D&D General Should a low level character know to burn a troll?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

How is that good DMing? Setting a challenge that there isn’t a solution to? Trolls are just a metaphor for any challenge where knowledge wins.

There is a solution unfortunately the PC can't make their skill check. Me I'd expect them to use fire and acid right off the bat as I planned it, or rolled it on a random encounter chart. Or would you have put an out in there in case they couldn't roll a skill check? Its possible they are not using any fire and don't have an option to put 1+1 together.

I'm just curious how far the separation goes. No wrong answers, it comes down to style.

On a similar note, and I get this from time to time. A player says "well I didn't bother to make a note of this or anything but my PC should remember what the clue to this puzzle is..." or things to that effect. I don't remember but my PC should type thing. Do you fill them in?

 

[Guest 6801328]

How is that good DMing? Setting a challenge that there isn’t a solution to? Trolls are just a metaphor for any challenge where knowledge wins.

How is it good DMing to effectively hobble experienced players?

Newbie players are presumably "allowed" to use fire as soon as they think of it. And maybe one of the players (thinking about Hercules and the Hydra) does think of it after the first round.

Meanwhile experienced players, if I'm understanding correctly, are supposed to pass some kind of Int (History or Nature) check to "know" about fire, and they are not supposed to use fire until they do.

That makes no sense to me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I’m sorry, I really do think you have misread what I’ve said. Perhaps I’ve not been clear enough.

I’m saying ‘mature’ players can choose to separate player/character knowledge or not. That my preference was that it was worth it in some campaigns.

Immature players can’t separate the two (there is no choice) they don’t have restraint or self awareness to do it.

You and few others are reading what you want to hear, possibly because people are looking for an argument. That players who don’t separate the two are immature. That just isn’t what i have said. From my first post maybe that wasn’t clear but I have clarified four or five times now.

Ok, I get it now. Still disagree, but whatever.

 

[TheSword]

There is a solution unfortunately the PC can't make their skill check. Me I'd expect them to use fire and acid right off the bat as I planned it, or rolled it on a random encounter chart. Or would you have put an out in there in case they couldn't roll a skill check? Its possible they are not using any fire and don't have an option to put 1+1 together.

I'm just curious how far the separation goes. No wrong answers, it comes down to style.

On a similar note, and I get this from time to time. A player says "well I didn't bother to make a note of this or anything but my PC should remember what the clue to this puzzle is..." or things to that effect. I don't remember but my PC should type thing. Do you fill them in?

I probably wouldn’t rely on a skill check. I’d ensure there were clues. As I said, the troll question is just an analogy for any puzzle where something needs working out and some players have an auto win.

 

[TheSword]

How is it good DMing to effectively hobble experienced players?

Newbie players are presumably "allowed" to use fire as soon as they think of it. And maybe one of the players (thinking about Hercules and the Hydra) does think of it after the first round.

Meanwhile experienced players, if I'm understanding correctly, are supposed to pass some kind of Int (History or Nature) check to "know" about fire, and they are not supposed to use fire until they do.

That makes no sense to me.

Many players of many games are happy to be handicapped if it makes the game more fun.

I only enforce the rule in a game where that is the premise of the campaign. As I said Curse of Strahd for example. Let’s not pretend this is being forced on anyone.

 

[Mort]

Many players of many games are happy to be handicapped if it makes the game more fun.

I only enforce the rule in a game where that is the premise of the campaign. As I said Curse of Strahd for example. Let’s not pretend this is being forced on anyone.

Wait, are you saying that a group facing off against a guy named "Strahd von Zarovich" isn't allowed to think they're going up against a vampire - and to plan accordingly?

Keep in mind that the original Ravenloft was published in an era where the paradigm was very much "challenge the player" the characters are just an extension. The new Ravenloft has more frills - but the underlying assumptions are not that different.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Wait, are you saying that a group facing off against a guy named "Strahd von Zarovich" isn't allowed to think they're going up against a vampire - and to plan accordingly?

He sounds like a perfectly respectable nobleman to me, of mixed German and Slavic heritage.

 

[BookBarbarian]

He sounds like a perfectly respectable nobleman to me, of mixed German and Slavic heritage.

 

[TheSword]

If you want to do it that way

Wait, are you saying that a group facing off against a guy named "Strahd von Zarovich" isn't allowed to think they're going up against a vampire - and to plan accordingly?

Keep in mind that the original Ravenloft was published in an era where the paradigm was very much "challenge the player" the characters are just an extension. The new Ravenloft has more frills - but the underlying assumptions are not that different.

Yes that is correct our group’s characters certainly didn’t know what a vampire was, certainly didn’t know that the Devil Strahd was one, and certainly couldn’t prepare for that fact.

Luckily Vistani prophecy helped, Rudolph Van Helsing imparted some knowledge and the Book of Strahd contained the secrets of how to defeat him. Far more interesting than the players simply chalking up another Vampire.

 

[Mort]

If you want to do it that way
Yes that is correct our group’s characters certainly didn’t know what a vampire was, certainly didn’t know that the Devil Strahd was one, and certainly couldn’t prepare for that fact.

Luckily Vistani prophecy helped, Rudolph Van Helsing imparted some knowledge and the Book of Strahd contained the secrets of how to defeat him. Far more interesting than the players simply chalking up another Vampire.

My initial comment was a bit tongue in cheek BUT:

Strahd is not "just another vampire" and any player that makes that mistake is going to get burned.
The players use of in game information is both encouraged and expected. To rely on "player info" is dangerous because the DM is well within his rights to change things up enough to trip up the players supposed knowledge.

And that, I think is the real point. The DM needs to be cognizant of the knowledge base of the players and plan/adjust accordingly. But also, sometimes let the experienced players show it in play.