Determining character knowledge

[ff7hero]

We had an encounter where we got trapped in a room with some kind of rock or stone golem. The first thing the golem did was go and attack our wizard, who used shield and had all the attacks miss him. My Dumb Barbarian/Rogue went over and picked up the goblin wizard calling him "Blocks Rocks" and used him as a shield the rest of the encounter. All the attacks missed him, a few shield spells were expended but no damage.

Months later and everyone remembers "Blocks Rocks". IMO the expedient play in this encounter would have been a major missed opportunity.

Meanwhile if I had been the wizard player in this case, this would have gotten me majorly bent. Not like shouting and walking immediately, but I would have politely asked, both in and out of character, that this stop immediately and not happen again. Had this not happened, I would absolutely be walking from the table. No hard feelings, but these actions demonstrate a big difference in values around what I consider "fun" play. Being your rag doll/goblin shield is not my idea of a good time.

I mostly say this because I wasn't always as good as I am now about advocating for myself or leaving situations that were best walked away from. Ten years ago, I would have been laughing with you about it, but seething on the inside. Consider that while your fellow PCs may be laughing along with you, peer pressure is a powerful thing. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I thought it worth pointing out.

[Tanarii]

Title says it all.

How do you veteran players or DMs who play in this system seperate your characters knowledge of monsters, traps, gods, planes etc from what you know? Does that make sense?

I don't. Players are free to do so if they want to, but it's not required.

Metagaming and the player/character separation are a myth. Trying to achieve is is actually much closer to metagaming than not trying to achieve it

Frogreaver: I don't do the thing.

Also Frogreaver: Explains in detail how they do exactly the thing.

Right? Definitely a good example of successfully achieving "metagaming" by pursuing the mythical player/character separation.

[ff7hero]

I don't. Players are free to do so if they want to, but it's not required.

Metagaming and the player/character separation are a myth. Trying to achieve is is actually much closer to metagaming than not trying to achieve it.

This, agree 100%.

[Mr Adventurer]

the player/character separation are a myth.

It is not. What a peculiar position.

Character knowledge is a subset of player knowledge, mediated through the shared narrative and the rules of the game. As a player, I have knowledge that I do not attribute to my character. It is quite simple.

Unless you are talking about something else, in which case I don't care.

[ff7hero]

It is not. What a peculiar position.

Character knowledge is a subset of player knowledge, mediated through the shared narrative and the rules of the game. As a player, I have knowledge that I do not attribute to my character. It is quite simple.

Unless you are talking about something else, in which case I don't care.

Despite the dismissive ending to this post, I'm going to offer an answer, cribbed from a better writer than myself.

Let’s get one thing straight: no matter how great a [...] role-player you think you are, YOU are always a part of the equation. You’re not BEING a character. You’re attempting to make choices for a character based on your understanding of their motivations and the world and the consequences. Everything you choose for your character is warped through the lens of your own perception, your own understanding, your own experiences, your own biases. And, a lot of the time, you’re guessing. You’re guessing what it would be like to be this completely different person in completely different circumstances in a world that doesn’t exist.

(source: https://theangrygm.com/through-a-gla...er-seperation/)

[Mr Adventurer]

Despite the dismissive ending to this post, I'm going to offer an answer, cribbed from a better writer than myself.



(source: https://theangrygm.com/through-a-gla...er-seperation/)

I don't see how the quoted portion is a rebuttal of what I said at all.

[Frogreaver]

I don't. Players are free to do so if they want to, but it's not required.

Metagaming and the player/character separation are a myth. Trying to achieve is is actually much closer to metagaming than not trying to achieve it


Right? Definitely a good example of successfully achieving "metagaming" by pursuing the mythical player/character separation.

Im with you. Metagaming isnÂ’t an issue as long as itÂ’s done for the sake of group fun.

[Tawmis]

I've been playing D&D since like, 1979... and I was typically a player till about 1985, when I began DMing more than being a player.

I am fortunate, the groups I DM for are new to D&D (they've all played CRPGs, MMOs, etc) - but new to D&D.
My world is completely homebrew - I have a site that has a list of "known/common monsters" that also includes lore about said monsters. (I don't expect ANYONE to read what I put on the site. Up to them if they want.)
It's essentially all of the Monsters from the Monster Manual.
However, the folks are on a new continent, which has some of those same monsters, but some behave differently - and there's new monsters seemingly unique to this continent (Volo's monsters).
But this continent has had people from the old continent on it, for like fifty years; so stands to reason they might have heard something, even about these new monsters. So I have them roll History, and tell or not tell them something based on their rolls.


As for me as a player - one example is, I am playing a Kobold Rogue in Out of the Abyss - I saw a water creature, the DM showed the party what I saw (a water weird) - and I asked, "Would my character know what that was?" DM had me roll a Nature or History check (can't recall) and I failed. So I simply explained to the party, I saw a creature made out of water in the lake. It devoured the meat I'd thrown in the water (when I was testing it to see if there was things like piranha in the water). Being low level, and not overly experienced with the world, it was completely understandable why my level 3 Kobold might be completely unaware of what a Water Weird was based on his background.

[SiCK_Boy]

As for me as a player - one example is, I am playing a Kobold Rogue in Out of the Abyss - I saw a water creature, the DM showed the party what I saw (a water weird) - and I asked, "Would my character know what that was?" DM had me roll a Nature or History check (can't recall) and I failed. So I simply explained to the party, I saw a creature made out of water in the lake. It devoured the meat I'd thrown in the water (when I was testing it to see if there was things like piranha in the water). Being low level, and not overly experienced with the world, it was completely understandable why my level 3 Kobold might be completely unaware of what a Water Weird was based on his background.

That last example is typical of what I just don't understand about the whole concept of "playing dumb". What exactly is being gained by anyone around the table with this "ignore what you know as a player, just do as if you didn't know"?

If some of the players don't know what a water weird is, then these players may be gaining some sense of discovery (encountering a new type of monster, learning how to deal with it, etc.). Discovery is a fun part of the game, so these players would "gain" something. But if all the players had been ignorant of what a water weird is based on its picture, then there would have been no harm. They would not have been "playing dumb", they would just have been "playing ignorant" because they really didn't know.

The DM is not really gaining anything. The DM has no particular vested interest in this water weird, and whether or not the players recognized the monster as such should not really impact how the monster will act.

It should make no difference to the water weird within the fiction of the game. After all, its not like its trying to appear as something it is not (the DM used the Monster Manual picture to show everyone what the creature looks like).

So that leaves you, forced to play in a fakely cramped style, for no reason other than DM fiat. What is even worse is that these kind of DM-imposed / self-imposed restrictions come with no clear mechanical rules / adjudication. What would be the consequence if your character was to wonder aloud: "I wonder if this thing is a water weird"? Would the DM give you an XP penalty if you decide to use a special attack to target the pool, or if you switch to your magical suboptimal weapon, when you would not do so if you didn't know what the monster really is? It just all becomes arbitrary and none of the rules support playing this willful ignorance, which makes it almost entirely pointless.

I could see a system where fighting a creature you know about would grant you some bonus. But then, if such a system existed, there would be a checklist to track all the monsters you know about, or maybe the implementation would be through a systematic knowledge check before each fight and failing it gives you an AC penalty for the fight (not knowing what the monster attacks are, you can't anticipate them as well), or something of the kind.

Right now, the only rule I can see supporting this is the DM may grant you an Inspiration point for having played dumb.

One thing I would have been interested in knowing (and which would have helped answer OP question) is what information the DM was willing to give, depending on your result on the check. But even then, this is a mechanic that is put in place to compensate for the fact that characters almost always know more about the world they evolve in than players do (because we have a very limited interface to interact and interpret this world). But forcing the reverse is almost impossible to enforce in any meaningful or "fun" way anyway, and rarely makes much sense in any case, so I really don't think it's worth all the trouble.

[Tawmis]

That last example is typical of what I just don't understand about the whole concept of "playing dumb". What exactly is being gained by anyone around the table with this "ignore what you know as a player, just do as if you didn't know"?

If some of the players don't know what a water weird is, then these players may be gaining some sense of discovery (encountering a new type of monster, learning how to deal with it, etc.). Discovery is a fun part of the game, so these players would "gain" something. But if all the players had been ignorant of what a water weird is based on its picture, then there would have been no harm. They would not have been "playing dumb", they would just have been "playing ignorant" because they really didn't know.
The DM is not really gaining anything. The DM has no particular vested interest in this water weird, and whether or not the players recognized the monster as such should not really impact how the monster will act.
So that leaves you, forced to play in a fakely cramped style, for no reason other than DM fiat.

See, where someone might see a "fakely cramped style" - I see as an opportunity of roleplaying.

An let me be clear here - my style and what I am about to explain works for me. And may not work for others. Everyone has their own style. Everyone gets something different out of playing D&D.

So - yes, me as a person knows exactly what a Water Weird is, what it can do, it's limitations, etc. However, my character doesn't. The idea - for me - when I play D&D - is to NOT play myself. I am not playing what >>I<< would do in the body of a Kobold Rogue. I am playing the character of my Kobold - who has spent time (6 months) in the Underdark. What kind of experiences has he had? I want to step inside my Kobold's mind, his shoes, and live as if I were him - not as if I were me.

So yes, I know as a person what a Water Weird is - but my character has never encountered one. So how would HE address some unusual creature, made of water, that seemed to devour the beetle flesh I'd thrown in the water?

I guess that's why, for me, I like to ask my DM if I would know what a creature was. Otherwise, I am going to know every beast inside and out, from my countless years as a DM, and have an unfair advantage over the other players. For me, I'd rather share the experience. I don't want to be like, "Well. That was a Water Weird. We can avoid it by not going in the water. It will never come out of the water. If we do attack it - just know it's resistant to fire; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks and completely immune to poison. As we don't have any magical weapons, we'd be in big trouble. What do you guys think?"

And have the rest of the players stare at me, as if I just spoiled the fact that Vader was Luke's dad, as they're watching Star Wars for the first time.

[Darth Credence]

That last example is typical of what I just don't understand about the whole concept of "playing dumb". What exactly is being gained by anyone around the table with this "ignore what you know as a player, just do as if you didn't know"?

If some of the players don't know what a water weird is, then these players may be gaining some sense of discovery (encountering a new type of monster, learning how to deal with it, etc.). Discovery is a fun part of the game, so these players would "gain" something. But if all the players had been ignorant of what a water weird is based on its picture, then there would have been no harm. They would not have been "playing dumb", they would just have been "playing ignorant" because they really didn't know.

The DM is not really gaining anything. The DM has no particular vested interest in this water weird, and whether or not the players recognized the monster as such should not really impact how the monster will act.

It should make no difference to the water weird within the fiction of the game. After all, its not like its trying to appear as something it is not (the DM used the Monster Manual picture to show everyone what the creature looks like).

So that leaves you, forced to play in a fakely cramped style, for no reason other than DM fiat. What is even worse is that these kind of DM-imposed / self-imposed restrictions come with no clear mechanical rules / adjudication. What would be the consequence if your character was to wonder aloud: "I wonder if this thing is a water weird"? Would the DM give you an XP penalty if you decide to use a special attack to target the pool, or if you switch to your magical suboptimal weapon, when you would not do so if you didn't know what the monster really is? It just all becomes arbitrary and none of the rules support playing this willful ignorance, which makes it almost entirely pointless.

I could see a system where fighting a creature you know about would grant you some bonus. But then, if such a system existed, there would be a checklist to track all the monsters you know about, or maybe the implementation would be through a systematic knowledge check before each fight and failing it gives you an AC penalty for the fight (not knowing what the monster attacks are, you can't anticipate them as well), or something of the kind.

Right now, the only rule I can see supporting this is the DM may grant you an Inspiration point for having played dumb.

One thing I would have been interested in knowing (and which would have helped answer OP question) is what information the DM was willing to give, depending on your result on the check. But even then, this is a mechanic that is put in place to compensate for the fact that characters almost always know more about the world they evolve in than players do (because we have a very limited interface to interact and interpret this world). But forcing the reverse is almost impossible to enforce in any meaningful or "fun" way anyway, and rarely makes much sense in any case, so I really don't think it's worth all the trouble.

Role playing vs. roll playing. You prefer the latter, it seems. Some people prefer the former - nothing wrong with either one.

[Tanarii]

Role playing vs. roll playing. You prefer the latter, it seems. Some people prefer the former - nothing wrong with either one.

{Edit: Apologies to Darth Credence for responding harshly to something he didn't intend}

[KorvinStarmast]

"It's your expectation for everyone to act professionally"...

That comes across a bit demanding, like it's your way or the highway.

It's one of the few realistic and necessary in-universe cases of what my guy would do since a non trivial part of being An Adventurer is combat. Combat is a life and death situation. If you don't take it seriously/professionally then the chances that you or a party member will die - as seen by the PC's In Universe - increases substantially. Playing dumb can get you, or other people, killed. (I had a career in the military - making small mistakes can get people killed in a peace time exercises, not to mention actual combat with actual weapons ... but I'll stop there as I wasn't fighting in Faerun )

Granted, I have one group who I play with who are very much 'beer and pretzel' gamers. In this group our individual interest in tactical skill is uneven ... I adapt to the group. But I'll also speak up if someone's putting the party into danger. And ya know what? The rest of the group doesn't whinge about it or cry about me being demanding. They appreciate that someone is thinking tactically. (Which really helped against that blue dragon when the wizard dropped to 0 HP after the first dragon breath (failed save, so it goes) and we all had to fight better ...)

I personally do:

Passive skill vs DC = CR + 10

Certain things Grant advantage (+5) or disadvantage (-5). E.g if you are from a place with horses, you get advantage. If no dinosaurs live on your continent, you get disadvantage.

Active rolls can only happen with resources on hand, eg in a library.

Do you mind if I steal this? This is about 80% of how I do it, but I like how you spelled it out in detail.

[JNAProductions]

Title says it all.

How do you veteran players or DMs who play in this system seperate your characters knowledge of monsters, traps, gods, planes etc from what you know? Does that make sense?

Adventurers are, in 5E, assumed to be competent. Barring something specific indicating a PC should not be competent in a certain field, I'll assume they're passable at it. Some exceptions might be, for instance, an ivory tower mage, who's never had to fend for themselves, would struggle to make a good campsite on the trail.

That competency ESPECIALLY includes monsters and fighting. I do expect that players don't open their Monster Manuals and look up the monster they're fighting, unless they roll super good on a knowledge check and I tell them to, but a Wizard should know that elementally animated constructs are highly magic resistant. A Fight should know that the green giants that regenerate can be stopped with fire. Etc. etc.

I'd rather err on the side of "PCs know more than they should," than the opposite, since it lets the players make educated decisions, and generally improves fun.

[Darth Credence]

No, it's roleplaying (making decisions based on what you know about the in game world) vs metagaming (making decisions trying to ignore what you actually know about the in game world).

No, I got it right. SickBoy is talking about how he cannot understand why someone would ignore what they know outside of the game, because he doesn't want to waste time in combat - he wants to get straight to fighting the battle as efficiently as possible. Roll playing. Nothing wrong with that.

Meanwhile, I've been in a campaign that had two hemispheres that didn't interact until voyages of discovery right at the start of the campaign. The goblinoid races are all only on one continent, so the people from the other hemisphere would not know anything about them. I know who they are, but I play interacting with them as an unknown group of people. Role playing.

Either is fine, if that's what people enjoy.

[Tawmis]

No, it's roleplaying (making decisions based on what you know about the in game world) vs metagaming (making decisions trying to ignore what you actually know about the in game world).

So for example. Life in the Underdark and the creatures that live there would generally be unknown to the general population and low level characters. So your background is you're a soldier from the city who got tired working for the mayor and struck up going on your own (assume: Level 1 fighter).

Say you're abducted (at Level 1) and dragged into the Underdark (say, for Out of the Abyss). How would you, as an inexperienced adventurer, know anything about the Drow, Piercers, Ropers, Mind Flayers/Illithid, Intellect Devours, Duergar, etc. etc., as your CHARACTER?

Why would you - if you broke free from the Drow prison - enter a cave where you saw stalactites and stalagmites and say, "Beware! These could be Piercers or Ropers!" If you, as your character, would have never experienced, heard of, or otherwise even know about them?

If your background included attacks by Drow against the city, you might know about them. But everything else? Why?

Again - this is how I think about the game. Others, this doesn't work. And that's fine for them. :)

[SiCK_Boy]

Role playing vs. roll playing. You prefer the latter, it seems. Some people prefer the former - nothing wrong with either one.

I find your choice of words very loaded and misrepresentative of the situation. After all, I'm not the one advocating for some kind of "roll" to determine what I know or not.

But okay. As pointed out multiple times, for each table, different things will bring different levels of enjoyment.

[Tanarii]

Either is fine, if that's what people enjoy. You seem to be attempting to tell people who enjoy the latter that they are having badwrongfun.

(Edit: Apologies to Darth Credence for responding harshly to something he didn't intend}

[Darth Credence]

I find your choice of words very loaded and misrepresentative of the situation. After all, I'm not the one advocating for some kind of "roll" to determine what I know or not.

But okay. As pointed out multiple times, for each table, different things will bring different levels of enjoyment.

I apologize if you find the words loaded - I did not intend them to be. What I read from your comment was that you do not want to have someone considering what their character would know and acting that way - you want people to use what they know regardless of the source to run combat efficiently. If I have misunderstood your viewpoint, then I apologize and would ask that you clear it up for me.

As to whether or not you are asking for a roll to determine the knowledge, that doesn't automatically mean that you are roll playing, and not wanting that roll doesn't mean you aren't. The only time I ask any players for a roll for what they know, it is more along the lines of something obscure that they couldn't get from a monster manual. Say the question is what the significance is of a particular heraldic symbol. If someone is a knight, or a subject of the kingdom that the symbols are found in, then I just let them know that they know it. If they are not, and nothing in their background would indicate that they have no reason to know it, then I would say they don't. However, I would be willing to let them go with a history check to see if they had happened to learn it at some point. If they succeeded, I'd tell them what they know, and ask them if they'd like to give me a reason why they know it, or if it is just something they must have heard at some point. Usually they have some reason, like they were stuck at a boring ceremony at some point, and the only thing they had to do to pass the time was to read the only legible book on the shelves, Heraldic Conventions of [insert kingdom]. If they failed, I would let them know that they have never heard of this before, and give them future opportunity to find that book so they will know in the future, if they so desire.

On the flipside of that, I've run adventures for people that know every creature in all of the various manuals, and when I have gone to the trouble of describing said creature, they quickly talk, identify what they are dealing with, and start to plan their actions accordingly. For these groups, I focus more on setting up challenging and interesting combat, because they are more interested in those mechanics, and using good tactics to win battles. They never ask to roll a check to figure something out, because they know all they need to know for the encounter they are in, and it has been wargaming to them, rather than role playing. I've had a blast with both types of players, and am happy to play in either type of campaign. But I also know that if we are deciding to play a different game for some reason, with the former group I'm going to suggest something that is light on rules and rewards coming up with stories - my go to on that is Chrononauts. With the latter, I'm going to break out my X-Wing miniatures, or Battles of Westeros, where we can play some rigid combat games.

.

ETA - miscommunication between us, glad it's cleared up.

[Tanarii]

I But, yeah, I'm telling people they are having badwrongfun. You got me.

Yes. You used the term roll playing, that is a very loaded term used to tell people they are having badwrongfun. You may not have intended or realized it is, so I apologize for responding in kind.

Edit: and comments edited to reflect that apology.

[Valmark]

I'm always going to use anything I (player) know about the enemy.

I know fully well that it's nonsensical for my character to know everything I do but simply put, I care much more about my party. I do my best to help the group get out of the fight as alive and safe as possible- even if you throw a single goblin at a level 13 party (arbitrary number) I'm going to defeat it with the same caution and tension I'd have fighting Zariel. I can never know what the DM stored- the goblin could be a metallic dragon shapeshifted, for example.

Not the first time I'd face Good monsters as part of a Good party because we differ on our notion of Good, either, so that would actually be a plausible encounter.

[SiCK_Boy]

No, it's roleplaying (making decisions based on what you know about the in game world) vs metagaming (making decisions trying to ignore what you actually know about the in game world).

Probably a better definition of the options presented and the inherent challenge presented by the medium we use to play the game.

Why would you - if you broke free from the Drow prison - enter a cave where you saw stalactites and stalagmites and say, "Beware! These could be Piercers or Ropers!" If you, as your character, would have never experienced, heard of, or otherwise even know about them?

I've been using a lot of "definitive" statements earlier in this discussion, but my real stance on things and the way I play at the table is more nuanced. The example you give above is an interesting one. I can certainly see the value, fairness, and logic of having your kobold not enter every cavern warning others about ropers and piercers. I mean, if we do end up being attacked by such a creature, my character would not hold it against yours for not having warned us about this possibility. But then, hopefully you never take it so far in the other direction that you deliberatly walk blindly into every stalagmite just to give the DM proof that your character is clearly ignorant about those creatures. And if you took a middle position of mentioning potential hidden attackers as we approach a new cavern, and checking out the cavern ceiling for hidden enemies or trying to spot eyes on the walls or stalagmites, I would not pre-judge you as "metagaming"; I would simply treat you as a cautious character in a dangerous environment. If you never displayed such cautious behavior, and only started showing it as you approach Room 14a where the module has, in fact, placed a roper, then you would be veering into severe metagaming, bordering on cheating.

But all those options are part of a continuum. There is quite a margin between the behavior described above and the character who deliberatly plays dumb by wasting attacks on a troll at a table where every player knows what a troll's weakness is.

Why would your character mention monsters and act in a cautious fashion when the character has never experienced, heard of, or otherwise know about said monster? Well, that is the conundrum asked by OP. The answer is that, none of us (as players) have lived through the entire lives of our characters, so none of us, as players, know the full extent of all the knowledge our characters can have. I can just as easily reverse the question. Why would your character NOT know what a roper is? Who in this world has never heard about ropers and piercers and such dangerous monsters? Why would anyone in this world NOT know about such things? And again, there is no way to give proof one way or another. The DM may decide what everyone else (every NPC, even godlike creatures) know in this world - that's his prerogative as DM. But in general, the line has to be drawn on the player; and even if the game was to let the DM make those kind of decisions, the areas where a player does not have full control of his character are usually areas where at least the rules of the game control the character and limit how much fiat the DM can show (ex: the DM may decide what ability score method will be used in his game, but in a point buy game, its the player who decides how many points to put in which score - within the scope allowed by the rules). The game designers have provided almost no indication of how players and DM are supposed to handle these problems - in previous editions, they had clear DC for these kind of checks to help DM at least somehow adjudicate these things, and even then, those checks were mostly a mechanism to assist the DM in giving help to his players.

The way I see it, it should be left entirely to the players to make those kind of determinations. The problem with letting the DM decide is that, whatever he decides, it is almost impossible for him to enforce his "ruling". So what if a DM decides that nobody in this world know about trolls and fire? Since when does the DM can forbid a player from lighting a fallen foe on fire? The player describes his actions, and the DM should just describe what happens.

And once it's left to me, I would rather play an adventurer with solid knowledge of monsters.

I apologize if you find the words loaded - I did not intend them to be. What I read from your comment was that you do not want to have someone considering what their character would know and acting that way - you want people to use what they know regardless of the source to run combat efficiently. If I have misunderstood your viewpoint, then I apologize and would ask that you clear it up for me.

My position is that the game provides no rule to determine what your character does or does not know, and there are no rules supporting ignorance or knowledge. Some DMs may have specific rules at their tables regarding this topic, and if I play with a DM who does, I'll respect his rules (or avoid playing with him), but I think most of those who do have rules have, in fact, only barebone frameworks that are difficult to implement. As such, I see it as being entirely within the player's purview to decide, for most aspects of the adventuring life, what his character does or does not know. And I expect players to not deliberatly cripple themselves or the party by assigning willful ignorance to themselves, and I will certainly hold it against them if they are being especially obtuse about it. If you, as a player, decide that your character doesn't know that a troll can only be killed by fire, and we end up fighting a troll, and you have your character throw holy water at it, I'll certainly call you out for being dumb. Now, if you want to stay in character, and we are fighting a troll and a group of goblins, and once the troll is down, you decide to just turn around and shoot at goblins rather than burn the troll, I can live with that - especially since, after the fight, my character will ask yours why the heck you didn't burn the troll, and once your character admits its ignorance, my character will educate yours.

I enjoy all kinds of limits on my character in the game. I accept that not all my stats will be 20. I enjoy playing with encumbrance rules that will make my life more difficult. There's all kind of limitations that I appreciate as being part of the "challenge" of playing the game (I appreciate them more when there are good rules supporting them - even variance encumbrance is a fiddly system that is not fully up to the task of representing what it does). But since the rules are silent in regards to initial / historical character knowledge, I'd rather play competent characters who have good knowledge of the world and all adventuring-related matters.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, I got it right. SickBoy is talking about how he cannot understand why someone would ignore what they know outside of the game, because he doesn't want to waste time in combat - he wants to get straight to fighting the battle as efficiently as possible.

That's not what roll playing is. (OK, I just realized that others have called you out on this, but I'll ask you to please, in the future, to be a bit more careful with the terms you use).

Of all the things in an action rpg that need die rolls, combat is the foremost. This goes back to the D&D game's roots in wargaming where using dice to determine hits/deaths/conditions in table top games began in Chainmail, but the boardgames that informed the gamer geek culture of the 60's and 70's like Gettysburg, Battle of the Bulge, Risk, Panzerblit, etc all tried to use die rolls to get around the "play make believe" problem of "I shot you, your are dead" - "No I am not" problem.

We (well, Dave and Gary) could just as easily have used Rock/Paper/Scissors, but that wasn't deemed elegant enough, I suppose.

[Darth Credence]

Yes. You used the term roll playing, that is a very loaded term used to tell people they are having badwrongfun. You may not have intended or realized it is, so I apologize for responding in kind.

Edit: and comments edited to reflect that apology.

I was every bit as over the top with you, and I apologize for that. Miscommunication, and I'll explain more below.

That's not what roll playing is. (OK, I just realized that others have called you out on this, but I'll ask you to please, in the future, to be a bit more careful with the terms you use).

I absolutely will. I do want to explain where I went wrong, though. Although I've been playing off and on for 30 years, this is really the only community other than my playing friends I am part of for D&D, and this is the first time I've seen anyone react this way to that term. I've seen threads that specifically call out 'metagaming' as bad, but I've seen people use the same terms, role vs roll, and no one batted an eye. And when I've seen the terms used, the context seemed to me to be role players are those trying to inhabit a character, while roll players are those who see it more as a wargame simulating fantasy combat. Clearly having read this particular thread diversion, I got that wrong.

I apologize to anyone who took the terms as an attack. I will not do so again.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Adventurers are, in 5E, assumed to be competent. Barring something specific indicating a PC should not be competent in a certain field, I'll assume they're passable at it. Some exceptions might be, for instance, an ivory tower mage, who's never had to fend for themselves, would struggle to make a good campsite on the trail.

That competency ESPECIALLY includes monsters and fighting. I do expect that players don't open their Monster Manuals and look up the monster they're fighting, unless they roll super good on a knowledge check and I tell them to, but a Wizard should know that elementally animated constructs are highly magic resistant. A Fight should know that the green giants that regenerate can be stopped with fire. Etc. etc.

I'd rather err on the side of "PCs know more than they should," than the opposite, since it lets the players make educated decisions, and generally improves fun.

Absolutely this. Especially the last sentence. Agency is improved by knowledge (in fact doesn't exist without at least some level of knowledge)--random flailing isn't agency. I've found that both I and my players have more fun figuring out what to do with the knowledge we have rather than trying to act like we don't have any knowledge to begin with.

There are cases where player knowledge and character knowledge are not the same--a player may know engineering really well but be playing an uneducated character. Or, as is the case in my setting, be playing in a world where that knowledge is almost meaningless[1]. And players know mechanics, but PCs don't. But PCs know how those mechanics translate into the fiction layer. So they may know that a skeleton gets hurt by blunt-force weapons even if they don't know that skeletons have {vulnerability to bludgeoning damage} (marking the mechanics with {}).

And apropos of the "10 + CR" thing, I don't like that. Because that means that the king's champion (CR 15 or so) is harder to know anything about than a CR 1 creature that is the only one of its kind and was created last Tuesday. It's basically the Bear Lore problem from 4e. Instead, DMs need to think about what is common in their setting, independent of CR. If trolls are a continual problem, everyone knows about trolls. If trolls are really rare, then no one (or only scholars) know about trolls. This is a setting-level (or campaign level) choice, not a system level choice.

[Tawmis]

And once it's left to me, I would rather play an adventurer with solid knowledge of monsters.

And that's fine. Similar how you said you wouldn't fault me (as my Kobold) not warning people about Piercers and Ropers, nor would I fault you, question you, yell at the DM that there's no way your character knows XYZ. I embrace everyone's playing style at the table, because we're all there to enjoy the game.

It's like going to a rock concert - some people like to sit and just watch the show, some people like to stand and sing, some people like to bang their head. We're all there to enjoy the show. As long as we're being respectable to our fellow folks around us, who cares how we go about enjoying it.

I absolutely will. I do want to explain where I went wrong, though. Although I've been playing off and on for 30 years, this is really the only community other than my playing friends I am part of for D&D, and this is the first time I've seen anyone react this way to that term. I've seen threads that specifically call out 'metagaming' as bad, but I've seen people use the same terms, role vs roll, and no one batted an eye. And when I've seen the terms used, the context seemed to me to be role players are those trying to inhabit a character, while roll players are those who see it more as a wargame simulating fantasy combat. Clearly having read this particular thread diversion, I got that wrong.
I apologize to anyone who took the terms as an attack. I will not do so again.

I like you, didn't see "roll playing" as anything "offensive."
For example, I enjoy delving into my character - giving him (or her, I did play a female dwarf bard once) a personality. And I enjoy the story aspects of the adventures. I often talk to NPCs to gather knowledge, or give my characters an odd quirk (like my current Kobold Rogue talks in the third person and has a gem he got that he thinks is all powerful {it's not - it's just a gem he broke off in the Underdark that caused a burst of light when he broke it off}.

I have a player, in the game that I run, who I call a "Roll Player." He's not interested in the overall story. He listens. Acknowledges. Goes along with it. But never takes the time to interact with NPCs I have in place. He does, however, really enjoy the fights - and the rolls to attack, doing damage, and that type of stuff.

So there are those, who dig deep into the story (roleplayers), and there are those that are just there to hang out, and sling some dice (roll players).

There's nothing wrong with either side. Both are getting the enjoyment (hopefully) out of the game. Which is why when I DM, I always try to balance encounters or things to bounce off of for characters to find, and have combat - so both sides can hopefully be pleased with each session. I absolutely love all of my players, despite what kind of players they are - because they're sacrificing their time to be with me, and let the adventures I have planned, unfold, and be shaped by their actions.

And I am utterly thankful for them and their time they give me.

[Glorthindel]

I never expect people to take long to figure out to use fire against things that regenerate. Regenerating creatures (at least to this extent) don't exist in our world, but we still have tales of how to beat them. Even in a world without stories, it shouldn't take too long before someone tries cauterizing the wounds.

This is my view of it; my girlfriend doesn't play D&D, but even she knows you kill Werewolves with Silver bullets, and Vampires with a stake through the heart and exposure to sunlight, and these monsters don't even exist in our world. But due to legends and stories, this is pretty common knowledge, even for people who have no interest in our games.

In a world where these creatures very much do exist, and when you are playing a character with a vested interest in knowing what way is most expedient to end the particular creatures existence, you can bet they have picked up many of the more common tales. Sure, this wont be the case with ultra-rare or completely unheard of monsters, but the Troll under the bridge has got to be one of the more common scary dangers parents tell their fantasy-world kids, so the idea that they don't know that you have to burn them is fairly ludicrous. Even if for whatever reason you are playing a character that believes these creatures do not exist (a bit weird for Trolls, but possible for Vampires, Werewolves and the like), they will likely have heard the more common legends, so when that man transforms into a terrifying half-wolf monstrosity, they will likely be able to recall that silver is meant to be used against these.

[Waazraath]

I see a lot of people argue "player knowledge = character knowledge", and there are good arguments for it.

But from the other side: I DM'ed a lot. Earlier, I did an invasion of the demons campaign, which ended in the Abyss. I thouroughly prepared, and know a lot about different types of demons, their weaknesses, all lore ab out the abyss and the different demon lords, etc. etc. Now I am a player in Out of The Abyss. I know far more than my character has any right knowing about what's going on. But more importantly: the other players do not. So when I (player) see something of which I know it is relevant, I'll ask the DM if my character knows anything about it, or if I can roll an ability or skill check. If not, or if the check fails, I'll just shut my mouth, and try to have my character act as if he doesn't have a clue. I feel like I'd be spoiling a bit of the fun for the others, if I'd be contiuously rambling about "ah, that's X, he's from layer Y and the master of Z", or "ah, that demon can do this and that, we should watch out for A and it has weakness B". Some things people just have to experience themselves :)

[diplomancer]

If you know it, don't pretend your character doesn't know. At least, make him suspect it (for instance, I know wraiths are immune to charm. On a fight against wraiths, I didn't open with my signature move, Hypnotic Pattern with Instrument of the Bards, which tends to end many combats. What I DID do was to try cutting words on them on the first opportunity).

If you DON'T know it, you can ask your DM if your character knows something about it, but please, please, please, specially now with online play, don't open up the monster's stats and play from there.

[MinotaurWarrior]

And apropos of the "10 + CR" thing, I don't like that. Because that means that the king's champion (CR 15 or so) is harder to know anything about than a CR 1 creature that is the only one of its kind and was created last Tuesday. It's basically the Bear Lore problem from 4e. Instead, DMs need to think about what is common in their setting, independent of CR. If trolls are a continual problem, everyone knows about trolls. If trolls are really rare, then no one (or only scholars) know about trolls. This is a setting-level (or campaign level) choice, not a system level choice.

Every system is silly sometimes, and you can always deny any chance. But it's quick, and way better imo than what I saw before where you have everyone make active rolls to know stuff and the variance outweighs the character building choices. For everything in the MM, ime, it works fine, because CR also logically highly correlates with rarity and obscurity in setting (a world with more CR20 monsters than there are owls is ecologically unsustainable). A smart or educated person knows about bears even if they're not common, a dumb, uneducated person knows about elephants if they live in a place where they are common, a smart, educated person knows about elephants in a place where they're not, and a smart educated person doesn't know about them if they are obscure. All matches up with my expectation based on knowing about ancient-medieval Europe and India.

Though I'd also note - why should anyone without a history proficiency know about the King's champion? If he introduces or announces himself, everyone will understand of course, but a Druid who spends most of their time talking to birds might not know that he favors a big two handed polearm and is famous for his tripping attacks (or whatever you wrote up for him).