Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7577079" data-attributes="member: 42582">Moldvay Basic - one of the best-selling and most-played versions of D&D - suggests that a new player should read the monster chapter of the book.Not at all. In fact I posted the exact opposite of that:To elaborate yet further: whereas some versions of D&D direct new players to read the monster section (eg Moldvay Basic) and others are silent on the matter (AD&D, 3E, 4e); and whereas it is a ubiquitious feature of D&D play that one encounters the same monsters in new campaigns, and hence knows the weaknesses despite never having had this particular PC deal with them before; most modules that I'm familiar with have a bit somewhere near the start which says Don't read this if you're going to play it as opposed to GM it.In other words, the assumptions in D&D around knowledge of monsters and knowledge of modules are completely different. I can't believe that this is even remotely controversial.If the relatively unusual situation comes up that this instruction is being violated - eg you are playing Desert of Desolation as a player despite having read it - then the table will have to make some decision about how to handle that, given that it is going directly against the instructions, and the premise about play (ie that players don't know the module) which those instructions are an expression of.(Note also that none of this changes my point that there are other systems (DW) in which this whole issue cannot even arise.)TL;DR EDIT: It's taken for granted in D&D play that the contents of the Monster Manual will be reused by the same people across multiple campaigns, multiple PCs, etc. It's therefore practically inevitable that any given player will experience a situation in play where s/he knows more about a monster's weaknesses that is prima facie likely for his/her PC.The game provides no rules for actually dealing with this, because when the game was invented it was taken for granted that players, being good wargamers, would do what you call "metagaming" without anyone looking for an ingame rationale. [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s suggestion of how to generate an ingame rationale seems as good as any.In contrast, it has never been assumed that the same player would play the same module again, or play a module s/he has GMed. In fact the instructions for most modules direct the opposite: that if you're going to play it then you should make sure not to learn the contents in advance.So if this comes up for a group, that group is going outside the assumed and stated parameters of play. However this is handled, it can't just be assumed to be the same as the ubiquitous, and intended to be ubiquitous, monster case.</blockquote>

Verification