Crimson Longinus
Legend
Same than what?
D&D General Why do we color-code Dragons?
- Thread starter Olgar Shiverstone
- Start date
mixmastashizz
Explorer
I was saying that there's effectively no difference between what you called metagaming and saying "you know basic facts about dnd because the basic facts are common knowledge in the setting."
The latter is a waste of time in my opinion to get to the same result
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I mean, if you do not care about the fiction and the mental space of the characters, then I guess, but that seems rather miss the point of roleplaying games.
mixmastashizz
Explorer
I think you're making a pretty large leap.
Would you punish a player for saying "Hey we need fire to kill the troll!" the first time they encounter one in game? How would you even address that? "Your character doesnt know that" "Okay, well I attack using Firebolt anyways"
How about a player who suggests their party not line up when facing a Black Dragon?
The interesting part of the game for me is not the 'gotcha' of how a monster works, its the players overcoming the challenge of facing the creature and demonstrating skill to work together to defeat it.
And that attitude does not conflict with caring about the mental state and feelings of player characters.
Ill just leave it at that, since im not too interested in delving into this further
Last edited:
Crimson Longinus
Legend
It does not, if you ensure that the characters and players are working with the same information, something you inexplicably seemed to oppose.
mixmastashizz
Explorer
Okay ill respond to this one.
Does your attitude on this topic assume that players ARENT working together and ARENT sharing information with each other?
Because thats not a metagaming discussion, thats a social discussion at the table.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
My attitude assumes that characters are making decisions based on information known to the characters, thus if players wish to share actionable information that must happen in-character.
mixmastashizz
Explorer
Then my question is the same:
What is functionally the difference between a player saying to the group "Trolls are weak to fire" and the same player saying "My character shouts 'Trolls are weak to fire'"?
And if you (the DM) deem that is metagaming and think the character shouldnt know that, do you expect them to not act on that info and instead self-limit themselves unoptimally and refuse to cast Firebolt?
Im asking earnestly because to me it seems like a bunch of extra steps
Crimson Longinus
Legend
The latter is roleplaying and the former is not, which I find rather salient distinction whilst attempting to play a roleplaying game.
I would expect the player attempt to make decisions as if their character would not know of the vulnerability. Now of course, fire bolt is a cantrip, and is commonly used against all sort of things that are not particularly susceptible to fire, so using it in this instance too seems pretty natural. But where I assume we might agree, is that trying to make tactical decisions as if you had not the information you actually do have, is not particularly fun, so I would try to avoid such a situation from arising.
Corinnguard
Hero
The difference between a player saying to the group "Trolls are weak to fire" and the same player saying, "My character shouts 'Trolls are weak to fire' is knowledge. If you are an avid D&D player, you are going to own a Monster Manual and will probably have spent a certain amount of time pouring through its' pages, learning what you could about each monster. Its' strengths and weakness. What it can and can't do. So, when your character comes across an actual troll in adventure, you know what it is.
However, you are playing a character who has only heard of myths, rumors and pieces of folklore about trolls. When your character runs up against their first troll, they aren't really going to know which of those things are true and which is hearsay. This is where you as the player have to make a Knowledge check in order to save your character. If you succeed, your character gets to walk away from the encounter, knowing and confirming something they had heard about as true. And then they'll use that knowledge when they have their next Troll encounter.
If you use your Out-of-character knowledge that Trolls are weak to fire, it will certainly help your character and their party survive the encounter. However, the act kind of ruins the narrative your character, the party and the DM are trying to make for everyone's enjoyment. Learning as you go in-character about a Troll's apparent weakness to fire leads to good roleplaying. It's very RL.
