Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8826003" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Sure they have. I mean, I get that you’re saying that’s not their intentionally creating the scenario in order for metagaming to occur… but it’s unavoidable based on the circumstances, so it’s not really much of a distinction.You had said this:It absolutely is. Use a monster that doesn’t require exploitation of a player-known vulnerability. Don’t use one that does.You are if the selection of a troll is coupled with a GM desire for the players to behave as of their characters don’t know about the fire vulnerability. That’s why I included both those elements in my “equation”.It’s not the selection of the troll alone that is the issue. It’s the selection of the troll combined with the GM’s need for the players to not metagame.I use trolls all the time with no issue. But if I had some need for the players to pretend they don’t know what they know, then I’d choose another monster.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8826003, member: 6785785"] Sure they have. I mean, I get that you’re saying that’s not their intentionally creating the scenario in order for metagaming to occur… but it’s unavoidable based on the circumstances, so it’s not really much of a distinction. You had said this: It absolutely is. Use a monster that doesn’t require exploitation of a player-known vulnerability. Don’t use one that does. You are if the selection of a troll is coupled with a GM desire for the players to behave as of their characters don’t know about the fire vulnerability. That’s why I included both those elements in my “equation”. It’s not the selection of the troll alone that is the issue. It’s the selection of the troll combined with the GM’s need for the players to not metagame. I use trolls all the time with no issue. But if I had some need for the players to pretend they don’t know what they know, then I’d choose another monster. [/QUOTE]

Verification