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

[sd_jasper]

You say this like it's a threat of punishment.

But if you want to play a puzzle game, then you need to set puzzles to which the players don't already know the answers. I can't see how that's not obvious.

Punishment? I guess you could call it that. Not obvious? Oh, it is clearly indicated to the players before hand. There is no "ha ha, gotcha!" here. In fact the rules I most recently used explicitly state what skills are needed to identify various monster types.

How do you expect the combat with trolls to unfold if players know that trolls are vulnerable to fire, but you want them to play their PCs as ignorant? Do you expect the player to allow his/her PC to be killed by the trolls, in the name of roleplaying the PC's ignorance? If not, how do you envisage it unfolding.

Well, assuming I am running a game where (1) there are trolls, (2) trolls and their weaknesses are not common knowledge to whatever civilization that the PCs are part of, and (3) the party hasn't previously run into trolls and learned all about them, then...

First, any PCs with the appropriate skill can roll to see if the recognize the troll. If they roll well, then I tell them they know what they are dealing with, what the weaknesses are, etc.

If they fail the skill roll, then I let them know they see "Large green humanoids" that they cannot identify. It is up to the PCs what happens next. I rarely ambush my players, so there is a good chance that if they are running into a new monster, they will have options to avoid or retreat. Maybe they decide to go back to town and research it. But, assuming they have somehow got themselves into a combat situation, then after a few rounds it will be clear that the creature they are battling has incredible regenerative capabilities. What happens then, again depends on the players. I would probably allow the players to say that they try to burn it, because trying fire is a pretty common thing no matter what the actual weakness might be. Or I might give a simple intelligence or perception check, that could give them some clue ("You notice that the creature is shying away from your torch even when it attacks"). Or they might just run away (again to try and research).

I actually had something like this happen in a game a couple of years ago. The PCs did know what trolls were and what could harm them, but they were not prepared but started the fight anyway (they were trying to rescue a comrade who had unwisely started drinking with trolls and passed out). They fought and chopped limbs off the trolls, but they kept reattaching. The group came close to getting the trolls disabled long enough to rescue their friend, but a bit of bad luck and the trolls were recovering quickly while the PCs were not. They ran to lick their wounds (and get some proper gear/spells).

Edit: I wanted to add that I don't think I have ever run a game where trolls are unknown to the players.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sincerely curious on how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would approach it

I wouldn't do anything at that moment. If the player metagames, that would be cheating, even if it saves the party. A win via cheating cheapens the game for all of my players as we are on the same page with regards to metagaming, so the player would be spoken to afterwards and given a first and final about cheating. What I wouldn't do is stop the declared action. It's not my job to to control the PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

How is "metagaming" not a pejorative when "it's a defined act that [you] view as cheating" and has decidedly negative connotations?

My view is not the only way to view it. For many, metagaming works just fine with the definition it has. They don't use a different term. My viewing it as cheating for my game does not change a defined word into a pejorative.

 

[Lanefan]

Value system differences. I believe what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is putting a high value on is inducing a mental state during play which is focused on "thinking like the character", not on achieving goals or narrative, nor anything else particularly. Narrative serves then simply as a medium by which the proper inputs arrive at the players and they can adjust their pretended character mental state and shared understanding of the fictive world they form a part of. Other things are there, gamist considerations, player goals, etc. but only in a secondary place.

Something like that, yes.

At least this is how it looks if idealized, actual play is rarely so clear-cut.

Yup. I speak to ideals here, knowing full well they are often just that: ideals.

I'd note that D&D (even 4e) has an absolute insistence on PC's thought process being entirely free of mechanical constraints. The unspoken assumption being that this is the domain of 'RP' in which it is the player's job/prerogative to model the PC's mental state without constraints. Well, I would note that there ARE some constraints, but they seem, mostly, to be aimed at insuring more consistent modeling. Alignment for instance, ideally, provides a scaffold on which to hang the character's different proclivities and traits (albeit it doesn't necessarily work too well). Alignment change punishments then simply show up as 'sticks' to encourage this consistency.

Well, there'd be some in-character mental constraints - even something as simple as a caster considering what spell to cast next and realizing she's out of 3rd-level slots for the day.

But other than things like that, you're right.

There are also some things like charms and whatnot, but those fall basically into the category of gotchas that are there to act as penalties for lack of skilled play, much like any trap or poison monster, etc.

I'm not so sure these are always penalties for lack of skilled play. Oftentimes they're simply penalties for sheer bad luck: no matter how skilled you've been in reducing the odds of something bad happening, reducing those odds to true zero is a rare achievement.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Something like that, yes.

Yup. I speak to ideals here, knowing full well they are often just that: ideals.

Well, there'd be some in-character mental constraints - even something as simple as a caster considering what spell to cast next and realizing she's out of 3rd-level slots for the day.

But other than things like that, you're right.

I'm not so sure these are always penalties for lack of skilled play. Oftentimes they're simply penalties for sheer bad luck: no matter how skilled you've been in reducing the odds of something bad happening, reducing those odds to true zero is a rare achievement.

True, D&D in its classic form has a habit of being fairly random . And yeah, there are of course mechanical constraints on what you can actually do, like which spells you can remember. I think though that D&D will never have a mechanic like the DM being able to tell you what your character thinks of something, or that they have to change alignment or whatever. Even something like DW's 'Spout Lore' is a bit outside the wheelhouse of classic D&D.

 

[Sadras]

Value system differences. I believe what @Lanefan is putting a high value on is inducing a mental state during play which is focused on "thinking like the character", not on achieving goals or narrative, nor anything else particularly. Narrative serves then simply as a medium by which the proper inputs arrive at the players and they can adjust their pretended character mental state and shared understanding of the fictive world they form a part of. Other things are there, gamist considerations, player goals, etc. but only in a secondary place. At least this is how it looks if idealized, actual play is rarely so clear-cut.
@Aldarc is not really THAT interested in the character mental state and maybe it is simply a part of the general fiction state which conditions how the game proceedes. It may have mechanical constraints and systems associated with it, etc. The content of the fiction and narrative, and the fun derived from "doing cool stuff" (or something) prevails.

Insightful post @AbdulAlhazred, deserving of more than 1XP! This really puts the differing roleplaying styles very much in perspective and why this disconnect exists between the various posters, especially for participants deeply engaged within a particular roleplaying style.

 

[Lanefan]

True, D&D in its classic form has a habit of being fairly random . And yeah, there are of course mechanical constraints on what you can actually do, like which spells you can remember. I think though that D&D will never have a mechanic like the DM being able to tell you what your character thinks of something, or that they have to change alignment or whatever.

The DM can't, but there's certainly items in the game that can forcibly change one's alignment...and were a DM to force one of these onto a character it wouldn't be the first time I've seen it done.

(a long time ago a PC got a bit - well, quite a bit more than a bit - out of hand and was put on trial; on being found guilty part of the sentence was a forced alignment change)

Even something like DW's 'Spout Lore' is a bit outside the wheelhouse of classic D&D.

Is it, though? The descriptions of it I saw further upthread reminded me greatly of the Legend Lore ability of a D&D Bard.

 

[Aldarc]

My view is not the only way to view it. For many, metagaming works just fine with the definition it has. They don't use a different term. My viewing it as cheating for my game does not change a defined word into a pejorative.

This is just a roundabout way of saying that you personally use "metagaming" as a pejorative.

Is it, though? The descriptions of it I saw further upthread reminded me greatly of the Legend Lore ability of a D&D Bard.

Yes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Is it, though? The descriptions of it I saw further upthread reminded me greatly of the Legend Lore ability of a D&D Bard.

Yes.

To expand, Legend Lore was/is just a more powerful way to pierce more closely guarded GM secrets. You're still asking the GM to tell you what's in his notes, which may be "nothing".

Spout Lore obliges the GM to tell you something relevant and useful in accordance with what you ask.

The difference is pretty big in use. Legend lore gets gets at more of the GM's fiction, while Spout Lore obliges the GM to create fiction in accordance with your question.

 

[darkbard]

To expand, Legend Lore was/is just a more powerful way to pierce more closely guarded GM secrets. You're still asking the GM to tell you what's in his notes, which may be "nothing".

Spout Lore obliges the GM to tell you something relevant and useful in accordance with what you ask.

The difference is pretty big in use. Legend lore gets gets at more of the GM's fiction, while Spout Lore obliges the GM to create fiction in accordance with your question.

Right. And this is a huge difference between player-facing and GM-facing games. Exposure to more than one of these categories might help you see this, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].