The Discern Someone’s Qualities social objective lets a character learn game information about a target, such as advantages or disadvantages. These are then known to the character. Similarly, the Expose a Weakness outburst gives away information about the character, letting others learn a disadvantage. There are a few additional clearly defined options to learn (and subsequently know) a character's traits.

Are these meant to present a the only options to earn such knowledge?

Or are other ways of gaining knowledge considered permissible? E.g., one character passing on information learned via such an option to another character who did not (or could not) use it during a narrative scene, or deducing traits from observation ("when first introduced Hida Tomoe was described as being a giant standing out even amongst the other members of the Crab delegation - also, she was noted to be able to easily reach the stuff on the top of the shelf in the storage closet, just as descibed in the first bullett of the Large Stature distinction, and she just got to re-roll two dice on that Labor [Earth] check, too - I deduce she actually possessess the Large Stature distinction")?

So in essense the question is if metagaming is an allowed tool to archive ingame advantages? Or if knowledge can only aquired ingame?

Aren't both of those in-game knowledge? Sharing information is something characters can do in game, as is observing someone's height.

But generally, I would think that if you the player were able to observe that a distinction was used, it's okay for the character to know about it. There's always tricks the GM can use to hide it.

I also think one of the dangers of an choosing revealing a disadvantage as an outburst is that witnesses can gossip.

14 minutes ago, Yandia said:

So in essense the question is if metagaming is an allowed tool to archive ingame advantages? Or if knowledge can only aquired ingame?

That is certainly part of it, but it is also a question of degrees.

During an Intrigue, your courtier successfully completes a Discern Someone's Qualities objective. Through intense scheming and at great personal risks, he learns that Hida Tomoe is indeed a Crab of distinctly Large Stature.

My bushi is not present during the scene in which this information is revealed.

Later on, your courtier and my bushi take a stroll during a stone garden together. This is a narrative scene. While talking, your courtier reveals to my bushi what he recently uncovered about Hida Tomoe.

Yet later on, Hida Tomoe and my bushi face off in a conflict against one another. Your courtier is not present in this scene. Is Hida Tomoe's Large Stature advantage known to my bushi? (And was that transfer of information, irregardless of whether it qualifies as knowledge for my bushi or not, acquired in-game or through metagaming, in your understanding?)

1 minute ago, blut_und_glas said:

Is Hida Tomoe's Large Stature advantage known to my bushi? (And was that transfer of information, irregardless of whether it qualifies as knowledge for my bushi or not, acquired in-game or through metagaming, in your understanding?)

I can definitly see your point... The advantage should be know to the bushi, because otherwise narrative scenes would be pointless and it would also be somewhat weird...

And I would describe this knowledge as aquired in-game... But only in parts... Since you aquired the knowledge in a narrative scene the knowledge is to a certain degree uncertain (at least in theory).

In practice we were probably at the same game table and you did see me rolling and succeding on those knowledge aquisition rolls, so the reason your character trusts the information is to a certain degree meta-gaming.

I would tell you to do whatever you want.

What if the person is beautiful?

if being of low stature is a disadvantage (it is.) does the character has to have his weakness exposed to people notice that he has... low stature?

These examples can get worse with stuff like missing arm, leg, hand, eye and so on.

35 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

I also think one of the dangers of an choosing revealing a disadvantage as an outburst is that witnesses can gossip.

Certainly. But does the danger imposed by such gossip extend to the mechanical side of things, e.g., will characters who did not witness the outburst but only heard the gossip be able to use techniques which require a target's traits to be "known" against the character?

7 hours ago, Mobiusllls said:

These examples can get worse with stuff like missing arm, leg, hand, eye and so on.

However just because a character is described as "missing an eye" doesn't mean they suffer the mechanics of the "Lost Eye (Water)" disad.

Understand the difference?

1 hour ago, evileeyore said:

Understand the difference?

Yes.... And I find it extremly weird if character descriptons which imply a mechanical effect are devorced from said mechanical effect.

This opens up a whol other can of worms where I then can reasonably argue: "If you are describing your character with only one working eye but do not have the disadvantage. I will describe my character with both eyes functioning but have the disadvantage."

In the end you are devorcing crunch from fluff here and I am not sure that is a good thing... Let's say I take the Large Stature and Small Stature (yes that is allowed) at the same time and descibe the character as averaged sizes.

3 minutes ago, Yandia said:

Yes.... And I find it extremly weird if character descriptons which imply a mechanical effect are devorced from said mechanical effect.

And I don't find it weird at all. This is a more narrative game.

Maybe your character has overcome their missing eye, they learned to accommodate it and keep a strong situational awareness in mind. Thus descriptively, "missing eye" but rules wise they do not suffer the Disadvantage.

Likewise perhaps your character has a lazy eye, or very poor vision in one ye and thus though they clearly have two eyes they suffer from " Lost Eye (Water)".

Why tie your hands narratively when it is not required?

So what if revealing the disadvantage missing arm is actually outbursting publicly about your missing arm being a suffering to you, as it may handicap you, while as a samurai you should stay stoic and deal with it. So yes you suffer mechanical penalty anyway and people using the gossip talk about not your missing arm but how you expressed yourself about it.

If your beauty is narrative and taken as a disadvantage as you have a hard time dealing with it, you might outburst about it, and reveal pride or vanity, that people can use to gossip.

16 hours ago, blut_und_glas said:

That is certainly part of it, but it is also a question of degrees.

During an Intrigue, your courtier successfully completes a Discern Someone's Qualities objective. Through intense scheming and at great personal risks, he learns that Hida Tomoe is indeed a Crab of distinctly Large Stature.

My bushi is not present during the scene in which this information is revealed.

Later on, your courtier and my bushi take a stroll during a stone garden together. This is a narrative scene. While talking, your courtier reveals to my bushi what he recently uncovered about Hida Tomoe.

Yet later on, Hida Tomoe and my bushi face off in a conflict against one another. Your courtier is not present in this scene. Is Hida Tomoe's Large Stature advantage known to my bushi? (And was that transfer of information, irregardless of whether it qualifies as knowledge for my bushi or not, acquired in-game or through metagaming, in your understanding?)

I would say yes; if you have (as a party) specifically put effort into uncovering a Distinction or Disadvantage, then you should be able to share that information amongst yourselves provided you have practical time and reason to have done so.

Obviously the big Hida lunk is tall; that doesn't require a spy to notice. But the Large Stature advantage is more than just 'he's tall' it's some sort of mechanical element - 'he's tall and knows how to (and likes to) use it to his advantage' or whatever.

It would depend exactly what form the 'expose weakness' took, but say (for example) that it was him trying to be all looming and imposing to make up for his lack of wit and repartee, that he defaults to trying to use his height to intimidate when not thinking.

As a duellist, forwarned with this knowledge, you can go "aha! I know that he will probably do more or less the same in a swordfight, and will come in fast and low and go for his legs, because he'll draw himself up to his full height and try to use his height and reach to intimidating effect".

Which thought process, to me, sounds like the start of 'Seizing a Target’s Advantage' as described on P.61 - "If a character’s check has one or more targets, their player may choose one of the target’s known advantages that logically could be a weakness for that check. If the GM agrees, the player may spend 1 Void point to seize the target’s advantage, causing it to be applied as an advantage on the player’s check."

On 26/10/2017 at 2:29 AM, evileeyore said:

However just because a character is described as "missing an eye" doesn't mean they suffer the mechanics of the "Lost Eye (Water)" disad.

Understand the difference?

I dont. how you courtier would gossip about my lost eye if i dont have a lost eye?

A good mechanical system supports the narrative and a good narrative is supported by the mechanics. Both should be seen as one instead of opposite.

Edit:Yeah the tall Hida cant reach stuff on the top shelf because he didnt bought the advantage.... despite being tall...