Is it meta-gaming for my character to have a good memory?

[Bigdaddyjug]

There’s a huge discussion over on the 2E rules forum about the changes to Recall Knowledge coming in the remaster, and it made me think of another question in that same vein. I play almost entirely PFS, so I’m asking it here.

So say I play scenario A and in that scenario we encounter a creature, some party member succeeds at a recall knowledge check against it, and we learn that it has a weakness, that said party member shares with the group. Three scenarios later, we engage some more creatures, and again, one of my party members (or me) succeeds at a Recall Knowledge check against the creatures. We find out it’s the same creature I fought 3 scenarios ago, but the player asks for a different piece of information this time, so the weakness I previously learned about isn’t brought up.

Is it meta-gaming for me to say, in character, “Hey! I fought some of these last month! They’re weak to xxxxxx!”

[NielsenE]

I believe in 1e there was a special note taking/monster knowledge boon that allowed inter-scenario tracking of that nature.

In a home game, I wouldn't consider it metagaming, but in PFS2 without some tracking (or having it directly mentioned in the summary) I can see the controversy. We don't know if you successfully recalled knowledge, we don't know if the party saw the special ability/weakness.

[pauljathome]

I think the answer to that is going to depend a lot on
1) Your table and region (regions tend to form consensus on things like this)
2) How weird the knowledge is. Just about everybody is going to be happy with your 5th level character knowing to use bludgeoning weapons on skeletons, less people are going to be happy with your 1st level character knowing that a dretch has a weakness to cold iron
3) How much people trust you (some people get a reputation for metagaming, some get a reputation for going out of their way to NOT metagame)
4) How much the table and especially the GM hate metagaming. Many don't care as long as it is done within limits, some hate any hint of it with a fiery passion

[Azothath]

In PF1e Org Play PCs did not remember scenario to scenario, you need to roll a Knowledge(specific area) check on the monster per scenario and that exact knowledge(area) depends on monster type.
This was because if PCs just know it - what good is the skill?
I say within a scenario as once you do Goblin it's good for that adventure and it is a, Retry? No skill check. I think many GMs would allow another check if a different variant showed up in the next encounter and there are LOTS of variant goblins.
The other mechanic a GM could use within a scenario is an INT check to recall information you've been told/read/discovered.

This is a common area for metagaming.

There were two PF1 Org Play boons that allowed a PC to recall one piece of documented information for about 25 different common monsters. IF they do this again for PF2, please put in 6-10 blank lines for GMs to fill in and sign off on as that will actually represent experience.

All of that was in a previous incarnation, PF2 Org Play is on its own.

Separating what you know from a reasonable estimation of what the Character/Monster/creature knows is part of roleplaying or acting. There's also an inherent advantage and natural tendency (projection) to play the character as a knowledgeable version of yourself. It's why people hated the Technologist Feat. It's also why GMs should not play monsters as tactical geniuses if their Int is 8 with very few skills. Its a glaring sign when your goblins seemed to have gone to a Military Academy. It's the same for the players who are essentially "acting out of character".

[Blake's Tiger]

I know it’s pretty droll to be in your 5th scenario with skeletons and having to wait for someone to RK to use your mace instead of your longsword.

It’s a function of Organized Play that every time your character plays a scenario you need to act like this is your first time playing it because there’s no current way to track what your character has experienced outside of chronicles and boons. If Player Ted shows up at my table and just starts spouting off that his character knows this and that monster’s weakness and/or resistance and/or special attack, I’m going to wonder if they’re just using their player knowledge from reading the Bestiary. Even though I, myself, am annoyed by this function of OP. It can make my character feel so dumb.

[Pirate Rob]

Just remember the Golarion Children's Rhyme

"Smash the skeletons
Slash the Zombies
Blast the Ghosts"

Nobody is saying you have to be stupid and try and pierce the skeletons every time. At least I hope nobody is saying that.

Of course if that horrific monster made of bones with desiccated flesh dripping from its ribs is a bone golem, or a skeleton, or a death demon, an avatar of Urgathoa, or an Orc in a particularly well put together disguise.

It would help if GMs in general were better at describing monsters rather than just automatically referring to them by name. The lack of cool descriptive line in the bestiary for every creature like in previous editions isn't helping though.

As a GM don't be afraid to help with clues in your descriptions for basic things, especially with new players.

Boring example A:

The skeleton attacks with its scimitar 3 times.

More fun example

The stench of the grave wafts from the animate bones that looks to have once belonged to an human. The bones look brittle with no flesh to protect them. With the speed of the dead it makes 3 quick slashes with its scimitar, sweeping its blade around, each strike more forceful than the last.

I haven't specifically mentioned the resistances to piercing or slashing, but I've provided a context clue with my descriptions and even noted the weapon traits. I think that this is all reasonable information for your characters to act on.

Remember, the actual characters should be seeing/hearing/smelling/feeling a lot more than it's possible to describe, so try and be evocative and don't be afraid to pepper in clues.

More examples:

The hulking green giant that smells worse that the scrap of Cayden Calien's loincloth that merchant back in the Grand Bazaar tried to sell you, moves away from the wall of fire, a flicker of primordial fear in their eyes dropping to all fours like a gorilla, planting their massive claws in the ground that look like they could rend a tree in half, and looking over your your goblin wizard, snapping with its massive jaws and ready to take another one if given the opportunity.

(Troll regen turned off by fire, it attacked with a bite, but is also has dangerous claws (w/rend) and has an attack of opportunity.)

A little foreshadowing going a long way, when next round when the troll rises up on its hind legs and goes claw, claw, rend.

[HammerJack]

There is nothing in the PF2 Guide saying "in this campaign, you cannot act on a specific character's previous experience". So we can look at this as a question that isn't Org Play specific, since it's about the general concept of metagaming, not about some campaign rules on the subject.

So, if Bob the Fighter has fought a bunch of zombies in his early adventures and seen the slashing them with his greatsword is a better call than stabbing, and encounters mobile rotting corpses, is it metagaming to Slash them? No, of course not. It's acting in character, based on in-character experience. Same if he says something about how he learned this lesson during his last mission in the Gravelands, for other people's benefit.

If Bob's player were to instead see a Flesh Golem that Bob has never fought, recognize the art used, and assume this rotting corpse won't cut easily and maybe he wants to Power Attack through its Resistance, instead, then the player is metagaming.

[pauljathome]

Pirate Rob wrote:

Nobody is saying you have to be stupid and try and pierce the skeletons every time. At least I hope nobody is saying that.

I think some people in this thread and some GMs ARE saying exactly that.

I think they're very, very wrong

[Super Zero]

Blake's Tiger wrote:

I know it’s pretty droll to be in your 5th scenario with skeletons and having to wait for someone to RK to use your mace instead of your longsword.

Okay, now that is metagaming.

There's a reason skeletons are resistant to piercing and slashing. You can see it.

Metagaming is acting on outside of game information instead of character knowledge. I'd say ignoring information that the character can see qualifies.

Heck, skeletons are one of the monster types--swarms being the other one--where I've specifically called out to new players that, hey I know different games have different levels of specificity/fiddliness about this kind of thing. This is a game where thinking about the best way to attack a certain monster can matter sometimes. Think about whether it would be more effective to smash or stab, here.

[JohannVonUlm]

Seems like everyone is missing something basic. In PFS2 you are given a chronicle which provides a text block reminding you (and any curious GM) of what your character has done. If you have a chronicle that says you fought high lord Muckety Muck and his undead army of pixie skeletons -- you shouldn't have to Recall Knowledge on pixie skeletons again unless there's something mysteriously different. That's not metagaming, that's honoring your character's documented history.

Other evidence it is possible to carry knowledge over from other sessions -- See the Pathfinder Agent class feat Thorough Reports. This gives you a mechanical bonus for retaining that knowledge in a list.

[Tomppa]

The issue isn't, really, "what are skeletons weak against" but rather, "does my character recognize those enemies are skeletons and not some other form of construct/undead/monstrosity" etc. It's just the lack of time/prep/guidance/gm experience in describing things with either their actual names or with descriptions that clearly tell you what they are. Not all boney-things are skeletons. Not all shambling enemies are zombies.

A good example Draugr vs skeleton champion, both being level 2 creatures, with very similar arts, but different weaknesses/resistances.

The issue with "My character has faced these before so I instantly know everything they learned" is that there's no way for the GM to know if your character really succeeded in RK check 6 months ago to learn that the only elemental damage that works is X, or if you as a player just happens to remember the bestiary entry. Additionally, there's a feat in Pathfinder Agent dedication that tells you to keep track of enemies you've identified and gives a bonus to RK checks to identify them in the future and gives you extra information on successfull RK check, so clearly your character isn't supposed to instantly recognize all enemies they've previously fought, but then we get back to the core of the issue: GMs often let players know what they are fighting against without reguiring an RK check because it's easier to say that the zombie brute attacks you, than omitting the name and describing the creature in some other manner.

JohannVonUlm wrote:

you shouldn't have to Recall Knowledge on pixie skeletons again unless there's something mysteriously different.

Except that you do need to RK when you face pixie skeletons again, probably to make sure that they really are pixie skeletons like last time, and not levitating-squirrel-corpse-golems instead. Problem is if the GM just flat out tells you that yeah, these are another swarm of pixie skeletons, in which case... Well, I don't think you need to pretend your character has forgotten that thrown weapons were extra effective against pixie skeletons last time.

tl:dr:
It shouldn't be "Do I really need to roll RK for those skeletons to know bludgeoning works", it's "Aaah! Armors approaching with bones inside! Gotta RK to figure out if they are Animated armors (with bones still inside), or Skeleton champions, or Draugrs, or anatomical model constructs wearing armour, or just Alan dressed up in a halloween costume!"

[RocMeAsmodeus]

As someone who tends to write stuff down a lot, I would often record information that the party learned about monsters. Then in future adventures I would consult the notes. All of my GMs have been fine with it, as Pathfinders are expected to explore, REPORT, and cooperate.

[GM Lamplighter]

Many (most?) Pathfinders went to school. What did we learn from the Three Masters, if not to use cold iron against fey and bludgeoning against skeletons and fire or acid against trolls? You would think that in a Pathfinder Society-based Organized Play campaign, there should be a way to track this. And there could be, at the expense of additional content creation from Paizo and additional paperwork for all players and GMs.

Would it be worth it, just so a player whose character has no knowledge skills can “know” things beyond the rules? No, it would not.

Sure, you should be able to remember stuff (maybe with an Int roll), but it can be hard in the heat of combat to be sure that you’re seeing skeletons and not another undead, or exactly what sort of troll it is. But we don’t model that level of detail in this game. We also don’t model what information you learn from scenario to scenario. We abstract it into a roll to Recall Knowledge, and you roll it every time to figure out what the monster is. It’s a simplification to facilitate game play, and with rotating GMs it’s a necessary one.

It works the way the rules say it works because it’s a game and those are the rules of the game. Any other path leads to madness.

[Corwin Icewolf]

I feel like I show pictures more often than say creature names, then thereafter refer to the monster in a generic way. Eg, If it's undead it's a zombie or skeleton, even if it's not. Most GMs at my lodge do this too. So if someone wants to make an assumption, then I'm okay with that.

[Richard Lowe]

Tomppa wrote:

The issue isn't, really, "what are skeletons weak against" but rather, "does my character recognize those enemies are skeletons and not some other form of construct/undead/monstrosity" etc. It's just the lack of time/prep/guidance/gm experience in describing things with either their actual names or with descriptions that clearly tell you what they are. Not all boney-things are skeletons. Not all shambling enemies are zombies.

A good example Draugr vs skeleton champion, both being level 2 creatures, with very similar arts, but different weaknesses/resistances.

This is absolutely the top take and I really feel people should be considering it strongly as the actual, logical and in game reason for RK on things you've faced before.

As mentioned, a bunch of bones in armour could be 3, or 4, or possibly more different creatures! Is a player welcome to assume it's an armoured skeleton and switch to bludgeoning weapons if they've fought skeletons before and seen how effective they are? Of course! Said player should also not be mad or upset when it turns out they're fighting something with resistance to bludgeoning, which they didn't RK to identify.

I very much think it's important to try and keep actual creature names out of descriptions both so as not to give away exactly what is being faced for free, and also not to mislead people into assuming without actually knowing. It's both more evocative and avoids problems to say "You see what looks like a skeletal corpse, covered in platemail armour." vs "A skeleton champion is in the room." etc.