D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
That's fair. I was thinking in the context of D&D modules specifically, since the given example was the contrast between "trolls are weak to fire and acid" (100% okay for players to know regardless of context--e.g. a newly-formed group with brand-new characters can still know this from previous gameplay) and "this place has fire traps" (100% verboten, absolutely unacceptable, never under any circumstances is this okay).
Why would it be ok? What diagetic reason does your PC have to know that information?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
That's fair. I was thinking in the context of D&D modules specifically, since the given example was the contrast between "trolls are weak to fire and acid" (100% okay for players to know regardless of context--e.g. a newly-formed group with brand-new characters can still know this from previous gameplay) and "this place has fire traps" (100% verboten, absolutely unacceptable, never under any circumstances is this okay).
This is just convention, deriving from early D&D play practices where some player knowledge (monster vulnerabilities, spell interactions etc) is accepted as being cumulative, while other player knowledge (the solution to a particular puzzle) is only meant to be used once: you don't keep playing and beating the same module over and over.

The ossification of these rather idiosyncratic conventions into widespread norms of RPGing is one of the stranger features of the hobby.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
To be entirely fair, if you don't have someone who is both decent at firewalling, and strongly willing to work at keeping track of what their character does and doesn't know, its probably impractical for them to remember certain very common D&Disms are things they're supposed to not know.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
This is just convention, deriving from early D&D play practices where some player knowledge (monster vulnerabilities, spell interactions etc) is accepted as being cumulative, while other player knowledge (the solution to a particular puzzle) is only meant to be used once: you don't keep playing and beating the same module over and over.

The ossification of these rather idiosyncratic conventions into widespread norms of RPGing is one of the stranger features of the hobby.
I'm fine with all of it being diagetic; ie, you know it and can act on it if your PC knows it.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
To be entirely fair, if you don't have someone who is both decent at firewalling, and strongly willing to work at keeping track of what their character does and doesn't know, its probably impractical for them to remember certain very common D&Disms are things they're supposed to not know.
Practicality does rear it's ugly head here sometimes, yes. What I'm talking about is more an ideal to aspire to as opposed to a 100% achievable goal.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Why would it be ok? What diagetic reason does your PC have to know that information?
I'm not the one who claimed it was! I was responding to what sounded to me like a contradiction--the fact that others had said that it was perfectly okay for a character to know that trolls are weak to fire, but not at all okay for them to know that a particular dungeon has fire traps in it.
 




Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And if they decide to still run it, it is important to hold back on decision making. And maybe the DM should work with you about what kind of knowledge to share with players is ok.
I tried playing in a game with a module I had been through already. After letting the DM know, he gave me the okay to play. It was super frustrating for me to try and determine when my PC would have figured something out so that I could act on it. That was the one time I did that and never again.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top