You know being as &^% isn't good sportsmenship.
If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
You know being as &^% isn't good sportsmenship.
So tell me how your acting out your characters emotion is different of acting out not knowing something?
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Which part of “genuinely feeling” are you either missing or ignoring?
Which part of 'your acting out an emotion' are you ignoring?
"The guy who is pretending to be freaked out, but is really wondering how long he should wait before pretending to guess that fire might work...that guy isn't immersed, he's just acting."
The bolded part I agree with. Except if the player isn't waiting to say they figures it out and they run away to get help/knowledge on how to feat trolls.
Personally I've done the non-bold part of acting as ignorant of a creatures weakness but I've never don't the bold part.
The bolded part I agree with. Except if the player isn't waiting to say they figures it out and they run away to get help/knowledge on how to feat trolls.
Personally I've done the non-bold part of acting as ignorant of a creatures weakness but I've never don't the bold part.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Have you ever, when fighting a monster that you hadn’t encountered before, worried that you were going to TPK because you couldn’t figure out how to kill it? Then when you did figure it out, feel genuine elation/relief? Not acting out elation and relief for others at the table, but literally felt that little jolt of oxytocin inside you?
Imaculata
Hero
Yeah, we are kind of beating an undead horse at this point.
Regardless, I am of two minds on this. On the one hand I understand that it is fun to surprise your players with a monster that has some unexpected abilities. But on the other hand, I strongly dislike it when the knowledge of the players and their characters doesn't line up. I'm fine with players wanting to play out their character as being ignorant on certain things, even if that thing is a particular monster's strength or weakness. But when my players go into a fight, I prefer to allow them to use everything they know as players. That is why in a recent session I did not have my players stumble around blindly, not knowing that Lich's have philacteries. That sort of thing simply isn't an interesting interaction to me. When my players faced a couple of ghosts, I straight up described the effect of weapons versus ghosts to them right away, to get that out of the way as quickly as possible. My players are almost all veterans, and pretending not to know a famous monster's weakness is just not that interesting to them, nor is it to me. But, that doesn't mean I don't occasionally throw them a curveball by having new monsters show up with new abilities. But then of course player and character knowledge line up.
Imaculata
Hero
Trolls, beholders, Lich's, Mindflayers, zombies, mummies, skeletons, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, dragons. The standard D&D rogue's gallery. They are used so often, that most players will be familiar with them and their abilities.
But D&D has tons of monsters, many of which probably don't see a whole lot of use. I prefer to use monsters that my players may not be familiar with, or I alter an existing monster to make it less predictable. And when I do use a classic monster that is well known, I don't make a mystery out of it. This game of guess-the-weakness just isn't very compelling to a whole lot of veteran players and DM's alike.
Similar Threads
- Poll