WHAT DOES A PC REALLY KNOW ANYWAY?

One of the greatest challenges of playing a roleplaying game is keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate. For example, a player, let's call him Tim, knows how to make gun powder and tool a machine gun, thus this is impressive knowledge, but his medieval warrior, let's call him Gatal, obviously shouldn't be able to make a machine gun simply because Tim knows how. This is a simple example of keeping player and character knowledge separate, and it probably seems like common sense, but you may be surprised how often some things filter down into the game by bridging the barrier between knowledge banks (what the player knows is one knowledge bank, and what their character knows is another knowledge bank).

Of course, this rule equally applies to feelings as well. What Tim feels is probably different from what Gatal feels. For example, Tim becomes angry with John (another player), and all of the sudden Gatal is treating Baliff (John's character) with disrespect and ill will. Why? Has Tim let the barrier down and mixed things he shouldn't have? It would seem so, and this is bad roleplaying. But the feeling needn't be ill will; it could be love, for example. Mary, Tim's girl friend, also plays in the game, and the next thing you know it, Gatal is overly friendly, familiar, or even in love with Bethany (Mary's character). Mind you, it is always possible there may be reasons why these characters have similar feelings toward one another just as their players have, but all too frequently it just happens for "mysterious" reasons. I've even seen a GM (Game Master) insist that real life lovers cannot have their characters become lovers (a bit of an overkill, but I've seen it happen) just to prevent such a mess (as it often turns out).

Here's a fine example many are guilty of without realizing it. A group of players (perhaps all friends) almost automatically assume their characters are friends as well (perhaps welcoming them a little too soon, trusting them a little too quickly, etc. rather than finding in game reasons why these people are indeed hanging out together. One very good example is a group of friends who play in an evil campaign (all the PCs are of evil alignments or perhaps neutral, but not good). Yet, despite their evil alignments and back stabbing nature, they may hang together and help one another a great deal more than you might otherwise expect from such loathsome personalities. The players may even think they have a realistic game there and a great group, but it is probably held together too much by the care and consideration they have for one another as friends that their characters simply wouldn't share, especially if they could get ahead by killing each other. Mind you, I'm not saying it is impossible for evil characters to get along and work together when they have common interests, but it would happen a lot less, it wouldn't last as long, and watching your back even while alone with just party members should be common place). So the problems of knowledge crossover is pretty big at times, and it will happen a lot more when one plays a character who is, apart from new abilities and skills, remarkably identical to their own personalities.

Yet it is even more common that PCs hang out together for reasons that are not so well defined, the real reason being they are all controlled by players in a single game under a single GM. We have to expect a certain amount of this to creep into the game, but I think this is all right as long as we are aware it is happening and why. Examples of this would include "sticking with the group" - even though some members rub your character the wrong way - since to do otherwise would effectively take your character out of the game. Or, similarly, keeping a nasty, vile, scum sucking character in the party because to do otherwise would toss one of your real life friends out of the game. Any number of real world interpersonal relationship dynamics can be the reason why such things happen to our characters, and though none of them exactly shine as examples of quality roleplaying, when confined to a game we must expect it to happen to a certain extent. Realistically, your character could probably find other characters that were more compatible, yet they don't do this because the GM is not about to run multiple sections of the game on multiple days just to accommodate such differences. Thus, your characters either get along and find "in character reasons" to hang together, or they are out of the game.

NOTE: To describe what characters (PCs and NPCs) know, we sometimes refer to "In Game" reality or "In World" knowledge or IC (In Character) knowledge. These all mean the same thing. It is simply short hand notation for what the characters may know and perceive. And to describe what characters do not know but their players do know, this is "Above Game," "Out of World," "Real World," "Table Top" (game table that is), or OOC (Out Of Character) knowledge. To avoid confusion, I think the terms IC and OOC knowledge best describes it.

Here's a common example. The GM informs Baliff (and all at the table) that Baliff has found a ruby while searching the drawer. Baliff tells the GM he wishes to "pocket it" for himself. Since the other PCs are busy searching other things, the GM then says he may successfully do this if he rolls less than double his normal pick pocket percentage, and John rolls this and succeeds. Unfortunately, everybody at the table now knows Baliff is stealing from the group AND has incriminating evidence on him (the ruby). I can't tell you how often I've seen many players almost INSTANTLY demand to search Baliff's person when they never did before, particularly when he didn't find anything before. This is an excellent example of bad roleplaying, and though one may argue John's actions aren't exactly conducive to good will between players and keeping harmony between players, there was nothing wrong with it from a roleplaying point of view. Thus, the GM may have to instruct the other players they have no cause to search Baliff or treat him with suspicion now when they never did before.

Dice Rolls: More often than not a player will wish to roll his own dice for his character's skills, but there are many times when the knowledge imparted from the dice will give the player vital information he should not have. A good example is finding secret doors. If your character searches for a secret door and you roll a 1 on a d6, yet the GM says you have not found a secret door there, you now know for certain there is no door there. You may even have your character think this with equal certainty. Unfortunately, your character should NOT see that dice roll, and when the GM says he found nothing, this means it may still be there but well hidden; you just didn't find it. Thus, the GM must often make secret rolls.

Another fine example is the rogue's ability to pick pockets. Unless he fumbles badly, it should be possible for him to get his prize even though the victim - unbeknownst to the rogue - was alerted. This gives the victim the option to pretend he didn't notice, perhaps to follow the thief back home. Yet if the rogue's player sees the dice, he would know the "jig was up" and may color his subsequent actions too much with OOC knowledge. Far better to keep some knowledge away from him and lead him not into bad roleplaying temptation. As for the above example where Baliff pocketed the ruby, that roll should also have been made in secret. If he failed the roll the other PCs would have noticed, but if he knew he failed it, he could quickly say "I've found a ruby guys, but I'll hang onto it until we get home." That's a perfectly reasonable explanation, but he never would have done that if he didn't know OOC they saw him steal it. And the PC who did see it (it may have only been one of many who saw this) may not rat out Baliff, thinking to blackmail him later or split up the ruby between the two. All of these fun possibilities are lost when too much information is imparted to the players via the dice, so think carefully which dice rolls you may wish to conceal behind the GM screen. Let them roll all others, however, where the results are obvious and immediate.

Now let's get into more complex examples. The GM tells all at the game table that Baliff (a rogue) has discovered a trap.

NOTE: Ideally, the GM should be able to do this since ideally the players will keep table top OOC knowledge separate from their character's knowledge. If the players can't be trusted, however, the GM may forever be passing notes or holding secret meetings with this player or that player while all the other players must sit and wait (which is not a lot of fun if it is you who is waiting and being kept in the dark more often than not). This is not a bad thing for major points of knowledge, but to stop the game for every little thing is a bit much. I recall one game where passing notes was so common, even blank notes were passed back and forth to help conceal real notes. It was particularly funny when the rogue said he was checking a drawer and the GM gave the rogue's player a blank note. He found nothing, but a note from the GM suggested otherwise.

NOTE: Often some knowledge must be kept from the players not because they can't be trusted to keep IC and OOC knowledge separate, but merely because it adds suspense, mystery, and drama to the game. When it does, such knowledge should be withheld from the group in general. For example, the GM shouldn't volunteer this dragon is really an illusion and trust the players to have their characters act accordingly when the entire point of the game is the thrill of the unknown, the uncertainty of your character's safety, and the high drama of life or death situations. All of that would be lost if they knew ahead of time there was nothing to really fear there, so not everything should be trusted to the players, even when they can be trusted to roleplay well.

Now, after the GM tells all about the trap, John says Baliff will pass the trap but not disclose the information about the trap to Gatal who is following him (John and Tim have a real life fight going on it seems). So what does Gatal do? Does he walk into the trap? If not, why not? Tim knows the trap is there (he heard the GM say so), but Gatal doesn't know, does he? Does Tim ask the GM if Gatal sees the trap or noticed Baliff acting oddly? Perhaps, but the GM should probably tell him no as Baliff is quite skilled at hiding things and Gatal has no great skill at discerning traps anyway (he's a warrior, not a rogue).

(Of course the GM may first demand to know why Baliff is doing this to Gatal, and if John doesn't have a good IC (in character) reason, the GM may rule John is guilty of using OOC (out of character) information and rule he cannot do this, or perhaps he might rule what Baliff tried to do was obvious to Gatal (thus mitigating the offense since John used OOC information) and let the chips fall where they may now that it has become IC knowledge to Gatal that Baliff is trying to kill him). Note, however, this isn't so much to punish John but to force him to roleplay his way out of the situation, or come up with IC reasons for his character's actions. Quite frequently, if he can't - since his true motives were OOC - this bad roleplaying is revealed for what it is, and the GM subsequently backtracks the situation, and John is put on notice to play fairly and leave his OOC problems with Tim at the door, or, failing that, leave the game. This usually has the desired effect of making the offending player walk the roleplaying straight and narrow, as well as alerting all players such IC/OOC crossovers are unacceptable behavior.

Naturally, by the time the game requires the GM to play your character for you, or it requires the GM's infamous "blue bolt" to set things right, the game has already degraded to the point of ridiculousness and should be wrapped up for the day (or forever if Tim and John can't play together nicely). But if the GM didn't put John on the straight and narrow, what should Tim do? Tim may complain that John is using OOC knowledge, but suppose the GM still does nothing. Then what? Should Tim have Gatal walk away and choose another path, even though he's been following Baliff all night? This would be poor roleplaying. So unless Tim also wishes to stoop so low as John stoops and be counted amongst the ranks of lousy roleplayers, Tim has little choice but to have Gatal walk into the trap and get hurt, or worse, killed. In that case Tim has roleplayed very well, John did rather poorly, and the GM didn't do his job as well as he might have. For Tim, we may only say:

"I pray that our Heavenly GM may assuage the anguish of our bereavement, and leave us only the cherished memories of the characters loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be ours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of roleplaying."

The problems mentioned immediately above are difficult to deal with, but as they typically arise from players who cannot get along or haven't learned to play well together, it is not surprising the results will be poor for the game. Yet, in the long run, we must rely on the quality of the player, on how well they roleplay their own characters, and trust them to come to the gaming table for the purposes of having fun with one another and not to continue petty fights that will ruin the game for everyone.

Remember that the best way to deal with a rotten player is not to do something to their character in the game, but to invite them to leave the game, leave yourself, or in some other way make it clear you will not continue to play with him as long as his game etiquette is so poor. If the GM has good control over his or her own game, the GM will strongly discourage the player most responsible for the conflicts. It may take two to make a fight, but this does not mean both are equally culpable. The GM should be able to discern from whence the problems most often arise and set that player straight, or failing that, ask the most offensive player to leave. Alas, this may be a hard thing to do when playing with a group of friends. Still, it sometimes must be done for the good of the game. A GM will do well to remember failure to control his or her own game invites further strife and continuing, perhaps even escalating conflict, and soon no one will look forward to playing there.

However, leaving that aside for now, there are other times that do not deal with personal feelings when the barrier between knowledge banks is bridged when it should not be, and I'll next deal with them.

Earth knowledge and knowledge of Earth's history has a tendency to creep in where it doesn't belong. The natural assumption is if it happened that way on Earth, it must be true here as well, where "here" is for your fantasy world. You may have heard a player state, for example, "Plate mail doesn't even exist yet since they haven't even developed such and such" or something along those lines, drawing on their vast knowledge of how and when things actually did develop on Earth. But they miss the point since often it is not necessary for different worlds or cultures to follow exact or even closely parallel paths. This is another form of player OOC knowledge that is trying to sneak into the game through the back door, and you shouldn't allow it, or at least, you should look sideways at it. Naturally, if the GM is trying to run a historically accurate game, that's a different matter. Another example of Earth knowledge is when a character may attempt to introduce poetry, songs, even characters etc. from Earth or Earth's literature into a different world, or make all sorts of references based on Earth ("the darling buds of May" was quoted in a poem by a character, and that was the latest example I saw in a game I was playing in where for all we knew at the time, the world we were on didn't even have a month called May).

Oddly enough, the opportunity for bad roleplaying arose then as a result of this. One could have jumped up and demanded to know "Hey! What is this 'May" you speak of?" Naturally, as your OOC knowledge clues you in immediately that 'May' is 'out of place' there, you are quicker to point this out when, in fact, it might be far more likely your character would just take it as a word in another language (there are so many languages available) which they were unfamiliar with, and considering it's poetry, there are probably a lot of things in it your character may not immediately understand, so why do they fixate on 'May' as if they KNOW it's wrong with certainty? Thus, your own OOC knowledge that 'May' is out of place there works against you and invites further bad roleplaying if you try to have your character ferret out the meaning of the odd reference on the spot. Be careful and try to consider what your character knows in comparison to what you know (assuming you care about good roleplaying, that is, for if it's just a 'silly' game and you treat your character as a game piece, this is already way beyond your concern).

Even official AD&D tried to sneak certain practices of Christianity into the game (clerics not wishing to draw blood, for example, was a practice of a particular Christian sect, as IF hitting someone in the head with a mace wouldn't draw blood), but yet they didn't transplant Jesus or the religion of his followers (too many might be offended), so why bring part of it but not all of it? I guess they had some notion it was required for game balance to make 1st level fighters worth playing compared to 1st level clerics and decided this was handy, but that's a whole other concern. (After all, both could wear good armor, both had a THAC0 of 20, but the cleric had spells too, wow, so why play a fighter at all, especially in a game that was slated to last only a few sessions where the warrior's advantages never would come out)? Of course, you may point out a warrior can have exceptional strength, but what if he didn't? Probability suggests he won't. If the GM wishes to maintain such a rule, however - because he feels game balance calls for it - then he could always make up a good reason. Recently I heard a good one. The sword, like a cross, was considered the holy symbol of the gods of war, and other priests of different religions wouldn't use it as it might offend their deity by using the holy symbol of another god. Naturally, this wouldn't stop them from using arrows or the like, but it would take swords out of their hands, and the reason (though arbitrarily chosen) is a good one for that world if that's what the GM really wanted.

Naturally, one may include whatever the GM wishes or allows, and this could be considerable amounts of knowledge from Earth, Earth's history, or a particular piece of work of some of Earth's literature (there is nothing wrong with it just because it comes from Earth), but bear in mind just because something was so on Earth, it need not be so on this different world. Furthermore, if the GM bases their world on some popular piece of fiction, it, too, need not follow that fictional work exactly. It is his world, and he may change it as he sees fit. The GM will often make it clear to the players when entire sections of Earth knowledge or a literary work are to be considered part of his world, and thus most of it becomes IC knowledge and fair game, or at least potentially fair game (you still have to discover it first). Of course when a GM does that, if one of his players knows the source material better than he does, it might cause problems, but again that's another issue entirely.

The next part of this article deals with game mechanics, "Game Speak" (as it is sometimes called), and how the GM wishes the players to perceive his world. For example, does Gatal ever say "I have 10 hit points left, so give me a 1st level cure light wounds spell."? That is something Tim might say, but Gatal would never say that. Instead, Gatal may say "I'm badly wounded and I don't think I can keep going without the blessing of your lord." or something like that. Nor would Gatal probably say "My sword is +3 and that's better than that +1 long sword and does more than 1d8 base damage anyway."

As you can see, "Game Speak" helps convey game ideas rather quickly between GM and player or between two or more players, but our characters do not posses this knowledge. Or do they? Surprisingly, they may, in fact, posses some semblance of that very knowledge. Granted, it is unlikely they have quantified their universe into such handy numbers or tables for comparison purposes, but Gatal should know his sword is better than the other one if he can freely examine both, even if he doesn't have any specific numbers to quote. One may or may not refer to a spell, procedure, item, etc. by its game name or game numbers, but if not, then what will it be called, how will they talk of it, and what does the GM wish your character to say and do in these matters? Every game is different. Some may say it's fine for a character to call it a +3 sword of sharpness, others will only refer to it by name while in character ("Oh great Parceler, you are a noble weapon."), while others may wish a more descriptive term of its function but not use Game Speak (the imagination abounds here).

As another example, your mage knows about their spell's capabilities and limitations, but they are couched in game terms, so what do the mages know or say when discussing it? The player knows a monster will be immune to the Sleep spell if it has 5 or more hit dice, but should your mage know there is some limit there as well? They can hardly go around quoting numbers or speaking about hit dice, but they would have this knowledge to some extent. "It's true the more experienced can often ward off the effects of my spell, as well as particularly nasty or huge creatures, but most cannot."

Many times I have seen GMs and other players even feel the need to withhold such game mechanical information from their players for fear it gives the characters too much information or too much detail. Gatal has 25 hit points while at maximum, and the GM may conclude Gatal can't distinguish between having 19 or 20 hit points (or even between 10 and 20 points if the GM is really hard on such things), and this may or may not be true, but at least on some level Gatal is the best judge on how he feels. If the GM says so, however, you should play it his way (it is his world, even if the game belongs to you both).

Like trusting the players to play nicely and keep their personal feelings and knowledge separate, ultimately, it will be better to trust them to keep game mechanical knowledge and character information separate as well. Let the players know how many hit points their characters have left (or some other quantified and detailed bit of game knowledge), but remind them their characters can't tell with that sort of certainty when the differences are so small, and then let them be the judge, as they must so often do, what their characters do and do not know. If Gatal wanted to know how many hit points Baliff still had while he examined Baliff's unconscious, wounded, and bleeding body, that's another story as it is apart from his own character, and the GM really needn't give him detailed information and numbers (unless Gatal perhaps has some skill to assess this, like the healing skill, and even then, he wouldn't be told -3 hit points, but instead might be told the injuries are serious, though not yet critical).

I have written of when players know things their character do not, but it is equally true that characters often know things their players do not. The very skills that make a character interesting may be beyond its player's knowledge. For example, a mage really knows how to cast magic spells, a warrior knows how to fight, a rogue knows how to pick locks, and a ship's captain may know much about navigation. All of this may be well beyond the player (or even the GM) as they do not know how to actually cast spells, really use a sword effectively, pick a lock, or navigate by or through the stars. Yet it is often what we know that inspires our questions, and this should be true of our characters as well, and that's a problem. For example, the player of a mage may not realize there is some obvious magical anomaly to investigate, but a mage certainly would. In this case, the players must rely on the GM to let the players know when their characters perceive things based upon their character's knowledge of the world they are in, their profession or class or skills, or some other subtlety to which the players have no access. A character versed in ancient history, for example, is not going to recognize the name "Aragorn" when the GM mentions it unless the GM tells him it is historically interesting or something. Then the player at least has a chance to realize (remember) his character has "historical knowledge" as a skill and may then follow up on the GM's hint. The alternative would be for the player to actually acquire these skills, learn thousands of pages of history, and then pick up on the name himself when the GM causally mentioned it in passing. Not bloody likely.

A GM may give your player, however, some few pages to read before game time as they will become relevant, if you can figure out how, rather than pointing it out on the spot WHEN it happens, perhaps making it more of a challenge. But this also takes more work, so it depends on the commitment of the GM and the players in the game.

Remember also that your character may have grown up on this world and they certainly lead their everyday lives 24/7. As players, we do not live every second of our PC's lives, but only share a small, hopefully highly interesting fraction of it. But during all those other non-roleplayed times, our characters learn a great deal about the minor everyday workings of the world around them, so the GM must be careful not to let the characters do things they would obviously not do if they really had that knowledge. For example, your character may know about a strong, well-established police force that will take a rather dim view of those who start bar room brawls. So before the PC is allowed to do this, the GM should at least warn them that it is likely they'll get into a lot of trouble with the law if they proceed in such a course of action. If the player persists, then it's his problem, but without that warning, the GM has failed to help add realistic depth to your character's knowledge, and now you have to pay for his mistake.

Seeing the body language of other PCs or NPCs is a great example of something your character also knows that you do not. How much do we glean from each other based upon body language? Yet, our PCs who SHOULD be picking up on a lot of this knowledge while talking to each other's PCs or talking to various NPCs do not really get to see this. Facial expressions, a tone in one's voice, shifty eyes, an unusual odor, etc., etc., all should provide our characters with clues that the GM must grant to us by some other means (when he feels it is relevant). This is why it is incumbent upon the GM to volunteer information on some levels, though it may be necessary for the player to dig deeper once they learn there is something amiss. (The GM may try to use his own facial expressions and "play" the NPC, but if he is not very skilled in that area, he probably should say something like "He looks shifty," or "He seems uneasy and nervous."). If the players then ignore the GM or don't pay attention, that's their own fault and they and their characters deserve the consequences.

So where are we now? We, as players, will be picking up information our PCs may or may not have. You must figure out what is reasonable for them know or figure out what is IC and what is OOC knowledge and strive to keep these knowledge banks separate. Base your character's knowledge and feelings and actions only on IC information. Remember, often our characters should be able to glean general feelings and very limited surface thoughts of those PCs around them (due to proximity and familiarity), but don't go too far, and always be prepared to back up when the GM or another player thinks you have used too much OOC information (or be prepared to justify it IC).

Also, your GM should supplement your PC's knowledge when they would clearly have it. This does NOT mean, for example, the GM must solve all your mage's problems for you because your mage has an 18 intelligence, but that he should point out things your mage would know due to his wizardly profession and skills. Playing higher INT, WIS, and/or CHA than you have yourself, as a player, is a whole other issue. Perhaps some insight can be found here:

A Look At The Probability Of High Statistic Scores (Some Comments On The Difficulties Of Playing Stats Higher Than Your Own Can Be Found In This Article.)

Alas, unless this paper continues with enough examples to nauseate almost anyone, you can't possibly learn all there is on this subject, and no one will ever have all the answers anyway. Suffice it to say that keeping player and character (OOC and IC) knowledge separate is one of the concerns of the roleplayer, and now that you have read this, you may have a better idea how to do it or what you may be looking at when you see an IC/OOC crossover.

Good luck, and Happy Gaming ;-)