Quote from: snooggums;827418There are two types of play that factor into whether rot grubs are good monsters for the game.

Some games are tests of the players, which I understand OD&D and its monsters were designed to be. In that situation, OOC knowledge is player knowledge and is the point of that kind of play where characters are interchangeable and players are expected to play new characters based on their personal knowledge and not necessarily the characters knowledge.

Another type of play, which I prefer, is for characters to be played off of character knowledge instead of player knowledge. This allows for repeating puzzle monsters for new characters in many cases, which is part of why I prefer it. In this style of play, a player should be able to give a reason for most actions that fits their character and it does require the DM and players to be on the same page about what a character can know that occurred prior to or outside the campaign. Rot grubs  other puzzle monsters can be used in this style of play, but they don't really add much in my experience.

I agree with this breakdown; I'm only interested in the second sort of play, where we engage character knowledge and attempt a separation between what the player knows, and what their character would know. The whole point of the exercise, as far as I'm concerned, is that you're pretending to be someone who is not you.

Playing your character as merely an avatar of personal wish fulfilment or a playing piece to be moved around an imaginary board is not my idea of fun. Fortunately, that's a view shared by my whole group, we expect everyone to play with a strict separation between what they know, and what their character could reasonably be expected to know.

What doesn't make sense from my perspective is why have puzzles at all from the character knowledge approach.  I mean, if the player knows the answer to the puzzle, but is pretending not to know, because his character doesn't know, then the puzzle isn't the point at all - it is moot.  It's solely about acting with the puzzle as a secondary set of circumstances that is a prop in the scene, so to speak.

Since character acting as the point of the game can be put out in ways that are unknown to both the player and the character (new NPCs to roleplay with, etc.) I'm not sure what is gained by putting it on a path where the player has to pretend they don't know what they know.  It should always be possible to instead use previously unexplored parts of the game system, so that the player and character are on equal ground, and the roleplay is always "honest", for lack of a better term.

I'm firmly in the game/player skill approach.  Not interested in pretending I'm inexperienced and purposely flubbing situations I know how to handle appropriately just so that the legitimacy of my player knowledge is established in the game going forward.  That seems like painful exercise.  But it might help explain (as one of probably many reasons) why many people who emphasize the role playing/play acting also want low character lethality.  Who wants to go through that exercise over and over?

Thinking of the groups I've played with who were experienced roleplayers, most/all with GM experience (where roleplaying characters with less knowledge than the GM is required), I enjoyed (and it seems others enjoyed) playing characters from the perspective of character knowledge, for the fun of seeing what happens and how things go down. Yes, the puzzle itself is not the point for the players in these cases. And yes, it is good then to question why puzzles per se would be included, and as a GM, what types of "puzzles" to include, if any. Playing with limited knowledge results in puzzles for the characters in almost any situation. Adding a puzzle monster that kills PCs unless they know to do X, may not be a very fun/interesting thing to do (or it might, but ask that before tossing it in).

As regards your last thought about lethality, I actually also enjoy fairly lethal games... or rather, I prefer actual significant consequences of events. I don't usually like characters to die with great frequency unless that makes sense, but I do like choices and events to have rational lasting consequences (which is why I like risky dangerous detailed combat systems that make sense and have lots of tactical choices, and realistic injury and healing systems and a lack of easy magic instant healing).

Quote from: EOTB;828282What doesn't make sense from my perspective is why have puzzles at all from the character knowledge approach.  I mean, if the player knows the answer to the puzzle, but is pretending not to know, because his character doesn't know, then the puzzle isn't the point at all - it is moot.  It's solely about acting with the puzzle as a secondary set of circumstances that is a prop in the scene, so to speak.
...
... many people who emphasize the role playing/play acting also want low character lethality.  Who wants to go through that exercise over and over?

Compared to computer RPGs I feel that real RPGs have virtually no metagaming problem (but then, everything is relative).

Playing Fallout 3 on my PC recently, I got completely surrounded and swarmed by bloodthirsty ghouls, and I ran out of ammo. So what do I do? I inject myself with some health chemicals (stimpacks etc) drop a frag grenade at my own feet, and let it blow. Rinse and repeat with more grenades and chemicals, until all the ghouls are dead and I am miraculously unscathed. Afterwards I though "seriously I can not think of any situation, real or imaginary where that makes any sense". I think most RPG gamers would agree that I would have blown myself, and my syringes, to bits many times over.

Adamantium syringes filled with monoclonal mutant healing factor?

Quote from: Bren;828484Adamantium syringes filled with monoclonal mutant healing factor?

We're almost there, but not quite

My armor was already badly torn, so I should be naked after all the clawing and the grenade blasts

Quote from: Trond;828462Afterwards I though "seriously I can not think of any situation, real or imaginary where that makes any sense". I think most RPG gamers would agree that I would have blown myself, and my syringes, to bits many times over.

You missed the "Circle of the UberMon" thread over on BGG/RPGG where the argument was that the game was broken because you could strap a gunpowder keg to a druid in giant spider form and have them skitter off into the midst of the enemy  and kamakazi them and then revert unscathed.

QuoteYou can strap a powder keg to a druid morphed into a Cr1 large beast and deal 7d6 fire damage to everything within 10' at 2nd level and walk away to tell the tale. Not to mention sneaking up in complete darkness or hiding in wait like an AED (Arachnid Explosive Device)

The thread went on an on and on and on ad stupidium.

Just wanted to say thanks and this was a fun thread to read!

Quote from: GamingGrl;828744Just wanted to say thanks and this was a fun thread to read!

:cool: And welcome to the forum.

Quote from: Bren;828751:cool: And welcome to the forum.

Thanks I appreciate the welcome!

Here's how I would judge the scenario postulated by the OP:  let's say you have a totally novice group of PCs (characters, not players) in their first dungeon. They have no one particularly skilled in zoology or dungeonology or anything that would let them identify the menace of rot grubs, and rot grubs are not so famous a terror that a character without that kind of specialized knowledge would have ever heard of them.  In that case, YES, the players should totally have them walk into something they know will likely kill some of them.

However, this only stands as long as all the conditions of the above scenario are true.  If you have a group of generally experienced PCs, even if they've never run into a rot grub before, if you're running a standard OSR-style of play that group should be paranoid enough that they would likely distrust any slime, bug, or whatever that they don't already identify as non-lethal.
If you have a player character that could have any specialized knowledge that should let them have at least a chance of recognizing the risk rot grubs represents, they should at least be allowed a chance to see if they know about it, without it being metagaming.  In any world where rot-grubs weren't rare, I would include in that checks for people with either wilderness lore or underground lore of some kind, possibly any dwarf at all, potentially wizards (if you think of them as magical creatures) or clerics (who may have learned of it while understanding healing and diseases, assuming those are the kind of things clerics learn in that world). So a lot of possible PCs could theoretically know about the danger of rot grubs.

Finally, if rot grubs weren't something ultra-ultra-rare, then the PCs even if novices would probably be aware of it because they would be one of the most horrifically terrible creatures you can imagine.  In the same way that people in our world who've never seen a black widow would still know about how dangerous that particular spider is.  The only reason in most fantasy worlds that rot grubs might NOT be that well known is if they are rare in the absolute extreme.

Quote from: GamingGrl;828814Thanks I appreciate the welcome!

Indeed, welcome.

Now all you need to do is contribute instead of just saying "this is an awesome thread, thanks!" in order to spam your signature. Put some effort in!