D&D General Should a low level character know to burn a troll?

[Nagol]

This is well presented, but it has at the heart of it the assumption that the DM should keep the information about the monster secret as a matter of course. I'm not sure that's entirely warranted, although it is, largely, how the game has been played for quite some time. I'm going to challenge that idea, though.

A quality encounter is one where the players are engaged in the action and make choices that have heft -- that matter and change the fiction. This doesn't happen very well if the DM's running gotchas on the monsters because the players are playing guessing games to figure out the secret or asking for rolls to know things. To me, this represents a failure on the part of the DM to present a complete situation where the characters can act. The DM should have been foreshadowing the threat, and the nature of the threat, in the scene framing or in previous scenes. So long as the DM provides strong avenues to discover the secrets of the encounter, then it becomes a meaningful player choice if they fail to follow up. It's in the keeping of the secret, or gating behind random chance, that this is lost.

So, to make the case for Yes, the DM should endeavor to provide the secret in play such that the players can make decisions with heft. Doing otherwise is just playing gotcha.

I've been doing this for a few years now -- providing lots of info, often for free. There were some growing pains where I felt that I was making encounters too easy, but that passed quickly for two reasons -- one, I stopped building encounters based on the gotcha so that wasn't a problem and b) I found out that I could give my players my notes straight out and they'll still find ways to screw it all up by the numbers.

That assumption is built into the original question. If the information is immediately shared with the players to use as they see fit, the original question is nonsensical.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That assumption is built into the original question. If the information is immediately shared with the players to use as they see fit, the original question is nonsensical.

Okay, so you're saying that the assumption that the information is secret is built into the question. Wouldn't that mean the original question is equally nonsensical because the answer should be no?

 

[Nagol]

Okay, so you're saying that the assumption that the information is secret is built into the question. Wouldn't that mean the original question is equally nonsensical because the answer should be no?

No. The assumption in the original question is the information may be a secret to the PC. Which means it would be a nonsensical question if the DM's technique is to always provide the information (unless of course, he's having second thoughts about his approach).

For the question to have sense, there must be a situation where either answer could be true.

Breaking down the cases where it could be uncertain and how each would adjudicate the uncertainty doesn't introduce the assumption

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. The assumption in the original question is the information may be a secret to the PC. Which means it would be a nonsensical question if the DM's technique is to always provide the information (unless of course, he's having second thoughts about his approach).

For the question to have sense, there must be a situation where either answer could be true.

Breaking down the cases where it could be uncertain and how each would adjudicate the uncertainty doesn't introduce the assumption

You're engaged in special pleading -- you want my position, default yes, to be excluded because of the logic of the question, but you'll adapt the logic to allow your position, which is default no. Default no is just a nonsensical given your argument as default yes, you just prefer it and so are excusing it. Regardless, I'll be happy to discuss the particulars of my argument but have tired of discussing you trying to exclude it from consideration.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You're engaged in special pleading -- you want my position, default yes, to be excluded because of the logic of the question, but you'll adapt the logic to allow your position, which is default no. Default no is just a nonsensical given your argument as default yes, you just prefer it and so are excusing it. Regardless, I'll be happy to discuss the particulars of my argument but have tired of discussing you trying to exclude it from consideration.

And this is why I think the semantics of the original question matter.

 

[akr71]

Ok.

EDIT: Actually, I started to write something longer, then thought "what's the point?" so changed it, but I really find this fascinating so I do want to ask the question:

If your players are genuinely enjoying this process of "re-discovering" the world, or at least of pretending that they are by roleplaying their characters that way, why do you (the DM) need to adjudicate that? Why not just let the players decide what their characters do or do not know? In the example you gave, it sounds like your player both wanted his character to know, and had a good justification for it. Why do you need to make a ruling on whether or not that reason is good enough, and call for a dice roll?

And let me be clear that I don't think you are "doing it wrong." It's just that I personally wouldn't find this approach particularly fun, and I'm genuinely curious why others (because, based on some of the posts here, you're hardly alone in this) do think it's fun.

TL/DR: I have spent a good amount of time DMing for brand new players over the past couple of years. They often don't know what they can or can't do. What their character does or does not know. Asking the player why they would know that sometimes gives them confidence to go into depth with their backstory.

In all honesty, my example was entirely made up. As to why bother adjudicating - that is a very good question that I do not have an answer for. At least not a good one ... Sometimes a player asks a question and I don't have a ready answer, so my first reaction is "Hmm, I'm not sure - roll a [insert skill] check." This is usually designed to give me a few extra seconds to develop a response - even an abysmal roll will get them some information and an excellent roll will get them something a little extra. I think it has just become part of my DMing style - rightly or wrongly.

Let me change things up for a moment and lets say the new party has encountered skeletons for the first time - which is more likely to happen for a green party than trolls. There is no mistaking what is going on - an obviously dead creature is up and walking around swinging a sword, trying to harm the characters. It is fairly likely that one of the party uses a bludgeoning weapon and when they hit with it, it damages more than normally. The adventurers learn than sometimes one type of weapon or damage is more effective than others. By the time that fighting trolls is a fair encounter, fire or acid is highly likely to be part of the regular arsenal, especially if there is an arcane caster around.

 

[Doc_Souark]

To get beck to the original post. Yes it would be general knowledge that burn a Troll. Mostly though formal Adventures, militia etc. "
If a Troll attacks the village Lads BURN IT.

 

[Nagol]

You're engaged in special pleading -- you want my position, default yes, to be excluded because of the logic of the question, but you'll adapt the logic to allow your position, which is default no. Default no is just a nonsensical given your argument as default yes, you just prefer it and so are excusing it. Regardless, I'll be happy to discuss the particulars of my argument but have tired of discussing you trying to exclude it from consideration.

No.

The two trivial cases: always yes and always no need no consideration. If the information is always available the question is meaningless. The answer always being no suffers the same fate.

The question only has any merit if there is a possibility of uncertainty.

Now, if the question were put to a population of games and rephrased such as "Are there game styles such that a low-level PC would or would not know enough to burn a troll and how do the games differ?" then the "always" cases merit contrast and comparison.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No.

The two trivial cases: always yes and always no need no consideration. If the information is always available the question is meaningless. The answer always being no suffers the same fate.

The question only has any merit if there is a possibility of uncertainty.

Now, if the question were put to a population of games and rephrased such as "Are there game styles such that a low-level PC would or would not know enough to burn a troll and how do the games differ?" then the "always" cases merit contrast and comparison.

Ah, so, no, you have no comments on my post other than to continue to argue it should be dismissed out of hand. Since you're not the OP, I find it interesting that you've decided to engage in policing the thread for proper responses rather than discussing things. Does what I posted threaten you that much? That seems odd, I wouldn't expect it to do so.

 

[Umbran]

Does what I posted threaten you that much? That seems odd, I wouldn't expect it to do so.

How about everyone stop making this discussion personal, hm?