It's only a grey area if it's possible for Jezal to know about trolls. Suppose Jezal grew up in the middle of a desert in a secret oasis where nobody left for fear of discovery. He was the first to get away. Trolls would be unknown in a place like that. There would be zero chance of troll knowledge being available to him. By ruling that he does not know about trolls, no options were removed from the player since that option was never available in the first place.
Sure, a background could possibly specifically exclude such knowledge. It could also specifically allow such knowledge. These are the extremes, and not much use in the discussion.
However, even if a background specifically excludes such knowledge, wouldn't it be possible for the character (from a fictional standpoint) to have a eureka moment where he tries something out of the ordinary, and it works! Such a moment can only be had by a player who is as unfamiliar with the monster as the character is meant to be.
In other words, it is okay to hold a player's additional knowledge against him, but not allow it to benefit him. Doesn't that seem odd?
Absolutely. During those times a roll will happen. That's the rule. Knowledge is a skill. When the results of a skill are uncertain, you get a roll.
Yeah, I can understand the desire to go to a roll....and I've done that in these situations myself, for sure...I'm not so firmly on the "other side" in this.....but the roll will very likely leave you exactly where you started. With a player having to play his character in a way that is being influenced by the player's knowledge.
I know that you say it is easy to play with only the character's knowledge in mind...but I don't know if it's even possible. Because a player who is holding off on using fire until some moment where fire use is deemed appropriate.....his thinking is absolutely influenced by the player's knowledge. You're not getting a "pure" decision from him.
Do you agree with that?
No. If it certain that Jezal has no knowledge of trolls, then Tony never had the option to have that knowledge. It would be no different than my deciding that a wizard could not cast cleric spells. The option was never there, even if Tony does know the names of all the cleric spells and what they do.
It's different. A wizard can't cast divine magic without multi-classing or taking a feat or some other option. Any character can conceivably pick up a burning brand from a firepit and use it to try and harm or scare off a monster. It's not a question of CAN the character do it, but WOULD the character do it?
It really depends on the person. For a lot of us immersion is fun in and of itself. If an encounter is fun or not fun, that's separate from immersion.
Sure, that's my point. If an encounter is immersive, but not fun, then why not waive the requirement of immersion if it somehow increases the fun? Or at least moves things along quicker so that the game can get to something more fun?
Again, though, this is for you, not for everyone. The group I play with values immersion and character above all else. Encounter fun is important, too, but is separate from immersion, so the choice above is a false choice for my group. I really doubt my group is alone in this. Just as I really doubt you are alone in your views and preferences.
Yeah, I understand that. I wouldn't say that either of us are "doing it wrong" as far as the playstyle. What I call into question is your seemingly absolute view on metagaming as cheating, when I feel that metagaming is unavoidable.
For example, you asked why would [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION]'s character grab the firebrand rather than reaching for his sword. You stated that the sword is objectively more damaging than the firebrand. However, how do we know that? Perhaps the firebrand was more readily at hand. Certainly speed would be an important factor in the character's decision of how to react. Determining that the character has time to draw his sword before he's killed, and that the sword does more damage, requires an awareness of the game mechanics....turns, initiative, damage, HP, etc. All of these are present in your decision making. Is that not metagaming?
The character doesn't know that he can survive a bite from such a creature....so why not use what is at hand rather than trying to draw his sword before the thing eats his face?
I dive deep into my character and what he knows, doesn't know, or is uncertain becomes almost second nature to me. I'm just not going to screw up and act on say, trolls being vulnerable to fire when my character is certainly not going to know about it. It will take me less than a second to figure it out, and if the answer is uncertain, I will convey to the DM why I should get a roll. If it is certain, my PC will act or not act on my personal knowledge, depending on which way that certainty went.
I can follow that. So let's say all the players are in the same boat, and none of them tend to rely on fire based spells or attacks....so the chance of stumbling onto the secret is minimal at most.....how do you think things would play out? At what point does the troll die?