Character vs. Player Knowledge - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Character vs. Player Knowledge

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
venger2010
Jul 08, 2008 18:40:17 We have all come across this before. Now it's 4th edition is it the same? Well yes and no. In third the dm could be a dick and could make it no fun to play. But with the new edition is there still a line between character and Player? I am curious to know from others? In my opinion and experience from being a dm, I like to give my players alittle help. As long as it fits to what there character would know. The reason is this, I recently played 4th edition came across the gnome(lol monster) and his minions. Now player wise yeah these guys have like 1hp but my character wouldnt know that. He might know hey there week but in terms of hp no he wouldnt. Got in alittle bit of a scuffle about it. Also i tend to play characters as they are in the book based on race. The tiefling which is by far my favorite so far, is mostly a loner. They're hated and feared. Well we just started playing and the dm is like you all know each other and your mentor has been missing for to long. Well that means yeah i know these people but hey i never adventured with them yet. Can i trust them? Well trust is earned. But one of the players was you cant play that type of character, you always play a loner this is a d&d game we are all friends. Uhhhh no. This gcoming from the same person who always plays a dwarf. Always.....

Well anyway what are your thoughts on the whole character vs. player knowledge in 4th edition?
#2
yarskath
Jul 08, 2008 19:48:41 It honestly depends on the DM. Same with any version, the DM decides whether to separate character and player knowledge or to reward it. I have played for both types of DMs and I honestly prefer to keep character knowledge and player knowledge separate, both as a DM and as a player. I feel it makes a more balanced playing field when dealing with long time players and newer players in the same group.

There are certain things that can be said to be "common knowledge" like knowing what a vampire is or knowing to run from the tarrasque and such. But edition doesn't matter in this case anyway. Allowing the two to mix freely , IMO, skewes the believability of the characters. Besides, even in 3.x there were knowledge checks to see what your character actually knew about a monster. I feel that with the use of knowledge checks to represent what a character knows about something being part of RAW that the designers intend for character knowledge to be separate from player knowledge, at least as much as possible. Though not every DM, or player, will agree with me.
#3
Hebitsuikaza
Jul 09, 2008 1:42:34
There are certain things that can be said to be "common knowledge" like knowing what a vampire is or knowing to run from the tarrasque and such.

I can understand the running from the Tarrasque, but why would characters necessarily know what a vampire is?...
Vampires aren't really big on advertising themelves, they do normally tend to belend into society as much as possible.
There is no reaon a character should necessarily know what a succubus or nymph or satyr or kuo-toa or even gnoll is unless they are of a race that regularly deals with that sort of monster.

If your character know someone is pale, they only see them around at night, they tend to avoid churches, etc.-- jumping and screaming "it's a vampire! It wants to drink our blood! Kill it!" is quite a jump from player knowledge to charater knowledge.
#4
etarnon
Jul 09, 2008 1:57:38 Work with the group.

Good luck.
#5
CCS
Jul 09, 2008 12:20:05
Well anyway what are your thoughts on the whole character vs. player knowledge in 4th edition?

It's the same as it ever was in OD&D, 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3.x, and any/every other RPG system spawned over the last 30+ years.

IE; Nothings changed on this topic.
#6
yarskath
Jul 09, 2008 16:11:21
I can understand the running from the Tarrasque, but why would characters necessarily know what a vampire is?...
Vampires aren't really big on advertising themelves, they do normally tend to belend into society as much as possible.

Given a fantasy world (not in all of them mind you), it is not inconceivable for a person to know WHAT a Vampire is. I said nothing about automatically spotting one in a crowd. Just because I know that a vampire drinks blood doesn't mean I can spot one straight away.
#7
gricktree
Jul 09, 2008 16:47:23
Well anyway what are your thoughts on the whole character vs. player knowledge in 4th edition?

After DMing for a few decades, I've come to the conclusion that it's not as big of an issue as I used to think. I find it very, very useful to let the players in on things their characters don't know. It helps them see their character's possible place in the story a lot more clearly. I don't tell all, but I do use NPC only scenes (short ones), flashbacks and other such techniques to let the players in on some things.

Generally speaking, people often fear players knowing things their characters shouldn't because they fear that the players will use the knowledge to ruin the game in some fashion. The thing is though, that the players are there to create an enjoyable game too. Generally speaking, I find I can trust the players with everything short of what I want to use to make a surprising moment.

For example, a cleric in my game doesn't know yet that the particular order he's part of doesn't actually worship Pelor and that all of their prayers, rituals, etc., have been sufficiently subverted that they are actually following a much darker god. When this fact moves into prominence in the story, I plan on having a scene depicting a higher up in the order performing a ritual (perhaps a human sacrifice) and openly using the dark god's name in such a way that makes it clear that all the "pelor" colour I've been tossing into the game actually refers to this dark god. The character actually does worship Pelor himself and the scene will serve to drive the group towards conflict even though the character doesn't know the information.

Another thing I like to do for such scenes (because having everyone listen to me have a dialogue with myself is really boring) is to make a recipe card that gives the details for an NPC, what they want, etc., and hand them out to different players and they carry out the scene.

It could be that this works for me because I'm good at finding players that work well with this or that I'm good at communicating with players about how this all works. But I've heard many similar accounts from other gamers. That the players are full participants in the game and can be trusted to act in the best interest of the game is a foundational principle of how I DM.
#8
yarskath
Jul 10, 2008 1:36:03 Actually I do agree with you Gricktree. The type of OOC knowledge that I, and I suspect most people, are most concerned with is monster info and technologies. I often give my players, for example, major information on whatever city/town/etc. they are entering for the first time. Things like approximate population, semi-detailed geographic layouts, and other things that they would not actually know without some amount of research simply to fleshout the game world.

When it comes to monster information such as when a fighter tells the group how to beat monster X as soon as he spots it, that changes game balance a bit. If the fighter makes a knowledge check and succeeds, proving he actually knew something about hydras (as opposed to the player, who would have otherwise been metagaming), then the party is rewarded for the use to the knowledge skill with helpful information about their opponent.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 venger2010 Jul 08, 2008 18:40:17	We have all come across this before. Now it's 4th edition is it the same? Well yes and no. In third the dm could be a dick and could make it no fun to play. But with the new edition is there still a line between character and Player? I am curious to know from others? In my opinion and experience from being a dm, I like to give my players alittle help. As long as it fits to what there character would know. The reason is this, I recently played 4th edition came across the gnome(lol monster) and his minions. Now player wise yeah these guys have like 1hp but my character wouldnt know that. He might know hey there week but in terms of hp no he wouldnt. Got in alittle bit of a scuffle about it. Also i tend to play characters as they are in the book based on race. The tiefling which is by far my favorite so far, is mostly a loner. They're hated and feared. Well we just started playing and the dm is like you all know each other and your mentor has been missing for to long. Well that means yeah i know these people but hey i never adventured with them yet. Can i trust them? Well trust is earned. But one of the players was you cant play that type of character, you always play a loner this is a d&d game we are all friends. Uhhhh no. This gcoming from the same person who always plays a dwarf. Always..... Well anyway what are your thoughts on the whole character vs. player knowledge in 4th edition?
#2 yarskath Jul 08, 2008 19:48:41	It honestly depends on the DM. Same with any version, the DM decides whether to separate character and player knowledge or to reward it. I have played for both types of DMs and I honestly prefer to keep character knowledge and player knowledge separate, both as a DM and as a player. I feel it makes a more balanced playing field when dealing with long time players and newer players in the same group. There are certain things that can be said to be "common knowledge" like knowing what a vampire is or knowing to run from the tarrasque and such. But edition doesn't matter in this case anyway. Allowing the two to mix freely , IMO, skewes the believability of the characters. Besides, even in 3.x there were knowledge checks to see what your character actually knew about a monster. I feel that with the use of knowledge checks to represent what a character knows about something being part of RAW that the designers intend for character knowledge to be separate from player knowledge, at least as much as possible. Though not every DM, or player, will agree with me.
#3 Hebitsuikaza Jul 09, 2008 1:42:34	There are certain things that can be said to be "common knowledge" like knowing what a vampire is or knowing to run from the tarrasque and such. I can understand the running from the Tarrasque, but why would characters necessarily know what a vampire is?... Vampires aren't really big on advertising themelves, they do normally tend to belend into society as much as possible. There is no reaon a character should necessarily know what a succubus or nymph or satyr or kuo-toa or even gnoll is unless they are of a race that regularly deals with that sort of monster. If your character know someone is pale, they only see them around at night, they tend to avoid churches, etc.-- jumping and screaming "it's a vampire! It wants to drink our blood! Kill it!" is quite a jump from player knowledge to charater knowledge.
#4 etarnon Jul 09, 2008 1:57:38	Work with the group. Good luck.
#5 CCS Jul 09, 2008 12:20:05	Well anyway what are your thoughts on the whole character vs. player knowledge in 4th edition? It's the same as it ever was in OD&D, 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3.x, and any/every other RPG system spawned over the last 30+ years. IE; Nothings changed on this topic.
#6 yarskath Jul 09, 2008 16:11:21	I can understand the running from the Tarrasque, but why would characters necessarily know what a vampire is?... Vampires aren't really big on advertising themelves, they do normally tend to belend into society as much as possible. Given a fantasy world (not in all of them mind you), it is not inconceivable for a person to know WHAT a Vampire is. I said nothing about automatically spotting one in a crowd. Just because I know that a vampire drinks blood doesn't mean I can spot one straight away.
#7 gricktree Jul 09, 2008 16:47:23	Well anyway what are your thoughts on the whole character vs. player knowledge in 4th edition? After DMing for a few decades, I've come to the conclusion that it's not as big of an issue as I used to think. I find it very, very useful to let the players in on things their characters don't know. It helps them see their character's possible place in the story a lot more clearly. I don't tell all, but I do use NPC only scenes (short ones), flashbacks and other such techniques to let the players in on some things. Generally speaking, people often fear players knowing things their characters shouldn't because they fear that the players will use the knowledge to ruin the game in some fashion. The thing is though, that the players are there to create an enjoyable game too. Generally speaking, I find I can trust the players with everything short of what I want to use to make a surprising moment. For example, a cleric in my game doesn't know yet that the particular order he's part of doesn't actually worship Pelor and that all of their prayers, rituals, etc., have been sufficiently subverted that they are actually following a much darker god. When this fact moves into prominence in the story, I plan on having a scene depicting a higher up in the order performing a ritual (perhaps a human sacrifice) and openly using the dark god's name in such a way that makes it clear that all the "pelor" colour I've been tossing into the game actually refers to this dark god. The character actually does worship Pelor himself and the scene will serve to drive the group towards conflict even though the character doesn't know the information. Another thing I like to do for such scenes (because having everyone listen to me have a dialogue with myself is really boring) is to make a recipe card that gives the details for an NPC, what they want, etc., and hand them out to different players and they carry out the scene. It could be that this works for me because I'm good at finding players that work well with this or that I'm good at communicating with players about how this all works. But I've heard many similar accounts from other gamers. That the players are full participants in the game and can be trusted to act in the best interest of the game is a foundational principle of how I DM.
#8 yarskath Jul 10, 2008 1:36:03	Actually I do agree with you Gricktree. The type of OOC knowledge that I, and I suspect most people, are most concerned with is monster info and technologies. I often give my players, for example, major information on whatever city/town/etc. they are entering for the first time. Things like approximate population, semi-detailed geographic layouts, and other things that they would not actually know without some amount of research simply to fleshout the game world. When it comes to monster information such as when a fighter tells the group how to beat monster X as soon as he spots it, that changes game balance a bit. If the fighter makes a knowledge check and succeeds, proving he actually knew something about hydras (as opposed to the player, who would have otherwise been metagaming), then the party is rewarded for the use to the knowledge skill with helpful information about their opponent.