spoiling the encounter via metagaming.
- Thread starter krupintupple
- Start date
Ah the old question of Player vs Character knowledge.
Sounds like you're one of the DMs who wants to make the world as mysterious and unknown as possible. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that's not always compatible with players who have been around for a while (and thus basically know all the monsters) and don't like having to "play dumb" because you think their characters shouldn't know something about a monster.
The biggest problem I have with the "ignorant" characters approach to things is that there is a very good argument to be made for the characters actually being more likely to know things than the players, even at low levels. We're talking about people who have made the decision to go out and risk their lives poking around in the dark places of the world. It only makes sense that they would study up and pay attention to information about the more exotic dangers.
If you are dealing with a fairly "standard" D&D world, these creatures have pretty much all been around since the beginning and generations of heroes have battled pretty much everything under the sun. So while everyone might not know everything, stuff like needing silver/magic weapons to penetrate the DR on were creatures should be pretty commonly known.
If it really does bother you that much, the advice about changing descriptions and mixing up some of the features is the best approach. There's an RPG called Champions that does superheroes and rather than have powers like "fireball", "lightning bolt", "Disintegrate" or "Flame Strike", it has "Energy Blast" that you can define as almost any type of attack that you like and put modifiers on for other various effects/characteristics. Which is a good example of how you can recycle the same mechanics with a different descriptions to completely baffle players. Even just a handful of creatures that don't conform exactly to the MM description, can raise enough doubt and uncertainty that even when they do run into a MM standard monster, they'll treat it with the kind of caution and uncertainty that you seem to be looking for.
One other word of warning, if you are getting that sort of reaction from players. You might want to consider carefully your approach to how you try to make things "mysterious" and "surprising". There was a DM for one campaign I was in, who tried to make our first encounter with a zombie feel like a sequence out of a horror novel and it fell flat on it's face (didn't help that it dropped from like two hits from the barb). RPGs are not novels and the same narrative techniques aren't necessarily going to work.
There was a recent thread that also referenced a couple of older threads on horror in a campaign. They would be a good source for other ideas, since really what you have to do is get your players to feel those emotions.
Sounds like you're one of the DMs who wants to make the world as mysterious and unknown as possible. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that's not always compatible with players who have been around for a while (and thus basically know all the monsters) and don't like having to "play dumb" because you think their characters shouldn't know something about a monster.
The biggest problem I have with the "ignorant" characters approach to things is that there is a very good argument to be made for the characters actually being more likely to know things than the players, even at low levels. We're talking about people who have made the decision to go out and risk their lives poking around in the dark places of the world. It only makes sense that they would study up and pay attention to information about the more exotic dangers.
If you are dealing with a fairly "standard" D&D world, these creatures have pretty much all been around since the beginning and generations of heroes have battled pretty much everything under the sun. So while everyone might not know everything, stuff like needing silver/magic weapons to penetrate the DR on were creatures should be pretty commonly known.
If it really does bother you that much, the advice about changing descriptions and mixing up some of the features is the best approach. There's an RPG called Champions that does superheroes and rather than have powers like "fireball", "lightning bolt", "Disintegrate" or "Flame Strike", it has "Energy Blast" that you can define as almost any type of attack that you like and put modifiers on for other various effects/characteristics. Which is a good example of how you can recycle the same mechanics with a different descriptions to completely baffle players. Even just a handful of creatures that don't conform exactly to the MM description, can raise enough doubt and uncertainty that even when they do run into a MM standard monster, they'll treat it with the kind of caution and uncertainty that you seem to be looking for.
One other word of warning, if you are getting that sort of reaction from players. You might want to consider carefully your approach to how you try to make things "mysterious" and "surprising". There was a DM for one campaign I was in, who tried to make our first encounter with a zombie feel like a sequence out of a horror novel and it fell flat on it's face (didn't help that it dropped from like two hits from the barb). RPGs are not novels and the same narrative techniques aren't necessarily going to work.
There was a recent thread that also referenced a couple of older threads on horror in a campaign. They would be a good source for other ideas, since really what you have to do is get your players to feel those emotions.
Goblyn
Explorer
Very similar for me too. Usually when I'm a player I'll ask for an appropriate knowledge check before I start blabbing things but if my character doesn't have the right skill I bite my tongue and hope for the best. In dire situations(ie. the knowledge is likely the difference between standard encounter and TPK) then I'll ask if any other character's have the knowledge skill.
I have a player in my game who is very guilty of this sin. Just about every encounter he blurts out some trait of the monster that theoretically he probably wouldn't know. Sometimes he'll even question my on-the-fly modifications that are designed to counter his blurting. I usually have the monster go after him first if he keeps it up. Especially if the monster can either swallow him whole, poison him, or disintegrate him.
As the DM, I'm guilty of this a bit when I'm a player. More often though, I'm the rules-lawyer type when I'm playing. I don't necessarily argue for the rules in the books, but more for the way we've interpreted them in my own campaign. This goes over fine when one of the guys from my regular group is DMing, but has caused some confusion when I play with other groups.
As the DM, I'm guilty of this a bit when I'm a player. More often though, I'm the rules-lawyer type when I'm playing. I don't necessarily argue for the rules in the books, but more for the way we've interpreted them in my own campaign. This goes over fine when one of the guys from my regular group is DMing, but has caused some confusion when I play with other groups.
Infiniti2000
First Post
I agree with those who said to talk to the whole group, and not just the one player lest others agree with that attitude. That sort of OOC blurting needs to grind to a halt real fast. When I play, I keep the information to myself even when asked, unless my character would know about it (knowledge check or similar method, sometimes the DM let's my PC 'know' things as me given the right story reason). It's just plain more fun that way for everyone. It's why you don't use computer game cheat codes. What the hell's the purpose?
aboyd
Explorer
I'm not a fan of trying to control players with sit-down talks and heavy-handed rules about what can and cannot be spoken at the table. The moment you do that, the game stops being a game and starts being about the amount of power one person has over another. I much prefer the approach many have suggested here. Namely, deliver the unexpected. Use the outbursts to your advantage. If the player claims that the monster can only be hit by silver weapons, immediately give it some DR and switch that up. Never name the monsters. If someone says that a monster isn't following the rules, apologize for their misinterpretation. Also, don't forget that there are lots of monster books out there. Tome of Horrors, etc. Throw the freaky stuff at 'em.
I'm prone to modifying monsters on the fly to counter some player blurting things he shouldn't necessarily know. Nothing screws with the players' heads like a werewolf that doesn't get hurt by silver.
Infiniti2000
First Post
Be careful describing the sit-down talks as "trying to control players." You're either intentionally misleading people reading this thread or you don't understand it. No one's suggesting controlling the player; instead, we're recommending sitting down and discussing the problem like adults with everyone in the group involved (not DM vs player). And make no mistake, it's a big problem.
I strongly disagree with the only other approach suggested, which is way too passive aggressive to me. If the player is too immature to not metagame or, worse yet, not handle a rational, adult-level discussion on the subject, then any passive aggressive approach is far too likely to backfire.
