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

[FrogReaver]

Ahh I see the sticking point but it doesn’t need to be one. I don’t believe that using player only knowledge is good or bad. I make no value judgement on the right way to play or not.

Sure sounded like you were before now. But if you are now saying you don't judge it as good or bad I won't argue.

I just think that not using your own knowledge requires restraint which itself requires a certain amount of maturity.

Let's suppose this is true. It still doesn't mean that players who don't use out of character knowledge are immature.

 

[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.

There is more to maturity than restraint. I was capable of restraint by about 9 years old, at the latest. I wasn’t mature by any rational definition until at least 17.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

When I put in Empire Strikes Back for the umpteenth time, I don't have to pretend to be surprised by the revelation that the weird little puppet man is Master Yoda because it's demanded of me by a lazy DM. But I'm still going to enjoy the movie. Novelty is not necessary for entertainment value. If what you're saying is true, people would never rewatch movies, reread books, replay games. Games, particularly, have replay value because even in a repeat scenario you can explore how events unfold differently with different characters and choices.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When I put in Empire Strikes Back for the umpteenth time, I don't have to pretend to be surprised by the revelation that the weird little puppet man is Master Yoda because it's demanded of me by a lazy DM. But I'm still going to enjoy the movie. Novelty is not necessary for entertainment value. If what you're saying is true, people would never rewatch movies, reread books, replay games. Games, particularly, have replay value because even in a repeat scenario you can explore how events unfold differently with different characters and choices.

You've mistaken me. I fully support using trolls. I don't support requiring players to pretend they've never seen them before.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

While true, I think, "kill it with fire" is just a general strategy for most scary situations.

View attachment 114040

True, although our table usually resorts to this...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm not going to expect a player to do the wrong thing 1d6 times before doing what he knows is right. But as DM I don't care about metagaming for the most part or worry about player knowledge vs character knowledge. They are players playing a game, I expect them to use what they know.

 

[Campbell]

I think most creature should be designed so they are still credible threats even if you know their weakness. Just easier than if you don't. Like a troll or vampire should still be one hell of a fight. Part of the challenge can be applying the weakness - making sure the troll does not get a chance to regenerate.

 

[TheSword]

Luckily I don’t need to keep any other people entertained than the players around my table. If they have the maturity to distinguish between what they know and their players know, are able to restrain themselves enough not to use it... and are happy to do so in order to recreate the experience of being a novice adventurer then I’m going to do that from time to time.

They may think that’s lazy. I encourage feedback and they are more than welcome to tell me. I don’t feel the need to ensure every situation is one of a kind and original. Sometimes classics are fun, and don’t need to be reinvented. This isn’t Australian Masterchef. In my opinion continually striving to be completely original is what made the later Paizo APs less engaging than the first half.

As I said, I don’t think the expectation is right for all groups or even all campaigns with the same group. I think it’s a good conceit to try every so often when you’re recreating a certain atmosphere. Particularly a setting out of the ordinary, for instance a modern setting or a horror setting.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You've mistaken me. I fully support using trolls. I don't support requiring players to pretend they've never seen them before.

I'm sorry I mistook you. I still think what you're saying is slightly off, though. We're not talking about players pretending they've never seen trolls before. We're talking about players pretending their characters have never seen trolls before. And D&D is, y'know, a game of pretend, that seems pretty reasonable on its face.

 

[mortwatcher]

I'm sorry I mistook you. I still think what you're saying is slightly off, though. We're not talking about players pretending they've never seen trolls before. We're talking about players pretending their characters have never seen trolls before. And D&D is, y'know, a game of pretend, that seems pretty reasonable on its face.

I've never seen a vampire, but I know how I would deal with one from the many stories I've heard or read
so I would guess it all depends on what your characters hear as stories in the world you play in