"My Character Would Know That"

NOTE: This isn't about skilled play versus "sheet play" or even about player knowledge versus character knowledge.

It happens sometimes that the Gm dings a player because they make a poor or nonsensical decision (from the GM's perspective) and the player tries to backtrack with "Well, my character who is a professional adventurer/scientist/space marine would have known better."

Obviously there is a miscommunication between GM and player in that scenario, but that isn't actually what I am interested in here. What I want to dig into is the idea of what the PC is assumed to know based on their class and race and background and skillset and whatever, versus what the player THINKS the PC should know, and how those thinsg interact at the table.

In fiction of various media, it is an easy problem to solve. "Due to his long years hunting watzits, Bob knew the best way to catch one was to wait in the watzit tree." But in a game, the player may decide that digging a pit on a game trail is the best way to catch a watzit. This is a simple example, but it can be extended to planning for a long arctic expedition or developing a tactical plan to take a fortified location or any other scenario where the player might have good ideas that don't actually help, but their PC should know what a more appropriate action to take would be.

What's your take? Do you expect the GM to inform the player when they are making a bad plan that differs from what the GM expects the PC to know? Or should the GM adjust to fit what the player believes their character should know to be a solid plan?

Reynard said:

What's your take? Do you expect the GM to inform the player when they are making a bad plan that differs from what the GM expects the PC to know? Or should the GM adjust to fit what the player believes their character should know to be a solid plan?

Click to expand...

I think its a combination of the two. Sometimes, a player is choosing a character that ought to know something that the GM actually knows, but the player may not. In that instance, as a GM, I tell the player a watzit hunter would know that type of plan isnt going to work becasue x, y, z. Now, in the instance that a watzit is a fantasy creature or space alien, then im going to defer mostly to the player because the thing doesn't actually exist. We are making it up along the way and if the character is supposed to be trained/expert, then they ought to know things.

Side note; I had this happen in a Call of Cthulhu game. My investigator was originally from England and game started in New York. The investigators ended up taking a steamer across the pond. Upon arrival, one of the investigators had a revolver and caught hell at customs. The GM essentially said the players were stupid for not knowing this was not allowed in 1920's London. I pointed out my character being from there originally surely would have known this, but to no avail. At this point the GM was strongly suggesting to us that this particular game was not only going to be skill play focused, but historical skill play as well. So, the answer varies it seems for different types of players/GMs. YMMV

payn said:

Side note; I had this happen in a Call of Cthulhu game. My investigator was originally from England and game started in New York. The investigators ended up taking a steamer across the pond. Upon arrival, one of the investigators had a revolver and caught hell at customs. The GM essentially said the players were stupid for not knowing this was not allowed in 1920's London. I pointed out my character being from there originally surely would have known this, but to no avail. At this point the GM was strongly suggesting to us that this particular game was not only going to be skill play focused, but historical skill play as well. So, the answer varies it seems for different types of players/GMs. YMMV

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is one of those disconnects where the players may not be as familiar with the rules of the time as the characters would be. We'd always do a World Lore or an INTx5 check to see if this is something the character would have thought of. In all, that's a fairly minor encounter, so maybe not worth being a stickler on, but there are times, most likely it a heated encounter where lives are at stake, when you have to be picky on player knowledge too, and need to rely on what the players say they are doing.

Reynard said:

What's your take? Do you expect the GM to inform the player when they are making a bad plan that differs from what the GM expects the PC to know? Or should the GM adjust to fit what the player believes their character should know to be a solid plan?

Click to expand...

To me, this is just GM style. Either works and could come into play in different situations but I prefer to default to the latter as it’s a more positive spin. If the player is making a “bad plan”, I have to wonder what about the situation makes that the case. Did I miscommunicate something that is leading the player to think whatever they’re thinking? Is it really a bad plan? Do I the GM have tunnel vision about the situation?

As DM I don’t have time for piddly stuff like predetermining the best way to catch a watzit.

If a player has a background such that his pc would know how to catch watzits then I’m going with his method and fluffing around that.

If he doesn’t I’ll listen to the plan, call for a roll, make a judgment call on the dc based on what I know about watzits in the fiction.

If for some reason the watzit was a mythological beast whose capture directly related to campaign progression then maybe I did note how to capture one and in that case I’ll go with my notes. I guess I should add that in this specific example the player likely would not have a background such that he knows how to catch watzits, but if for some reason he did, I would tell him how to catch it.

I want the players to be aware of everything that their characters would- it can be easy for a player to misunderstand something, so I try to make sure that they know what their characters would expect. If the player forgot that Red Juice is deadly acid, but it's a commonly known thing in the world that their character would know, I'd remind them before they drink it.

This scene from The Gamers movie illustrates another example

Reynard said:

What's your take? Do you expect the GM to inform the player when they are making a bad plan that differs from what the GM expects the PC to know? Or should the GM adjust to fit what the player believes their character should know to be a solid plan?

Click to expand...

If I expect the PC to know something, I’ll remind the player of it and they can decide whether to change their plan or not.

I am not changing the world to match the player’s misconceptions

As to the Wazit, unless there is a reason why it only hangs around that tree, they can catch one in any way they want, as long as it is generally feasible

Would they?

Was watching an old 70s sci-fi movie the other day and it had a character that would always quote exceptions to the rules as subparagraphs or law cases. They were all bluff as he explained that no one reads the fine print or keeps up with rules after needing to and that when a rule or order is mentioned, no details are provided. We see this in life too, we know the bold title line, but we do not know the details.

Now, a game is different, but you have Experanice and Knowledge on the players side and the GM to have an understanding of that experience and knowledge in passing information and making "behind-the-screen" rolls. If a player has faced something before or has a high skill level the GM should pass that on and inform them BUT if the player is just stupid...This means a bit of record keeping both on the players part and GM but best to have it covered.

One place where this stuff becomes apparent is when "expert" players and GMs clash. I was an infantryman in the Army many moons ago, for example, so I feel like a know a thing or two about long marches, digging foxholes and camping in fetid swamps (of Georgia). The problem occurs if my "knowledge" (it was a long time ago and my experiences were what they were, not necessarily universal) conflicts with the knowledge, experiences, or assumption of the other party, or the rules of the game.

I generally go with players playing their character and just adjudicating how their chosen action results.

Bad plans are part of the game and part of the fun.

My games lately generally have an Army of Darkness feel with a bunch of failing forward and my players are generally on board with that. 5e's survivability is great for this style of play.

I generally hate takebacks and retcons, I want to keep things moving forward.

If someone asks me what their character would know I will give some background information, but I try very hard to not tell players what to do. Sometimes I will provide multiple ways things can be done, including an open ended "or something I have not thought of" but my players also know I lay out a lot of rope for them to hang themselves or to come up with cool unexpected solutions.