This is a topic about the debate between challenging the players, as is the custom of older school games, and challenging the PCs, which most newer systems emphasize.

How do you handle things like players knowing how monsters work, that their own characters shouldn't?

Do you let the players take full advantage of their knowledge, and basically challenge the players themselves? Or do you force them to play as if they don't know it, because their characters don't?

I ask because it seems like it would be hard to separate that kind of knowledge out from your behavior, and maybe unfair to then send your PC into the jaws of doom just because you were playing in character. On the other hand, the characters shouldn't know about the monsters either, but the players certainly will know.

What's the best way to handle this?

If you want to keep the mystery, there is an easy fix.

Change up a few monsters here and there. Sometimes change them, sometimes don't. Now player knowledge becomes like bits of legends told to their characters that may or may not be true.

Sure, Mountain Trolls are weak to fire, but this is a River Troll, who has such wet skin that its hard to catch them on fire.

Then let them rely on their character's skills to figure out what knowledge is "true" if you want to do that.

In the Majestic Wilderlands I don't try to fight it. I assume there is a bunch of popular stories, myths, sermons, and fable that give a accurate but broad outline of the monsters. So players are not meta gaming in my campaign by using their knowledge of the monster manual.

The problem is that knowing the monster manual doesn't give you any specifics. That you need to discover as you play your characters.

The deal is that for any campaign, for any rules system the player learn given time. What then? The focus needs to shift to different circumstances and situations. Similar how things worked out with human culture despite there only being one species. Or the fact that life is incredibly diverse despite there being on four base pairs in DNA.

When I realized this my roster of monsters actually started to shrink as focused on variety of circumstances rather variety of stats.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807145This is a topic about the debate between challenging the players, as is the custom of older school games, and challenging the PCs, which most newer systems emphasize.

How do you handle things like players knowing how monsters work, that their own characters shouldn't?

Do you let the players take full advantage of their knowledge, and basically challenge the players themselves? Or do you force them to play as if they don't know it, because their characters don't?

This entirely depends on the type of game you've decided to play. In a game like D&D, I prefer to avoid that sort of metagaming (and this is true whether I'm playing 1e or 5e). I have friends who lean in the other direction, and it's more about pitting themselves and their PCs against the DM and their monsters.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807145I ask because it seems like it would be hard to separate that kind of knowledge out from your behavior, and maybe unfair to then send your PC into the jaws of doom just because you were playing in character. On the other hand, the characters shouldn't know about the monsters either, but the players certainly will know.

When you're talking about monster abilities, tactics, and weaknesses, it is not hard to separate that sort of player knowledge from PC knowledge. It's true that there are definitely cases where it is hard to separate those two, but monster stuff isn't one of those.  Unless you mean "hard" in the sense that it's a tough decision for a player to do that when it means their character might die.

QuoteWhat's the best way to handle this?

There's no best way, other than the ultimate-always-best-way of discussing with the players & GM what sort of game they are wanting/expecting.

Does your world have taverns?  Do adventurers stop by taverns to have a drink?  Do they talk to other patrons when having said drink?  If so, word has just spread in that town of the critters said adventurers have encountered.

Works very well when the players know critters abilities from previous editions, but are not savvy with the specifics of the edition actually being played.   Makes it very much like the PCs have heard stories of wraiths or whatever without knowing what is totally true.  Does not work as well when players have every last little thing memorized in the specific edition being played.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807152This entirely depends on the type of game you've decided to play. In a game like D&D, I prefer to avoid that sort of metagaming (and this is true whether I'm playing 1e or 5e). I have friends who lean in the other direction, and it's more about pitting themselves and their PCs against the DM and their monsters.

So if you avoid that metagaming, you mean that you play it all in character and would pretend you didn't know the monster's weaknesses? How do you handle it when you come across a monster that you know all about OOC then?

QuoteWhen you're talking about monster abilities, tactics, and weaknesses, it is not hard to separate that sort of player knowledge from PC knowledge. It's true that there are definitely cases where it is hard to separate those two, but monster stuff isn't one of those.  Unless you mean "hard" in the sense that it's a tough decision for a player to do that when it means their character might die.

Yeah I meant hard as in, they'll feel a strong temptation to use that knowledge, and it might come off as artificial if they have to somehow act as if they didn't have it.

Plus, what if something happens like, they fight a monster that's weak to cold or something, but their characters don't know and they die, while the players themselves knew but couldn't use that knowledge? Or is that just part of the game? How would you arbitrate a way that they could use that knowledge fairly?

Quote from: Old One Eye;807153Does your world have taverns?  Do adventurers stop by taverns to have a drink?  Do they talk to other patrons when having said drink?  If so, word has just spread in that town of the critters said adventurers have encountered.

Works very well when the players know critters abilities from previous editions, but are not savvy with the specifics of the edition actually being played.   Makes it very much like the PCs have heard stories of wraiths or whatever without knowing what is totally true.  Does not work as well when players have every last little thing memorized in the specific edition being played.

Yeah, stuff like AC and HP are what I was thinking of too, since you can deduce that based on your own rolls and damage.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807155Yeah, stuff like AC and HP are what I was thinking of too, since you can deduce that based on your own rolls and damage.

I think it works pretty good when the players deduce AC and HP when fighting a critter.  I figure a trained warrior can size up the quality of an opponent.  The player backending AC, HP and attack bonus is just abstract for the warrior figuring out the opponent has a strong riposte but weak backhand (or whatever terms are appropriate for swordplay 'cause I dunno them).

My favorite solution to this is creating an original setting, with original monsters, or at least old monsters with new twists on them. I've found some players appreciate the effort to restore a sense of mystery. Others prefer to have "know it all" characters who have, in fact, read the Monster Manual. I can't please everyone.

Regardless of the setting, new or old, I don't mind giving their character the advantage of knowing a lot about the monsters (errr... aliens, for SF games) provided they've got a lot of points/ranks/dice/etc. in the relevant knowledge skill.

Change every "monster" they encounter. Are they used to orcs being tough? Give them a pseudo pod-like ap pendages,diseased touch and terrible, mutant breath that causes Stinking Cloud. Tired of fighting yet another banshee? What if they were invisible, and manifest as clouds of twinkling snow surrounding a possessed character. How would they deal with banishing something like that with magic and swords without harming their comrade?

Use descriptions that defy the stereotype. Don't describe orcs as being "brutes with pig snouts and an axe to grind against dwarves". Instead, define them by how rancid they smell, their chortling, the fine, muddy fur that covers their bodies like bovine. Describe them as creatures possessing both male and female anatomy, who's lactation has stained the ragged garments they wear.

Change their perceptions. Don't call them orcs. Call them "the nameless tribes that inhabit the wastes". They have no name they call themselves, because they only speak in a guttural tongue that sounds like the lowling of cattle and screams of mewling calves. Give goblins something scary, like "the people under the stairs"; a vast network of rat-like beasts that ape human culture, bastardizing it in its worst form. Divorce the goblin from the skins they wear, and turn them into sewer-dwelling half-animal, half-human beasts that leave trails of muck in their wake.

Dump dragons; that's right, you heard me. Dump dragons, iconics and other cannon fodder creatures from the Monster Manual. It's time to get creative and make your own monsters.

To do this effectively, you really need to wipe the slate clean with your players. Start a new game and explain to them you're are going to deviate entirely from what they'd expect in your games and in D&D.

Best of luck!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807154So if you avoid that metagaming, you mean that you play it all in character and would pretend you didn't know the monster's weaknesses? How do you handle it when you come across a monster that you know all about OOC then?

I play it as purely in character as I can.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807154Yeah I meant hard as in, they'll feel a strong temptation to use that knowledge, and it might come off as artificial if they have to somehow act as if they didn't have it.

It would seem more artificial to me if my character knew a shadow could only be hurt with silver when he had no background to know that.  This is something that I think goes back to deciding the game you want to play.  If you lean toward the other side, I can see how holding back that OOC information might seem artificial, just as using it seemed artificial to me.  I do think this is a matter of understanding your taste/preference, and being OK with that.

QuotePlus, what if something happens like, they fight a monster that's weak to cold or something, but their characters don't know and they die, while the players themselves knew but couldn't use that knowledge? Or is that just part of the game? How would you arbitrate a way that they could use that knowledge fairly?

If they don't know, they don't know.  If that makes the difference between someone living and dying, well that does highlight that knowledge is power. However, one can also consider what your PC may know that your player doesn't. In Dungeon World, the Spout Lore mechanic gives an in-game way for the character to know something the player doesn't, which is a way that can handled.  In D&D you could reference religion/arcana/nature checks in a similar way.

Old One Eye gives another good alternative. PCs have heard rumors, which may or may not be entirely accurate, but that could point them in the right direction.

The game  is for the players, so we choose  characters that have  some acquaintance with  the stuff that the game is about to the extent the players do - or else we let it slide that a figure wouldn't have heard of Lewis Carrol's Jabberwock, never mind  Monty Python's.

One of the nice things about 5e is that it changed some details of just about every monster. Even the animals! So its easier to get caught off guard or underestimate things on first encounter and even following ones.

When I am GMing I play it that the PCs have some common knowledge of the more common monsters. Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins, Griffons, etc. It might not be 100% accurate knowlege. But enough to spot one.

Past that players will sometimes make an arcana or nature roll to try and identify something or remember some detail.

Luckily for me at least the players have never tried to memorize monster stats. They just remember a few of the ones theyve run into. Same for me. From a description I can oft identify the name of a monster. Maybee some pertient details like weak to fire if I ever learned that. But not much else.

Honestly, I am not even sure how this is a question

If you don't want them to deal with it like it is a troll, don't tell them it is a troll- better yet, make up your own monsters.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807163Old One Eye gives another good alternative. PCs have heard rumors, which may or may not be entirely accurate, but that could point them in the right direction.

To be fair, my DM style leans toward players using some metagame knowledge in their planning.  As I do not create any encounters beforehand and try to have the world react to the PC's initiative, the players need some capacity to judge whether they are even in the ballpark of handling the lair of the ogre mage.  

Were I to lean more toward critters which the players have no idea how powerful they are, I would need to spend at least some energy as DM in determining whether an encounter is appropriate.  Since I do not want to spend any energy on such endeavors, it works out better for me when the players have a decent guage on an ogre mage.