Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Edymnion 02-03-05, 09:44 PM	I just played the little demo flash game on the main page: http://www.wizards.com/playdnd/playdnd.asp Cheesy script aside, there is one thing that really rubs me the wrong way. Every time you run into a monster in it, one of the things it tells you to do is to go check the Monster Manual to look up it's stats! I don't know about the rest of you, but at my table, looking up the stats to the monsters in the middle of the game is a great way to get the snot smacked out of ya. Thats a HORRIBLE thing to be telling new players to do. I mean, why don't they just tell you to look at the DM's notes to see whats coming next while it's at it?
HomebrewedMonster 02-03-05, 10:03 PM	I agree with the downfall of metagaming, no one should be telling new players to go look up the orc's stats so it knows if it has a low will save.
Darth K'Trava 02-03-05, 10:03 PM	Having not seen this "demo", are you sure it's aimed at the player and not the DM? I'd get the smackdown too if I looked in a MM for a monster. Unless it was something my character summoned. And then I'd get him to open it to that page and I'd copy down what I need. And give the book back.
thewaka 02-03-05, 10:32 PM	The way it is presented doesn't make it clear that this is just for the demo and not appropriate for real play. It should be changed.
Edymnion 02-03-05, 11:03 PM	The way it is presented doesn't make it clear that this is just for the demo and not appropriate for real play. It should be changed.Well, considering that you aren't really rolling for anything, and that it gives you the same outcomes when you play it the same way, it can't be just for the demo. DM reads "You see three little lizard-people things. They're kobolds!" It then pauses the game and basically says "Open the Monster Manual" or "Attack!". Having not seen this "demo", are you sure it's aimed at the player and not the DM?Its not aiming it at the DM, its not just a demo thing, they are telling newbies that looking up the monster stats are part of the game, just like rolling for damage is. The link to the demo is in my first post, check it out for yourself.
Thorak 02-03-05, 11:10 PM	News flash; The Monster Manual, and the DMG while we're at it, are not meant to be DM-only. Look at page 5 of your PHB. Look at the first point under "What you need to play". Note the parenthetical bit. I'll quote it, so you don't even have to go look it up yourself; "The Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual revised core rulebooks. (All players might want to have their own copies of the books.)" Doesn't get any clearer than that. WotC clearly suggests that all players not only be able to look at the MM, but they should each have their own copy. This could only ever be a problem if your players cheat consistently. And even then, only in guessing a monster's weakness. I really, really don't see why DMs try to get all **** retentive about players looking at the MM. It's like the players telling the DM he can't look at their character sheet.
Edymnion 02-04-05, 12:04 AM	News flash; The Monster Manual, and the DMG while we're at it, are not meant to be DM-only. Look at page 5 of your PHB. Look at the first point under "What you need to play". Note the parenthetical bit. I'll quote it, so you don't even have to go look it up yourself; "The Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual revised core rulebooks. (All players might want to have their own copies of the books.)"Well, its just another reason to not like 3.5, because thats something they changed. From my 3.0 PHB, page 6:WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY To start playing the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game, all you need are the following: * The Players Handbook, which tells you how to create and play your character. * A copy of the character sheet. <snip> Additionally, the Dungeon Master needs the Dungeon Master's Guide, which is filled with advice, ideas, and guidelines, and the Monster Manual, which describes hundreds of monsters with which to challenge the players.Great, so 3.5 is apparently promoting the use of the DMG and MM as a player resource so they can look stuff up and metagame it all. The reason people get uppity at the players reading the DMG and the MM is because, at least originally, they weren't supposed to be looking at it. There is no reason the Players should know the AC or the hitpoints of the monster they are fighting. *sigh* I guess WotC thought the DMG and MM weren't selling enough as a DM tool, so now they actively encourage the players to get copies too so they can quadruple the sales of those books. Yeah, I'm really liking 3.5 more and more every day... :banghead:
DungeonMaster 02-04-05, 12:35 AM	$$ We all know it.
shift244 02-04-05, 01:02 AM	With reference to your original post, Edymnion, I would really look at the demo in a rather different manner... The PC's are supposed to be living in the world where bugbear raids could be happening every forthnight. Compared to a new player who's idea of a bugbear could be a bear with an insectile head, the PCs would likely know that this is a "feral brute" with poor resistance to mind effecting spells. Of course, alot depends on the setting as to the PCs level of knowledge, but the "standard" high fantasy that D&D sells, frmo my view, would make this kind of knowledge common. Perhaps your experience with the creatures has simply lead you to see it as blatant metagaming, but some refernce to the MM for new players would help them learn about the world quicker, on the fly, without spending preperation time reading the stats on thier own, and likely not understanding a thing. Perhaps it should have made clear about PC and player knowledge, tho.. but then, its so basic a demo, the rules are barely introduced.
Zom 02-04-05, 01:14 AM	$$ We all know it. $ grubby bastards don't even release a free SRD, always wanting money. Hey, they should give out hardcopies for free. I fully remember the 3.0 player's handbook including the stats for the summoned monsters and shapeshift monsters so you wouldn't have to buy the monster manual[/sarcasm].
Arcane Guyver 02-04-05, 01:22 AM	I guess WotC thought the DMG and MM weren't selling enough as a DM tool, so now they actively encourage the players to get copies too so they can quadruple the sales of those books. Yeah, I'm really liking 3.5 more and more every day... :banghead: It makes sense...it explains a great deal. Suddenly, PrCs aren't something a DM custom-makes, there are core PrCs & many in the player's splatbook offerings. As of 3.5, playing monsters is much easier to do, what with LA. Not saying I'm entirely happy about all that, but whatever. It's annoying enough when a player will blurt out "oh great, a FREAKING mummy" due to the description (despite their character having no idea what it is). If a player blurts out "oh great, a FREAKING arrowdemon" in the same manner, I'll be tempted to chuck the MM3 at his head.
was_fired 02-04-05, 07:45 AM	Nothing wrong with players looking up monsters outside of the game, but in combat the only time they should crack up the MM is when they summon something... or they beat a knowledge check by such an obsurd amount that the DM just tells them to look it up.
anshar 02-04-05, 08:37 AM	The PC's are supposed to be living in the world where bugbear raids could be happening every forthnight. Compared to a new player who's idea of a bugbear could be a bear with an insectile head, the PCs would likely know that this is a "feral brute" with poor resistance to mind effecting spells. Of course, alot depends on the setting as to the PCs level of knowledge, but the "standard" high fantasy that D&D sells, frmo my view, would make this kind of knowledge common. I think I have to disagree with this. A character's knowledge of what a monster is/can do/can't resist etc. is based on a knowledge roll of the appropriate type. Ie - Knowledge (Arcana) for dragons. The DC for knowing that bugbears are dim-witted (poor will saves) might be very low but it should still be rolled. As for the original post, I agree that telling newbies to look stuff up in the MM is a bad thing. Regardless of what the latest incarnation of the PHB says, most groups I know do not allow players to use the DMG or MM during the game.
Thorak 02-04-05, 10:00 AM	Well, its just another reason to not like 3.5, because thats something they changed. Or, like in my case, where I've had copies of the three books from 2nd edition on and freely flipped through them as a player, it makes perfectly good sense. Great, so 3.5 is apparently promoting the use of the DMG and MM as a player resource so they can look stuff up and metagame it all. The reason people get uppity at the players reading the DMG and the MM is because, at least originally, they weren't supposed to be looking at it. There is no reason the Players should know the AC or the hitpoints of the monster they are fighting. It's not WotC's fault if the players are metagaming. Heck, why don't you worry that they might look up the damage of Fireball, or the saving throw they'll have to make against that Dominate? Besides, it's a lazy DM who doesn't mess with the monsters. Slap some half-plate armor on that orc, and his AC isn't the same any more. Advance the critter a bit, or give it class levels, and completely screw their expectations. And on the other side, why on earth shouldn't a PC have access to the book containing prestige classes and magical items? And why shouldn't a PC, especially a mage or druid, have access to the MM, so they can decide what to Shapechange or Wildshape into? This doesn't let them void the rules, like the druid's familiarity restriction on Wildshape. But it might let the player find out about options his character would know that he as a player does not. Especially since pretty much all this information is freely available in the SRD for anyone to look at. *sigh* I guess WotC thought the DMG and MM weren't selling enough as a DM tool, so now they actively encourage the players to get copies too so they can quadruple the sales of those books. Yeah, I'm really liking 3.5 more and more every day... :banghead: Or they realized that both books contain things that certain PCs cannot be played without. Like the aforementioned PrCs, Magical Items, and the various animal and creature stats that players will be controlling. I really don't see, and never have seen whether it's 3.5, 3.0, or 2nd edition, why a DM would have a problem with a PC looking at those books. Sure, they shouldn't start flipping open to the Dragons section the moment they spot one. The way you, as the DM, discourage that is to change things. Because the MM is a guideline, for the average creature. The moment they get completely screwed by expecting A, as listed in the MM, when you've changed it to B, they'll stop looking up stats to figure things out. Even when you don't change anything. I mean really. I know, without looking it up, that an orc doesn't have natural armor, and probably doesn't have a dex bonus. So his AC will be determined by his armor, and I've got those rules in my PHB. How is this different? Edit: I repeat; the problem lies in your players. Not the books and whether they should have access to them. In my group, we consistently can recall stuff without looking it up, which our characters don't know. Like when we fought a troll for the first time, in a homebrew variant of FR where monstrous humanoids haven't been seen in generations. Sure, every one of us is thinking, and even saying OOC, "Fire and acid. Great." Our characters, however, don't have a clue, so they cut them down and walk away. And proceed to shortly get ambushed by a half-regenerated troll. The problem isn't the books or access to them. It's metagaming. It's bad playing. Don't blame the books for a problem that is inherently your player's problem.
HomebrewedMonster 02-04-05, 10:10 AM	News flash; The Monster Manual, and the DMG while we're at it, are not meant to be DM-only. Look at page 5 of your PHB. Look at the first point under "What you need to play". Note the parenthetical bit. I'll quote it, so you don't even have to go look it up yourself; "The Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual revised core rulebooks. (All players might want to have their own copies of the books.)" Doesn't get any clearer than that. WotC clearly suggests that all players not only be able to look at the MM, but they should each have their own copy. This could only ever be a problem if your players cheat consistently. And even then, only in guessing a monster's weakness. I really, really don't see why DMs try to get all **** retentive about players looking at the MM. It's like the players telling the DM he can't look at their character sheet. Good point, although I believe the reasoning behind the players owning the Monster Manual is so that they can look up your summoned monsters. As for the DM's guide, its useful for players to be able to look up hardness for items, make references to their magic items, and use the formulas for magic item creation. Also it is a great way to sell more books. :D
Mootilator 02-04-05, 10:58 AM	It's aggravating to see folks that have problems with a company making an effort to sell more stuff. I know we all have warm fuzzy thoughts about how D&D is a great game that brings people together and it shouldn't be tainted by capitalist motives, but the bottom line is that it IS, in fact, about money. Don't get me wrong...I don't say this in a negative way. If it WASN'T about money, I would think WotC were a bunch of imbeciles with a bad business head on their shoulders. I don't doubt the designers love the game, but some of you have GOT to get it through your head that it is the nature of business to sell more stuff. And NO...there is not some magical wealth level stated in any ethics book that states it's wrong to seek more money after x thousand, million, or billion dollars. The GOOD side is that if you have a resonable amount of intelligence, you can see beyond marketing techniques. If you are a sheep waiting to be sheared, you owe it to yourself to wisen up. And is it so hard to fathom why they might want to encourage everyone to buy all the books? If you are interested in D&D, like every one of us here is, are you going to tell me that the difference between you buying just the PHB or all three core books is based totally on one blurb that everyone "MIGHT want to own all three books" stated in the PHB? Come on. Get real. With the *sighs* and "head beating against a brick wall" emoticons, and general "hands flailing in the air" mentality, I'm wondering if some of you guys aren't taking this entirely too seriously and maybe need to set some different priorities about what constitutes a real problem. A company attempting to sell more books is not a biggie, ESPECIALLY in a totally superficial and leisure activity like D&D.
Mootilator 02-04-05, 11:03 AM	One more thing... In the groups I have been in, everyone owned the core books for a couple of reasons: 1. It's nice to have someone else that can act as DM if necessary. And... 2. The books cost enough where I don't really care to lend it out for any length of time because "stuff happens". Drinks spill. Pages get torn. But if it happens to MY book, it's going to be because I did it. 3. Some guys just wanted to get an idea about what a DM has to learn to see if they would be interested in being DM one day. It suck to be DM all the time, and see item 2 about lending books. ;)
Mootilator 02-04-05, 11:42 AM	I really don't see, and never have seen whether it's 3.5, 3.0, or 2nd edition, why a DM would have a problem with a PC looking at those books. I think the idea behind this thinking is that the players will get info on some of the monsters that might remove some of the suprise, like trolls regenerating, being hurt by fire/acid, etc, or certain undead that can only be hit by magical weapons and such as soon as they are described. It has a lot to do with the group, I think. There is not one person in my group that doesn't know the weaknesses/strengths, average stats, spell effects, etc of practically every monster in every book, and it doesn't hurt the game at all. And why should it? We do not have to know every detail of every animal in the REAL world to know certain important factors. If trolls existed in our world, you can bet there would be a fairly decent amount of literature and word-of-mouth commentary on them, even among young children.
psionichamster 02-04-05, 11:55 AM	edy- i feel ya on this, i really do. yes, WoTC is a company, they should try to sell more books. (this is a good thing for anyone who wants to play dnd...) yes, using the MM (or DMG) while playing a PC is doable, for all the reasons listed here...(PrC's, summoned monster stats, wildshape/shapechange/poly forms...) yes, its handy for everyone to have a copy of the books. BUT DON"T BRING EM TO MY TABLE don't expect to look up monster stats in the MM (1, 2, or 3) don't check over my math when awarding XP or run a "power-audit" with the recommended wealth tables don't nitpick over wealth limits or population density of that thorpe you ran into these are things that detract from the game, making it more and more like a formula where the players and DM are plugged in and less like a creative, fun endeavour... i used to feel the same way about modules...heck, even campaign settings (once you run out of free time, though, they get MUCH more attractive) but, for utter Newb's to be given this info, as if its the "standard" and primarily acceptable way to play changes the game. in a lot of ways... no more mystery (oh, that orc gotta be dazzled in bright light, trolls can't be hurt with normal weapons, vampires are allergic to garlic) for the Characters to unearth no more suspense regarding items/wealth...(hey, i'm a 10th level barbarian with only 1 +1 sword, masterwork platemail and a ring of prot +2.. where's the rest of my loot!?!) spoiling them rotten only cheapens what they do have, and eventually will make them play less and less. no, you are not right if you believe the opposite of the above. you cannot GIVE everything to someone and expect them to appreciate it as much as if they earned that same amount. alternatively, you can't deprive someone of something and expect them not to want it. that's how people are put together... so, giving new players (who are the LEAST likely to metagame, so long as they are experiencing fun adventures) the expectation that they can look up all the info they could possibly want, right in the middle of a combat situation, is bad. but, there's nothing Edy, I, or anyone else can do...sad, too... oh well, happy gaming, the hamster
Edymnion 02-04-05, 12:46 PM	And on the other side, why on earth shouldn't a PC have access to the book containing prestige classes and magical items?Because PrC are not player options, they are DM worldbuilding tools. Players should not be allowed to do ANYTHING with a PrC without expressed DM approval. Its up to the DM to control what kind of organizations and abilities are present in his or her world, and that means Players don't get to cherry pick PrC whenever they want. Even in 3.5 is says that the DM should restrict the use of PrC.And why shouldn't a PC, especially a mage or druid, have access to the MM, so they can decide what to Shapechange or Wildshape into?Okay, now you are just putting up a straw man argument. I specifically said that opening up the MM to look up the stats on something you were fighting should not be allowed. I never once said that a player should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to see inside the MM or DMG. Heck, I don't mind them owning the books and reading them outside of the game, but there is absolutely no reason they should EVER be allowed to use them as some sort of blasted strategy guide to look up the monster's weaknesses. And yes, it is metagaming. That is the entire point. The demo is actively encouraging metagaming. This isn't a frelling game of Diablo II where the only point is to kill the monsters as fast as you can. Its a roleplaying game. And if your character has never heard of a troll, and you go looking up it's vulnrabilities, and suddenly your character pulls out acid vials? At the very least, in my game, you would get 0 xp and no treasure for the encounter because you cheated.
Mootilator 02-04-05, 01:29 PM	Its a roleplaying game. And if your character has never heard of a troll, and you go looking up it's vulnrabilities, and suddenly your character pulls out acid vials? At the very least, in my game, you would get 0 xp and no treasure for the encounter because you cheated. I'd have to disagree with you there for the following reasons: You've probably never seen a panda bear close up if you're like a majority of people on this planet, but there's a good chance you know they like to eat bamboo. You've never been to the moon, but there's a good chance you know the conditions there. You've never faced a gorilla out in the wild if you are like most people on this planet, but you might know that staring one in the eye is not a good idea if you ever do. You probably know that even though an elephant is exponentially bigger than a rattlesnake, you are far more at risk encountering a rattlesnake than an elephant. You've probably never known anyone that has been bitten by a brown recluse spider, but chances are you know that their bite is necrotic. My point? These things are spread over time by word-of-mouth. I know you specified that "if the character never heard of a troll...", but is that feasible to assume in a world where it would actually MATTER that certain creatures have certain vulnerabilities? Are we to assume that everyone in the groups hasn't heard of a creature that it very large, likes to eat people, frequently raids villages and has the ability to regenerate? We do not have to experience everything firsthand in order to have knowledge about it, in fact, a great deal of knowledge we have is based on the experiences of others. We know the acceleration that gravity gives a falling body, not because we made it up ourselves, but because it is important to know, and important knowledge will be spread. Try to imagine living in a world that trolls live. Don't you think that some of the folks that survived an encounter might spread the word so that even the lowliest peasant might have access to such knowledge? Don't yo uthink the fact that a blue dragon spits lightning might be important enough that someone comments on it? That universities will relay this information and those students will talk to non-students and so on until quite a bit of people know this stuff? Here's some real life "big things" that occur in our world that we don't have to experience firsthand to know that they are bad news because of our ability to communicate: Tornados Tsunamis Tidal Waves Volcanoes Lightning Forest fires Plagues Diseases Riots Wars
Edymnion 02-04-05, 01:55 PM	*sigh* Fine, replace "Troll" with "X'nori", a creature I just made up off the top of my head. Say I custom built it for the encounter. Now, lets say that this is monster was created to guard something on a far plane that no one on the prime has ever heard of, zero chance that anyone has even heard of the realm, much less the monster. Now then, are you saying that I should hand over the monster's stat block so that the player can figure out what it's weakness is? Hell no. Same thing with everything else. If the character has never heard of it, then they've never heard of it, and no amount of metagaming is going to change that. If the characters have heard about it, they still aren't going to instantly know everything about it. Thats why we have skill checks to ID strange monsters. If you make the check, then the DM tells you what you know about the creature. I could see letting the player read the entire entry if they make their check and succeed by an insane amount. But even if the monster is common, thats still no reason to look in the MM for it's stats. You can know that Werewolves are weak to silver, and that they're hard to kill, but that doesn't mean you get to know how many hitpoints it has.
Mootilator 02-04-05, 02:05 PM	I checked out the little game, and I think it could go either way. I mean, one one hand if you are buying the game, I think there is a higher chance that you will be the DM...at least I think so. While you are NOT the DM in the minigame, I think they were just trying to show some concepts of the game, like how you come up with the damage and the stench effect of the troglodyte. They have to market it both DM's and players, with the purchaser being, in most cases, the DM. A little insight into what the DM uses for tools (the rulebook, the monster manual) doesn't count as an open invitation for players in general to scour the guide for every detail of every monster. That's what I think, at least.
Thorak 02-04-05, 02:11 PM	Because PrC are not player options, they are DM worldbuilding tools. Players should not be allowed to do ANYTHING with a PrC without expressed DM approval. Its up to the DM to control what kind of organizations and abilities are present in his or her world, and that means Players don't get to cherry pick PrC whenever they want. Even in 3.5 is says that the DM should restrict the use of PrC. What's your point? It's still something a PC can take. Ergo, players need access to the books so they can look them over and choose whether or not they want to take it. Sure, they can be restricted by the DM, and should be. That doesn't mean the players don't have the right to look at it. Kind of like if a DM said "no Wish spells". You can still look at the spell, if you want. Okay, now you are just putting up a straw man argument. I specifically said that opening up the MM to look up the stats on something you were fighting should not be allowed. I never once said that a player should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to see inside the MM or DMG. No, you simply created circumstances under which they could see inside them that were far too restrictive. Heck, I don't mind them owning the books and reading them outside of the game, but there is absolutely no reason they should EVER be allowed to use them as some sort of blasted strategy guide to look up the monster's weaknesses. Except that they can't possibly be used that way. For one, you're a ****-poor DM if you say "A wight rises up before you." You should be saying things more like "A sunken-faced humanoid, apparently long dead, rises to it's feet before you, the glow of undeath in it's eyes" or some such. Is it a zombie? A ghoul? A wight? Who knows? For two, that's what the whole section on changing monsters is all about. If your players start assuming too much, throw them a curve ball. I can tell you, without even looking at the books, that an Orc gets +4 Str, has 1HD, and Darkvision. Oh no, he doesn't even need to look it up! This isn't an issue. If I were to use that knowledge, whether from memory (either from earlier games, playing/summoning one, etc, etc) or by looking it up, I'm metagaming. Which is essentially cheating. And besides, when it turns out that the puny Orc my 8th level fighter expects to walk all over is in fact a 15th level Blackguard, I'll start to realize the futility and, in fact, idiocy of looking up the stats and expecting what you're fighting to conform to that. And yes, it is metagaming. That is the entire point. The demo is actively encouraging metagaming. This isn't a frelling game of Diablo II where the only point is to kill the monsters as fast as you can. Its a roleplaying game. And if your character has never heard of a troll, and you go looking up it's vulnrabilities, and suddenly your character pulls out acid vials? At the very least, in my game, you would get 0 xp and no treasure for the encounter because you cheated. What if I didn't look it up? I know, as a player, that trolls are vulnerable to fire and acid. It's cheating whether I remember it and make my PC act accordingly, or look it up first. The issue isn't the looking up. It's the using of the information, however you got it. What if I looked it up, saw that it regenerates all but fire and acid damage, and then had my character drop it below 0, and walk away regardless? Because I, and the other two guys playing, did just that in our current campaign. We also, last session, found a coffin-like box, with some gold and jewelery in it, and an odd layer of dirt under a silk lining on the bottom. Now, as players, we're all chuckling about how ****** the Vampire's going to be when it gets back and sees what we've done. Our characters? "That's an odd-shaped chest. Looks kind of coffiny. Weird. I wonder what this dirt's in here for, there's nothing in it... Oh well, this room's only got one door, and it's lockable. Let's camp and recover." Point being, we don't metagame. It doesn't matter if we recall the stats on vampires, or if we look them up. It doesn't affect our game. And we know the DM doesn't stick to normal stuff too often. So acting according to what the book says could get us killed. I'll repeat it; your points have absolutely nothing to do with player access to the books. They have everything to do with your players cheating and metagaming with OOC information, regardless of how they got it.
Mootilator 02-04-05, 02:19 PM	The *sigh* is a great effect. It's just like you are giving a sigh of derision in real life, but you are spelling it out instead. I give it 2 thumbs up. But anyway, the complaint you had was that they told you to check out the stats of a Kobold, which is hardly a rare creature in any sense of the word, right? And if it was "just made up", then no, they shouldn't have all the stats, but go through the monster manual, the book in question, and find one...just one...creature that has never been encountered by anyone throughout D&D history. No one is advocating actively handing out the monster manual anyway. All I'm saying is that it's not a game breaker if, like untold thousands of D&D players, your players know the strengths and weaknesses of the monsters and occasionally flip through the MM's. You are reading FAR too much into a minigame. It is to be expected that a majority of the monsters will have been discussed in bars, bard songs, universities, etc. YOU know a good deal of stats, right? And do you really think your players, having an interest in the game, haven't learned some things by NOW? That being the case, is the game ruined? Creative DM's could easily come up with solutions to players knowing "secret" things about monsters, anyway: They would change it or throw a curve at them...IF it was such a game killer, which it isn't for most folks.
Pay2Flay 02-04-05, 02:42 PM	I think the point has been rather missed and misdirected here. The Demo Game is intended to acquaint someone with the game of D&D. Someone who *gasp* may not know what a kobold is. So at that point in the demo, they'd probably be wondering "What the hell is a kobold?". So the demo gives them a chance to see. And also it informs them that there is a whole book of monsters out there. I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I'm into D&D at all is the monsters. As a kid, the only books I had were Monster Manuals. I just loved monsters. When I decided to get back into and see what was going on in D&D nowadays, the first book I bought was the monster manual. I like monsters. As for bringing the MM to the gaming table, that's up to everyone's individual taste. The fact remains, the demo is just giving the player a chance to find out what a kobold is. Not encouraging anything.
Edymnion 02-04-05, 03:51 PM	It is to be expected that a majority of the monsters will have been discussed in bars, bard songs, universities, etc.Yet again, this is why there are knowledge checks to determine this sort of thing. Yes, people have heard of these monsters before. Yes, there are stories and songs and whatever else about these monsters. But has your character ever heard or read one of these stories? Roll your check and find out. I don't know about how you play, but in my games, a bunch of lvl 1 guys fresh out of the rural farms out to make a name for themselves are never going to have heard of a Beholder before, or know what a Drow is. Just because these two are a couple of iconic D&D monsters does not mean they're common, or that normal people have heard of them. Or even that the stories they have heard are right (dragons are all big green scaley things that breath fire, right?). Thats why you roll a check. To see if you have heard the correct information before. And still, there is no possible way that ANY character is going to be able to tell what something's AC is, or how many hitpoints they have, just by looking at them.
Mootilator 02-04-05, 04:47 PM	But, uh...are first level characters going to encounter beholders and drow? Not in my campaign. After a while when they gain some levels, i.e. "experience", then they will encounter such things and it is reasonable to assume they will have heard of them. Again, I'm not advocating opening up the rulebooks and having a study session during the game, or having handouts of the monsters featured in each adventure. It's just that, if they have read about them, or peek at the MM between sessions, no big deal. But no frigging way 1st level characters should be encountering beholders or drow and even if they DO...what good is the knowledge going to do them anyway? Remember: 1st level. 1st level characters going into the Underdark. Might they get the drop on a drow by flashing a light? It's probably not likely that they would even come within a stones throw distance before they are covered in darkness with a few dozen poisoned daggers sprouting from their back. That is, IF they make it past the chokers, driders, mind flayers, etc. So might they know stuff? Certainly. Will it do them one ounce of good? Not if you are a good DM.
Arcane Guyver 02-04-05, 06:15 PM	:doh: I think what Edy's getting at here is that, unless a character has ranks in the appropriate Knowledge, has fought one before, or has gained bits of info from NPCs in the game, they shouldn't know any more about kobolds than the average Commoner. And if a player starts rattling off random strategy bits at the table ("Okay guys, these things can see in the dark and are pretty fast. They're pretty frail and weak, but can easily become sorcerers.") I would probably change them on the fly just to annihilate the metagamer.
Yak of Darkness 02-04-05, 06:19 PM	I think the point has been rather missed and misdirected here. The Demo Game is intended to acquaint someone with the game of D&D. Someone who *gasp* may not know what a kobold is. So at that point in the demo, they'd probably be wondering "What the hell is a kobold?". So the demo gives them a chance to see. And also it informs them that there is a whole book of monsters out there. Just wanted to make sure this post didn't get lost in the (mostly irrelevant) argument about metagaming and player/PC knowledge and all that. I think Pay2Flay's pretty much right on here. Now, if someone had an issue about the demo game being lame, I'd be right there with you. ;)
Solaris 02-04-05, 06:25 PM	I think the point has been rather missed and misdirected here. The Demo Game is intended to acquaint someone with the game of D&D. Someone who *gasp* may not know what a kobold is. So at that point in the demo, they'd probably be wondering "What the hell is a kobold?". So the demo gives them a chance to see. And also it informs them that there is a whole book of monsters out there. I agree. I didn't get from this what Edymnion did. I thought they were simply showing people, for the purposes of a good demo, that monsters have information just like characters. They didn't say "Now remember, kids, when you go and play in real life, you should always check the monster manual when you meet a new monster". They just said that D&D has monsters, and by the way, here's a little bit about how they work. I think this thread is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Mootilator 02-04-05, 07:12 PM	Now, if someone had an issue about the demo game being lame, I'd be right there with you. ;) Yeah...it's totally unrealistic because that blonde DM is all fine and stuff. I be telling her to roll for init because I'm about to roll "to hit" dat! :w00t: Just kiddin'! Don't anyone go having a cow or anything. :angel:
Aliquid 02-04-05, 07:17 PM	You've probably never seen a panda bear close up if you're like a majority of people on this planet, but there's a good chance you know they like to eat bamboo.True... but you are considering the level of knowledge we have in modern times. In medieval times, the average commoner didn't know what a Panda was. Unless you are playing Ebberon, the world of D&D is similar to that of our medieval history when it comes to education levels for the commoner. There were no "public schools", there were no encyclopedias, there were no nature TV shows, there was no internet. You've never been to the moon, but there's a good chance you know the conditions there.again.... in the year 1400.... people had no clue what the conditions were. The point is, in a standard Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk sort of D&D setting, the average commoner knows how to farm, knows how to drink ale, and knows what monsters are a threat to his community.... other than that, I doubt he knows any more. You've probably never known anyone that has been bitten by a brown recluse spider, but chances are you know that their bite is necrotic.actually I didn't know that.... ;) My point? These things are spread over time by word-of-mouth. I know you specified that "if the character never heard of a troll...", but is that feasible to assume in a world where it would actually MATTER that certain creatures have certain vulnerabilities? Are we to assume that everyone in the groups hasn't heard of a creature that it very large, likes to eat people, frequently raids villages and has the ability to regenerate? If trolls frequently invade a villager's community, then yes. If the closest trolls are in the neigbouring kingdom... then no. Sure word of mouth would spread... stories would be told, but stories get corrupted, exagerated, and distorted as they travel. Try to imagine living in a world that trolls live. Don't you think that some of the folks that survived an encounter might spread the word so that even the lowliest peasant might have access to such knowledge? Don't yo uthink the fact that a blue dragon spits lightning might be important enough that someone comments on it? That universities will relay this information and those students will talk to non-students and so on until quite a bit of people know this stuff? Here's some real life "big things" that occur in our world that we don't have to experience firsthand to know that they are bad news because of our ability to communicate: I don't think that Theodore, the Cobbler's son would stop to listen to the bard's stories closely enough to remember that blue dragons breath lightning, and green dragons breath gas, unless he happened to live close to a dragon's lair. Theodore would remember from the stories, that dragons are big, dangerous, and their breath is freaky. TornadosIn the 1400s, someone living in england would have no idea what a Tornado was Tsunamismedieval Germans... would have no clue what this is Tidal WavesI bet a good number of people on these boards don't know the difference between a tidal wave and a Tsunami Actually..... I have found that the people on these boards are more knowledgable than the average person.. so this might not be true Disease, riots, war... sure, but a lot of the other stuff wouldn't be common knowlede... because if you don't live in a threat zone, it isn't worth learning.
Arcane Guyver 02-04-05, 07:18 PM	Heheh, just played the demo. Aside from the cheesy voices, it seemed to be a pretty cool little intro to what D&D is like, at least the dungeon crawling aspect (love how the sorcerer sucks so badly in it :D ) But....yeah, the 'DM' didn't tell the player to look up the monster stats or anything - it was letting non-players (those meant for this demo) see 'just what the heck is a kobold?' Also, they were playing sort of fast and loose with the rules - as no initiative was rolled, and the DM just sort of blurted out stuff about how the stench was actually coming from the troglodyte since it was excited or whatever.
Mootilator 02-04-05, 07:42 PM	Aliquid: I think you missed the point. I wasn't saying people way back when would know those particular things, it's just the only things that I can make a comparison with in modern times since we never have to deal with monsters and such. The point is not that someone in England long ago would not know what a tornado is, because tornados aren't much of a factor there. They ARE a factor in the modern US, however. And even though very few people actually have experienced one, with thousands of years of human history in what is now the US, the news would eventually spread about the ghastly things. See? Let's make the connection here: If trolls were living somewhere in the United States, don't you think that after a couple thousand years that word might get around about them? Even if it's just considered a legend? Especially if it wasn't just ONE, but perhaps thousands? And I just have to totally disagree about the dragon thing. If nothing else, the fact that most folks would be farmer peasant types would tend to spread stories about the exciting finds of adventurers even more quickly. And as adventurers start hanging out with other adventurers, it wouldn't just be peasants and such, but folks with actual experience. We have had legends about dragons in real life and they didn't even actually exist, so how much more would be said about REAL dragons? I disagree strongly with you on that point. If just ONE town was leveled by a dragon in 10 years time, word would spread from one town to the next. I also disagree that if you aren't in a threat zone that something isn't worth learning, but that's neither here nor there. If adventurers travel, say, in a hundred mile radius of their origin, (pretty reasonable considering the means of travelling in pre-Eberron D&D) and they eventually experience great battles with all sorts of creatures, then that IS a threat zone. How would you feel if a red dragon lived 30 miles away? Or that a tribe of trolls lived 70 miles away? And that they get hungry? And that they will inevitably come your way? We're talking fairly intelligent creatures, here. It's not a huge deal, but I just disagree, that's all.
Loud78 02-04-05, 07:50 PM	What an interesting discussion. Speaking from experience, I like to have my DMG and MM completely off limits to players, unless they have a decent reason to look at them. For example, letting the wizard who is fond of summoning spells look up the monsters he can summon to get a good idea of the options available, or letting the ranger read up on her wolf companion, or the troll-hunting dwarf know a little more than the other characters on his chosen enemy. Similarly with the DMG, letting a player read up on his magic item, or check out a prestige class he wants to take, or read the Leadership feat, is no bad thing. However, beyond this, looking in these books is completely off limits, and my players are fine with this. There is a definate advantage in having the players know less than the DM, it helps define the relationship between the two for one thing, and adds an air of mystery and suspense when something new is revealed that they had no idea about. Of course, after time all players begin to know pertinent information about monsters, or rules from the DMG, but good players learn not to use this information, and it is this kind of play that should be encouraged. For example, one situation I can recall is an encounter with a basilik. The two new players had no idea about this creature and rushed straight into the battle, the two experienced players knew exactly what they were facing. One of them, deciding that his character would have no idea about this creature, and not having any related Knowledge skill, rushed his character into the fray. The other decided to 'hang around at the back', completely out of character. Needless to say, the two new players had an exciting shock upon discovering the gaze attack of a basilisk, and learned a valuable lesson, and the skulking character was turned to stone (after failing his save), even though he thought he was out of range (a fact his character really couldn't have known). My point here is that learning this information through the game is all part of the D&D experience, and good players will learn to not use this information in the spirit of the game. However, giving this info to new players, or allowing them to discover it through browsing the MM, just plain ruins the experience for them, in my opinion.
Oberoni 02-05-05, 02:13 AM	One thing I'd like to add: The 3.5 monster knowledge rules suck. First of all, they favor characters with more Knowledge skills, and ranks in multiple skills. Second of all, the only factor that matter is a monster's HD. This ignores three other factors: How numerous a monstrous race is; how often that race interacts with the common races; and how 'famous' the monstrous race is. It's just not a well-made system right now. I'm hoping it gets fixed someday. As for the discussion at hand, I'd like to think that most adventures have a pretty good knowledge of a variety of monsters. I don't think I'd necessarily want players busting out the Monster Manual in the middle of a game, but they're well within their rights to ask "what do we know about these sorts of creatures?" and expect the DM to, more often than not, give them a suitable, basic description, including strengths and weaknesses. The only really appropriate time for a character to bust out an MM in the middle of a fight would be for a monster that the character is extremely familiar with; if a Druid were to bust out the MM and tell the players the difference between the bear they're currently trying to avoid, and a couple other different bears, I'd probably be fine with it.
Draco Strang 02-05-05, 02:25 PM	I really don't see a problem with characters owning a copy of the DMG and MM for two reasons: 1. It enhances an understanding of the rules. What if someday, your group goes to all to hell, the DM has to pack up and leave for job, family, or other reasons, and you guys wanna keep going? It'd help if the guy that played Mogot the 4th level cleric had a fair grasp on what it takes to DM because he read the books, (in addition to actually owning the books) and felt that since he'd been perusing the material for a while, it might not be too far out of his grasp to take a shot at DMing. 2. What's the problem with knowing a monster's stats as long as there isn't massive metagaming? I've seen players who recklessly throw their characters into combat, only to die, page through the MM and see what the monsters are actually capable of in general. It slows their asses down, believe me.
Kast 02-05-05, 05:59 PM	Much ado about nothing there. If you've never played D&D before, you wouldn't even know what a kobold or a trog is and you can't really tell from the mini they show. That's why they suggest you look at the guide. The MM and DMG is not some secret knowledge that's designed to give you power over the players. Besides there are many ways to foil meta-gaming, the easiest of course is to tell the players to not do it.
Pay2Flay 02-06-05, 08:22 PM	Just wanted to make sure this post didn't get lost in the (mostly irrelevant) argument about metagaming and player/PC knowledge and all that. I think Pay2Flay's pretty much right on here. Now, if someone had an issue about the demo game being lame, I'd be right there with you. ;) Well, thank you very much Mr. Yak. But I don't know about it being lame. Cheesy? Oh laws hell yes. Quite cheesy. But it did help sell me on grabbing the other rule books post Monster Manual purchase.
StormKnight 02-07-05, 10:33 AM	Having not looked at the demo, but making a reasonable guess based on what people have said - it is supposed to be a DEMONSTRATION of the game. It wants to show you how the game works - presumably, it wants to give you a glimpse of what the mechanics of the game look like. This includes showing you what stats look like. The game's not going to look like much if you keep all the stats and abilities hidden from the player - while that may be normal in an actual game, it just doesn't make sense for a demo.
Aliquid 02-07-05, 12:09 PM	Aliquid: I think you missed the point. I wasn't saying people way back when would know those particular things, it's just the only things that I can make a comparison with in modern times since we never have to deal with monsters and such.I realize that's what you were getting at, but at the same time I was trying to show that in a D&D type society, they are not bombarded with information and education like we are. It is easy to think "I know lots of things about creatures and event around my world, and I am just a 'commoner', therefore D&D commoners would also know lots of things about their world" But, in the society that exists in a D&D world, the average commoner would be quite ignorant, and lack an education. The point is not that someone in England long ago would not know what a tornado is, because tornados aren't much of a factor there. They ARE a factor in the modern US, however. And even though very few people actually have experienced one, with thousands of years of human history in what is now the US, the news would eventually spread about the ghastly things. See? Let's make the connection here: If trolls were living somewhere in the United States, don't you think that after a couple thousand years that word might get around about them? Even if it's just considered a legend? Especially if it wasn't just ONE, but perhaps thousands?Yes, for sure, I wouldn't deny that. What I would argue, is that in your hypothetical situation, when word did travel to England about the trolls in the US, the description of a Troll would be highly distorted. At least 50% of the details about trolls would be wrong by the time it reached the ears of a person in England. As a result, I don't think the average commoner in England would know that fire and acid are the only things that stop a troll from regenerating. Therefore, if this were a game, it would be wrong for the player to expect to be able to look up a troll in the Monster Manual, assuming that his character knows all about trolls. And I just have to totally disagree about the dragon thing. If nothing else, the fact that most folks would be farmer peasant types would tend to spread stories about the exciting finds of adventurers even more quickly. And as adventurers start hanging out with other adventurers, it wouldn't just be peasants and such, but folks with actual experience. We have had legends about dragons in real life and they didn't even actually exist, so how much more would be said about REAL dragons? I disagree strongly with you on that point. If just ONE town was leveled by a dragon in 10 years time, word would spread from one town to the next.Again, I agree that every commoner would know about Dragons, and every commoner would like to hear stories about dragons. The problem is that since everyone likes to hear stories about dragons, there will be plenty of people telling stories about dragons, including people who have never seen a dragon. This would result in bad information being passed around. The average commoner would know that dragons exist, they would know that dragons are huge, they fly, they have scales, they hoard treasure, they are dangerous and frightening, and that they have a breath weapon. The average commoner would not know that a blue dragon is associated with lightning, and that a black dragon is associated with acid. I also disagree that if you aren't in a threat zone that something isn't worth learning, but that's neither here nor there.Actually, if you look into culture in small towns in any time period more than 150 years ago... you will be amazed at how little the people would know about the world around them. For example if (back then) you asked a person in a small town in France what country was to the north of them, or to the south, the wouldn't know. If adventurers travel, say, in a hundred mile radius of their origin, (pretty reasonable considering the means of travelling in pre-Eberron D&D) and they eventually experience great battles with all sorts of creatures, then that IS a threat zone. How would you feel if a red dragon lived 30 miles away? Or that a tribe of trolls lived 70 miles away? And that they get hungry? And that they will inevitably come your way? We're talking fairly intelligent creatures, here. Aah, but now you are not talking about the average commoner. An adventurer knows more than a commoner, and that is why the "knowledge" skill exists. The higher level a character, the more they know about the world around them, and this is represented by their knowledge skill. Likewise a town mayor, or the head of the town guard would be an __th level expert, and would have ranks in knowledge as well. This goes right back to the reason knowledge rolls exist. If a PC comes up to a monster, have them do a knowledge roll. If they succeed, then they have heard accurate stories about this monster. If they fail, they have either heard inaccurate stories, or can't remember. (Although, to be honest I think the knowledge skill is poorly designed.... basing it on the HD of the creature, rather than on how common the creature is) It's not a huge deal, but I just disagree, that's all.When it comes down to it, nothing we debate on these boards is a huge deal ;) It's just a good place to express our opinions.
IceFractal 02-07-05, 02:58 PM	Just because D&D doesn't have the internet, that doesn't mean they didn't have any means of communication. There's all these long-lived races around, which would help the spread of knowledge, as elves who personally learned from a particular teach far in the past could still be around in the present. Mages can send messages long distances, and the overall literacy rate is much, much higher than it really was in the medieval period. Also, what about education campaigns? Churches of Pelor would give out pamphlets on what to do if you see an undead creatures. Druids and Rangers would teach people which plants and animals were poisonous, and what to do if you encounter a bear (or owlbear). Wizards would make sure everyone knew how to recognize demons versus other outsiders, so that they wouldn't be accused of demon summoning. And so forth. I agree that the Knowledge checks are flawed. How I alter them is: 1) Each monster has a base DC. The base DC isn't based off HD, its based off how common the monster is, how much it interacts with people, and how important those interactions are (a dragon that destroys a village will be remembered more than a goblin that insults a peasant and then runs away). 2) Different info about the monster is based on this DC, with a modifier added depending on how obvious/subtle the information is. Easy info: Dragons have wings and can fly, vampires drink blood, trolls recover from almost any wound. Harder info: Dragons are specifically immune to paralysis, vampires can summon animals to do their bidding. 3) If you fail the DC, the result varies depending on rarity. For rare or never-seen monsters, you can't remember any info about them. For more common monsters, though, you do get info, but much of it is false, the exact ratio depending on how much you failed by. False info examples: Zombies regenerate, Dragons can be killed by stealing their horde, Trolls turn to stone in the sunlight, Drow can turn into spiders, etc.
PurdueDave 02-07-05, 07:25 PM	Who here hasn't meta-gamed at least a little? When's the last time you chucked a magic missile at an Iron Golem? ...cast a spell with a Beholder staring you down with the "big eye"? ...wondered how on earth to hurt a troll for good? Everyone knows stuff from either running a game or previous experience that they apply without even thinking about it like their characters had some kind of innate knowledge.
Mootilator 02-07-05, 07:52 PM	That's exactly right, PurdueDave. Metagaming can be a drag, we all know that. But at the same time, having a DM tell you that your character can't do something kinda sucks as well. I can totally see the need for knowledge checks, but some of them are not necessary and just attempts to bigfoot the players. The fact that red dragons breathe fire? There are probably ways of knowing that fact that doesn't involve indepth study or intellectual greatness. The fact that a specific red dragon has a weakness for strong elderberry wine? Well, that might take a knowledge check. It's kind of a matter of taste for me. I'm not saying anyone else is WRONG...I'm explaining how I think about it.
Funkstorung 02-07-05, 07:54 PM	...Well, its just another reason to not like 3.5, because thats something they changed... Well, if your players can't lay off the metagaming then it's a sad bunch of players you've got there. In my group 2 of the 4 players have almost every book there is and we've never ran into a metagame problem. We're all mature and between 24-26, most of us DM the others so we all pretty much know all the rules and most monsters. Do we have less fun? No. The problem isn't players looking into the mighty books of the "oh so godly DM" but idiot players that can't separate their own IRL knowledge from what their character might have knowledge of. That is what separates a good rp:er from a bad one.
Funkstorung 02-07-05, 07:59 PM	Who here hasn't meta-gamed at least a little? When's the last time you chucked a magic missile at an Iron Golem? ...cast a spell with a Beholder staring you down with the "big eye"? ...wondered how on earth to hurt a troll for good? Everyone knows stuff from either running a game or previous experience that they apply without even thinking about it like their characters had some kind of innate knowledge. Funny you should mention those examples. I have done the golem thing and well, it didn't work out that well for my character :D Seriously, players who metagame are either tired of the game or just bad roleplayers. Sometimes you might mix up what your character knows with what you know, all by accident, of the world or the monster that's eating away at you arm but if you care about having fun and not screwing up the dm's campaign you'll rp you character and leave you own IRL knowledge of the game outside the game. It isn't even slightly difficult to do.
Vharuck 02-07-05, 08:59 PM	One thing I'd like to add: The 3.5 monster knowledge rules suck. First of all, they favor characters with more Knowledge skills, and ranks in multiple skills. Second of all, the only factor that matter is a monster's HD. This ignores three other factors: How numerous a monstrous race is; how often that race interacts with the common races; and how 'famous' the monstrous race is. It's just not a well-made system right now. I'm hoping it gets fixed someday. As for the discussion at hand, I'd like to think that most adventures have a pretty good knowledge of a variety of monsters. I don't think I'd necessarily want players busting out the Monster Manual in the middle of a game, but they're well within their rights to ask "what do we know about these sorts of creatures?" and expect the DM to, more often than not, give them a suitable, basic description, including strengths and weaknesses. The only really appropriate time for a character to bust out an MM in the middle of a fight would be for a monster that the character is extremely familiar with; if a Druid were to bust out the MM and tell the players the difference between the bear they're currently trying to avoid, and a couple other different bears, I'd probably be fine with it. Look at those monsters again. How many rare monsters have less than 5 HD? How many common monsters have more than 5 HD? The tougher the monster, the fewer there are.
Aliquid 02-07-05, 09:54 PM	Look at those monsters again. How many rare monsters have less than 5 HD? How many common monsters have more than 5 HD? The tougher the monster, the fewer there are.My old 1st edition Monster Manual has a "Frequency" stat for each monster, which I thought was a good idea. With that edition, there were situations where a higher HD monster was more common than a lower HD monster. For example: Hill Giant (8 HD) - Common Sahuagin (2 HD) - Uncommon Ixitxachitl (1 HD) - Very rare Pixie (1/2 HD) - Very Rare
KismetRose 02-08-05, 01:03 AM	I have asked my players not to look at certain books. Pretty much the MMI is fair game, since it outlines a lot of the most common creatures the characters have probably heard about (a la bugbears, goblins, the basic types of undead). I have asked them to leave the MMII, III, and the Fiend Folio alone, however. I do this for a few reasons, but the first reason is this: there is something genuinely exciting about encountering an enemy you don't know. There is a particular tingle you get when you're up against a monster you can't identify and recall the ins and outs of, and that tingle is something you generally can't get back once you've become familiar with the creature. It is, for lack of better terminology, the thrill of the new. My players have been very happy with the new and strange things I've found for them, and they have enjoyed that thrill of the new even though they have played a lot. For them, this thrill is worth maintaining, and since none of them are running for other groups, they leave the books I've singled out alone. It's not just that I don't want them to metagame - I don't want them to ruin their own surprise, to peek at the present if you will. I don't want to see an element of their enjoyment usurped. Apparently, neither do they. I personally do not care who thinks I am being ridiculous in asking my players to avoid a few books. There are so many more books available to them, full of things that their characters can use. But what's more - it's my bloody table. No one has to game with me if they don't want to. I spend real time on my game, trying to help make it better and more fun for everyone. I spend real money, too, when I do decide to buy books. I spend imagination, too. The least my players can do is give me a little faith, and not go memorizing every beast so that I have to work that much harder to make things interesting for them. I work damned hard as it is. But that's just my two blazing hot cents.
PurdueDave 02-10-05, 07:36 PM	Funny you should mention those examples. I have done the golem thing and well, it didn't work out that well for my character :D Seriously, players who metagame are either tired of the game or just bad roleplayers. Sometimes you might mix up what your character knows with what you know, all by accident, of the world or the monster that's eating away at you arm but if you care about having fun and not screwing up the dm's campaign you'll rp you character and leave you own IRL knowledge of the game outside the game. It isn't even slightly difficult to do. Not too long ago I also tried casting spells at a golem. It did not work out well for me either. (One of many reasons to memorize "haste".) I agree that it's tough not to metagame. My point was that there are some things that are so ingrained in the D&D experience that sometimes you don't even notice.
PurdueDave 02-10-05, 07:40 PM	I have asked my players not to look at certain books. Pretty much the MMI is fair game, since it outlines a lot of the most common creatures the characters have probably heard about (a la bugbears, goblins, the basic types of undead). I have asked them to leave the MMII, III, and the Fiend Folio alone, however. That sounds like a pretty reasonable rule of thumb.
Thorak 02-10-05, 09:21 PM	Who here hasn't meta-gamed at least a little? When's the last time you chucked a magic missile at an Iron Golem? ...cast a spell with a Beholder staring you down with the "big eye"? ...wondered how on earth to hurt a troll for good? Everyone knows stuff from either running a game or previous experience that they apply without even thinking about it like their characters had some kind of innate knowledge. I've been playing D&D for years, started in 2nd edition. I've DMed and played. I only say this because, as a result, I know most of the basic monsters back to front without looking them up. This doesn't mean I metagame. My current character, for instance, fought a couple trolls once. Hacked em up good. Then we started rooting through their lair. And several minutes later, a big trollish hand grabbed our cleric's head and bounced it off the stone wall. And then we again dropped the half-healed troll. Taking a closer look after he falls, wondering what the heck happened, we notice the flesh knotting together inhumanly fast. So my paladin dices him into puree. We also notice his friend across the way, cooked by the pyro-sorceror. He's not getting up, or healing. This guy's pureed, and we still see the mush pulling itself together. Maybe it's the fire that did it. Bingo. We still don't know acid would work too. Golems? Nah, we'd chuck spells at them at first. Heck, we've fought a couple constructs already which, albeit poorly, were still hurt by the spells. We even camped in a nice secluded room after rifling through on oddly-shaped 6' long box which had a bunch of gold, and an odd layer of dirt under a silk lining which we ripped open, looking for hidden caches. Now, to a metagamer, this screams "Vampire!" To us, we bedded down for the night right in that room, setting a typical watch of one person at a time as we always do just in case. We got lucky, no pale-faced nasties appeared. Guess he was busy elsewhere. But while we're making spooky vampire-voice jokes OOC, our characters are completely oblivious. It's called "role-playing" and "separation of player and character". Does wonders.