PDA

View Full Version : Using Knowledge skills backwards



Totally Guy
2009-12-07, 11:00 AM
Has anyone tried anything like this?

The character wants to make a knowledge(history) check but instead the player states "I know that Lord MacDuff's grandfather was killed by orcs".

Now the DM hadn't even considered who Lord MacDuff's grandfather was or what he did. But he decides "That's quite specific. DC:21."

So success means that the player's story is correct and becomes canon to the setting.
And failure means that something else happened in the past instead.

As long as it doesn't conflict with the DM's canon it gives the player a bit more narrative control over the world.

Sir.Swindle
2009-12-07, 11:05 AM
Thats silly. But no more silly that the DM making up his own random fluff when they roll a check to know about the history of a town. I'd allow it, it's basically the same as letting some one write their own back story.

TheLaughingLich
2009-12-07, 11:10 AM
Having used something similar to this in the past, my impression was that it's workable and interesting if your PCs are cooperative and, preferably, have played together for a while. However, it's hard to establish a consistent system for DCs - I ended up relying mostly on pure fiat.

Totally Guy
2009-12-07, 11:13 AM
The DC would be as if the DM had the knowledge and needed a successful roll to share it with the player.

hamishspence
2009-12-07, 11:19 AM
there is quite a bit in 4E DMG2 about working with the players to describe things.

While the DM probably shouldn't let the players abuse this, there isn't anything wrong with getting some input from players on the people and places of the game world.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-07, 11:35 AM
I would say the most rational thing would be to have them make a normal knowledge check, and then take into consideration what they suggested. If you like it, let it be. If you don't, go with whatever you think. Like...

(If they rolled less than the DC) DM: "You don't really know."

(If they rolled the DC or better, and you like the idea) DM: "Yes, yes he did."

(If they rolled the DC or better, and you don't like the idea) DM: "No, instead he died by (the way he actually died)."

And, for the most part, it seems like letting the player make that decision would be perfectly fine unless it really screwed with your world.

LibraryOgre
2009-12-07, 11:57 AM
I would say the most rational thing would be to have them make a normal knowledge check, and then take into consideration what they suggested. If you like it, let it be. If you don't, go with whatever you think. Like...

(If they rolled less than the DC) DM: "You don't really know."

(If they rolled the DC or better, and you like the idea) DM: "Yes, yes he did."

(If they rolled the DC or better, and you don't like the idea) DM: "No, instead he died by (the way he actually died)."

And, for the most part, it seems like letting the player make that decision would be perfectly fine unless it really screwed with your world.

I'd go with this. It's kinda like, when the players are cornered in an alley, and someone says "Is there a pallet here?" The DM had never considered whether there'd be a pallet or not, but it seems like a reasonable thing.

Optimystik
2009-12-07, 12:00 PM
I would say the most rational thing would be to have them make a normal knowledge check, and then take into consideration what they suggested. If you like it, let it be. If you don't, go with whatever you think. Like...

(If they rolled less than the DC) DM: "You don't really know."

(If they rolled the DC or better, and you like the idea) DM: "Yes, yes he did."

(If they rolled the DC or better, and you don't like the idea) DM: "No, instead he died by (the way he actually died)."

And, for the most part, it seems like letting the player make that decision would be perfectly fine unless it really screwed with your world.

I'm fine with this too. You keep control of your setting, but your players feel like they have an impact on it - seems like win/win.

Zaydos
2009-12-07, 12:06 PM
I just have to say I like this idea, and wish I had seen it in time for my last campaign. The world was silly and crazy, and quite literally the accidental creation of a wizard from my older campaign setting (who had wielded such power the gods forced him to give it up and leave their multiverse) and could be shaped by strong belief (one character actually worshiped his split personality, and in one instant where it was appropriate [the rest of the party had been captured by illithids] I allowed him to spend 24 hours praying to try and manifest the actual deity powers and roll a d20 with a 20 resulting in releasing his power temporarily... he rolled a 20 not that his deity side cared about the party), so that even if it wasn't true before hand if the character believed it hard enough it might retroactively become true.

Not to say this wouldn't work in a more serious campaign (such as the one I had before that) in which it simply makes the DM's job easier by recruiting the PCs into fluff making.

Zovc
2009-12-07, 12:27 PM
I would say the most rational thing would be to have them make a normal knowledge check, and then take into consideration what they suggested. If you like it, let it be. If you don't, go with whatever you think. Like...

(If they rolled less than the DC) DM: "You don't really know."

(If they rolled the DC or better, and you like the idea) DM: "Yes, yes he did."

(If they rolled the DC or better, and you don't like the idea) DM: "No, instead he died by (the way he actually died)."

And, for the most part, it seems like letting the player make that decision would be perfectly fine unless it really screwed with your world.

This seems like a fun, completely reasonable approach.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-07, 12:56 PM
Only problem I see would be in the spoiling of dramatic tension. Those things you don't let them fill in, well, they know they're important.

Edge of Dreams
2009-12-07, 01:39 PM
There are game systems that actually include this as a defined game mechanic.

In Spirit of the Century, players can make minor declarations for free, if they can point to a really good reason it's true (e.g. "My character has the aspect 'Chain-Smoker', OF COURSE I have a lighter on me" regardless of whether he wrote 'lighter' in his equipment). They can make major declarations, or more arbitrary ones, by spending a fate point (e.g. "The villain's phlogistonic-generator won't work on anything purple! I just read about it in a physics magazine last week" while pointing to his "Scientific bookworm" aspect).

The DM of couse has veto power on this, but is encouraged to go along with player ideas, especially if they advance the story or just happen to be really cool/funny/awesome.

hiryuu
2009-12-07, 02:32 PM
Actually, our group does this all the time, especially with regards to new settings. Players can use Knowledge skills to "edit" things, so long as they spend an action point while doing it. An example might be a Knowledge (history) check followed up by an (architecture and engineering) check to put a secret door in an old house by mentioning the goblin wars and how people were building houses during those times for quick escape.

Of course, our group is a well-oiled bunch, and we trust each other very well. We've even got a drama deck that we use.

Like so:

http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/gaias_hiccup/Drama%20Cards/ReclusiveTalismonger.jpg

The system works like this: At the start of each session, everyone gets a card (even the GM; if it's one that doesn't make sense for the GM to have, he draws a different one and passes his first one to the player with the fewest cards). In an instance where someone would get ad hoc xp over and above the "party total," he or she gets a card instead.

Drama cards have an action point cost (lower-right hand corner). They can be turned in for that cost to perform the action or gain the power on the card. They can, instead, be turned in while looting a corpse or a treasure pile to add the card's treasure type to the take, for example, the Reclusive Talismonger card can be turned in to add a random wondrous item to a pile of treasure.

http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/gaias_hiccup/Drama%20Cards/WereGettingOverwhelmedHere.jpg

Trouble cards work a bit different. When you use them, you get the number of action points given on the card. These action points are just like any others, if you don't spend them, they go away when you gain a level.

The card types are as follows:
Armor - Dramatic Tension: These cards change a dramatic encounter or other situation by inserting a new dynamic, such as offending an elven noble, revealing that an NPC villain has taken a shine to one of the PCs, instigating festivals, or making your Bluffs more believable.
Wondrous Item - Assistance: These cards create encounters or NPCs designed to help, give out clues, or grant some aid in a combat encounter, such as Smite O' Clock, which causes a paladin or crusader to arrive in a timely fashion.
Potion - Trouble: These are cards that hinder the party or cause setbacks, but they grant action points to the player who dropped them. They're usually not too bad, but a personal favorite is "A Nemesis Appears," which creates a named villain out of a random encounter.
Scroll - Special Action: These cards grant one-use class features from other classes, such as Rousing Speech, which gives you Inspire Courage +1 for one encounter.
Random - Situation Change: These cards tend to affect the landscape, the drama deck, or the entire party, buffing the whole party against certain battlefield control or creating battlefield control.
Weapon - Special Encounter: These cards generate interesting encounters, such as meeting a mysterious woman while alone in the woods, or a noble who needs help, or an ongoing battle. The Fool is here, and it doubles the current encounter's treasure roll.

So yeah, our groups used such mechanics before, but we're a good group and have a lot of Player-to-GM trust. We find this works out very well for us to all sort of pitch in while playing, helping with NPCs, notes, world-building, and so on.

gdiddy
2009-12-07, 04:25 PM
That's really cool. Where did you get that deck?

Zovc
2009-12-07, 04:32 PM
That's really cool. Where did you get that deck?

I get the feeling it was made in Magic Set Editor, or some similar 'card editor.'

hiryuu
2009-12-07, 04:42 PM
I get the feeling it was made in Magic Set Editor, or some similar 'card editor.'

That's correct. They're made with Set Editor 2, with the AF Dynamic Style template. I've currently got a "set" of 66 cards, which are slowly being added to as time goes on.

Fhaolan
2009-12-07, 04:50 PM
That card deck thing is exceedingly cool. If you could get your own unique artwork and layout, write up the 'rules' for using them, you've got a sellable product on your hands.

Zovc
2009-12-07, 04:56 PM
That's correct. They're made with Set Editor 2, with the AF Dynamic Style template. I've currently got a "set" of 66 cards, which are slowly being added to as time goes on.

It seems like, with the types of cards you have, you would separate the cards in to different piles. I know, I know, that cuts down on randomness and danger, but you also are able to make things a lot more relevant.

For example, have a character deck, a location deck, etc. That way, when I'm trying to figure out what the next place adventurers randomly stumble upon is, I don't pull up "Grim the naked Sorceror." What?

The only problem is, these decks would eventually be exhausted, and separating them may or may not accelerate that.

Curmudgeon
2009-12-07, 06:51 PM
You know you heard "that Lord MacDuff's grandfather was killed by orcs" -- or maybe they were disguised to look like orcs.

Gotta leave some fun for the DM, too. :smallsmile:

aje8
2009-12-07, 07:00 PM
Has anyone tried anything like this?

The character wants to make a knowledge(history) check but instead the player states "I know that Lord MacDuff's grandfather was killed by orcs".

Now the DM hadn't even considered who Lord MacDuff's grandfather was or what he did. But he decides "That's quite specific. DC:21."

So success means that the player's story is correct and becomes canon to the setting.
And failure means that something else happened in the past instead.

As long as it doesn't conflict with the DM's canon it gives the player a bit more narrative control over the world.
Played in a game using a rule like that one on this forum one time. And it was glorious. Seriously, a great idea.

Merk
2009-12-07, 07:55 PM
Wow, this is actually a really cool idea. I might try implementing this in my campaign.

jmbrown
2009-12-07, 08:04 PM
I've always accepted player input especially when I, as a DM, were at a loss with what to do next. I've taken it to such an extreme level that my players know not to speculate at the table because I believe in the "all rumors are true" trope. I mentioned in a topic before about a group of PCs crossing a bridge and one of the players jokingly said "I wonder if a bridge troll lives here." Sure enough a troll leaps onto the bridge and demands a toll. Being adventurers who never hand out their hard earned gold, they charged the troll and nearly TPK'd.

There's nothing wrong with people asserting themselves into your game world so long as they don't abuse it. I can tell another story of a player saying "My mother kept a chest full of coins in the backyard of our old estate." Well, sure enough they dug up the chest and inside found empty beer bottles with a note saying "I.O.U. -love, dad."

Needless to say, very soon we struck a balance between me presenting story hooks and the PCs creating their own. It's a nice system but really only works with a group of people you're comfortable with due to the whole abuse thing.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-07, 08:05 PM
I tried this once, except without knowledge checks. PCs just said stuff and I rolled with it. One of them made up some nice backstory reason to go after Ye Olde McGuffin, one of them came up with half the mechanics of a boss fight, etc. It was in Play-by-Post: not sure how well this sort of improvisation would work IRL.