|
Going over some Evil-DM-notes about a shiny new campaign, I just thought of something I wanted to share.
Now, even though I change (almost) all the monster stat blocks for the first time a new group of PCs encounters a monster (so they can't say "Oh, a Beholder, watch out for the Anti-magic ray" because I likely changed what the central eye-ray does), it doesn't always stop the occassional metagaming. And I want my Players to gain a real benefit from putting ranks into Knowledge skills.
So, after being bummed out because another DM, my gaming buddy, described a couple imps buzzing around a roadside inn and so, of course, all the Players had problems keeping Player knowledge: They're LE, devils, immune to fire & poison, CR2, etc. separate from PC (failed) Knowledge: They're evil looking, small flying monsters, I thought of a solution.
Instead of describing an imp -- or whatever -- to Players who know what's what, give 'em nothing:
Imp = red skinned, small flying monster
Drow = evil looking humanoid
Gnoll = evil looking humanoid
Beholder = evil looking flying monster
Dragon = big flying reptile, NO, you can't tell what color it is
Marilith = tall, evil, human-like monster
Owlbear = monster
Mind Flayer = evil, wierd-looking monster
See, this way even the really obvious monster can't be handled with metagmame knowledge.
Of course, when the PC makes his free action Knowledge check on his initiative turn, then you say, "Yeah, it's an owlbear."
What'd'ya think?
|
|
Yikes, the point certainly isn't to be vindictive against metagaming. But you're right, I would have to be careful. The point is to avoid those impossible-to-avoid metagame situations -- and I'd have to share that with the Players beforehand.
In the example I used it REALLY sucked that none of the PCs could warn anyone about devils because they had NO IDEA they were imps. ALL the Players knew they were imps and were connecting the dots between the imps and the BBEG, making assumptions on exactly what the BBEG was. (Before then all the PCs had was a name and Class, not Race. After seeing imps the Players were thinking, "Ah, the BBEG wizard is most likely LE, if not an actual devil".) It wasn't fun.
And it is fun to be surprised by a monster.
And it's important (at least in my games) that Knowledge skills have use.
|
|
That claiming they don't have access to information they clearly do such as 'the dragon is RED'....
Yeah, this is tough. I guess "giant flying monster" is better than "reptile" cuz with reptile everyone thinks dragon or wyvern.
But again, it's all about avoiding metagaming.
I remember a few years ago in an editorial in Dungeon Jacobs said he prefered Golems to Dragons cuz no one ever remembers which Golems have which immunities & such whereas EVERYONE knows what "blue" dragon means and it sucks. His advice was for the PCs to be told from a bystander NPC who saw "a dragon" that the darned thing was purple or something so the PCs would remain uncertain.
stuff
Telling me I dont know what color a monster is, really? I don't agree with that. I do understand the metagaming is annoying, but I would just make stuff up, which is probably not much better. I would tell the players up front that using their knowledge will make me modify monsters, maybe on the spot. The might suddenly get more hit points.
They might counter it does not make sense for a monster to suddenly get better. It makes just as much sense as it does for a character with no way to make knowledge checks to know what they are fighting.Ok, now that I have calmed down I would not change monsters instantly, but I will leave it there because I do understand if another DM wants to use the idea. I would change all the monsters ahead of time. Instead of being an imp it would be a akli-imp(does not exist), and it would be different in some way. That way I don't have to say they can't see what is right in from of them, and they have to make knowledge checks if they want to gain any benefits.
Going over some Evil-DM-notes about a shiny new campaign, I just thought of something I wanted to share.
Now, even though I change (almost) all the monster stat blocks for the first time a new group of PCs encounters a monster (so they can't say "Oh, a Beholder, watch out for the Anti-magic ray" because I likely changed what the central eye-ray does), it doesn't always stop the occassional metagaming. And I want my Players to gain a real benefit from putting ranks into Knowledge skills.
I think that in a fantasy world, people would be relatively well aware of the common creatures abilities and defenses. I'd expect kids knowing that red dragons spit fire and that trolls can grow their legs back. My own kids know many D&D creature abilities and they are six, three and three respectively. That'd be part of local folklore, with typically southerny countries knowing more about genies and northern cultures more about hags and giants etc.
I think its up to the DM to have this discussion at first with the players, and to the players to draw the line between general folklore (red dragon breath fire) and mechanical details (the dragon is huge so the breath is a minimum of 12D6 or whatever).
With the degree of activities of adventurers and religious cults, I don't think it's that far stretched to expect PCs to know that devils are resistant to poisons, or that demons have spell-like abilities. To what extent this resistance is, or what exact spell-like ability they have should be subject to some degree of auto-censorship until experienced first-hand, but I don't think players should be absolutely clueless without a full library to back their knowledge check.
'findel
|
|
I would change all the monsters ahead of time.
Yeah, that's what I've been doing for years, now. A cockatrice makes you deaf, not turned to stone, a hobgoblin has SR like a drow, that kind of stuff -- when a PC makes a knowledge check he gets the info.
Telling me I dont know what color a monster is, really? I don't agree with that
Green-boy said the same thing and you're right -- I did change what I'd say in my later post -- "big flying monster" instead of "big flying reptile" so it wouldn't obviously be a dragon (or wyvern).
|
|
common knowledge point
Sure, and there's certainly common knowledge stuff -- different DMs would do dragons, for example, differently.
For the actual game example I used the Players were allowed to guess that the "imps or whatever" were probably devils or something though the Players certainly couldn't be sure and didn't know about the abilities.
Regarding devils and poison being common knowledge -- well, fire immunity sure, but poison. Uh, in 1E devils took Full Damage from poison. So that changes with the edition.
.... Yeah, a conversation with the Players BEFOREHAND is vital. You're right.
|
I've found that the best way to handle it is to use different figs/minis/pogs/whathaveyou instead of the right ones. ;)
So the next time a module calls for an Umber Hulk you plop a troll down on the mat and leave the physical description as-is. But give the monster the stats of an Umber Hulk. ;)
This can get confusing for you though, if you've been gaming for a long time! Every time you see "troll" you need to think "umber hulk".
|
|
...Use Disguise/Illusions/Transmutations...
Absolutely.
But it's just not appropriate every time.
Either the level of the monster or the specific circumstance.
In the case I was describing the PCs were "spying" on the imps -- they were going to an inn and realized "something was up" so peaked in the window and saw the imps buzzing around. Players knew what they were based on the description, PCs (1st level) had no idea.
I'm not a friend of the original suggestion of depriving the players basic information to stop meta-gaming. Much better to talk to them about your concerns concerning meta-gaming.
Or, of course, changing things so they will get a full description but won't get too much information because of that and metagame knowledge:
Imp: you describe a small, horned humanoid-looking thing. But in your game, it could be an imp, could be a quasit, or even some sort of fey.
Drow: Make drow a "condition" that doesn't change the skin or hair colour.
Gnoll: Actually, what will they gain from knowing it's a gnoll? Unless he has a tag with his name and class/level on it, it won't help, really
Beholder: They are really distinctive. But make the race "modular". Let there be lesser, regular and greater beholders, each with different power levels, and make the abilities they have variable.
Get rid of dragon colour-coding. Or shape-coding. They'll find out they're dealing with a "red" dragon when it breathes fire on them.
Marilith: Again, make their abilities more modular, and maybe introduce a "lesser marilith" race.
Owlbear: Again, not too much meta-game knowledge will give them once they know it's an owlbear.
Mind flayer: Reduce them to a race of psionically-inclined creatures with no racial HD (or outstanding racial abilities) and give them back the power via class levels. They'll know that it's an illithid, but not whether they guy is a monk, sorcerer, psion, or what, or whether a halfling child could kill it or whether it could eat Nex for breakfast.
it doesn't always stop the occassional metagaming. And I want my Players to gain a real benefit from putting ranks into Knowledge skills.
What'd'ya think?
Don't accept the metagaming from your players, nor resort to combating it.. rather demand its exclusion from the game. I think you'd find yourself in a better game as a result.
-James
I agree with James here. Simply talk to your players about their metagaming, and assert your DM right to penalize them for their bad gaming habits.
If the problem persists, and they continue to metagame OOC knowledge, maybe halve the XP for any encounter where they obviously metagame their actions.
Bicketty-bam - problem should resolve itself.
Simply talk to your players about their metagaming, and assert your DM right to penalize them for their bad gaming habits.
If the problem persists, and they continue to metagame OOC knowledge, maybe halve the XP for any encounter where they obviously metagame their actions.
Another way to handle this - and of course it depends on the group - is to use positive rather than negative reinforcement. Let the players know that you'll award XP for good, in character roleplaying and avoidance of metagaming. Vocally award XP to those who attempt to avoid metagaming at the end of the session, and bear in mind it can be a difficult habit to break.
Zo
On dragons I would suggest color be available and just then go with a lizard like shape with/without wings that is (size comparision) and mean looking. I would also suggest having other lizard like monsters around so they can't just go "lizard = dragon" -- if you have wyverns, baskilisk, behirs and even dinosaurs all in the area it makes it harder to simply go "dragon".
I'd suggest sitting down before the next session and chatting with the PC's.
The real problem is that its extremely *exceedingly* difficult NOT to metagame some things.
A troll is a troll and you can never again "not know" that fire kills the stupid thing. You can Rp otherwise, you can act otherwise, but you will always /know/.
The best solution isn't to suddenly tell them they can't tell that the elf they see has dark skin- it is to talk to them about metagaming, make them realize what it is (if they don't know) and work through it that way.
-S
I once played in a Ravenloft campaing. Starting at first level, I was the only PC in the team without any kind of silver weapon. However, I was the only one with ranks in the knowledge skill. Metagaming is weak... :\
The real problem is that it's extremely ... difficult NOT to metagame some things.Selgard is right.
I'd suggest not expecting players to suddenly forget such common factoids as "trolls are vulnerable to fire," "werewolves loathe silver" or "a vampire may be kept at bay by a crucifix." Instead, as Laurefindel suggested, make many of these common knowledge or reliable folklore.
This -- folklore is seeped in important information on handling different (common for the area) monsters. Even in "modern" folklore -- after all how many people *know* that the way to handle a zombie is to decapitate it? Or that fire works well on vampires (as does staking them)? Yet if you were to play a "modern" game based on the "real world" and had some of these monsters appear would you hold it against the player for knowing what someone in the modern world knows?
So why hold it against people for whom these things are real and ever present dangers?
I mess with my creatures a lot, too, and I tend to throw in a few homebrew ones as well. I tend to describe creatures by their appearances and let the players make assumptions about what they are. Sometimes you can't avoid describing obvious features that give away a creature's identity, but it doesn't always have to be that easy.
It's hard to get a good look at a creature in a fight. When battles happen suddenly, an attacking creature may be little more than a blur. For example, players being attacked from the air by a hippogriff might be told that they hear an ear-piercing screech as a large flying beast tears into their formation. As actions take place, I use more descriptive terms: I'd probably tell them that it's a quadruped, and maybe that it's wings are feathered. When it attacks, it's with claws and what appears to be a beak; someone might get a hoof in the face.
Some situations are going to be tough, for sure. A drow is a dark-skinned humanoid with white hair and red eyes.. I mean, that sticks out. But it shouldn't always be that easy.
The real problem is that it's extremely ... difficult NOT to metagame some things.Selgard is right.
I'd suggest not expecting players to suddenly forget such common factoids as "trolls are vulnerable to fire," "werewolves loathe silver" or "a vampire may be kept at bay by a crucifix." Instead, as Laurefindel suggested, make many of these common knowledge or reliable folklore.
This -- folklore is seeped in important information on handling different (common for the area) monsters. Even in "modern" folklore -- after all how many people *know* that the way to handle a zombie is to decapitate it? Or that fire works well on vampires (as does staking them)? Yet if you were to play a "modern" game based on the "real world" and had some of these monsters appear would you hold it against the player for knowing what someone in the modern world knows?
So why hold it against people for whom these things are real and ever present dangers?
I doubt enough people will survive a fight against a dragon to live to report weaknesses for it to become common knowledge, assuming they even get to find out what the weakness is before they die. That is how I reason lack of weaknesses of high level monsters anyway.
I doubt enough people will survive a fight against a dragon to live to report weaknesses for it to become common knowledge, assuming they even get to find out what the weakness is before they die. That is how I reason lack of weaknesses of high level monsters anyway.
But not all dragons are old (or big). In fact most aren't -- and you don't have to survive an attack -- you just have to survive a couple of "protection" runs from the dragon to see its strengths (and then have a basic concept of "most creatures that use fire don't like ice" which isn't hard to piece together). Also dragon attacks (and the defeat of dragons) are legendary deeds correct? Such legendary acts are usually the stuff of legends and therefore there are of course legends about such acts -- legends that typically include (possibly in exaggerated detail) how the deal went down. Such things inspire people of course so they get retold -- just like segard's tale gets told even today as does the Oddysseus's (cyclops -- hit the eye) and perseus's (I know my spelling is quite right).
I'm not saying specifics should be known -- but much of the basic stuff is -- well basic. A dragon that breaths fire is probably immune to fire -- and as a point of familiarity with fire type monsters is probably weak against ice.
This is fairly simple logic -- it doesn't mean it's always right of course ("hey it's a white dragon -- use fireball!" "What do you mean it didn't work -- hey that white dragon is breathing fire!" "Oh drats if I had known more about agatha the white I might have realized she was an albino red dragon!" for example).
I doubt enough people will survive a fight against a dragon to live to report weaknesses for it to become common knowledge, assuming they even get to find out what the weakness is before they die. That is how I reason lack of weaknesses of high level monsters anyway.But not all dragons are old (or big). In fact most aren't -- and you don't have to survive an attack -- you just have to survive a couple of "protection" runs from the dragon to see its strengths (and then have a basic concept of "most creatures that use fire don't like ice" which isn't hard to piece together). Also dragon attacks (and the defeat of dragons) are legendary deeds correct? Such legendary acts are usually the stuff of legends and therefore there are of course legends about such acts -- legends that typically include (possibly in exaggerated detail) how the deal went down. Such things inspire people of course so they get retold -- just like segard's tale gets told even today as does the Oddysseus's (cyclops -- hit the eye) and perseus's (I know my spelling is quite right).
I'm not saying specifics should be known -- but much of the basic stuff is -- well basic. A dragon that breaths fire is probably immune to fire -- and as a point of familiarity with fire type monsters is probably weak against ice.
This is fairly simple logic -- it doesn't mean it's always right of course ("hey it's a white dragon -- use fireball!" "What do you mean it didn't work -- hey that white dragon is breathing fire!" "Oh drats if I had known more about agatha the white I might have realized she was an albino red dragon!" for example).
There is no internet or television. Basic knowledge for the player does not mean it is basic for the commoner. I consider it basic knowledge that you can get cash back from a credit card, but people try it everyday where I work, and this is in a world where almost everyone has one.
Elemental damage working with colors may be common to us, but the commoner that has never left he village won't know that. I will admit that common knowledge varies according to the DM though.
I agree the internet doesn't exist in pathfinder. However I would contend it can also be less folklore and more NCIS too.
For example: Village puts out the call for someone to save them from the dragon demanding ransom -- they've seen the dragon and it has done some demostrations just to prove it's point. They know the color -- the basic size of the dragon, that it breaths acid, and tells them to dump the ransom in the old polluted swamp about ten miles from town. From this the party can put together a good idea of what their opponent is just from thinking on the clues provided.
Now I'm not advocating that every character should know Smaug's weak point from legends -- but they probably know that dragons have very hard hides that are nigh impossible to penetrate -- but that hitting the dragon isn't so hard because of its size. They probably know that a dragon's bite, claws, tail and wings can all be used as weapons, that dragons fly, have dangerous breath (if not the specific type), and are magical creatures that can use magic (rather common in most folklore with intelligent dragons -- I could see this part possibly not being as common knowledge). Knowing that a dragon is scary as all get out and that it causes dread in people just by seeing it isn't that much of a stretch either.
Also dragons range in CR from 5~20+... so smaller dragons that have been defeated also provide clues for what the larger dragons *might* be like.
I agree the internet doesn't exist in pathfinder. However I would contend it can also be less folklore and more NCIS too.
This.
Before internet and TV, folklore was recorded in songs which can travel relatively far and wide. however, folklore is factual at best and does not convey detailed precisions, but the essential of the message is usually there. Interestingly, folklore also convey misconceptions as well, which can be fun to play on with the right type of players. Folklore also tends to be somewhat localized, even when the foundation of the "lore" comes from far away. Therefore, some of the original message may be "lost in the translation".
Don't forget that by default, availability to magic is relatively high and literacy almost universal, so one should expect hundred of years worth of archived legend lore and divination results and much more recorded insights from augury and similar spells. That's not even considering the machiavellic scholars who hire "study subjects" and scry on them and other half-mad loremasters, diviners and priest of knowledge gods who devoted their (often magically prolonged) life to built libraries the size of castles. Most of this knowledge will stay in the hands of scholars (resulting of the knowledge skills), but some of it is bound to leak in general knowledge.
'findel
Also dragons range in CR from 5~20+... so smaller dragons that have been defeated also provide clues for what the larger dragons *might* be like.
True so I guess it depends on how many young dragons are out terrorizing people. Even a CR7 monster is too much for many villages, and I guess even young dragons can be vain.
True so I guess it depends on how many young dragons are out terrorizing people. Even a CR7 monster is too much for many villages, and I guess even young dragons can be vain.
Also dragons range in CR from 5~20+... so smaller dragons that have been defeated also provide clues for what the larger dragons *might* be like.
The words "Dragon" and "vain" are pretty much the same thing in my book -- but yeah this is very much "campaign dependent" -- if it's dragon lance at the start of the first book when no one has seen or heard of a dragon in a very very very long time then yeah -- average guy shouldn't really have a chance to know anything but absolute terror. If the monster is brand new to the world then again how could you know anything about it?
Unfortunately familiarity breeds contempt -- so change up the monsters often -- or keep to a theme but vary the actual creatures in the theme (like the above "lizards" motif I suggested with dragons, wyverns, dragonnes, dinosaurs and behirs all in the same area).
A troll is a troll and you can never again "not know" that fire kills the stupid thing.
I know this isn't really the point, but stuff like "trolls die by fire" is something I'd consider general knowledge all over the fantasy world, or at least wherever trolls are around. It's like "you should always look left and right before crossing a road" in our world. Basic safety measures.
Instead of describing an imp -- or whatever -- to Players who know what's what, give 'em nothing:
Imp = red skinned, small flying monster
Drow = evil looking humanoid
Gnoll = evil looking humanoid
Beholder = evil looking flying monster
Dragon = big flying reptile, NO, you can't tell what color it is
Marilith = tall, evil, human-like monster
Owlbear = monster
Mind Flayer = evil, wierd-looking monsterSee, this way even the really obvious monster can't be handled with metagmame knowledge.
Of course, when the PC makes his free action Knowledge check on his initiative turn, then you say, "Yeah, it's an owlbear."
What'd'ya think?
On the Core Coliseum board (on the WotC website), that's how we described monster encounters when the requisite Knowledge skill wasn't available. It worked out okay, although there was still metagaming involved sometimes (e.g. "if it's an EL 3 encounter, then a small flying creature would probably be a X, Y or Z").
well i will give some ideas how i handle this as my players are all 10 year vets (imagine playing with them). usually they all take knowledge's broke out among them so they can combine player and pc knowledge sneakily.
1) dragon are intelligent, if not highly so. while there color will give them away if the party appears to be seasoned adventures the dragon is going to try to get every advantage. he would attack invisiable if its aware of the players and if not, if i was say a red dragon and flying around i would alter self so i would be blue, grey, or mottled to camouflage in the sky. if i was in a forest i would be green etc.
2) Some monsters would be deemed common knowledge depending on the creature. If owlbears are native to the area, or dragons being so fearful everyone knows about them from stories, or trolls common allow OTHER knowledge checks. take the owlbear being kown localy-allow a knowledge local for that player. or if the character has knowledge history or nobility allow them a check to know about red dragons as a famous king once slew one. there is nothing in the rules that say different knowledge checks CAN NOT be used to identify monsters, just that curtain knowledges DO identify curtain monsters.
3) some monsters are intelligent and are well aware of there weaknesses. have rare encounters were the monster has taken measures to protect itself. example, a troll that covets a ring of fire resistance or dens in a moist cave flooded with water and has a quick means to douse itself or even keep him wet at all times.
4) make unique monsters that throw off players. i created a creature called a Slurg that looked almost identical to a troll but did not regenerate and was not vulerable to fire. it was susceptible to cold and had spell resistance. the players to this day could not figure out why the "TROLL" was resistant to all there fire spells! they just failed against its SR lol. plus if its a new monster it perfectly fair to not allow any knowledge be derived from it the first encounter as none is known about it.
5)if your players (after talking with them about meta-gaming) still pursist on metagaming then lowering the XP awarded is perfectly fair. creature have a curtain XP rating that reflects there abilities, if the players constantly avoid its abilities through metagaming then they should not be rewarded for defeating those abilities. XP is a reward it's not a right!
6)if players still persist to metagame then start requiring that upon leveling up they MUST put a point in the knowledge they exploited since there character needs to reflect how the player is playing him.
7) you should never as a DM just say "you see 3 trolls down the cavern". that is just bad dming and setting the players up TO metagame. use decriptors and vivid ones! not just "you see some green scary evil looking creatures". instead use details that descibe what it really looks like " you see 3 large humanoid like creatures. there skin is dark mottled green and looks extremely thick and well muscled. there arms hang low and long like a gorilla and long tusks potrude from there gaping maws with thick tacky spittle running out. there dress in ragged hides and flies buzz about drawn to there heavy stench."
|
|
(Change) things so they will get a full description but won't get too much information because of that and metagame knowledge: ...)
I really like this -- your examples are clearly better than my "off the cuff" examples.
Oh, and for my gnoll, I edited that in after my OP was first posted to show the identical description with the drow.
But you guys know what it's like when you have to describe a beholder to gamers whose PCs are only, say, 5th level and would have absolutely no idea what a beholder's central eye stalk does -- and yet, how can we really prevent metagaming?
|
|
Don't accept the metagaming .... rather demand its exclusion from the game.)
Food for thought -- but, well, I just can't ask an experienced Player to "pretend" he doesn't know not to stand in front of the mind flayer and swing his sword
If, on the other hand, the description of the mind flayer is ambiguous the Player has no problem running his tank up to the aberration on his turn in initiative. Plus I think it would be awesome to see a tank run up to the "monster" on his init and then, when the wizard says what it is (does) on his init -- because he rolled the Knowledge check -- the tank, and more importantly, the Player will freak out. You guys know how hard it is to frighten seasoned Players.
|
The best way to protect yourself from metagame knowledge is to use it against the players. I usually tell my players ahead of time that dragons, for example, are color-coded for the GM's convenience, not for the convenience of the players. I'm not at all averse to making a brown dragon with red dragon stats and granting him vulnerability to fire instead of ice (the idea is that he's constantly in danger of overheating, so cold damage just makes him feel good).
Of course, if the characters make the appropriate knowledge checks, they might still figure it out the easy way.
|
|
If the problem persists, and they continue to metagame OOC knowledge, maybe halve the XP for any encounter where they obviously metagame their actions.
Well, I should be clearer -- this is not a problem in my campaigns because, like I said in the OP and other times over the years on the Boards, here, I've been changing monster stats since the mid '90s.
My gaming buddies and I don't have any kind of bad problems with metagaming.
The example in-game that led me to start this Thread, mentioned briefly earlier, was when I was running a 1st level PC in his second encounter of our first session, the DM describes some imps that we see. Devil campaigns are my favorite as a DM and Player -- I know them well. My PC had absolutely no idea what they were and, of course, I played my PC appropriately -- as did the other Players.
But it got me thinking and so I posted this Thread.
In our game, because the Players had knowledge that the PCs did not, we made the PCs quickly do research to find out, so that at the close of that first session the PCs did indeed know they were imps.
|
|
Basilisk story
LOL
This reminded me of a time a few years ago when I sat in on an RPGA event and our 1st level PCs ran into an Allip. We all screamed and ran away -- we couldn't even hit the incoporeal undead with our not-even-MWK weapons.
The DM running the session didn't know what an Allip was and was baffled why we ran. Alas, that happens sometimes, I guess, when a DM runs an adventure out of a book.
|
Another option: Sean K. Reynolds' "Filing off the Serial Numbers" series. Take your drow, describe them exactly as-is, but use stats for a different monster/race. Keep the main abilities and overall theme the same, but use different statblocks or templates.
Templates and upping the HD are your friends.
This way, they can still use in-game skills to determine abilities, but the meta-game stuff is thrown out the window.
|
|
The real problem is that its extremely *exceedingly* difficult NOT to metagame some things.
A troll is a troll and you can never again "not know" that fire kills the stupid thing. You can Rp otherwise, you can act otherwise, but you will always /know/.
.
..
And thus, an OP is born.
The best solution isn't to suddenly tell them they can't tell that the elf they see has dark skin- it is to talk to them about metagaming, make them realize what it is (if they don't know) and work through it that way.
How 'bout this -- cuz certainly, a good half or so of my examples were ridiculous --
For gnolls and owlbears and drow and such -- "basic" monsters -- the DM just describes the gnoll (or tells it outright). But for some of the more exotic monsters: a beholder, .... a mind flayer, .... a basilisk, the DM could describe it in a generic, ambiguous way so to prevent metagame knowledge until the appropriate Knowledge skill is checked.
Of course, all after the DM has talked with the Players explaining how he will be changing his method of describing some of the monsters.
|
|
Folklore is seeped in important information on handling different (common for the area) monsters.
Yes.
I've always promised my players that, though I change monster stats before campaigns, any monster "ability" that is common knowledge to people who've never even heard of D&D (vampires & sunlight) and the D&D sacred cows (Devils = LE; Demons = Stupid Evil), won't get changed.
.... A cockatrice may make you deaf instead of stoned; a brown mold may be killed by fire instead of ice; a hobgoblin may have racial SR. But a werewolf still gets hurt only by silver.
|
|
I doubt enough people will survive a fight against a dragon to live to report weaknesses for it to become common knowledge, assuming they even get to find out what the weakness is before they die. That is how I reason lack of weaknesses of high level monsters anyway.
Hmmm, I have to respectfully disagree here. A couple things come to mind (one a metagame reason, go figure).
First, over the ages people will pass down lore. How come we know a vampire is killed by a wooden stake even though we never saw a vampire? Few of us even know why that method is succesful (to keep the "vampire" pinned to to the ground, yes?) but we all know it is the way to do it.
Maybe, as a 1st level commoner I never saw a dragon but somewhere down the family tree we learned that blue means lightning and gold means nice.
Also, one doesn't have to survive the dragon to know what color it is. If you live in the neighboring village all you may see is a blue dragon breathing lightning a few miles away -- you're not even being attacked. When you get to the ruined shell of the village and see that there are no survivors you hire some adventures to go kill the dragon and when they return and sell you the loot and impregnate your daughters they confirm that it was blue and it did breathe lightning. And that's a story that will be passed down.
.
.
.
The second reason is a metagame one. Dragons are an integral part of D&D. They're in the name for cryin' out loud. You can't have D&D without dragons just like you can't have Dracula without a vampire. I think that for something that integral to the game -- color's should be common knowledge. (Each DM to his own here, of course.)
.
EDIT: Ah, I see Abraham the Spalding beat me to the punch.
|
|
There is no internet (for common knowledge).
True and I'm sure we all agree that there should be less common knowledge for D&D peasants than what we have today.
Nonetheless, people knew vampires and wooden stakes LONG before the internet . . . . before Stoker's Dracula, even.
How 'bout this for me as DM: common knowledge is that Blues breathe lightning but certainly not that Blues are LE. And only some would know that Blues like desserts.
|
|
A troll is a troll and you can never again "not know" that fire kills the stupid thing.
I know this isn't really the point, but stuff like "trolls die by fire" is something I'd consider general knowledge all over the fantasy world.
It's funny -- this is the one that's been in my mind really for years now. When playing with monster stats for my games, should I treat the troll like the vampire or the beholder -- common knowledge or not.
I've NEVER satisfactorily come to an answer and have actually avoided it by putting trolls against PCs that are high enough in level that it's gotta be common knowledge for them even if it ain't for the average commoner.
And thus I avoid having to deal with whether it's common knowledge that a troll's weakness is fire.
|
|
Instead of describing an imp -- or whatever -- to Players who know what's what, give 'em nothing:
Imp = red skinned, small flying monster
Drow = evil looking humanoid
Gnoll = evil looking humanoid
Beholder = evil looking flying monster
Dragon = big flying reptile, NO, you can't tell what color it is
Marilith = tall, evil, human-like monster
Owlbear = monster
Mind Flayer = evil, wierd-looking monster
On the Core Coliseum board (on the {Sh*t} website), that's how we described monster encounters when the requisite Knowledge skill wasn't available. It worked out okay.
Thanks.
That's kinda the thing I was looking for.
In your opinion as a veteran and mature gamer, do you think this is generally a fair solution? Would your players, for example, probably like the idea of not being told exactly what they were encountering until the Knowledge check was made?
|
|
:
Regarding your
#1, 2, 3 -- Yes, that's how we handle it, too
#4 -- I'm not so big on this but I know lots of DMs love doing it and it is a great way to keep out unwanted metagaming.
#5 -- Yikes, I'm not a big fan of this at all though you're certainly not the only one in this Thread to promote it. For my own game-style, at least, it's not smooth with my shine.