Seems like potentially a lot of effort to avoid an otherwise simple solution. I think that, as with many examples, you're assuming that the player continually does this kind of thing. He's constantly introducing new uncles that have various areas of expertise and who have imparted their knowledge on the character. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about one instance, and it was an instance related to the players being uninterested in the content of play, so they help move things along.
I suppose it would only be done for monsters with strengths or weaknesses, which is a lot of them. I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't be okay with trolls and bring in the uncle, but would be golems and not bring in some "reason" to know about golems.
That specific example aside, I don't have a problem if the dice are used to determine such things. Maybe the uncle is introduced to the fiction as a result of a successful dice roll. I think that's the kind of emergent play that many are advocating.
Why not have them create that background as you play? Why write anything down ahead of time?
I don't like this playstyle and my players don't like this playstyle. Those are pretty good reasons I think.
I genuinely mean that. I am not saying that writing a background is bad in and of itself, but rather that it has pros and cons. One of the cons seems to be it locks things in place, but the brief nature of such a background means that what's locked in place is limited.
It seems arbitrary to me to hold the players to that kind of limited detail. Again, nothing wrong with writing it down, but I think allowing for additions to their background is likely a good idea.
There are pros and cons to allowing them to create on the fly as well. It all depends on which way is best for you, and your way isn't best for me and my game.
The character would, whether at full HP or 1 HP, expect a flail strike to the head by a gnoll to be a lethal blow. However, when the fighter has full HP, he will be less concerned about any individual attack. Hence, he is acting on the game mechanics, or out of fiction knowledge.
Again, I don't have a problem with this. I just think it demonstrates that metagaming is present in every game, and is actually often very beneficial to play.
Well, this is your very specific take on HP. There are many ways to narrate HP and what they mean (and I don't want to add that topic to this debate as well), but this doesn't change the fact that the character with full HP will tend to act more decisively because he knows he's at less risk of dying.
The PC is not aware of hit points and knows he can die to a single hit, whether 1st level or 20th level. And if by "Well, this is your very specific take on HP," you mean RAW, then yes it is.
"Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."
The first part about describing hit point loss in different ways simply means that I might describe a "hit" that leaves no mark due to the fighter still being over 50% as a close miss, while you might describe it as a ringing blow to the helm that doesn't penetrate. The context of the rest of the paragraph makes that clear with how it directs hit points to be used.
Sure. Whether that's a bad thing or not, and whether the DM can block it, is what we're talking about. Again, I know you're coming at this from a D&D perspective, but to insist that metagaming is always cheating is where I disagree.
I disagree as well, which is probably why I've said over and over again that in MY GAME it's cheating.
Okay. I personally find that such backgrounds are not "better". They may offer an advantage such as more starting money, or maybe an extra skill or language or something similar. But they also often come with related drawbacks....familial obligations, established enemies, expectations of behavior, and so on.
Fair enough. "Better" in the way I was using it was in the context of the money advantage you mentioned, but I can see where that would not be clear and could be read as better overall. Roleplaying wise, a noble can be as fun to play as an urchin, merchant, soldier or whatever, so there would be no "better" in that regard.
I wouldn't say it's an unfair advantage, especially since the players already have the knowledge. Rather, it's a way of reconciling that player/character knowledge discrepancy.
It is an unfair advantage. The creature's difficulty is based on those strengths and weaknesses being an actual challenge. If the players are using their knowledge such that they get to automatically know about the monsters' strengths and weaknesses, those monsters become weaker as challenges and I would have to cut down the XP value of them to compensate.
I have no problem if they know about it through reasonable in game means, though, such as pre-written backgrounds and skills, because those are limited and they will sometimes get the info they need, sometimes fail to get it, and sometimes partially get it. The game accounts for that sort of inconsistent knowledge via skills and such, so that would preserve the challenge value of monsters in general.
I get the distinction you're making, but I don't think it's an unfair advantage so much as having to commit to a background detail at the time of character creation knowing it may never be relevant is more of an unfair disadvantage. Isn't it cooler to have characters whose backgrounds matter? Isn't that better for play?
This is the kind of relevance that many are pointing toward. Sure, the DM can take a background element and incorporate it into the story...I do that all the time. But letting the player introduce it as it comes up ensures that it happens, and that it happens in a way the player would like to see. And it really shouldn't be a hindrance to the DM in any way....so I really don't see the issue.
So no, it's not more of an unfair disadvantage to have the player write a background in advance. The purpose of backgrounds is informational about the PC, not to gain mechanical advantages during game play. Sure, there will be the occasional mechanical advantage such as information about some sort of monster or other, but by and large the background is just fluff. Even when I bring in a portion of it, making that aspect of the background matter and being better for play, it will generally be fluff and carry no mechanical value at all. For example, a player in my game had his PC befriend a hermit. I might one day have that hermit one day track his PC down and ask him to help with some bandits that have taken up residence near the hermit's remote location, making it difficult for him to live.