Earlier you were suggesting that if the player (but not the PC) had the requisite knowledge then there wouldn't even be a check; that the knowledge would be automatic.
Sorry, this is incoherent: it can't be the case
both that something is automatically known to the PC, and that it is known to the player but not the PC. So I don't know what you're trying to say here.
if you're using player knowledge over character knowledge then he's right: you're role-playing yourself rather than your PC.
The point that I, [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] and others are making is that
there is no reaosn to doubt that it is character knowledge. If the player imputes the knowledge to the character, then the player is using character knowledge.
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is asserting that the rules of the game
forbid the player from imputing such knowledge to a character, while asserting at the same time that there is no problem with imputing to the character knowledge of how to search for traps, look for secret doors, etc. My claim, in response, is that this distinction is arbitrary and without foundation except as a local table convention.
Were it me, a PC with a peasant background would very likely have a penalty on such a knowledge check, while a PC with an engineering background or any sort of Rogue/Thief training would have a bonus or even not require a check at all (potential bonuses would be looked at first and if any existed then any penalties would go away).
Knowledge checks don't come into it. In the AD&D, B/X other D&D rules, a player doesn't need to make a knowledge check in order to declare that his/her PC searches for secret doors, or that s/he is tapping the floor looking for pressure plates.
My point is that it is no more "metagaming" to declare that my PC had an uncle that taught her about trolls, than to take it for granted that my PC has had some experience or training that means s/he knows about the possibility of moving masonry, presssure plates, and the like. (And when I say "my point", really I mean [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s point.)
when next those players run out a posse of brand new adventurers in a different campaign those PCs as PCs still have to solve the same puzzle again; because for those PCs it is the first ever encounter with that type of creature. That the players have done it before is irrelevant. Thus the challenge - and you're quite right when you suggest that it's a challenge - for the players is to role-play those PCs true to their (the PCs') level of knowledge
<snip>
The challenge isn't competitive in this case, it's how to remain true to your PC's knowledge level when you-as-player know more...and often this can and does lead to intentionally making some "sub-optimal" choices
I don't think you're really engaging with what I'm saying about the monster with the puzzle immunity/vulnerability.
Puzzles aren't interesting because the PCs solve them. I mean, I could sit back and have the GM regale me with a story about how my PC solves such-and-such a puzzle, but that wouldn't make for good RPGing. Puzzles are interesting
because people at the table engage with them.
What you're saying, in the quote just above, is that the challenge of the puzzle is
replaced with a challenge of playing your PC subobtipmally until the GM lets you "flip the switch". What I'm saying is that that is insipid roleplaying that alienates the player from the character. Instead of inhabiting my character and playing him/her to the hilt, I'm playing a game of "persuade the GM".
In the fiction it's a question of how much grief are the PCs going to face before they figure it out.
But, to repeat, I could experience that story having the GM just narrate it to me. But RPGing is meant to be more than that. At the least, it's meant to be involve
the players figuring things out.
trying to put yourself-as-player into a mindspace from a time when you didn't know what "optimal" was. It's hard. It's also essential, IMO.
<snip>
Point taken, but IMO this is by far the lesser of two evils.
Essential to what? And what "evils"?
The basic "pitch" for roleplaying is
you can be a hero trying to change, maybe save, the world. How does it get so changed to become
pretend to be a hero who doesn't know yet how to change, or save, the world?
pemerton said:
But there is no genuine discovery here.
Not for the player, but there is for the PC.
When [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] talks about "discovery", he is not talking about
imaging one's PC learning something that one already knows. He's talking about a real thing that actually happens at the table: the participants in the game learning new things about the shared fiction.
Another good solution for stuff like static traps and slow moving monsters is 'Go Around It'. I like these because they are not pixel-bitching tactics, they should be fairly apparent to and useable by almost anyone who'd paying attention.
