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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You mean the suspense of wondering when you've pretended you don't know long enough and can finally use fire on the troll?

If that is where you draw the line, go for it! This is a game of pretend after all.

This is lazy GMing, though. Instead of actually presenting something new, you're just defining known things as unknown things and demanding your players play along.

Generally less "demanding" and often more "expecting" or even "asking" - for example if you know that one of the players has run this adventure for a different group before.

I hardly think "let's humor the GM so he keeps running for us" is a strong hallmark of maturity.

You're serious? I'd regard that as baseline good manners: The GM is part of the group just as much as the players, and likely a friend as well. "Humouring them", and ensuring they have fun (or if you can't manage that then at least not actively spoiling their, and the rest of the group's fun) is probably the least to aim for.

This certainly looks bad on the GM's side.

Sometimes you don't want to ask a player to sit out of the group for a year or so because they know the campaign, but can't spare the out of game time for a full rewrite for example.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If that is where you draw the line, go for it! This is a game of pretend after all.
Generally less "demanding" and often more "expecting" or even "asking" - for example if you know that one of the players has run this adventure for a different group before.
You're serious? I'd regard that as baseline good manners: The GM is part of the group just as much as the players, and likely a friend as well. "Humouring them", and ensuring they have fun (or if you can't manage that then at least not actively spoiling their, and the rest of the group's fun) is probably the least to aim for.
Sometimes you don't want to ask a player to sit out of the group for a year or so because they know the campaign, but can't spare the out of game time for a full rewrite for example.

Cases where some players have information and are being asked to keep a lid on it for the benefit of the others are an entirely different situation and question. It’s not what’s being discussed here.

 

[TheSword]

This is lazy GMing, though. Instead of actually presenting something new, you're just defining known things as unknown things and demanding your players play along. I hardly think "let's humor the GM so he keeps running for us" is a strong hallmark of maturity. This certainly looks bad on the GM's side.

It’s called a temporary suspension of disbelief. I actively set aside some expectations and go into the experience acting as a person who doesn’t know something. That’s allows the DM to confront me with situations that resonate with classic tropes and I then consider and behave in a way that I believe my character would act based on their experience.

To make it work the DM has to actually work harder because they...

A/ have a responsibility to provide clues and information that enables you to overcome these difficulties.

B/ have to present such a convincing world that it’s worth your while working a little harder to act out the part.

I don’t believe it is lazy DMing.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Cases where some players have information and are being asked to keep a lid on it for the benefit of the others are an entirely different situation and question. It’s not what’s being discussed here.

I think that different people tend to draw the line in different places.

For example I think that practically everyone who has taken part in the poll knows that both fire and acid prevent a troll from regenerating, and many of them think that even fledgling adventurers would know to use fire on a troll.

However I think that considerably less would judge that the fact that acid works as well would be as common knowledge as using fire. Despite they themselves know it would work just as well as fire, many might decide that their characters would not know about acid working as well unless they were alchemically inclined, because fire is considerably more available to the average person.

 

[BookBarbarian]

What gives you the gall...?

Bladders give gall. I mean I didn't read the whole anatomy book, but I skimmed it so I'm pretty sure about this one.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well you could. Except whether a person is mature is a matter of opinion. If they can show enough restraint not to act on their knowledge because they recognize it hasn’t been ‘fairly’ early then I would probably say they are more mature than you give them credit for.

I mean, you can create any unbeatable argument you want if you first invent all the definitions of terms.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s called a temporary suspension of disbelief. I actively set aside some expectations and go into the experience acting as a person who doesn’t know something.

That's... not what temporary suspension of disbelief is. Temporary suspension of disbelief is what lets you pretend that a troll exists in the first place. It's not you deciding to ignore things you know, it's pretending things that you know don't or can't exist do, for a short time, to enjoy the fiction.

That’s allows the DM to confront me with situations that resonate with classic tropes and I then consider and behave in a way that I believe my character would act based on their experience.

I guarantee you that I can present classic tropes without requiring my players to pretend they don't know things. This is a bogus claim -- there are other ways. I say it's lazy DMing because you're just relying on the monster's gimmick being hidden, or forcing players to pretend it's hidden, to create the tension in the scene. I'm saying you should value your players a bit more and do a tad more work. It's not much harder at all:

If you want a fun encounter where players can know about trolls, then set it underwater. Or, have the troll know about itself, and cover itself in armor of wet leaves and mud so that it's immune to fire for X damage. This both prevents requiring players to have to pretend to be dumb, and take actions they know will just harm their characters, all to provide the DM the vicarious thrill of using the monster's gimmick.

To make it work the DM has to actually work harder because they...

A/ have a responsibility to provide clues and information that enables you to overcome these difficulties.

B/ have to present such a convincing world that it’s worth your while working a little harder to act out the part.

I don’t believe it is lazy DMing.

Oh, goodness -- this is what every DM is required to do whether they require players to pretend ignorance of monster gimmicks or if they don't. You can't claim credit for more work for just doing the basic parts of the job.

You're putting the onus of making the encounter work on the players. You're doing this by using a gimmick to make the encounter interesting but requiring the players to pretend they don't know the gimmick so you can use it again. That's lazy. The onus of making the encounter work is on the DM. Do the work. A good start would be to ask yourself, with any encounter, "if I hand the players this statblock, is this encounter still fun?" If the answer is no, you have more work to do.

 

[Imaculata]

I try to get these things out of the way as soon as possible, so me and my players do not have to play this silly game of "does my character know what I know as a player?".

When I had my players fight ghosts, I described to them how they could see a ghost fighting with a city guard. I told them that they could clearly see the guard's blade pass through the ghost most of the time, while the ghost was able to hit the guard with relative ease, as ghostly green flames danced across the blade that the ghost was wielding.

So not only did I inform the pc's how fighting a ghost works, but I also let them know that the ghosts were wielding ghost-touch weapons. With that out of the way, we could now focus on the actual encounter.

 

[billd91]

There's no definitive yes or no. It depends on the campaign and how common trolls are and where PCs are from. From an area where trolls are reasonably common? Yep, you'd know even if you're a low level PC.