A Debate about How to Play that makes no sense to me

[Admin Pete]

There is an forum that claims to be old school that currently has a thread about "Player vs RolePlayer" and there is an underlying assumption in the debate that is never mentioned and that assumption makes no sense to me whatsoever and that is the only point in the debate that I want to address here. I am not intending to engage in a debate about one play style being better than another, only the unmentioned underlying assumption. I am not intending this thread to be about any of dozens of other things it could be about just the one assumption that I layout further down in this post. Feel free to start other threads on other possible topics if you wish.

Now this debate is among people who all claim to be "old school" where IMO "old school" has the specific meaning of referring to the DIY game that the Dave Arneson gave birth too.

Here is there premise: you have "players" and you have "roleplayers" defined as folllows:

The players are playing to win. They can see the board with the miniatures and use it to their advantage, even when their characters are nowhere near something. They basically use their player knowledge and transfer it to their character.

I.E. "Players" metagame to use the offensive term - offensive because it is used as a pejorative in most cases by those who use it. 

The roleplayers don't necessarily talk funny or anything during play, but rather their characters may have some quirks and they really focus on playing the game and making decisions based on how they created their character and what and how they think their character would respond to situations. Sometimes they do things that they as a player don't want to do depending on alignment, quirks, situations, character traits, etc.

I.E. "Roleplayers" strictly limit themselves to knowledge the character would have.

Then they go on to say things like these which illustrate the unmentioned underlying assumption that I object too:

However, in the case of players behaving out of character, you can and should disallow certain actions or have rational in-game penalties for it - especially when you're talking about players using knowledge that there's no way their PC could have.

They basically use their player knowledge and transfer it to their character.

This is 100% a DM problem. If the character is acting on things the character couldn't possibly know then the DM needs to shut it down. Also, the DM needs to work hard to make sure that the players can't or don't know things that the character doesn't. I know this fit with the latest trends on RPGing but so be it. For example, if a player has memorized the monster manual, then make up new monsters.

So, what is the unmentioned underlying assumption is this thread from another forum and hundreds of similar threads spread across the fora on the internet all by people claiming to be "old school".

The assumption is this: Assumed: all PCs have grown to young adulthood and have embarked on a life of adventure but somehow have zero information accumulated in their lives up to this point regarding basic information about the world they live in and grew up in.

The assumption as it is used in these arguments is that PCs know nothing. In all the years prior to becoming an adventurer they have never heard any stories, legends, folk tales, etc. about any of the monsters, magic or anything else that they will encounter in your campaign. That regardless of what happens, they are expected to have zero knowledge. This makes no sense at all for PCs and as players for anyone other than a first time player who really does have no knowledge as a player. But the PCs have grown up in this world and they are not blank slates in my mind. I assume IMC that all PCs are not totally ignorant about the world they are born in and they know quite a bit, some of it may be wrong or inaccurate but they will not 100% ignorant about anything and everything which is what many seem to think a first level character is limited to. I think is reasonable to think and play that the PCs have a lot of basic knowledge about the world they live in. When you were 18 didn't you have a lot of info about the world you grew up in? Some of it was accurate and some was not. Would not the PCs be in the same boat you were in at that age?

That unmentioned assumption of total ignorance is what I have a problem with, what say you?

[tetramorph]

The distinction that they are trying to make could be legitimate for some given campaign. But to presume that such a distinction is inherent to old school play over states their case. I think they are defining "role-play" Incorrectly. The distinction they are trying to make sounds more like a distinction between role-playing and character acting. Old school play was never and is not character acting. That said, there are times when I will call that a players character could not possibly know such and such. But not usually. Usually I attribute such putatively "meta-gaming" knowledge to the characters luck, beatitude, favor with the gods, guardian angel, daemon, and the like. Conan the barbarian and was not at first the brightest, most informed, wise or intelligent one. But he had a really great player!

[captaincrumbcake]

Well, like you said.

For the first type: "Players"... If a GM/DM/whodevah...is running this type of game, then each player (via the character) should be provided with all the information necessary to fill in this pre-history of the world going on around the actual adventure. This, of course, requires the Game Ref to create all such information, and specific details that might be known only to certain players/characters in the adventure group. Having this information before play begins is, IMO, no different than allowing them access to the PHB or its equivalent; something common in most campaigns I've heard of.


For "Roleplayers"... Some of the above applies as well. Keeping in mind that, characters in a (more-or-less) medieval and local setting, would surely have knowledge of their community, perhaps a county or shire around them. Most (I'm generalizing) denizens of the past seldom ventured farther than 50 miles from their place of birth, and book-knowledge was something reserved for the elite, nobles and/or clergy; so they (characters) would know little of the world beyond their own kingdom. Exceptions truly exist/ed; soldiers, ambassadors, traders, were far more worldly than most.


Sure, its weird that all that world out there around the action is either ignored or assumed but, it is what it is. And Game Referees run their campaigns as they see fit. 

[Admin Pete]

I am not sure that you-all are getting the point I am making. I am not discussing the style of play. I am discussing the unspoken unmentioned assumption that underlies these arguments. The people who (on forum after forum) repeatedly take the position that all PCs should start the game totally ignorant of the world they grew up in are advocating IMO a position that makes no sense.

What I am asking is do you agree or disagree with the assumption of total and complete ignorant for all PCs at first level?

If orcs are common on your world is it reasonable that the PCs have never heard of an orc prior to the first encounter?  Insert name of all common monsters in the previous sentence. If your world has dragons would it be reasonable that a PC would grow to adulthood without having heard even one word about a dragon in their entire life? Is it reasonable to assume that all PCs in all campaigns by all DMs grow up in a society where the hazards of that world are never mentioned once in a childs hearing from birth to young adulthood?

Because that is the position that the "character would not know something" crowd are taking when they advocate total and complete ignorance on the part of PCs.

[tetramorph]

I did understand you. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my post. I agree with you. PCs are going to know their world and the basic legend and lore of their local wives tales. My point was to broaden it to extend to basic smarts and intuitions that would keep them alive in general.

[captaincrumbcake]

Oops, i laid out the points of why that assumption, IMO, is a poor way to play the game.

If someone wants to force upon his players/group such a style, there's really nothing we can all do about it. Even if we visibly post our disagreement with such a philosophy.

In the end, tis better to simply be aware that such philosophies (and worse) exist out there in the community, and not let them or new players allowed into your game to infect your campaign.

Other than that, I don't know what else to add.

[Admin Pete]

Apparently I was not understanding you. And of course anyone can run their campaign anyway they want, please don't think I am saying they cannot.

For example:
I just find the position that your PC could not possibly know how to kill a troll because you have never fought one before as nonsensical. It is to me reasonable to assume you would know about fire, but perhaps not about acid and that you would know trolls are really hard to kill but you might not understand that they regenerate. If you have 10 PCs, it would seem to me that all of them should have at least some knowledge about a troll, when trolls are present in their part of the world and even if they had been extinct for 10 generations in the surrounding area, I would expect them to have at least been exposed to bogeyman stories about trolls as a child. I do not understand the you are not allowed to know anything or it is "horrors" "metagaming" position.

[robkuntz]

I read that part as having what Gary and I called the "walkie-talkie" effect. Player A listens to what player B knows and then uses the knowledge in his or her context when the knowledge could not be known>> thus "...especially when you're talking about players using knowledge that there's no way their PC could have." This happens a lot in combat situations, especially when using a mat and miniatures, which is the reason why we never used them. "Game" knowledge becomes world knowledge, player<>PC merge, where these should be controlled by the DM, and were, in our cases (Gary and mine) with the simple, "You couldn't/wouldn't know that..." with explanation of a condensed variety as I have noted above.

[Admin Pete]

Mar 9, 2016 15:53:28 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

I read that part as having what Gary and I called the "walkie-talkie" effect. Player A listens to what player B knows and then uses the knowledge in his or her context when the knowledge could not be known>> thus "...especially when you're talking about players using knowledge that there's no way their PC could have." This happens a lot in combat situations, especially when using a mat and miniatures, which is the reason why we never used them. "Game" knowledge becomes world knowledge, player<>PC merge, where these should be controlled by the DM, and were, in our cases (Gary and mine) with the simple, "You couldn't/wouldn't know that..." with explanation of a condensed variety as I have noted above.

The combat situation I understand if the player is trying to use information that the PC would not be able to sense (see, hear etc), I'm talking about people who want PCs to be ignorant claiming they could not know that, when in fact, yes, they should know that.

For instance when I was 6 years old growing up on the farm, I could have named all of the wild animals I was likely to encounter in that quadrant of the state of OH. Since then over the last 54 years the state of Ohio has shipped in and released hundreds of rattlesnakes in that area, black bears, and coyotes. When I was a child I could go out and play in the woods and all I had to do was watch out for copperheads, water moccasins and rabid animals. Now there is a third venomous snake, no biggie, black bears probably not a big deal outside when the cubs are small. However, the numerous coyotes that are usually seen in groups of 4-7 animals make the woods no longer safe for children and as an adult you would want to armed and have a dog with you so you would not be surprised. A PC should have at least that level of knowledge about the world they live in.

[robkuntz]

Mar 9, 2016 16:10:50 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

Mar 9, 2016 15:53:28 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

I read that part as having what Gary and I called the "walkie-talkie" effect. Player A listens to what player B knows and then uses the knowledge in his or her context when the knowledge could not be known>> thus "...especially when you're talking about players using knowledge that there's no way their PC could have." This happens a lot in combat situations, especially when using a mat and miniatures, which is the reason why we never used them. "Game" knowledge becomes world knowledge, player<>PC merge, where these should be controlled by the DM, and were, in our cases (Gary and mine) with the simple, "You couldn't/wouldn't know that..." with explanation of a condensed variety as I have noted above.

The combat situation I understand if the player is trying to use information that the PC would not be able to sense (see, hear etc), I'm talking about people who want PCs to be ignorant claiming they could not know that, when in fact, yes, they should know that.

For instance when I was 6 years old growing up on the farm, I could have named all of the wild animals I was likely to encounter in that quadrant of the state of OH. Since then over the last 54 years the state of Ohio has shipped in and released hundreds of rattlesnakes in that area, black bears, and coyotes. When I was a child I could go out and play in the woods and all I had to do was watch out for copperheads, water moccasins and rabid animals. Now there is a third venomous snake, no biggie, black bears probably not a big deal outside when the cubs are small. However, the numerous coyotes that are usually seen in groups of 4-7 animals make the woods no longer safe for children and as an adult you would want to armed and have a dog with you so you would not be surprised. A PC should have at least that level of knowledge about the world they live in.

I agree, if the PC is from that area in question, and if the general knowledge does not transcend too far beyond the common for what might be adduced from being a newbie adventurer.  Proper backgrounding would be important in this regard, or making such leaps in-game, etc.  Legends would be real folk-tale like at that level of integration, mere unverified stories.  But that's part of the reason adventurers adventure:  to verify these legends.

[Admin Pete]

Mar 9, 2016 16:24:30 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

I agree, if the PC is from that area in question, and if the general knowledge does not transcend too far beyond the common for what might be adduced from being a newbie adventurer.  Proper backgrounding would be important in this regard, or making such leaps in-game, etc.  Legends would be real folk-tale like at that level of integration, mere unverified stories.  But that's part of the reason adventurers adventure:  to verify these legends.

Yes, I agree with this (emphasis added). To me if you as the ref, deny this is part of the game (when the PC is from the area in question) you are unilaterally taking part of the fun for the players out of the game.

[finarvyn]

Mar 9, 2016 12:46:25 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

Assumed: all PCs have grown to young adulthood and have embarked on a life of adventure but somehow have zero information accumulated in their lives up to this point regarding basic information about the world they live in and grew up in.

As a campaign-designer, I am a big believer of stealing rather than creating from scratch. Most of my worlds have a Free City of Greyhawk. Many have Helms Deep, or Ravenloft, or Aquilonia, or Lankhmar, or Camelot, or other places that the players might have heard of before and thus places that the characters might bring in preconcieved information about. (Sometimes I'll change the names but draw analogies: "Well, this city is a lot like Lankhmar, if that helps.") These places may not be quite what the characters expect, but often have enough similarity that the player feels like the world is more "real."

One of my favorite examples for this discussion is Paris, France. I've never been there but I know certain things about hte place. I know about the Eifel Tower and the Louve. I know something about the culture and know kind of what a person from there might speak like even if I don't know the actual French language. Paris is "real" to me in that sense.

RPG worlds should be like that.

[Deleted]

On the internet, 90% of "why would somebody say that" can be explained by "Gronan's First Rule of Human Behavior:"

"Most people are booger-eating morons."

The world makes total sense when you bear that in mind.

[Vile Traveller]

This is why I have no objection to players reading monster manuals or the like, but won't allow them at the table. It simulates characters having some knowledge of such things - reasonable especially given that part of the reason characters adventure must be because they have come across stories and legends, at least - but possibly frequently mis-remembering or getting things mixed up. Of course, you will get the odd player with an eidetic memory, but that's rare enough not to matter.

When I change abilities or the like, and players are surprised, that's just part of the whole "the stories were not quite right" thing.

[hengest]

The topic of this thread points to one of the central mysteries of roleplaying.

[Q Man]

Mar 9, 2016 12:46:25 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

The assumption is this: Assumed: all PCs have grown to young adulthood and have embarked on a life of adventure but somehow have zero information accumulated in their lives up to this point regarding basic information about the world they live in and grew up in.

The assumption as it is used in these arguments is that PCs know nothing. In all the years prior to becoming an adventurer they have never heard any stories, legends, folk tales, etc. about any of the monsters, magic or anything else that they will encounter in your campaign. That regardless of what happens, they are expected to have zero knowledge. This makes no sense at all for PCs and as players for anyone other than a first time player who really does have no knowledge as a player. But the PCs have grown up in this world and they are not blank slates in my mind. I assume IMC that all PCs are not totally ignorant about the world they are born in and they know quite a bit, some of it may be wrong or inaccurate but they will not 100% ignorant about anything and everything which is what many seem to think a first level character is limited to. I think is reasonable to think and play that the PCs have a lot of basic knowledge about the world they live in. When you were 18 didn't you have a lot of info about the world you grew up in? Some of it was accurate and some was not. Would not the PCs be in the same boat you were in at that age?

That unmentioned assumption of total ignorance is what I have a problem with, what say you?

Great post and I am in full agreement. This mindset that the PCs would be innocent babes is ludricous. If they were that dense and naive, they probably would have died long before they were old enough to go adventuring. Between the few old grizzled survivors and the bards, they should have a well of useful knowledge that is 70-90% accurate about a whole range of things.

[mormonyoyoman]

It's that 10—30% that I liked to mess with.

And, of course, the PCs who knew the clues that only their earlier dead characters took to their Graves. No sympathy there, but much amusement.

[Admin Pete]

Jun 1, 2018 11:59:52 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

It's that 10—30% that I liked to mess with.

And, of course, the PCs who knew the clues that only their earlier dead characters took to their Graves. No sympathy there, but much amusement.

You and me both!

[ripx187]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. When somebody says something that the DM questions that their PC would know, ask the player how they came across this info. If they come up with a reason, COOL! If they can't, then that action or knowledge is not known and the player must try something different. 


As far as the character being ignorant of the setting; unless this was set up from the beginning (which is an elaborate and difficult thing to do), then we must typically assume that the character is competent. To do otherwise is knit-picking and a waste of time. Let's not forget that it takes away all of the player's ability to add to the mythos of the game setting, which from my experience, has always been great stuff!

[Admin Pete]

Jun 4, 2018 18:34:53 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. When somebody says something that the DM questions that their PC would know, ask the player how they came across this info. If they come up with a reason, COOL! If they can't, then that action or knowledge is not known and the player must try something different. 


As far as the character being ignorant of the setting; unless this was set up from the beginning (which is an elaborate and difficult thing to do), then we must typically assume that the character is competent. To do otherwise is knit-picking and a waste of time. Let's not forget that it takes away all of the player's ability to add to the mythos of the game setting, which from my experience, has always been great stuff!

Have an Exalt.