A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there are a a lot of points of difference that can be identified.

Even with the plot-type stuff, does a repeat player with a new PC have to walk his/her PC into the pit? Make the same bad guess at the riddle?

I think Gary would tend to have said 'no' to that notion, either someone who survived the pit tells the tale, or when you arrive at that spot the pit is no longer hidden, or maybe the player describes his new PC as pretty cautious about where he steps! But I don't KNOW, and I would not swear that Gary or Dave was necessarily consistent either, or that they didn't change their minds at some point on such things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think we are in agreement here. I do get that there is an alternative point of view on the matter and it seems to have a lot of currency. But I think with trolls is would be much better to give them some kind of shifting weakness that players can't know just by reading the Monster Manual. Again, I'd point to the Van Richten books because in a lot of ways those were meant to solve this very problem. Ravenloft was basically using them make hunting monsters a viable, regular type of adventure. And that did tend to get dull once players knew how to kill every monster (seriously what player doesn't know about silver and werewolves, phylacteries and liches, stakes and vampires?). Those books totally reinvigorated my ability to run that classic horror campaign of the monster hunter.

This though brings up a line of reasoning which is one of the primary, if not THE primary, one that lead me to consider a more story/narrative/zero myth kind of an approach to most RPGing. There is not much value in gotchas. Running into some monster which has a weakness you cannot possibly know and which can't otherwise be defeated, or running into an almost entirely unanticipatable trap (one simply positioned in the midst of an otherwise unremarkable path where no reason exists to suspect traps in that area) etc. These aren't good challenges. They are just "oh, look, you didn't bring salt, you can't defeat the giant leeches" or "oh, too bad, you got ganked by the poison dart trap in hallway #6". It isn't even an interesting challenge because no challenge existed, you're just now rolling up a new PC just because...

I mean, Tomb of Horrors is fine. It advertises itself as stupid deadly "nobody can survive this" stuff, and then it delivers. Clearly you don't take a single footstep in that dungeon until you've taken serious precautions against the utterly deadly trap which IS THERE in pretty close to all cases! But when the DM puts a deadly trap in some random hallway in "the dwarf ruin" it just doesn't add anything. If you just wanted to convey that the place could be deadly, then show me a rusted out trap filled with its last victim! If you want to telegraph that kobolds have taken root here, then spring some minor annoyance trap on the party that was obviously made by them (heck, it can be detected automatically, it doesn't NEED to go off to do its job).

This inevitably leads by successive steps to the idea that the purpose of the obstacles in the game isn't really to defeat the players or PCs, its to make life interesting, and the best and most interesting stuff is when it directly bears on what the players WANT to do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This though brings up a line of reasoning which is one of the primary, if not THE primary, one that lead me to consider a more story/narrative/zero myth kind of an approach to most RPGing. There is not much value in gotchas. Running into some monster which has a weakness you cannot possibly know and which can't otherwise be defeated, or running into an almost entirely unanticipatable trap (one simply positioned in the midst of an otherwise unremarkable path where no reason exists to suspect traps in that area) etc. These aren't good challenges. They are just "oh, look, you didn't bring salt, you can't defeat the giant leeches" or "oh, too bad, you got ganked by the poison dart trap in hallway #6". It isn't even an interesting challenge because no challenge existed, you're just now rolling up a new PC just because...
.

Except you are framing it too extremely. There is nothing wrong with challenges like monsters that have weaknesses you have to discover. And I think there is place in games for really challenging monsters (who have weaknesses that may be very hard to discover). I think it is fine if you don't like that. But I get a lot of enjoyment from games where there is a risk of dying because I don't figure out how to kill some kind of weird monster. I find that very exciting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This inevitably leads by successive steps to the idea that the purpose of the obstacles in the game isn't really to defeat the players or PCs, its to make life interesting, and the best and most interesting stuff is when it directly bears on what the players WANT to do.

But I don't want this.

 

[Maxperson]

On Competition

So what you're saying here is that in your table's hierarchy of play priorities, (your perception of) "good roleplay" is a higher priority than "competition". To wit, when play at the table puts these two priorities at tension, "competition" becomes subordinate (possibly to the extent of rendering it null) to (your perception of) "good roleplay".

Is that correct? (if its not, I don't know what you're saying here, so I'd appreciate clarification in terms of play priorities and tension).

If that is correct, I don't see how it disagrees with what I wrote at all. I said the following:

a) Competition becoming subordinate (to anything really) challenges the authentic agency of the participants in dictating outcomes as an expression of their competitive interests, which in turn causes this particular moment of play to lose its "competitive integrity" (because competition in this case is a binary thing...just like with an egregiously bad call in sports completely changing the trajectory of play/dictating outcomes and undermining the participant's agency).

b) Do something else so you don't have Competition and (your perception of) "good roleplay" at tension (eg if "Trolls vulnerable to fire" isn't an adventuring zeitgeist that social creatures pass on from town to town to town to town until it becomes a foundational premise for travelers or defenders of the wall or spook stories alike...then change your Trolls to be vulnerable to Cold Iron, Silver, Radiance, et al for this game).

Neither one is subordinate. They influence each other. So the PC not knowing about the troll's weakness and the player roleplaying that lack of knowledge are a part of defining the competition. The PC discovering the troll regeneration and the player reacting to it in character is part the competition defining the roleplay.

So I'm going to frame this in terms of Dungeon World because it does the best work in communicating my meaning.

See the bolded question above. This is the one I'm referring to. Pretend you're a player in Dungeon World and you have to answer that question. Any good Dungeon World End of Session move is going to have each player answering this question as "yes" and then depicting their answer.

Could you depict how you would answer this question if you were a player of an orthodox Troll encounter and you (the player) already knew that Trolls were vulnerable to fire but you've decided that your character did not.

How is discovering that the PC does or does not know about trolls and their weaknesses not discovering something new and important about the game word? The PC is a part of the game world. That discovery sure seems important to me.

In case you need reference, here is an example of an answer for the PCs in one of my past Dungeon World games to that question and the brief game context for how this Discovery emerged in play:

This complication triggered a soft move from me. The PCs were looking to alert the Feywild about a Far Realm incursion into their home realm from the material world. They got their alert, but their alert manifested as the malign presence of the Winter Court and specifically an Eladrin Fey Knight and a noble Bralani. Summer Court vs Winter Court wasn't a thing in this game. After a parley turned nasty because of snowballing move complications (and ultimate failure) between the two Summer Court Elf PCs and the Winter Court, it became a thing (a new Front in DW parlance).

So this move complication created a Discovery...which snowballed into a Front (new source of antagonism) that wasn't a part of the game prior.

That seems pretty cool. Do things have to be so grand in order to count as an important discovery?

 

[Maxperson]

This is all arbitrary, though. The notion that there is some contrast between "unique" and "variant" is barely a rules construct, as opposed to a table convention. It's easy to decide that a creature's vulnerability will be reflected in its appearance or constitution in some form which is evident to those trained in arcane or occult ways.

It's easy to do, but ridiculous to do on a constant basis. Just like constant drama is nonsensical. Constantly having monsters telegraph all of their weaknesses is equally absurd.

What does this mean, though? What is an "unusual" bump on a stone wall or statue? What is an unusual component of a door handle? People aren't born knowing these things.

It's 100% true that people aren't born knowing what is unusual on a wall or statue. By the time they are old enough to adventure, though, they've seen enough walls to know what is normal, and when the examine a wall and see gears through a crack, they're going to know that not a usual part of a wall.

Again, this is just stipulation.

It beats stipulating limited omniscience for PCs and NPCs, such that they know all the strengths and weaknesses about all monsters.

And this is uncalled for.

For many players (me, I suspect [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]), the essence of roleplaying is "inhabiting" one's character, and declaring actions from that position of inhabitation. And the objection to your treatment of troll vulnerability, in the context of a player who already knows what it is, is that it inhibits inhabitation because instead of playing my PC from within, I have to step outside and speculate about what a person who, unlike me, is ignorant of trolls, might do. It is a move from first to third person; a move from sincere inhabititon to alienated authorship.

It's treating the game as a game to make it easier to win the encounter. Also, if you're just going to have the PC know everything you know, because trying to figure out any differences moves you out of first person, you are not really roleplaying a character. You are just roleplaying yourself in that world.

 

[Maxperson]

Except you are framing it too extremely. There is nothing wrong with challenges like monsters that have weaknesses you have to discover. And I think there is place in games for really challenging monsters (who have weaknesses that may be very hard to discover). I think it is fine if you don't like that. But I get a lot of enjoyment from games where there is a risk of dying because I don't figure out how to kill some kind of weird monster. I find that very exciting.

And I will add that there's nothing wrong with a monster that is unbeatable the first time you encounter it. It is also exciting to many players to meet, fight and run away from a new and unbeatable monster. Then after they lick their wounds, they do research about it to find out the way to victory. That is also a very exciting and satisfactory way to have an encounter of this type. It's not for everyone, but then very little ever is.

 

[pemerton]

It's 100% true that people aren't born knowing what is unusual on a wall or statue. By the time they are old enough to adventure, though, they've seen enough walls to know what is normal, and when the examine a wall and see gears through a crack, they're going to know that not a usual part of a wall.

Really? You know this for sure? Even if the PC background is being born and raised in a peasant village, living in mud-and-timber housing?

But you're equally sure that they won't know what a troll's weakness is?

It does baffle me that you cannot see that this is a completely arbitrary way in which to draw lines about what player knowledge a PC is or is not permitted to draw upon.

Constantly having monsters telegraph all of their weaknesses is equally absurd.

<snip>

It beats stipulating limited omniscience for PCs and NPCs, such that they know all the strengths and weaknesses about all monsters.

Why are you assuming that all knowledge checks would succeed?

the PC not knowing about the troll's weakness and the player roleplaying that lack of knowledge are a part of defining the competition.

What is the nature of the competition?

In the first ever encounter with a troll, or yellow mould, or whatever, the players had to solve a puzzle in order to succeed in the encounter. The nature of the competition (or challenge, if one prefers) in that sort of case is pretty obvious.

But what is the competition in your case? The challenge of beating the troll is not the central focus of the encounter, because the player is deliberately choosing to make sub-optimal action declarations.

Is the competition a roleplaying competition? To be judged by whom?

How is discovering that the PC does or does not know about trolls and their weaknesses not discovering something new and important about the game word?

But there is no genuine discovery here. The player already knows about trolls. The player even knows that, if it actually matters, his/her PC will learn about trolls, eventually, one way or another. What is being discovered is how exactly the GM is going to gate that PC knowledge, and what sorts of steps will be required to open the gate.

it's treating the game as a game to make it easier to win the encounter. Also, if you're just going to have the PC know everything you know, because trying to figure out any differences moves you out of first person, you are not really roleplaying a character. You are just roleplaying yourself in that world.

Trying to win a fight to the death in which my PC finds him-/herself is not treating the game as a game. It's playing my character.

What does seem to me to constitute treating the game like a game is declaring stuff I know are suboptimal while hoping to flick the GM "switch" that will allow me to use fire against the troll. That is, trying to identify and play out the right "script", rather than inhabiting my character. It could hardly get more game-playing than that!

 

[Maxperson]

Really? You know this for sure? Even if the PC background is being born and raised in a peasant village, living in mud-and-timber housing?

But you're equally sure that they won't know what a troll's weakness is?

Congrats for finding an edge case exception. Not that it proves anything.

Why are you assuming that all knowledge checks would succeed?

What knowledge checks? If I can have an uncle that knows about monsters that I have knowledge of, I can have an uncle that knows about monsters that I as a player do not have knowledge of and that he has told my PC about. If trying to metagame knowledge in signals to the DM that the players don't want to pretend not to know a weakness, then having an uncle tell you about the new monster signals the DM that the players do not want to lack knowledge of monster weaknesses.

What is the nature of the competition?

In the first ever encounter with a troll, or yellow mould, or whatever, the players had to solve a puzzle in order to succeed in the encounter. The nature of the competition (or challenge, if one prefers) in that sort of case is pretty obvious.

But what is the competition in your case? The challenge of beating the troll is not the central focus of the encounter, because the player is deliberately choosing to make sub-optimal action declarations.

Yes, the challenge is in fact beating the troll. That does not change just because we don't metagame. Nor is the player deliberately making a sub-optimal action declaration. The reality is that the player is making an optimal action declaration for the knowledge his PC has. There's probably nothing sub-optimal going on. I suppose he might be making a sub-optimal declaration based on what his PC knows, but not bringing in metagame knowledge has nothing to do with whether the choice is optimal or not.

But there is no genuine discovery here. The player already knows about trolls. The player even knows that, if it actually matters, his/her PC will learn about trolls, eventually, one way or another. What is being discovered is how exactly the GM is going to gate that PC knowledge, and what sorts of steps will be required to open the gate.

Yes, there 100% is genuine discovery going on. I am discovering what my PC knows or does not know. Prior to the encounter with the troll I did not know the answer. You don't get to rob me of that genuine discovery.

Trying to win a fight to the death in which my PC finds him-/herself is not treating the game as a game. It's playing my character.

What does seem to me to constitute treating the game like a game is declaring stuff I know are suboptimal while hoping to flick the GM "switch" that will allow me to use fire against the troll. That is, trying to identify and play out the right "script", rather than inhabiting my character. It could hardly get more game-playing than that!

By bringing in player knowledge, it's no longer about PC vs. troll, it's player vs. game. It's what you know vs. what the game has in front of you.

 

[pemerton]

Congrats for finding an edge case exception. Not that it proves anything.

How is it an edge case? In a mediaeval campaign few people will have grown up in stone buildings, especially if you treat "advantages" like noble birth and the like as benefits to be rationed by the GM.

And how does it prove anything less than your suggestion, upthread, that a character who grew up in a desert wouldn't know much about trolls? If my example is an edge case, then why is yours not?

My real point is that the notion that there is "natural" or "inevitable" knowledge - like how to find traps in stonework - and then there is "special" knowledge which it wouldn't be reasonable for a starting PC to know - like the vulnerability of trolls to fire - is hopeless. In the actual practice of gameplay, this is all player knowledge - D&D players know, for instance, that traps in stonework figure prominently in the game, either because they've read the books or they've been brutally educated in a 1st level dungeon - and it gets imputed to the player's PC.

Imagine a RPGer whose first game was Classic Traveller. Doors, traps and all the other paraphernalia of D&D dungeoneering play no role in Traveller, and a player could be a first-rate Traveller player but be very unskilled in a D&D game because unfamiliar with the tropes and expectations of dungeon exploration. That wouldn't in any sense make his/her PC unrealistic or unreasonably ignorant!

What knowledge checks? If I can have an uncle that knows about monsters that I have knowledge of, I can have an uncle that knows about monsters that I as a player do not have knowledge of and that he has told my PC about.

I have no idea where you're pulling this from. Self-evidently you're not describing your own opinion of the situation. And you're not describing anything that I, or [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], or [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] has suggested. So whose game, whose play, do you think you're pointing to here.

I'll start with 4e, because that's the version of D&D I know best. In 4e, there are three ways it can become the case that a PC can know something:

(1) The player imputes knowledge;

(2) The GM tells the player something that the PC knows, whether because of ingame situation (eg "You're in a windowless room") or because of background (eg "You remember that, as a child, all the householders in the village would sprinkle salt on the doorstep on the night of the full moon");

(3) The player succeeds at a knowledge check which obliges the GM to tell the player something that the PC knows (in some circumstances a successful ritual may augment or take the place of the check).​

There is no way a player, in 4e, can establish a background element that obliges the GM to tell the player stuff that the GM knows without requiring a knowledge check. That I have an adventuring uncle might be a bit of backstory that explains why I know about trolls. It might also explain why I have training in Dungeoneering. It can't oblige the GM to tell about the weakness or immunities of Gricks if I don't already know, and I don't make a successful Dungeoneering check to gain knowledge about an Aberration.

I suspect that 5e defaults to much the same working as 4e, but will let [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] elaborate if he cares to.

In AD&D or B/X the first two possibilities are there - player imputes knowledge; GM tells the player something - but the third option is much less common because there is no knowledge check system, just spellcasting. But just as in 4e and (I believe) 5e, so in AD&D and B/X there is no way that a player can establish a background that obliges the GM to tell the player stuff, as PC knowledge, that the GM knows but the player doesn't.

In know version of D&D that I'm familiar with can a player, in virtue of a background about his/her adventuring uncle, oblige the GM to provide information about the weaknesses of monsters that the PC encounters.

By bringing in player knowledge, it's no longer about PC vs. troll, it's player vs. game. It's what you know vs. what the game has in front of you.

If trying to metagame knowledge in signals to the DM that the players don't want to pretend not to know a weakness, then having an uncle tell you about the new monster signals the DM that the players do not want to lack knowledge of monster weaknesses.

First point: it's not metagame knowledge if the PC also knows it. Which is what I, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] (at least - maybe other posters also) are positing. You are asserting that the PC doesn't/can't know it, but no one else currently posting in this thread on this topic seems to agree with you.

Second point: if a player signals to the GM that they don't want to pretend to be ignorant of a troll's weakness, why would you possibly infer from that that they want to be informed about weaknesses that they are ignorant of? To me, that doesn't seem a very good reading of human preferences, either in general or in the context of playing a RPG.