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?