Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;808083Yeah that's what I mean. A player says "hey let's do X" and then the GM has to read his mind to see if he said it because he knew the info or because he was playing his character that way.

So don't try to read their mind.

Instead as the GM I might ask, "What is it you are trying to accomplish by doing X?" or "Why is your character choosing to do X?"

The answer will often make it clear whether this is a metagame thing or a character thing.

Quote from: Old One Eye;808029That is kind of a campaign setting issue.  Generic D&D-land assumes that critters like orcs and trolls are fairly common.  If your milieu has orcs and trolls as rare as dragons and manticores in our own world, then reliable reports would certainly be circumspect.

See, you're metagaming yourself: you presume that there's a certain density of monsters, and you presume that they all have unitary stats and abilities.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.  Some lions are a lot tougher and more capable than others.  Some humans are a lot flimsier and less capable than others.  I see no reason to presume that ANY foe of ANY kind that an adventurer might encounter always has 20 HP and always does 1d6+1 damage and always has the exact same move, armor protection or anything else.

By the way, since when were we talking about generic orcs-n-trolls?  Changing the goalposts there a little.

Quote from: Bren;808086So don't try to read their mind.

Instead as the GM I might ask, "What is it you are trying to accomplish by doing X?" or "Why is your character choosing to do X?"

The answer will often make it clear whether this is a metagame thing or a character thing.

The problem can start and stop with the player themselves.

I mean, I'm pretty clever and intuitive. I have no way of knowing whether I would have jumped to some correct intuitive insight if I knew nothing about the subject.

People who are TRYING to be honest can often sabotage themselves, because they can shy back from stuff that is based on stuff they know.

When I make up a character I know what they will have knowledge of and what not and based on their Intelligence and Wisdom I will know how to role play out that stuff. It's RP 101.

If I am playing a Barbarian I will know if they used to sit enraptured round the camp fire listening to the warriors' stories about battles and monsters and I will know if they believed that stuff or dismissed it as fantasy. I will know if the wizard spend late nights hunched over a battered copy of Darkmaul's Creatures of the Lower Planes or if he spent the time in the local taverns trying to impress girls with coin magic.

Players know "how much" their PCs know.

Now some players will "cheat" or not care about that stuff. It's the DMs job to get them to care becuase that leads to more immersive and enjoyable games.

Try a Character Quiz at the start of play like we use in Amber.

1. Do you spend your free time
a. Researching arcane Lore
b. Honing your card skills against unsuspecting locals
c. Chasing your next paramour
d. Maintaining your equipment
e. I have no free time all my time is spent entirely focused on worshipping my god in his myriad forms
f. Other , please specify

2. When it comes to Wine do you
a. Drink to excess
b. savour the finest vintatages
c. Prefer hard spirits
d. Prefer warm beer
e. I have no free time all my time is spent entirely focused on worshipping my god in his myriad forms
f. Other, please specify

etc
etc

Within those questions hint at getting the player to think about their view of mythology, folklore, forest craft etc been collecting goblin ears since you were 5, grew up in a city and this is the first time you have ever seen an elf... etc ...

If you establish the benefits of roleplaying and getting more in character then players are more likely to react to your monsters in character. Couple this with good descriptions rather than "you see 2 Hobgoblins" and you will find this issue goes away.

The biggest DM fail of course is when the DM steps in with ooc knowledge and interrupts a player roleplaying. An exampel of that would be when the PC, a low wisdom low intelligence bard with a head full of misremembered folklore about all sorts of stuff explains to the party in detial about how hte only way to kill a troll is to cut of their head but the DM intervenes and actually says that is wrong and you have to burn them. Thsi is obviously a rookie DM issue but I have seen it where DMs get confused between In character and ooc dialogue where the charaismatic PC is convincing the party of an untruth but the  DM for whatever reason, usually lack of self confidence, gets confused thinking the player is trying to use some narative trick to rewrite the monsters stats or whatever.

Quote from: Ravenswing;808087See, you're metagaming yourself: you presume that there's a certain density of monsters, and you presume that they all have unitary stats and abilities.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.  Some lions are a lot tougher and more capable than others.  Some humans are a lot flimsier and less capable than others.  I see no reason to presume that ANY foe of ANY kind that an adventurer might encounter always has 20 HP and always does 1d6+1 damage and always has the exact same move, armor protection or anything else.

By the way, since when were we talking about generic orcs-n-trolls?  Changing the goalposts there a little.

What a bizarre angle you are taking.  I suppose that I agree with you.  Whatever strawman is claiming that all members of whatever fantasy species must be completely identical needs to be encouraged to introduce some variety.  Not sure why that is an important point to make, however.  At least I have never seen anyone game that way.

You seem to like lions as an example critter to talk about more than orcs or trolls.  OK.  Lions are a fine example.  Do you suppose that people who live in an area where lions are a genuine threat to life would know a few things about lion habits, or would they be just as clueless as a zoo-goer like me?

Quote from: Old One Eye;808108You seem to like lions as an example critter to talk about more than orcs or trolls.  OK.  Lions are a fine example.  Do you suppose that people who live in an area where lions are a genuine threat to life would know a few things about lion habits, or would they be just as clueless as a zoo-goer like me?

A great question and the answer of course is it depends on the background.
A guy who grew up in Mombassa might know as much about lions as you, might know a lot less as they maybe never had the money to go to school or the zoo, or might know loads because they travelled out with their family to stay with Uncle Ntirkana every wet season on the Serenghetti, or they might have a whole lot of entirely incorrect knowledge from Grandpa Koyati who pretended he grew up on the grassland and killed a lion when he was 11 but in reality grew up in a mission in Mombassa and has never seen a lion in his life.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808110A great question and the answer of course is it depends on the background.
A guy who grew up in Mombassa might know as much about lions as you, might know a lot less as they maybe never had the money to go to school or the zoo, or might know loads because they travelled out with their family to stay with Uncle Ntirkana every wet season on the Serenghetti, or they might have a whole lot of entirely incorrect knowledge from Grandpa Koyati who pretended he grew up on the grassland and killed a lion when he was 11 but in reality grew up in a mission in Mombassa and has never seen a lion in his life.

Only one of those guys sounds like lions were a genuine threat to his survival.  

Quote from: Old One Eye;808131Only one of those guys sounds like lions were a genuine threat to his survival.  

Yeah but how different is that to a cutpurse that grew up on the streets of Waterdeep, or Kings Landing. Or a Wizard who spent the last 10 years at Hogwarts, or the Citadel or the Unseen University.

Just because there are dangerous monsters 10 miles from where you grew up doesn't mean you need to know shit about any of them.
A guy trained from a kid to be a Pit Fighter in the Ring might not even be aware of the existence of Elves if the Elves have a prohibition about attending Pit fights or whatever.

So you need to think like the character that is what Backgrounds are trying to do. Different PCs perceptions of the same world are going to be as different as any two people's perceptions of our world today are.
Now as you adventure together those perceptions will widen and coalesce as what you know about the wider world will likely be through shared experience. But If after the party's first raid the Barbarian goes out carousing in town and the Battlemaster locates a local sage to explain the ecology of the basilisk they only just managed to escape from then the BattleMaster is the one that should be able to bring in knowledge about the creature the next time they mean one. Good Roleplayers will do that by default, even if it puts their PCs in jeopardy, the same way that a guy with low wisdom is likely to forget to check his supplies or spend time repairing his armour etc.

Quote from: Will;808089People who are TRYING to be honest can often sabotage themselves, because they can shy back from stuff that is based on stuff they know.

That can happen. It's the converse of the too much information problem that mAcular Chaotic asked about.

It gets addressed by the GM providing a base level of knowledge for the PC and the player asking if the level of knowledge is unclear..."Does my character know that gargoyles can only be harmed by magic weapons?" or "My mage is studying to be a demonlogist, what does she know about this demon?"

Quote from: jibbajibba;808104Players know "how much" their PCs know.

That is not my experience.

I'm pretty sure most of those folks know lions can distinguish them from whales, giant bats, alligators, and other animals.

Quote from: Bren;808140That can happen. It's the converse of the too much information problem that mAcular Chaotic asked about.

It gets addressed by the GM providing a base level of knowledge for the PC and the player asking if the level of knowledge is unclear..."Does my character know that gargoyles can only be harmed by magic weapons?" or "My mage is studying to be a demonlogist, what does she know about this demon?"

Yes, but that can be unsatisfying to folks who enjoy figuring things out to any degree.

It can also be addressed by, as other folks have suggested, a combination of 'providing known information' and varying up what creatures are. (This is my favored approach)

So, yeah, most humanoids are big/small intelligent humanoids that can be summed up for the masses easily. Kobolds, small sneaky trap-loving reptilians who love dragons. Goblins, small stabby greenish guys. etc.

It's only the really quirky stuff (like how EXACTLY lycanthropes work, oozes) where knowledge can be tricky. And you can easily swap it up.

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, you want to be as true to the character as possible for immersion of the group (if you care about that). Yet, you have situations that could be deadly and the only way you decide to avoid them is that you know as a player that a monster is a walking can of whoopass.

What do you do then? Go and die for the sake of keeping PC/Player knowledge apart, or do the rational thing as a player? I know some GMs that would be pissed if you did the rational thing.

Quote from: Will;808142I'm pretty sure most of those folks know lions can distinguish them from whales, giant bats, alligators, and other animals.

Lion from a tiger. Lion from a Puma, Puma from a Cougar

Quote from: jibbajibba;808151Lion from a tiger. Lion from a Puma, Puma from a Cougar

Tiger is the stripey one. Lion is the bigger one. Puma is the shoe. Cougar is the big cat.

Quote from: Bren;808152Tiger is the stripey one. Lion is the bigger one. Puma is the shoe. Cougar is the big cat.

Tigers tend to be bigger than lions, but their skeletons are so similar  than trained experts can't tell them apart.
But the question is behaviours, so a lion is a social animal (number appearing 3-12) whereas a tiger is solitary (number appearing 1 or 1+cubs).
A lion will rarely swim whereas a tiger loves a bit of a dip.
Lions hunt, tigers hide and pounce.
Lions are much faster than tigers.
Tigers are smarter than lions.

so that is the equivalent of goblins vs orcs or goblins vs kobolds or whatever.

Cougar vs Puma was obviously a trick question as they are different words for the same thing.

no reason why a guy living in a city making his way as a petty thief or whatever would know any more about goblins or kobolds and in a medieval setting more likely to know a lot less and lots of folklore mixed in too.

So in the fiction think People of Westeros vs dragons or white walkers, or giants. Or the Hobbits of the shire vs everyone else. Or the people of the Union vs the Shanka (blade itself).

Plenty of other examples.