Well I was going to type a bunch of stuff. But these two posts covered everything I was going to say.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807152This entirely depends on the type of game you've decided to play. In a game like D&D, I prefer to avoid that sort of metagaming (and this is true whether I'm playing 1e or 5e). I have friends who lean in the other direction, and it's more about pitting themselves and their PCs against the DM and their monsters.



When you're talking about monster abilities, tactics, and weaknesses, it is not hard to separate that sort of player knowledge from PC knowledge. It's true that there are definitely cases where it is hard to separate those two, but monster stuff isn't one of those.  Unless you mean "hard" in the sense that it's a tough decision for a player to do that when it means their character might die.



There's no best way, other than the ultimate-always-best-way of discussing with the players & GM what sort of game they are wanting/expecting.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;807146If you want to keep the mystery, there is an easy fix.

Change up a few monsters here and there. Sometimes change them, sometimes don't. Now player knowledge becomes like bits of legends told to their characters that may or may not be true.

Sure, Mountain Trolls are weak to fire, but this is a River Troll, who has such wet skin that its hard to catch them on fire.

Then let them rely on their character's skills to figure out what knowledge is "true" if you want to do that.

If my players aren't throwing their PCs lives away pretending that they don't know that a troll is only hurt by fire and acid then they are cheating...

Quote from: Planet Algol;807194If my players aren't throwing their PCs lives away pretending that they don't know that a troll is only hurt by fire and acid then they are cheating...

That seems a needlessly contentious way to describe your players and their behavior, but I guess as long as you are all having fun playing that way...more power to you.

It sounded more like he was mocking that viewpoint to me.

I vote for 'change things up'.

Even a good player will hit an honest conundrum -- what about being clever and figuring things out?
If the player knows something that their character does not, how can you honestly figure out a monster's abilities or come up with insightful guesses?

I don't think I'd ever be sure, for myself.

Best to be honestly unsure and let people figure out what they can and get 'tales told about this' skill checks.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807231It sounded more like he was mocking that viewpoint to me.

Yeah it did to me too.

But it was such an out-of-the-blue snarky, contentless post in a thread that by and large has been pretty reasonable about admitting that different people like different things in their game that I thought it needed to be mocked in turn. And sometimes the best way to mock dumb sarcasm is to pretend to take it seriously.

You can do both at the same time. If the player characters do not know what orcs are but your players do, vague and creative (even deliberately misleading) description can be pretty handy. The trick is to realize they eventually do know what an Orc is.

Quote from: Bren;807208That seems a needlessly contentious way to describe your players and their behavior, but I guess as long as you are all having fun playing that way...more power to you.

It's a wonder that anyone ever has survived a monster for which they didn't already have the monster manual entry cribbed on the inside if their shield. Imagine what sort of PC bloodbath would take place if a GM dabbled in the dark, forbidden arts of crafting original content.

DEAR GOD WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE PCS?!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;807240You can do both at the same time. If the player characters do not know what orcs are but your players do, vague and creative (even deliberately misleading) description can be pretty handy. The trick is to realize they eventually do know what an Orc is.

This, this right here. It may not be the answer for every occasion. But it is a good start.

Example. Don't say "A troll comes out from underneath the bridge."
Say, "From under the bridge strides out a tall menacing form. Its long sinewy limbs swing back and forth as it appears. Its body wrinkled, warty, and filthy."

I don't find it fun to pretend a lack of knowledge on something like an Orc.  Reskinning is less effective than advertised, because the mechanical core of the creature is the same.

I would rather that experienced players benefit from the time they've put into the game than make them play with one hand tied behind their back every time they roll up a new character.  If they feel necessary, they can come up with an in-game reason.  But I will usually choose ease of play over character concerns.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807249It's a wonder that anyone ever has survived a monster for which they didn't already have the monster manual entry cribbed on the inside if their shield. Imagine what sort of PC bloodbath would take place if a GM dabbled in the dark, forbidden arts of crafting original content.

DEAR GOD WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE PCS?!

Quote from: Ronin;807263Example. Don't say "A troll comes out from underneath the bridge."
Say, "From under the bridge strides out a tall menacing form. Its long sinewy limbs swing back and forth as it appears. Its body wrinkled, warty, and filthy."

The second description is better than the first description in almost every way so no downside to using it. Of course the description won't confuse the players forever, but nothing is perfect.

Quote from: EOTB;807265I don't find it fun to pretend a lack of knowledge on something like an Orc.  Reskinning is less effective than advertised, because the mechanical core of the creature is the same.

I would rather that experienced players benefit from the time they've put into the game than make them play with one hand tied behind their back every time they roll up a new characterA.  If they feel necessary, they can come up with an in-game reason.  But I will usually choose ease of play over character concerns.

Of course you should play games in a way that is fun for you and your group. That being said, an orc is not the best example for when to separate player and PC knowledge. In most D&D worlds orcs are one of the most ubiquitous monsters around so knowing about orcs would be common knowledge for most people, much less most PCs. Would you find it equally unfun to pretend lack of knowledge about something more rare, like say a troll?

Generally speaking, I expect players will metagame to some extent, whether they mean to or not, so I don't really get too bent out of shape about it.

With monsters specifically, I'm happy to rationalize the knowledge as professional adventurers having heard/read stories of how to fight the monsters from various sources and call it a day.

If I want to throw my players off balance, I'll just make up a new monster type rather than forcing them to knowingly imperil their characters. The latter just doesn't seem fun to me.

I lean the opposite direction to most on this thread. I actively tell my players what they're facing and provide extra information about unfamiliar monsters - telling them the things that their characters would know even if the players don't.

I really dislike it the cliché where the peasants talk about "demons" or "monsters" attacking as a way for the DM to keep the players guessing when what they're actually talking about is the goblin tribe that lives a few miles away.

The commoners aren't stupid. They know all about most common humanoid races and have probably met many of them. The goblin tribe isn't a mystery to them. It's the neigbours with which they have an uneasy truce that's often broken by petty banditry or raids from either side.

They might not know all the ins and outs of goblin (or orc, or kobold) society, but they'll recognise them and know basic facts about them. They probably even know the names of some of the less unfriendly members of the local tribe who are willing to trade.

I also assume that PCs are well informed. Unless the monster they're fighting is something that's rare and obscure in the setting, I'm happy for them to have a reasonable (but not complete) idea of what they're like and their strengths and weaknesses. To use the example everyone uses, knowing that you need fire or acid to kill trolls is one of the first things that members of adventuring classes are taught by their mentors as they're being taught the basics of their class. Again, that's something that even the local farmers would know.

The PCs are adventurers, I don't mind it when adventurers have an edge that others don't. Then again, the world is a big place, and not every monster is the same. Sometimes, things adventurers think they know don't apply, or aren't the same.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;807284I lean the opposite direction to most on this thread. I actively tell my players what they're facing and provide extra information about unfamiliar monsters - telling them the things that their characters would know even if the players don't.

I really dislike it the cliché where the peasants talk about "demons" or "monsters" attacking as a way for the DM to keep the players guessing when what they're actually talking about is the goblin tribe that lives a few miles away.

The commoners aren't stupid. They know all about most common humanoid races and have probably met many of them. The goblin tribe isn't a mystery to them. It's the neigbours with which they have an uneasy truce that's often broken by petty banditry or raids from either side.

They might not know all the ins and outs of goblin (or orc, or kobold) society, but they'll recognise them and know basic facts about them. They probably even know the names of some of the less unfriendly members of the local tribe who are willing to trade.

I also assume that PCs are well informed. Unless the monster they're fighting is something that's rare and obscure in the setting, I'm happy for them to have a reasonable (but not complete) idea of what they're like and their strengths and weaknesses. To use the example everyone uses, knowing that you need fire or acid to kill trolls is one of the first things that members of adventuring classes are taught by their mentors as they're being taught the basics of their class. Again, that's something that even the local farmers would know.

Everything beyond your first paragraph is describing how common knowledge in your setting is also known by the characters.  I don't think anybody has said that PCs should not have the same common knowledge as a commoner.

If it's common knowledge that you need fire to fight trolls, then of course the PCs and players know that.  If a monster is rare or completely alien to the area, that's another thing entirely.

Your first paragraph doesn't seem to run in the opposite direction from most in the thread at all.  Again, I don't think anyone is advocating that players can't know what their PCs know.

The question is whether or not the player's knowledge that a lich has phylactery should be something that his 2nd level fighter would know. That's the metagaming issue/question at hand.