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

[Aldarc]

You are trying to set this in terms of the DM always saying "yes" or "no," when the reality is that the DM will very rarely be saying "yes" or "no." Circumstances around the PC, his skills, background, etc. will all factor into whether not the PC knows, doesn't know, or might know. For example, if the PC is from the middle of the desert and has spent his whole life there, a thousand miles from the nearest troll, it's pretty certain that he won't have knowledge of trolls based on his background. If he doesn't have some sort of skill or play experience that could give him knowledge of trolls, the DM should rule that he doesn't know about them. On the other hand, if the PC is from a town right next to the Troll Moors, it's going to be certain that he will know about them, regardless of what skills he might have. Unless there is crystal clear information like that, and it won't be that clear the vast majority of the time, the DM will call for a roll since the outcome is uncertain. Calling for a roll is not the DM saying "yes" or "no," so there is no "Mother May I possible." A few occasional instances of "yes" or "no" doesn't come close to rising to the level of "Mother May I."

Of course it is true that these things may have more complexity in praxis at the table. However, this is also a long-winded way of confirming my point about how this makes my character prior knowledge's dependent on DM's permission, creating a sort of Schrödinger's Character Knowledge. And this suspicion is even confirmed by your most recent post:

Perhaps in your other games, but not in D&D. In D&D the DM absolutely has the authority to rule that the PC does not know about trolls.

Translation: "Dungeon Mother, may I know about trolls?"

Monster weaknesses aren't a puzzle to solve. They exist to give the PC an advantage if the PC can find out about them and then take advantage of them.

Puzzles take many different forms.

So now you're claiming that the very definition of metagaming is not metagaming?

There are multiple definitions and senses of metagaming, Max.

And here you are again demonstrating that you do not understand the playstyle. Nobody is forcing a player to alienate himself from his character. There is no alienation at all.

You don't get a say in whether or not this alienates me from my character.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course it is true that these things may have more complexity in praxis at the table. However, this is also a long-winded way of confirming my point about how this makes my character prior knowledge's dependent on DM's permission, creating a sort of Schrödinger's Character Knowledge. And this suspicion is even confirmed by your most recent post: Translation: "Dungeon Mother, may I know about trolls?"

Except not, because as I explained in a prior post, 95% of the time I'm not saying yes or no. I'm going to the dice to determine whether such knowledge is had by the PC. DM permission or denial rarely comes into it, so there is no "Mother May I."

 

[Maxperson]

There are multiple definitions and senses of metagaming, Max.

Which at the very least would include the standard definition that I use, so it's wrong to say that it isn't metagaming.

You don't get a say in whether or not this alienates me from my character.

If it does, then you are playing in the wrong game and should go find one that better suits your needs.

 

[Aldarc]

Except not, because as I explained in a prior post, 95% of the time I'm not saying yes or no. I'm going to the dice to determine whether such knowledge is had by the PC. DM permission or denial rarely comes into it, so there is no "Mother May I."

And that's fine. But regardless of whether or not you are utilizing "or roll the dice," you are nevertheless arguing that the DM can say "no" to player characters knowing about troll weaknesses. I personally dislike how this can degenerate into MMI regardless of whether you are doing MMI or not.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's fine. But regardless of whether or not you are utilizing "or roll the dice," you are nevertheless arguing that the DM can say "no" to player characters knowing about troll weaknesses. I personally dislike how this can degenerate into MMI regardless of whether you are doing MMI or not.

You have the option to play a different game or change the rules and run your D&D game differently.

You say that you don't like how it can degenerate into "Mother May I," but any rule or system can be abused and degenerate into something bad. The ability for a rule or system to be abused doesn't make the non-abusive play bad. If it did, we wouldn't have any RPGs to play.

 

[Aldarc]

Which at the very least would include the standard definition that I use, so it's wrong to say that it isn't metagaming.

Okay. However, I would not say that a player inputing their knowledge of trolls into their characters is metagaming anymore than a player inputting their knowledge about apple pie to thermodynamics in their characters entails metagaming. Trolls are part of the world that the characters inhabit. And if it seems reasonable, then a player should have sufficient autonomy over their character to declare passing knowledge of troll weaknesses. Again, these players also have the same option to roleplay ignorance, if they feel it fits their characters.

Again, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], if you have not done so already, I highly recommend reading Angry DM's article on metagaming which discusses the issue of troll weakness: Dear GMs: Metagaming is YOUR Fault.

There is also this lovely blog post by a different author: Metagaming is Good, which talks about embracing player knowledge of troll weaknesses as an opportunity for players to establish new fiction and characterization surrounding their characters. However, I am sure that your buttocks will clench shut once you read his statement "Realism is boring anyways" in bold.

If it does, then you are playing in the wrong game and should go find one that better suits your needs.

Of course, and many have done so. This is why some people dislike games like Fate. I have to accept that regardless of how immersed my players are in roleplaying their characters using Fate, some people will have their immersion broken by some of its mechanics. And I have seen and experienced players who told me that they felt alienated from their characters due by things like DMs saying "no" to what their character knows or what sort of action declarations they can make upon the fiction. You can call this "jerk DM" behavior all you want, but as you yourself declare for your sense of the game: the GM has authority over what a character can know, so they can delineate character knowledge without player consent or the player's own sense for who their character is, what they know, or what is reasonable.

If the DM have the authority over what a player character knows, can they declare that a PC knows something even if the player believes that their PC shouldn't or doesn't?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Raven loft has a good solution to this problem: make every monster, or st least a great many of them, have individual weaknesses. For example maybe standard vampires can be stalked through the heart and have their heads chopped off, but some might require a particular kind of wood related to their background. That kind of customization gets at the original purpose of things like trolls being vulnerable to fire but prevents knowledge of the monster manual from disrupting the mystery.

 

[Maxperson]

Raven loft has a good solution to this problem: make every monster, or st least a great many of them, have individual weaknesses. For example maybe standard vampires can be stalked through the heart and have their heads chopped off, but some might require a particular kind of wood related to their background. That kind of customization gets at the original purpose of things like trolls being vulnerable to fire but prevents knowledge of the monster manual from disrupting the mystery.

I've never liked doing that. It smacks too much of DM vs. Player to me. Also, it invalidates the skills and backgrounds involving monster lore. Instead of a wizard being able to draw upon his knowledge of arcane lore to find out what the strengths and weaknesses of a Flesh Golem are, now the skill would be useless, because a successful check would just reveal that they are very often different.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've never liked doing that. It smacks too much of DM vs. Player to me. Also, it invalidates the skills and backgrounds involving monster lore. Instead of a wizard being able to draw upon his knowledge of arcane lore to find out what the strengths and weaknesses of a Flesh Golem are, now the skill would be useless, because a successful check would just reveal that they are very often different.

That is fair. But not my cup of tea. Keep in mind the closest we had to skills st the time was NWPs and those were optional (and not assumed to be in play in all campaigns). There were other skill options in the PHB but it was still a very different game from WOTC D&D. Personally I think this works great for horror and mystery adventures. The Van Richten books get deep into this and those are some of my favorite RPG material hands down. Not for everyone. But hopefully we can all see things from different points of view here.

EDIT: Also keep in mind, it wouldn't counter your Arcane Lore. You could still use it, and you'd still know the standard vampire weaknesses, and you would also know that some vampires have unique weaknesses. The whole point is this is great approach if you want a campaign built around hunting monsters (particularly the same kind of monster). Figuring out the weakness of the villain became a pretty important part of Ravenloft. Again not for everyone, but I had a blast playing this way.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. However, I would not say that a player inputing their knowledge of trolls into their characters is metagaming anymore than a player inputting their knowledge about apple pie to thermodynamics in their characters entails metagaming. Trolls are part of the world that the characters inhabit. And if it seems reasonable, then a player should have sufficient autonomy over their character to declare passing knowledge of troll weaknesses. Again, these players also have the same option to roleplay ignorance, if they feel it fits their characters.

The bold portion is the key there. If the PC grew up near the Troll Moors or had an uncle who was a troll hunter, it would be reasonable. If the PC grew up in the middle of a desert, a thousand miles from the nearest troll, it wouldn't be reasonable. For everything in-between an automatic yes or no, it's uncertain and would require a roll.

Again, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], if you have not done so already, I highly recommend reading Angry DM's article on metagaming which discusses the issue of troll weakness: Dear GMs: Metagaming is YOUR Fault.

The few times I've read his stuff, I've disagreed with him on a lot of what he said, so I stopped reading his articles.

There is also this lovely blog post by a different author: Metagaming is Good, which talks about embracing player knowledge of troll weaknesses as an opportunity for players to establish new fiction and characterization surrounding their characters. However, I am sure that your buttocks will clench shut once you read his statement "Realism is boring anyways" in bold.

And I don't see how an article by someone who plays a different playstyle is going to help. If you like the way he plays, you'll agree with him. If you don't, you won't.

If the DM have the authority over what a player character knows, can they declare that a PC knows something even if the player believes that their PC shouldn't or doesn't?

I wouldn't do that. Sometimes when something is common knowledge I will say something to the effect of, "Your character knows X." Sometimes, though, the player will say, "No, I wouldn't know X, because of Y in my background." At that point I have always said, "Ok. You don't know that." The reverse isn't the same, though. If a player says, "My PC would know X, because of Y," then I look at Y and figure out of it's something I flat out agree with, or a roll the dice situation. I can't think of a single instance where the player had a reason for possibly knowing something that ended up an flat out no.