that I prefer playing with those who do at least some role play, to a lot.

Same for the most part but I have good friends who just want to hang out and kill monsters. They'll roleplay occasionally but its not their interest. I'm happy to have them around. Some people might also want to RP but be prevented from doing so by social anxiety. There's nothing gained by barring such people imo.

[Sorinth]

Compartmentalization doesn't really help with the actual problem of player/character separation when it comes to, "How would my PC act if I, his player, didn't know this piece of information?" If you know the troll is vulnerable to fire, but your character doesn't, how do you decide whether you'll use a fire spell or a force spell? You can try to figure out what you'd have done without knowing, but if you don't have a firm algorithm for how your character makes decisions that you could hand off to another player and have that player wind up making the same IC decisions you would have with that character every time, it's not as easy as you'd think. Same thing for illusions: the tactics around whether to brave a wall of fire, whether to try to arc over a barricade or aim through the slits in the walls, whether to try to charge past the giant monster to your goal or to pull up and try to sneak around, are all complex enough that it's hard to tell what you'd really risk if you thought the things were real when you actually know they're not. It's not as simple as "do one or the other" when there are myriad possible choices.

This isn't a criticism of anybody. This is an acknowledgement that there's a problem. I actually don't know of any solutions; the best I can do is suggest people be aware of it and then do their best.

In the end does it matter if you don't do exactly what you would have done without that knowledge?

I'd say no, make an effort and do your best is pretty much all anyone would ask. The whole troll/fire thing is no different then I've read the module and know what happens next, you do your best to play the character based on what they would know.

[Sorinth]

This unfortunately needed to be spelled out. I figured that it was axiomatic for undertaking adventuring as a vocation. Interesting to see various assumptions, my own included, burbling up.
There are degres of role play, and I have found that I prefer playing with those who do at least some role play, to a lot.

Many PCs aren't playing professional adventurer types. It's fairly common trope for characters to get thrust into the adventuring life unexpectedly and then just running with it.

[strangebloke]

Many PCs aren't playing professional adventurer types. It's fairly common trope for characters to get thrust into the adventuring life unexpectedly and then just running with it.

Samwise still knows what an Oliphant is.

[kazaryu]

To think about it from a simulationist perspective, it's pretty realistic that our party would share stories around the campfire, right? Compare notes?

What does that look like mechanically? Why, everyone making random checks and sharing information!

I'm pretty sure you could get something like 5/6 of the monster manual this way if you bothered. But its obviously pointless and tedious which is imo the real proof for why this style of knowledge check is bad.
possibly? but stories about what...all of your lvl 0 adventures that occurred before the party arrived? random rumors and myths that you've heard about some monsters? outside of a straight up professional mercenary group (which i'd argue most parties aren't) i'd say its incredibly unrealistic that a party would do the type of homework that would be required in order to accomplish what you're implying. This is more than just 'telling stories around a campfire'. you're talking about straight up lectures, quizzing, practicing. trying to engrain that knowledge (if you even have it to begin with) to the point that you can recall it in a moment should you encounter one of those creatures. and there are A LOT of different possible creatures. To me, this almost sounds like a reasonable idea...until you actually get into the realistic logistics of it. is galgrim the Barbarian really gonna sit there for an hour listening to you give a lecture on vampire lore? possibly...depending on who galgrim is. But the vast majority of characters just aren't built with that style of adventuring. Hell, many parties don't even try to do research on a monster that they know they're going to be fighting.




It's not a lapse. just for clarity, the lapse in logic was conflating 'recognizing a creature' with 'knowing information about that creature that will aid you in fighting it' which you absolutely did.


My argument has never been that a character needs to know something of this variety. My point has been that its justifiable that a character could know such information, and that if the DM doesn't have a compelling reason to rule differently, they should let it slide. Forcing a player to play against their knowledge is IMO unfun. (furthermore, adventurers have a vested professional interest in cultivating monster lore)

I've always acknowledged that there are limits to the usage of OOC knowledge, specifically citing the example of someone reading an adventure module and trivializing the mystery/discovery element of the game for everyone. I've also brought up the idea of a genuinely rare monster that someone might not recognize.Bolding mine.

yes, adventurers do indeed have a vested interest in researching monsters. however, most adventurers start at level one. they have very little experience...as an adventurer prior to the campaign. that 'cultivation of monster lore' is stuff that occurs as they build their career as an adventurer. And that if they're the type to actually do research. as others have pointed out not all adventurers are professional adventurers. Some of them are just...adventurers. they didn't choose the life of an adventurer as a means to make money. they just had wanderlust, so they went out to discover. While they do have a vested interest in knowing the types of dangers they might face, this archetype is rarely the type to actually do that research beforehand. with the exception of possibly listening to some rumors in town.

Other PC's are professionals, but not adventurers. So while they (now) have a vested interest in 'cultivating monster lore' its never been something they've needed to that extent. so only now are they getting started with it.

as far as rare monsters, thats the whole point. the DM decides what monsters are rare. the DM decides what a character would plausibly know based on the setting. if its an official setting, or a setting that you've played a lot in with that DM, then you might be able to discuss with the DM how rare certain creatures are. But in a homebrew setting you just...don't know. you (as a player) can't know. Now without checking with the DM.



Because as a DM I just don't use knowledge checks for that. Checks are for difficult things, not trivial things. You don't have to roll athletics to climb, generally, you only roll if its raining out. Remembering bear lore shouldn't require a nature check, that's obviously trivial.

I don't think the above is contentious, but some will argue that knowing about vampires is very hard and should require a difficult roll. I disagree. In any case, these mid-combat knowledge checks always devolve down to everyone rolling, someone succeeding because of hyper-advantage, and then that character yelling "HWAIT! Radiant energy doth make the foul vampyr hurt badly! SMITE HIM good sirs!" It's not really an interesting challenge and you can tell because most DMs will allow you to make this sort of check mid-combat at no penalty.

using your own simulationist logic, vampires have a vested interest in not allowing there weaknesses to become general knowledge. obviously directly controlling the flow of information is hard (outside of a ravenloft scenario anyway) so the logical option is to spread disinformation of your own. How can the PC be sure that the vampire is actually weak to running water? what if thats just a rumor the vampire spread? and wooden stakes? thats almost too obviously a lie spread by vampires. While i agree with you that checks should only be made about non-trivial information, i disagree with the contention that a monsters weaknesses *should* be considered trivial information. Its entirely reasonable to have a setting where information about a creature isn't widely known, and there's nothing wrong with playing that way.


Samwise still knows what an Oliphant is. but didn't know what athelas was until Strider used the more colloquial name. and, importantly, he didn't know its uses. at this point this is probably redundant though, since this has kinda been my point throughout. knowing what something is, isn't the same as having useful knowledge in combatting it. and while a player may *ask* about the former, what they actually want is the latter. they want to know useful information about combatting it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Many PCs aren't playing professional adventurer types. It's fairly common trope for characters to get thrust into the adventuring life unexpectedly and then just running with it. Which is fine for the first few encounters and the first arc. It's the decision to keep doing it and getting more levels that changes their vocation to adventurer rather than something else, like Sailor, Soldier, Guild Artisan, Entertainer, etc.

[kazaryu]

Which is fine for the first few encounters and the first arc. It's the decision to keep doing it and getting more levels that changes their vocation to adventurer rather than something else, like Sailor, Soldier, Guild Artisan, Entertainer, etc.

it might, but even if it does, it may not change the characters motivations, or overall attitude. just because they're an adventurer, doesn't mean they're going to start doing their homework. Particularly on monsters that they're not sure they're gonna meet. I think you underestimate how much effort would be required to accomplish what you think is 'expected'. Thats not to say they wouldn't share stories. but committing those stories to memory in an actionable way is a very different thing.

[False God]

it might, but even if it does, it may not change the characters motivations, or overall attitude. just because they're an adventurer, doesn't mean they're going to start doing their homework. Particularly on monsters that they're not sure they're gonna meet. I think you underestimate how much effort would be required to accomplish what you think is 'expected'. Thats not to say they wouldn't share stories. but committing those stories to memory in an actionable way is a very different thing.

If Joe goes home and reads up on monsters so that his PC can fight them better, then his PC has done their homework.

PCs aren't real people. I'm not going to analyze if an imaginary person's brain was able to remember a thing or not. The real person did the work, and that's the only person who actually matters in this situation.

[Sorinth]

Which is fine for the first few encounters and the first arc. It's the decision to keep doing it and getting more levels that changes their vocation to adventurer rather than something else, like Sailor, Soldier, Guild Artisan, Entertainer, etc.

Yes and no, if you didn't know the troll/fire thing at level 1 because you grew up in a monastery you aren't going to automatically know the troll/fire thing just because you are now a seasoned adventurer at level 7. You will have to have either encountered trolls and figured it out or spoke to people who brought it up. And it's not a given that you will have heard of it just because you are higher level, it will depend on what you've been doing in your downtime, hanging out in taverns frequented by other adventurers, sure you are bound to hear about it. But if you spend your free time volunteering at a food bank then probably not.

[kazaryu]

If Joe goes home and reads up on monsters so that his PC can fight them better, then his PC has done their homework.

PCs aren't real people. I'm not going to analyze if an imaginary person's brain was able to remember a thing or not. The real person did the work, and that's the only person who actually matters in this situation.

you don't need to analyze it. thats the point of ability checks.

i've said it before: there is nothing wrong with you playing that way, in fact i've already said that i, personally, don't actually care if my players metagame as far as monster abilities. i have more than enough ways to hide what a monster can do without having to tell the player that their character doesn't know. however to claim that this is how it SHOULD be played, is silly. its perfectly reasonable for a DM to expect their players to not metagame in this way.

[Sorinth]

Samwise still knows what an Oliphant is.

Did he know that you are better off using a Dex Save spell vs a Spell Attack because the Oliphant has low dex but decent AC? Or did he just know they existed, were big and had a basic grasp of what they looked like.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes and no, if you didn't know the troll/fire thing at level 1 because you grew up in a monastery you aren't going to automatically know the troll/fire thing just because you are now a seasoned adventurer at level 7. Or you will have during your travels met sages, a naturalist, a druid here and there, or other folk who shared that knowledge. Or parts of it.
One of the things that, in this edition, apparently has to be abstracted is "what is every little thing you do when you are between encounters" and meeting, talking to people and listening is a part of that.

And this is where deliberate down time activity (learning about x) is a way to peel the onion, or, a knowledge check (have we picked his up during the course of the past few weeks?) is another way to handle that. While encountering such a monster is a great way to learn, there are other ways of picking up on that. "Be prepared" isn't just a motto for the boy scouts.

The depth of learning about the world, natural and supernatural, is very much a matter of taste and table style, though. In some of the old school games we had encounters that were explicitly information gathering at heart: go and find that old cleric who has lived in this area for years. What does he know about (x)? Same with sages. And of course, the old DM habit of planting rumors (some true, some false, some in between) seems to be a lost art.

Mechanizing it isn't the only way to do this.

[False God]

you don't need to analyze it. thats the point of ability checks.

i've said it before: there is nothing wrong with you playing that way, in fact i've already said that i, personally, don't actually care if my players metagame as far as monster abilities. i have more than enough ways to hide what a monster can do without having to tell the player that their character doesn't know. however to claim that this is how it SHOULD be played, is silly. its perfectly reasonable for a DM to expect their players to not metagame in this way.

Even discounting Joe going home and reading up, the majority of your longer post a few posts up dealt with entirely in-game discussion. What had characters learned? What had characters seen? What they had heard from locals?

And you're going to gate in-game knowledge sharing with ability checks?

I'm not claiming my way is the right way, but I am going to claim that gating knowledge, especially reasonably obtained in-game knowledge, behind checks is not going to result in increased fun. Well, unless you're a big fan standardized testing.

[kazaryu]

Or you will have during your travels met sages or other folk who shared that knowledge. One of the things that has to be abstracted is "what is every little thing you do when you are between encounters" and meeting, talking to people and listening is a part of that.

And this is where deliberate down time activity (learning about x) is a way to peel the onion, or, a knowledge check (have we picked his up during the course of the past few weeks) is another way to handle that. While encountering such a monster is a great way to learn, there are other ways of picking up on that.
.

this. this is exactly the viewpoint i've been defending. obviously its reasonable that you *might* have come across this knowledge.

however, some people have claimed that because a PC MIGHT have encountered some knowledge, than they should automatically be allowed the benefit of that knowledge, regardless of what the DM thinks the situation is in the game.

and while thats a fine way to play if thats what you prefer. Its by no means the definitive standard.

[KorvinStarmast]

however, some people have claimed that because a PC MIGHT have encountered some knowledge, than they should automatically be allowed the benefit of that knowledge, regardless of what the DM thinks the situation is in the game. Yeah, there's some dialogue needed here, I agree.

[RSP]

If Joe goes home and reads up on monsters so that his PC can fight them better, then his PC has done their homework.

PCs aren't real people. I'm not going to analyze if an imaginary person's brain was able to remember a thing or not. The real person did the work, and that's the only person who actually matters in this situation.

So the PCs learn a certain monster is involved in the next dungeon they’re planning to travel to. The characters try to research that monster in-game and the DM tells them they don’t learn anything of value from their research. The session ends with the characters planning to go to the dungeon.

So Player A goes home and reads up on said monster in the MM.

Yes, that is one way to be a disruptive player at a table.

[Tanarii]

its perfectly reasonable for a DM to expect their players to not metagame in this way.
If a DM doesn't want that, they need to ask their players what previous experience they have, request they don't read up on certain things once they've established what they do know, and if necessary ask them to: A) determine what their character knows / doesn't know about important fact Z; B) ask the player to do their best judgement n pretending the character doesn't know important fact Z. And then stay out of that players hair. And not use the word metagaming.

What's not reasonable is incorrectly using the term 'metagaming' to cover something that is something that is a normal part of the fact that the player and character cannot be separate, and getting upset by player knowledge being used when there wasn't some kind of prior agreement.

For example, a reasonable question when putting together a campaign is "Has anyone played Tomb of Annihilation before, or read through the Adventure Path?" And then discuss how to handle it.

What's not reasonable is "You're read about Trolls? Then using fire is metagaming. Stop it." Or vampires, or whatever.

Again, because still relevant:
https://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

And also some ways to handle it:
https://theangrygm.com/through-a-glass-darkly-ic-ooc-and-the-myth-of-playercharacter-seperation/

[RSP]

If a DM doesn't want that, they need to ask their players what previous experience they have, request they don't read up on certain things once they've established what they do know, and if necessary ask them to: A) determine what their character knows / doesn't know about important fact Z; B) ask the player to do their best judgement n pretending the character doesn't know important fact Z.

I’d say the opposite is true, as we are discussing what is described as a “role-playing game.” It’s fair to assume the Players will be role-playing.

Now it’s certainly fine if a table plays a different way, but I’d say the expectation is that the Players are not reading adventure modules before playing them. At least that’s been my experience at every table I’ve ever played at.

[kazaryu]

If a DM doesn't want that, they need to ask their players what previous experience they have, request they don't read up on certain things once they've established what they do know, and if necessary ask them to: A) determine what their character knows / doesn't know about important fact Z; B) ask the player to do their best judgement n pretending the character doesn't know important fact Z. for any experienced player this should be a concept they're familiar with. but...yes, using session 0 to establish expectations for the game is a good idea.


And then stay out of that players hair. And not use the word metagaming. because, as everyone knows, using a word can be bad, even when used correctly. screw that, if a player is violating the agreed upon expectations from session 0, they need to get called out. That doesn't mean there needs to be a dogpile, but the expectations exist for a reason. the social contract is meant to facilitate fun. if its not working, then discussion needs to occur to correct that. Metagaming is a useful term that is fine to be used in such discussions, so long as everyone is able to understand each other.


What's not reasonable is incorrectly using the term 'metagaming' to cover something that is something that is a normal part of the fact that the player and character cannot be separate, and getting upset by player knowledge being used when there wasn't some kind of prior agreement. metagaming is the use of player knowledge to inform character decisions. that is objectively true. period. it is not incorrect to call it out as such. however metagaming is neither universally bad, nor is it entirely avoidable. and thats where i think your contention comes from. you assume that because im calling a behavior 'metagaming' im calling it 'bad' 'harmful' or 'wrong'. when, in fact, im not. IMO any healthy gaming group understands that a certain amount of metagaming is unavoidable, and in fact, some types of metagaming are necessary on a general scale. Then there are the things that we're discussing here. There's a huge array of behaviors that can be placed under the broad label of 'metagaming' and whether they're acceptable or not is entirely up to an individual table. Some tables may be comfortable with having a sort of...6th sense when other party members have fallen, even if they can't reasonably justify knowing. others may not like that, and prefer to stick more closely to a simulationist style.


For example, a reasonable question when putting together a campaign is "Has anyone played Tomb of Annihilation before, or read through the Adventure Path?" And then discuss how to handle it.

What's not reasonable is "You're read about Trolls? Then using fire is metagaming. Stop it." Or vampires, or whatever. and here is the ultimate example of what i was talking about above. noone is suggesting that just because a person happens to know that trolls are weak to fire, any use of fire on their part against troll is metagaming.

what *would* be metagaming is if you're playing a wizard that has, up to this point, used toll the dead as their go-to cantrip. in fact, maye they've not even cast firebolt once up to this point and then, out of the blue, started chucking firebolts, or acid spray. Now, some groups may be fine with this, other groups may not be (as established at session 0). however, it is still, very clearly, metagaming. and its a behavior that should be called out if it was decided at session 0 that this type of metagaming was unacceptable. If a player is willing to, so blatantly, ignore the social contract about that, its a red flag that they may be willing to violate other parts of it. not guaranteed, of course. but again, a discussion is still warranted.

[KorvinStarmast]

what *would* be metagaming
Maybe, but go ahead
is if you're playing a wizard that has, up to this point, used toll the dead as their go-to cantrip. in fact, maybe they've not even cast firebolt once up to this point and then, out of the blue, started chucking firebolts, or acid spray. Now, some groups may be fine with this, other groups may not be (as established at session 0). however, it is still, very clearly, metagaming.
Not necessarily, but it may be.

and its a behavior that should be called out if it was decided at session 0 that this type of metagaming was unacceptable. Just how long of a contract do you write during your session zero? Do you bring actual lawyers, or do you rely on a local rules lawyer? :smallwink:

If a player is willing to, so blatantly, ignore the social contract about that, its a red flag that they may be willing to violate other parts of it. not guaranteed, of course. but again, a discussion is still warranted. This seems a bit over the top as a reaction, but I certainly agree that a dialogue may be in order if the DM is getting a bad vibe off of the player in this case.

As an aside:
Nobody loves chill touch anymore, it seems. :smallconfused::smallfrown: It stops restoration of HP, and most DMs I have played with agree that it stops troll HP regeneration. And that little hand grabbing the enemy is a nice visual. :smallsmile:

[kazaryu]

Maybe, but go ahead
Not necessarily, but it may be.

Just how long of a contract do you write during your session zero? Do you bring actual lawyers, or do you rely on a local rules lawyer. :smallwink: lol.

This seems a bit over the top as a reaction, but certainly agree that a dialogue may be in order. i mean, i tried to be clear (which is certainly not a guarantee that I actually was) that the actual response at the table should be measured. i would agree there's probably no reason for like...raised voices, or possibly even pausing play in the moment. But if maintaining a sense of mystery, or trying to, is important enough to you that you established that expectation. then its something that should ideally be confronted when its still trivial, so that hopefully you don't end up typing out the story on RPGhorrorstories a few months later.

[KorvinStarmast]

But if maintaining a sense of mystery, or trying to, is important enough to you that you established that expectation. then its something that should ideally be confronted when its still trivial Yes, agree. Get the table on the same page, theme-and-feel wise.

[Tanarii]

metagaming is the use of player knowledge to inform character decisions. that is objectively true. period.
No, it is not. That's the common misuse (and often abuse) of the word in the context of roleplaying games. But that doesn't make it objectively true.

[kazaryu]

No, it is not. That's the common misuse (and often abuse) of the word in the context of roleplaying games. But that doesn't make it objectively true.

then what, pray tell, is the correct use of metagaming? you've mentioned twice that its being used incorrectly...and yet haven't offered a definition of your own.

[RSP]

No, it is not. That's the common misuse (and often abuse) of the word in the context of roleplaying games. But that doesn't make it objectively true.

Wikipedia says it is:

“Metagaming is a term used in role-playing games, which describes a player's use of real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances.”

As does UrbanDictionary:

“When game information outside of what is available in a game is used to give a player an advantage in-game. Most commonly seen and frowned upon in many forms of role playing especially when consent has not been given.”

They even use exactly what we’re referring to as their example of metagaming:

“A dungeons and dragons adventure team comes across an unknown monster in-game. The metagamer knows this monster through out-of-game information. Using this information, the metagamer's character acts upon the monster's weaknesses and attributes despite the character having never seen the monster before.”

[MoiMagnus]

The wikipedia article also continue with "Outside of role-playing, metagaming simply refers to players using knowledge or understanding of external factors (such as community trends or coincidental events) to gain an advantage in competition. "

EDIT:

Another definition found here (http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr/Metagaming/en-en/):

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

[RSP]

The wikipedia article also continue with "Outside of role-playing, metagaming simply refers to players using knowledge or understanding of external factors (such as community trends or coincidental events) to gain an advantage in competition. "

Pretty sure this discussion involves role-playing, but yeah it still would qualify in that way too.

[MoiMagnus]

Pretty sure this discussion involves role-playing.

Indeed, but since Tanarii claimed that this word was misused in the context of roleplaying, I wanted to find its supposed meaning outside of the context of roleplaying.

[strangebloke]

Metagame means "contextual information about the game." So I play Guilty Gear Strive, a fighting game. I was interested in the characters Ky and May, but I know the May does better against the character Chipp and there are a lot of Chipp players where I live, so I chose to focus on May. That's what "metagame" means to anyone who doesn't play TTRPGS. This doesn't mean that its incorrect as such to say that metagaming has a different meaning in the context of TTRGPs. Meanings vary on context.

Anyway, my final summary point is this: Metagaming is inevitable. Your actions are pretty much always going to be informed by your OOC knowledge to some extent, either because you're using it directly, or because you're deliberately trying to pretend as though you don't know what you know. Regardless, any supposed problem with metagaming has nothing to do with metagaming itself, and rather has to do with the player's intent.

A player who reads the module isn't bad. It's not even bad if they metagame a bit, maybe create a character who's specifically designed for the module, or maybe they push the party down a certain path because it will be more interesting. The problem comes when they choose to use metagame information to trivialize the game and break everyone's suspension of disbelief.

A paladin who "randomly" decides to go looking in thief's satchel 'for snacks' is metagaming, but if there is a problem here it isn't metagaming itself. The problem is that the thief and paladin's players have an OOC disagreement about what kind of campaign they're playing in. The thief's player wants to do a more murderhobo style campaign with evil deeds and interparty conflict, the paladin doesn't and he's expressing his frustration poorly.

The DM who baldly insists that a player can't know what a troll is, isn't "stopping metagaming," they're making a statement about the lore of the setting. If this is a problem at all, its a problem either because of a failure to communicate to the players that trolls aren't a 'known thing' in setting, or because its not actually an aspect of his setting, he's just being a **** because he wants to force his players to roll for everything.

[KorvinStarmast]

Metagame means "contextual information about the game." So I play Guilty Gear Strive, a fighting game. I was interested in the characters Ky and May, but I know the May does better against the character Chipp and there are a lot of Chipp players where I live, so I chose to focus on May. That's what "metagame" means to anyone who doesn't play TTRPGS. This doesn't mean that its incorrect as such to say that metagaming has a different meaning in the context of TTRGPs. Meanings vary on context. The "meta" in League of Legends, and the "meta" in Hearthstone are useful things to know about if you are involved in public or competitive play.

Metagaming is inevitable. Using Bardic Inspiration is meta gaming: it's a post hoc change of a die roll, where 'in world' there is no die and there is no roll. :smallsmile:
(see also Divination Wizard and Portent)


The DM who baldly insists that a player can't know what a troll is, isn't "stopping metagaming," they're making a statement about the lore of the setting. If this is a problem at all, its a problem either because of a failure to communicate to the players that trolls aren't a 'known thing' in setting, or because its not actually an aspect of his setting, he's just being a **** because he wants to force his players to roll for everything. And it's one of the aspects of rollplaying that is annoying as heck. (I have a DM who still does stuff like this ...)

[kazaryu]

The DM who baldly insists that a player can't know what a troll is, isn't "stopping metagaming," again with conflating 'i can identify this creature' with 'i have useful information on how to combat this creature'. these 2 aren't the same thing. Players, when they ask 'do i know what this is' aren't actually looking for the name of the creature (unless they're trying to get a name that they can go research in-character). they're looking for actionable information about the creature. similarly, when a DM says 'you don't know what this is' most of the time they're meaning 'you don't have any useful information about this creature'. and so...yes, if the only reason a PC is able to act against a creatures specific weaknesses deliberately is due to the player having knowledge, then the DM would indeed be 'stopping metagaming'
they're making a statement about the lore of the setting. the two things aren't mutually exclusive. you can be doing both. In this case, they're making a statement about the setting...in order to stop metagaming.
If this is a problem at all, its a problem either because of a failure to communicate to the players that trolls aren't a 'known thing' in setting, why put all the blame on the DM. if its a problem at all, its due to a failure on both sides of the dispute to adequately communicate the type of game they like to run/play. There should be no default assumptions when it comes to in world lore in a homebrew setting. The DM is there to answer questions.
or because its not actually an aspect of his setting, he's just being a **** because he wants to force his players to roll for everything. yup, as i said. some DM's are *****, and they take things to extremes. that doesn't mean that the overall concepts of 'your character does not posses your knowledge of the MM' and 'You, the player, don't know enough about my setting to tell me what is common knowledge and what isn't.' are wrong.

[strangebloke]

again with conflating 'i can identify this creature' with 'i have useful information on how to combat this creature'. these 2 aren't the same thing.
As I have already said. If a DM forces a roll, they are making a positive claim that information about this creature is rare and difficult to obtain, confined to the specific realm of people who have specialized in a given topic. That's what ability checks mean. You don't roll acrobatics to see if you can carry a mug across your bedroom without dropping it, you roll it to perform death-defying feats mid-combat. Similarly, you don't roll nature to know what a bear is, or even how to get a bear to ignore you ('play dead' is very common knowledge) you roll nature or perhaps survival to know from the bear's droppings what sorts of things its been eating.

As such, if knowledge about a creature is difficult to obtain, it is helpful for the DM to signal this by saying "there's a large monster coming out of the water with long arms and green skin" rather than just saying "a troll comes out of the water."

Players, when they ask 'do i know what this is' aren't actually looking for the name of the creature (unless they're trying to get a name that they can go research in-character). they're looking for actionable information about the creature. similarly, when a DM says 'you don't know what this is' most of the time they're meaning 'you don't have any useful information about this creature'. and so...yes, if the only reason a PC is able to act against a creatures specific weaknesses deliberately is due to the player having knowledge, then the DM would indeed be 'stopping metagaming' the two things aren't mutually exclusive. you can be doing both. In this case, they're making a statement about the setting...in order to stop metagaming.

It isn't metagaming, its an assumption about what their character would know. Which is, generally, something the player is allowed to do. A player is allowed to assume their characters knows where a visible enemy is on the battlefield. A player is allowed to assume their character knows that people in armor are usually harder to hit. A player is allowed to assume (rightly or wrongly) that the guy in starry robes is some sort of wizard. Even in the event that a skill check is required to determine something, the player isn't the one to request a skill check. That's the DM's job. "I want to decipher what this half-completed ritual was trying to accomplish" -> "okay roll arcana."

It's not metagaming to assume that some nugget of knowledge would or could be in-character knowledge, and all the DM is doing is correcting that assumption. Furthermore a good DM will try to signal or convey that something might be unknown ahead of time, as I mentioned above.


why put all the blame on the DM. if its a problem at all, its due to a failure on both sides of the dispute to adequately communicate the type of game they like to run/play. There should be no default assumptions when it comes to in world lore in a homebrew setting. The DM is there to answer questions.
First of all, I wasn't aware that this discussion was constrained to homebrew settings. Secondly, nah, it is the DM's job to explain how his setting differs from baseline. I've run homebrew settings for years, and I don't even assume my players know information from the setting notes.


yup, as i said. some DM's are *****, and they take things to extremes. that doesn't mean that the overall concepts of 'your character does not posses your knowledge of the MM' and 'You, the player, don't know enough about my setting to tell me what is common knowledge and what isn't.' are wrong.
They aren't, as I acknowledged. If its a problem its a matter of intent, EG, a DM is being a control freak.

[Reach Weapon]

Often the problem with the peckish Paladin isn't that the "random" "innocent" search is a blatant lie, it's when the perpetrating Player is the one trying to pass the pretense off to the table. (A DM that allows the intraparty thievery is probably prepared to adjudicate various issues involving party property-rights and perfidy.)

Similarly, there isn't generally an issue with the DM dictating the entire world, but rather in the degree of obtrusiveness of that control, the purposes to which it appears to be exerted, and the underlying principles of player agency and DM dispassion.

[KorvinStarmast]

Similarly, there isn't generally an issue with the DM dictating the entire world, but rather in the degree of obtrusiveness of that control, the purposes to which it appears to be exerted, and the underlying principles of player agency and DM dispassion. which are sliding scales, not absolutes ... am I reading you correctly?

[Reynaert]

No, it is not. That's the common misuse (and often abuse) of the word in the context of roleplaying games. But that doesn't make it objectively true.

If a word is misused often enough, that use stops being misuse and becomes accepted use. However, it is almost always used negatively.

So by that measurement, the word 'metagaming' in the context of roleplaying has come to mean: "A derogatory term used to describe the use of player knowledge as character knowledge".

[KorvinStarmast]

If a word is misused often enough, that use stops being misuse and becomes accepted use. This seems to be a close cousin to "If you tell a lie for long enough, often enough, it becomes {mistaken for} the truth." :smallconfused:

[Demonslayer666]

Sure. But is choosing between attacking with firebolt and magic missile "easy" when you know that the creature is immune to fire but your character does not? Or when you know the creature is particularly vulnerable to fire but your character does not?
Yep, extremely easy. You act normally, as in you open with what you normally use. If you find it difficult to recall which one you more commonly use, flip a coin.

But this also depends on the game you are playing. If you need to absolutely eke out every single tactical advantage in order to survive every encounter your DM throws at you, then sure, using your player knowledge may be expected. If your DM caters to your play style and likes interesting characters more than efficient ones, and adjusts the challenge level to the characters and playstyle, it may be more important to focus on what your character would do.


With this I'll agree as it's a world building issue.
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. (The bit in italics) Or it's a matter of taste.
But I can never unlearn two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun. That commercial jingle (or maybe we now call things like that an earworm) is in perma memory.

So too is a troll's regeneration and fire slowing that down.
Fun is subjective, but it is a fact that I find it less fun as a DM when the players look up monsters between session and return with said knowledge and share it with the table. More than not fun, I would be angry. I guarantee others at my table would also agree that is a crappy thing to do, and we would tell them to stop as soon as we realized what they were doing. We all like to roleplay with the knowledge we think our character has, and deviating from that at our table is frowned upon by everyone. Knowing something and acting on that knowledge are two very different things. Play dumb. I keep getting the impression that people think that isn't possible.


What information is the DM providing that your hypothetical "cheater" is translating into accurate listings of resistances?
If the DM is trying to dictate character knowledge and experience, ought not they explicitly do that, one way or another?
I don't follow. Why does the DM need to provide information? You mean like in session zero, when I tell players not to whip out fire and acid when fighting troll unless you are a troll hunter?

No, not dictate, but reasonably curb, as I have made clear in my previous posts on how I handle it. If you think your character would reasonably know this information, run it by me and I'll let you run with it, make a roll to try for it, or say you don't know.


...
But I think that if a DM is going to draw a hard line and claim that something is a rare and unknowable species, they better have a damned good reason. People in medieval Denmark knew what a lion was. Heck, they knew what a rhino was.

That's mostly because its not relevant to game mechanics. Neither is a working knowledge of the stock market. Deciding whether to cast fire bolt or not is relevant.
...
The damn good reason is because the players don't dictate the DMs world to the DM. Lions were not in Denmark because the people there said that they were common and they poofed into existence once that was said.



How about knowing the capability of a monster because a player fought it 58 times with 20 different characters among 20 campaigns for over 30 years? Is that cheating when the player casts Burning Hands instead of Thunderwave against the trolls? How many times must a cleric player cast Inflict Wounds on a wight before he switches to Sacred Flame?

The DM already does that by virtue of setting up the encounters. He will purposely set up encounters the party can't use their primary attacks sometimes for the challenge of it. Sometimes he lets them shine with an east fight.
That's testing player knowledge. I don't want D&D to be a history test, and neither do my players. It should come about organically - experience, research, winning over an NPC, scouting, etc. I lump flagrant metagaming in with cheating, and we all frown upon it, but there is a distinction, so no, it is not cheating. It would be metagaming if you always open with Thunderwave, and you suddenly switch to Burning Hands because of my description and you have never encountered them before. There is no set number, do what you normally do first, then whip out the fire (or whatever).

[strangebloke]

If a word is misused often enough, that use stops being misuse and becomes accepted use. However, it is almost always used negatively.

So by that measurement, the word 'metagaming' in the context of roleplaying has come to mean: "A derogatory term used to describe the use of player knowledge as character knowledge".

You're correct, however, I'll still argue its a bad term, mostly because of how difficult it is to meaningfully distinguish between what 'player' and 'character' knowledge is. The classic example being a dice roll in the middle of combat. Using the lucky feat is purely a metagame decision. The character doesn't even know they are especially lucky, much less that the feat saved them or that they have 3 uses per long rest.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fun is subjective, but it is a fact that I find it less fun as a DM when the players look up monsters between session and return with said knowledge and share it with the table. Have you all discussed this and reached an accord?

More than not fun, I would be angry.
??? Life's to short to get mad about D&D. But I do remember, a long time ago, letting frustrations like that get to me.

I guarantee others at my table would also agree that is a crappy thing to do, and we would tell them to stop as soon as we realized what they were doing. We all like to roleplay with the knowledge we think our character has, and deviating from that at our table is frowned upon by everyone. Knowing something and acting on that knowledge are two very different things. Play dumb. I keep getting the impression that people think that isn't possible. OK, so you all have had that conversation, and there is a general accord. Got it.

[Reach Weapon]

which are sliding scales, not absolutes ... am I reading you correctly?
I think the principles of player agency and DM dispassion are more accurately ideals (which is to say largely unmet in real world conditions) and given the purpose-built inequality in power, it is more important that DMs be mindful to check themselves.


I don't follow. Why does the DM need to provide information?
In so far as everything that happens in game, happens in the mind of the DM, I might argue that providing information is sort of a "one job" kind of thing here. It also means that players can only really cheat in the mind of the DM.


You mean like in session zero, when I tell players not to whip out fire and acid when fighting troll unless you are a troll hunter? [...] as I have made clear in my previous posts on how I handle it.
Um. I'm only really clear on the idea that you get angry, at least hypothetically. I'm relatively certain I have neither an accurate representation of your session zero presentation nor your table dynamics regarding commonly known information.

[Hytheter]

Did he know that you are better off using a Dex Save spell vs a Spell Attack because the Oliphant has low dex but decent AC? Or did he just know they existed, were big and had a basic grasp of what they looked like.

I don't think you need any particular knowledge to realise that an elephant probably has a tough hide but is bad at dodging. Any idiot could figure that out just by seeing one. :smallamused:

[kazaryu]

I don't think you need any particular knowledge to realise that an elephant probably has a tough hide but is bad at dodging. Any idiot could figure that out just by seeing one. :smallamused:

Come on now, lets not pretend that wotc did a good job of translating irl creature stats to the game.

Like...Rats, one of the smartest of the non humans irl, have an intelligence of 2. Cats dont have darkvision. Im sure i could find more examples but...like, cmon man

[Sorinth]

I don't think you need any particular knowledge to realise that an elephant probably has a tough hide but is bad at dodging. Any idiot could figure that out just by seeing one. :smallamused:

Would someone really know that you are more likely to hit an elephant when "You hurl a bubble of acid" (Acid Splash) vs "You hurl a mote of fire" (Firebolt)? That seems dubious.

[Valmark]

Would someone really know that you are more likely to hit an elephant when "You hurl a bubble of acid" (Acid Splash) vs "You hurl a mote of fire" (Firebolt)? That seems dubious.

Honestly, I think they would. You seem to be thinking from the perspective of 'I'm throwing something at it in both cases' but the way these two actually hit their target is very different- such a difference would be rapresented somehow. Maybe the firebolt unless it hits a soft spot just barely singes while the acid splash just burns through whatever it touches, meaning that hitting a tough skinned clumsy animal would look that much easier with the acid splash.

[Sorinth]

Honestly, I think they would. You seem to be thinking from the perspective of 'I'm throwing something at it in both cases' but the way these two actually hit their target is very different- such a difference would be rapresented somehow. Maybe the firebolt unless it hits a soft spot just barely singes while the acid splash just burns through whatever it touches, meaning that hitting a tough skinned clumsy animal would look that much easier with the acid splash.

But logically shouldn't you do more damage when hitting a soft spot regardless of damage type. So acid splash hitting the soft spot does X damage but missing the soft spot and hitting the tough hide still does Y damage.

Not too mention what happens if using Transmuted spell so both spells are the same damage type.


But really nobody cares about elephants. It's things like knowing a Rakshasa is immune to 6th level and lower spells. Are you going to know that just by looking at it?

[KorvinStarmast]

But really nobody cares about elephants. It's things like knowing a Rakshasa is immune to 6th level and lower spells. Are you going to know that just by looking at it? That's a fair point; dangerous supernatural creatures, and their vulnerabilities, are handled differently in a lot of different kinds of fiction. Sometimes an old song or folk lore will allude to a weakness, sometimes legends tell partly true and partly false descriptions, other times (and I think this fits a Rakshasa pretty well) the majority of its powers and attributes are unknown or are just "known" incorrectly since their entire schtick is deception. This is where Hints, and the world's deep lore are placed squarely on the DM's shoulders. How that lore gets disseminated into player space (and how much of it) isn't very well explained in the DMG, though using tools like a Three Clue Rule or interactions with NPCs and sages and story tellers, or victims of a demon's cruelty, can drop hints and partial information.

History, Arcana, and Nature checks embody a great deal of what can be known, learned, heard, and even learned wrongly.

Or, the DM can insist on 'trial and error' only as a method.

I prefer a mix of the above. It gives the game world a bit more texture, but it demands that the DM put a lot of thought into how a given BBEG (Rakshasa is a fine villain for a story arc that ends somewhere in Tier 2) fits into the world and how much lore is even available.

[DwarfFighter]

Sometimes, the character knows that a troll regenerates, sometimes they don't, or maybe they've heard a story about acid being particularly harmful to a troll.


When I read the title, I immediately though of the "Troll Test" of metagaming, and I wasn't disappointed.

It's the game's worst kept secret that Trolls aren't dead until you kill them with fire or acid. I guess the litmus test here is: When people talk about potential monster threats to their communities, do they bring up Trolls?

In my mind, if people know about Trolls to discuss them, their regenerative properties are their most defining trait.

-DF

[KorvinStarmast]

In my mind, if people know about Trolls to discuss them, their regenerative properties are their most defining trait.

-DF What about when the DM forgets about that rarest of things, a creature's vulnerability?
We got swarmed by a bunch of skeletons and ghouls last night.
I had to remind the DM to double the damage our dwarf did with his warhammer on the skeletons in the second room. Good thing that this player also DMs, and I was able to remind him. :smallwink: (I was not playing the dwarf, I was playing the Valor Bard (absent player) since my warlock is currently split off from the party, dealing with a bunch of prisoners that she convinced the party not to slaughter ...)

Anyone here gonna accuse me of metagaming? :smalltongue:

[Sorinth]

That's a fair point; dangerous supernatural creatures, and their vulnerabilities, are handled differently in a lot of different kinds of fiction. Sometimes an old song or folk lore will allude to a weakness, sometimes legends tell partly true and partly false descriptions, other times (and I think this fits a Rakshasa pretty well) the majority of its powers and attributes are unknown or are just "known" incorrectly since their entire schtick is deception. This is where Hints, and the world's deep lore are placed squarely on the DM's shoulders. How that lore gets disseminated into player space (and how much of it) isn't very well explained in the DMG, though using tools like a Three Clue Rule or interactions with NPCs and sages and story tellers, or victims of a demon's cruelty, can drop hints and partial information.

History, Arcana, and Nature checks embody a great deal of what can be known, learned, heard, and even learned wrongly.

Or, the DM can insist on 'trial and error' only as a method.

I prefer a mix of the above. It gives the game world a bit more texture, but it demands that the DM put a lot of thought into how a given BBEG (Rakshasa is a fine villain for a story arc that ends somewhere in Tier 2) fits into the world and how much lore is even available.

Has anyone actually proposed using the trial and error only? That seems extreme, I would assume the default would have been to always allow a check (Possibly limit it to proficient with a skill).

I agree that being able to know/learn about a BBEG strengths/weaknesses makes a better story/campaign. Which is why my opinion is players not using their personal knowledge is better. As a player I'd rather the DM spend their time working on that lore and how it gets disseminated then spending their time on altering the stat block in order to "surprise" me with their abilities.

[kazaryu]

What about when the DM forgets about that rarest of things, a creature's vulnerability?
We got swarmed by a bunch of skeletons and ghouls last night.
I had to remind the DM to double the damage our dwarf did with his warhammer on the skeletons in the second room. Good thing that this player also DMs, and I was able to remind him. :smallwink: (I was not playing the dwarf, I was playing the Valor Bard (absent player) since my warlock is currently split off from the party, dealing with a bunch of prisoners that she convinced the party not to slaughter ...)

Anyone here gonna accuse me of metagaming? :smalltongue:
i mean...no? but thats not really hat we're talking about. having Meta conversations should be (imo) universally fine. Its when they're in character that it potentially becomes a problem.

for example: if im trying to RP a skill check, i will sometimes (after i say the bit in character) talk to the DM directly so that he knows what i was intending to get across/accomplish. That was we can avoid a miscommunication if he like...asks me to roll a check that I was decidedly not going for.

[KorvinStarmast]

Has anyone actually proposed using the trial and error only? That is coming across in a few of the posts about trolls and things like switching to firebolt from toll the dead ... so how are the characters (as controlled by the players) supposed to find out what's going on with a troll if the hard edge case is being advocated for? (The line was "if you start using acid or fire on trolls you are obviously metagaming" roughly).

Example from actual play/ The (Ranger) PC's favored enemy is giant. (That's the Giant creature type, folks)
I'd say that my PC ranger would know what harms a troll.
My DM agreed.
What say you, Demonslayer666?
Did my ranger 'metagame' (in your opinion) when he told our dragonborn paladin about how effective his breath might be against that troll? His favored enemy is the giant creature type.
(We'd all seen the dragonborn spray acid breath at a giant scorpion half a dozen sessions before that).

[strangebloke]

As I already pointed out though, even if you do require a knowledge check, its going to be a group check in most cases which makes the knowledge trivial.

[Sorinth]

That is coming across in a few of the posts about trolls and things like switching to firebolt from toll the dead ... so how are the characters (as controlled by the players) supposed to find out what's going on with a troll if the hard edge case is being advocated for? (The line was "if you start using acid or fire on trolls you are obviously metagaming" roughly).

Example from actual play/ The (Ranger) PC's favored enemy is giant. (That's the Giant creature type, folks)
I'd say that my PC ranger would know what harms a troll.
My DM agreed.
What say you, Demonslayer666?
Did my ranger 'metagame' (in your opinion) when he told our dragonborn paladin about how effective his breath might be against that troll? His favored enemy is the giant creature type.
(We'd all seen the dragonborn spray acid breath at a giant scorpion half a dozen sessions before that).

I'm sure I've not read every post in detail but @Demonslayer666 said

"If you think your character would reasonably know this information, run it by me and I'll let you run with it, make a roll to try for it, or say you don't know."

So clearly not limited to trial and error. Really the only question is what is considered common information regarding monsters. That is setting related so under the DM purview. Someone who grew up on the Sword Coast in FR is going to have heard about trolls/fire because trolls are common in that area. But in a different area/world where trolls don't inhabit, you might have heard about it, you might not have.

[RSP]

As I already pointed out though, even if you do require a knowledge check, its going to be a group check in most cases which makes the knowledge trivial.

Why are you assuming every table is run as you run yours?

First off, RAW, group checks require half the PCs to succeed at something, not just one. So, no, the knowledge check run as a group check is not trivial; most likely it’s more difficult than just having the proficient character make it. From the Basic Rules:

“To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails.”

Further, most tables I’ve played at, with different DMs, don’t run knowledge checks that way. Usually it’s only anyone proficient in the relevant skill, or someone with a RP/Background reason, or just the PC of the Player who originally asks about the info.

Or no check is needed because the DM already decided it’s not knowledge that the PCs have a chance of knowing.

Now, I imagine different tables use other methods too, and that’s great, and is why I keep saying these things are up to the DM of any specific game and how they want to run it.

[Sorinth]

As I already pointed out though, even if you do require a knowledge check, its going to be a group check in most cases which makes the knowledge trivial.

Depends very much on the DC.

Trolls/Fire is probably a very low DC or even auto-sucess. And yes with group checks if the DC is low enough it's fair for the DM to just not bothering asking for a check. A Rakshasa's limited magic immunity is going to be much less of a given and probably isn't trivial even as a group check.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm sure I've not read every post in detail but @Demonslayer666 said

"If you think your character would reasonably know this information, run it by me and I'll let you run with it, make a roll to try for it, or say you don't know."
{snip} That is setting related so under the DM purview. Someone who grew up on the Sword Coast in FR is going to have heard about trolls/fire because trolls are common in that area. But in a different area/world where trolls don't inhabit, you might have heard about it, you might not have. Thanks, asked and answered. :smallsmile:

@Rsp29a
I use group checks with some frequency; I have one group with 7 players, and it's just easier to say "everyone roll Nature" and I get a quick yay or nay from looking at the result. For smaller groups this may not be necessary.

[strangebloke]

Why are you assuming every table is run as you run yours?

If its important, as with an insight or perception check, there's no reason by RAW why everyone can't roll such a check. This isn't a 'group check' technically, its much worse. It's hyper advantage.

The only reason more people don't roll is because its not perceived as important

Depends very much on the DC.

Trolls/Fire is probably a very low DC or even auto-sucess. And yes with group checks if the DC is low enough it's fair for the DM to just not bothering asking for a check. A Rakshasa's limited magic immunity is going to be much less of a given and probably isn't trivial even as a group check.

didn't mean group check, sorry. I meant 'everyone rolls separately' which leads to hyper-advantage. Five rolls have a 40% chance of getting 19 or better. At that level I'd assume an average modifier of +1 or +2, so.... its pretty good odds, if not a given.

[Sorinth]

didn't mean group check, sorry. I meant 'everyone rolls separately' which leads to hyper-advantage. Five rolls have a 40% chance of getting 19 or better. At that level I'd assume an average modifier of +1 or +2, so.... its pretty good odds, if not a given.

I understood what you meant by group check but why is 20 the limit?

Wouldn't knowing how a Rakshasa magic immunity works be "Very Hard", and therefore be 25. Meaning only a few even have a chance?

Not to mention it's a case where it would make sense to lock behind proficiency, and so it's doubtful all 5 PCs have the right proficiency to even check.

EDIT: And it's also worth noting what failure means. Misinformation is one way to deal with the super advantage conundrum. Fail by 5 or more gives wrong information potentially causing other issues.

[RSP]

@Rsp29a
I use group checks with some frequency; I have one group with 7 players, and it's just easier to say "everyone roll Nature" and I get a quick yay or nay from looking at the result. For smaller groups this may not be necessary.

Coincidentally, my current table is also 7 Players. Group checks is certainly one way to handle it. Like I said, different DMs have handled the issue with different means, though most stay away from “everyone roll this check” and have it be an individual roll (that is, it’s not a “group check”), unless there are individual consequences (such as a Perception check to see which PCs are surprised).

Story-wise, I’ve seen it where a DM wants to relay info (regardless of whether a knowledge check is “successful” at hitting a set DC), and doles that info out based on which characters had the highest rolls, but that’s different than what’s currently being discussed.

[KorvinStarmast]

Story-wise, I’ve seen it where a DM wants to relay info (regardless of whether a knowledge check is “successful” at hitting a set DC), and doles that info out based on which characters had the highest rolls, but that’s different than what’s currently being discussed. I have seen multiple DMs use "levels of success" based on a d20 roll (which is kind of like how the reactions to persuasion attempts on DMG p 245 based on initial state of hotsile/neutral/friendly).
And I'd need to check my DMG, but I think a 'levels of success' section is included in the DM workshop also.

[strangebloke]

I understood what you meant by group check but why is 20 the limit?

Wouldn't knowing how a Rakshasa magic immunity works be "Very Hard", and therefore be 25. Meaning only a few even have a chance?

Not to mention it's a case where it would make sense to lock behind proficiency, and so it's doubtful all 5 PCs have the right proficiency to even check.

EDIT: And it's also worth noting what failure means. Misinformation is one way to deal with the super advantage conundrum. Fail by 5 or more gives wrong information potentially causing other issues.

So just to be clear, if you judge the information to be hard to recall, you force a check. If multiple people roll and someone gets a bad result, you force them to RP as though they know incorrect information, even if other people suceeded? Lovely.

I would pretty strongly argue that if you want to prevent 'everyone rolls' situations like this its better to just say ahead of time that someone has disadvantage trying to roll for a knowledge skill they don't have proficiency in. If you force them to RP with bad information it feels really mean, like you're pulling the rug out from under them.

And sure, for extremely hard knowledge checks, hyper-advantage isn't enough. But my more general point here is that there's few instances where knowledge rolls present an interesting challenge. Trolls almost never should be such a scenario.

[KorvinStarmast]

The WoTC dev's recommendation is a bit parsimonious; they seem to take the 'let it be revealed during play' approach. (The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, p. 7) FWIW.

Abilities, Strengths, and Weaknesses. As their characters fight a creature, players expect to learn more about the creature's strengths, weaknesses, and abilities. It is OK to share such information with them as it becomes apparent. For example, you can describe a creature's wounds closing up when it regenerates.
Characters don't need to fight a creature to know certain facts about it. For example, a character who has the Witchlight hand background and chose a sprite for a carnival companion would know a lot about sprites, including their ability to turn invisible. Similarly, if a character intuits that a treant, being a creature made of wood, has vulnerability to fire damage, just smile faintly and say "That's a reasonable hypothesis." If the treant takes double damage from a fireball spell, be sure to let the players know how badly the fire hurt it.
Don't be afraid to dole out information to characters who have the applicable knowledge. If you're not sure whether the characters possess such knowledge, have them make an Intelligence check (see the Dungeon Master's Guide for more guidance about ability checks), and share the information if one or more characters succeed on the check. But it's certainly workable.

[Demonslayer666]

Have you all discussed this and reached an accord?
??? Life's to short to get mad about D&D. But I do remember, a long time ago, letting frustrations like that get to me.
OK, so you all have had that conversation, and there is a general accord. Got it.

Example from actual play/ The (Ranger) PC's favored enemy is giant. (That's the Giant creature type, folks)
I'd say that my PC ranger would know what harms a troll.
My DM agreed.
What say you, Demonslayer666?
Did my ranger 'metagame' (in your opinion) when he told our dragonborn paladin about how effective his breath might be against that troll? His favored enemy is the giant creature type.
(We'd all seen the dragonborn spray acid breath at a giant scorpion half a dozen sessions before that).
It is not that I get mad about D&D. lol. Nor would my anger get to me. It would stop the game and I would go over what we covered in session zero again. If life is too short to worry about D&D, why are you on a D&D forum posting and reading about it? It's obviously important to you to some degree or you wouldn't be here. My time is important to me, especially when I spend many hours a week preparing the game and our sessions are relatively short. Our play time is precious. For me, it is like someone spoiling a movie when they know you haven't seen it. Very rude.

Favored enemy gives you advantage on the knowledge roll, so I probably would have had you roll rather than it be automatic, and I would give you information based on how well you rolled. Lots of factors play into how I would handle it: level, in game experiences, your background, your back story, proficiencies, etc. If something in your back story included trolls, or living near a swamp, or in game you went and studied in a large library for a day, or something similar, then it might be automatic. In this case, I would never say you automatically fail. It's the opposite of what Favored Enemy says.


...
In so far as everything that happens in game, happens in the mind of the DM, I might argue that providing information is sort of a "one job" kind of thing here. It also means that players can only really cheat in the mind of the DM.

Um. I'm only really clear on the idea that you get angry, at least hypothetically. I'm relatively certain I have neither an accurate representation of your session zero presentation nor your table dynamics regarding commonly known information.
I'm still not clear on your information requirement. Yes, the DM must give information, what information are you looking to be given specifically when you ask "What information is the DM providing that your hypothetical "cheater" is translating into accurate listings of resistances?"

The game also happens in the players' mind, not just the DM's, so no, cheating/metagaming is not exclusive to the DM's perspective.

[Christew]

Wouldn't knowing how a Rakshasa magic immunity works be "Very Hard", and therefore be 25. Meaning only a few even have a chance?
Especially since, given another thread on that very subject, it's tough to know exactly how that ability works out of game, let alone in game.

[KorvinStarmast]

If life is too short to worry about D&D, why are you on a D&D forum posting and reading about it? Life is to short to get angry about D&D. That was the message being sent.
(Your point on the advantage to a roll is valid; my DM didn't waste time with a roll in that instance).

[jas61292]

I would pretty strongly argue that if you want to prevent 'everyone rolls' situations like this its better to just say ahead of time that someone has disadvantage trying to roll for a knowledge skill they don't have proficiency in. If you force them to RP with bad information it feels really mean, like you're pulling the rug out from under them

I disagree, and I love group knowledge checks. I know some people question how it wouldn't be a simple case of everyone rolls, super advantage, and if someone knows, they know, and someone else not knowing doesn't change that. But to me that misses the point.

There's a big difference between "knowing" something, and knowing that what you know is definitely correct. One player rolling well and the other three failing does not have to mean "wizard says X, and no one else has any clue, so they just take his word for it." And you don't even need to tell people what they "know" and force them to RP bad info. Let them RP it how they want. Sure, the wizard knows that the Troll is weak to fire, but maybe the rogue is certain that it's not. The cleric has no idea, but thinks the rogue has more practical experience, and chooses to believe in that over what the wizard read in a book. And the barbarian insists that is silly for them to be discussing the weakness of trolls when they are clearly fighting an ogre. In the end, maybe they just can't agree. Maybe they all end up questioning what they think. Maybe they all just go with the barbarian.

The exact RP can be whatever you want, and you can leave it to the players to handle it. They can argue something false if they want, or simply not agree with what the "correct" person says. Or, more practically if this is during combat, you can just glaze over it and, when the group check is failed, simply say that they quickly discussed it and couldn't as a group come to a concensus. You don't need to force any kind of RP. You just need to say that characters don't know about checks, and don't automatically believe something just because a single member of the party thinks they recall something about it.

[Pex]

I understood what you meant by group check but why is 20 the limit?

Wouldn't knowing how a Rakshasa magic immunity works be "Very Hard", and therefore be 25. Meaning only a few even have a chance?

Not to mention it's a case where it would make sense to lock behind proficiency, and so it's doubtful all 5 PCs have the right proficiency to even check.

EDIT: And it's also worth noting what failure means. Misinformation is one way to deal with the super advantage conundrum. Fail by 5 or more gives wrong information potentially causing other issues.

The DC is always DM makes it up so good luck on that. However, that's not how proficiency works, officially. Proficiency was never a gate for anything. All it means is you get to add your proficiency bonus to the die roll. It was never permission to make the roll. It is a common house rule DMs make up. They might not even realize it's a house rule.

The problem is the stereotype. Some DMs cannot accept a barbarian can make a Knowledge Arcana check. I would agree that's not unreasonable, but instead of flat out telling the barbarian player no roll for you it's easier to gate behind proficiency since it's very unlikely a barbarian player would take that proficiency. If he does then sure he deserves the roll. Once proficiency as permission floodgate is open there's no closing it, and it becomes used for anything.

[Segev]

The DC is always DM makes it up so good luck on that. However, that's not how proficiency works, officially. Proficiency was never a gate for anything. All it means is you get to add your proficiency bonus to the die roll. It was never permission to make the roll. It is a common house rule DMs make up. They might not even realize it's a house rule.

The problem is the stereotype. Some DMs cannot accept a barbarian can make a Knowledge Arcana check. I would agree that's not unreasonable, but instead of flat out telling the barbarian player no roll for you it's easier to gate behind proficiency since it's very unlikely a barbarian player would take that proficiency. If he does then sure he deserves the roll. Once proficiency as permission floodgate is open there's no closing it, and it becomes used for anything.

I have seen "oh, you're proficient? Don't bother rolling; you would just know...." used more often than "you're not proficient? You can't even roll." Even then, it's usually just proficiency as a gate for auto success or auto failure. If proficiency matters as its own bonus, then I've always seen 5e DMs allow the roll untrained.

[strangebloke]

I have seen "oh, you're proficient? Don't bother rolling; you would just know...." used more often than "you're not proficient? You can't even roll." Even then, it's usually just proficiency as a gate for auto success or auto failure. If proficiency matters as its own bonus, then I've always seen 5e DMs allow the roll untrained.

There's a degree of overlap here with backgrounds and classes. If someone has the nature skill, that might be because they have the outlander background, or because they're a ranger. Thus when it comes to information you would expect them to know certain things, and the nature skill represents this.

(EDIT:all this really highlights is that the skill system is kind of a mess no matter how you look at it.)

[Sorinth]

So just to be clear, if you judge the information to be hard to recall, you force a check. If multiple people roll and someone gets a bad result, you force them to RP as though they know incorrect information, even if other people suceeded? Lovely.

I would pretty strongly argue that if you want to prevent 'everyone rolls' situations like this its better to just say ahead of time that someone has disadvantage trying to roll for a knowledge skill they don't have proficiency in. If you force them to RP with bad information it feels really mean, like you're pulling the rug out from under them.

And sure, for extremely hard knowledge checks, hyper-advantage isn't enough. But my more general point here is that there's few instances where knowledge rolls present an interesting challenge. Trolls almost never should be such a scenario.

For the record I'm not beholden to any one way of handling the whole super advantage. I was just giving an example of another way of handling it that makes knowledge checks non-trivial and actually meaningful since it open the possibility for some fun RP interactions.

So for example your 5 players try to make the knowledge check 3 fail and 2 succeeds the DC 10 check for trolls. One of the failures was a nat 1 with no bonus so this player's info is they are 100% sure it's lightning that stops regeneration, one failure was a 9 so they're pretty sure it's an elemental damage type but can't remember which one exactly, the last failure was a 5, they aren't too sure but you don't see Trolls much during the winter so it's probably cold. One of the successes at 12 knows it's fire and acid, the success with a 18 knows the exact text.

That type of result is quite likely to lead to some fun RP. Even long after the fight if characters argue about a course of action someone might bring up that one time they fought trolls and the other was so sure and so wrong just like they are so sure of their current idea/plan.

I mean it's strange to complain about how they are "non-interesting" challenges and then crap on ways that can make them more interesting.

As for whether you need to do it for trolls it all depends on the campaign world and the characters themselves. If you made a Fire Genasi who grew up in the Elemental Plane of Fire and has only recently arrived to the Material Plane why would you know anything about trolls? And if you did you'd probably only know about some weird variant troll from the plane of fire. But again I doubt this stuff actually ever comes up for trolls, it's far more likely to come up with monsters that are much more rare or the rules in the edition have a catch or a loophole.

[Sorinth]

The DC is always DM makes it up so good luck on that. However, that's not how proficiency works, officially. Proficiency was never a gate for anything. All it means is you get to add your proficiency bonus to the die roll. It was never permission to make the roll. It is a common house rule DMs make up. They might not even realize it's a house rule.

The problem is the stereotype. Some DMs cannot accept a barbarian can make a Knowledge Arcana check. I would agree that's not unreasonable, but instead of flat out telling the barbarian player no roll for you it's easier to gate behind proficiency since it's very unlikely a barbarian player would take that proficiency. If he does then sure he deserves the roll. Once proficiency as permission floodgate is open there's no closing it, and it becomes used for anything.

I don't have my books on me right now, but I'm sure that it isn't a house rule. I think they even gave an example where you needed proficiency to even attempt to use blacksmith tools.

[Pex]

I don't have my books on me right now, but I'm sure that it isn't a house rule. I think they even gave an example where you needed proficiency to even attempt to use blacksmith tools.

You found the exception. Proficiency is required to use any type of tool. It's not needed to do an ability check, which is what the skills are.

[RSP]

Proficiency was never a gate for anything.

Interstingly, the RAW does have a “proficiency gate” in it.

From the Basic Rules:

“For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task.”

So, if you don’t have proficiency in Thieves Tools, you can’t try to open a lock. Nor could you Help another character use them.

Note: I’m not sure there’s another place that states you can’t attempt to use a skill or tool without proficiency; and this example is the only place I found with an absolute associated with using the Help Action.

But it is there in the RAW.

Edit: the Lock entry also mentions requiring Thieves Tools proficiency to try opening a lock, but the actual Thieves Tool entry just mentions being able to add your proficiency bonus when using them.

Curious if anyone found a general rule about needing proficiency to use a tool (or skill for that matter).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Curious if anyone found a general rule about needing proficiency to use a tool (or skill for that matter).

As far as I'm aware, no such general rule exists. And here's an argument as to why that should be expected and/or such a general rule would be not hidden--

Everywhere proficiency bonus is used, it's always a bonus. Including Ability Checks. Anyone can use a weapon; only proficiency people add +MOD to the attack roll. Anyone can grapple (using STR); only people proficient in Athletics add their proficiency bonus to the check. Anyone can make a saving throw; only proficient people can add their proficiency bonus. Etc. And tool-based checks are subsets of Ability Checks, which themselves follow the pattern (you can add any relevant proficiency if you have it; otherwise you can't add it).

So to say that for ability checks using tools and those only, you have to have proficiency to even attempt it would be to break with this pattern in a strong sort of way. And such a breakage would recommend a very clear statement to that effect. WotC does not (at least intentionally) hide their elephants in mouseholes. And the PHB is very clear that proficiency with a set of tools means that you can add your proficiency bonus to checks made using them. It does not say that proficiency is required to use them at all.

The only specific rule I know of (outside of adventures, which I don't read) is the one you quoted about using Thieves Tools on PHB locks. And note--that's not a general property of locks (writ large). It's a property of those specific locks, the ones that cost 10 gp and weigh 1 lb and have a DC of 15.

[RSP]

The only specific rule I know of (outside of adventures, which I don't read) is the one you quoted about using Thieves Tools on PHB locks. And note--that's not a general property of locks (writ large). It's a property of those specific locks, the ones that cost 10 gp and weigh 1 lb and have a DC of 15.

Clarification: what I quoted is actually from the helping on a skill check rules. I mentioned the lock entry as well, but didn’t quote it.

I’m pretty sure these are there from an earlier draft of the rules where they probably had an idea about a general rule on needing proficiency to use tools or skill checks, and no one thought to update those two specific paragraphs when said rule got axed.

However, that’s just a guess, and, as it stands, it is RAW (if that matters).

[Tanarii]

Everywhere proficiency bonus is used, it's always a bonus. Including Ability Checks. Anyone can use a weapon; only proficiency people add +MOD to the attack roll. Anyone can grapple (using STR); only people proficient in Athletics add their proficiency bonus to the check. Anyone can make a saving throw; only proficient people can add their proficiency bonus. Etc. And tool-based checks are subsets of Ability Checks, which themselves follow the pattern (you can add any relevant proficiency if you have it; otherwise you can't add it).

Which is important because ability scores include both natural ability and training. Proficiency include both focus and training.

In other words, both are a combination of natural ability/focus and training. One applies to all uses of the score, and the other to a subset things within the ability score. (Barring the variant rule.)

[False God]

Which is important because ability scores include both natural ability and training. Proficiency include both focus and training.

In other words, both are a combination of natural ability/focus and training. One applies to all uses of the score, and the other to a subset things within the ability score. (Barring the variant rule.)

I think it's worth clarifying the use of the word "training".

Bob the Bodybuilder has done Strength Training, that's why he has +4 Strength. Joe the Plumber has taken courses to train him how to be a Plumber. These courses do not necessarily reflect in his ability scores. They may have increased any number of his scores, but are more likely to be reflected in tool proficiencies and skills.

There are two types of "training" at play here. One of them makes Joe a Plumber. The other makes Bob stronger. They are different and it is important to clarify their difference. Ability scores alone do not necessarily include Joe's training, but they will always include Bob's training.

----
IMO, I'm a fan of Proficiency gating. But I run it as: people with proficiency get to go first, they were trained in this, people without get to roll second if the folks with proficiency failed. Mostly as a form of investment protection to keep the irritating randomness of 5E and the d20 from devaluing investing in skills when the -2 Int Barb can still get a lucky 20. Luck is not a substitute for skill investment.

[KorvinStarmast]

The DC is always DM makes it up so good luck on that. However, that's not how proficiency works, officially. Proficiency was never a gate for anything. All it means is you get to add your proficiency bonus to the die roll. It was never permission to make the roll. It is a common house rule DMs make up. They might not even realize it's a house rule. With the notable exception of thieves tools, but Thank You. Took me most of a year to convince my brother of that point.
Wait, do you have that skill?
Drove me freaking nuts.

You found the exception. Proficiency is required to use any type of tool. It's not needed to do an ability check, which is what the skills are. +1

Beyond that, I think that in Xanathar's they gate magic item creation behind the Arcana skill proficiency. I'll check later. No such gate in the DMG IIRC.

[PhoenixPhyre]

With the notable exception of thieves tools, but Thank You. Took me most of a year to convince my brother of that point.
Wait, do you have that skill?
Drove me freaking nuts.
+1

Beyond that, I think that in Xanathar's they gate magic item creation behind the Arcana skill proficiency. I'll check later. No such gate in the DMG IIRC.

Or a set of appropriate artisans tools. Only scroll crafting is arcana only.

[Tanarii]

I think it's worth clarifying the use of the word "training".

Bob the Bodybuilder has done Strength Training, that's why he has +4 Strength. Joe the Plumber has taken courses to train him how to be a Plumber. These courses do not necessarily reflect in his ability scores. They may have increased any number of his scores, but are more likely to be reflected in tool proficiencies and skills.

There are two types of "training" at play here. One of them makes Joe a Plumber. The other makes Bob stronger. They are different and it is important to clarify their difference. Ability scores alone do not necessarily include Joe's training, but they will always include Bob's training.

You're not comparing like to like.

A character that has good training in all Lores and deduction and mnemonics might have a high Int score. Another who has training in all lores and deduction might have a lower int score and 5 proficiencies in the five int proficiencies. An Int 18 EK can have just as much training in Arcana as a Int 10 level 9 char with Arcana proficiency, as well as other lore fields and deduction on top of it.

A character with good training in Str is just as good at Athletics as the character who trained in the more narrow proficiency in Athletics, but also better at raw feats of strength. One who has trained in Dex has trained in stealth, acrobatics, even sleight of hand, as well as dodging and evasion.

There are two kinds training here. One is broad and covers multiple fields including all of the ones in a proficiency (inherent in ability scores), and one is narrow (inherent in proficiencies).



IMO, I'm a fan of Proficiency gating. But I run it as: people with proficiency get to go first, they were trained in this, people without get to roll second if the folks with proficiency failed.I'd refuse to play at your table, purely based on this rule. Why should my Int 18 EK with a +4 bonus have to roll after an Int 10 Druid with +2-+3 bonus just because they took Arcana? Not only am I better trained in it, I'm better trained in all Lores. Including Nature, if they took that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd refuse to play at your table, purely based on this rule. Why should my Int 18 EK with a +4 bonus have to roll after an Int 10 Druid with +2-+3 bonus just because they took Arcana? Not only am I better trained in it, I'm better trained in all Lores. Including Nature, if they took that.

I never gate on proficiency. I don't even usually look at it--I've got enough on my plate to keep track of the details of the characters' sheets. And even then, being skilled at "Nature" and knowing about this one particular creature that just spawned on Tuesday and no one's ever seen it before aren't necessarily the same thing, although being skilled at Nature (or Survival, mostly) will help you figure stuff out by observing it/hearing about it/seeing its traces.

Instead, I gate auto-success based on several factors (more or less in check-list order):
1) has it come up recently in a major way? Something the characters learned a day ago, a big plot twist is unlikely to have been forgotten.
2) which character (if any) are from an area where this information/skill is common (ie every-day) knowledge? If any, that character gets the automatic success.
3) do any of the characters have a background which, when combined with their place in the world (ie where they're from and the details of that background) would suggest that they know/can do <thing> easily?
4) Is this something that someone of class <X> or race <Y> should just know? This one's pretty rare, as there isn't tons of overlap at the class level and most of the racial stuff comes in via #2 or #3.
5a) Is it something that no one has any reasonable chance of knowing (ie the plans of the BBEG who they've never met)? Auto failure.
5b) Ok, no one gets an automatic success. Set a DC and have the person who asked (or the person closest to the action) roll. If there could be 2 people, have each of them roll and use the better modifier (effectively 2-person advantage/help action).

Sometimes if there are gradiations of knowledge/success, I may set a DC and have them roll for 1-4; in that case, beating the DC means you get more information or a bigger success.

For knowledge-type rolls, it's rare that I actually get to step 5, and it's most often degrees of success.

[Reach Weapon]

Yes, the DM must give information, what information are you looking to be given specifically when you ask "What information is the DM providing that your hypothetical "cheater" is translating into accurate listings of resistances?"
If we imagine a table (in the play group sense of the word) there is initially nothing to which any of the players can attach unsanctioned information.

Now, we could suppose one of them illicitly perused the DMs notes (a different and worse violation than there's been any indication we're discussing), read the published campaign for advantage (disrespectful and wrong) or used the published material in some previous gaming (generally cool, but viewed as needing to be disclosed), but for the most part the thread hasn't seemed to focus on these sorts of situations where players have access to all the information required to do the thing that you've guaranteed angers you and everyone you play with.

So, we're largely discussing where a DM describes something that the a Player then connects to some information they have, and badness ensues. I was discussing that.

I also accidentally edited out the part where I explicitly asked you to share the highlights of your session zero presentation. My bad.



In so far as everything that happens in game, happens in the mind of the DM
The game also happens in the players' mind

It may or may not exist in a DM's game.
I believe you have demonstrated facility with the distinction I was making.

[False God]

You're not comparing like to like.
Yes, because I was pointing out you were conflating two different types of training in a single use of the word "training".


A character that has good training in all Lores and deduction and mnemonics might have a high Int score. Another who has training in all lores and deduction might have a lower int score and 5 proficiencies in the five int proficiencies. An Int 18 EK can have just as much training in Arcana as a Int 10 level 9 char with Arcana proficiency, as well as other lore fields and deduction on top of it.

A character with good training in Str is just as good at Athletics as the character who trained in the more narrow proficiency in Athletics, but also better at raw feats of strength. One who has trained in Dex has trained in stealth, acrobatics, even sleight of hand, as well as dodging and evasion.

There are two kinds training here. One is broad and covers multiple fields including all of the ones in a proficiency (inherent in ability scores), and one is narrow (inherent in proficiencies).
I'm sorry but you're still mixing up "training" in the sense of "I've trained my mind to be quick." and "training" in the sense of "I have studied this subject." These are not the same, and I'm not going to continue this discussion with you while you're mixing the two together.


I'd refuse to play at your table, purely based on this rule. Why should my Int 18 EK with a +4 bonus have to roll after an Int 10 Druid with +2-+3 bonus just because they took Arcana? Not only am I better trained in it, I'm better trained in all Lores. Including Nature, if they took that.
Because by my reading, no, you are not. You might be smarter. Quicker of thought. But you are not "better trained". I treat 5E "proficiency" more like 4E "trained". It IMHO literally represents training in a specific subject. Not just being smart.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry but you're still mixing up "training" in the sense of "I've trained my mind to be quick." and "training" in the sense of "I have studied this subject." These are not the same, and I'm not going to continue this discussion with you while you're mixing the two together.No, I'm not. I'm saying ability scores are implicitly per the rules either of those. It doesn't restrict the kind of training ability scores represent like that. But also recommend you take the discussion to the new thread for this tangent, since I'm dropping it here.