PCs are, generally, exceptional. Players get to roleplay characters with characteristics the playe, themselves, doesn't have. The PC might be stronger, more agile, tougher than the player. But what about more intelligent, wiser, or more charismatic? What about if the PC has skills that the player doesn't? "my character wouldn't have done that!" Okay, fine, but does that lead to "I don't want to plan, but my character will"? And does that hurt the game?
The game is ultimately about the table (players and DM) having fun. If a player derives fun from planning, their character not being 'capable' of coming up with that plan shouldn't stop the player contributing to the plan. It just doesn't have to come from their character. The interaction out of character where the players plan and scheme can be as much an abstraction of the characters planning as combat is an abstraction.
If the DM feels like some specific detail of the plan would require specific knowledge, that's where ability checks come in. But ultimately I think it's best not to try and gate certain parts of the game too much behind ability scores. Puzzles are a great example; they're almost exclusively designed to challenge the players not the characters, and that's okay because if your players like puzzles, it's fun.
The only thing that can ever hurt the game is making it unfun.
It can feel frustrating to a player whose character should be able to do what the player can't or the player able to do what the character can't.
One of the DM's goals might include accommodating those situations to reduce frustration. Ability checks are one solution.
To be clear, there are likely going to be situations where a player has metaknowledge and the character does not. The DM has the final ruling on metagaming allowances. (I often see other players objecting to metagaming before the DM does.) Ability checks can be useful to "gate" metagaming if it doesn't become overly frustrating (and the DM will feel it if the players get frustrated, and so it's not just for the players' benefit).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
PCs are, generally, exceptional. Players get to roleplay characters with characteristics the playe, themselves, doesn't have. The PC might be stronger, more agile, tougher than the player. But what about more intelligent, wiser, or more charismatic? What about if the PC has skills that the player doesn't? "my character wouldn't have done that!" Okay, fine, but does that lead to "I don't want to plan, but my character will"? And does that hurt the game?
The game is ultimately about the table (players and DM) having fun. If a player derives fun from planning, their character not being 'capable' of coming up with that plan shouldn't stop the player contributing to the plan. It just doesn't have to come from their character. The interaction out of character where the players plan and scheme can be as much an abstraction of the characters planning as combat is an abstraction.
If the DM feels like some specific detail of the plan would require specific knowledge, that's where ability checks come in. But ultimately I think it's best not to try and gate certain parts of the game too much behind ability scores. Puzzles are a great example; they're almost exclusively designed to challenge the players not the characters, and that's okay because if your players like puzzles, it's fun.
The only thing that can ever hurt the game is making it unfun.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
It can feel frustrating to a player whose character should be able to do what the player can't or the player able to do what the character can't.
One of the DM's goals might include accommodating those situations to reduce frustration. Ability checks are one solution.
To be clear, there are likely going to be situations where a player has metaknowledge and the character does not. The DM has the final ruling on metagaming allowances. (I often see other players objecting to metagaming before the DM does.) Ability checks can be useful to "gate" metagaming if it doesn't become overly frustrating (and the DM will feel it if the players get frustrated, and so it's not just for the players' benefit).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.