Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9753755" data-attributes="member: 7026594">In some of my groups we've made a general practice of more experienced players usually playing older/or more knowledgeable characters, so the greater player knowledge about creatures, or the setting, specifically makes sense.  I've played a dwarf cleric who was the gravelly dad voice of the party (starting age in 3.5 in his 60s), a bold and reckless half-elf who nevertheless had a few decades of life behind him and knew many tales, and I've played young wizards who studied monster lore assiduously before going out adventuring.Some editions gate some amounts of monster knowledge behind skill checks (4E had them defined for just about every monster, IIRC).I can get impatient with a desire for players to "play dumb" and pretend ignorance of the weaknesses or traits of classic creatures.  There's no objective way to determine WHEN it "makes sense" for the PC to try fire against a troll if we're assuming total ignorance.  It's purely subjective.  So bearing that in mind, I tend to be open to letting players use this kind of knowledge and assume it to be known in-character from folklore.If I want monster weaknesses and powers to be mysterious and challenging to figure out, I can make new monsters or just re-skin existing ones.  Doing this I never have to try to police the boundary or judge when the player is using in- or out-of character knowledge.  Obviously as Mixmasta indicated this is a different mater from players reading the adventure during the game, which I agree is bad faith play and a violation of the baseline social contract re: surprise and mystery.</blockquote>

Verification