Are metagamers autistic?

Where did Sally get such a huge fucking marble?
What's it like to "play" with one giant marble?

Your first choice is not the weapon meant for killing things, but instead a convoluted attempt to splash a little oil on it and then somehow ignite it? lol

You know who could answer this for us, if he's still around? Dr. Assmarbles.

That's a bowling ball, you inbred intredastids.

>t. some chewed up bones the party checks for loot after the troll is dead

Wouldnt moderately educated people in a fantasy world all know about troll regeneration?, fire seems like a logic solution

Yes. This is why for inhuman and difficult encounters it's great fun to switch things up and give different weaknesses then the ones listen. Makes metagamers throw entertaining autistic fits and characters with IC background knowledge on these things still relevant.

That’s making some wild fucking assumptions. Also that’s what the knowledge skills are supposed to represent.

>doubting the power of Dr. Assmarbles

If you tell the players it's a troll then they're going to think of it as a troll. If you change shit up, that might come off kind of shitty.

The Making Monsters Mysterious section in the DCC book has good advice on this subject. If you don't want your players metagaming, stop using metagame terminology.

This, really. Don't call the thing a Troll when describing it, at least until the players pass an appropriate check to identify it as a Troll.

The players would probably have a clue as to what a troll is weak to just like we know that vampires hate sunlight and werewolves are harmed by silver. Stories would be passed along and stories of trolls would likewise be used to scare children and much like Grimm's fairy tales the secret to defeating the monsters would also be mentioned in the stories. The DM should assume most characters with a decent wisdom would know the basics of those stories and should assume they would know the weaknesses of most monsters except very rare and hidden ones.

Depends on the setting.
Also
>players

That's why most games have some way to resolve character knowledge.

>knowledge skills
>proficiencies
>familiarity
>"You know what your player knows, this is part of getting good at the game.

>That’s making some wild fucking assumptions.

So is assuming that its rare knowledge

>Also that’s what the knowledge skills are supposed to represent.

So you make a knowledge roll every time your character needs to take any action that requires any ammount of knowledge?, do you also need a knowledge roll to suspect dragons breath fire?

>DM makes his own world where trölls are weak to ice and lightning
R E K T

This.

I always say I use variants, never expect the norm. I do it specifically to fuck over metagamers.

You dont know what a troll is weak against. You don't know these millions of creatures has for strengths and weaknesses in general. You might be a turboautist who has no friends, and spends 80% of his free time memorizing the monster manual, but you will not be getting an in game advantage for doing this.

I keep it consistent after starting the campaign, obviously. If I make trolls weak to ice, they will stay weak to ice, throughout the entire campaign. The knowledge has been earned, after all.

>do you also need a knowledge roll to suspect dragons breath fire?
Not that guy, but why do you assume a dragon breathes fire without knowing anything else about it? It could be a black dragon and exhale a wave of acid instead.

A good GM isn't going to say "this is a troll" if the player character has no clue what a troll is, and yeah, that will cause you to waste rounds on it.

>It is big and it is ugly, and you are pretty sure you havent seen anything like it before.
That's my general reply when someone asks what a troll like creature is, and they don't roll well enough on their roll.

The quality of responses in this thread will answer that question for you.
The answer is yes.

>It's a fire elemental. Using my metagaming knowledge I know that lighting a bigger fire will starve the elemental of oxygen, thus killing it.

>Oxygen
>In your fantasy game

But if you're a fighter, you use a sword because that's your weapon. You might not even have something fire or acid-related prepared. It is perfectly logical for a wizard, if they have a fire spell prepared, to cast it just as something to do damage.

What you should do is what my last GM did - describe a plant monster and wait a few turns of me desperately spamming alchemical fire before asking me for a knowledge check to realize this plant monster is weak against electricity. I could not have figured that out from observation.

Because removing the stupid "true dragon" distinction PCs actually have no business knowing most dragons still breathe fire, its more believable to have a character assume a dragon will breath fire and being proven wrong than just not knowing that dragon have a breath weapon

That would only work assuming the elemental needs immediate oxygen to survive

Depends on the GM. I roll with the thought that CR 3 and below creatures that aren't outsiders are common knowledge in some form or other. Trolls are a common enough threat that their weakness to fire is well known though they've developed enough intelligence to put it out using bile or scat. Their hatred of goats, however, is not as well documented.

I don't know if metagamers are autistic.
But I know asking if they are is.

I hate this guy's face.

The basket?
I'm not sure what this test is supposed.to prove, I mean, Sally didn't see Anne take the marble, right?

>He doesn't make his players roll to breathe.

DCC?

The picture is a test to see if you are capable of "theory of mind." In short, it's a test to see if you can separate knowledge you have from knowledge that other people have. An autistic person or child that does not comprehend theory of mind would answer that Sally should look in the box, because the autistic person knows that the marble is in the box - therefore it is obvious that the marble is in the box.
See how this relates to metagaming now?

If we were going off logic everything flesh based would be weak to fire because fire kills flesh

t. Thin-skinned cuck
I'm literally immune to fire. You just gotta stop being a little bitch.

Well, yes, but my point is that attacking a monster that wont stay down with fire is not really a genius move, its the first thing most people would try

Dungeon Crawl Classics

>have autism
>consistently failed this as a child
>still a massive effort to not wave at person I am talking to on phone
>friends keep asking me to be in the roleplay gaems because I have a good sense of humor or something
How do I explain I'm too retarded to do that shit right?

By saying that stuff to them instead of us. If they're your friends then you should be able to sit them down and talk about shit like this. Talk to them one at a time if it's easier.

Wait, is this real?

What is it like reading books? Does that help with a distinction between character knowledge?

You're immune to sufficiently cool fire. Just because someone is a welder/cook for a sufficient part of their life doesn't mean they love blowtorch massages.
> t. Electrician that thinks 30 mA tickles but is pretty sure 40 A would not tickle

A good GM wouldn't even use a troll because it's big puzzle of "It regenerates so you have to figure out a way to stop regeneration." is something that everyone knows. The troll just doesn't work as an encounter anymore.

Lamp oil is like 9 times out of 10 olive oil, and the other time it's d&d or every shitty hollywood blockbuster and it's actually petrol for some reason.

You planning on frying up the troll or something?

mmmmmm, fried troll. I'm hungry now.

Train your mind harder. HARDER.

Even severe autism can be trained out of. A better life is possible.

If someone lives in an area near bears, they're going to know what bears eat. Same goes for every single kind of monster that exists. Monsters aren't just magical apparitions that appear out of nothing that no one's seen before (unless they, you know, explicitly are). They're parts of the natural world like everything else.

Remember, most of the surreal bestiaries full of wild inaccuracies from the medieval period were written by people who'd never SEEN the animals depicted therein. Anyone who actually lived on the Nile new exactly what a crocodile was, what it looked like, what it ate, how it hunted, whatever. You had to or you got eaten. Assuming people who live near trolls won't know how a troll functions is asinine.

>It is big and it is ugly, and you are pretty sure you havent seen anything like it before.
I didn't know we had to fight against your mom

What makes you think that trolls are as common as crocodiles? That sounds like a recipe for ecological disaster. Do you expect the pcs to all be from towns directly adjacent the magical troll forest user? How are these people that aren't the pcs living next to trolls? You do realize that even in d&d people with any levels at all are super uncommon right? Where is this knowledge coming from if a peasant with a torch stands about as much chance as a corpse with a torch at defeating a troll (the flat damage added to every troll attack in 5e is equal to the average commoner's entire hp pool)? Where are these survivors that carry down these tales? How is this knowledge even remotely common?

You don't run shitty generic theme park games where the pcs are beset by trolls because you needed a set piece everyone would be familiar with and put zero thought into it whatsoever did you?

I'll only consider this acceptable if your character's response to most large monsters is to Molotov them. If we're five sessions in and you haven't lit up anything that moves this doesn't fly.

So you play some kinda witcher level game where nobody has ever survived a troll for long enough to learn anything about it?

Am I autistic for not murdering my teammates in cold blood because I wield a chaotic evil blade as a oath of conquest paladin even though the blade is telling me that If I do it'll boosts my stats/attack bonuses and that it would be in character to murder the pacifistic cleric?

If you didn't throw a lamp in last week's fight against that hill giant though, you can be sure that you'll be out of matchsticks this week.

>I roll with the thought that CR 3 and below creatures that aren't outsiders are common knowledge in some form or other.

So in other words, people in your fantasy world are idiots including 20 intelligence wizards even though a vampire's weaknesses were well known to people in the medieval ages.

Potentially. Do you know it's evil IC? If so, no reason to trust it. Besides which, do you have reason to trust it over your friend anyway? Any IC proof that it will boost your "strength" - given that hard stats are a meta concept.

Arguably, no. Does your GM expect you to kill anyone in the party with it? Ask him, might help clear things up?

Overall, even if it's meta-gaming, I can't really hate on you for it, since I did something similar a while back - trying to prevent a PC death, even though I didn't necessarily have ideal motivation for it - since my PC was evil.

Got an alignment shift for it though, so it pans out, I guess.

>Do you know it's evil IC?

You would literally have 0 way of knowing since good and evil are subjective and are black-and white terms being used to characterize peoples actions.

> Besides which, do you have reason to trust it over your friend anyway?

Party members? Your term for allies of convenience?

> Any IC proof that it will boost your "strength" - given that hard stats are a meta concept.

I kill any enemy, it boosts my stats, the GM describes I'm getting stronger and conveys it numerically by saying my stats have changed.

Overall this whining about metagaming gives people excuses to flat out undermine/kill/insult/bully other PCs since "at least I'm staying in character hurr-durr."

I thought A doesn't matter and it's all about V.

Both matter. A static discharge is actually a lot of volts, but lacks the amperage to do any lasting harm.

V(Volt) = P(Watt) / I(Amp).
If alignments are being used then evil is evil and good is good. "Grey morality" retards please understand this.

Metagaming is an unavoidable component of gaming. Don't be a dick about it.

>even though a vampire's weaknesses were well known to people in the medieval ages.

Different populations had different beliefs on what weaknesses vampires had.

Knowledge checks are as much about finding out if you remember facts as you knowing the correct facts.

Care to define what is evil and what is good?

Good is good. Whatever the good deities are for, it's good. If "good" aligns with real world good, or your definition of good, is irrelevant, because good is already established in the setting. Obviously applies to evil.

But this is exzactly what dms are supposed to do!

If a universe has absolute morality, then evil and good have specific definitions in that universe. We live in a world where morals are subjective. Our characters might not.

Your forgetting that the oral tradition is shit at transmitting useful information and that we have used it for countless generations in the real world, and it resulted in shit like "vampires don't like the sun" and "werewolves don't like silver" despite neither fucking thing even existing. In D&D land, people are probably told that trolls can only be killed by being tricked into eating a squirrel dipped in honey that has been sitting in a pot in a river for three days or some shit.

Maybe

I don't know

Can you repeat the question?

This is fine, but if trolls are just as common in this world as they are in traditional ones, If a PC has a normal backround (where in a traditional world they would know trolls were weak to fire and acid) the GM should tell the players about the weakness.

Even if people have managed to kill trolls that's no guarantee that even educated people would get an accurate account of how it happened.

>gives people excuses to flat out undermine/kill/insult/bully other PCs since "at least I'm staying in character hurr-durr."
If it's what your character would do it's what your character would do. You should probably start considering making characters that actually function within the groups if this is a common occurrence for you though.

>the GM should tell the players about the weakness
Nope. Roll your knowledge check. You’re not getting off the hook with, “b-but those monsters are common knowledge!” in a setting where the majority of the population can’t even fucking read.

Fuck off, you're not the boss of me.

>a setting where the majority of the population can’t even fucking read
shit setting desu

Even if we assume that people can, are you expecting troll hunters to take time off from their hunting to write books about how to successfully kill trolls? Of course not. The people who write those books are educated men with third or fourth hand information, or who just write down whatever they happen to think sounds good. "Yeah sure, trolls are probably weak to garlic, that makes sense. I know some other monsters that are weak to garlics."

>pessimistic for the sake of being pessimistic
>or reactionarily pessimistic
shit setting desu

>Roll your knowledge check
Fuck off rollplaying purist.
If your character has a knowledge common monster weaknesses then they should know the weaknesses of common monsters, even if the player doesn't.

I never really understood why people weren't aware of the common creatures of their world.
This is like pokemon shit where the main character doesn't know anything about his own setting so that the viewers don't feel left out.

I'm willing to bet you don't even know the species of poisonous snakes and spiders in your area, or how to identify them off the top of your head without the internet.
Out of sight, out of mind.

A spider is a lot smaller than a troll.

Information was really scarce and often wrong in the times before the printing press and pre-industrial people didn't really travel much.

Today, some knowledge basically gets absorbed by osmosis through books, TV, school, etc., so you know stuff that you don't specifically look up, but in a society where knowledge is scarce, you'd have to specifically look for it to learn something, so you usually only learned of things that are relevant to your daily life. Maybe you'd get some hearsay, or some campfire stories, but those would be extremely unreliable and usually completely wrong.

It's a great assumption for the GM to make because it realigns player and character knowledge. There are many ways to play up trolls' hatred for fire that are much more interesting than regeneration:
>trolls become incensed at the sight of fire, and target the fire user above all others
>the trolls you were hired to kill scatter and flee at the sight of fire, now you'll have to track them down
>the trolls in the forest will stalk you during the day and ambush you at night... unless you've got a decent sized campfire going

Think of a bear, then. How many people would know which bear is the one you have to play dead for and which is the one you have to escape from? How many people know what to do when faced with a cougar?

You are correct, congratulations. Do you have anything else to say other than pointless semantics?

If there was a type of bear that could regenerate all physical damage and was only vulnerable to fire I’m pretty sure I’d have heard of it.

>are you expecting Troll hunters to take time off from their hunting to write books about killing trolls?

Yes? Because making a book about the time they killed a troll, or getting a bard to compose an epic about it, are great ways to build their personal reputation/ensure a lasting legacy?

>The people who write those books are educated men with third or fourth hand information
But like, why? If the setting has moderate-to-widespread literacy, then people would naturally desire evidence or require persuasion to accept questionable information, so it would be more likely for books written by those who consulted troll hunters or who were themselves troll hunters to be widely accepted and successful.

There is only one type of bear around here. Though I'm not sure if they can regenerate or not.

>naturally desire evidence or require persuasion to accept questionable information
This is not natural at all, though. Humans are really bad at the whole "evidence" thing.

>If a PC has a normal backround (where in a traditional world they would know trolls were weak to fire and acid) the GM should tell the players about the weakness

Lot of stupid, baseless assumptions you're making. Not the least being what's defined as a normal background. How would a warrior who's background is surviving a number of levies/battles for some nobles/kingdom know what the hell a troll is or isn't weak too? How would an urban rouge even know what a troll is? Or the god damn cleric who's only dealt with the divine (in theory) and dead (maybe) in practice? Same for the paladin. Wizard or Ranger could get it automatically if they specifically have backstory with it, otherwise bonus to roll for having smarts and outdoor experience. Everyone else rolls base and calls it trying to recall something someone once may or may not have said.

Monster's might be common, but the people who deal with them aren't, otherwise there wouldn't be many "common" monsters around. In the event there are enough people to deal with them, clearly they either aren't working hard, or don't care to share their secrets so someone else can deal with them, because again, then monsters wouldn't be so "common".

If your settings are all wonderful worlds with very modern and open information sharing by all means, but don't act like that's a standard or even often done outside of maybe high fantasy.

I'm sure you would have, considering you have an education and the internet.

congratulations, you have figured out what knowledege rolls do