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

[Morrus]

Unless you are suggesting that the characters are actual sentient entities, it really is the same question.

Or, to put it another way, what’s the practical purpose at the table of saying the character’s “should” know? Not might know, or can know, or probably know....but “should”?

As I asked someone above, do you tell your players who the king is and how the currency works? As opposed to payers who have played D&D before and therefore know about troll fire weakness.

Re. semantics of should, could, might, or can... I misspoke. I meant “flarg’. Which is all of those things. It’s a fun discussion of player v character knowledge, not a boring discussion of the semantics of various words.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't consider it avoiding meta game info, I consider it role playing my character.

That’s great! If you think it’s fun to pretend to not know things, go for it.

The problems start when you start also role-playing other people’s characters, by telling them what their characters know.

(By the way, I also want to point out that in another thread I said that arguing this question is the true Essence of D&D.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

In Three Hearts and Three Lions, Hugi knows about trolls, but not about their weakness to fire. They're frightening, mysterious monsters.

 

[Laurefindel]

Prompted by a comment in another thread. Should they? And why/why not?

Yes, I believe they should. At least for regions where trolls may live, in a "default assumption" D&D setting.

I believe that this type of hearth wisdom would be part of generic folklore among many other things, some that would be true, some that would be are completely fictitious.

I think that in a world where magic and monsters exists, a fair part of that folklore would resolve around that. Dragons that are red breath fire. Silver hurt werewolves. Vampires can't enter a house uninvited. Holy water hurt undead. There would probably be nursery rhymes about those things, and "innocent" children games made around the harsh reality of D&D world such as "catch the troll and put it in the bondfire". Think policemen and robbers, D&D style.

We have our "don't accept candies from a stranger; it might be a kidnapper". D&D citizens probably have their "don't invite a man home past sundown; it might be a vampire".

Off course there would be many other believes and habits that have no effects whatsoever, but as players/DM playing the game, we don't focus too much on that. It probably is part of the "untold" adventuring life that discovering that wearing a daisy on one's heart doesn't protect you against charm after all, or the confirmation that magic weapons do seem to hurt demons more, like the priest said.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I said yes, but really it doesn’t matter one way or the other. The player can decide what the character thinks. If the player wants to act on meta knowledge of trolls and fire they do so at their own risk. Making the assumption to fire attack the blue tinged troll with the staticky hair might be a bad move. Could turn out that the blue troll is a mutant who is susceptible to lightning damage while fire heals it (or hastes it or gives it advantage or whatever)

 

[Guest 6801328]

As I asked someone above, do you tell your players who the king is and how the currency works? As opposed to payers who have played D&D before and therefore know about troll fire weakness.

Re. semantics of should, could, might, or can... I misspoke. I meant “flarg’. Which is all of those things. It’s a fun discussion of player v character knowledge, not a boring discussion of the semantics of various words.

Before you added the second paragraph I was going to suggest you could have worded the survey more...precisely.

Although I don’t mind if players use their knowledge, I also don’t think they “should know.” It’s fine if they do, though.

So which answer should I pick?

 

[Len]

If trolls are a problem for people, at least occasionally, then sure, people would know about trolls and fire, just like they know not to aggravate a skunk.

If no-one in the local region has seen a troll in the last 50 years, then no, most people wouldn't know. Just like people in some parts of the world might not be familiar with the salient characteristics of skunks.

 

[Morrus]

Before you added the second paragraph I was going to suggest you could have worded the survey more...precisely.

Although I don’t mind if players use their knowledge, I also don’t think they “should know.” It’s fine if they do, though.

So which answer should I pick?

Which one do you want to pick? Pick that one.

 

[Reynard]

I'm in the camp of, "Yes, but that information may not be correct or complete." Fire stops trolls from regenerating is pretty vague. Does it mean a troll won't regenerate any fire damage? Does it mean you have to completely immolate the troll to keep it from coming back?

When dealing with veteran players I find it most fun for everyone to treat their hard earned meta knowledge as the kind of rumors and stories their characters know from being immersed in the culture.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends how common trolls are and what would be in the myths and legends.

Some basic things would probably be common knowledge ie dragons breathe fire, undead don't like holy water.

Trolls I'm not 100% sure about but it's plausible/probable. Burn trill I expect would be better known they say use acid.
DC 10 or 15 intelligence check if in doubt IMHO.