So can we take a moment to discuss what meta-gaming actually

>>51241723
If your GM says that it isn't common knowledge, then ask if you can roll a test, if he does say it's common knowledge then you have no issue. This isn't about metagaming, it's about the lack of communication between you two, we're not here to justify that for you.

>>51241723
Meta-gaming is a quick sand trap that idiots argue over. I say idiots because that shit has never mattered and never will. Just play the fucking game.

>>51241723
If you get into an argument with your GM, don't make a whiny thread on /tg/ complaining about it, because it lets us know that your GM was right and you were wrong.

>>51241786
We wouldn't have a board if people followed this advice.

Your DM is the referee. If you had been smart, you would have asked if you could make a knowledge check to see what your character knew about trolls.

Since you're not smart, you instead came here to complain.

>>51241723
Does your character have prior experience with trolls or has had any experience where he would have learned that trolls are weak to fire? Does your character use alchemist's fire on a multitude of enemies and not just enemies weak to fire? It's not random trivia that everyone in the kingdom knows.

If you can't say "yes" to any of that, then you should have rolled the appropriate knowledge check first rather than assuming your character shares your knowledge that trolls are weak to fire.

>>51241786
>GM identifies a monster by name.
>Doesn't give it any special characterisics
>Somehow it's my fault the GM got triggered
Wanna know how I know you're a shitty GM?

>>51241805
Why should I have to make a knowledge check when everyone and their grandmother already knows what a troll is?

Do I have to roll a knowledge check just to identify the color of the sky, because that's effectively what you're suggesting here.

>>51241723
>it's a party is expected to fuck around for half an hour before they're "allowed" to figure out that the troll is weak to fire adventure
Your GM is shit. Everyone on /tg/ will defend your shit GM though.

>>51241868
>Why should I have to make a knowledge check when everyone and their grandmother already knows what a troll is?

Did your GM say that? Is it an established part of the setting that you're aware of? If so does it pertain to your society and not just other parts of the world?

>>51241723

Lol is this your GM?
>>51213038

>>51241723
Let's think about it this way:

What were you supposed to do? What did the GM expect was going to happen? Fight the troll and have it regenerate until you can just overcome the regeneration? That sounds stupid, tedious, and sucky. It's not like fire instantly kills the thing. If the DM really did throw a fit over something so minor then your DM is whiny bitch and should choke on his own baby tears.

>>51241847
>Wanna know how I know you're a shitty GM?
No, I'm staying entertained watching you throw a tantrum instead of talking to your fake GM about this situation that didn't actually happen

>>51241811
If it's not common knowledge then the GM wouldn't have used the creature's actual name. I mean, in a world where information can be spread easily thanks to magic, it seems asinine to assume that just because John Turnip over here doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, the PCs are on the same level of ignorance.

Most peasants don't have access to spells but I can guarentee that they'd know about magic missile if you used it in front of them.

>>51241811
How do you know that fire extinguishers work on fires? Have you used one in real life? Have you seen one get used? How do you know that water puts out fire? Have you ever had to put out a fire in your life at any point? Did you know what to do if you did?

Fire is a real tangible threat in the real world, trolls are a real tangible threat in the D&D world. Trolls being unkillable unless you burn them is common knowledge, same way it's common knowledge that catacombs are full of undead, or that positive energy heals the living.

How do you know that aspirin reduces pain? Do you know how it works? Have you MADE aspirin? Of course you don't, but it's common knowledge because aspirin use is a common tangible thing in this world.

How do you know that fey hate iron? Have you ever seen a fairy? Have you ever stabbed a fairy with iron? Yet in spite of that you know that iron wards away the fair folk. This is common knowledge of folklore, and a common knowledge fact of life in a world where they exist and are very dangerous.

Also, the D&D game for the arcade, one guy berates the shit out of you if you kill the troll boss multiple times and don't burn him, basically saying "Don't you know you have to BURN trolls to kill them, you fucking idiot?"

>>51241908
Exactly what I was thinking

>>51241907
>Did your GM say that?
Yes, he's the one who called it a troll by name and said "it looks just like any other troll" when I asked for a description.

Also, I'm not some dirt farmer from fantasy Idaho here, I'm an adventurer, meaning that I would be aware of more bullshit than the average person just from fighting, surviving, and traveling from place to place.

>>51241984
Okay, and what was your GM's response, presuming you actually explained your end of the argument as to why it would be common knowledge to use fire on trolls?

>>51241847
As far as I'm concerned, you just proved that you were wrong and the GM was right.

>>51241908
No but it is close enough to make me glad that I posted this PSA. Shitty GMs need to learn what actual meta-gaming is.

>>51242006
It basically boiled down
>You don't know what it is.
>Then why did you call it a troll?
>Because that's what it is, wtf else am I going to call it?
>Then we know what it is?
>No!
>Then how the fuck would we know that it's an "ordinary troll" if we don't know what it is.
Then shit just kinda went downhill from there.

I'm a new player and I told my players to stop meta gaming

They were in a cave - and they split up

one half of the party is in a fight, the other is not. the ones that aren't want to go help the ones in the fight, I tell them they don't know they are in a fight. so he says "he has a bad feeling" and wants to go help him

the ones in the fight are spending about a minute+ each trying to figure out the highest dps and talking with other players for strategy

>>51241723
>Protip: If it's in the PHB or it's a monster that's CR 5 or less, or something that you call out by name, it's common knowledge or at least knowledge that the PC are expected to know. If it's on someone else's character sheet, the GM's notes, another book that isn't the PHB, or it's a monster that's CR6+ then it's not common knowledge.

You're completely retarded if you think how strong a monster is determines how common it is.

>>51242088
Your DM is a lazy cunt and he should either learn to describe things without using their names or come up with some more creative encounters.

>>51242014
>Players are supposed to pretend to be absolute retards until the GM is forced to allow them to use common sense.
I guess you would think the GM was right considering you're just as retarded.

I never get this whole "meta game" thing when it comes to trolls and fire.

You see some big beasty regenerating wounds at abnormal speed. What is something that does sustained damage? Fire. So what do you use to stop the regeneration? FIRE

It's basic fucking deduction

>>51242088
I think he was calling it a troll to quickly explain what it is to you, the players, without necessarily implying that your characters know which of the dozen different kinds of brutish, oversized humanoid this is.

>>51242094
If your players start debating a lot and taking forever to take combat actions, declare everything they say to be in character. Now they're standing around jabbering while some cave creature is clobbering their heads in. And honestly I'd probably go for the 'bad feeling' thing depending on the tone of the campaign. Otherwise roll to see if they can discern what's going on or give me a damn good excuse.

>>51242107
Stronger monsters tend to be harder to find.

It's why you can find dozens of goblins in some little rathole outside of town while an adult dragon is usually in some secluded area where nobody would willingly travel to if given the choice.

>>51242145
Thing is, he could've easily used a description and side-stepped this whole debacle.

The DM was just lazy as hell.

>>51241943
Common knowledge isn't all that common in a world before Google and Wikipedia. Even today, if you ask most people what metal fey are weak too, they won't say 'cold iron.' They'll scratch their heads and shrug, maybe the intelligent but uneducated will say silver and maybe one in five will genuinely answer with 'iron' and one in those five with 'cold iron.'

Why would a common person with no experience with trolls or areas where trolls dwell need to know anything about trolls at all? As if they'd actually be capable of killing a troll even if they had fire at their disposal.

>>51242145
>I want my players to pretend to be retarded but I don't want to put in any legwork myself to help them into the mindset
Yeah, nah.

>>51242231
Correct. If you need to obscure knowledge from the players, fucking obscure it instead of forcing some retarded shit. It's completely within the DM's right to do so, but that doesn't make it not shitty DMing.

>>51242141
Fire doesn't damage it and thus counteract the regen, it literally just stops the regen from happening. Otherwise poison would do the trick just like acid and fire does.

It's not using real world logic, it's using mechanics with some real life basis. Fire could easily deal like 1d10 damage and not counteract the regen at all.

>>51242242
You're forgetting that we live in a world where a) adventurers routinely trade stories about the crazy bullshit they've encountered and b) magic allows for fast travel and easy long-ranged communication.

Between these two, a PC has no excuse not to know about CR5 or lower creatures, plain and simple and if you waste everyone's time just to see them dancing on the hook, you're a shitty DM.

>>51242242
>Even today, if you ask most people what metal fey are weak too, they won't say 'cold iron.'
Fey aren't real.

If you asked someone what you pour on a slug to make it shrivel and die a torturous death, chances are they'll know, even though most people don't interact with slugs on any sort of frequent basis at all.

>>51242242
Cold Iron is a poetic meme, it's just plain iron.
Preferably in the form of a horseshoe

>>51242176
Then why the fuck are you making it a rule that <CR 5 monsters are common knowledge? There are tons of random monsters that aren't very strong. You just get to know stuff about every random fucking weak monster you encounter, regardless of how rare or unlikely it is, because "hurr it's common knowledge I mean it's in the PHB."

Ask to make a check to see if you know the troll's weaknesses next time.

>>51242242
Cold iron is only a 3e thing.

>>51242285
>Fire doesn't damage it and thus counteract the regen, it literally just stops the regen from happening.
Yes, that's how it works mechanically, in the game's terms.
And it is justified as fire just making it incapable to regenerate, in logical terms

>>51242128
"Common sense" says that you don't know what the weaknesses of a monster is unless you pass a relevant knowledge check unless you've faced them before. You're just an entitled piece of shit.

>>51242317
Slugs are a common garden pest and we (in the West) live in a highly educated world where most people know how to read and are able to acquire access to information about whatever they want in an easy and timely manner.

Something like b) in >>51242303 only works if it has led to the equivalent of the internet in your setting. Otherwise, unless your character is an experienced adventurer and has a good reason to know much about trolls, he likely wouldn't be aware of their weaknesses unless another adventurer has passed that information down.

In fact, could the OP tell us about their character? What was their intelligence, did they have any stats in any sort of knowledge at all and what was their general background?

>>51242390
But that isn't logical. Fire doesn't stop healing irl. It just does the opposite, gradual damage. Meaning your real-world-logic falls short because of mechanics.

>>51242231
This. If you don't want players to use their metagame knowledge of monsters, don't call it by name.

>>51242382
>Then why the fuck are you making it a rule that <CR 5 monsters are common knowledge?
Because most monsters that are <=CR5 are monsters that are low-key enough to be a threat to local civilizations.

A goblin horde is going to be threatening to a small village, Orks have raiding parties, ghouls skulk around graveyards, etc. etc.

Once you hit CR6=> however, that's where you start to dip into monsters that are on a grander scale bu aren't necessarily common enough to be an immediate threat to Joe Schmo and his local turnip farm. Like people might be able to tell you what a dragon is but they wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a youngling and an adult dragon beyond its size.

I mean, let's be honest with ourselves here, the average D&D game will rarely go beyond level 10 at most, so it'd make sense for PCs not to know about the especially dangerous bullshit that lives out in some secluded area in the wilderness that you'd never encounter out the blue.

>>51242433
You think cells are actually capable of replicating, or tissue capable of closing wounds through natural healing process, at extremely high temperature?

You're thinking in shitty terms like "damage", rather than considering what that damage actually IS

>>51242415
If I know what a troll is (or at least enough to know that this troll is a run-of-the-mill troll) then why the fuck do I have to jump through hoops just to throw fire at it?

It's completely asinine, it doesn't even make the game harder, it's just the difference between the troll eating an alchemist fire now or on my next turn after he hits one of us in the face.

>>51242557
Maybe your shitty DM just wanted you to get killed.

>>51242424
If a wizard can contact anyone in the world in less than six seconds to tell them information, it might as well be the internet for the purposes tracking the spread of information.

Not to mention, teleportation circles are a thing, bestiaries are a thing, accounts from retired adventurers are a thing, all this information is right there for the taking yet GMs always assume that everyone lives in a shitty bubble just because peasants don't travel more than five miles away from their homes.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm

>Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

>In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

>For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm

>Hit Dice: 6d8+36 (63 hp)

So, if you're playing D&D 3.5, you'd be able to identify that the troll was weak to fire if you beat a DC of 16 on a Knowledge (Nature) check, since the vulnerability of a monster qualifies as useful information.

I can't find your "If it's in the PHB or it's a monster that's CR 5 or less" rule anywhere, unfortunately.

>>51242637
Then I suppose I should call any DM that has that sort of magical available in a D&D setting but doesn't have wizard-internet around a shit DM.

>>51242512
It's still a horrible rule than you made up on the spot to justify the troll shit, so that YOU get an advantage. Don't even act like the specific number you chose had a reasoning behind it besides trolls "coincidentally" having a CR of 5. Big surprise there.

Roll for monster knowledge every single time unless you've explicitly encountered it before. Get over yourself.

>>51242433
>Fire doesn't stop healing irl.
Back in the day, cautery was a very common treatment for a lot of things. One of them was destroying tumors.

You'd think an adventurer would have this kind of basic knowledge about the world before they set out to put themselves in harm's way.

>>51241723
The Pathfinder SRD is down, so I'm doing this based off the 3.5 SRD (which is probably identical but not necessarily).

The Knowledge DC to know something about a creature's "special powers or vulnerabilities" is typically 10 + the monster's HD (so for Trolls it's dc 16). I think PF says that creatures that are particularly common in any given area have the dc here reduced by 5, so Trolls would be dc 11 there.

Something is considered "common knowledge" if the DC is 10 or less, so Trolls don't qualify.

>>51242799
Just so you know, people back then didn't have the sensibilities of modern Westerners who take a great deal of care before doing anything risky at all. There was no researching all of the pros and cons of joining the military on the internet, you just got conscripted into a peasant militia and sent into the fray with whatever heavy or sharpened implement your family owns. Unless your adventurer comes from a highly educated background, they likely weren't any better and were just as ill-informed when they went out into the world beyond.

Acting like your bumblefuck adventurer that's challenged by things like a single troll would be educated at all is ridiculous. Get over yourself and roll your fucking Knowledge check.

>>51242667
You should, because magic completely changes the game in terms of how everything works and if he doesn't take that into account then he's obviously a lazy piece of shit.

>>51242724
CR5 are monsters that is expected to be taken out by a level 6 party, which what most games end up cutting off at if the GM doesn't want to deal with level 4 or higher spells fucking up the balance.

YOU get over yourself.

>>51242916
The difference between a peasant and an adventurer is that the latter purposefully goes into dangerous territory to fight these fucking monsters while the former is okay planting turnips until an orc raider shows up to raze his shit into the ground.

Not to mention, is your setting so shit that adventurers don't trade stories between one another or are you the type of anal-retentive who would make them roll three times just to learn that goblins are stupid?

>>51243018
Has an adventurer shared any stories of trolls with OP's character? I'm curious to hear this.

>>51243038
Most people would assume yes since the GM identified the troll by name and told him "oh it looks just like any other troll."

Otherwise, how would he know what it is and whether or not it was an ordinary troll?

>>51243079
Just because the GM is being lazy doesn't mean that the player isn't also being lazy and just assuming that his character would know the ins and outs of trolls without putting appropriate effort into it.

>>51243125
The thing is, by identifying the troll by name and telling the player that it "looks just like any other troll," the GM is forcing the player to meta-game from that point forward.

Either the character uses fire to deal with the threat or the character purposefully DOESN'T use fire and puts himself and his teammates at risk just because the PLAYER doesn't want to look as though they're meta-gaming.

Which is why meta-gaming as a concept is fucking stupid, every decision the player makes is a decision the character makes because the character has no autonomy. If it's information that I'm not supposed to know then DON'T FUCKING TELL ME!

>>51243334
If you're incapable of separating your character from yourself, maybe you should find a new hobby.

>>51243376
>You should leave the hobby because I'm butthurt that you acted upon information that I gave to you.
Okay chief, whatever you say.

>>51243376
Maybe you should take a hike, we already have enough shitty GMs to deal without you adding on to the pile.

File: unknowable monster.jpg (139KB, 642x800px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 642x800px

>>51241984
The correct response from a player in this situation is to quickly ask "My character would know that trolls are weak to fire right? Or should I roll a knowledge check?"

From the GM's side, you either just let him use it or ask for a low-difficulty knowledge skill to figure it out.

If you're not sure what to do, you can ask the player to invent a tiny bit of backstory to explain how his character knows. He doesn't have to have fought in the Troll Wars for 8 years -he could have heard it from a stranger during a boat ride, read it from a published explorer's journal, remembered it was part of a children's story that he told to his nephew once, or any number of other things. That way everyone wins: the player can use fire on the troll, GM has the situation resolved, and everyone learns something new about the characters and setting.

>>51243760
>If you're not sure what to do, you can ask the player to invent a tiny bit of backstory to explain how his character knows.

At that point you're just wasting time because you have to invent knowledge to justify other knowledge. You're still trying to use a Troll's weakness to fire, but now suddenly you have a reason because you made up a bit of backstory. Why don't you just do that for every monster you encounter?

From OP's account, the GM relied on trolls being a common and recognizable threat, then got mad when the players acted accordingly. You can't be lazy as a GM, or else you're just robbing your players of a good time.

>>51243979
>You're still trying to use a Troll's weakness to fire, but now suddenly you have a reason because you made up a bit of backstory. Why don't you just do that for every monster you encounter?

You absolutely can do that. And if you feel that something is too obscure to simply give out, then you can use rules for lore skills as appropriate to the game system you're using. If the rules indicate that the PC knows the relevant facts, then you can still ask for a quick explanation of how his character knows.

That kind of exercise enriches the game by integrating knowledge and lore skills back into the game-world. It stops being metagaming because the group is establishing in-universe reasons for PCs to know the things they do. When you do that, it's not just Dave remembering because read the monster manual, it's Edmund Sword-Hand calling on his experiences in a time of need.

>wasting time
My most recent GM has been doing this for some time, and it rarely takes more than a minute for me to invent a decent explanation. It usually takes less time than arguing about how common it is to know about troll lore, and in my opinion it's more fun too.

>>51244400
Not him but that's a minute that didn't need to be spent coming up with a bullshit explanation for why you know that trolls are weak to fire.

The rule of thumb for my table is that if the GM mentions it by name, it's something that we're expected to know and so far, we've managed to go through multiple campaigns w/o getting derailed because someone thought that we were metagaming or something.

>>51242916
>peasant militia
>implying

>>51242916
>you just got conscripted into a peasant militia and sent into the fray with whatever heavy or sharpened implement your family owns
I bet you have potatoes in your setting too.

This shit brought back some bad memories
>Be in a pirate campaign
>Ship is attacked by a giant squid
>Barely escape its clutches but we make it back to port
>Decide to spend time at a library learning about giant squid
>Get accused of meta-gaming because the GM thought that I was trying to game the system.
To make things worse, he said nothing when the resident power gamer accurately called out how much HP the giant squid had left when he tried to make us turn back to finish it off.

I'm glad I left that group but come on son.

>>51242557
"The horror Lzyx'y'xskklzyxx attacks the party!"
"I hit it with my +3 Axiomatic Sword"
"STOP METAGAMING REEEEEE YOU FUCKING PEDOPHILE HOW COULD YOU!! YOU DONT KNOW THAT IT'S CHAPOSITCO ALSIGJNEMA MMMUMMMMMYYYYYYYY!!"

>>51241723
Did your DM say it was common knowledge? How common are trolls? Have you ever met one?

Try not to metagame anon, it'll make you a better player.

File: 1482025594612.jpg (50KB, 534x486px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 534x486px

>>51242645
Seems pretty cut and dry here.

Though, I have to admit that the DM was shit at describing the encounter. I love going all out in descriptions of enemies, it always freaks my players out.

>You hear a low rumble.
>A large, green creature tears through the brush and onto the trail, gore hangs from fingers that scrape the ground as it walks in a strange, hunched over way
>It turns towards you, yellow and sunken eyes catching the light, a long hooked nose trails down to a gaping maw of teeth
>Roll initiative

>>51247814
Common enough for us to know what it is by name and know that the troll we were fighting was "an ordinary troll."

QUESTION

Did your GM say, "A huge stinking thing, green-skinned yet at least twice as tall as any orc is revealed by your torchlight," or did your GM say, "you encounter a troll, roll initiative?"

If his description began and ended with "troll," then this is entirely on him. The word "troll" literally means "big thing that recovers from any injuries except fire."

File: 1337684969621.gif (2MB, 300x241px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x241px

>I use fire on it because I know what trolls are
>Ok the fire makes it split into 5 more trolls that each have the same statistics of the first troll
>OH NO ITS THE FIRE MULTIPLYING TROLL OF PARTHAX SWAMP

Or just change fire to cold etc.

>>51247877
The GM was talking to you, the player. Saying it's an ordinary troll is shorthand, because you know what a troll looks like and what it generally is. Your character, on the other hand, might not know what a troll is, or even that it's called a troll in the first place. Lobbing firebombs or acid the instant you hear the word "troll" is metagaming, because your character might have no idea that that's what kills trolls. Now, if you've been killing everything with fire, then that's a different story, because it's been previously established that it's what your character does.

>>51247979
Dumbass, let's make something clear.

The GM is the only bridge between the players and the setting that they're interacting with, so if the GM calls a monster a troll and responds with "it looks just like any other troll" when asked for further details, he's putting me, the player, in a position where anything short of me sitting there in silence is me meta-gaming.

If I lob fireballs at the troll, I'm metagaming. If I don't lob fireballs and elect to take an action that I know won't work instead, I'm still metagaming. There's no action I can choose to perform that isn't based of my knowledge that this is an ordinary troll so at that point, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

So if you don't want the players to know something, don't fucking mention it.

>>51247945
Worse
>You encounter a troll in the bushes
>Really?
>Yes
>Okay, does it have anything special going on with its appearance?
>No, it looks just like any other troll in the woods.

>>51248070
>If I don't lob fireballs and elect to take an action that I know won't work instead, I'm still metagaming

False.

>So if you don't want the players to know something, don't fucking mention it.
And then you'll bitch that you weren't given enough information to act on.
Because you're a whiny bitch.

>>51248116
>False.
True!

There's no logical reason for my character not to lob a fireball at this particular creature but because I know that it's a troll and trolls are weak to fire, I have to purposefully go out of my way NOT to throw a fireball at it just so I don't get accused of meta-gaming.

Do you understand? If my decision making process is affected by OoC information, whether I choose an optimal action or not, then I'm meta-gaming.

>And then you'll bitch that you weren't given enough information to act on.
How am I going to bitch about information that I don't know exists? If you described it as a big green monster with sharp teeth and a hooked nose, that's already enough detail for me to say "oh, it's a monster, it wants to kill me, let's roll initiative."

It's not rocket science here, I don't know why this basic fact escapes you.

>>51247945
Well, a "troll" could theoretically have the "turns to stone on contact with sunlight" weakness going on, or whatever else. I've heard they're pretty variable as mythological creatures go.

>>51248221
But then if that were true then why would the GM get so pissed off at someone using fire on it?

>>51248270
Not saying that's what's going on in this situation. But "troll" could literally mean something other than "dies to fire" and a more creative DM could blindside a presumptive player by giving them a different kind of troll than they were expecting.

>>51248353
I think you're giving OP's GM too much credit but with that being said, I agree.

>>51248218
Because you're wrong and stupid. By your logic, it's impossible not to meta-game because all decisions are influenced by the player's knowledge. How you're not paralyzed by your own fear of meta-gaming I'll never know. Do you need doors described as "A construction of vertically placed wooden planks attached to the wall by strange metal devices which rotate on a peg"?

It's funny how mad players get when you tell them that the troll seems to be getting healed by the fire.

>>51243760
....is that a troll, moss troll or a sea hag? i cant make the difference......can i roll?


things like that

>>51245816
wait, trying in character to learn from past encounters is metagaming? wut? thats just being smart.....

>>51248383
>Because you're wrong and stupid.
Compelling argument.
>By your logic, it's impossible not to meta-game because all decisions are influenced by the player's knowledge.
Which is why meta-gaming as a concept is retarded as hell and why people need to stop accusing people of doing it.

As long as I'm not quoting something from someone else's character sheet or the GM's notes, I don't see why we have to pretend that the spade isn't a spade and trolls aren't inherently weak to fire.

>>51248353
Still doesn't excuse the DM for bitching about a player using fire since that's a pretty reasonable tactic regardless of a monster's trollness.

Also doesn't excuse OP for making his story up or at least exaggerating it

>>51247979
this. you are correct in my book

>>51248353
yeah, they could suddenly fight a jester, the internet troll of the time. that would have been hilarious

>>51248513
>, I don't see why we have to pretend that the spade isn't a spade and trolls aren't inherently weak to fire.
Because your character might not know that, and hell, it might not be weak to fire. In which case you'd be shitposting on the internet about your bad GM deviating from the rules you so meticulously memorized.

Learn to separate character knowledge from player knowledge, stop being a spaz, and stop meta-gaming.

>>51248468
>....is that a troll, moss troll or a sea hag? i cant make the difference......can i roll?
>things like that

That's the spirit! Even if you're 99.99% certain OOC that it's a troll, you still should try to work through the system to avoid pissing off your GM.

>>51248603
Your professional monster hunting, shit kicking, spell flinging, high level adventurer PC wouldn't know that troll no like fire. Because it's not like other people have ever fought a troll. It's not like it's their job to know how to fight trolls and other baddies. That's like saying using turn undead against a zombie is meta gaming because YOU CANT KNOOOOW THAT ZOMBIE IS UNDEAD! What if it's just a leper, right? Just some kind of angry hobo or something

>>51248603
>Because your character might not know that, and hell, it might not be weak to fire.
What fucking difference does it make, honestly? Either I'm torching it now or I'm torching it later, it doesn't make the fight any harder or anything, it's just semantics that wastes time and distracts from game.

All in all, it's easier just to assume that the characters know what's going on rather than everyone walking on eggshells because they don't want to be accused of metagaming.

>>51248691
most turn undead using classes are trained in recognizing undead from not undead, thats what the knowledge religion class skill is for.

>>51248691
Not that anon, but honestly I think the problem is more to do with how it affects the game than anything.
If you're required to roll knowledge and fail, are you just supposed to faff about for a certain amount of time until your GM lets you have the idea to use fire? If everyone already knows that Trolls are weak to fire, this is gonna be seriously unfun for everybody.

Also: wouldnt fire and acid be the go-to solution for regenerating monsters? See: Heracles killing the hydra

>>51248625
Why am I playing with an asshole who gets triggered because the party aren't newbies?

It ain't amateur hour here, if he didn't want us to know then he wouldn't have told us.

>>51248767
>Roleplaying, character building, and setting an atmosphere is a waste of time that distracts from the game.

Okay.

>>51248783
Are we to assume that every setting is going to have a dedicated temple nearby to supply clerics and paladins? Are we to assume that even though temples are a thing, the average person still knows nothing about how undead work? Are we to assume that nobody has ever written or spoken of a story where a dead man walked around or something?

Shit like this is what breaks down the meta-game argument, in order to justify its existence you have to assume that nobody talks and nothing is written.

>>51241723
It should be discussed with the DM before the campaign starts, at session zero. You failed before you even began.

>>51248879
None of those things have to do with meta-gaming. If your atmosphere is ruined because the player used an alchemist fire then chances are it wasn't all that well constructed in the first place.

>>51248902
Because you totally know everything about anything and know exactly how it works, right? Why are you posting here instead of living your life as a brain surgeon/scuba diver/hang glider? After all, it's written down and people talk about it, so you must be an expert!

>>51248909
All I did was use an alchemist fire, do we really have to sit down and chart out how retarded our characters before we officially start game?

Because at that point we might as well just play farmers trying to survive a harsh winter since at least then our characters wouldn't know anything and we'd actually be able to sit down and play.

>>51248934
>None of those things have to do with meta-gaming.

False. They aren't happening because the player is meta-gaming. After all, why would the character ever be afraid of something or fail to come up with a piece of info? The player knows it because he read the book, so the character can't make mistakes!

>>51248972
Way to completely miss the entire point of the thread mate.

>>51249041
Way to completely miss how that's pointing out how retarded >>51248902 's justfication for meta-gaming is buddy.

>>51248972
Golly-gee willikers, I guess that means that because I know werewolves can be killed by silver, I must be a fully qualified neurosurgeon.
Holy moly batman, who would have thunk it?

>>51249029
>They aren't happening because the player is meta-gaming.
No, they aren't happening because you're a shitty GM.

>>51248986
No, you just ask something like "hey, it's alright if characters know the stuff that's in the PHB, right?"
If he says no and you can't deal with it, just don't play with him.

>>51249078
Just because I'm not a trained neurosurgeon doesn't mean that I don't know what a neurosurgeon is. Conversely, knowing that undead are weak to holy magic does not give me the credentials to perform brain surgery either.

You're just too retarded and I feel sorry for any of your players who have to deal with you.

>>51249087
The point was that just because shit is written down doesn't mean it's common knowledge. Your justification is fucking stupid.
>>51249089
They're not happening because you'd rather meta-game everything rather than even attempt to act like your character doesn't know something.

>>51249125
>Play a game
>Not using the PHB
Pick one. Anything in the PHB is shit that's assumed common knowledge for every player (character) to know.

I swear, THAT GM's are coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches today.

Why do people assume that 'common knowledge' exists in a setting based on a fusion of the Dark Ages, Medieval times and even the Renaissance?

>>51249181
Clearly this DM didn't think that it was ok, and you should have figured out that it was a problem before you got into an argument and went to /tg/ to cry.
For the record, I think that DM is an idiot too. The fact that it took so long for you to realize makes you dangerously close to him.

>>51249157
>The point was that just because shit is written down doesn't mean it's common knowledge.
Fucking what? You think people wouldn't be interested in learning about trolls and goblins and dragons and shit? You think people wouldn't tell stories about seeing them at some point when their most exciting moment is picking turnips? Fucking really?
>>51249157
Nobody wants to pretend to be retarded just because you're too much of a bitch to let shit slide. If you wanted us to act like we don't know anything, then shut your trap and stop giving us information to metagame with.

Rather than say "it's a zombie," say "you see a humanoid in tattered robes approach." Instead of "it's a ghoul," say "you see a humanoid approaching you with pale rotting skin and wicked claws."

You can't give all away on the first date and complain when nobody calls you back.

>>51241723
>If it's in the PHB or it's a monster that's CR 5 or less, or something that you call out by name, it's common knowledge or at least knowledge that the PC are expected to know.
You're making a lot of assumptions there, friendo.

>>51249199
Because it's not a setting based on dark ages, medieval times, or even the renaissance and the setting is also one where magic allows you to communicate across continents in the blink of an eye, if not outright teleport using a circle or something.

Not to mention, adventurers would likely be trading stories on all their exploits so information on monsters would likely spread pretty fucking quickly thanks to word-of mouth.

>>51245816
>I almost fucking died today
>I want to avoid dying in the future
>I want to learn about what tried to kill me

That's a pretty natural response, after going to the local tavern and getting shitfaced and using the story to fuck a tavern wench.

>>51242088
>>51242145
In summary:
DM = Lazy
OP = Whiny little bitch with the comprehension skills of a grapefruit

>>51249461
this

>>51244552
>>51243979
>Coming up with backstory is pointless time wasting bullshit
Why do you guys play RPGs?

>>51250068
How is "I overheard a conversation in a bar" or "I read it in a book, once" in any way worth mentioning? You're adventurers, not sheltered NEETs wandering into the world for the first time, and it's just a goddamn troll like you can find all across the continent.

>>51241811
>It's not random trivia that everyone in the kingdom knows.
The D&D arcade game (tower of doom I think) actually has a troll boss fight. It will get back up if you don't burn it. Eventually soldiers come in and save you with fire pots, acting like you're retarded for not knowing that you have to use fire on trolls.

If it's common knowledge like that, it should be fine to try it. Metagaming is shit like reading the adventure, opening the MM mid-fight, acting on information from events you aren't aware of, and assuming that all your enemies will be appropriate encounters. It varies in how bad or wrong it is and what solution should be used, if any.

>>51250068
If I'm going to come up with a backstory, it's to give my character depth, not to justify why my character would know basic shit because the GM is triggered by player experience.

Besides, if I'm allowed to know anything just because I came up with a plausible reason for why I would know on the spot, It'd be no different from Old Man Henderson.

>>51250123
It brings internal consistency. I guess it's a difference of playstyle, I like it to be more like a story instead of a player skill puzzle I'm going to blame it on me not being a smart person, so you must be right.

>>51250154
>It'd be no different from Old Man Henderson.
OK, fair point. I will concede this.

>>51250192
>It brings internal consistency.
How does it break the consistency when you're already an adventurer who is expected to kill shit for profit? How does someone using fire on a troll break the internal consistency but stopping every other roll to say "I heard it once from X" doesn't?

At the very least, it makes a situation where everyone knows everything anyways, except we basically have to break immersion to say "hey fellas, remember that one time we met that adventurer who lost an arm to a troll attack?"

Just assume they know things and play it forward, your "story" isn't going to suffer from everyone involved actually being intelligent. If it would then that's 100% your fault.

>>51242433
A cauterized wound won't heal right anon, which is essentially what fire damage does to a regenerating troll

>>51250279
You can be intelligent and still be ignorant of something.

>>51250361
Not when it relates to your job, ESPECIALLY when it's the difference between life and death.

>>51250329
This isn't the case because you just need to do 1 fire damage to a troll and it will not regen the other 35 damage the rest of the party inflicted.

>>51241943
I didn't know you have to burn trolls.

>>51250406
That's pretty much how cauterizing is done. You don't burn off an entire gangrenous foot, you cut it off then cauterize the stump.

>>51250391
Depends on the adventurer honestly, I doubt a street rat rouge that got caught up with a band of adventurers, or a wizard who has spent most of his life studying magic would know much about trolls.

>>51250456
The order doesn't matter though that fire damage could have been first followed by tons of hits with an ax and regen would still be halted

>>51250391
>Not when it relates to your job
Yep, that's how the world works. Yes indeed. What is your job that you know everything about?

>ESPECIALLY when it's the difference between life and death
Do you think every fantasy setting has magi-pedia or something? Just look for an article on "weaknesses of things that can kill adventurers"

>>51249461
/thread

>>51250466
>A Rogue wouldn't know about the dangerous creatures lurking in a forest when his guild routinely robs people while hiding in the brush.
>A wizard wouldn't know anything about a magical creature that's referenced by magical items and material components
Those are retarded ass characters familia.

>>51250496
>What is your job that you know everything about?
I know everything that I would need to do my job and do it without either getting myself fired or getting myself hurt. I'm also not an adventurer who routinely kills dragons, trolls, and goblins either.
>Do you think every fantasy setting has magi-pedia or something?
Do you honestly believe that adventurers wouldn't trade stories on the time they almost got killed by some green bugaboo that died once the party wizard burned it to death?

Why does your setting assume that everyone is as retarded as you?

>>51250521
>every rouge is the same
You don't really get the idea of roleplaying do you?

File: fiendfolio_terlen.jpg (55KB, 500x418px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x418px

Honestly I think both the player and the GM are right to some respects because I feel like metagaming comes "hard" and "soft" forms.

Soft metagaming is mostly involves genre conventions that have seeped into our subconscious through pop culture: red dragons usually breathe fire, elves live for a long time, a man with a pointy hat and a beard is probably a wizard, etc, and overall its not a calculated effort to game the system so much as something a person in our world takes for granted as common knowledge. It's very possible that a PC could live most of their life without ever meeting an elf or fighting a dragon, but thanks to the soft metagaming you know not to use fire attacks on the dragon and generally assume the elf probably knows some shit about flowers. I think the troll fire example falls under this, and if a PC used fire against their first troll I probably wouldn't even blink.

However, I don't think OP's blanket knowledge statement on automatic knowledge rolls for things CR 5 or lower is correct, and is borderline aggressively metagaming of the hard variety. There's all kinds of weird monsters in that range that even your average scholarly PC probably won't have assumed knowledge. For instance, this weird ass sin against nature is CR 2, but it's not like these things are going to be super common knowledge. If you start spouting off that it has a base land speed of 60ft or deals extra damage against flatfooted people, that's purposely metagaming to squeeze out an advantage, and as a GM I would call you out on that.

>>51250592
You can keep coming up with bullshit all you want but the fact of the matter is that every class in the game has some way of knowing about basic shit like trolls being weak to fire by consequence of being PCs.

>>51241723
how is your character even supposed to find out about this?

does the in-game group have to go to the local library to find a book on monsters?

>>51250482
D&D isn't a simulationist game, it's abstract and gamist. The order of damage not mattering is a conceit to that end. Now please, stop sperging out over verisimilitude.

>>51250762
>how is your character even supposed to find out about this?
By going to a tavern and rubbing elbows with other adventurers.

>your 16int 300 year old elf sage knows absolutely nothing about the history of the region, magic, fauna, flora or the gods of the land until the gm tells you he does

>>51241811
If a player reads the fucking manual, the cat is out of the bag. If the player has ever encountered trolls in any other D&D game, the cat is out of the bag.

The solution is to not be a bad GM so obsessed with having his special encounter work out exactly as planned, especially a troll - perhaps the oldest puzzle monster in the game - that he will grind the game to a screeching halt because a player has picked up on almost 40 years of fantasy osmosis.

>>51250813

Knowledge checks and levels always go sideways when you start introducing characters who can live over double the average human lifespan.

>>51242724
>It's still a horrible rule than you made up on the spot to justify the troll shit, so that YOU get an advantage.

Why is is a problem if the players overcome an encounter? How does this hurt the game?

>>51243376
Maybe you should try amateur theater instead of a game where roleplaying is in the same sense of commanding an army in a wargame. Your game gains nothing from having a player make boneheaded decisions "because that's what an uneducated orc general would do."

>>51250878
I always just give people the information they want unless it's something really obscure or they obviously wouldn't have easy access to.

File: powergamer.jpg (50KB, 300x428px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 300x428px

>>51250935
>roleplaying is the same as wargaming

And here is how to spot the power gamer.

>>51250995
Tell me mate, how many decisions did your character make without your input?

>>51241723
>You can't know that this thing has a weakness to fire

Well duuuuuuuuh, Like there's anything in the fucking world that isn't weak against actual FUCKING FIRE.

Anyone who calls meta-gaming on a fire weakness should stop DMing and apologize by committing suicide on the spot

>>51241723
What, like the 500 "moments" per year we already have? Fuck off already.

>>51250935
>>51251065

Wow it's almost as though some people enjoy roleplaying a character

>>51250995
And here's how to spot someone who is clueless about the history of D&D and how it was played. Amateur theater can work with D&D, but it's not how the game was designed to be played.

>>51251065
Tell me how much personality does your character have or is it just the same thing with different abilities.

>>51250482
>It's an abstrac-
Oh. >>51250775
Well, I'll just show myself out then.

>>51251119
There's a difference between roleplaying a character and pretending to be a retard who doesn't know anything about the actual world they reside in.

What you're suggesting is that everyone play NEETs who sit inside mud huts and just conjealed out of the aether asexually before becoming adventurers, which is by far one of the most painful types of roleplay there is because you're more worried about being accused of meta-gaming than you are about playing the fucking game.

Like holy shit, I better not refer to that wooden square in the wall as a "door" otherwise I might lose roleplay cred since my 16int wizard didn't write "door knowledge" into his backstory.

>>51251140
As much or as little as the player feels comfortable with. If they want to immerse themselves, great. If they don't, and just want to treat it as a beer and pretzels game, that's great too.

>>51251140
Answer the question sweetie. How many times have you let your character call the shots without your input?

>>51251164
Adventurers hatch, fully classed, from stray dragon eggs. Everyone knows that. Why else would they be so powerful, greedy, and stupid?

>>51251179
Not him, but I have to ask. Do you have schizophrenia?

>>51251193
Wasn't that how dragonborns were born in 3.5?

>>51251164

>NEETs who sit inside mud huts and just conjealed out of the aether asexually

This is most of my gaming group.

And in the game.

>>51251164
It's a well known fact that adventurers are a rare parasite breed that leeches off of other people, they also reproduce via spores released on death this is why new adventurers tend to appear right after another dies.

>>51251210
My question is merely to demonstrate that the concept of "player" and "character" are not mutually exclusive.

Everything the character does is on orders from its player. In fact, the more the player thinks of the character as a seperate entity, the less immersed the player becomes in the campaign as a whole.

>>51251101
This. I don't get why it's okay to know that werewolves are hurt by silver, but not okay to know trolls are hurt by fire.

>>51251101
It's the same with the acid weakness, acid is going to hurt most things with flesh and it just so happens that trolls are made of the stuff.

>>51251297
It's the GM antagonism and primacy exemplified by the Quantum Ogre

I honestly don't give a shit if it's metagaming or not. Do you know how many times I've fought trolls? "Let's figure out how to beat a troll" stopped being fun a decade ago. If your only idea to make the encounter interesting is to make me pretend like I'm twelve and don't know how to play, then you're a terrible DM, and I'm going to metagame to get through your lazy, boring encounters faster.

And I'm calling bullshit on the people saying "Well, it depends on the information level of the setting." If you want to play a game where information is limited, cool. Use rare monsters or make up your own. Pretending not to know what a troll is isn't fun.

ITT: Reaffirmation that anyone who accuses others of meta-gaming are to be avoided at all costs.

Seriously, you motherfuckers want people to play 20 questions just to set something on fire.

>>51242424
>Slugs are a common garden pest and we (in the West) live in a highly educated world where most people know how to read and are able to acquire access to information about whatever they want in an easy and timely manner.
What are you even arguing for?
>salt kills slugs
>slugs are a garden pest
>gardeners have to protect gardens
>gardeners have to deal with slugs
>gardeners would know that salt kills slugs

>fire kills trolls
>trolls are forest monsters
>adventurers commonly venture into monster territory
>adventurers have to kill trolls
>adventurers would know that fire kills trolls

>>51242128
Common sense is a 4-point advantage.It's not my fault you didn't buy it

>>51251898

I really preferred how 4e did regeneration. It was just Fast Healing that could be negated for a turn with the right element. So you COULD kill regenerating things without working out the specific weakness if you didn't know it. It would just take more work.

>calling a troll a troll
>not expecting the players to immediately bust out the fire
As someone said earlier in the thread, you need to describe monsters instead of just using their name and a diceroll. There's minimal immersion involved in immediately knowing what a monster is, and then having to pass an arbitrary check to ensure competence.
While rolls are necessary for a whole lot of things, you can roleplay knowledge checks without having to actually do the check.
If you can go without a roll, and instead have the players figure it out naturally, then it's much more fun and much more true to the 'troll fightan us what do?' puzzle, because then they'll have to actually experiment out-of-character and in-character to bring down what's currently beating their face in.

Here's my shitty way of playing this out:
>announce a huge, green, monster with ratty hair and huge claws stumbles out of the bushes, dilated eyes eventually finding the party and blah blah blah...
>if they want to make a knowledge check, they can do so at any point in the fight
>if a player immediately recognizes it as a troll if it does something troll-like (like, say, play dead after suffering 'fatal' wounds before getting up, fully regenerated for another go at the party), then he now knows it's a troll, knowledge check or no

The troll is a pretty textbook example of a monster with a glaring weakness. Everyone who's played anything related to DnD probably has a general idea that trolls don't like fire. If you want to have an actual puzzle encounter, use a more obscure monster, reskin a monster, or write up your own monsters.

>>51242916
D&D isn't "back then", it's a fantasy setting that cribs stuff from medieval real world but should sure as hell not follow it slavishly.

>>51242242
I always thought it was magnetized iron.

>>51251211
Partially, they first need to get unbirthed into the egg though.

>>51255004
You're the one telling me that people should pretend to be retards even when they know the answer to a problem.

Nobody likes wasting their time because someone at the table is a stickler for meta-gaming, especially if they've been playing for years and already know that trolls are weak to fire.

Trolls are common monsters with weaknesses commonly known to players. It isn't something most people would have to look up to find out about. By default, I think this is something that definitely falls in the realm of something adventurers could be assumed to know. If the GM wanted to do things differently, he should probably have talked to the players about it beforehand. Or he should've tweaked the monster's mechanics, or gone with a more obscure monster, or one that's entirely homebrewed. I mean, what's next? Players using metagame knowledge to determine that dragons use breath weapons?

File: 1432655552513.jpg (27KB, 377x377px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 377x377px

>>51251898
this
there comes a point where you've just covered this ground way too many times and going through the act of being clueless and having to use '''trial and error''' until somebody '''stumbles''' upon the weakness yet again is just the most dull shit in existence

interestingly, this effect gets vastly faster and much more noticeable in round-based roleplaying games like SS13
in fact, SS13 has a good few notable examples of this - one of which being that there's a server based on the alien series where you play colonial marines encountering xenomorphs for the first time every. fucking. round. and metagaming is seriously cracked down on by the admins because muh immersions.
it wouldn't be so bad if it weren't just the exact same repetitive bullshit every time, where colonel bob says we lost contact with this colony, marine steve jokes about insurgents, and then marines george, dan, and roger go down on the ship and have to all get killed and permanently removed from the round before anybody can take any precautions against the aliens, ever.
of course, there isn't much you CAN do to change this in a videogame besides run different gamemodes or whatever, but there's a FUCKLOAD more you can do to change it in a tabletop game, where the DM can do whatever the fuck he wants with his monsters, so instead of fighting a generic troll weak to fire, maybe we can fight something actually interesting this time - something we haven't already fought and haven't already gone through the process of 'figuring it out' with before.

Situations like these are why I stopped running D&D, it's such an old busted piece of shit that in order to properly challenge the players, everyone involved has to pretend to not know anything about the system.

A well designed game should become more fun the longer you play and the more you learn, but with D&D it seems, the more you know and the longer you play, the less fun the game becomes until the only enjoyment you get comes from either breaking the game or ruining the campaign for everyone else.

>>51241723
Shock detected

Yiff in hell, furfag

>>51260101
'Sholk

>>51258110
Always thought the Colon Marines server could do with a few different round types.

Capture the Flag, Live Fire Exercises, getting sent down to Sulaco, but it's an actual riot instead of aliums.

>>51241875
yeah pretty much

>>51260184
they'll never have different round types because that would be interesting and require the coders to do more than five minutes of work
i bet they still don't even have any basic shit that reports a window breaking next to space even though it takes literally five seconds to write up something like that, and last i checked they were still using absolutely trash atmospherics settings that make breaches a huge fucking issue, even though the code they're using lets you turn off shit like airflows with a single ingame button anyway.
it's laziness to the maximum.

File: Resized_20161015_213748.jpg (72KB, 606x1080px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 606x1080px

Gm should have described the creature and let the players figure out what it was through fighting it. The player shouldn't have been a god damned power gaming autist by assuming that his character knows everything about how to fight anything. Both of you are idiots, take this as a learning experience.

so if i make a fire mage and shoot the troll with a fireball, i guess i'm a piece of shit

>>51262657
>Knowing how to play the game is power gaming.
I guess next time we fight skeletons we should waste our time piercing and slashing it before we say "oh, let's try beating it to death instead."

>>51242915
This why I always go with KS: monsters or whatever the GM has. Those that get miffed are the same ones who metagame their monsters against players (troll with fire resistance 10, only the actual fire damage counts).

File: Jupiter.jpg (2MB, 1440x2561px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x2561px

>>51262858

In the case of skeletons it just makes sense to smash it to bits, it's a freaking skeleton.

>>51263799
By that logic, setting trolls on fire makes sense too.

I mean, what logical reason is there not to set something on fire whenever possible?

Alright, I've read all the silly posting about 'metagaming' and you're all wrong.

Metagaming is anytime a player not currently on the 'good' list of the GM tries to do something that irritates the GM. This can range from a player trying to get a flank METAGAMING or drink a healing potion when Bleed-ng METAGAMING to questioning why every monster all night has attacked him/her with a first round SA. Anything done by the GM, regardless of how unfair, can never be metagaming. Even asking how many hits you have left before rolling damage (behind the screen) and getting that number exactly. Even ruling a beholder behind a grill X feet away can still target you from X +5 feet away (Gygax) with a ray that only shoots X feet.

Basically, metagaming is a poor 'gm' not being up to snuff. When I run, I buy the pizza if I ever weasel out with 'metagaming'. Otherwise, the players buy. I never have to buy pizza.

>>51264016
>Purposefully fudges dice to KO a player
>Alters the range of an attack just to hit a random player
>Forces his players to buy pizza for him even though everyone should contribute.
Man, this thread has been exposing a lot of shitty GMs.

>>51264016
>Anything done by the GM, regardless of how unfair, can never be metagaming.
>When I run, I buy the pizza if I ever weasel out with 'metagaming'.
>I never have to buy pizza.
I bet you think you're the smartest person in the world.

>>51264624
Not smart, I stole this from another GM and it makes you pay attention or pay up. Loss of the 'out' forces me to up my game.

Not forcing the players to buy pizza, that's a house rule the group adopted 30+ years back. I have to chip in when I play and everyone agrees to her house rules (no smoking, baths, no drugs, no booze, etc.).

File: 1436946731741.png (368KB, 623x527px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 623x527px

>>51265118
>her
No wonder your group is shit.

Why not just ask the player how their character knows this? Worst-case scenario is you have the min-maxing power gamer actually telling a story for a change.

>>51265560
Because a) it ultimately doesn't matter how they know since their entire profession deals with slaying monsters and b) it'll devolve into a party of Old Men Hendersons since, with a bit of forethought, you can basically know everything there is to know about anything.

Seriously, we already went over this ITT.

>>51265229
You just wish your hostess was half as good.

And they group rocks.

>>51241723
>people should pretend to be retards

So you're not pretending to be retarded, you actually are?

Great I can call autism and move on.

>>51265681

I did read the thread but I didn't see anyone else ask this, maybe I missed it.

If you don't want the players to know everything about anything, create original monsters so they're always surprised.

Even if you're the best actor in the world, it's hard to play the fool in A GAME when you have some kind of outside knowledge. It's why the 3.x method of Spot checks didn't work and they invented Passive Perception. "You enter the room, roll a Spot check. 4? You see nothing unusual." Being suspicious there isn't a fault of the players, it's a fault of the game.

But if a player knows to burn a troll or hit a werewolf with silver weapons, it's a great opportunity to ask how their character knows. Even if the character is a stupid barbarian or a sheltered goblin, they're forced to blag it in an interesting way.

>>51265721
We don't invite the waiter into our conversations when we eat at a restaurant, let alone invite them to play tabletop with us.

Also, the only reason why you think your group is good is because the "hostess" is attractive to you and you think you have a chance.

>>51242242
>cold iron
No, it's just iron. Cold iron is a D&D meme.

>>51265804
It would honestly just boil down to "I know a guy," "I read it in a book," "some other adventurer mentioned something in a tavern" and other non-answers that would just be handwaved because there'd be no way to fact check whether or not they did in fact hear it from a guy at some point in their life, especially races like Elves who are alive for hundreds of years.

Like passive perception, it's easier just to play it forward and assume that the character knows because they're adventurers and adventurers make it their business to know how to kill monsters. Nobody wants to play like a retard for a few rounds just to "miraculously" discover that silver kills werewolves or trolls are weak against fire, especially in a game like D&D where most of the creatures you fight have been around for decades.

>>51265907
>I once played a game where a group of peasants took on a lich
>They didn't waste time in fighting him and instead broke the glowing green jar behind his throne on the first turn of combat
>Promise that's not metagaming, liches have been around for thousands of years

Stop and listen to yourself. You act like metagaming can't possibly exist and because you can't be bothered to come up with backstory for your own characters nobody else can.

Fuck me the level of asbergers is insane.

>>51241908
No, he read that post and invented this story based on it.

>>51265907

Maybe PbtA games have infected how I view RPGs too much, but I think that kind of handwaving is just as much a part of the game as rolling an attack roll. Even if you have the most power gaming munchkin player ever, when faced with the direct question: "How do you know these monsters are vulnerable to cold?", they have to come up with an answer. And maybe their answer says something about the world or it's something you can build on later. And then they can't complain, because they told you this themselves.

But I totally agree about assumed knowledge as an adventurer. Even a lot of old school and retroclone games say that the GM should never name monsters, which is bullshit. A typical 1st-level adventurer should know what a goblin is, it doesn't require any kind of roll or elaborate description to figure that out.

>>51265990
Three things.

1) Why are a group of peasants fighting a lich?
2) Why is the lich's phylactery (that's glowing no less) stationed right behind his throne?
3) Why doesn't the lich have shit like body guards or wards stationed to protect his phylactery?

The players made the right call, you're just a salty retard.

>>51265990
>Designing an encounter where the boss leaves his weakness in plain view of his enemies.
>Surprised when the enemy exploits said weakness to kill him.
You're just mad that your players are smarter than you, just like every other cuck ITT who accuses people of metagaming. Kys.

>>51248383
Well, if I'm not supposed to know what the fuck a door is, the DM ought to.

Otherwise, I get this: >>51258110 where I masturbate to my own fake ignorance while everyone else bitches about me not having any way to know.

On topic, if you want me to invest some effort into figuring out your puzzle, you need to invest some effort into making it look like one.

>>51242534
The same could be said of some poison or any other form of sustainable harm.

>>51266062
>>51266140

Either you missed the point on purpose or you're retarded.

>>51242799
Cautery stops tumors by killing the cells, not magically making them unable to replicate.

>>51242242
Yeah because you need to be a genius to know that fire hurts shit right. Even if he didn't know that it was a troll, it's a big scary naked thing, fire works on that.

>>51266265
how do you know fire hurts shit? what exactly do you do in the bathroom?

Both GM and OP fucked up.

>>51266171
I think you missed the point.

If the players know that liches have phylacteries and you leave the lich's phylacteries in plain view for any one of them to grab, it's entirely your fucking fault when they smash it to bits and sidestep the entire encounter.

Let's think about this for a moment, they're fighting against a creature that has been around for thousands of years, people would have to have seen/fought/died-against/etc. one at some point in history and told stories about their encounters with one.

They encounter this Lich and notice a weird glowing bottle sitting right behind his throne.

What reason would they have NOT to smash the glowing green bottle behind the lich's throne?

Seriously, your hypothetical just paints you as a retard who doesn't know how to properly structure an encounter. The players made the right call, you're just buttmad that they didn't fluff your ego for a bit.

>>51241723
Hadthi oe up a gae recently. Party was fighting giant trolls. A player asked 'what do we know about trolls do we know about fire'.

I thought about it for a minute and said yes, they do.

The point is. I considered what I thought of as common knowledge and what I thought these players might know.

Your dm may feel differently. Maybe trolls are rare or this is the first outbreak.

>>51266445
Then why did he a) call it a troll and b) say that it looks "just like any other troll?"

The issue is that the GM thought that his players were as dumb as he was, when in reality you should always assume the opposite.

>>51242242
>if you ask a person in a world where fairies aren't real what their weakness is, they won't know the answer
What a fucking shock

>>51266324
Jesus christ you're autistic as fuck.

>>51267137
Answer the question sweetie, what reason would the party have NOT to smash a glowing bottle sitting behind the lich, especially if liches have been around for over a thousand years?

You can't just call people autistic just because they found a glaring flaw in your logic.

File: damage control.jpg (101KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 650x650px

>>51267137

>>51267137
Stupid people like you shouldn't assume that everyone else is as dumb as you are, Vidya teaches us that the glowing shit in the room is almost always the boss's weakness.

Step away from the table if you're going to get this butthurt about a basic staple in gaming.

>>51241723
DM didn't note whether something was or wasn't common knowledge...
However, if he calls it by name, it may be reasonable to assume such entities are common enough that people know them on sight and probably know basics things about them (regenerate, fear fire.... Acid may be a stretch depending on how common acid is in the setting).

So yeah, DM is a lazy cockmongers.
On the other hand, you may want to chill. If this little thing is enough to disrupt the game, it may be time to find a new game with less dramatic peeps.

>>51241723
This shit. Right here. This is why I've never been a fan of calling out the name of a monster when it appears. For a troll, it'd be introduced as, "a massive, beastly humanoid with long teeth and claws that reeks heavily of moss." The characters may recognize it if they pass a Knowledge check(which, I'll remind you, doesn't eat into action economy because it doesn't take an action). The players might put two and two together if they've read the monster manual.

If they don't make a check, I'll ask how they know about it. If they say it's in the monster manual, they're meta-gaming; they've given me no reason to assume their character has any idea what a troll is. If they give me even half of a reason to think they do, say by claiming that one of their relatives was a retired adventurer and told them stories of monsters they fought, and they'd fought trolls before, and were told they'd know it by the smell of moss and algae coming off of it, or if they have the relevant Knowledge skill trained to max ranks(meaning they've put decent study into monsters of that type), then I have reason to believe they know enough of what they're doing.

tl;dr: Assuming that your character is a know-it-all that is familiar with all the monsters in the monster manual is meta-gaming. Bitching about it when someone calls you on your meta-gaming entitles you to nothing but the right to go eat dicks.

>>51268576
>Why would you assume that your adventurer, a dude who kills monsters for profit, would know anything about killing monsters for profit.
>FILTHY METAGAMING PIECE OF SHIT!
I'm sorry I don't feel like pretending I don't know basic shit just so you can get your rocks off by how hard your encounter is.

>>51268752
See, here's the issue: If that's your backstory, that makes sense. That gives me a reason to think you know what you're doing. A trained mercenary specializing in fighting and killing monsters would be like a witcher, and assuming a witcher doesn't know witcher's work is stupid.

The problem lies in the fact that, not all adventurers are adventurers for fun and profit. They wouldn't all know monsters by sight. The ones that are specifically monster killers would, sure, but unless you've given me a reason to believe that that's your character's backstory, then I'm going to assume the opposite.

>>51268840
Even if an adventurer isn't an adventurer for fun and profit, why the fuck wouldn't an adventurer know about monsters when their entire purpose for existing is to fight monsters?

Are you telling me that adventurers wouldn't trade stories about some of the crazy crap they fought against? Are you telling me that people wouldn't have stories about monsters that lurk in the forest and eat people who stray too far? Are you telling me that nobody in your setting has read a fucking book?

Get the fuck out of here, it doesn't take much motivation to learn about monsters for fun, it takes even less motivation to learn about monsters when you could wake up next to one at a moment's notice.

>>51268934
>adventurers trading stories
Why are you assuming your character would get the time of day from a veteran adventurer? Also, most of the stories you'd get would be campfire stories told while drunk, and they'd assume you knew what they meant, and wouldn't elaborate, because everyone's drunk, and you just want to hear the story. Aside from that, you're getting bard songs, which also assume you know what they're talking about. Usually incorrectly.

>stories from bumfuck nowhere
Line up a kobold, a naked halfling that's been dragged through a ditch, and a gnome who just survived an alchemy lab explosion in front of any random person, ask which one's a goblin, and people that aren't veteran adventurers would just say all of them were. The peasantry is dumb. All they know is, "there's a monster in the woods, and it only doesn't attack if you leave a bonfire burning between your house and the edge of the woods." If you ask them what it is, they're just as likely to say, "a demon," as they are to say, "some kind of giant goblin," or just repeat, "a monster." And that's all you'd know; it's, "a monster," that seemingly fears fire, which could mean it's a troll just as easily as it means it's nocturnal and the fires just too bright. I will say again: The peasantry is dumb. If you're a veteran, or you've learned what things are through study(most systems use skills to represent this), you'd know it on sight, but otherwise, you know as much as they do, outside of specific backstory knowledge.

>does anyone even read?
If they can, maybe they do. Learning about monsters isn't something the peasantry would go out of their way to do. They know what works, and that's all they think they need to know. Veterans that realize a gap in their knowledge would do research, of course, but your character's not a veteran.

And hell, all of this is fixed by saying, "It's some kind of monster. I don't want to get close to it, and I have alchemist's fire." Seriously, problem solved.

>>51242088
You fucking fuck, you the fucking player know its a fucking troll, you shitstick. Your "character" doesn't know. You limpdick motherfucker, learn to roleplay.

>>51269291
How fucking rare are trolls in this supposed setting that they aren't common knowledge?
Do fucking villagers see a troll coming and wonder what it is?

>>51269353
In most settings? Yes, actually.

>>51242145
then call it a brutish, oversized humanoid, not a troll, and the players will go from there to get a description.

>>51269281
>Why are you assuming your character would get the time of day from a veteran adventurer?
Because rank usually doesn't matter once everyone is drunk at the local tavern. That and if I survived going up against a goblin that killed our wizard, I'd be bragging up and down the bar about how I chopped its head off.
>The peasantry is dumb.
We're not talking about peasantry here, we're talking about adventurers. Even then, I'm pretty sure someone would be able to tell the difference between a green pointy-eared red eyed monster and two humanoids that have had a bad day.
>Learning about monsters isn't something the peasantry would go out of their way to do.
What are fairy tales? It's not like they're studying monster slaying 101 here, they could just use monsters as a means to frighten children who misbehave or stray too far into the woods.

Why do you assume that everyone is retarded?

>>51269438
I find that hard to believe.

>>51269438
Most settings assume that everyone knows that trolls are weak to fire. For fuck's sake, in the D&D arcade game, a group of guards will show up and burn a troll boss to cinders if you take too long and chew you out for not knowing that trolls are weak to fire.

Unless your setting takes place in some demi-plane where everyone has a combined INT, WIS, and CHA score of 6, people are going to know that fire is great for burning monsters, especially trolls.

>>51269291
Isn't it counter-intuitive to say that roleplay is synonymous with being stupid? PCs are already libel for burning down orphanages because "it's what my character would do."

>>51242424
um, i knew about salt on snails in first grade, way before the internet existed. how did i learn that, word of mouth. also kinda the definition of common knowledge.

>>51269353
Villagers dont fucking kill trolls dipshit. But hey maybe you could roll Knowledge Local & learn that the people around these parts set up torches on poles to ward off trolls. Your character exists in the world, that world is full of all kinds of shit. Your character only knows what the GM tells them they know. A cockatrice is pretty low CR but that doesnt fucking mean every fucking Joe Commoner knows what it is or what it does. If the GM says that the cockatrice was a curse by a specific witch that the village attacked then guess what? You dont fucking know about it.

Take a Celt warrior in the ancient world, then place him in Africa & ask him what a lion could do. Same thing.

>>51269440
>Why do you assume everyone is retarded?
Because, and as you grow up, you'll learn this, most people are, in one way or another.

Drunk people will assume that you know what they're talking about because they're drunk and they have less of their usual inhibitions telling them to slow down.

People going off of old traditions, superstitions, and fairy tales don't care to know more because they already know enough to keep it off their ass and personal bias takes over from that point.

Adventurers that -think- they know what they're doing would be the worst, because people that assume that they have some level of expertise in a subject tend to ignore evidence to the contrary of their own opinion so they can continue to, in their own head, be right.

And if you're going to say that word of mouth would carry it, then I'd like to remind you, with every repetition of a piece of word of mouth information or gossip, something changes. Whether it's someone's opinion being added, or some of the specifics being slightly altered because of bias, it will change, and whatever you hear at the end of the line will be very different from what it started out as.

>>51269594
>Villagers dont fucking kill trolls dipshit.
But they know what they are, dipshit. And the old drunk at the tavern always talks about how in the old days they used to use fire to scare away the trolls.

>>51269605
>Because, and as you grow up, you'll learn this, most people are, in one way or another.
This goes beyond mob retardation mate, this is assuming that everyone has an INT of 6 and is severely agoraphobic and averse to learning.

In a world where trolls, zombies, dragons, and liches exist, the average person is going to have a greater appreciation for monsters in legend than people IRL who have not. This is especially true with adventurers, who travel and deal with these types of creatures frequently, whether they want to or not.

How I described the creature:
"It has the physique of a large ape, with front arms used to knuckle along the ground. Its belly is large and distended, mottled green skin stretched over it taught. Its hands are like that of a human, but overly large, with cruel hooked nails. Its face is squashed down with a massive under bite and large nose. Pointed ears twitch constantly as it moves. A mane of hair goes down its neck onto its back."

My players had no idea it was a troll until they made a knowledge check.

>>51269629
>taking life advice from an old drunk
This would work if it was some kind of last-ditch effort. Remembering the drunken ramblings of some old man is hardly an advisable first reaction to a situation like this.

>>51269709
tbf what could it even be besides a troll

>>51269770
>hit a troll
>its wounds regenerate
>fuck it might as well hit the thing with my torch, it's not gonna hurt

>>51269770
>tbf what could it even be besides a troll
The players thought it was some kind of giant goblin because they had no idea what pathfinder trolls looked like.

File: 1450572845636.jpg (52KB, 617x464px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 617x464px

>>51269770
>tbf what could it even be besides a troll
a hobgoblin

>>51269770
You seem to have trouble with immersion and separating knowledge IRL from knowledge in-game my friend.

Nothing in-game is meant to emulate the conventions of reality, so in a world where trolls, undead, dragons, and liches exist, people are going to obvious pay more attention to them since they're very real dangers that could strike at any given moment.

>>51241723
See now. If it's common player knowledge at my table, my players can know it for free.

And Protip OP: DM's run their own games how they feel the world should be.

>>51269832
>Nothing in-game is meant to emulate the conventions of reality, so in a world where trolls, undead, dragons, and liches exist, people are going to obvious pay more attention to them since they're very real dangers that could strike at any given moment.
You seem to not understand how difficult spreading reliable information was before readily available cheap books/mass media.

What does a commoner know about a dragon? They're large, they fly, they breath fire, they eat people, or they know that they breath ice, acid, lightning, etc. depending on what region they're from. Anything else? Likely not. They likely have a lot of false information about dragons mixed in.

Trolls? You know granny always side that tying a liver to a post in the yard keeps trolls away, right?

>>51269863
>You seem to not understand how difficult spreading reliable information was before readily available cheap books/mass media.
I think you assume that everyone back then traveled less distance than you do on a daily basis mate.
>What does a commoner know about a dragon? They're large, they fly, they breath fire, they eat people, or they know that they breath ice, acid, lightning, etc. depending on what region they're from.
For a setting where word doesn't spread that's a helluva lot of information. Why can't we assume that all general information is this good?

Oh wait, because you're a shitty GM who assumes everyone is as stupid as you are, my mistake.

>>51269911
>I think you assume that everyone back then traveled less distance than you do on a daily basis mate.
The answer is people DID travel much less. Information traveled slowly and unreliably. You likely will never travel more than 500 miles from you home and book cost more than you make in a month. So your information is from word of mouth.

>For a setting where word doesn't spread that's a helluva lot of information. Why can't we assume that all general information is this good?
So let's talk about the same info for a troll. They're big, they smell awful, they eat people, they look like freaky humans.

Anything more is crossing over into the territory of actual bookish knowledge.

>Oh wait, because you're a shitty GM who assumes everyone is as stupid as you are, my mistake.
Honestly you seem like the retard here. The assumptions that trolls are common enough that "fire keeps them from growing arms back" is common knowledge is just silly. What's worse is I've had a player like you throw a shitfit when a troll didn't stop regenerating when he used fire.

It was a fucking rock troll, fire doesn't work on them. The guy was throwing a colossal bitchfit.

>>51269979
Three things
1) This entire conversation hinges on your assumption that because IRL word-of-mouth was shit, it means that D&D as a whole works off a similar premise even though monsters and magic exists.
2) If we know that they're big, smelly, eat people, and look like freaky humans then why can't we also say "they burn like a candle" as well?
3) I'm assuming that everyone knows how to kill the monsters I throw at them because I respect their intelligence as players, especially when we've been playing D&D for years at this point.

Also, you seem like the type of shitty GM who would change the rules just because the players figured out the puzzle too soon or some shit so the player was likely justified.

>>51270105
>3) I'm assuming that everyone knows how to kill the monsters I throw at them because I respect their intelligence as players, especially when we've been playing D&D for years at this point.
The players do, that was never an issue. Does their character?

Literally that is what Knowledge (Local) represents.

>>51270149
So let's break it down.

A troll would be considered a common monster, like a goblin. So the knowledge check needed is 5+CR. A Troll is CR 5.

So you have basic information on a troll at a DC 10. Meaning 55% of average intelligence individuals know basic information on a troll. With a single rank in knowledge local, if it is a class skill, this jumps up to 75%.

In all likelihood the character does not. However, not EVERY person knows.

>>51270149
>The players do, that was never an issue. Does their character?
Why are we discussing this as if we're talking about two separate entities? A character is not autonomous, everything they do is done from the decisions of the person that's playing them.

I don't give a shit how you learned that trolls are weak to fire because the game should be focused on the party trying to survive their fight with the troll, not on the minutia of how a group of seasoned adventurers learned how to kill trolls. The only time knowledge rolls are even rolled in my games is if the player doesn't know anything about the monster and needs a hint.

It might sound gamist or whatever buzzword you use to describe badwrongfun but at the end of the day, once you start to draw a line between the player and their character, the harder it becomes for them to get immersed in the campaign.

>>51269594
>>Your character only knows what the GM tells
>>them they know
which is that it is a troll, just like any other.

>>51270105
>W-well it doesn't have to make sense because magic!
This is the sign that the argument is over.

>>51270591
Before you slip into full retard.

You DM says its a fucking troll, so that you as a player can picture it. He did not fucking say that your character recognises it as a troll, or that your character knows the weaknesses of a troll. If your character sees a rust monster do you toss your sword too?

>>51270725
If he just says what something is, and doesn't say something like "make knowledge checks to see what you know about it" then yeah, I assume that my character knows what it means. If we had to roll knowledge for every single thing the character sees the game would never get anywhere because we'd be too busy figuring what the fuck this "inn" thing is and why there's a "barmaid" inside and what's up with this strange "beer" beverage, and while we're at it what's a "beverage" anyway? Oh, something humans need to drink? What's a "human"?

No, if the DM treats something as common knowledge then we shouldn't have to treat it as obviously not common knowledge.

>>51241723
In my opinion it's not appropriate to go by "cr6+-"

Different characters would have different knowledge due to different backstories. If you played a seasoned Ranger that frequently interacted with the wilds, I would expect you to know more than a member of a small town local watchmen group that's started to adventure out on his own.

In the end the only question is: does your character know anything about trolls? If yes, gm can fuck off. If not, you can fuck off.

File: I_AM_51233229.jpg (26KB, 264x352px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 264x352px

>>51269291
OH hey durr guys I think we should durrr hit it with swords and stuff durrrrrrr
oops I'm dead boy I wish there was a way to kill these things which mysteriously regenerate huh guys

File: River_tam.gif (1MB, 451x325px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 451x325px

>>51269594
Hey! That loin thing probably behaves sorta like a bear

oh look! Its like a bear, but faster.
Guess I know enough about it to fight it now.

>>51270764
Telling you what something is =/= knowing what it is. If i said your medieval fantasy character sees a man pull up on a car & take your picture on a phone, would you actually think that your dirt farming fuck of a character would know that cars run on gas & you swipe right to look at the pic? Trolls are as rare or as common as the DM says they are. If he has a problem with you assuming knowledge then obviously your character shouldnt have known it

>>51270174
Rolling for knowledge always felt gay to me.

At least past character creation.

I always dictate player knowledge based on the backstories my players make for their characters, because I trust them to logically role play what they create.

>>51270867
My character is a eleven scholar who has spent the last 200 years reading in the archives and cataloging old books/dead languages.

I know essentially everything we may ever encounter.

>>51270817
That's what fucking skills are for. If your backstory isn't reflected by your skills than you're being an asshat. A ranger that is experienced with trolls would have favored enemy (Giants) and get a bonus to knowing about them.

You fucking people need to actually build the character your back story claims to be.

If you're too ass blasted about PC knowledge, change some things about the monsters.
>You see its wounds regenerate
>"I blast it with fire!"
>You see its wounds regenerate
>"I roll knowledge to find a weakness"
>Trolls in Retardlandia are weak to cold.

Problem fucking solved. PCs don't use metagame knowledge and have to rely on non-combat skills.

>>51270853
If we're in medieval fantasy, I expect him to not roll up in a car and take a picture on a phone. If anything, what should happen is a strange shining contraption appears, traveling across the ground like a carriage with no horses but at a speed that even the fastest horse could match only a short while, and a man inside holds up a small square of some stone or metal, which flashes.

If the character doesn't know, the GM shouldn't metagame either.

>>51270980
The issue comes with the fact I as a player knowing essentially every creature in the game. I know their weaknesses and strength off he cuff. My character fucking shouldn't however.

>>51270999
So the DM doesn't go off the monster manual. What now, hotshot?

>>51270885
We're playing a campaign starting at level 1. Did you miss the memo?

>>51270905
>make your back story and skills consistent with one another.

Literally exactly what I said.

>>51270999
If you know all that shit about monsters in a fictional world, why shouldn't your character, who not only lives in the world but professionally adventures in it, know at least as much? If something is mysterious, it's the DM's job to convey that, and otherwise it's normal to expect that it's something you'll have heard of.

>>51271011
Holy shit that isn't the fucking point. Fucking christ how thick headed are you?

I as a player know the habits/culture/weaknesses/strengths/etc. of illithids. Under the scenario that people have stated here, my character thus should be able to know it as well because "fuck skills they break immersion". That is fucking stupid. Illithids are rare and secretive to a ridiculous degree.

The thing is, maybe fucking trolls are rare in this setting. Who the fuck knows. Just because the GM uses the name troll to help you as a player picture it DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN YOUR CHARACTER KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW. Same thing with fucking illithids.

This is why fucking knowledge skills exist. Then fucking asshats like what's hit fuck here >>51270817 say "well if my backstory says I should know I should know". Well butt fucking christ if your backstory says you should know then fucking put ranks in the god damn skill otherwise you are just talking out your ass.

Fucking jesus christ I hate players like you lot. You're not worth having in games.

>>51271044
>If you know all that shit about monsters in a fictional world, why shouldn't your character, who not only lives in the world but professionally adventures in it, know at least as much?
I can't tell if you're serious. You're not, are you?

I as a player know because the bestiary has things listed out nice and neatly.

However let's take demon lords for example. The combat capabilities of demon lords aren't something under common knowledge for someone who adventures the prime material. Knowledge planes covers that.

You have to be trolling me. I'm taking the fucking bait. You can't be fucking serious.

>>51271055
To be fair DnD is a supremely shitty system for this kind of thing.

>>51271044
>>51271069
Or lets take another fucking example. I as a player know about the combat abilities of planar prisoners who have been locked away on acheron for millennia. So of course my character should know. Heck he lives in that planar grouping.

>>51270966
This is what I do.

I don't rely on my players to magically not know how to beat standard dnd monsters.

I make monsters which are a fun and exciting challenge for the players. They need to figure out how to beat strange new monsters, without any prior knowledge even out of character.

>>51271095
This is why dms need to change the combat abilities of enemies.

Example: Drow. Back when gygax made drow, they were mysterious dark elves that nobody knew anything about.

Now my players want drow characters.

So the drow don't exist in my world. All that underdark cannon is reduced to "evil, dislike light live underground."

The players will never find drow enemies. They know too much about them, so I set new enemies against them. Nobody expects bandits to have 13th level wizards and genius level tactics, but the wilderness bandits in my world have these. The players will learn to fear desperado caps and bandanas.

>>51271140
You need better players who can separate in and out of character knowledge.

>>51271153
I don't have a problem with my players.

I made the choice not to require them to pretend not to know things, because I think that is dumb.

Plus, I can't possible run drow modules as indimidating mystery when everyone knows everything abotu drow.

INstead, I choose to design my game for the players, not the characters.

I create new monsters and mysteries to challenge the players, and let the characters know whatever the players do.

This is a bait thread. The OP is a fabrication meant to annoy you.

File: Haiku.png (217KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 375x523px

>>51271216
The op is meant to provoke discussion. I have gleaned valuable insight from things discussed in this thread.

>>51271216
The OP is intended to challenge your misconceptions and encourage you to think. Something you clearly resent.

>>51242916
People back then did talk though, often with other people. In fact, they would often try to talk to other people to gather knowledge about a predicament they're in. So if a farmer was conscripted he'd probably try to talk to other people who were conscripted, a veteran, or his actual commander/squad leader to gain some beneficial information.

>>51241723
>Protip: If it's in the PHB or it's a monster that's CR 5 or less, or something that you call out by name, it's common knowledge

Which edition are you even using?

Because in 3.5, the Knowledge skills literally exist because people who haven't put points into learning about monsters don't know jack shit about monsters.

>>51241723

"Metagaming" is what shitty GMs shriek when players try to avoid their stupid blatant screw jobs.

>>51248972
I may not be a brain surgeon but I know that sometimes people have holes drilled in their skulls to relieve pressure and drain blood.

I may not be a scuba diver but I know you can't surface to fast or you'll get nitrogen shock.

I may not go hang gliding but I know that you need to start from elevation.

I may not be a chemist but I know that a base neutralizes an acid

I may not be a firefighter, but I know that water will only spread a grease fire.

I may not be an entomologist, but I know that mosquitoes breed in standing water

I may not be a plumber but I know that drain lines aren't under pressure

I may not be a botanist but I know that a wilting plant is either getting too much or too little water

I may not be a faggot but I know that you suck cocks

There are tons of things people pick up in life. You only have to hear that a troll is weak to fire once to know forever.

File: kvuguvd.png (32KB, 620x333px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 620x333px

>>51269281
Level 1 Fighters are literally Veterans you dense fucking cockmongler. PC's are not average people. And forget veteran, in 3e+ a level 1 fighter might as well be a Hero. He knows how to deal with a troll given vanilla D&D setting. OP's DM is a railroading little shit upset he fucked up his own carefully designed "encounter."

>>51270444
This. Fucking nu school storyfags have so little mechanical self-awareness because their fundamental values are built on hollow premises that fall apart with the first holistic analysis. Knowledge checks? You have to be kidding me.

>>51271615
>He knows how to deal with a troll given vanilla D&D setting
Untrue, unless he has knowledge local.

File: 1432486668264.png (368KB, 594x630px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 594x630px

>>51271615
>Knowledge checks? You have to be kidding me.
Sure buddy, what ever makes you feel better.

Okay a honest question:
Why is it okay for an adventurer to lob a firebomb at any monster except a troll? Some of you are arguing that throwing Alchemist's Fire at a bunch of orcs or skeletons or whatever is fine and dandy, but if it's at a troll it suddenly turns into metagaming, and frankly that is not a consistent position to take.

>>51270444
>Why are we discussing this as if we're talking about two separate entities? A character is not autonomous, everything they do is done from the decisions of the person that's playing them.
I'm curious what your definition of metagaming is.

>>51271655
The main this is, if your character's reaction to combat isn't normally "lob a fire bomb at it", but against a troll he suddenly begins to, but in character doesn't know what a troll is, that is the issue.

There is no logical inconsistently here. You're just trying to misrepresent the argument.

The problem is a change in normal behavior to tailor one's combat to the situation using knowledge you have but your character does not.

>>51270444
>It might sound gamist or whatever buzzword you use to describe badwrongfun but at the end of the day, once you start to draw a line between the player and their character, the harder it becomes for them to get immersed in the campaign.
Then you are a shit player and roleplayer, plain and simple. I'm glad you have fun with your group, but I would remove you from my group, or remove myself if I was among the local minority.

>>51271626
>>51271643
Thieves were a mistake

>>51269594
He'd probably say that looks like a big cat.

>>51271694
>3e was a mistake
FTFY.

>>51271703
2e was a mistake

>>51271680
That's not true necessarily.

Is a troll bigger than monsters he normally fights? More menacing? Does a fire bomb so more damage? He could just be bringing out the big guns for a big monster.

>>51271706
D&D was a mistake.

>>51271615
Does that mean 0th level fighters fight at man+0?

>>51271706
It was less of a mistake than B/X.

>>51271710
Chainmail was a mistake

>>51271710
Tactics II was a mistake

>>51271708
>Is a troll bigger than monsters he normally fights? More menacing? Does a fire bomb so more damage? He could just be bringing out the big guns for a big monster.
If his normal reaction to big monster throw a fire bomb?

Again, the problem is if the player is acting on information that the character does not have. The information in this case being "troll's regeneration shuts off when fire is used".

Does your character also bring out the firebombs for a hill giant, or an ogre? Other large monstrous humanoid like creatures? Let us say your character can't identify any of them (didn't invest in knowledge (local and has 7 int)).

It is very easy to tell when a player is bullshitting to try and justify metagaming. Especially within the context of seeing them play the rest of the campaign.

>>51271680
But your argument forgets that most things are vulnerable to fire. If you see a regenerating creature then yes it is a rational response to put it on fire (because fire kills things dead). It doesn't matter if it's a troll or something else, if it squirms on the floor after being chopped to pieces then yes I'm gonna burn it to ashes.

>>51271743
The issue is when your character's normal response isn't fire, but in this one case he uses fire.

In other examples. If your character carries around a scroll of lightning bolt, and uses it just when you encounter an enemy weak to lighting that he can't identify under the assumption "most things die to lightning bolts" then he is clearly metagaming.

Acting out of the norm of his response to make use of information the character does not have.

I can't actually tell if you're serious in this argument or trying to fuck with me because someone can't actually be this stupid. I hope they can't at least.

>>51271762
How does the player know the enemy is weak to lightning?

>>51271728
You're not wrong. I was merely saying "player flings firebomb at troll" isn't enough knowledge and I don't think it's an irrational corse of action. I assume the fire bomb does more damage than a standard blade? At least from a safe distance? Maybe against even more menacing foes, the player runs away complegely.

I just wouldn't immediately call Bullshit on this like "there is no way you would EVER use a firebomb on a troll unless you were metagaming"

Like if my home brewed campaign had Litches melt when they came into contact with butter. Obviously you would never throw butter at a Litch unless you knew that. That'd be 100% unquestioned metagaming.

Firebomb on a troll is way more believable.

>>51271714
I guess? I think it's referencing chainmail rules there, iirc level 2 was meant to translate directly to being the fighter had the fighting power of 2 men; but rest of the assumptions of the od&d makes places PCs at a decently significant distance from the average person, not simply +1. something like a level 1 fighter is an very well trained military soldier, impressive but nothing supernatural in capability.

>>51271720
What an absurd statement. B/X hardly changed anything significant and had very little influence anyway being in the shadow of AD&D. How could it be a mistake?

>>51271728
Listen, do you want the game to turn into a game of charades, where they player attempts to convince the dm that their character is learning how to fight the monsters, or do you want the player to be engaged directly?

If you want the player to actually play the game, but you're mad that they know the secret weaknesses of monsters, simply create new monsters with new weaknesses.

There's a race of people in my setting who literally cannot die.

My dm's notes say "cannot be killed by any means, and always regenerate to their base humanoid form."

Because they're not unstoppable killing machines, the players have figured out dozens of ways to incapacitate them, like burying and even just tying them up.

>>51271762
Dms be like "you can't do that."
I'm like "well, I just did."

>>51271777
I just realized what everyone in this thread is missing: They forgot that trolls DON'T burn like a candle, but instead you need fire to permenantly kill them.

Fire does not beat trolls as thoroughly as paper beats rock.

>>51271806
>I'm like "well, I just did."
"You are clearly metagaming. Don't be an asshat or get out."

I actually have done that in the past. This is why I do not make longterm TTRPG friends with folks who act like you clearly do.

>>51271806
>>51271816
>If you want the player to actually play the game, but you're mad that they know the secret weaknesses of monsters, simply create new monsters with new weaknesses.
Also this is entirely not the point.

I do this. I create new monsters. However, the fact that you metagame is the problem.

If I have to create new monsters to have my players be able to act in character and separate in and out of character knowledge they are clearly bad players and I'll kindly, or not so kindly depending on their number of offenses, ask them to either stop or leave.

>There's a race of people in my setting who literally cannot die.
Well butt fuck good for you, you're entirely missing the point of this argument.

>>51271762
Yes I'm serious, because you're forgetting that sometimes out of ordinary action is still a reasonable thing to do.

For example: your party encounters a creature you cannot identify (it does not resemble a troll in any way). Even after you've beaten it and chopped it to pieces it does not die, but keeps squirming on the floor. Would you agree that you or your party member using fire to finish it is a reasonable action to try?

>>51271852
>For example: your party encounters a creature you cannot identify (it does not resemble a troll in any way). Even after you've beaten it and chopped it to pieces it does not die, but keeps squirming on the floor. Would you agree that you or your party member using fire to finish it is a reasonable action to try?
Again, this is not the problem here.

The problem is this:
>You encounter a creature, you do not know what it is
>Normally you fight with a sword and shield
>However you the player know that this creature is a troll
>Your character pulls out a vial of alchemist fire

If the creature is still squirming you are now acting on new information, this is fine. However if the first thing you do is pull out the alchemist fire then you are not.

This is the problem.

Again, you have to either be trolling to actually have a mental disability.

>>51271806
Burn like a candle? I'm not sure what you mean.

Again. I was.only saying that firebomb is a believable approach to a threatening new monster.

I would have a much harder time buying something like silver blade (something more fragile, generally strictly ornamental. When compared to a steel blade) against a werewolf. Like if you didn't know own silver killed them, you would have a hard time justifying your decision to use a strictly inferior weapon.

I guess this is just a case of "firebomb is never a bad decision" when dealing with new monsters.

Clearly the OP was aware the fire was countered trolls, so that's not up for debate, neither is it debatable that he insinuated his character acted that way because the character knew fire was needed to kill trolls. In the case of the OP, it's "would this character.know that" and that depends on level and background.

I was merely talking in a general sense that would apply to any given player that was NOT arguing their character knew of the weakness.

I read some OSR blog post a while ago about synchronised and unsynchronised mechanics and behaviours.
Essentially, an synchronised mechanic is something like armour, where both you the player, and your character know armour makes you harder to damage.
It's when your knowledge of mechanics lines up with your character's knowledge of the world.
Synchronised behaviours are similar, like I think the example given was a wraith with level drain.
Despite level-drain being an unsynchronised and gamist mechanic, it leads to synchronised behaviour, as the player will want to avoid losing levels, and the character will want to avoid the spooky ghost.

The issue of the troll-fire weakness thing is that it's mechanically unsynchronised if the character doesn't know the monster's weakness, which is bad for immersion.
It honestly depends on the role the player is supposed to take, whether they're supposed to play "as" their character in the classical RPG sense, or whether they're supposed to take a more directorial approach, in the more story-gamey approach.

desu familia I'd just sidestep the whole issue by using my own monsters when I want to do puzzle encounters. If you describe something as an "ordinary troll", it implies that trolls aren't exactly rare

>>51271816
>you're clearly metagaming
"No I'm not. Stop being a shit DM or we'll replace you"

You see how that approach doesn't work. Right?

>>51271894
>"No I'm not. Stop being a shit DM or we'll replace you"
Then I leave.

Easy. I've actually done this before as well. Players are by no means irreplaceable. Why GM for people I clearly have a different style and expectation than the game of.

You act like being a player is somehow precious. GMs are the bottleneck, not you.

Find someone who GMs how you like. No skin off my back. It doesn't mean you're not metagaming.

No seriously. How are you not metagaming? Try and articulate how acting on information your character does not (when there are rules to determine what your character knows) is not metagaming. The troll example is not the important on here. Taking it in a wider context of acting on creature's stat sheets in a minor your character does not normally (changing how you respond to combat in a way that is far outside the norm) is not metagaming.

I remember people getting assblasted when they did exactly what you claim, and were surprised to learn they were fighting the wrong type of troll.

No seriously, how do you justify it then? You acting on information your character didn't have and was also incorrect? What a fucking joke.

>>51271865
The way I see it is that you're locked in this very gamist mindset, where a monster has a specific vulnerability that needs to be first revealed through skill check before it can be exploited, while ignoring basic common sense - that is, you're saying 'you can take these actions, but cannot take the correct action before you've rolled at least 15 on the skill check'.

>>51271908
>"No I'm not. Stop being a shit DM or we'll replace you"
>"Cya."

Yeah you seem like the dumbass in this exchange.

>>51241723
>Protip: If it's in the PHB or it's a monster that's CR 5 or less, or something that you call out by name
Care to cite a rule that says this?
Common monsters have a lower dc to identify, the dm decides what constitutes common.

>>51271852
and the problem with this is: If I'm roleplaying that my character doens't know trolls are weak to fire, here's what would happen.

Long hard fight, eventually we chop the troll up. I sit, tapping my fingers on the table, until the dm tells us it regenerates and attacks again.

I'm like "oh gee really no way 0_0

THen we kill it again, I look at the gm, and say "NOW can we use fire?"

THIS IS FUCKING STUPID AND WIERD AND I DON'T EVER WANT TO GO THROUGH IT

>>51271928
You're the one acting in a very gamist mindset.

What I am saying is this:
>Your character has a normal way it responds to situations, either combat, social or otherwise. it has a set of information it knows. This represents the character.
>Changing your character because you act on information he does not know is an entirely gamist mindset
If your character suddenly stops acting like his normal self, such as a spear fighting pulling out a lightning bolt scroll just at the right time to kill a lightning vulnerable enemy he can't identify, then you are the one acting extremely gamist.

You're not roleplaying, you're acting like you're reading off a walk through for a videogame.

If you can't separate in and out of character knowledge and play your character only based on in character knowledge it marks you best as a mediocre player.

>>51271921
So you succeeded in running a game by leaving when your players didn't like it?

How does this make your game a good game?

Why should I play in your game instead on someone else's game, or just run one myself?

>>51271945
Last time I had a character in this situation we put it in a box too small for it to regenerate in. It can't regenerate if there isn't enough room for the bits to grow.

>>51271921
Making them cautious about using fire on trolls by making fire trolls that are healed by fire is a very good way to prevent metagaming.

You don't even have to ask the players not to do it. They'll figure it out on their own.

>>51271961
Answer the question on how it is not metagaming.

As for your question, I accomplished not GMing a game I do not enjoy and going about my way finding players I like.

As I said nothing is stopping you. Find someone who GMs how you want to. It doesn't make what you do not metagaming. if you're fine with metagaming then more power to you. I am not however.