PDA

View Full Version : Metagaming vs. Character Planning



AKA_Bait
2006-10-05, 05:22 PM
This is something that came up tangentially on the power gaming thread and I think is worth a little bit of discussion on a different thread.

Is there a point where character planning crosses a line into metagaming? It seems to me there is.

First, to be clear, metagaming, for the purpose of this discussion, is defined as using out of character knowledge to make or inform decisions in character. I don't mean this in a pejorative sense. Some games allow for a measure of metagaming but just because they do is not to say it isn't there.

Example: My illiterate barbarian starts saving up to purchase a Mattock of the Titans, the item never having been mentioned in game.
Why metagaming: Although I came across it on SRD, there is no reason to suppose that my illiterate barbarian has ever heard of it, hence his saving up to buy it is out of character knowledge used in character.

This seems to be similarly true with a character planning to take a particular prestige class (if it's secretive or very uncommon), save to buy an exotic weapon (if it's not one the character has run across or heard about already), etc.

I get the feeling that a number of folks would disagree about this being metagaming and I'm curious to hear the argument for that position.

Emperor Tippy
2006-10-05, 05:56 PM
It's more that all of what you said could be explained through backstory very easily.
Example: My illiterate barbarian starts saving up to purchase a Mattock of the Titans, the item never having been mentioned in game.
Why metagaming: Although I came across it on SRD, there is no reason to suppose that my illiterate barbarian has ever heard of it, hence his saving up to buy it is out of character knowledge used in character.
Maybe when the barbarian was a kid his daddy told him about this great hammer (Mattock of the Titans) and now that the barbarian is an adventurer he decides that he wants this great hammer so he starts saving money to buy one. Or maybe his childhood hero had one. There are so many ways that the character could legitimatly know about the item that it isn't metagaming.


This seems to be similarly true with a character planning to take a particular prestige class (if it's secretive or very uncommon), save to buy an exotic weapon (if it's not one the character has run across or heard about already), etc.
Again. The character prolly lived at least 20 years before you see him ingame. In that time he could have easily met an adventurer who had X prestige class. Or hsi childhood hero was X prestige class. Its very explainable.


I get the feeling that a number of folks would disagree about this being metagaming and I'm curious to hear the argument for that position.


I don't consider it metagaming if it is easily concevable that the character could have heard about or know about X.

Darkie
2006-10-05, 06:12 PM
Adjusting character tactics to fit mechanics isn't metagaming to me.

That's because there's two layers to a game - OOC, and IC. The IC portion knows nothing about character classes or 5-foot steps. At the same time, the archer is still going to adjust with a 5-foot step before firing... to avoid an AoO. Is that metagaming? I don't think so, that's just the mechanical representation of what's happening IC.

So if you plan your character... well, that's OOC. ICly, the character knows nothing about leveling or classes - they're entirely seperate considerations. ICly the character could be a thief, OOCly he could be a wierd ranger/rogue/swash/scout hybrid.

Metagaming to me is more of someone jumping out a window because it's "only X amount of damage".

So the question here is... if the barbarian makes a 5 foot adjustment before striking, due to the OOC knowledge that doing so would avoid an AoO... is that metagaming? If so, then yeah, planning would be metagaming.

At the same time, there's absolutely no reason not to save money. Also, by default it's presumed that the SRD stuff is available - unless stated otherwise. The level 1 fighter could start saving up for full plate, unless told specifically it doesn't exist.

PMDM
2006-10-05, 07:16 PM
There's no fine line in Metagaming, but there are exterme cases of it.

Beldak
2006-10-05, 08:57 PM
Metagaming at that level is really easy to work around. For instance I make a cleric, pick a prestigue class and build my character to get to it, inform the GM of my future plans and ask for him to help me achieve them, then decide the ins and outs of my characters past based on the abilities I have now.

Saving for a grand weapon is in character, saving specifically for a mattock of the titans is a bit on the side of silly, but there are ways to get around it. I would be more worried about your characters doing silly things like rolling a spot check getting a 1 and then all of the sudden go insane with caution.

Thomas
2006-10-05, 09:02 PM
Metagaming means understanding you're playing a game, and... playing it. I'm not into simulationism, personally.

Character planning is perfectly valid. The only bad metagaming is cheating; using metagame reasoning and knowledge when making decisions about in-character actions. Even that's not clear-cut. You have to use metagame knowledge to affect decisions, too (such as "we are probably supposed to do something useful instead of drink and whore the whole game session away").

What's a secretive or uncommon prestige class, anyway? Almost all PrCs (in the newer books that list the information and DCs) only require a DC 10 Knowledge check (which can be made by anyone taking 10, with no ranks, with average Int) for you to be aware of them.

Even if a prestige class is legitimately secretive and unheard-of, there's nothing wrong with planning your character to take it. Every character has to be planned with the DM anyway, and I can't conceive of a reason a DM wouldn't let a PC take a PrC (unless it's intended for NPCs, like most in the Book of Vile Darkness).

I actually don't think there's anything wrong with a barbarian jumping down dozens of feet, either. He can survive it, and he probably knows this. "It'll hurt, but it's better than staying here and being overwhelmed by these opponents!" There are heroes, not regular people. Heroes do crazy things like jump out of fifth-story windows and survive. (Probably hitting something in the way that slows the descent.) A 20th-level barbarian knows he can survive a full-on blast of ancient red dragon breath that can incinerate an entire company of soldiers; why would he think he can't survive a 100-foot fall?

the_tick_rules
2006-10-05, 09:45 PM
well there are times when people do use knowledge that is a bit obviously metagaming. Like one character knew his ac was exactly 20 over the group of umberhulks attacking him. So he charged into them because he knew he could only be hit 5% of the time. Or like when we bumped into mind flayers he told the party members he knew had the highest will saves to go ahead while the rest stayed just out of the mindflayers stun attack. Or using only sonic attacks against devils beacause you know they are immune to poison to fire and resist acid and cold. or when he directed the fighter with silver swords against the devils cause he knew they had dr/silver

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-05, 09:59 PM
Or like when we bumped into mind flayers he told the party members he knew had the highest will saves to go ahead while the rest stayed just out of the mindflayers stun attack.
"I say, Julius, you have proven to have great mental fortitude in the past. These critters are known for their mental assaults. What say you lead the charge?"


Or using only sonic attacks against devils beacause you know they are immune to poison to fire and resist acid and cold. or when he directed the fighter with silver swords against the devils cause he knew they had dr/silver
"The legends say these devils can't be burned and can only be harmed by weapons made of silver."

(Just like in real-life, the lore says only silver harms werewolves. :P)

TheOOB
2006-10-05, 10:13 PM
The only time I have problums with metagaming is when players take actions based on information their character does not possess (I reliazed I just used the definition of metagaming, but hear me out).

Keep in mind that good roleplaying and good rollplaying (pun intended) are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite in fact. Your playing a great and powerful hero, you need the character ability to justify that. You as a player are responsible not only for being a good roleplayer, but also to contributing to the parties success.

That said, it really annoys me when someone uses a tactic without justification as to why they used that tactic. Case in point, I sent a party agienst a hydra, and the party fighter immediatly started cutting off heads while the wizard sealed the wounds with scorching ray. They had never seen a hyrdra before, nor had they researched them before hand. That said, if the party wizard had made an knowledge(arcana) check when he saw the wizard, or the bard made a bardic knowledge check to see if their characters had heard of hydras and their weaknesses, I would have been fine, but you can't just assume your character knows about whater beastie your DM grabs out of the MM.

Dario
2006-10-05, 10:18 PM
Like most everything else, the extent to which anything is metagaming depends on the nature of your particular campaign.

As for me, the most annoying and most common form of metagaming comes in the form of players planning their tactics against a monster, especially one their characters haven't encountered before, to a T. Even for those you are familiar with, knowledge as specific as definite numbers for AC, HP, DCs, etc. is problematic.

But the solution, as always, lies in the DM's hands. In this case, just make your low-level enemies varied enough, create some beasties of your own (even if it's only flavor and you're just ripping off an existing one's stat block), and perhaps most importantly, establish this as your modus operandi or at least build it as your reputation.

Emperor Tippy
2006-10-05, 10:25 PM
@^^
Again it kidna depends on backstory. If the fighter had goen to fighter school or the wizard to a Magic Academy it is somewhat justifiable. A human wizard spends a decade or so in school. Something as famous as a Hydra is boudn to have been covered. Now if he was taught by his dad or something in a small town it may be different.


Small tibits like that will rarely make the backstory but it is easy to assuem that the character would know the info. And if the wizard would have learned the knowledge with a Knowledge: Arcane check then he is fine. You shouldn't have to make Knowledge checks in situatiosn like that unless its a really rare creature.

Dario
2006-10-05, 10:45 PM
Again it kidna depends on backstory.
Of course, it always depends. But I find that more often than not, it's almost impossible to justify knowledge as extensive as would be required when players metagame.

This is all personal preference, obviously, but I prefer that despite their status as heroes slowly reaching epic status, characters not use certain information from the rulebooks and then presume it's perfectly natural or okay. Optimizing (within limits) is one thing, bordering on omniscient is another. For me, at least. :P

Emperor Tippy
2006-10-05, 11:58 PM
I agree but knowing that you should hit devils with silver weapons and demons with cold iron is the kind of thing that you would learn in wizard school. Now knowing their exact AC or HD is a bit much.

Dervag
2006-10-06, 12:02 AM
If the vulnerabilities of monsters such as vampires, lycanthropes, and trolls weren't fairly widespread knowledge, they would long since have taken over the world. Demons and devils, not so much.

It might be that people tend to confuse demons and devils, in which case all that one would know is:
"Some infernals can be slain with silver. Others can't. Some can be slain with cold-wrought iron. Others can't."
Which puts you in the same position as Haley fighting... whatever Nale's succubus/erinyes girlfriend is called.

MrNexx
2006-10-06, 12:33 AM
I would point out that the Knowledge skills contain rules for just such ahhh KNOWLEDGE.

TheOOB
2006-10-06, 12:36 AM
I would point out that the Knowledge skills contain rules for just such ahhh KNOWLEDGE.


Thats my point exactally. What you learned in wizard school would be your knowledge skills, specifically arcana and the planes.

If you want your character to be able to know what a monsters weaknessess are, either research it or invest in knowledge skills.

Jade_Tarem
2006-10-06, 02:01 AM
I dunno, I think that metagaming can be pretty blatant. For example, any character who can determine how his character will develop, level - wise, for the next 20 levels is likely metagaming. It's good to have a plan, but in terms of actual roleplaying most or all of a campaign will occur before 20 levels passes, and there's no way the character will know what he needs at the end of that time.

For example: Reyan likes to combine swordplay and spellcasting, and so he will take levels in sorcerer and fighter until he qualifies for eldrich knight (a common PrC) and Spellsword (less common, but in the characters interests and as such is much more likely to be something he's heard of) - this is likely not metagaming, it's pursuing an interest.

Meanwhile: Opti will take 4 levels of rogue, 2 levels of fighter, 4 levels of whirling dervish, 2 levels of marshal, 1 level of assassin, 6 levels of death commando, and one level of cleric. His interests as a character? Doing 200d6 sneak attack damage.

There are other varieties of metagaming. I had a player who could quote stat blocks for every monster in the MM1 and many other things besides. While some things are common knowledge ("Oh look, a goblin, they don't have any special immunities, just blast it.") Knowing the precise series of manuvers for a ranger to kill a kracken man-a-mano at lvl 9 is ludicrous. The best fight this party had was a dragon using a stat block that I completely made up and had "uttercold" as it's element - and was immune to fire. They had to get creative instead of getting to page flipping.

I had one roleplayer who really did follow reality and tried different methods of attacking a pit fiend, incluiding some he as a player knew would not work, because his paladin (and the party he was leading) had not fought one before. Everyone loved this guy.

Just a thought.

Piotr
2006-10-06, 02:39 AM
Thats my point exactally. What you learned in wizard school would be your knowledge skills, specifically arcana and the planes.

If you want your character to be able to know what a monsters weaknessess are, either research it or invest in knowledge skills.

Yep, that is one way to metagame - use some of the knowledge or skills the player has, but the character doesn't. Similar metagaming would be, when you are someone well-spoken, whom everybody likes, and create character with low charisma. You won't need the ability for anything, because in social situations you count on using your own charm. Or when you have stupid character, but you solve most of the riddles your DM puts against your party.
So if you want your character to know or be able to do something, give him the necessary skills/feats/abilities.
Of course it requires some help from a DM. Social situations should be both roleplayed and rolled, instead of simply declaring "I convince him" and rolling, or roleplaying well but without a single roll.

Mind you, some metagaing is not only good, but quite required. Don't do things that would spoil the adventure. When some strange characters give you a proposition to work with them, find a reason to accept it instead of turning an walking away. But those are rather rare cases, and all are made for the good of the game as such.

TheDocter
2006-10-06, 03:52 AM
Thats my point exactally. What you learned in wizard school would be your knowledge skills, specifically arcana and the planes.

If you want your character to be able to know what a monsters weaknessess are, either research it or invest in knowledge skills.

I totally agree. Otherwise there would be no reason at all to invest in knowledge skills. If you decide to spend precious skill points into knowledge you want it togive you a benefit later in a fight or other situation.

Zincorium
2006-10-06, 04:08 AM
One thing that I would like to point out as far as metagaming goes, is that AC, hit points, and so on are not just mystical values that have no basis in the reality of the game. They are mechanics that represent aspects of the reality in which the characters dwell.

It's not going to be all that hard to figure out that the guy in platemail is hard to hit. You won't know about the ring of protection, and what it's doing, until you strike what you thought was a solid hit and it glances off. And neither should the players.

When the players know as much about what's going on as the DM, then it is at least partially a failure on the DM's part. If you ALWAYS use the book stats for a monster, knowing the players have memorized them, then you reap what you sow and the players will have a fairly good idea of what to expect. If you change it up, even as rare as one in five encounters, most groups will be cautious, because they never know which encounter is different, so they treat them all like they might be until they can figure out that it isn't.

Which is perfectly reasonable in game terms. If you're fighting a group of orcs, and they can't dodge, swing wildly, and collapse when struck with a look of disbelief on their porcine faces, then the players are perfectly justified in thinking, in character, "Eh, they were just orcs."

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 10:46 AM
What's a secretive or uncommon prestige class, anyway? Almost all PrCs (in the newer books that list the information and DCs) only require a DC 10 Knowledge check (which can be made by anyone taking 10, with no ranks, with average Int) for you to be aware of them.


Several things here:
There are a number of prestige classes and even open classes (such as Beguiler) that require more than a DC 10 to know exist. Also, please remember that if the DC is more than 10, and you don't have training in the applicable knowledge then you can't know it by virtue of a knowledge (or in this case, intelligence) check. Only common knowledge can be known that way.

One thing that I find odd, although I can't seem to find anything specific saying you can't, is taking 10 or 20 on a knowledge check. It seems that the check is a 'you know it or you don't' so taking longer to think about it more carefully seems as odd and as unreasonable as making multiple attempts at the knowledge check.

Hence, if you want you character to know it there are mechanics in place for them to know about it. If you want it as part of their back-story, "daddy told me about x", then for it not to be metagaming it seems to me that information needs to be part of your initial back-story at time of character creation or to have a check made for it later. It also seems to me that the check needs to be made before taking the actions to prepare to get into that prestige class or get that item. Otherwise, unless they have some other good in character reason to take a bunch of ranks in perform for example, it strikes me as metagaming.

One other reminder thing: I don't want to get into a debate here about metagaming good/bad. If you are ok with it, like Thomas, that's cool and the merits of that will vary from group to group. I'm more concerned with figuring out where it is metagaming or not, as distinct from whether it should be allowed in any individual campaign.

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-06, 10:58 AM
One thing that I find odd, although I can't seem to find anything specific saying you can't, is taking 10 or 20 on a knowledge check.
You can't take 20 because retries are not allowed. You can take 10 on any skill unless specifically stated otherwise (see Use Magic Device for an example).

Tangent: Unfortunately the whole "no retry" thing leads to an odd situation. Wizard with +6 Knowledge (arcana) needs to make a DC 16 check to recognize the type of construct that attacked him. He rolls a 1. If this is something he "either knows or he doesn't" (paraphrased from the Knowledge skill description on retries), why is it he could have easily recognized it by taking 10 outside of combat, but has no chance whatsoever to know anything about it because he had to try and recognize it during combat?

Solution: Allow retries, but only if the character is taking 10.

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 11:01 AM
Solution: Allow retries, but only if the character is taking 10.

Alternate soloution: Don't allow him to take 10 on knowledge checks ever.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-10-06, 11:18 AM
Tangent: Unfortunately the whole "no retry" thing leads to an odd situation. Wizard with +6 Knowledge (arcana) needs to make a DC 16 check to recognize the type of construct that attacked him. He rolls a 1. If this is something he "either knows or he doesn't" (paraphrased from the Knowledge skill description on retries), why is it he could have easily recognized it by taking 10 outside of combat, but has no chance whatsoever to know anything about it because he had to try and recognize it during combat?

I've always kinda ignored that "either he knows or he doesn't" part of that. I've always viewed it like this:

There are thing you just either know or don't know, and there's deductive reasoning. For me, the ranks a character has in a knowledge skill represent what he/she knows on sight, and the roll represents what conslusion he or she reaches through deductive reasoning.


Take for example, pies. The wizard has 3 ranks in knowledge (pies). Lets say an apple pie is DC 1. The wizard automatically knows upon seeing that this is an apple pie. A cranberry pie may be DC 9. When he's not threatened, the wizard could take a closer look at the pie. He could deduce that it is not an apple pie although it looks somewhat like one. He could deduce that the jam-like nature of the filling may point towards berries, and the redness of said filling might indicate cranberries! (i.e. taking 10 on the check)

However, when someone throws the cranberry pie towards his face, the chances that he'll deduce correctly that it is a cranberry pie about fly towards him drop, hence the roll.


So same with the construct above. Out of combat, he might have taken a closer look at it and deduced from his mental library that what attacked him was a contruct type this that made of somestuff. Under attack, he couldn't get his wits together fast enough and thus failed to recognise the construct.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2006-10-06, 11:20 AM
The more you play, the more difficult it becomes to seperate the knowledge of the game you know from what your character does. In that respect, I really can't complain about Meta-Gaming.

As a DM, I try to use new rules and new monsters as much as possible. Kind of hard to exploit a weakness of something you've never seen before, even as a player.

Jack_Banzai
2006-10-06, 11:22 AM
This is something that came up tangentially on the power gaming thread and I think is worth a little bit of discussion on a different thread.

Is there a point where character planning crosses a line into metagaming? It seems to me there is.

First, to be clear, metagaming, for the purpose of this discussion, is defined as using out of character knowledge to make or inform decisions in character. I don't mean this in a pejorative sense. Some games allow for a measure of metagaming but just because they do is not to say it isn't there.

Example: My illiterate barbarian starts saving up to purchase a Mattock of the Titans, the item never having been mentioned in game.
Why metagaming: Although I came across it on SRD, there is no reason to suppose that my illiterate barbarian has ever heard of it, hence his saving up to buy it is out of character knowledge used in character.

This seems to be similarly true with a character planning to take a particular prestige class (if it's secretive or very uncommon), save to buy an exotic weapon (if it's not one the character has run across or heard about already), etc.

I get the feeling that a number of folks would disagree about this being metagaming and I'm curious to hear the argument for that position.


I would probably never let someone in my party just save up and buy a unique weapon like a Mattock of the Titans. Seems a bit improbable to me.

Gamebird
2006-10-06, 11:23 AM
Planning out your character involves using out of game knowledge of how the rules work. It's pretty much a requirement of the game. Saving money to buy things - well that makes sense in the game and out. Where it crosses the line is insisting (or expecting, though that depends on the DM) that a particular weapon or character plan must be available merely because you planned for it.

Perhaps in this game world, there is no such weapon as a mattock of the titans. Maybe there is no such prestige class as the one you were intending to take.

DMs have the right to decide which classes are present in their game world, which monsters, which magic items and which prestige classes. If they decide there are no wizards, then there aren't any. If they decide there are no Major magic items, then there aren't any. If they decide to ban all prestige classes, then so it is.

Players have the right to disagree. And they have the right not to play.


Minor side story:
My players are helping an army take over a valley of goblinoids. They are now outside the biggest town. I told a player it was very likely the PCs would be sent inside the town on a mission. The PC said his character wouldn't go unless he was fully healed - even 5 hit points damage would be too much. He went on to say he wanted to role play this in the game so he could "tell off" the guy in charge of the army. I laughed and told him "That's fine, but you'll look pretty silly. After all, you'd have 55 out of 60 hit points. You'll have hardly a scratch on you! You're down fewer hit points than a lot of first level wizards HAVE!"

That set him back a little bit and he shut up about it. The point is that some dynamics can't really be discussed in game, like having a little bit of hit point damage. A lot of hit point damage might be more obvious, but less than 10%? How do you role play that? "I have this little bruise right here..." or "I've been dodging weapons all day..." just isn't convincing.

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 11:27 AM
There are thing you just either know or don't know, and there's deductive reasoning. For me, the ranks a character has in a knowledge skill represent what he/she knows on sight, and the roll represents what conslusion he or she reaches through deductive reasoning.
.

This system to me is problematic because of untrained knowledge checks. 0 ranks in a given skill, i.e. by this system he has no knowledge of pies at all, without even a basis to proceed how could he deduce anything?

Hence why I prefer just not to allow taking 10 on knowledge checks at all.

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-06, 11:29 AM
So same with the construct above. Out of combat, he might have taken a closer look at it and deduced from his mental library that what attacked him was a contruct type this that made of somestuff. Under attack, he couldn't get his wits together fast enough and thus failed to recognise the construct.
More or less how I figured it should be working anyway.

I also tend to figure any change in the situation that would give a reasonable circumstance bonus should also count for something.

And, let's face it, strictly read, the rules say "No retries. Ever." So say I miss my Knowledge (local) check to recognize a lowly orc. (Let's say they're rare—almost nonexistant—in Noorcistan, where my character hails from.) I'd have to say, "Oh, failed the check. Guess I'll never know what that was." And 20 years and 19 levels (along with another 19 ranks of Knowledge (local)) later, my character still doesn't. (Unless he runs into someone that can tell him, but since he stays in Noorcistan his whole career, he never does that, either.)

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 11:44 AM
Planning out your character involves using out of game knowledge of how the rules work. It's pretty much a requirement of the game. Saving money to buy things - well that makes sense in the game and out. Where it crosses the line is insisting (or expecting, though that depends on the DM) that a particular weapon or character plan must be available merely because you planned for it.


Although I agree with you pretty much entirely here I think there is a distinction to be made. Certainly planning out of character, at the time of character creation, seems to me not to be metagaming, planning later about things that are not going to be in game apparent does.

For example: Character is considering buying a new weapon and debating bettween a handaxe and a greataxe. Out of game you know that the greataxe does more damage and is more beneficial to the character. In game this is readily apparent to the character too, greataxes are bigger, have more heft etc. Hence the in game decision to get the greataxe doesn’t' strike me as metagaming because there are clear in character representations of the knowledge quantified by the rules.

However, if there are not, it seems to cross that line. Another example: Character decides to work toward a prestige class that exists in the game but is not common knowledge. If the character doesn't know about the prestige class (failed his knowledge check or has no ranks in the applicable one) then starting to take ranks in skills, for no other reason than to later be eligible for a prestige class that they don't yet know exists strikes me as metagaming.

This is not to say that the DM can't lay the smack down on it or press them for a reason, but more a question for the player, if like myself they are the type who doesn't want to metagame, as to what's ok and not to do in terms of character planning.

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 11:46 AM
And, let's face it, strictly read, the rules say "No retries. Ever." So say I miss my Knowledge (local) check to recognize a lowly orc. (Let's say they're rare—almost nonexistant—in Noorcistan, where my character hails from.) I'd have to say, "Oh, failed the check. Guess I'll never know what that was." And 20 years and 19 levels (along with another 19 ranks of Knowledge (local)) later, my character still doesn't. (Unless he runs into someone that can tell him, but since he stays in Noorcistan his whole career, he never does that, either.)

Is there some reason that doesn't make sense that I'm missing? If I see something once, don't know what it is, don't hear about it or interact with it again, why should I after 20 more years know?

Nifty_Knickers
2006-10-06, 11:48 AM
This system to me is problematic because of untrained knowledge checks. 0 ranks in a given skill, i.e. by this system he has no knowledge of pies at all, without even a basis to proceed how could he deduce anything?


I take 0 ranks to mean "knows only what grandma's told 'im"

1 rank and up means our wizard has been visiting pie-fairs :D




And, let's face it, strictly read, the rules say "No retries. Ever." So say I miss my Knowledge (local) check to recognize a lowly orc. (Let's say they're rare—almost nonexistant—in Noorcistan, where my character hails from.) I'd have to say, "Oh, failed the check. Guess I'll never know what that was." And 20 years and 19 levels (along with another 19 ranks of Knowledge (local)) later, my character still doesn't. (Unless he runs into someone that can tell him, but since he stays in Noorcistan his whole career, he never does that, either.)

Perhaps I read it wrong - I though no-retries only applied to the situation? i.e. you can't try to guess again if you got ambushed and the attackes dissepeared in the night, but you can make a new check if you kill the attackers and have some time to look at the corpses?

hewhosaysfish
2006-10-06, 12:03 PM
However, if there are not, it seems to cross that line. Another example: Character decides to work toward a prestige class that exists in the game but is not common knowledge. If the character doesn't know about the prestige class (failed his knowledge check or has no ranks in the applicable one) then starting to take ranks in skills, for no other reason than to later be eligible for a prestige class that they don't yet know exists strikes me as metagaming.

This is not to say that the DM can't lay the smack down on it or press them for a reason, but more a question for the player, if like myself they are the type who doesn't want to metagame, as to what's ok and not to do in terms of character planning.


If the prestige class is associated with a particular organisation (Nightsong Enforcer, Shadowbane Inquisition, Ravager, yadda yadda) then I agree with you. If you don't know the job exists, why would you start writing you CV for it?
But if the prestige class represents, as most do, a particular specialisation or combination of a persons talents then this is really a problem. For example, if a player puts ranks into Jump, Climb and Tumble because he wants his character to become a Thief Acrobat then the character is practising his jump in order to become, well, someone who's really good at jumping, climbing and tumbling.

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 12:10 PM
If the prestige class is associated with a particular organisation (Nightsong Enforcer, Shadowbane Inquisition, Ravager, yadda yadda) then I agree with you. If you don't know the job exists, why would you start writing you CV for it?
But if the prestige class represents, as most do, a particular specialisation or combination of a persons talents then this is really a problem. For example, if a player puts ranks into Jump, Climb and Tumble because he wants his character to become a Thief Acrobat then the character is practising his jump in order to become, well, someone who's really good at jumping, climbing and tumbling.


I agree. Hence why I've been very careful to talk about prestige classes that are not common knowledge. Prestige classes that are just combonations and specializations are easy to account for just as you mentioned and working towards them doesn't constitute metagaming anymore than a fighter choosing weapon specialization does. It can be part of what the character does and likes.

However, a monk character who never danced before but decides to take ranks in perform dance because his player just learned about shadowdancers and thinks they are cool is another matter in my view (leaving aside the whole initation aspect of that prestige class).

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-06, 12:23 PM
Is there some reason that doesn't make sense that I'm missing? If I see something once, don't know what it is, don't hear about it or interact with it again, why should I after 20 more years know?
Well, the point is that unless the DM specifically tells him that in his studies he comes across a book with a captioned picture of an Orc, despite his growing knowledge in the people and humanoids throughout the land (despite its name, Knowledge (local) likely applies to more than just Noorcistan), he never learns how to recognize an orc. Because he can't make a retry ever.

Remember, the Knowledge skill is book learning. That's why he had a chance to know about orcs to begin with, despite never having personally encountered one ever before. So basically, as the strictest possible interpretation, you'd be able to arbitrarily know something about orcs from behind-the-scenes book learning that never got played out to begin with, but after you make your first check, you just don't know anything about orcs. They don't even make the simple provision of "retries allowed when you gain new ranks." You just "know it or you don't."


Perhaps I read it wrong - I though no-retries only applied to the situation? i.e. you can't try to guess again if you got ambushed and the attackes dissepeared in the night, but you can make a new check if you kill the attackers and have some time to look at the corpses?
Well, here's the relevant text:


Try Again: Any conditions that apply to successive attempts to use the skill successfully. If the skill doesn’t allow you to attempt the same task more than once, or if failure carries an inherent penalty (such as with the Climb skill), you can’t take 20. If this paragraph is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inherent penalty, other than the additional time required.


Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.

Don't see anything that says retries are allowed just because the situation changes.

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 12:30 PM
Well, the point is that unless the DM specifically tells him that in his studies he comes across a book with a captioned picture of an Orc, despite his growing knowledge in the people and humanoids throughout the land (despite its name, Knowledge (local) likely applies to more than just Noorcistan), he never learns how to recognize an orc. Because he can't make a retry ever.

Sure, I suppose, if he doesn't care to look. Remember knowledge checks don't actually make a character learn anything. They are a mechanic for telling a player, out of character, what the in game character already knows. Hence, if in game the character wants to know, he can, in game, make an effort to do so. I find it hard to fathom a situation where the player asks the DM 'upon taking my next rank can I make conscious effort to look up what that green thing was?' or 'Can I ask someone?' and gets turned down.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-10-06, 12:32 PM
Don't see anything that says retries are allowed just because the situation changes.

Ah yes, I see. Looks to me like Wizards didn't think this one out properly when writing it down.

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-06, 12:38 PM
I find it hard to fathom a situation where the player asks the DM 'upon taking my next rank can I make conscious effort to look up what that green thing was?' or 'Can I ask someone?' and gets turned down.
Well, I guess what I'm getting at is that there are certainly situations where the player shouldn't have to ask. Particularly if the character in question doesn't necessarily think it's important at the time the check is made—one of those, "Oh, so that's what it is. Nice to know." situations*. And it should definitely change things when the character reaches a number of ranks such that the skill would automatically succeed though the original check was made at a time it didn't.

Anyway, I should probably shut up about this now. Enough thread hijackin' and all that. ;)

[hr]* Example: We've been getting centipedes in our house. They show up occasionally and bug my family, but it wasn't anything I needed to get worked up over and do extra research. Eventually, while roving that information mine known as the internet, I randomly stumble across a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Centipede) that tells me the centipedes we've been getting belong to a species called, conveniently enough, house centipedes. It turns out that house centipede eat all sorts of other house pests. My reaction? "Oh, so that's what it is. Nice to know."

Shazzbaa
2006-10-06, 12:41 PM
I'm somewhat in agreement with Hewhosaysfish. I mean, in-game, your character isn't "qualifying for a prestige class," really. Out of game, that's what you're doing, but in-game you're just honing your skills in a new direction.
If it's a prestige class that requires being initiated into a circle or group, your character would need to know about the group and have an idea of its requirements (i.e., "We don't accept anyone who can't dance" -- "Oh, I guess I'd better start learning how to dance or they won't take me"). If it doesn't require a group's aproval to take that prestige class, then whether you know the prestige class exists or not, if it's something you're interested in you would push in that direction (i.e., "I bet if I learned to dance well, it could help me do these cool things in battle. I'll start learning some dance steps.")

Weird real-life example, with me.

I had never heard of comicking before. But the sort of thing that I'm interested in is combining words and pictures to create a story. I write a lot. I draw a lot. I start experimenting with combining the two. Eventually I'm (hopefully) creating my own comic books.
My character is a Visual Artist. I didn't know about the Prestige class, Comicker. But I still invested skill points in Writing, because I wanted to tell stories. I didn't have to know the prestige class existed to know that it's what I wanted to do, and to know that I would need to be able to write to do what I wanted.
However, if I wanted to join the prestige class, say, Marvel Comics Penciller, then I would have to know that the group Marvel Comics exists before I was able to really work towards that class specifically.

Although... looking at it from that example, while training my Visual Artist class skill of Drawing (taking classes and reading "how to draw" books) I learned more about the Comicker and Marvel Comics Penciller prestige classes. From those examples it seems very possible that the closer you get to a prestige class that's in your general field of expertise, the more likely you would be to have heard of it in your studies... so that unless it was something really out-there and unconnected with what you're doing now, you may have at least heard tell of it.

Hmm.

Nifty_Knickers
2006-10-06, 12:45 PM
The issue of metagaming in that sense seems to me to be not a problem of: "my character wants to be a shadowdancer, and takes ranks in dance to learn dancing and work towards becoming a shadowdancer". But rather a problem of: "my character wants to become a shadowdancer. He never dances and probably won't ever perform any dancing during the game, but I train ranks in it anyways to get into the shadowdancer PrC".

Shazzbaa
2006-10-06, 12:57 PM
The issue of metagaming in that sense seems to me to be not a problem of: "my character wants to be a shadowdancer, and takes ranks in dance to learn dancing and work towards becoming a shadowdancer". But rather a problem of: "my character wants to become a shadowdancer. He never dances and probably won't ever perform any dancing during the game, but I train ranks in it anyways to get into the shadowdancer PrC".
I reiterate my previous example -- "I'll bet if I learned how to dance, I could use that to do some cool stuff in battle. I'll start learning some dance steps" -- this character has no interest in dancing as an art; he's interested in the practical application thereof.

I don't see why the character's end goal couldn't be the same as the player's. More real-life examples: 2-D Animators are often told that learning how to act will help them put more emotion into the characters they're animating, so many take a few acting classes. They never intend to be actors or to act, they're taking the classes solely to qualify for the "prestige class" of Character Animator.

Emperor Tippy
2006-10-06, 01:00 PM
The problrm is that most meta gaming can be explained in game easily.

Take the dance example.

Mr. Monk is bored one day and has some extra tiem away from adventuring. Mr. Monk realizes that he isn't the most social person and that if he ever has to go to a royal ball he will be at a serious disadvantage. Mr. Monk then decides that to remedy his problem he should learn how to dance.

OOC Explanation: I leveled up and have some extra skill points. I may as well dump them in Perform (Dance) as it may help in a social situation some day.

3 levels later: Mr. DM, I want to take the Shadow Dancer prestige class. I meet all of the requirments. Is this Ok with you?



The same kind of explanation can work for most anything.


Now for knowledge skills there should be some things that are just common knowledge for specific classes and need never require a knowledge check.

Lets use wizards as an example. Wizards should know what kind of breath weapons each kind of dragon in the MM1 has. And the kinds of enviroments that they live in along with knowledge of any special abilities that they posess, such as a gold dragosn shape change.

Reason why: Dragons are well known and wizards would learn thsi kind of thing in their studies. It should never require a check. I mean they learn draconic as a bonus language, they should know at least basic stuff about each type of dragon.

The same thing applies to Golems (Iron, Stone, Flesh), devils, and demons.

Now the wizard wouldn't knwo of a specific gold dragon but he would knwo that all gold dragons are good and can take human form.

Beldak
2006-10-06, 01:11 PM
Peronsally, I try to get into my character a lot, and recycle information learned previously by this character to make logical reasoning, provided my character is at least as smart as I am. Which, unless he is a Barbarian, is probably a given.

Good example of this: I know that angels, changlings, dopelgangers, druids, lycanthropes, wizards, sorcers, etc, all have an ability similar to polymorph because that is all there is to know with common knowledge in the world we are in. My LG zealot's knowledge (arcana, local, etc) gives him a probable chance of only knowing that druids and powerful wizards have polymorph. His in game experience tells him that were-wolves have polymorph. Thus, when I witness a changling shift its features, I make the assumption that it is either a were-wolf, a wizard, or a druid. Combining my knowledge of the situation with this assumption, I don't trust him on the premises that he is an evil were-creature and a professional jerk, I would pummel him to a pulp, because as far as I know, all were-creatures are evil, having no reason to challenge this belief to date and no ranks to represent studying.

In the same way that small children will see a skunk and think it is a kitty. A fact of the learning process we are mostly educated enough to not notice anymore.

Don't get me wrong, if a group is happy making several knowledge checks or happy to assume they are in a particularly enlightened world, more power to them. The point is of course to have fun. Personally, clobbering the new NPC to my DM's suprise and assuming that a solar eclipse is the work of the devil, are far more entertaining.

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 01:18 PM
I reiterate my previous example -- "I'll bet if I learned how to dance, I could use that to do some cool stuff in battle. I'll start learning some dance steps" -- this character has no interest in dancing as an art; he's interested in the practical application thereof.

I don't see why the character's end goal couldn't be the same as the player's. More real-life examples: 2-D Animators are often told that learning how to act will help them put more emotion into the characters they're animating, so many take a few acting classes. They never intend to be actors or to act, they're taking the classes solely to qualify for the "prestige class" of Character Animator.

This actually goes to another issue in the same vein of metagaming. Using your example, the animators who are taking the acting classes have been instructed that the classes might be useful in getting to the prestige class they want. In D&D terms such instruction would constitute them already knowing about the class, i.e. someone has to have told them about it in order for them to be getting instructed regarding how to get there better. So, sort of a moot point.

As to the situation where the character things 'wow I'd like to do this neat thing in battle perhaps training in this other thing will help' makes sense only so far. Take a prestige class that requires a bunch of ranks in something, say 9, to get into. If at one level a character decides it might help, it may well be several levels before an in-game indication of it doing so, in terms of new abilities or usefulness, shows itself. Someone figuring it out on their own might very reasonably just give up on it if after 2 years of dancing they still can't do anything new in battle. However, if out of game they know a few more ranks of this or that will get them there no such issue exists.

Also, with experimentation towards a possible goal there is the additional question of how many ranks one puts in. If a character thinks x skill might help are they likely to dump all of their skill points (as IME frequently happens) into the skills they only know out of game are needed for the prestige class?

Shouldn't sometimes they be 'wrong' about what would help do x better? In my own life I've worked on skill that I thought would make me a better x only to discover they really didn't make any difference. Should there be an int/wis check of some kind to find out if they are 'right' about the skill they think might help?

This is part of the tangled web of this issue. Just because out of game I know that if I want the character to have the ability to leap from shadow to shadow doesn't in any way mean that my character should see some correlation between practicing ballet and doing so.

There is also the concern of knowing something is possible. Take out aspiring shadow dancer monk. If he’s never even seen a shadow dancer (or shadow walker or similar spell) then how can he possibly conclude that dancing will allow him to mimic the effect? He doesn’t even know the effect can be produced, let alone how to master it.

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 01:31 PM
The problrm is that most meta gaming can be explained in game easily.

Take the dance example.

Mr. Monk is bored one day and has some extra tiem away from adventuring. Mr. Monk realizes that he isn't the most social person and that if he ever has to go to a royal ball he will be at a serious disadvantage. Mr. Monk then decides that to remedy his problem he should learn how to dance.

OOC Explanation: I leveled up and have some extra skill points. I may as well dump them in Perform (Dance) as it may help in a social situation some day.

3 levels later: Mr. DM, I want to take the Shadow Dancer prestige class. I meet all of the requirments. Is this Ok with you?


I think this is, as is everything, going to be specific to the campagin. Take for example a campagin that's not episodic, each adventure leads directly into the next one with no in game time bettween. When is Mr. Monk going out for his dance practice?

Also, as a DM, I would be very tempted in this situation to simply say 'make a check to see if you know what a shadowdancer is'. This is another issue, and one that sometimes bugs me about prestige classes. Just because I have the requisite skills to enter a prestige class, doesn't mean that I know the class exists (particularly if it's a secretive one). Prestige classes are to some extent combining of skills in a particular way. Like in my previous post, if you don't know they can be combined in that way, if they aren't synergistic for example, what makes going in that specific direction not metagaming in absence of a check? Certianly not that out of game, you the player, know it's possible.

MrNexx
2006-10-06, 01:31 PM
Now for knowledge skills there should be some things that are just common knowledge for specific classes and need never require a knowledge check.

Lets use wizards as an example. Wizards should know what kind of breath weapons each kind of dragon in the MM1 has. And the kinds of enviroments that they live in along with knowledge of any special abilities that they posess, such as a gold dragosn shape change.

Reason why: Dragons are well known and wizards would learn thsi kind of thing in their studies. It should never require a check. I mean they learn draconic as a bonus language, they should know at least basic stuff about each type of dragon.

The same thing applies to Golems (Iron, Stone, Flesh), devils, and demons.

Now the wizard wouldn't knwo of a specific gold dragon but he would knwo that all gold dragons are good and can take human form.

I disagree. Much of this is covered by the knowledge skill rules. The fact that Wizards are encouraged by the skill synergy rules to increase Knowledge: Arcana (which includes constructs and dragons) means that most wizards are going to know a bit about Dragons. If they know nothing about dragons... then what the heck are they spending their skill points on?

(This, incidentally, is part of why I think fighters should have some knowledge skills as class skills... especially History, which includes wars, Local, which includes humanoids, and Nature, which includes animals, giants, and a few other types)

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-06, 01:38 PM
Shouldn't sometimes they be 'wrong' about what would help do x better? In my own life I've worked on skill that I thought would make me a better x only to discover they really didn't make any difference. Should there be an int/wis check of some kind to find out if they are 'right' about the skill they think might help?
And here's one of the core issues. As D&D is a game, you're gonna want to be able to actually play the game with some level of efectiveness. As a result, a D&D character is always much, much more effective at balancing his or her skills and talents to a particular goal than any real human will ever be. In real life, getting from point A to point B is never the straight line getting from level 1 to level 20 is in D&D.

Of course, from the "realism" point of view, you also have to remember that D&D doesn't really model the malleable states of skills. In real life, I can experiment, get pretty good at a particular skill, and then, when I find the skill doesn't serve me, stop practicing said skill and let it atrophy to the point that it doesn't even add up to the D&D equivalent of one rank. I then spend my time and energy developing other skill, with only a little lost time. That doesn't happen with an actual D&D character. Once you've spent a skill rank, it's spent. (Naturally, that can change if you have the PHBII or read Keith Davies' site (http://www.kjdavies.org/rpg/articles/rules/skill-atrophy.html). But then those are non-core sources.)

This, of course, ties into the whole "game-effectiveness" of a character. It's probably best to assume a character that experiments with a particular skill then gives up does so before actually gaining a rank's worth of ability. Those that actually put ranks into this oddball skill then only get that far because they actually are beginning to see a benefit from this area of study, even if they aren't into whatever PrC or feat or whatever that makes those ranks pay-off in-game. This can be alluded to in-game by creative descriptions of how the skill helped even when it doesn't provide any numerical advantage. For instance, the dancing Monk can be described as dodging a blow or evading a fireball through the use of a particular dance maneuver. There's no mechanical difference between if said monk had the dance ranks or not, so we have to assume a non-dancing monk of otherwise equivalent stats found some other, less stylized technique for improving his or her ability to dodge things. This, of course, is pretty much all flavor, but it's a good way to visualize the way your world works.

the_tick_rules
2006-10-06, 01:56 PM
very true. The knowledge skill (this is specifically written in the phb under the skill section in particular i believe) allows for you to roll against a dc of 10 +HD of creature, if you succeed you know about the creatures abilities and so forth. So if your person rolls that then you know about the hydras head thing. Otherwise it's just oh my character is level 12 and has been adventuring for 5 years, he's probably come across this before. Well if your character actually HAS fought hydras and learned about this first hand ok, but saying he's a wizard, he probably learnd this at magic shool is not enough.

Emperor Tippy
2006-10-06, 02:00 PM
But 10+ HD is a stupid way. I know less about dragons because they are more powerful thna orcs is inherently stupid.

The more powerful and famous or infamous a type of creature is the lower the Knowledge check should be.

I would almost give Knowledge checks to learn about a creatue a base DC of 30 and each kind of creature has a modifier to the check. A Dragon would have -20 for example while a Belker might only have -7.

Shazzbaa
2006-10-06, 02:10 PM
Hmm. Well, I'd say with prestige classes in general, they should be okayed by a DM before you start aiming for them, but given that I play in two variant systems and one rather heavily house-ruled game, I tend to want to okay everything, since I never take the RAW for granted. ^^;

I really don't like the thought of one player saying, "I'd really like to be a Shadowdancer," and the DM responding "Roll to see if you know what a Shadowdancer is. Nope, you didn't roll high enough, you can't be one." I mean, do you make a kid who wants to play a sorcerer roll to see if he has dragon's blood in him? "Sorry, you didn't roll high enough to have dragon ancestry, play something else."

That's the only problem I have with this brand of metagaming -- that you want to play what you want to play, and you should really be allowed to unless your DM/GM isn't allowing that Prestige class in his campaign at all (but I'd consider that another matter entirely).

I'd think a better solution would be to have the player work out with the GM how his character might have heard of the class, or how his character could find out about it, if he's interested in it, and form a compromise; "Well, this town doesn't know of Shadowdancing, you'll have to wait until you get to the next town that has a dance instructor." Then you could have the dance instructor in said town inform the monk of the existance of the PrC in order to get him to take her dance classes.

IMO, you shouldn't completely restrict an option from a player unless you actually don't allow the class, but I think a compromise like this would make it work out -- the monk can't just start up Shadowdancing for no reason, but the player is assured that he will be able to play what he wants.

AKA_Bait
2006-10-06, 02:54 PM
And here's one of the core issues. As D&D is a game, you're gonna want to be able to actually play the game with some level of effectiveness.

As far as I can tell, the argument around this is that 'well my character is more effective if I allow this kind of metagaming and I, playing it, have more fun'. Which is just fine of course, but it doesn't mean that it's not metagaming. I don't want to get into the question of what an effective character means and how that effects the fun of a D&D game. The whole reason I started this as a separate thread from the 'powergamer' thread was to separate the two issues.


That's the only problem I have with this brand of metagaming -- that you want to play what you want to play, and you should really be allowed to unless your DM/GM isn't allowing that Prestige class in his campaign at all (but I'd consider that another matter entirely).

I'd think a better solution would be to have the player work out with the GM...

IMO, you shouldn't completely restrict an option from a player unless you actually don't allow the class, but I think a compromise like this would make it work out -- the monk can't just start up Shadowdancing for no reason, but the player is assured that he will be able to play what he wants.

I totally agree. In fact, the entire metagaming problem can be avoided by a player and DM discussing it early enough that the DM can provide a way for the character to know what he's working toward without it becoming a problem of in-game / out-game knowledge.

That said, the player should have the restraint to wait until that information is already introduced to their character before they start taking the specific and more oddball requirements of the prestige class they want even if they are assured they will be able to take the class later.

MrNexx
2006-10-06, 03:04 PM
But 10+ HD is a stupid way. I know less about dragons because they are more powerful thna orcs is inherently stupid.

Well phrased. I mean, it certainly couldn't have anything to do with the fact that orcs are common as pig poop, even interacting with the common races, while dragons are quite rare, and may be creatures with some degree of legendry, if not mythology, about them?


The more powerful and famous or infamous a type of creature is the lower the Knowledge check should be.

Well, 1st and 2nd edition had a function called "Frequency" in the monster templates, which would do what you're looking for. For example, a goblin was "Uncommon", compared to the "Common" orc. Since they're both Humanoids, with 1 base HD, it would be easier to know stuff about Orcs than Goblins.

Of course, things like that are terribly dynamic. Your "common creature" is my "There are no orcs in this crystal sphere" or "All gnomes were killed in the Cleansing Wars."

Shazzbaa
2006-10-06, 03:58 PM
Ostriches are well-known creatures. Everyone knows what an ostrich is. But how many people know that ostriches like shiny things, and dear lord, how many people STILL THINK THAT OSTRICHES HIDE THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND?!

A surprisingly large number of people are surprised to learn that this is not normal ostrich behaviour.

A creature can be well-known and still have a lot of misinformation about it and/or confused facts. Just because dragons are legendary and well-known doesn't mean I know their weaknesses and behaviours if I've never interacted with one.

I like the idea of going by how common a creature is for the DC of the knowledge check. Obviously, if something changed from the norm in your game ("All gnomes were killed in the Cleansing Wars") then the DM would change the frequency of that creature for his game.

Sorry for the tangent.


That said, the player should have the restraint to wait until that information is already introduced to their character before they start taking the specific and more oddball requirements of the prestige class they want even if they are assured they will be able to take the class later.
Agreed.

Emperor Tippy
2006-10-06, 05:25 PM
But chances are that it would be common knowledge that metallic dragons are always good and cromatic ones are always evil. Or that red dragosn breath fire but black dragosn shoot acid. Sorry but that would be as common in most D&D worlds as knowing that superman can fly is in our world.

Myths and Legends are based on facts. The facts will be distorted but they all have their grains of truth.

And adventurers specilize in killing things like dragons. It seems very likely that they would have, at some point on the path to becoming an adventurer, talked to someone with said knowledge or experiance.



The basic problem is that the Knowledge Check DC is FAR to simple. Incidently that is a problem I have found with a lot of 3.5 rules.

Thomas
2006-10-06, 05:37 PM
Alternate soloution: Don't allow him to take 10 on knowledge checks ever.

... so now people have a 50% chance to know something that is, by definition, "common knowledge" (i.e. known by almost everybody).

Bad idea?


This system to me is problematic because of untrained knowledge checks. 0 ranks in a given skill, i.e. by this system he has no knowledge of pies at all, without even a basis to proceed how could he deduce anything?

Hence why I prefer just not to allow taking 10 on knowledge checks at all.

Because, again, it's "common knowledge"; something every untrained person with average intelligence probably knows.

SRD: "Untrained: An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower)."

DC 10 is, by definition, things anybody knows.


"All gnomes were killed in the Cleansing Wars"

Thank Gallard!

geek_2049
2006-10-06, 06:50 PM
There are ways around failed knowledge checks. When you lvl up and add a rank to a knowledge skill that represents a greater bredth of knowledge.

A failed knowledge check can be overcome in game via roleplaying before leveling. Libraries contain a fountain of knowledge, so use them when the option is available. "Phone a Friend" use gather info directly or indirectly and you might learn something new. Gather info directly is approachoing someone and asking about them, ex talk to the previously mentioned orc you can then form some opinions about orcs. An indirect method of info gathering could be finding a friendly higher lvl npc and asking what they know. Ex "We fought this entity with barbs, but our weapons were not very effective, what can we do to overcome this?"

Dareon
2006-10-06, 07:39 PM
I mean, do you make a kid who wants to play a sorcerer roll to see if he has dragon's blood in him? "Sorry, you didn't roll high enough to have dragon ancestry, play something else." Like in Second Edition? ;D

I kid. Mostly.

I'm a bit guilty of metagaming with my latest character planning, actually. Homebrew campaign, contains Artificers, but no Warforged. I ask if working towards Renegade Mastermaker (Magic of Eberron, gains the living construct subtype at 10th level, for most intents and purposes becoming a warforged) is a viable option. This stems mainly from my often perverse enjoyment of stretching rules and playing with my DM's head. I get a yes on that. Looking through the allowed books, I also spot Effigy Master. Ask if he can drop the spellcasting requirement to allow Artificers to take it from straight-class. Another yes, so I've got a decent 20-level build. I've got a decent enough idea of how I want to pursue those classes in-character, my character enjoys the company of machines/tools more than living people, and can see the benefits of combining metal with his own flesh and of crafting life from steel and leather. I'm not thinking that's too heavy metagaming for the original goal of "I wanna mess with the DM by making a Warforged in a world with no Warforged! Ooh, and build robots, too!" Why, from a character standpoint, he takes the levels and spells, etc. he does is just as important to me as what he takes. I figure he's constantly experimenting, maybe developing a mild masochistic streak by testing his pain reactions and such. The first level of Renegade Mastermaker occurs mostly on a whim, and by the time he hits RMM 10, he knows enough about construction and emulation of life he can step right into Effigy Master with no trouble.

Back on subject, metagaming begins (perhaps once more) as I pick up the Monster Manuals and start looking for good creatures to make into effigies. Just for spoons and giggles (I actually wrote s-p-o-o-n there), I jot down the Gibbering Mouther. Then I note the Hydra is likely a win button, and the Tarrasque is eligible for effigifying. At this phase I'm mostly ignoring the costs to actually build these. Flipping to the MMII, I hit the Megapede. No need for horses, nor fear of bandits ever again. In one of the books, I find the Siege Crab and immediately think of MASSIVE DAMAGE.

Then I think, "Hang on. It wouldn't be right of me to suddenly start whipping out these massive things." Then, I turn to my DM and say "In the interest of sanity, I'm going to assume I can only make effigies of general domestic animals and creatures we've encountered. However, if you throw nothing but undead, plants, outsiders, and other creatures I can't effigify at us, that goes out the window and I build a tarrasque."

One source of metagaming nipped in the bud.

Then I see Spellcarved Soldier. I still can't think of why he'd take that. Beyond being tired of d6 and d4 HD.

But none of those PrCs really require anything he doesn't already get or have, except Spellcarved Soldier, which requires a Warforged feat he can still qualify for.

MrNexx
2006-10-06, 11:26 PM
But chances are that it would be common knowledge that metallic dragons are always good and cromatic ones are always evil. Or that red dragosn breath fire but black dragosn shoot acid. Sorry but that would be as common in most D&D worlds as knowing that superman can fly is in our world.

Then you might define that as a DC 10 check. However, where do you draw the line? And is a person who knows only anecdotal information about dragons going to be able to tell the difference between a wyrmling red and a pseudodragon?


And adventurers specilize in killing things like dragons. It seems very likely that they would have, at some point on the path to becoming an adventurer, talked to someone with said knowledge or experiance.

That's represented by having Knowledge. If you know something, you have a Knowledge skill. If you want to put one point in cross-class knowledge skills to make essentially untrained checks against high DCs, go ahead, but it still is shown by a knowledge skill... the only one who can make a level check to know random bits of lore is a Bard (or a Cloistered Cleric).

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-07, 10:02 AM
Then you might define that as a DC 10 check. However, where do you draw the line?
That, naturally, will vary from campaign to campaign. "Metallic == Good; Chromatic == Bad" as common knowledge should work for Standard D&D/Greyhawk where dragons are relatively common. But take something like pre-War of the Lance Dragonlance and you get everyone thinking all dragons are evil (which is not true). Then of course you've got Dark Sun, where there was only THE Dragon (sure, there were also the sorcerer-kings, but only a few people knew that). And, of course, there's the other extreme: Council of Wyrms, set on an island ruled by dragons (heck, the PCs play the dragons as well as their non-dragon minions).


And is a person who knows only anecdotal information about dragons going to be able to tell the difference between a wyrmling red and a pseudodragon?
In Standard D&D? Probably not. Actual species identification would probably be a higher DC. It's probably easy to mistake a pseudodragon for a true chromatic dragon because its scales aren't shiny (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html). But they probably have a good chance to know that non-shiny scales are often bad.

Personally, I'm glad that we're beginning to get more reasonable Knowledge DCs actually attached to monsters (MM4 and Dragon ecology articles) that actually have some basis on how much is actually known rather than simply 'cause they have a bunch of hit points. And I just want to mention that there is at least one case (Green Hag in Dragon) where a check that is too low actually reveals misinformation (a commonly belived myth about the hags) as if it were fact.

Noneoyabizzness
2006-10-07, 10:14 AM
"I say, Julius, you have proven to have great mental fortitude in the past. These critters are known for their mental assaults. What say you lead the charge?"

"The legends say these devils can't be burned and can only be harmed by weapons made of silver."

(Just like in real-life, the lore says only silver harms werewolves. :P)



ahh bardic knowledge in it's finest form

Noneoyabizzness
2006-10-07, 10:40 AM
as far as prestige classes known, backstory, current character acts and enviroment really need to make for what really defines it as character driven or metagaming.

example
1) aiming to be an intuitive class. the classes that make the most sense for what the character does or how they behave (thief acrobat was a good example, mystic theurge/e- knight/basic hybrid class also fit, the dread comando might be an extreme case of this as a fighter/sneaky class hybrid) the concept anyone can aspire to this should be nothign spectacular. it's doing what they do better than they currently can and the prereqs show they have to be somewhat good. it's what their character is

2)aiming to be be situational class- this is morea backstory/plot pending concept. if a pc wants to be a dungeon delver/undead slayer/shadowsmith, they have to have some reason in their backstory to have the aspirations and/or some reason to have heard about them in play.

3)aiming to be a part of a secret organizational class-metagaming like a mofo if they are planning for it, in spite of it being a secret organization that no 0-level/first level should have ever heard of. chameleons, f-ing lyricists, nightsongs, harpers, etc should never be "aspired to" unless you have maxed knowledge at character inception and high ranks in move silent hide and other things that might make sense to seek our and stalk enoguh evidence of their existance.

4)religious/public organizational classes- guild mage, divine_____ this is the most open if the character plays up their religion or public organizational ties and devotion. a wizard/sorc saving money applying into guilds and tryign to gain memebership makes dang fine sense. a devout churchgoer/tither who takes up missions for the church or offers services for the cost of supplies might be a good supplicant to the extra prestige classes

5)regional-if this is the important prestigious careers of your tribe/city, then trying to follow in footsteps is not so hard to consider.

My gwar bard is going into warrior skald given his norse background and his one level of spellsword in the middle due to his love of armor shields and occassional spellcasting. oddly My original plan was a straight bard 20, but prefered to do the multi as it made more sense and went along with his love of his spiked breastplate, shield, and sword (somatic weapon is going to be a lovely 12th level feat)

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-07, 11:39 AM
ahh bardic knowledge in it's finest form
Good point in a roundabout way.

Aren't the bards supposed be storytellers that help spread these legends? Some of this info has to get leaked out at some point. I'm not saying let every character have the same range of incidental knowledge as a bard. I'm saying work with your players in such a way that they know which monsters/common legends are likely to be known to their characters. Maybe let them have a gimme. Anyone can pick up a little bit of incidental knowledge. If trolls are a common monster, I'm sure there are non-bards have heard of 'em without any formal training (i.e. ranks in Knowledge (nature)). They might not know why fire is a good tactic, but they just might have heard that it is so.

Of course, once again, it depends in no small part upon the monsters' frequency in your campaign world.

the_tick_rules
2006-10-07, 12:41 PM
well bardic knowledge is stories and legends, not tactical data. maybe there is a legend abotu a werewolf being slayed by a silver sword, but stretching it much farther is kinda difficult. Plus legends have a tendency to be wrong from time to time.

Matthew
2006-10-07, 12:54 PM
Of course, from the "realism" point of view, you also have to remember that D&D doesn't really model the malleable states of skills. In real life, I can experiment, get pretty good at a particular skill, and then, when I find the skill doesn't serve me, stop practicing said skill and let it atrophy to the point that it doesn't even add up to the D&D equivalent of one rank. I then spend my time and energy developing other skill, with only a little lost time. That doesn't happen with an actual D&D character. Once you've spent a skill rank, it's spent. (Naturally, that can change if you have the PHBII or read Keith Davies' site (http://www.kjdavies.org/rpg/articles/rules/skill-atrophy.html). But then those are non-core sources.)

I usually just slap a Circumstance Modifier on to represent this. "Sorry Bob, Viggo the Mighty hasn't used his Tracking Ability for quite some time, he's a bit rusty..."


Because, again, it's "common knowledge"; something every untrained person with average intelligence probably knows.

SRD: "Untrained: An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower)."

DC 10 is, by definition, things anybody knows.

You know, I never really noticed that exemption in the Skill Entry for Knowledge Checks. I was under the impression that since it is a Trained Only Skill the Untrained rules apply:

SRD
Untrained Skill Checks
Generally, if your character attempts to use a skill he or she does not possess, you make a skill check as normal. The skill modifier doesn’t have a skill rank added in because the character has no ranks in the skill. Any other applicable modifiers, such as the modifier for the skill’s key ability, are applied to the check.

Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them.

Untrained Skill Checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#untrainedSkillChecks)

Why is this Skill Trained Only? It might as well not be...

Thomas
2006-10-07, 01:40 PM
Why is this Skill Trained Only? It might as well not be...

... er, no.

It's trained only but allows for untrained Int checks for common knowledge (defined as DC 10 or below), which is stuff everyone knows. Thus anyone with an Int of 10 or more (average intelligence) who takes 10 will know things that are common knowledge. Knowing anything more difficult - like DC 11 - requires having ranks. Knowing really useful stuff (DC 25 to 30) generally requires a total bonus of +15 to +20.

Beldak
2006-10-07, 02:51 PM
So here is my take on knowledge skills:

ok, I am willing to allow people to assume that red dragons breathe fire and if that is true then they are probably immune to fire, I will allow people to assume the same about white dragons. But blue, black, and green. No way. Seriously, what would make you associate those three dragons with their breathe weapon or their immunities before you see them, the colors aren't right, they are gross generalizations, acid is most often clear and electricity is just as often yellow or white. I would pose the question, what is the breathe weapon and immunity of a topaz dragon? The knowledge is just as intuitive and the answer is probably, "I don't know."

Take vampires for example, vampire lore is completly different dependant on what country you are from, it is just as likely that your character would know silver hurts a vampire as it is that your character would know that lilac hurts a vampire. It is just as likely that your character would know that sunlight hurts vampires as it that your character would know that only wood from the ashentrees of the alps hurts a vampire.

Were-wolves are just as often in lore warded off by lilac, or in some cultures Holly, or in some cultures bamboo.

My point being, local lore in most places has a 50% chance of being right and a 50% chance of being dead wrong. If you didn't put a single rank in the aplicable knowledge skill, you are probably not going to know the breathe weapon of a blue dragon or in the case that you do, you are probably going to be wrong about what its vulnerability is. Knowledge skills are tremendously useful and a lot of people whom play assume that their midevil character has the background knowledge of a 21st century college grad with access to the internet.

Case in point, the duck-billed platapus. If you had no knowledge of biology you might think a duck and an otter were swiming along and chanced upon booze and funk music. If you knew nothing of evolution you might think it was a cursed creature or something. We today aren't totally shocked by it because we are much much smarter then a midevil peasant turned rogue, but when the creature was first discovered everyone thought it was a hoax.

In short. . . ROLL the DICE!

Matthew
2006-10-07, 03:04 PM
... er, no.

It's trained only but allows for untrained Int checks for common knowledge (defined as DC 10 or below), which is stuff everyone knows. Thus anyone with an Int of 10 or more (average intelligence) who takes 10 will know things that are common knowledge. Knowing anything more difficult - like DC 11 - requires having ranks. Knowing really useful stuff (DC 25 to 30) generally requires a total bonus of +15 to +20.

I see, so even Characters with Intelligence Bonuses cannot attempt Knowledge Checks higher than DC 10. That makes slightly more sense.

So, I take it this is 'Common' Knowledge (X) and not Knowledge (Common) we're talking about?

Thomas
2006-10-07, 03:43 PM
I see, so even Characters with Intelligence Bonuses cannot attempt Knowledge Checks higher than DC 10. That makes slightly more sense.

So, I take it this is 'Common' Knowledge (X) and not Knowledge (Common) we're talking about?

I should think so, being that Common is a language, and there's no RAW Knowledge (language) skills. Common knowledge just means DC 10 Knowledge checks.

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-07, 08:40 PM
well bardic knowledge is stories and legends, not tactical data. maybe there is a legend abotu a werewolf being slayed by a silver sword, but stretching it much farther is kinda difficult.
I've heard plenty of monster stories that say the item used to kill the monster is the only type of weapon able to harm them. I mean that's how lycanthropes wound up with DR/silver, right? There are plenty of stories about werewolves being immune to everything but silver.


Plus legends have a tendency to be wrong from time to time.
And you know what? I don't think there's much in the rules about misinformed legends. Probably should include such "incorrect data" possibilities when deciding what people actually know about the creatures on your world.


Take vampires for example, vampire lore is completly different dependant on what country you are from, it is just as likely that your character would know silver hurts a vampire as it is that your character would know that lilac hurts a vampire. It is just as likely that your character would know that sunlight hurts vampires as it that your character would know that only wood from the ashentrees of the alps hurts a vampire.

Were-wolves are just as often in lore warded off by lilac, or in some cultures Holly, or in some cultures bamboo.
I would expect that in a world where such creatures actually exist that the legends would probably be a bit more consistent. After all, you can actually check the facts on them. Which is because there are actual facts instead of just myth.


We today aren't totally shocked by it because we are much much smarter then a midevil peasant turned rogue...
No. We aren't necessarily smarter. We're just less ignorant. Someone eventually actually checked out the facts.

Noneoyabizzness
2006-10-07, 08:48 PM
I would expect that in a world where such creatures actually exist that the legends would probably be a bit more consistent. After all, you can actually check the facts on them. Which is because there are actual facts instead of just myth.


well that's not exactly true, a demon might be painted as a vampire for artistic purposes by legend and the like. plus the demon devil issue could be confused based on the teller. some things can get jarbled with the bardic k, but its steps in the right direction

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-07, 08:51 PM
well that's not exactly true, a demon might be painted as a vampire for artistic purposes by legend and the like. plus the demon devil issue could be confused based on the teller. some things can get jarbled with the bardic k, but its steps in the right direction
More consistent. Not 100% consistent. ;)

Shazzbaa
2006-10-07, 09:15 PM
ok, I am willing to allow people to assume that red dragons breathe fire and if that is true then they are probably immune to fire, I will allow people to assume the same about white dragons. But blue, black, and green. No way. Seriously, what would make you associate those three dragons with their breathe weapon or their immunities before you see them, the colors aren't right, they are gross generalizations, acid is most often clear and electricity is just as often yellow or white. I would pose the question, what is the breathe weapon and immunity of a topaz dragon? The knowledge is just as intuitive and the answer is probably, "I don't know."
But... but this is a different world, one in which dragons are real and not as much up to the whims of whatever writer or artist is creating them. The only reason Fire is so intuitive is because most differing sources agree that red dragons are fire dragons, but the other colours are rarely agreed upon by different authors, so we can't guess easily what they would be. If all of our books and stories and artistic depictions agreed that blue dragons were electric, then we'd pretty much think of blue = electricity, and we'd consider it just as obvious as red=fire.

Arbitrary "this colour is obvious to you but this one isn't" doesn't seem to work to me.

On a bit of a tangent, there are some things that are common enough player knowledge that it's near impossible to squelch the metagame, and I sometimes have to wonder if it's really worth the effort.


I would expect that in a world where such creatures actually exist that the legends would probably be a bit more consistent. After all, you can actually check the facts on them. Which is because there are actual facts instead of just myth....*snip*....We aren't necessarily smarter. We're just less ignorant. Someone eventually actually checked out the facts.

I actually agree with you, but I'm going to mention the ostriches again just to be contrary.
Because unless they watch a lot of nature shows on TV, or read that sort of thing regularly (knowledge ranks!), most people don't know that this absurd "head-in-sand" thing isn't true.

Thomas
2006-10-07, 09:49 PM
I actually agree with you, but I'm going to mention the ostriches again just to be contrary.
Because unless they watch a lot of nature shows on TV, or read that sort of thing regularly (knowledge ranks!), most people don't know that this absurd "head-in-sand" thing isn't true.

The absolute majority of "common knowledge" is incorrect. The more involved (scientific) the subject (physics, psychology), the higher the percentage of absolutely incorrect "common knowledge." This is even perpetuated by education systems using "lies-to-children" (thank you, Pratchett); they tell elementary school and high school kids lies that make it easier to understand the basics of how something complicated works, and make it easier to learn the truth later on (in, say, university), but that end up contributing to a huge base of incorrect common knowledge.

Some examples of modern mythology perpetuated as "common knowledge" are hilariously irrational, like how we only use 10/15/20% of our brain (the number doesn't even stay the same in different versions of that trope), or how listening to classical music (Mozart specifically) makes children smarter.

Obviously this should apply to game worlds, but the DM needs to define all of this for a game world, and no assumptions can be made across different game worlds. Maybe in Faerûn everyone knows the ten main types of true dragons, understands how a lich differs from a vampire or a skeleton, and what you do to werewolves; in Athas everyone understands how psionic powers work, but most people haven't even heard of arcane casters; and in pre-War Ansalon everyone thinks dragons are a childrens' story.

Dervag
2006-10-07, 10:51 PM
That's a good point- which monsters have well-known weaknesses will vary from setting to setting. But if some monster is common in the world and has existed for some time, people must have some idea of how to kill it. Trolls, for instance, are effectively impossible to kill unless their remains are burned- acid is much harder to come by than fire.

So if trolls exist in your setting, and if they haven't taken over the world, then places where people fight trolls more or less have to know that you can't kill a troll unless you burn its remains.

Likewise, if vampires are a common problem, and if there are any meaningful number of successful vampire hunters, then people will know that vampires are vulnerable to sunlight, etc. Likewise for werewolves or any other such monster.

So which monsters have weaknesses that are 'common knowledge' should be determined by which monsters are relatively common and which people have been keeping in check for a while. If vampires' existence is a well-hidden secret or if nobody has ever killed one before, their weaknesses will not be common knowledge. Or there might be a massive body of contradictory lore, as exists in the real world (where vampires don't exist in the first place).

Thomas
2006-10-07, 11:07 PM
That's a good point- which monsters have well-known weaknesses will vary from setting to setting. But if some monster is common in the world and has existed for some time, people must have some idea of how to kill it. Trolls, for instance, are effectively impossible to kill unless their remains are burned- acid is much harder to come by than fire.

So if trolls exist in your setting, and if they haven't taken over the world, then places where people fight trolls more or less have to know that you can't kill a troll unless you burn its remains.

Likewise, if vampires are a common problem, and if there are any meaningful number of successful vampire hunters, then people will know that vampires are vulnerable to sunlight, etc. Likewise for werewolves or any other such monster.

So which monsters have weaknesses that are 'common knowledge' should be determined by which monsters are relatively common and which people have been keeping in check for a while. If vampires' existence is a well-hidden secret or if nobody has ever killed one before, their weaknesses will not be common knowledge. Or there might be a massive body of contradictory lore, as exists in the real world (where vampires don't exist in the first place).

Absolutely. The Savage North of Faerûn is a great example. Everyone knows that silver hurts lycanthropes, because they have been fighting them for generations (the People of the Black Blood, the Uthgardti lycanthropes). Everyone knows that fire hurts trolls (acid is likely less accessible to normal people), because they're all over the place. Dragons are probably a less common issue, but you can always visit Silverymoon, Sundabar, or any other large town, and ask local adventurers, or consult a librarian - the main ten types of dragons are unlikely to be more than a DC 10 task, and knowing their elements (and their weaknesses) is likely around DC 15.

However, knowledge of demons and devils is sure to be rarer (restricted to the temples and libraries; there's some demand for this lore, what with Hellgate Keep). Knowledge of the Underdark is getting really specialized - unless you visit the dwarves, who are sure to have a DC of no more than 10 to list the main races of the Upperdark, and who will even know the basic survival rules down there.

Beholden_Caulfield
2006-10-08, 12:57 AM
The whole problem with metagaming excess knowledge of a creature stems from telling players exactly what it is they're fighting.

In my campaigns, it's mighty rare that my players hear the name of the creature they're fighting, much less the name written in the Monster Manual. Describing the thing exactly as it's written in the book is just asking for metagaming.

Compare:
"Upon opening your bedroom window's curtains, you see a thin, blond young man shivering in the moonlight on your balcony. He taps on the glass, indicating that he'd like you to let him in."

Or:
"You see a vampire on your balcony, asking you to let him in. Roll initiative."

Which one do you think will induce your players to pull out their silvered daggers?

Now, if they got the information from an NPC, don't forget to roll the NPC's knowledge check, too. Just because the guy's sister got kidnapped by a group of drow doesn't mean he knows they can't stand sunlight, hang out in the underdark and worship spiders.

Shhalahr Windrider
2006-10-08, 12:58 PM
Obviously this should apply to game worlds, but the DM needs to define all of this for a game world, and no assumptions can be made across different game worlds. Maybe in Faerûn everyone knows the ten main types of true dragons, understands how a lich differs from a vampire or a skeleton, and what you do to werewolves; in Athas everyone understands how psionic powers work, but most people haven't even heard of arcane casters; and in pre-War Ansalon everyone thinks dragons are a childrens' story.
;D

You have done a marvelous job pegging the differences between those campaign worlds. I just wanted to let you know.

Matthew
2006-10-08, 04:56 PM
I should think so, being that Common is a language, and there's no RAW Knowledge (language) skills. Common knowledge just means DC 10 Knowledge checks.

Very droll, but as far as I can see it was nowhere near that clear in the 3.0 PHB or DMG as to where to draw the line between Intelligence Checks and Knowledge Checks, which was, of course, the source of my confusion. 'Common Knowledge' appears to have only been defined as DC 10 Knowledge in the 3.5 PHB (which I don't own), though perhaps other 3.0 supplements or adventures were clearer about this. Quite amusing really, as that change was not 'Common Knowledge' for me...

Beldak
2006-10-08, 05:04 PM
To each their own flavor,
But I have to say, roleplaying a character as having the players common knowledge is not expressing any kind of roleplaying talent. Supressing the individuals common knowledge in the interest of playing the character can be considered the difference between roleplaying and dicerolling. I can't find any fun in playing myself, I can do that everyday.

GoblinBaron
2007-08-15, 05:28 AM
i dont' belive that character planning is metagaming at all. or if it is that it is a bad thing on the overall. a character plan is just that, a plan and just because a character has some over all life goal dosn't mean the character will achive this. this followes the real world logic that any of us could plan to be a doctor and in a perfect world one could follow a plan that would lead them to this goal without issue.
however life gets in the way. one may not have enough money to attend school, or find that they have to stay at home to take care of an ill loved one, they might win the lotto and their life goals change, or perhaps the person just isn't smart enough or dedacated enough to their goals and even if they do make it they might slip up and fall from grace never being allowed to practice again amidst numerous lawsuits.
As a DM, you controll the world and can wreak havok on character's plans. if they want to be a sacred prestige class that requires purity, put temptation in their way. seeking to become a member of an exclusive training hall, place them in a current non-recruiting period or inflate the entry fees. how easy the world is on the character is up the DM and all the planning in the world will not make up for a character/player who is not Quick on their feet to react IC.
the negitive side of Metagaming is when the player uses knowledge that, without knowlege skill they would not know: that a certain PC or NPC is a secret socity memeber or has a fake identiy but they did not make the checks to discover it but instead looked at DM notes or other PC sheets. knowing the exact location of long lost artifact because they read the DM only section of the Book instead of hearing a bards tale or finding a secret map.
made skill checks justify metaknowledge held by a character and even a degree of assumed knowledge can sneak by without a check (which if you have a problem with as DM you should swish the moment the player pulls that garbage)... it's when they go beyond this point that it becomes distruptive to game style, tempo and feel.

Inyssius Tor
2007-08-15, 02:45 PM
Good points, but I might note that you are posting to a thread that, before now, was on something like Page 89.

This is a pretty interesting thread, though. Thanks for the necromancy... I guess...

AKA_Bait
2007-08-15, 02:59 PM
Good points, but I might note that you are posting to a thread that, before now, was on something like Page 89.

This is a pretty interesting thread, though. Thanks for the necromancy... I guess...


QFT. As interesting as it is to see a thread I started 10 months ago revived, you really ought to let the dead lie.

Also, as I recall, I'm not rereading the entire thread here, there are some PRC's that are secret societies. Knowing about them requires a check. So, having a character plan involving what the character doesn't know, and having them, in theory, train in game to meet the prereqs of a PRC they have never heard of, leans into metagaming in my view.

At least, I think that's what I would have argued a year ago. ;-)

Bauglir
2007-08-15, 04:12 PM
I'd suggest that the PC might be interested in learning the skills of the group for their own reasons before learning about the group. For instance, "Hm, I've always liked to use stealthy blows to critical areas as my primary method of attack, so these skills here (Hide, Move Silently, and Disguise) are good for getting me in a position to do it more often." And then, later, "Oh hey, there's this guild of assassins! Apparently they train their people to strike vital areas quickly and effectively, outright slaying their victims. Sign me up!"

AKA_Bait
2007-08-15, 04:28 PM
I'd suggest that the PC might be interested in learning the skills of the group for their own reasons before learning about the group. For instance, "Hm, I've always liked to use stealthy blows to critical areas as my primary method of attack, so these skills here (Hide, Move Silently, and Disguise) are good for getting me in a position to do it more often." And then, later, "Oh hey, there's this guild of assassins! Apparently they train their people to strike vital areas quickly and effectively, outright slaying their victims. Sign me up!"

Depends upon the PRC. Rarely does a character who says the above have it be the case in character that for a few levels they have really like to dance and done it often, as with say shadowdancer.

Thoughtbot360
2007-08-18, 12:26 AM
It's more that all of what you said could be explained through backstory very easily.
Maybe when the barbarian was a kid his daddy told him about this great hammer (Mattock of the Titans) and now that the barbarian is an adventurer he decides that he wants this great hammer so he starts saving money to buy one. Or maybe his childhood hero had one. There are so many ways that the character could legitimatly know about the item that it isn't metagaming.


Again. The character prolly lived at least 20 years before you see him ingame. In that time he could have easily met an adventurer who had X prestige class. Or hsi childhood hero was X prestige class. Its very explainable.



I don't consider it metagaming if it is easily concevable that the character could have heard about or know about X.

Actually, all of this is brings up a point. I'd like to know how much the average adventurer (illiterate or not) could know about all the stuff you can have in the D&D game. Let me explain: I know the player's handbook front and back, I know there are such a thing as prestige classes, and I know a few feats and spells that are so ridiculously powerful, I'll probably never see them allowed in the game without someone drugging the DM. But when I made my halfling wizard for the D&D meet-up, I found a snag I didn't plan to hit: I had no idea what to do with the starting gold they gave me. Magic items, outside of a few that benefited melee classes or some twinky builds I read on a website, were not my forte' and mostly out of my range of knowledge. I also found out that while the abilities of 20th-level characters were listed in the PHB, the gear for such characters was listed in DMG (Not just the rules for enchanted armor, for instance, but entirely different armor. Full plate with 12 dexterity or padded armor with 26 both get you +9 AC as the best gear in the PHB has to offer, but the Mithral shirt from the DMG gives you a net bonus of +10 to your AC with 22 dex, with a mere 10% ASF! Not to mention artifact level gear....)

I ultimately bought some a wand of 3rd-level magic missile (which I didn't know the price of before being told) if you were wondering, but this experience revealed a little secret of D&D: Many experienced players pretty much have to plan item-based builds for their characters. A warrior without so much as a +1 weapon is screwed when monsters with DR or the incorporeal subtype attack. And big, eventually necessary weapons like the Mattock of the Titans costs so much that you can hardly be blamed for saving your money for them from level one-thats what the magic shops are there for!

The only alternative, as I see it, to "meta-gaming" like the OP mentioned is to just cross your fingers and hope the Dungeon master hands out the specific gear you need or just doesn't send you monsters you can't handle. The DM has enough on his plate for that crap.

Meta-gaming during character planing like what the illiterate barbarian did just comes with system.


Good points, but I might note that you are posting to a thread that, before now, was on something like Page 89.

This is a pretty interesting thread, though. Thanks for the necromancy... I guess... Hey! Thread necromancy is an important part of the natural life cycles of the internet! Any cyber-biologist can tell you that! :tongue: