Split off from Everybody always rolling for checks since it seems to be a distinct issue.

Quote from: Bren;827157* Players fall into several somewhat overlapping categories.

   A) Those players who intentionally use OOC knowledge. They aren't actually interested in separating IC and OOC knowledge.

B) Those players who are interested in separating IC and OOC knowledge but who, for one reason or another, end up more or less unintentionally using  OOC knowledge.

C) Those players who are interested in separating IC and OOC knowledge and who are willing and able to separate the two.

D) Those players who separate IC and OOC knowledge, but go too far and have their PC do IC stupid actions just so they won't be perceived to be using OOC knowledge.

Most people I game with fall into types B) and C). Category B) players will sometimes ask not to be told things their characters don't know. Some players who really want to act from a deep in character perspective will also not want to know OOC stuff.
As another side note, in over 40 years of gaming on two continents and many states I've never encountered a player who in my judgment was able to fully separate all OOC knowledge.

On the one hand, I agree that players can't fully separate OOC knowledge. An important corollary to this, however, is that I cannot recall ever encountering a GM who really *wanted* the players to act only on IC information.

Most importantly, GMs almost always give out a host of out-of-character cues that they expect to be acted on. Things like "Are you sure you want to do that?" along with "There is rumor of strange hauntings in the ruined castle" and other "the adventure is here" cues. In a lot of games, there are a ton of IC options that I avoid because they wouldn't be fun OOC for the players.

Of course, there are still players who will blatantly act on completely OOC information - which I am annoyed at. My point is that fixing this should be focused on communicating norms rather than pretending that there is a hard-line "No OOC" stance.

Again, I am an outlier.
Using OOC is bad in my games.   Very.

My PCs, luckily, pick up on this and are stellar at not using it.  I know it is for fun, it is a game, etc, but we play long games with the goal of them being 'narrative quality'.
This means using OOC knowledge is a serious offence.

For my games, at least.

And yeah, it's not pretending.  There is a hard line in my games.

It's a pretty bad offense in our Pathfinder group as well. The Players generally police themselves but I've seen that the GM keeps a close eye on the one guy who is most likely to 'cheat' that way.

In the games I run I'm fairly strict about it... again, the Players love catching each other at it but it doesn't happen all that often of late.

The current group I am DMing for and two I am playing in are pretty darn good about not acting on OOC information. This was one reason why I selected certain players to help playtesting Next as we all needed to be able to explore the Caves of Chaos as if we'd never been there before, and possibly have to do that more than once. Which we ended up doing.

On the whole you are right, jhkim. This really is about communicating expected norms than presuming such norms. And given how much this hobby depends on communication, it's surprising how often this tension between talking & assuming appears.

I've personally given up on subtlety. I think of myself as a fast read, having lived my youth on the qui vive for 'fun' like most others. But gamers in general, and particularly FLGS gamers, tend to have more than their share of social laggers.

So what's the point if they can't take the hint? As a GM, or friendly player, break the fourth wall already and help a brother out. I've only seen dividends pay afterwards from the initial awkwardness.

Now if they persist... that's another chat.

I won't hesitate to ask a player: "How exactly does your character about this?"

If they have anything resembling a coherent explanation, I'll allow that their character might know something, and they can act on that.

If not, their options will be limited based on what their characters know, as established by the GM.

Quote from: jhkim;827196On the one hand, I agree that players can't fully separate OOC knowledge. An important corollary to this, however, is that I cannot recall ever encountering a GM who really *wanted* the players to act only on IC information.

I'm fine with players only acting on IC knowledge. For me the balance is between what is practical in creating a separation, not in whether or not I want a separation.

QuoteThings like "Are you sure you want to do that?"

When I GM, what that means is - "given your PC's capabilities and the situation as your PC should understand it, your stated action sounds nuts." Lately I've taken to asking what the player was trying to accomplish instead of asking "are you sure you want to do that?" as quite often the nutty plan is due to a misunderstanding of the situation. But if the player understands the situation and still wants to do something nutty well then they try that and the other PCs and the rest of the world responds.

The most recent instance was the PC who suggested locking his NPC love interest in a cage. To protect her from a werewolf. That was in a cave. A cave that the party was planning on entering...while bringing the NPC and cage with them. :eek: Fortunately the other PCs over ruled that plan. Shortly after that their romance fizzled...for some reason.

Quote"There is rumor of strange hauntings in the ruined castle" and other "the adventure is here" cues.

If we are playing a sandbox style where the PCs seek out their own adventure then they do that. If a hook is presented they bite or they don't. That's the point of sandbox style play. If they aren't interested in that style of game then we tend to be playing a game where the PCs who are part of some group...currently in our Honor+Intrigue campaign, most of the PCs are members of Cardinal Richelieu's Red Guards. So they are often doing the job they are assigned by the Cardinal or his left hand, Pere Joseph the Gray Eminence.

QuoteIn a lot of games, there are a ton of IC options that I avoid because they wouldn't be fun OOC for the players.

To me there is a difference between OOC creation of characters who are suited for the premise of the game - which is agreed on OOC. Similarly continuing to play in a manner suited to the premise of the game isn't the same thing as acting on OOC knowledge while playing IC.

QuoteMy point is that fixing this should be focused on communicating norms rather than pretending that there is a hard-line "No OOC" stance.

I agree that communicating expectations or norms is important. But I think the line can be very firm. Even though I'm not personally interested in pursuing that goal to the nth degree. When I GM, I apply a rough Pareto principle. Not acting on OOC knowledge even when it matters significantly is my goal. If we are there 80%-90% of the time that's probably good enough for a game that is a fun leisure activity.

The level of effort to get more than 95% separation just isn't worth it to me. It would require physically separating players every single time their characters aren't together or it would necessitate the really odd practice of requiring parties to stay together no matter what, it would also involve a lot of writing notes, emails, or text messages to the GM or other players for everything that isn't announced aloud, and it would require players, as their PC, to actually describe to every other player's PC every single thing that happened when the PCs were separate and then recording or remembering what they said for posterity to insure there was no inadvertent knowledge transfer. I could go on, but you get the idea. There is a point at which that sort of separation is far too time consuming and resource intensive for anyone's taste.

For me, all I really aspire to, and all I expect from others is a solid B.

My reasoning is that as players, we lack so much in-character information that the occasional bit of out-of-character info isn't going to unbalance anything. How many of us really know what it's like to be . . . well, most types of characters, really? And how many of us keep an exhaustive record of our characters' history, contacts(and what they could reasonably provide), how much access to libraries(and what kind of books are likely to be contained w/in those libraries), etc. etc. etc.? No matter how many questions you ask the GM, you're going to be lacking some info. Sometimes even a lot of info.

That said, when it happens it should be at least plausible. Have some kind of explanation if called on how your character knows something. As long as your explanation makes sense and doesn't retcon something, I'm generally pretty flexible.

Quote from: jhkim;827196Most importantly, GMs almost always give out a host of out-of-character cues that they expect to be acted on. Things like... "There is rumor of strange hauntings in the ruined castle"

I'm not sure why you would consider that to be OOC information.  IC, the characters have been living in a community.  IC, they have interacted with NPCs, even if that interaction happened off-camera instead of being played out at the table.  IC, the characters have heard the rumors of the hauntings.  So how is that OOC information?

At most, I can see it kind of nudging vaguely in that direction because the GM is only telling them about the one rumor he wants them to follow up on and not all the other rumors the characters may have heard, but:

A) This is easily rationalized as "IC, you've heard several rumors and done a little checking around.  Based on what you've found, the haunted castle seems the most interesting/urgent/suited to your abilities."

B) There's nothing stopping the GM from telling the players about several rumors and asking which one they want to follow up on.  e.g., In the last cyberpunk campaign I ran, I maintained a bounty board and, after each session, gave the players a list of some of the latest news headlines, then asked them which one they wanted to look into next week so I'd know which one to prep.  Admittedly, my way of doing it may have been more sandboxy than some GMs prefer, but there's no reason that the end result could be the same regardless of which hook the players chose to bite on.

I like to keep as firm a line as possible between IC and OOC information. I don't expect anyone (including myself) to be perfect and I can and have veto'd character actions that are driven by information that the PC couldn't have known. I make this clear to anyone I play with.

When I play I do the same even if it means doing "stupid" things. If its a problem for the group in question, I bow out.

The "Are you sure you want to do that?" question is IC for me. It means that either the character would know something that makes the action dubious that the player doesn't or the situation is such that it could be obviously danger. Its that nagging voice of caution in the character's head.

I'm not sure why things like "There are rumors of a haunting in the ruins..." are OOC or meta information. The characters over hear things and interact with NPCs, probably much more than might be role played out especially if they've been in the area for awhile.

Quote from: Opaopajr;827251On the whole you are right, jhkim. This really is about communicating expected norms than presuming such norms. And given how much this hobby depends on communication, it's surprising how often this tension between talking & assuming appears.

I've personally given up on subtlety. I think of myself as a fast read, having lived my youth on the qui vive for 'fun' like most others. But gamers in general, and particularly FLGS gamers, tend to have more than their share of social laggers.

So what's the point if they can't take the hint? As a GM, or friendly player, break the fourth wall already and help a brother out. I've only seen dividends pay afterwards from the initial awkwardness.

Now if they persist... that's another chat.

I think that's part of it, but a lot of players all have their own different ideas about how much OOCness is okay at the table, so it could just be that they aren't agreeing.

I'm pretty hardcore against the use of OOC knowledge in the game. And it's not just me - my long-time players police the other players who try to metagame.

I'm always surprised when I come across comments where GMs are eager for new monsters because players have memorized the stats and discovered optimal tactics against existing monsters. They let their players look at the stats? That's cheating in my books.

Quote from: LordVreeg;827199Again, I am an outlier.
Using OOC is bad in my games.   Very.

I concur, it is metagaming and one of the few forms of cheating that can occur in tabletop RPGs.

The only cavaet (and it is a minor one). I don't care if a player roleplays in a way that the character is just a reflection of himself. A lot of players can't or don't want to act as a different personality. As long as they act as if they were really there in the setting I am good with that type of roleplaying.

Quote from: estar;827351I concur, it is metagaming and one of the few forms of cheating that can occur in tabletop RPGs.

The only cavaet (and it is a minor one). I don't care if a player roleplays in a way that the character is just a reflection of himself. A lot of players can't or don't want to act as a different personality. As long as they act as if they were really there in the setting I am good with that type of roleplaying.

I have had a few of these.  Players who seem to play the same character no matter what the backstory is. After a while, you realize they are sort of playing themselves.

I run my online game as text only on Roll20.  Nothings wrong with my system.  I just find players stay more IC when they are writing, with the ease of the off hand remark removed.  The latest game's archive is over 2000 pages of IC.  

Live games, we make that very clear as well from the beginning.  So the players become very adept at 'thinking' in IC.  

Again, no one else is doing it 'wrong'.  I don't claim to do it 'right'.  But whatever I am doing, it does lead to very, very long campaigns.

Any player who tries to pull this stunt on me is in for a sour surprise. I absolutely disallow use of any form of OOC knowledge in my games - if you want to know something you read in the Monster Manual, roll for skill/intelligence, same for any other game. In CoC, any player who tries to base his actions on statistics of monsters in the handbook might be surprised to find that monsters could work differently than in Chaosium's corebook.

One of the straws that broke the proverbial camel's back in my 5e campaign was when one of the players accused me of not reading the Monster Manual, when the rust monster destroyed paladin's sword with one successful hit (it's normally supposed to only implement a penalty of -1, with the penalties cumulating until the weapon breaks).