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

[X13Phantom]

If the GM says it is a troll then they are the ones metagaming, because the statement means they think the players should know what the creature is.

 

[TheSword]

I mean, we can agree there’s no point arguing further, but that’s the best you’ll get. It objectively has nothing to do with maturity.

I’m sorry, that isn’t an objective statement it’s your opinion. In my experience a level of maturity is required to be able to separate what you know from what you should know. Particularly when projecting into a character.

Please note I said maturity not age. Age has nothing to do with it.

 

[cbwjm]

I actually think that in a DnD setting, weaknesses of a lot of monsters would be known. Most would know to use fire against trolls, wooden stakes against a vampire, and silver weapons against werewolves but would they know to use silver against a yeth hound? Probably not, they might not even know what one is, much like I didn't until a minute ago when I was looking at fey creatures.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m sorry, that isn’t an objective statement it’s your opinion. In my experience a level of maturity is required to be able to separate what you know from what you should know. Particularly when projecting into a character.

Please note I said maturity not age. Age has nothing to do with it.

It's odd to see preference equated to maturity...

 

[TheSword]

It's odd to see preference equated to maturity...

There’s no issue with preference. People can choose to roleplay as they like.

I’m saying being able to separate what you can do from what you should do is a sign of maturity. Being unable to restrain yourself is a sign of immaturity.

A mature player may still choose to play or not to play the strict player knowledge/character knowledge divide. They will have a choice. That would be a question of preference and I have no issue with that. They can make that decision though because they are mature.

 

[FrogReaver]

There’s no issue with preference. People can choose to roleplay as they like.

I’m saying being able to separate what you can do from what you should do is a sign of maturity. Being unable to restrain yourself is a sign of immaturity.

A mature player may still choose to play or not to play the strict player knowledge/character knowledge divide. They will have a choice. That would be a question of preference and I have no issue with that. They can make that decision though because they are mature.

I see the issue. You are coming into this discussion with the presumption that a player should separate character knowledge from player knowledge and that to not do so is evidence that they are doing something they shouldn't just because they can (which is a good enough definition of immaturity for this discussion)

I'm saying that's not everyone's preferred playstyle. Since they don't prefer separating character knowledge from player knowledge then they shouldn't do so. Thus, those players aren't doing anything immature. They aren't doing something they shouldn't only because they can. They are in fact doing something they should!

You see the sticking point right?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

As a GM, my answer is:
"It's your character. You tell me whether or not they know to use fire on trolls."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m sorry, that isn’t an objective statement it’s your opinion. In my experience a level of maturity is required to be able to separate what you know from what you should know. Particularly when projecting into a character.

Please note I said maturity not age. Age has nothing to do with it.

I need only to have met people who are immature and perfectly capable and willing to separate player and character knowledge, and the reverse, to objectively prove that it isn’t a matter of maturity.

 

[Umbran]

I made a direct observation. I must have missed the rule that said I'm required to answer your question.

Nobody made even the slightest suggestion that you are required to answer. You made a comment about passive-aggressiveness. I described how I wasn't being so. That's it. There's nothing else there, dude.

You don't want to answer, that's fine. You could even stop responding entirely - that'd be okay too.

 

[Henry]

To me, if a monster is common enough, such a thing SHOULD be known. Perhaps it’s not known everywhere - if, say, trolls are not common in Icewind Dale, it shouldn’t be widely known. Down on the edges of the Trollmoors, the person who DOESN’T know to use fire is probably not long for this world.

This is why the old Pathfinder 1/ 3e knowledge skill checks were useful - even using passive skill checks, a DM could figure out in seconds if such knowledge were at the characters’ recall.

Now, if it’s an obvious correlation - magical cold spells don’t hurt ice elementals or white dragons - I’d allow it without even a knowledge check, as long as the CREATURE were identifiable.