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

[Aldarc]

Except there is an obvious difference here in that, this is a specific piece of information about a monster in the game that is clearly intended to create a challenge for groups to figure out. The problem with it, is every player knows the solution now. Again, my view is they probably should pull a page from ravenloft if they want to preserve that early feeling we got with trolls by having each troll, or each group of trolls have their own weakness that the players need to figure out.

That's debatable. And regardless of original intent, D&D has developed its own D&Disms as parts of its game culture regarding its in-game assumptions about its settings and its monsters.

So do I have to let my character be turned to stone and die like a chump to figure out that the medusa/gorgon turns people to stone with sight? How many times must I go through that ringer before I can play a character who knows basic legends and folklore of their own setting? If my only contextual answer is having an appropriate backstory or forced to roll, then I think that this leads to a scenario where everyone creates characters who are the multi-generational children of a monster-hunting family just so they don't have to faff around with the prospect of feigning ignorance of trolls.

Assuming we were not pulling something like "our vampires are different," then there is folklore about dealing with vampires. D&D follows many of these same tropes for theirs. Is the challenge about vampires meant to be knowing their vulnerabilities? Or is the actual challenge about preparing for and being able to create the opportunity to actually exploit that knowledge?

I don't think that challenges like trolls, vampires, or medusas should necessarily be about being forced to go through a game of charades where you "pretend ignorance" about it until the DM permits you to know or have your characters figure it out. That's not roleplaying. That's essentially metagaming about not metagaming.

The Troll Vulnerability Mini-Game, IMHO, makes more sense in the context of the resource game in D&D that has been subsequently minimized in importance. You need fire to fight the troll. You don't really have anything apart from your torches to use. Your wizard prepared one Fireball and only one, but if they spend it, then they will not have that spell available for later encounters, which could include other trolls. But in the current context where wizards now commonly have Firebolt as a cantrip to cast at-will and can spontaneously cast a prepared Fireball spell? Yeah, the whole faffing-around with the Troll Vulnerability Mini-Game seems more tedious and pointless now than it was before.

And so it is worth considering that although the monsters are roughly the same in that they exist throughout editions, perhaps how they are used as a challenge should also change?

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's debatable. And regardless of original intent, D&D has developed its own D&Disms as parts of its game culture regarding its in-game assumptions about its settings and its monsters.

So do I have to let my character be turned to stone and die like a chump to figure out that the medusa/gorgon turns people to stone with sight? How many times must I go through that ringer before I can play a character who knows basic legends and folklore of their own setting? If my only contextual answer is having an appropriate backstory or forced to roll, then I think that this leads to a scenario where everyone creates characters who are the multi-generational children of a monster-hunting family just so they don't have to faff around with the prospect of feigning ignorance of trolls.

Assuming we were not pulling something like "our vampires are different," then there is folklore about dealing with vampires. D&D follows many of these same tropes for theirs. Is the challenge about vampires meant to be knowing their vulnerabilities? Or is the actual challenge about preparing for and being able to create the opportunity to actually exploit that knowledge?

I don't think that challenges like trolls, vampires, or medusas should necessarily be about being forced to go through a game of charades where you "pretend ignorance" about it until the DM permits you to know or have your characters figure it out. That's not roleplaying. That's essentially metagaming about not metagaming.

The Troll Vulnerability Mini-Game, IMHO, makes more sense in the context of the resource game in D&D that has been subsequently minimized in importance. You need fire to fight the troll. You don't really have anything apart from your torches to use. Your wizard prepared one Fireball and only one, but if they spend it, then they will not have that spell available for later encounters, which could include other trolls. But in the current context where wizards now commonly have Firebolt as a cantrip to cast at-will and can spontaneously cast a prepared Fireball spell? Yeah, the whole faffing-around with the Troll Vulnerability Mini-Game seems more tedious and pointless now than it was before.

And so it is worth considering that although the monsters are roughly the same in that they exist throughout editions, perhaps how they are used as a challenge should also change?

There are always preferences on these matters. Personally, I just have to say, I don't see the fun of simulating a vampire hunt, nor do I see the fun of knowing monster weaknesses that are something of a secret in the campaign. I can understand if a character class has something like 'know monster weakness' as a feature. That is one thing. But my view is probably closer to Pemerton's on this matter, which is these monsters should be done in the style of Ravenloft in the core game and there should be more variety that is placed in the hands of the GM when it comes to figuring out their weaknesses and solutions to combatting them. I've just seen how these kinds of creatures can go from being amazing bad guys to boring once the players know the solution.

I think calling it the troll vulnerability 'mini-game' really misses the magic of what is going on with these kinds of creatures. It isn't a mini-game. A mini-game, to me, suggests mechanics. Their vulnerability is a feature that can, in the right circumstances, become a whole adventure unto itself. It is a trope, not a mini-game (monster is invulnerable except for X, and the hero has to figure it out or face terrible doom----or run away).

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's debatable. And regardless of original intent, D&D has developed its own D&Disms as parts of its game culture regarding its in-game assumptions about its settings and its monsters.

I think it is pretty obvious what the intent was. Obviously if there is some quote where Gygax says 'no I wanted the players to use knowledge of the monster from the book to defeat it', then sure. But this is something where the content and intent seem to be one thing, and I'd need actually evidence to the contrary to shift my opinion. On the latter point I think you are right. But then, the whole meta game line that Maxperson is defending is another aspect of that evolution as well. Again, there is preference and there is what is in the hobby. I get that in the books they have this vulnerability, most people know it, and there may be a sense of 'why be coy about it?' How you answer that question will likely depend on where you reside when it comes to metagming in or out of character knowledge. My contention though is this whole conversation could be avoided if they just did what I suggested, which is have the vulnerability shift (either by individual trolls, by groups, or by each individual campaign world).

 

[Maxperson]

You've changed your mind on this?

No. You said unique creature. A unique creature is like the Tarrasque. There is only one. That means that when it is seen, it would be visibly unusual enough for someone with knowledge to seek out lore about it in what he has learned. Unlike the Tarrasque, flesh golem with different abilities would most probably not be recognizable as anything other than a normal flesh golem. There would be nothing to trigger any other lore. While there may be only one of them, it does not get the "unique" tag as it is used in D&D. It's still a flesh golem and not something else.

 

[Maxperson]

I think @AbdulAlhazred and @Hussar already responded to this - if my PC can know how to check for traps, etc, because that's "what people know how to do", then s/he can know about trolls because that's "what my uncle taught me as a kid".

I've never checked for traps for real in my life, but I can still check for them. You are just searching for things that are out of the ordinary and indicate that a trap is present, and you get better with practice. It doesn't take metagame knowledge to look for them. Nor is there any guarantee of finding them.

 

[Maxperson]

So do I have to let my character be turned to stone and die like a chump to figure out that the medusa/gorgon turns people to stone with sight?

That's a really bad example since you aren't likely to know it's a medusa without seeing it, unless you were warned by villagers or the like, in which case you could do research, use skills, etc. to know about it in advance. The gorgon at least doesn't turn you to stone when you look at it.

How many times must I go through that ringer before I can play a character who knows basic legends and folklore of their own setting?

0 times. Basic monsters are orcs, goblins and other similar basic monsters with basic legends. Unless there is an in game reason not to let the players know, I just tell them they they see an orc, goblin or whatever basic creature it is. Gorgons and Medusae are not basic monsters. The average person is not very likely to know about them.

If my only contextual answer is having an appropriate backstory or forced to roll, then I think that this leads to a scenario where everyone creates characters who are the multi-generational children of a monster-hunting family just so they don't have to faff around with the prospect of feigning ignorance of trolls.

Sure. If you want to treat D&D as a board game to "win" and not an RPG, then doing this is the way to go. I avoid playing with gamist people, though, so it's not an issue I or my players have.

Assuming we were not pulling something like "our vampires are different," then there is folklore about dealing with vampires.

Folklore very often gets things wrong, as it's just folklore and not based on any solid knowledge. Folkore varied from region to region, often from village to village, about the same creature. If a player wants to rely on folklore, I will come up with some folklore about the creature, assign a chance that any given tidbit is the real deal, and then give the player the folklore about the monster. It might turn out to be useful.

Is the challenge about vampires meant to be knowing their vulnerabilities? Or is the actual challenge about preparing for and being able to create the opportunity to actually exploit that knowledge?

Both.

 

[Aldarc]

That's a really bad example since you aren't likely to know it's a medusa without seeing it, unless you were warned by villagers or the like, in which case you could do research, use skills, etc. to know about it in advance. The gorgon at least doesn't turn you to stone when you look at it.

I meant the classical sense of "gorgon," since Medusa is actually the personal name of a gorgon. I thought that would have been obvious given the and/or slash. :shrug:

0 times. Basic monsters are orcs, goblins and other similar basic monsters with basic legends. Unless there is an in game reason not to let the players know, I just tell them they they see an orc, goblin or whatever basic creature it is. Gorgons and Medusae are not basic monsters. The average person is not very likely to know about them.

That's only how you choose to run it, Max.

Sure. If you want to treat D&D as a board game to "win" and not an RPG, then doing this is the way to go. I avoid playing with gamist people, though, so it's not an issue I or my players have.

Leaving your play preference snobbery aside, this was how RPGs were played before people got into their head notions of acting and voicing characters using silly accents. It's still an RPG. Incidentally, the word "game" exists in "roleplaying game." This is also a part of how OSR plays a number of its games: overcome the challenges.

I think it is pretty obvious what the intent was.

That's your certainly your assumption. It's also worth considering how much of the OSR materials you directed me towards emphasized player-knowledge and wits as the key for overcoming challenges as opposed to character-knowledge and wits.

My contention though is this whole conversation could be avoided if they just did what I suggested, which is have the vulnerability shift (either by individual trolls, by groups, or by each individual campaign world).

That solution just kicks the can down the road and reinvents the problem anew.

 

[Maxperson]

I meant the classical sense of "gorgon," since Medusa is actually the personal name of a gorgon. I thought that would have been obvious given the and/or slash. :shrug:

It wasn't, since both the Medusa and Gorgon are D&D creatures that turn people to stone, so you could have been putting them together with the slash as creatures that turn things to stone.

That's only how you choose to run it, Max.

There's a big difference between common creatures, and rare or very rare creatures. The latter simply aren't going to be common knowledge, and even uncommon creatures won't be known by all. You're arguing that some peasant who has lived his whole life in the middle of a forest is going to have working knowledge of what Solars can do, because folklore.

Leaving your play preference snobbery aside, this was how RPGs were played before people got into their head notions of acting and voicing characters using silly accents. It's still an RPG. Incidentally, the word "game" exists in "roleplaying game." This is also a part of how OSR plays a number of its games: overcome the challenges.

Even Gygax talked about developing personality traits and other aspects of the personae for the characters. He also gave out roleplaying traits for different races, like dwarves being dour and such. It's clear that even as far back as 1e, players were expected to "act" out their character and not just treat the game as a game.

It's also pretty telling that you ignored my comment about how inconsistent and frequently wrong folklore is.

 

[Aldarc]

There's a big difference between common creatures, and rare or very rare creatures. The latter simply aren't going to be common knowledge, and even uncommon creatures won't be known by all. You're arguing that some peasant who has lived his whole life in the middle of a forest is going to have working knowledge of what Solars can do, because folklore.

That's only how you choose to run it, Max.

Even Gygax talked about developing personality traits and other aspects of the personae for the characters. He also gave out roleplaying traits for different races, like dwarves being dour and such. It's clear that even as far back as 1e, players were expected to "act" out their character and not just treat the game as a game.

It's also clear that players were supposed to use their knowledge and wits to overcome challenges to achieve the victory conditions of the game.

It's also pretty telling that you ignored my comment about how inconsistent and frequently wrong folklore is.

You should know better to equate silence with agreement or victory. Please, stop treating conversations as something to be won. The reality is that I don't necessarily want to pursue every single adventure path or plot hook you put forth.

 

[darkbard]

You should know better to equate silence with agreement or victory. Please, stop treating conversations as something to be won. The reality is that I don't necessarily want to pursue every single adventure path or plot hook you put forth.

QFT. This grows tiresome and resembles baiting or bullying more than debate and analysis.