TheRPGSite

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.

Well I was going to type a bunch of stuff. But these two posts covered everything I was going to say.

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.



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.



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.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;807146If 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.

If my players aren't throwing their PCs lives away pretending that they don't know that a troll is only hurt by fire and acid then they are cheating...

Quote from: Planet Algol;807194If my players aren't throwing their PCs lives away pretending that they don't know that a troll is only hurt by fire and acid then they are cheating...

That seems a needlessly contentious way to describe your players and their behavior, but I guess as long as you are all having fun playing that way...more power to you.

It sounded more like he was mocking that viewpoint to me.

I vote for 'change things up'.

Even a good player will hit an honest conundrum -- what about being clever and figuring things out?
If the player knows something that their character does not, how can you honestly figure out a monster's abilities or come up with insightful guesses?

I don't think I'd ever be sure, for myself.

Best to be honestly unsure and let people figure out what they can and get 'tales told about this' skill checks.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807231It sounded more like he was mocking that viewpoint to me.

;) Yeah it did to me too.

But it was such an out-of-the-blue snarky, contentless post in a thread that by and large has been pretty reasonable about admitting that different people like different things in their game that I thought it needed to be mocked in turn. And sometimes the best way to mock dumb sarcasm is to pretend to take it seriously.

You can do both at the same time. If the player characters do not know what orcs are but your players do, vague and creative (even deliberately misleading) description can be pretty handy. The trick is to realize they eventually do know what an Orc is.

Quote from: Bren;807208That seems a needlessly contentious way to describe your players and their behavior, but I guess as long as you are all having fun playing that way...more power to you.

It's a wonder that anyone ever has survived a monster for which they didn't already have the monster manual entry cribbed on the inside if their shield. Imagine what sort of PC bloodbath would take place if a GM dabbled in the dark, forbidden arts of crafting original content.

DEAR GOD WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE PCS?!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;807240You can do both at the same time. If the player characters do not know what orcs are but your players do, vague and creative (even deliberately misleading) description can be pretty handy. The trick is to realize they eventually do know what an Orc is.

This, this right here. It may not be the answer for every occasion. But it is a good start.

Example. Don't say "A troll comes out from underneath the bridge."
Say, "From under the bridge strides out a tall menacing form. Its long sinewy limbs swing back and forth as it appears. Its body wrinkled, warty, and filthy."

I don't find it fun to pretend a lack of knowledge on something like an Orc.  Reskinning is less effective than advertised, because the mechanical core of the creature is the same.

I would rather that experienced players benefit from the time they've put into the game than make them play with one hand tied behind their back every time they roll up a new character.  If they feel necessary, they can come up with an in-game reason.  But I will usually choose ease of play over character concerns.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807249It's a wonder that anyone ever has survived a monster for which they didn't already have the monster manual entry cribbed on the inside if their shield. Imagine what sort of PC bloodbath would take place if a GM dabbled in the dark, forbidden arts of crafting original content.

DEAR GOD WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE PCS?!

:D

Quote from: Ronin;807263Example. Don't say "A troll comes out from underneath the bridge."
Say, "From under the bridge strides out a tall menacing form. Its long sinewy limbs swing back and forth as it appears. Its body wrinkled, warty, and filthy."

The second description is better than the first description in almost every way so no downside to using it. Of course the description won't confuse the players forever, but nothing is perfect.

Quote from: EOTB;807265I don't find it fun to pretend a lack of knowledge on something like an Orc.  Reskinning is less effective than advertised, because the mechanical core of the creature is the same.

I would rather that experienced players benefit from the time they've put into the game than make them play with one hand tied behind their back every time they roll up a new characterA.  If they feel necessary, they can come up with an in-game reason.  But I will usually choose ease of play over character concerns.

Of course you should play games in a way that is fun for you and your group. That being said, an orc is not the best example for when to separate player and PC knowledge. In most D&D worlds orcs are one of the most ubiquitous monsters around so knowing about orcs would be common knowledge for most people, much less most PCs. Would you find it equally unfun to pretend lack of knowledge about something more rare, like say a troll?

Generally speaking, I expect players will metagame to some extent, whether they mean to or not, so I don't really get too bent out of shape about it.

With monsters specifically, I'm happy to rationalize the knowledge as professional adventurers having heard/read stories of how to fight the monsters from various sources and call it a day.

If I want to throw my players off balance, I'll just make up a new monster type rather than forcing them to knowingly imperil their characters. The latter just doesn't seem fun to me.

I lean the opposite direction to most on this thread. I actively tell my players what they're facing and provide extra information about unfamiliar monsters - telling them the things that their characters would know even if the players don't.

I really dislike it the cliché where the peasants talk about "demons" or "monsters" attacking as a way for the DM to keep the players guessing when what they're actually talking about is the goblin tribe that lives a few miles away.

The commoners aren't stupid. They know all about most common humanoid races and have probably met many of them. The goblin tribe isn't a mystery to them. It's the neigbours with which they have an uneasy truce that's often broken by petty banditry or raids from either side.

They might not know all the ins and outs of goblin (or orc, or kobold) society, but they'll recognise them and know basic facts about them. They probably even know the names of some of the less unfriendly members of the local tribe who are willing to trade.

I also assume that PCs are well informed. Unless the monster they're fighting is something that's rare and obscure in the setting, I'm happy for them to have a reasonable (but not complete) idea of what they're like and their strengths and weaknesses. To use the example everyone uses, knowing that you need fire or acid to kill trolls is one of the first things that members of adventuring classes are taught by their mentors as they're being taught the basics of their class. Again, that's something that even the local farmers would know.

The PCs are adventurers, I don't mind it when adventurers have an edge that others don't. Then again, the world is a big place, and not every monster is the same. Sometimes, things adventurers think they know don't apply, or aren't the same.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;807284I lean the opposite direction to most on this thread. I actively tell my players what they're facing and provide extra information about unfamiliar monsters - telling them the things that their characters would know even if the players don't.

I really dislike it the cliché where the peasants talk about "demons" or "monsters" attacking as a way for the DM to keep the players guessing when what they're actually talking about is the goblin tribe that lives a few miles away.

The commoners aren't stupid. They know all about most common humanoid races and have probably met many of them. The goblin tribe isn't a mystery to them. It's the neigbours with which they have an uneasy truce that's often broken by petty banditry or raids from either side.

They might not know all the ins and outs of goblin (or orc, or kobold) society, but they'll recognise them and know basic facts about them. They probably even know the names of some of the less unfriendly members of the local tribe who are willing to trade.

I also assume that PCs are well informed. Unless the monster they're fighting is something that's rare and obscure in the setting, I'm happy for them to have a reasonable (but not complete) idea of what they're like and their strengths and weaknesses. To use the example everyone uses, knowing that you need fire or acid to kill trolls is one of the first things that members of adventuring classes are taught by their mentors as they're being taught the basics of their class. Again, that's something that even the local farmers would know.

Everything beyond your first paragraph is describing how common knowledge in your setting is also known by the characters.  I don't think anybody has said that PCs should not have the same common knowledge as a commoner.

If it's common knowledge that you need fire to fight trolls, then of course the PCs and players know that.  If a monster is rare or completely alien to the area, that's another thing entirely.

Your first paragraph doesn't seem to run in the opposite direction from most in the thread at all.  Again, I don't think anyone is advocating that players can't know what their PCs know.

The question is whether or not the player's knowledge that a lich has phylactery should be something that his 2nd level fighter would know. That's the metagaming issue/question at hand.

Quote from: EOTB;807265I would rather that experienced players benefit from the time they've put into the game than make them play with one hand tied behind their back every time they roll up a new character.

This is a good example of the gaps that can emerge from the different ways that people approach playing these games.

I would never for a moment think I was playing an RPG with one arm tied behind my back because my character had never see a certain monster, and couldn't use my personal knowledge of how trolls or clay golems work.  That just seems like all-arms-in-play roleplaying to me.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807289Your first paragraph doesn't seem to run in the opposite direction from most in the thread at all.  Again, I don't think anyone is advocating that players can't know what their PCs know.

Most people were talking about the issue of the players having knowledge that the PCs don't. I was saying that I more commonly have the issue of the PCs having knowledge that the players don't.

Which is the opposite situation.

QuoteThe question is whether or not the player's knowledge that a lich has phylactery should be something that his 2nd level fighter would know. That's the metagaming issue/question at hand.

In that case probably not. But by the time the PCs were high enough level that they're likely to be interacting with liches I'd expect the cleric at least (if not all of them) to know about phylacteries - and if the players didn't I'd inform them that their characters had been warned of such things.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;807294Most people were talking about the issue of the players having knowledge that the PCs don't. I was saying that I more commonly have the issue of the PCs having knowledge that the players don't.

Which is the opposite situation.

Interesting.  That's never been a problem for me at all.  Not that players might not know something their PC would, which does happen frequently enough, but that players will ask about what their characters know, and GMs will offer that character knowledge up when relevant.  That particular flow of information definitely doesn't qualify as metagaming to me, at any rate.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;807294In that case probably not. But by the time the PCs were high enough level that they're likely to be interacting with liches I'd expect the cleric at least (if not all of them) to know about phylacteries - and if the players didn't I'd inform them that their characters had been warned of such things.

If that sort of thing is common knowledge in adventuring circles in your setting that make sense.

Best way to handle it: eschew the Monster Manual and use your own beasties. There's no reason on earth your troll should be like Gary Gygax's troll. And any player who uses out-of-character knowledge will be screwed just as he deserves to be when he discovers his tricks won't work. I have also found it leads to players (1) stopping trying to take advantage that way and (2) taking monsters seriously because they really are facing an unknown quantity: if they're lucky they might have some rumors and old wives' takes to draw from.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807296Interesting.  That's never been a problem for me at all.  Not that players might not know something their PC would, which does happen frequently enough, but that players will ask about what their characters know, and GM's will offer that character knowledge up when relevant.  That particular flow of information definitely doesn't qualify as metagaming to me, at any rate.

It's not metagaming, but it can still be an issue.

In our group the GM is normally the only person who owns the books of whatever game they're playing. So other than through direct experience, the players usually know little to nothing of the setting.

The sort of group where everyone owns copies of the books and the players are intimately familiar with the game's bestiary to the point of knowing individual stats is an alien experience to me.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;807305It's not metagaming, but it can still be an issue.

In our group the GM is normally the only person who owns the books of whatever game they're playing. So other than through direct experience, the players usually know little to nothing of the setting.

The sort of group where everyone owns copies of the books and the players are intimately familiar with the game's bestiary to the point of knowing individual stats is an alien experience to me.

If it's something the PCs should know, then you tell them. That's just basic GMing.

But what if you made a brand new PC, who shouldn't know about some monster's secret weakness, but the player himself has encountered it before? That's the situation we're talking about.

Or if the player went and read through the Monster Manual just to gain that knowledge, like somebody reading a game guide.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;807305It's not metagaming, but it can still be an issue.

In our group the GM is normally the only person who owns the books of whatever game they're playing. So other than through direct experience, the players usually know little to nothing of the setting.

The sort of group where everyone owns copies of the books and the players are intimately familiar with the game's bestiary to the point of knowing individual stats is an alien experience to me.

While not alien to me, it's certainly uncommon.  I just take it for granted that the GM duties include informing the players about the things in the setting that are common knowledge.

I'm curious. How does this manifest as a problem/issue?

I don't think this is a problem, really. Characters should probably know about monsters in their world, just like people in the real world know about dangerous places and animals.

I've never seen a rattlesnake in real life, but if I see a snake that starts to rattle its tail, I'll know to run away.

I've never seen a vampire, but know they have to be killed by cutting its head off.

I trust my players to make the determination about how much their characters know about the monsters in the world. I don't feel the need to tell them their character doesn't know that trolls are weak to fire and acid; or that blue dragons breath lightning; or that rakshasas die to blessed bolts. If a player feels that his character knows this information, 1st level or otherwise, so be it. In my experience, metagame knowledge has not had any negative impact on my ability to run a campaign, nor my players' ability to enjoy it.

Quote from: Bren;807272Of course you should play games in a way that is fun for you and your group. That being said, an orc is not the best example for when to separate player and PC knowledge. In most D&D worlds orcs are one of the most ubiquitous monsters around so knowing about orcs would be common knowledge for most people, much less most PCs. Would you find it equally unfun to pretend lack of knowledge about something more rare, like say a troll?

Anything truly native to the game world I figure will be pretty accurately known.  

I know that there are people out there who have pretty much all the MM memorized, but especially for folks who don't DM, once you start getting into the more rare monsters there's lots of mistaken memory anyway on the players' parts.

Quote from: Chainsaw;807276Generally speaking, I expect players will metagame to some extent, whether they mean to or not, so I don't really get too bent out of shape about it.

With monsters specifically, I'm happy to rationalize the knowledge as professional adventurers having heard/read stories of how to fight the monsters from various sources and call it a day.

If I want to throw my players off balance, I'll just make up a new monster type rather than forcing them to knowingly imperil their characters. The latter just doesn't seem fun to me.

This, exactly.  

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807289The question is whether or not the player's knowledge that a lich has phylactery should be something that his 2nd level fighter would know. That's the metagaming issue/question at hand.

as one data point, I wouldn't have any problem with an experienced player of a 2nd level fighter knowing about the lich's phylactery.  But I also place character acting fidelities far, far, behind encountering and interacting with cool environments and scenarios.  I really don't care much at all about getting into my character, or that type of stuff.  

That doesn't mean that every character I have is the same - each one becomes different over time than the others, and establishes their own personality/outlook, but the idea of "well, my character doesn't know "x" even though "x" is exactly what we need" isn't something the people I play with would ever do.

(And granted the specific example isn't critical to your overall point, but any experienced player of a 2nd level fighter that knows about phylacteries is going to worry about how fucked they are and how they can run - not sticking around and hoping to win.)

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807292This is a good example of the gaps that can emerge from the different ways that people approach playing these games.

I would never for a moment think I was playing an RPG with one arm tied behind my back because my character had never see a certain monster, and couldn't use my personal knowledge of how trolls or clay golems work.  That just seems like all-arms-in-play roleplaying to me.

Yeah, I actually prefer the term adventure gaming to role-playing games, because for me role-playing is salt, not meat.  A little goes a long way, and too much ruins the fun.

Quote from: JeremyR;807310I don't think this is a problem, really. Characters should probably know about monsters in their world, just like people in the real world know about dangerous places and animals.

I've never seen a rattlesnake in real life, but if I see a snake that starts to rattle its tail, I'll know to run away.

I've never seen a vampire, but know they have to be killed by cutting its head off.

What of the reverse scenario? The GM assumes certain things (trolls vulnerable to fire) would be common knowledge in the setting and hence to the characters but the players are not aware of this lore having previously played mostly Star Wars and WoD.

If metagaming is the term for players using information their characters don't have what is the term for the players not having the information their characters should have?

Assume some basic tropes as "fairy stories" or "folklore".
Be prepared to use a fairly large does of Cliche so the PCs know enough abiut the setting to get started without reading your 100 page treatise on etiquette, monsters, political groups and the like.

Be prepared to explain a little about things as they come up.

Never hesitate to create new monsters. My rule of thumb is the "standard creatures" for the setting will be as written (gnolls, orcs, goblins, etc) , although with humanoids I have always used ones with levels and classes as well as the standard mook.

I almost never use D&D "monsters" that is to say the truly monstrous stuff because often they are too silly or ripped off something else for my tastes or they just don't fit the setting so these creatures I make up whole cloth.

Now with D&D being D&D I would probably play dragons as written but actually smart as opposed to typically not smart at all. Likewise I would play a lich as written but I would give them plenty of time to have used their spells to prepare and this might mean unique spells, ones the players might be able to copy if they get hold of their spell books.

However I wouldn't play a Mimic, or a Sheep-in-wolf's clothing or a piercer, or a mondron. I would entirely mix up how Vampires and werewolves worked to make them truer to their folklore source and the rest well up for grabs.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;807146If 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.

That is exactly what I would do.

People tell stories about creatures that their grandfather fought and some knowledge about powers would come through by cultural osmosis. If a player thinks that a monster works in such a way and it has been changed, then it adds uncertainty to the game, which is good. If a player complains, then the monster suddenly becomes a variant of the normal monster.

Quote from: Soylent Green;807335If metagaming is the term for players using information their characters don't have what is the term for the players not having the information their characters should have?

Bad gaming?

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?

You always challenge the players. It is impossible to challenge the characters, because the characters are just collections of numbers, possibly assigned randomly, possibly selected by the player, and possibly selected under stringent character building rules. So really, the question is: what do you want the challenge to be about? Knowing the fantasy world, or knowing the game mechanics?

"Trolls are vulnerable to fire. Trolls regenerate." These are facts about the game world.

"Trolls regenerate 1 hit point per combat round." That is a fact about mechanics.

I don't want the game to be about mechanics, or knowing how to exploit them to "win". I want it to be about "OMG A TrOLL IS ATTACKING US! What do we do? I heard that fire hurts them!" I am OK with players knowing and using facts about the world, as long as they aren't using knowledge of game mechanics; that, to me, is what "metagaming" means, and what I want to avoid.

As for whether the characters know facts about monsters: honestly, do we want to hand out pages and pages of stuff to memorize that represent in-character knowledge? A lot of the stuff in monster manuals is based on interpretations of real-world, literary, or cinematic legends. Making the gameworld legends identical to this body of lore players already know is a nice shortcut. Doesn't mean any of it has to be true, but why forbid players from using that knowledge?

Quote from: EOTB;807332Yeah, I actually prefer the term adventure gaming to role-playing games, because for me role-playing is salt, not meat.  A little goes a long way, and too much ruins the fun.

Having labels to distinguish those two approaches/styles is really useful. Without some sort of shorthand a lot of these discussions can veer to the polemical side. Knowing where someone is coming from in that regard, it makes the "other side" a lot more understandable.

Quote from: talysman;807431You always challenge the players. It is impossible to challenge the characters, because the characters are just collections of numbers, possibly assigned randomly, possibly selected by the player, and possibly selected under stringent character building rules. So really, the question is: what do you want the challenge to be about? Knowing the fantasy world, or knowing the game mechanics?

"Trolls are vulnerable to fire. Trolls regenerate." These are facts about the game world.

"Trolls regenerate 1 hit point per combat round." That is a fact about mechanics.

I don't want the game to be about mechanics, or knowing how to exploit them to "win". I want it to be about "OMG A TrOLL IS ATTACKING US! What do we do? I heard that fire hurts them!" I am OK with players knowing and using facts about the world, as long as they aren't using knowledge of game mechanics; that, to me, is what "metagaming" means, and what I want to avoid.

As for whether the characters know facts about monsters: honestly, do we want to hand out pages and pages of stuff to memorize that represent in-character knowledge? A lot of the stuff in monster manuals is based on interpretations of real-world, literary, or cinematic legends. Making the gameworld legends identical to this body of lore players already know is a nice shortcut. Doesn't mean any of it has to be true, but why forbid players from using that knowledge?

Well, modern D&D tends to skew towards challenging the characters, not the players.

Consider traps. They roll to see if they find the trap, and they roll to see if they can disable it.

Challenging the player would be making the players themselves poke around to find the trap, and defusing it themselves. But the game wants it to be played the other way.

In the same way, I assume that the game is pushing you towards having players feign ignorance when they encounter a monster until they roll a successful Nature check or whatever they need to diagnose its information.

For some reason, I find the stuff about traps to be better when it's the players being challenged, but I'm not sure if I like having the same situation with monsters.

Another question: what if the players are literally sitting there with their own MM and looking up all the monsters and their info every time one comes up?

Too much metagaming?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807701Another question: what if the players are literally sitting there with their own MM and looking up all the monsters and their info every time one comes up?

Too much metagaming?

Yes. But that goes beyond metagaming.  That's just non-gaming.

Well, if you're okay with them already knowing the monsters' info, then it seems like there shouldn't be a problem.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807704Well, if you're okay with them already knowing the monsters' info, then it seems like there shouldn't be a problem.

If they're having to look up the monster's info, they don't already know it.

The game is not an open book test.

Quote from: EOTB;807705The game is not an open book test.

If the game is a test, why not make the test open book?

Quote from: EOTB;807705If they're having to look up the monster's info, they don't already know it.

The game is not an open book test.

What I mean is, is the problem here that they're going to learn the stats, or that it's wasting time?

Would you have a problem if they looked it all up before the game at home?

Quote from: Bren;807706If the game is a test, why not make the test open book?

I like to reward players who pay attention, and remember shit that can help them.  Also, as I said earlier, players often mis-remember details about monsters not frequently encountered.  Being able to simply look up the monster is going beyond that; the only skill being tested is that of navigating an index.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807707What I mean is, is the problem here that they're going to learn the stats, or that it's wasting time?

Would you have a problem if they looked it all up before the game at home?

First, they don't know what to look up at home unless you leave off a session at the beginning of an encounter where the opposition for the next session is apparent.  Second, I assume that most people who play the game beyond a very casual level probably do read the various rulebooks at home.  But (especially if you haven't actually fought the monster in question) it is one thing to have read the entry for the quasit out of the 1E monster manual at some point in the last year, and another thing to remember in the heat of an encounter that it saves against spells as a 7 hit die monster, or that a successful melee attack drains you of a point of dexterity.  

In practicality, absent the hypothetical photographic memory, there is a huge gulf in practical gameplay between allowing players to use their knowledge and the sort of perfect recall emulated by reading the entry in the moment.

That's true. So would the right course of action to be discouraging looking up stuff in the MM during the actual game?

Quote from: EOTB;807714I like to reward players who pay attention, and remember shit that can help them.

OK. So pretty much like most Freshman and Sophomore college classes then.

Quote from: EOTB;807714In practicality, absent the hypothetical photographic memory, there is a huge gulf in practical gameplay between allowing players to use their knowledge and the sort of perfect recall emulated by reading the entry in the moment.

Depends on how large the monster manual is and who your players are. I can still recall a lot of the stats from the OD&D Monster Manual even though it has been almost 40 years since I've used it. Back when I regularly played OD&D I had the whole thing memorized nearly word for word - and by that I mean the all the text. The stat section I did have word perfect.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807717That's true. So would the right course of action to be discouraging looking up stuff in the MM during the actual game?

Obviously it depends on what sort of game you want.

Now I encourage players to look up stats and stuff in Star Wars and Honor+Intrigue. In H+I they frequently run some of the bad guys if their PC is not involved in a duel or battle. Back in the OD&D days, I would never have encouraged that, but we might look at a rule book if there was a disagreement about monster stats - assuming it was a standard monster at all. And when we play Call of Cthulhu a player looking up monster stats during a game would kind of piss me off as going counter to the idea of that shit being unknowable to the PCs.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807717That's true. So would the right course of action to be discouraging looking up stuff in the MM during the actual game?

At my table, the players can have (and reference) players' material. So, the PHB and parts of Unearthed Arcana (being a 1E game).

Quote from: Bren;807719OK. So pretty much like most Freshman and Sophomore college classes then.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your comparison; care to elaborate?

Quote from: Bren;807719Depends on how large the monster manual is and who your players are. I can still recall a lot of the stats from the OD&D Monster Manual even though it has been almost 40 years since I've used it. Back when I regularly played OD&D I had the whole thing memorized nearly word for word - and by that I mean the all the text. The stat section I did have word perfect.

Obviously it depends on what sort of game you want.

True.  And I agree that OD&D the number of monsters and the size of their entries is probably a small enough sample of text that it would be much easier to recall more of it.  IME, once you get up to the threshold of information in 1E, it is harder for people to have that sort of recall unless they have years and years of DM experience.

Quote from: Bren;807719Now I encourage players to look up stats and stuff in Star Wars and Honor+Intrigue. In H+I they frequently run some of the bad guys if their PC is not involved in a duel or battle. Back in the OD&D days, I would never have encouraged that, but we might look at a rule book if there was a disagreement about monster stats - assuming it was a standard monster at all. And when we play Call of Cthulhu a player looking up monster stats during a game would kind of piss me off as going counter to the idea of that shit being unknowable to the PCs.

I'm not familiar with H+I, but sounds fun.  In AD&D I wouldn't be opposed to a player whose character was out of commission to help out running stuff that would be concluded before their character got back into the action.  That's a fun way to keep people involved, and possibly help seed a future DM, also.

Quote from: EOTB;807725I'm not sure I'm understanding your comparison; care to elaborate?

You get points for memorizing stuff.

QuoteTrue.  And I agree that OD&D the number of monsters and the size of their entries is probably a small enough sample of text that it would be much easier to recall more of it.  IME, once you get up to the threshold of information in 1E, it is harder for people to have that sort of recall unless they have years and years of DM experience.

Yes. Memorizing any available amount of monster info for an RPG is well within human capability. But of course the smaller the text the easier it will be to memorize and the more players who will be able and willing to do that.

QuoteI'm not familiar with H+I, but sounds fun.

It's based on Barbarians of Lemuria (BoL). It's great for Swashbuckling action and has moderately crunchy dueling rules. Which was what I was looking for when I discovered it (though more for Star Wars lightsaber combat than for rapiers and cutlasses).

QuoteThat's a fun way to keep people involved, and possibly help seed a future DM, also.

Yep. And as a bonus the players get the chance to try out combat tactics that their current PC may not be any good at which helps from an overall system learning curve.

Quote from: Bren;807731You get points for memorizing stuff.

I wouldn't quite agree with that.  Maybe my guys are just more beer-and-pretzel gamers, but even if they read through the books for appreciation or enjoyment on a semi-regular basis, I don't think many of them are doing it with quite that focus or intensity.  

Also, a perfect knowledge of what's written gets you no points at all.  Getting the prize gets you points, and knowing how many hit dice ogres have isn't the prize.  It's just data until you apply it meaningfully in the game.

Perhaps test was a word that threw my point off in a wrong direction.  I didn't mean it in an academic sense.  And again, subjective, but outside of someone playing with a total newcomer to the game, and playing kind of dumb with the goal of not spoiling that initial sense of having a blast but not knowing exactly what is going on for that noob, it's hard for me to equate playing stupid with better play.  As always, everyone's MMV depending on if faithful character emulation is prized in that group as a goal in and of itself.

Sorry, metagaming is not roleplaying.  So it's not at my tables.
Everyone has fun differently, and I don't mind when PCs try for lore rolls, etc, when dealing with stuff their characters would not know.

But I am pretty unbending when they trot out knowledge their PCs would not have (yet).

Quote from: LordVreeg;807785Sorry, metagaming is not roleplaying.  So it's not at my tables.
Everyone has fun differently, and I don't mind when PCs try for lore rolls, etc, when dealing with stuff their characters would not know.

But I am pretty unbending when they trot out knowledge their PCs would not have (yet).

One setting-based solution to this issue, if the players are persistent and metagaming is not permitted, is to have monsters all be varied enough that you can't really pin down the rules of the kill that easily. It isn't ideal for every monster PCs encounter, but for the bigger threats can be useful. This was basically how Ravenloft got around the issue with Vampires, Werewolves, etc. The players could try to metagame, but it amounted to very little in these circumstances.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;807789One setting-based solution to this issue, if the players are persistent and metagaming is not permitted, is to have monsters all be varied enough that you can't really pin down the rules of the kill that easily. It isn't ideal for every monster PCs encounter, but for the bigger threats can be useful. This was basically how Ravenloft got around the issue with Vampires, Werewolves, etc. The players could try to metagame, but it amounted to very little in these circumstances.

Yes, as you know, I run only my own stuff, so it is easier to control this.  And that really adds to immersion, as there is so much that is 'discovered'.
But I also keep players for decades in this setting, and most of the games have a pretty good attrition rate, so I have to worry about new characters possessing Player knowledge.

Bestiary (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955341/Bestiary)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;807789One setting-based solution to this issue, if the players are persistent and metagaming is not permitted, is to have monsters all be varied enough that you can't really pin down the rules of the kill that easily.

Runequest, set in Glorantha, did this for all chaos monsters. A chaos creature might (or might not) have one or more chaos features that could be randomly determined by the GM from a long list or by just inventing more stuff. Some features might have observable traces like 12 point armor skin might look like scales or rocks or whatnot, but others might, like explodes when killed doing X damage to all within Y meters, might come as a total (and unpleasant) surprise.

The problem from a game (not necessarily "art of role-playing") perspective was raised in D&D Supplement III (1976), which included the Artifacts section - magic treasures whose specific characteristics were to be chosen by the dm (from fairly extensive tables).

As one who prefers not to need to pretend to ignorance (to the extent we can reasonably avoid it), I approve of tools like that: providing helpful inspiration for refs whilst not over-informing players tempted to read.

I'd say that with experienced (or simply well-read) players, it's usually most convenient to assume that what is widely published here about the game world is similarly common knowledge there. Who indeed has more incentive to collect such lore: someone betting the fortunes of a mere game piece, or someone risking his very life? Of course, the accuracy of what is commonly received may be unreliable (see for example medieval bestiaries).

This does suggest to me the advisability of some restraint on the part of game-line publishers, but responsibility ultimately rests on the shoulders of the gamesmaster. It is not in any case a position for the very lazy or unimaginative, and ignoring or changing what does not fit the needs of one's campaign is no more extraordinary an expectation in this regard than in any other.

If something is supposed to be mysterious, make it actually so by making up something that's not familiar to the players! Often it takes only a minor twist to throw them off the scent of something otherwise an old standard.

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.

These are, of course, taverns much akin to those in our own history.  You know, the ones where travelers swear that they've seen dragons, hippogriffs, manticores, Amazons with their bow arm breasts cut off ... things like that.

You just might be more sanguine about the honesty and reliability of your average drunk wanderer, trying to impress the locals, than I am.

For my part, no, of course not: players don't get to use their past knowledge any more than their PCs get to know the formula for gunpowder, who's really behind that death cult or how to rig a Leyden jar.

Beyond that, it's relatively simple: I don't feel the need to be bound by the sourcebook as far as critters go.

Quote from: Ravenswing;807884For my part, no, of course not: players don't get to use their past knowledge any more than their PCs get to know the formula for gunpowder, who's really behind that death cult or how to rig a Leyden jar.

How do you handle situations where the players know something the PCs don't, like a monster that has a weak spot if you hit it between the eyes or something.

Do you make the PCs roll for some sort of Arcana or Nature check? What if the players just decide "oh hey my character got this inspiration that maybe this spot is the right place to fire"? Like, where do you draw the line between the player "influencing" the character. Because you could easily say that this is just the player trying to shoehorn his OOC knowledge into the game, while you could also say that it's roleplaying the character figuring it out.

Quote from: JeremyR;807310I don't think this is a problem, really. Characters should probably know about monsters in their world, just like people in the real world know about dangerous places and animals.

I've never seen a rattlesnake in real life, but if I see a snake that starts to rattle its tail, I'll know to run away.

I've never seen a vampire, but know they have to be killed by cutting its head off.

Then again, maybe not. Some have to be burned or immersed in running water.

I have always had great fun taking standard issue monsters, changing them in minor ways (name, appearance, Achilles heel) and thereby challenging the players and their PCs without having to reinvent the wheel. Katherine Briggs' Encyclopedia of Fairies is something every DM needs on his bookshelf, for it has not only hundreds of creatures from folklore and mythology, but a like number of stories to be pillaged.

For example, I took the vampire and changed it into the Baobhan Sith (http://vampireunderworld.com/european-vampires/baobhan-sith/), a female Scottish vampire/faerie creature that is susceptible to iron rather than garlic, communion wafers, etc. Everything else from the hit dice to treasure type to XP value remained the same.

I also took regular goblins, renamed them sluagh (an old Gaelic bogey monster) and had the villagers tell the newly arrived PCs that they dare not go outdoors at night for fear of what the sluagh would do to them. I had a bunch of mid-level PCs almost in a panic, worried that some horrible creature like Grendel was about to attack them. Again, the stats remained the same -just a new name and a new coat of paint.

Knowing the monster books like the back of your hand isn't much of a benefit in my campaign.

Quote from: EOTB;807265I don't find it fun to pretend a lack of knowledge on something like an Orc.  Reskinning is less effective than advertised, because the mechanical core of the creature is the same.

I would rather that experienced players benefit from the time they've put into the game than make them play with one hand tied behind their back every time they roll up a new character.  If they feel necessary, they can come up with an in-game reason.  But I will usually choose ease of play over character concerns.

Indeed. Unless the setting is such that the PCs have never seen or heard of an orc before, then they should at least have some basic knowledge of what one is. On the other hand I expect none of the characters to know what the heck a Chuul is or does.

Draconians in Dragonlance. At the start. What are these things? WTF my sword is stuck in this one that turned to stone??? But later they are relatively commonplace and the PCs should have a baser idea what one is. Possibly also what they do on death depending on the locale.

Sense of wonder, not sense of stupid...

Quote from: Elfdart;807912Then again, maybe not. Some have to be burned or immersed in running water.

I have always had great fun taking standard issue monsters, changing them in minor ways (name, appearance, Achilles heel) and thereby challenging the players and their PCs without having to reinvent the wheel. Katherine Briggs' Encyclopedia of Fairies is something every DM needs on his bookshelf, for it has not only hundreds of creatures from folklore and mythology, but a like number of stories to be pillaged.

For example, I took the vampire and changed it into the Baobhan Sith (http://vampireunderworld.com/european-vampires/baobhan-sith/), a female Scottish vampire/faerie creature that is susceptible to iron rather than garlic, communion wafers, etc. Everything else from the hit dice to treasure type to XP value remained the same.

I also took regular goblins, renamed them sluagh (an old Gaelic bogey monster) and had the villagers tell the newly arrived PCs that they dare not go outdoors at night for fear of what the sluagh would do to them. I had a bunch of mid-level PCs almost in a panic, worried that some horrible creature like Grendel was about to attack them. Again, the stats remained the same -just a new name and a new coat of paint.

Knowing the monster books like the back of your hand isn't much of a benefit in my campaign.

This is pretty awesome. I love it. I'm going to use these ideas for starters.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807893How do you handle situations where the players know something the PCs don't, like a monster that has a weak spot if you hit it between the eyes or something.

Do you make the PCs roll for some sort of Arcana or Nature check? What if the players just decide "oh hey my character got this inspiration that maybe this spot is the right place to fire"? Like, where do you draw the line between the player "influencing" the character. Because you could easily say that this is just the player trying to shoehorn his OOC knowledge into the game, while you could also say that it's roleplaying the character figuring it out.

Well, for one, GURPS makes provision for such skills.  Naturalist, Hidden Lore (Monsters), Occultism, Folklore ... they're all valid choices.  The better the roll, the more likely the info is both sound and useful.

For another, I'm not a huge fan of "This is an unstoppable juggernaut except for its left testicle, upon which a good shot will surely slay it" monsters. That smacks too much of the pull-the-right-lever-or-die dungeon fantasy BS I got past decades ago.  There are certainly useful strategies to engage certain beasts, and that's as far as that goes.  And that doesn't mean some critters stop being tough -- sure, you made the roll, and you remember reading that giant crocodiles have relatively soft underbellies.  Awesome, but that's still a very tough, very tenacious 30' lizard with teeth the size of short swords, and it's comin' for you ...

Most importantly, I don't play with metagaming assholes.  :D

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807292I would never for a moment think I was playing an RPG with one arm tied behind my back because my character had never see a certain monster, and couldn't use my personal knowledge of how trolls or clay golems work.  That just seems like all-arms-in-play roleplaying to me.

Its how I play actually. I the player might know a troll is killed only by fire. But my first level fighter doesnt know this unless trolls are pretty common in the area. Then again they may be pretty common in the area because no one knows they regenerate even if killed. My first level magic user might know. I usually do an intelligence check to see if I recall anything. Same as when I am GMing.

Which is why when getting into a campaign as a player I ask the DM what is common knowledge stuff the average starting PC would know?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807893How do you handle situations where the players know something the PCs don't, like a monster that has a weak spot if you hit it between the eyes or something.

Expect the player to act like a grown up, and separate their own player knowledge from that of their character.

Quote from: Ravenswing;807884These are, of course, taverns much akin to those in our own history.  You know, the ones where travelers swear that they've seen dragons, hippogriffs, manticores, Amazons with their bow arm breasts cut off ... things like that.

That is kind of a campaign setting issue.  Generic D&D-land assumes that critters like orcs and trolls are fairly common.  If your milieu has orcs and trolls as rare as dragons and manticores in our own world, then reliable reports would certainly be circumspect.  

All in all, if a GM wants their players to be surprised by the capabilities of a troll, D&D may not be the best of fantsy rpg choices.

Quote from: Kiero;807949Expect the player to act like a grown up, and separate their own player knowledge from that of their character.

As I said earlier, how easily can you separate bright ideas you would have come up with in ignorance from knowing something because you know it?


Like a lot of these discussions, problems can come up even from well-meaning competent people.

Quote from: Will;808038As I said earlier, how easily can you separate bright ideas you would have come up with in ignorance from knowing something because you know it?


Like a lot of these discussions, problems can come up even from well-meaning competent people.

Yeah that's what I mean. A player says "hey let's do X" and then the GM has to read his mind to see if he said it because he knew the info or because he was playing his character that way.

I mean if they go through a lot of steps to show the character learning it, that solves the problem, but that won't happen every time.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;808083Yeah that's what I mean. A player says "hey let's do X" and then the GM has to read his mind to see if he said it because he knew the info or because he was playing his character that way.

So don't try to read their mind.

Instead as the GM I might ask, "What is it you are trying to accomplish by doing X?" or "Why is your character choosing to do X?"

The answer will often make it clear whether this is a metagame thing or a character thing.

Quote from: Old One Eye;808029That is kind of a campaign setting issue.  Generic D&D-land assumes that critters like orcs and trolls are fairly common.  If your milieu has orcs and trolls as rare as dragons and manticores in our own world, then reliable reports would certainly be circumspect.

See, you're metagaming yourself: you presume that there's a certain density of monsters, and you presume that they all have unitary stats and abilities.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.  Some lions are a lot tougher and more capable than others.  Some humans are a lot flimsier and less capable than others.  I see no reason to presume that ANY foe of ANY kind that an adventurer might encounter always has 20 HP and always does 1d6+1 damage and always has the exact same move, armor protection or anything else.

By the way, since when were we talking about generic orcs-n-trolls?  Changing the goalposts there a little.

Quote from: Bren;808086So don't try to read their mind.

Instead as the GM I might ask, "What is it you are trying to accomplish by doing X?" or "Why is your character choosing to do X?"

The answer will often make it clear whether this is a metagame thing or a character thing.

The problem can start and stop with the player themselves.

I mean, I'm pretty clever and intuitive. I have no way of knowing whether I would have jumped to some correct intuitive insight if I knew nothing about the subject.

People who are TRYING to be honest can often sabotage themselves, because they can shy back from stuff that is based on stuff they know.

When I make up a character I know what they will have knowledge of and what not and based on their Intelligence and Wisdom I will know how to role play out that stuff. It's RP 101.

If I am playing a Barbarian I will know if they used to sit enraptured round the camp fire listening to the warriors' stories about battles and monsters and I will know if they believed that stuff or dismissed it as fantasy. I will know if the wizard spend late nights hunched over a battered copy of Darkmaul's Creatures of the Lower Planes or if he spent the time in the local taverns trying to impress girls with coin magic.

Players know "how much" their PCs know.

Now some players will "cheat" or not care about that stuff. It's the DMs job to get them to care becuase that leads to more immersive and enjoyable games.

Try a Character Quiz at the start of play like we use in Amber.

1. Do you spend your free time
a. Researching arcane Lore
b. Honing your card skills against unsuspecting locals
c. Chasing your next paramour
d. Maintaining your equipment
e. I have no free time all my time is spent entirely focused on worshipping my god in his myriad forms
f. Other , please specify

2. When it comes to Wine do you
a. Drink to excess
b. savour the finest vintatages
c. Prefer hard spirits
d. Prefer warm beer
e. I have no free time all my time is spent entirely focused on worshipping my god in his myriad forms
f. Other, please specify

etc
etc

Within those questions hint at getting the player to think about their view of mythology, folklore, forest craft etc been collecting goblin ears since you were 5, grew up in a city and this is the first time you have ever seen an elf... etc ...

If you establish the benefits of roleplaying and getting more in character then players are more likely to react to your monsters in character. Couple this with good descriptions rather than "you see 2 Hobgoblins" and you will find this issue goes away.

The biggest DM fail of course is when the DM steps in with ooc knowledge and interrupts a player roleplaying. An exampel of that would be when the PC, a low wisdom low intelligence bard with a head full of misremembered folklore about all sorts of stuff explains to the party in detial about how hte only way to kill a troll is to cut of their head but the DM intervenes and actually says that is wrong and you have to burn them. Thsi is obviously a rookie DM issue but I have seen it where DMs get confused between In character and ooc dialogue where the charaismatic PC is convincing the party of an untruth but the  DM for whatever reason, usually lack of self confidence, gets confused thinking the player is trying to use some narative trick to rewrite the monsters stats or whatever.

Quote from: Ravenswing;808087See, you're metagaming yourself: you presume that there's a certain density of monsters, and you presume that they all have unitary stats and abilities.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.  Some lions are a lot tougher and more capable than others.  Some humans are a lot flimsier and less capable than others.  I see no reason to presume that ANY foe of ANY kind that an adventurer might encounter always has 20 HP and always does 1d6+1 damage and always has the exact same move, armor protection or anything else.

By the way, since when were we talking about generic orcs-n-trolls?  Changing the goalposts there a little.

What a bizarre angle you are taking.  I suppose that I agree with you.  Whatever strawman is claiming that all members of whatever fantasy species must be completely identical needs to be encouraged to introduce some variety.  Not sure why that is an important point to make, however.  At least I have never seen anyone game that way.

You seem to like lions as an example critter to talk about more than orcs or trolls.  OK.  Lions are a fine example.  Do you suppose that people who live in an area where lions are a genuine threat to life would know a few things about lion habits, or would they be just as clueless as a zoo-goer like me?

Quote from: Old One Eye;808108You seem to like lions as an example critter to talk about more than orcs or trolls.  OK.  Lions are a fine example.  Do you suppose that people who live in an area where lions are a genuine threat to life would know a few things about lion habits, or would they be just as clueless as a zoo-goer like me?

A great question and the answer of course is it depends on the background.
A guy who grew up in Mombassa might know as much about lions as you, might know a lot less as they maybe never had the money to go to school or the zoo, or might know loads because they travelled out with their family to stay with Uncle Ntirkana every wet season on the Serenghetti, or they might have a whole lot of entirely incorrect knowledge from Grandpa Koyati who pretended he grew up on the grassland and killed a lion when he was 11 but in reality grew up in a mission in Mombassa and has never seen a lion in his life.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808110A great question and the answer of course is it depends on the background.
A guy who grew up in Mombassa might know as much about lions as you, might know a lot less as they maybe never had the money to go to school or the zoo, or might know loads because they travelled out with their family to stay with Uncle Ntirkana every wet season on the Serenghetti, or they might have a whole lot of entirely incorrect knowledge from Grandpa Koyati who pretended he grew up on the grassland and killed a lion when he was 11 but in reality grew up in a mission in Mombassa and has never seen a lion in his life.

Only one of those guys sounds like lions were a genuine threat to his survival.  ;)

Quote from: Old One Eye;808131Only one of those guys sounds like lions were a genuine threat to his survival.  ;)

Yeah but how different is that to a cutpurse that grew up on the streets of Waterdeep, or Kings Landing. Or a Wizard who spent the last 10 years at Hogwarts, or the Citadel or the Unseen University.

Just because there are dangerous monsters 10 miles from where you grew up doesn't mean you need to know shit about any of them.
A guy trained from a kid to be a Pit Fighter in the Ring might not even be aware of the existence of Elves if the Elves have a prohibition about attending Pit fights or whatever.

So you need to think like the character that is what Backgrounds are trying to do. Different PCs perceptions of the same world are going to be as different as any two people's perceptions of our world today are.
Now as you adventure together those perceptions will widen and coalesce as what you know about the wider world will likely be through shared experience. But If after the party's first raid the Barbarian goes out carousing in town and the Battlemaster locates a local sage to explain the ecology of the basilisk they only just managed to escape from then the BattleMaster is the one that should be able to bring in knowledge about the creature the next time they mean one. Good Roleplayers will do that by default, even if it puts their PCs in jeopardy, the same way that a guy with low wisdom is likely to forget to check his supplies or spend time repairing his armour etc.

Quote from: Will;808089People who are TRYING to be honest can often sabotage themselves, because they can shy back from stuff that is based on stuff they know.

That can happen. It's the converse of the too much information problem that mAcular Chaotic asked about.

It gets addressed by the GM providing a base level of knowledge for the PC and the player asking if the level of knowledge is unclear..."Does my character know that gargoyles can only be harmed by magic weapons?" or "My mage is studying to be a demonlogist, what does she know about this demon?"

Quote from: jibbajibba;808104Players know "how much" their PCs know.

That is not my experience.

I'm pretty sure most of those folks know lions can distinguish them from whales, giant bats, alligators, and other animals.

Quote from: Bren;808140That can happen. It's the converse of the too much information problem that mAcular Chaotic asked about.

It gets addressed by the GM providing a base level of knowledge for the PC and the player asking if the level of knowledge is unclear..."Does my character know that gargoyles can only be harmed by magic weapons?" or "My mage is studying to be a demonlogist, what does she know about this demon?"

Yes, but that can be unsatisfying to folks who enjoy figuring things out to any degree.

It can also be addressed by, as other folks have suggested, a combination of 'providing known information' and varying up what creatures are. (This is my favored approach)

So, yeah, most humanoids are big/small intelligent humanoids that can be summed up for the masses easily. Kobolds, small sneaky trap-loving reptilians who love dragons. Goblins, small stabby greenish guys. etc.

It's only the really quirky stuff (like how EXACTLY lycanthropes work, oozes) where knowledge can be tricky. And you can easily swap it up.

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, you want to be as true to the character as possible for immersion of the group (if you care about that). Yet, you have situations that could be deadly and the only way you decide to avoid them is that you know as a player that a monster is a walking can of whoopass.

What do you do then? Go and die for the sake of keeping PC/Player knowledge apart, or do the rational thing as a player? I know some GMs that would be pissed if you did the rational thing.

Quote from: Will;808142I'm pretty sure most of those folks know lions can distinguish them from whales, giant bats, alligators, and other animals.

Lion from a tiger. Lion from a Puma, Puma from a Cougar

Quote from: jibbajibba;808151Lion from a tiger. Lion from a Puma, Puma from a Cougar

Tiger is the stripey one. Lion is the bigger one. Puma is the shoe. Cougar is the big cat.

Quote from: Bren;808152Tiger is the stripey one. Lion is the bigger one. Puma is the shoe. Cougar is the big cat.

Tigers tend to be bigger than lions, but their skeletons are so similar  than trained experts can't tell them apart.
But the question is behaviours, so a lion is a social animal (number appearing 3-12) whereas a tiger is solitary (number appearing 1 or 1+cubs).
A lion will rarely swim whereas a tiger loves a bit of a dip.
Lions hunt, tigers hide and pounce.
Lions are much faster than tigers.
Tigers are smarter than lions.

so that is the equivalent of goblins vs orcs or goblins vs kobolds or whatever.

Cougar vs Puma was obviously a trick question as they are different words for the same thing.

no reason why a guy living in a city making his way as a petty thief or whatever would know any more about goblins or kobolds and in a medieval setting more likely to know a lot less and lots of folklore mixed in too.

So in the fiction think People of Westeros vs dragons or white walkers, or giants. Or the Hobbits of the shire vs everyone else. Or the people of the Union vs the Shanka (blade itself).

Plenty of other examples.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808154
...no reason why a guy living in a city making his way as a petty thief or whatever would know any more about goblins or kobolds...

Like everything related to this question, it depends on the setting. In a number of fantasy settings (e.g. Glen Cook's Garrett P.I. series) cities included different humanoids all living together. So in that setting the thief would know about goblins and kobolds. Other settings, not so much.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808154no reason why a guy living in a city making his way as a petty thief or whatever would know any more about goblins or kobolds and in a medieval setting more likely to know a lot less and lots of folklore mixed in too.

So in the fiction think People of Westeros vs dragons or white walkers, or giants. Or the Hobbits of the shire vs everyone else. Or the people of the Union vs the Shanka (blade itself).

This depends on how common monsters are. If the city is like Tolkien's Shire, where nothing strange ever happens, then I'd agree.

On the other hand, if there are random monster encounters in a city or just outside it, such as those in the 1e DMG, then those sorts of monsters should be reasonably well known - not the stuff of rumor and legend.

Reminds me of the Sunwolf and Starhawk series, where undead were exceedingly rare, and nobody had any clue where they came from (which ended up being ... very unusual).

Quote from: jhkim;808163This depends on how common monsters are. If the city is like Tolkien's Shire, where nothing strange ever happens, then I'd agree.

On the other hand, if there are random monster encounters in a city or just outside it, such as those in the 1e DMG, then those sorts of monsters should be reasonably well known - not the stuff of rumor and legend.

that was, back in the elder days, sort of my guideline.  I'd look at the frequency in the MM to figure out the odds of anyone really knowing stuff about them.

In my experience, having the players feign ignorance is likely to be frustrating to the GM, players, or both. I find it usually works better to arrange for ways that the characters have roughly similar information to the players.


I would also point out that the characters generally have vastly more expertise in their world in general, more expertise in monster-fighting, and vastly more sensory data than the players do. Especially for creatures without overtly magical abilities like a goblin or wyvern, the characters should be able to see all the details of how the creature looks, moves, and fights - and can draw conclusions based on that.

Quote from: Old One Eye;808108You seem to like lions as an example critter to talk about more than orcs or trolls.  OK.  Lions are a fine example.  Do you suppose that people who live in an area where lions are a genuine threat to life would know a few things about lion habits, or would they be just as clueless as a zoo-goer like me?

(shrugs)  I used lions, anyway.  I could've used any one of a thousand different critters, and don't read anything particular about having chosen the first one that came to mind.

To address your exact question, it depends.  Do any of us really need to be told that human beings are very good at (a) thinking we know more about a subject than we really do, (b) swallowing the POV of the loudest, or the first, or the cutest, or the most eloquent speaker on a subject over that of acknowledged experts, and (c) blathering our inflated, flawed views to anyone who'll listen, except when they're (d) deliberately lying about the subject to get a rise out of the listeners?  How many parents, for instance, have rejected the all-but-unanimous advice of thousands of pediatricians, doctors and researchers on the subject of vaccination, on the strength of the word of the likes of Jenny McCarthy, whose credentials are that her boob job got her into Playboy a couple decades back?

Sure, I'd figure that a veteran herder or livestock farmer on the verge of lion-infested country would probably have a good handle on the habits of lions -- otherwise they wouldn't get to be veteran herders or livestock farmers.  I would presume such skills of no one else.  A number of folks might have such skills.  A number would not, beyond the basics of what you do if you see a lion lurking about.

But you're still talking about common threats.  Of course someone in orc-infested country will have a good handle on how tough orcs are and what you're likely to expect.  This thread wasn't about that: it was about the unusual.

I think some of the stuff we've mentioned about lions is a good metaphor for other D&D monsters, actually.

Big furry cats who hunt. Are they social? Do they have a special diet? Are they different from those OTHER stories of cats? Fuck if we know.

Consider oozes. Most people who aren't up on MM reading know oozes are big blobby things in various colors that generally burn and live underground. And often have quirky weird abilities.

Now, remembering EXACTLY what a pudding is from an ooze from jellies from...

At that point, you could expect even underdark residents to be a bit hazy.

Quote from: jhkim;808163This depends on how common monsters are. If the city is like Tolkien's Shire, where nothing strange ever happens, then I'd agree.

On the other hand, if there are random monster encounters in a city or just outside it, such as those in the 1e DMG, then those sorts of monsters should be reasonably well known - not the stuff of rumor and legend.

Entirely.

The setting and the background of the PC in the setting are the factors that determine their knowlege.
You could be playing a Noble who though the city is full of half orcs has never met one because they are scum. Plenty of medieval examples where the ill educated elite thought all sorts of things about the poor and especially the poor from different human races/cultures.

In my current game there has been an ongoing war between humans and they fey allies and the goblins and orcs for 100 years. the humans know a lot about orcs and goblins so do the Fey. The humans know next to nothing about the Fey however, even to the point where they class all fey races (from Hobbits to trieflings) as one group. Now a few people know more but not many.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;808147I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, you want to be as true to the character as possible for immersion of the group (if you care about that). Yet, you have situations that could be deadly and the only way you decide to avoid them is that you know as a player that a monster is a walking can of whoopass.

What do you do then? Go and die for the sake of keeping PC/Player knowledge apart, or do the rational thing as a player? I know some GMs that would be pissed if you did the rational thing.

Treat every monster (and every object, just in case) as "a walking can of whoopass". It's the only way to be sure. :)

One DM introduced grendels from The Legacy of Heorot but gave us no background information, so we (who had not read the book) named it the Zippopotamus (lived in a river, very fast). That showed him, even if it did kill several PCs.

Quote from: rawma;808228Treat every monster (and every object, just in case) as "a walking can of whoopass". It's the only way to be sure. :)

One DM introduced grendels from The Legacy of Heorot but gave us no background information, so we (who had not read the book) named it the Zippopotamus (lived in a river, very fast). That showed him, even if it did kill several PCs.

Yay, we killed that big bad ol' monster. Hey, where did all the tasty samlon go?

F$@#!!!

Quote from: Will;808194Big furry cats who hunt. Are they social? Do they have a special diet? Are they different from those OTHER stories of cats? Fuck if we know.

And beyond that, there'll be the guy who is absolutely convinced to the marrow of his bones that he knows All About Lions, based on a dimly remembered conversation he overheard between two panther hunters a few years back.

My classic "confirmation bias" adventuring anecdote comes from a combat LARP session.  We had a Raise Dead spell, and a second-event newbie (unable, per the system, to have the spell at all before his fifth event) was absolutely convinced that the spell worked a particular way.  Me, I was a "magic marshal" of twelve years experience and the Grand Master of the guild that taught the spell, I set him straight.

So I thought.  The guy just wouldn't take my word for it.  Soon three other veteran magic marshals joined the conversation, all of whom had ten years or more experience teaching and adjudicating the system.  One of those guys had invented the magic rules then in use.  Another was the guy who'd invented the previous magic system the then-current system had replaced.  

The newbie just didn't care -- he was just one of those types who Knew What He Knew and no one could ever tell him any different -- and wound up being escorted off the event site when he started throwing punches.

Honestly, I figure that your average PC, without a background in such lore, has as much chance of getting the stats of the Smegma Monster not only wrong, but disastrously wrong, as otherwise.

Ha!

I remember an online text game that was starting up, run by a couple. It was just starting up, Liverpool by Night.

Now, my experiences with WoD MU*s is that, as a rule, they suck horribly. Between the late 90s and around 2004 or so when I finally gave up on the feeble hope of finding one that didn't suck, I'd probably tried out several dozen.

ANYhoo... this game was promising. Mortal+ focus, which is cool (I don't really like the big stuff).

I'm writing up a character and I'd really like to do a whole fortune-teller thing. So I'm looking over Divination... now, obviously, 'reading the future' is a problem on a MU* unless it's really vague. There's already a fortune telling enhanced skill or something for vague stuff, Divination would be precise.

So I suggest to the guy running the place that maybe I could have Divination limited only to retrocognition, scrying past events.

And he informs me that that's not 'divination,' divination is only reading the future.

... Huh? That's... not what the text said.

He repeats his assertion.

I point out that's not what the _dictionary_ says.

He repeats his assertion.

I squint. Right.
At the time I was hanging out with a bunch of the WoD writers on an online chat group. I grab _the guy who wrote that book_ (well, the developer, anyway) and ask him.
He's puzzled and says 'well, duh, like it says, divination reads the future and the past.'

He repeats his assertion.

Ooo k. Another WoD MU* in the bin.


Also, I am reminded of Monty Python's Llama sketch.

Quote from: Ravenswing;808238The guy just wouldn't take my word for it.  Soon three other veteran magic marshals joined the conversation, all of whom had ten years or more experience teaching and adjudicating the system.  One of those guys had invented the magic rules then in use.  Another was the guy who'd invented the previous magic system the then-current system had replaced.  

The newbie just didn't care -- he was just one of those types who Knew What He Knew and no one could ever tell him any different -- and wound up being escorted off the event site when he started throwing punches.

Honestly, I figure that your average PC, without a background in such lore, has as much chance of getting the stats of the Smegma Monster not only wrong, but disastrously wrong, as otherwise.

I absolutely agree that such people exist. However, I generally prefer it in games if the GM does not assume that the PCs are ignorant dumb-asses, but rather are well-informed, competent people.

In most games, I feel like the players are lacking information, not knowing many basic things that well-informed, competent characters should. So I always tend to err on the side of giving the players and PCs more information.

Quote from: jhkim;808273I absolutely agree that such people exist. However, I generally prefer it in games if the GM does not assume that the PCs are ignorant dumb-asses, but rather are well-informed, competent people.

In most games, I feel like the players are lacking information, not knowing many basic things that well-informed, competent characters should. So I always tend to err on the side of giving the players and PCs more information.

Agreed. Also, including unreliable narrators as a source of information in RPGs can be problematic on a number of levels.

First players are missing much of the information in the game world that is present in the real world (and would be available to the PCs) to help sort out the unreliable information sources. Second, as a player my game time is limited. I don't want a lot of time spent in play having an unreliable NPC  bullshit my character so that every time I talk to one NPC I then have to go talk to 4 more NPCs and ask the same damn question just so that I can conclude that 4 out of 5 dentists say that dragons do have pointy teeth as long as a dagger.

Once in a while, in solving a mystery or for figuring out crucial or important stuff that level of duplication may be interesting enough to play out, but as a usual course of events...no thanks. I get to do that enough in real life and it's not that fun that I want to spend must of the time in my game session doing that.

Quote from: jhkim;808273I absolutely agree that such people exist. However, I generally prefer it in games if the GM does not assume that the PCs are ignorant dumb-asses, but rather are well-informed, competent people.

In most games, I feel like the players are lacking information, not knowing many basic things that well-informed, competent characters should. So I always tend to err on the side of giving the players and PCs more information.

But only if the player chooses to play a well-informed competent character. there are lots of character options where that is not the case.
This is what I mean by the player knows how much information their PC should have based on the character of their PC.

If the GM wants to throw in something that the competent well-informed PC won't know about then they need to create their own challenges.

Quote from: Bren;808277Agreed. Also, including unreliable narrators as a source of information in RPGs can be problematic on a number of levels.

First players are missing much of the information in the game world that is present in the real world (and would be available to the PCs) to help sort out the unreliable information sources. Second, as a player my game time is limited. I don't want a lot of time spent in play having an unreliable NPC  bullshit my character so that every time I talk to one NPC I then have to go talk to 4 more NPCs and ask the same damn question just so that I can conclude that 4 out of 5 dentists say that dragons do have pointy teeth as long as a dagger.

Once in a while, in solving a mystery or for figuring out crucial or important stuff that level of duplication may be interesting enough to play out, but as a usual course of events...no thanks. I get to do that enough in real life and it's not that fun that I want to spend must of the time in my game session doing that.

Talking to NPCs is roleplaying .... why would you want to avoid doing that in an RPG?
If you just want to fight stuff and use magic spells then there are geat adventure board games :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;808356Talking to NPCs is roleplaying .... why would you want to avoid doing that in an RPG?
If you just want to fight stuff and use magic spells then there are geat adventure board games :D

I believe I answered that.

But assuming you didn't grok my answer, asking the question of one or two NPCs is fun. Having to ask the same question of five or more NPCs just to try to filter out the risk of an unreliable narrator is not fun. It's boring. Having to do that for every single, question asked is painful and boring.

Quote from: Bren;808364I believe I answered that.

But assuming you didn't grok my answer, asking the question of one or two NPCs is fun. Having to ask the same question of five or more NPCs just to try to filter out the risk of an unreliable narrator is not fun. It's boring. Having to do that for every single, question asked is painful and boring.

But you don't have to. If your PC is the sort of guy that gets bored going round talking to diffeent people to verify information then you probably accept the first answer you get :)

Roleplaying your PC talking to folk is the reason we play RPGs right?

I am obviously playing devils advocate here but the implication of what you say is that NPCs your PCs meet should always be honest, well informed and competent. That would seem to be stretching the bounds of realism even further than D&D falling rules :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;808365I am obviously playing devils advocate here but the implication of what you say is that NPCs your PCs meet should always be honest, well informed and competent. That would seem to be stretching the bounds of realism even further than D&D falling rules :)

That's grossly oversimplifying what I said to the point that I suspect you are intentionally ignoring my point.

If you believe that most people in reality are lying, ignorant, incompetents then I'd suggest you need to spend less time roleplaying and more time getting out and meeting the sizeable portion of the world's population who are not.

But by all means enjoy your repeated game sessions that must realistically consist of the next three more hours of requestioning a murder suspect. :rolleyes:

Quote from: jibbajibba;808365Roleplaying your PC talking to folk is the reason we play RPGs right?

Well, not necessarily. Some people just want to go smash heads.

Quote from: Bren;808371That's grossly oversimplifying what I said to the point that I suspect you are intentionally ignoring my point.

If you believe that most people in reality are lying, ignorant, incompetents then I'd suggest you need to spend less time roleplaying and more time getting out and meeting the sizeable portion of the world's population who are not.

But by all means enjoy your repeated game sessions that must realistically consist of the next three more hours of requestioning a murder suspect. :rolleyes:

Grossly simplifying or ignoring ? :)

Most people no.. quite a lot of people? I work in an American corporate so .... meh...

Now if I was involved in a job that was even more dubious that investment banking like murdering guys and taking their stuff.. I would trust folks far less.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808365Roleplaying your PC talking to folk is the reason we play RPGs right?

I am obviously playing devils advocate here but the implication of what you say is that NPCs your PCs meet should always be honest, well informed and competent. That would seem to be stretching the bounds of realism even further than D&D falling rules :)

Not necessarily as a primary driver, no.  Character assumption as a predominant activity is not a prerequisite (note the minimal text devoted to it versus the rest of game activity in the first games).  It's merely one approach among the two major approaches for playing RPGs.

One that has grown over time, to be sure.  But it still is just a way to do it.

Made-up monsters are a small matter compared with a player who can't not know things not familiar to people in other occupations - including the gm! - or of other eras.

Quote from: Phillip;808746can't not know things not familiar

Do I not waste more time than not, not understanding what you are not saying is not necessarily true? Or not?

Or is being harder to parse than tuypo1 something to strive for?

Quote from: Bren;807799Some features might have observable traces like 12 point armor skin might look like scales or rocks or whatnot, but others might, like explodes when killed doing X damage to all within Y meters, might come as a total (and unpleasant) surprise.

One of my tricks is to put two or three of these together, so one dying is likely to set the others off in a multiple explosive event.