[RPG] How to explain the lack of characters’ in-game knowledge

dnd-5egm-techniques

I am currently DMing two D&D 5e campaigns.

I was wondering of some good ways to start off a campaign and explain to the players that their characters have, essentially, no knowledge of the in-game world. For example, if we took a look from their characters' perspectives, often times, their characters should know a significant amount of the world around them (especially if they are pretty old). Cities, towns, monsters, who lives where, etc. But how I have been managing it so far is I have to narrate everything to the players, and they have to learn the lore of the world on their own. Sometimes I can let them have Religion or History checks etc., but for the most part they don't know anything of the world and this seems like a fail in immersion in my opinion. If a player asked me how I would explain that their character didn't know about XXX or YYY in my game world, I would be pretty stumped. One of the only ways I thought of was to have all characters start off in some land, then at the beginning of the game, ship them to some other world/continent, but this can quickly get boring.

Any ideas to solve this problem, even if it isn't at the start of a campaign, would be appreciated as well. Thanks in advance.

Best Answer

"Not from 'round here"

I've used "you were practicing in your master's keep, when there was a blue flash. When you woke up, the moon above was wrong... wrong color, wrong mare, wrong size, and wrong phase."

This works quite well for players who don't have history and religion skills... for the religion skill, finding that the local gods have the same myths and similar names, well, it solves that. History remains utterly borked, but one skill that can be "regained" by spending downtime in study... for the proficiency itself is as much in learning how to learn history as it is knowing the ins and outs of a specific world.

No History but what comes up in play.

I find it quite a bit easier in the long run, and a good bit richer, as well, to let players invent history and jot down whether their roll was "truth" or not... if it's "truth" (they made their History roll), it's true for the game world. If they fail, it may or may not be true, and I'll leave it for later.

Failure isn't always «No Truth»

Failure on a knowledge roll doesn't need to be «No Truth»...

It can also be:

  • «Some Truth» Give them parts of the truth, but leave out the most important bit.
  • «Too Many Truths» give them 2-3 different and incompatible «truths»...
  • «True... From a Certain Point of View» (also called "Obi-wan style deception"). It's a lie based upon wilful manipulation of the facts. "Duke Fred Murdered your Father!" (leaving out that your father had challenged him to that drunken duel...)
  • «Irrelevant Truth» - Sure, it's nice to know about the origin of the Castle... but I need to know who the prior duke's enemies were, not who the Building Baron's Friends were...
  • «Inconvenient Truth» Sometimes, you can give them information that's true and helpful, but making use of it implicates them or their employer in something else...

It's fine to occasionally have it be «No Truth»