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

[Wolfpack48]

I would ask how prevalent myths and tales of such creatures would be known by the character and by society in general. That might be encapsulated by a general knowledge roll (INTx3?), or by some other kind encapsulated Mythology or Folklore skill. I'd say it's a judgment call based on the setting and backgrounds you are running.

 

[Greg K]

In my campaigns, it would depend if the character is from a region of the setting with trolls nearby.. If so, they would know without a roll. If not, they can acquire the information in play by asking around, or I can set a DC based upon where the character is from, how long they have been in the area etc. (possibly employing 5e's advantage/disadvantage). (Edit: if someone has just arrived in the area, I might not allow a roll at all).

The above assumes the use of Poul Anderson inspired trolls. Normally, trolls in my game are either slightly larger ogres that physically resemble Earthdawn/Shadowrun trolls or they are like trolls in Tolkien.

 

[Oofta]

Duplicate

 

[FrogReaver]

I answered yes because if they don't know to burn a troll then they likely end up as troll food for said troll as they would never have burnt the troll.

(I noticed there was no timeframes in the original question, so not knowing to burn a troll implies they never learn to burn a troll, which implies characters becoming troll food)

 

[Greg K]

Trolls are common enough in my campaign that everyone knows that you need fire. That's true whether the player is a 30 year veteran or only knows trolls from Billy Goats Gruff.

Really, I don't recall the troll in 3 Billy Goats Gruff being defeated by fire. I thought he was defeated by the largest of the billy goats ramming him with its horns.

 

[Yardiff]

Ok, let me amend that...

The problems start when you people start also role-playing other people’s characters, by telling them what their characters know.

Is that better?

But I'll add that what you originally wrote:

has the language/tone of a sentiment commonly expressed by people who think there's only one kind of roleplaying, and it involves pretending to not know stuff. Those people, even if they aren't directly telling other people how to play, are definitely "policing" roleplaying.

You seem to have a very low opinion of other players and that colors what you read in posts.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You seem to have a very low opinion of other players and that colors what you read in posts.

Not sure how you jumped from what I said to the conclusion that I have a low opinion of other players. I do have a rather low opinion of posters who claim that their way of playing is role-playing, with the implication (or sometimes explicit claim) that other ways of playing are not really role-playing.

The language you used was similar to the language those people use. Apologies if I mistakenly assumed you were one of them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Really, I don't recall the troll in 3 Billy Goats Gruff being defeated by fire. I thought he was defeated by the largest of the billy goats ramming him with its horns.

You must have missed the part where he regenerated, came back up onto the bridge, and the goat had to use his Flametongue Horns to defeat him.

 

[cmad1977]

As usual the correct answer is:
Depends.

 

[Greg K]

I think there needs to be a depends choice. As is evident from many answers (including my own), several us believe that various setting considerations (size of the setting, how common are trolls in a region, the region in which a given character is from, etc.) should be taken into account before deciding.

 

[Greg K]

You must have missed the part where he regenerated, came back up onto the bridge, and the goat had to use his Flametongue Horns to defeat him.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think there needs to be a depends choice. As is evident from many answers (including my own), several us believe that various setting considerations (size of the setting, how common are trolls in a region, the region in which a given character is from, etc.) should be taken into account before deciding.

When someone proposes a question with much too simplified answers, the solution is not to beg for more answers, it's to read their question as literally as possible. In this case note that he never put a timeframe on when they acquire their knowledge. So literally they could have already defeated the troll with fire by dumb luck and they would now know fire kills trolls, thus the low level characters knows to burn a troll with fire.

 

[Yardiff]

Not sure how you jumped from what I said to the conclusion that I have a low opinion of other players. I do have a rather low opinion of posters who claim that their way of playing is role-playing, with the implication (or sometimes explicit claim) that other ways of playing are not really role-playing.

The language you used was similar to the language those people use. Apologies if I mistakenly assumed you were one of them.

I'll just drop this since you seem to have a big problem with certain subjects, Role Playing being one of them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'll just drop this since you seem to have a big problem with certain subjects, Role Playing being one of them.

Wow.

A simple, "No, I'm not one of those people. Apology accepted." would have been fine.

But, ok.

 

[Umbran]

... the solution is not to beg for more answers, it's to read their question as literally as possible.

What problem are you trying to solve?

If the question and answers, as posed, seem too simplistic, it would seem the approach best suited to understanding the topic would be to tell the author this, perhaps engage in some conversation about it, and see if they would prefer some more nuanced answers or to clarify the question somewhat.

Just being as literal-minded as possible doesn't tell anyone what the issues might be - at best it passive-aggressively tries to show how the author may be missing a point, but passive-aggression isn't known for its constructive impact.

 

[Oofta]

Really, I don't recall the troll in 3 Billy Goats Gruff being defeated by fire. I thought he was defeated by the largest of the billy goats ramming him with its horns.

I thought everyone knew about the infamous fire goat

 

[FrogReaver]

What problem are you trying to solve?

If the question and answers, as posed, seem too simplistic, it would seem the approach best suited to understanding the topic would be to tell the author this, perhaps engage in some conversation about it, and see if they would prefer some more nuanced answers or to clarify the question somewhat.

Just being as literal-minded as possible doesn't tell anyone what the issues might be - at best it passive-aggressively tries to show how the author may be missing a point, but passive-aggression isn't known for its constructive impact.

Careful. If I said that at best your post was passive aggressive you would kick me from this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No. Unless their background or skills mean they should know.

In my opinion the creators of the Walking Dead had it right. If zombie movies exist then zombies are less scary. We played Curse of Strahd the same way. No characters knew what this blood sucking fiend was, because otherwise their characters are all planning for it.

If the players are mature enough to separate character knowledge from player knowledge I find this method is far more satisfying.

Got nothing to do with maturity, but okay

 

[S'mon]

Careful. If I said that at best your post was passive aggressive you would kick me from this thread.

You should have just passively-aggressively clicked the Laugh button.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, but they're an unreliable source of information often adding their own embellishments to every tale.

Woah that’s an odd take.

Classically, beards are literally the primary source of news and reliably true history and lore in societies that actually have bards. It’s one reason that they held a place of respect in ancient societies.