Yes. It's so annoying. A lot of good roleplaying is imagining a way your character would have/know something. Obviously you can take it too far, but it's an important skills for keeping the game moving. Like, say one character is obviously falling for some sort of trap by a doppelganger. OOC you either know or are suspicious, but IC you don't. You want to go with them so they aren't alone. But you can't just say that. Say something like, "I'll tag along, I'm getting stir crazy and could go for a walk." It's technically metagaming but it's a very different situation than doing something like telling that character not to go because the other person is suspicious when you genuinely have no reason to think they are.

Another good example of metagaming that so many people view as okay that they don't even view it as metagaming is telling your party OOC how many hit points you have remaining the healer choosing who to heal and with what spells based on the information. Your character doesn't know that number. A lot of times all you really know IC is if someone has less than half of their hit points remaining and a vague idea that barbarians can take more hits than wizards.

Obviously there are scenarios where this doesn't hold but I find in general that metagaming which benefits everyone, doesn't completely ruin encounters, and is done with an excuse that your character would actually reasonably do is typically okay.

Another example. I remember in one game we were trying to open a creaky rusty door quietly. Someone asked if anyone had oil. We all checked our inventory and nobody did. He explained that my character in heavy armor would likely have some because regular maintenance of it would require that. Which seemed fine. The DM agreed. So my character hands his character some oil.

Eh, I know nothing about how to handle most dangerous animals, even ones that live in my area; I'd imagine that even in a world with trolls, regular people wouldn't know anything about them.

If your character is a seasoned adventurer or monster enthusiast, sure, light it up, but if your backstory places you as the village baker for most of your life, running in with alchemist's fire at the ready seems a bit strange.

Ultimately I'd consider it to be on the GM's shoulders - if the only way your group is going to survive the troll encounter is with fire, then put an NPC in the local tavern who warms newcomers of a troll in the area, recommending that they have a lit torch at the ready.

Tip for shy/annoying/cowardly/etc. characters is to make it a thing they overcome. My current character is just a lil’ guy who basically got possessed so he’s constantly scared shitless but he’s trying his best and I’m always on the lookout for opportunities to get him out of his shell or even just to feel like he has to say something whether he likes it or not.

This is exactly how my last D&D campaign went!

Plenty of systems have something for that, often with a variety of options.

A bookish Exalted character might roll Intelligence + Lore to remember having learned about the weakness to fire before. Or maybe Intelligence + Occult if the weakness is supernatural in nature. A combat-oriented character might roll Wits + War to deduce that fire is needed based on the knowledge of old battle reports involving trolls. Maybe even something involving Survival if they're familiar with a region trolls can appear in.

A game with a flexible skill system has a lot of room for such things.

Without looking it up, I'm fairly certain that Arcana, Nature, and maybe even Survival checks can all be employed to fill this "character knowledge" confirmation, and have always been used for this and more. 🤦🏼‍♂️

EXACTLY.

People in this thread keep saying that they should be expected to keep the information that they as a player have because it's obvious. No one is really giving an argument other than the fact that it hurts my fun. No one else who is making that argument is thinking about how the fact that that hurts other players fun because it makes it all about them.

You are hitting the nail on the head. You are able to have your cake and eat it too if you combine the roleplay with learning the information. You know you're going to a place called Troll Canyon? Go do the research. Suddenly you now do know that they are weak to fire. No one can argue that fact, and everyone can prepare. Moreover, you're also going to be in an area where you could probably get some extra fire stuff to help take care of them. It's also the type of cleverness that a DM will actually reward instead of just going. Oh yeah, of course you would know the thing for no reason.

Yeah people complaining about "fire on trolls" as metagaming is a huge bugbear of mine because it's so ubiquitous across RPGs that it's virtually part of the definition of what a fantasy troll is. Imagine actually living in a world where they exist, becoming a professional mercenary, and still not knowing you need fire.

I feel like trolls are common enough that even a farmer would know they don't like fire or acid. And yet, some DMs will make you roll a dungeoneering or other knowledge check to see if your adventurer knows.

"Don't worry, it's just a name!"

Gets attacked by trolls.

"I thought it was just a name!"

I have time to stop at ye old library before the journey?

slightly neurotic diviner who almost always knows what's optimal, and struggles between doing the obviously ideal thing or rejecting that and knowingly doing something suboptimal so they aren't just a puppet to the magic

is this meta- metagaming?

My tiny tortle sorcerer is obsessed with putting gems in his mouth. The DM knows this. The party knows this. It makes for some very funny conflicts

I like the idea of some kind of fighter who fights with a variety of cursed weapons.

Not the only negative, "this blade is everdull and gives you bone-itis" type of curse. The "you can cut through anything but you need to bleed before you can sheath it" type curse.

they turn to stone when exposed to sunlight so wouldn't it be logical to think fire might turn them into stone?

My guy syndrome?

There's more than the two alternatives of playing "Myself, a person who games a lot and knows things a veteran gamer would know, but with D&D powers" and "The personification of chaotic stupidity that is my alter-ego, an insufferable piece of shit, but with D&D powers".

The "My Guy" syndrome is the inexperienced person's experimentation of Improving in RPGs. The meta-gamer is the experienced-but-tactless person's desire to play the game straight up as a board game, rather than a social experience.

There's a third - even more experienced - kind of player, who can seamlessly integrate the rules they're very familiar with into the story of their character that they're trying to tell. The player who says "I'm going to play a kleptomaniac Rogue" and proceeds to steal the belt off a rampaging Ogre to trip him with his own pants as a combat maneuver. Or the player who says "I'm going to play a Stubbornly Self-Righteous Knight" and is as rigid in his morals as he is tankie in his ability hold the line when the party needs it most.

These players lean into their conflicts for a comedic interlude, then squad up to form a deadly duo when its time to crack heads. And that makes the game both more fun for everyone at the table (especially the DM) than someone mired in the technicalities of a feat description or obsessed with being the center of attention.