If a DM did this to you, how mad would you be?

[Emmerask]

Seems closer to this.

Yep pretty much, and there is even a ruling that support this in d&d, ever tried to damage an undead with negative energy?
So is this unfair too?

[Cactuar]

Seems closer to this.

How do you know your "knowledge" in the future won't fail you again? What else has your master lied to you about? What is to stop the DM from deciding, since this was such a cool story hook, he should do it again in the future?

It makes it so your skill is unreliable because you don't know what your DM is planning. He's already shown he's willing to give you bad information on a passed skill check. How can you be entirely sure he's not going to do it again?

That's why it's randomly heals any monster, rather than a specific type. Even if we were to say it was just one specific monster type, it'd still be terrible if you had no way of knowing it would do that and said sword is your main weapon.


Yep pretty much, and there is even a ruling that support this in d&d, ever tried to damage an undead with negative energy?
So is this unfair too?

In this case, it's an actual rule and there are ways of finding out that said spells would heal the undead. If you didn't know this and had the information actively hidden from you then this might feel unfair and you (as the player) would probably want that sort of thing to stop.

[Amphetryon]

It was a specific Knowledge check. The OP never said that entire Knowledge Skill was tainted, or useless, merely that one aspect of the Knowledge check was based on erroneous information supplied by the mentor.

Your argument appears analogous to the notion that a person who cuts himself shaving should never use a razor again because he might slice open an artery.

[Cactuar]

It was a specific Knowledge check. The OP never said that entire Knowledge Skill was tainted, or useless, merely that one aspect of the Knowledge check was based on erroneous information supplied by the mentor.

Unless you had a promise from the DM that this was a one time thing and would never happen again, you cannot guarantee it wouldn't happen again.


Your argument appears analogous to the notion that a person who cuts himself shaving should never use a razor again because he might slice open an artery.

I'd argue it's closer to the notion that someone who has broken your trust before is likely to do it again, and you should decide if it's worth it to take the risk to use the skill. Your roll could tell you that positive energy is very effective against the undead. It also could tell you that negative energy will have the dracolich you're about to battle reeling in pain.

To use your example, it's more like the notion that someone who has sliced open an artery while shaving should never use a razor again because he might slice open an artery while shaving. You cannot guarantee (without a promise) that it won't happen again, and you already have evidence of it happening at least once.

[Jay R]

I don't believe these situations are at all similar to the one presented.
EDIT: The situation as I understand it is basically, Player A has been taught stuff from their master (who has never appeared in game), giving them 5 ranks in Knowledge (Religion). As it turns out, they have been lied to and either take a secret -5 penalty or can't succeed at all. The third situation is pretty close as is, but the other two would be better represented by imposing a -X penalty or just telling the player they've been taught wrong and can't make attacks/jumps.

We don't disagree on the principle as much as we do on what scenario was being presented by the OP. I didn't see where he said, "either take a secret -5 penalty or can't succeed at all". What I saw was mostly complete information with one piece missing or incorrect as a plot hook. The specific example was that the PC "correctly recognized a man as a cleric of Kermit, but it turns out that who you thought was the god of frogs, puppetry, and pig farming is actually the god of all that plus kitten eating."

If all the information were wrong through and through, it wouldn't even work to mislead the PCs, because it would be discovered to soon. So it seemed to me simply that there are a couple of facts unknowable to the player, both to to develop the scenario, and because there is no way for the character to have learned them (except under the ridiculous notion that a knowledge check is an automatic link to Ultimate Knowledge, more all-encompassing than a Legend Lore spell).


EDIT2: I don't like these situations, because it just encourages me to never make a backstory that the GM can use against me. I mean if this player hadn't made a master that taught them stuff, the GM would likely not have the check penalized, thereby rewarding those players that don't make a backstory beyond "I exist".

There's no point trying to design a character so that the DM cannot develop a plot hook. I actively design characters to give the DM stuff to use. I once had a character with a "Secret Origin" that the PC didn't know about. As the player, I knew it existed, but did not know the secret. (He'd been left as a foundling on the church steps.) This was to encourage the DM to come up with something (which he did).

You can't design a character to keep the DM from putting you in a specific dangerous situation. That's his job, and he will succeed.

[valadil]

You can't design a character to keep the DM from putting you in a specific dangerous situation. That's his job, and he will succeed.

I don't get it either. Even if the GM doesn't make it personal you'll still have the mission to do. It doesn't matter if you're rescuing your grandmother or that random NPC from 3 towns ago.

[Killer Angel]

In this case, it's an actual rule and there are ways of finding out that said spells would heal the undead. If you didn't know this and had the information actively hidden from you then this might feel unfair and you (as the player) would probably want that sort of thing to stop.

Sorry, but that's in the rules also the whole matter regarding incomplete infos when checking for knowledge.
the part "For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information" means exactly that. With your knowledge, you have a partial info: the higher the result, the better the infos, but in the end, you'll have only a partial answer.

[ArcturusV]

I don't really see the problem with it myself. Though the Knowledge Skill is kinda backwards written about how you can never try again at all. Needs something in that situation where, as the player gets various clues that suggest maybe not everything is exactly what he thinks, he continues to get Knowledge Checks to hit a higher DC than his original mark to make the connections and find out he had been had.

And I say I don't really see the problem with it myself because in part I EXPECT knowledge skills to work like that. Education, regardless of source, tends to have a bias. There typically isn't a "pure" knowledge. If I'm playing an Elf, Raised in Elf Lands, Worshiping Elf Gods, I might have an incomplete (Or even completely wrong) view of Goblin or Orc Gods due to my cultural background, regardless of any Knowledge (Religion) checks until I have enough open minded (And that's unlikely in said example) experiences with Goblin and Orc religions to effectively "know better".

Meanwhile if I'm playing a Half-Orc, raised by Orcs, who worshiped the Orcish God of Indiscriminate Slaughter and Petty Vandalism I probably grew up thinking "he's not evil, he gives me the power and inspiration to paint foul language on walls!". Despite everyone else in the world KNOWING my character's religion is evil.

And of course if I'm a human raised in the boonies, and the only religious figure in town was Father O'Malley who SAID he was a Priest of Pelor but actually worshiped Asmodeus and "tainted" most religious knowledge, rituals, and prayers subtly towards the will of his devilish patron, I'd probably walk into a city going, "PRAISE PELOR!" and sacrifice a dog on a black altar while everyone is looking at me funny, my character going, "What? Just giving Pelor his alms."

[Deadmeat.GW]

I would like to point out that the OP has changed his post and that it now includes a line where they player has never increased the ranks for the skill in question from the start of the game/campaign.

In that case and only in that case I would consider it a Plot Hook and not have any problems with it.

I have had however a GM do exactly this to me and my character had before picking up the dice 36 in Survival and Knowledge (nature)...

I rolled a 10, a nice average roll, and my result of 46 was not only FAlse information but also so wrong that it resulted in a near TPK of 5 lvl 28 characters playing an epic level campaign.

I was told the river I was observing was perfectly save to swim in, the currents were very slow and weak and no dangerous creatures lived in the river.

We then tried to cross the river by wading upon which we found out that I did not 'See' that river was 100 feet deep, was flowing faster then a white water rapids and inhabited by Mega-Super-Piranha-of-eating-magic...

Btw, just in case you are wondering, ranger here, Spot and Search skills both 20 ranks...Wisdom 20 and Intelligence 20...

And yes, the GM did this to us...

I was taught by a master living in a forest (at lvl 1, I left there and ended up galivanting across different planes with a Planar Shepherd, a Bard, a Monk-Paladin cross class of some strange god (Forgotten realms stuff) and Druid who was used as a mount by the Planar Shepherd...) who had never seen a river or magical piranha in his life therefore I automatically failed the knowledge roll.

Now if I had NEVER increased my skill I might have been willing to accept that but I travelled for over a decade across Planar Dimensions and kept maxing out my skill during this time.

In short, if you only have the basic starting ranks and you never increased the ranks nor went out of your way ingame to improve your knowledge then yes, I would be annoyed to have been caught flat-footed like that but I would accept it.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, it's reasonable to expect that as you travel and increase skill ranks your view should be broadening and you'd have a lot more general knowledge.

Honestly the example you listed there just struck me as Dickish DMing, possibly that the DM was just burnt out and wanted to end the campaign without being a reasonable adult about it.

[Cactuar]

Sorry, but that's in the rules also the whole matter regarding incomplete infos when checking for knowledge.
the part "For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information" means exactly that. With your knowledge, you have a partial info: the higher the result, the better the infos, but in the end, you'll have only a partial answer.

Only if you assume there is an infinite amount of useful information for any given knowledge roll is this true. Eventually, you'll have a complete answer.

Either way, the point here is you passed the knowledge roll. What you're suggesting is the rules should be used for something like:

DC 10: Yggsvblov enjoys ritualistic sacrifice.
DC 15: Unless it's on Tuesday. Doing so on Tuesday results in Sphere of Annihilation being dropped on the initiator of the ritual.

Rather than

DC 10: Yggsvblov enjoys ritualistic sacrifice unless it's on a Tuesday.
DC 15: Wednesday is his favored day.

The former might be technically acceptable if you're a sadist and the PCs ask something like "What god can we sacrifice this prisoner to?" I would personally dislike it, for obvious reasons. The latter is more likely in-line with what the rules are describing. Giving misleading information on a pass is just bad practice. I'd argue it'd be better to just say they couldn't recall anything useful rather than let them "pass" but not really.

And, honestly? There are easier ways to get PCs to do something than lie to them through knowledge checks. Like lying to them through NPCs and letting them fail a knowledge check!

[LordBlades]

One other thing to ponder: what if between the moment he left his mentor and the moment he made the knowledge check in question the character, adventured, gained one (or several levels) and therefore gained one (or several) ranks in the relevant knowledge skill. Now, at least part of what he knows he has accumulated independently of his mentor.

Since there are no rules for that, the DM would have to make a completely arbitrary decision regarding what pieces of info are from his mentor (and maybe false) and whether the player has (or not) encountered any contradictions.

And any arbitrary decision that screws the player usually falls under bad DMing.

[Killer Angel]

Only if you assume there is an infinite amount of useful information for any given knowledge roll is this true. Eventually, you'll have a complete answer.

Either way, the point here is you passed the knowledge roll. What you're suggesting is the rules should be used for something like:

DC 10: Yggsvblov enjoys ritualistic sacrifice.
DC 15: Unless it's on Tuesday. Doing so on Tuesday results in Sphere of Annihilation being dropped on the initiator of the ritual.

Rather than

DC 10: Yggsvblov enjoys ritualistic sacrifice unless it's on a Tuesday.
DC 15: Wednesday is his favored day.

The former might be technically acceptable if you're a sadist and the PCs ask something like "What god can we sacrifice this prisoner to?" I would personally dislike it, for obvious reasons. The latter is more likely in-line with what the rules are describing. Giving misleading information on a pass is just bad practice. I'd argue it'd be better to just say they couldn't recall anything useful rather than let them "pass" but not really.

And, honestly? There are easier ways to get PCs to do something than lie to them through knowledge checks. Like lying to them through NPCs and letting them fail a knowledge check!

By rules, there’s a single DC for a single, specific info (Is this fruit poisonous if I eat it?), but if you’re looking for infos about a cult, then there’s a basic DC, and it increases as long as you want additional infos.
For every 5 points you surpass it, you get an additional info, but what kind of info, is up to the DM. At our table, we are used to let the player decide. Example:
You rolled a 16, so the basic plus one info… "well, Yggsvblov enjoys ritualistic sacrifice. What else do you want to know?"
At that point, the player can ask info about favored days, types of rituals, whatever. He’ll have the (correct) additional info.
There are printed adventures that, rolling knowledge, at the lowest DC, give you wrong clues… in the OP's case, there was only an incomplete one.

[Zeful]

Sorry, but that's in the rules also the whole matter regarding incomplete infos when checking for knowledge.
the part "For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information" means exactly that. With your knowledge, you have a partial info: the higher the result, the better the infos, but in the end, you'll have only a partial answer.

It also only applies when identifying monsters, as it's not part of the general rules for "answering questions" due to it's position in a completely different paragraph.

[Emmerask]

One other thing to ponder: what if between the moment he left his mentor and the moment he made the knowledge check in question the character, adventured, gained one (or several levels) and therefore gained one (or several) ranks in the relevant knowledge skill. Now, at least part of what he knows he has accumulated independently of his mentor.

Since there are no rules for that, the DM would have to make a completely arbitrary decision regarding what pieces of info are from his mentor (and maybe false) and whether the player has (or not) encountered any contradictions.

And any arbitrary decision that screws the player usually falls under bad DMing.

True though this can be circumvented if the wrong information in question is sufficiently obscure so that it is highly unlikely to come up any time soon (ie somewhere when you reach knowledge xyz 30 you might read about it to further your studies).

And of course there is still the other possibility that everyone in the world have this factoid completely wrong, which means no amount of studying would give you a different answer.

[Killer Angel]

It also only applies when identifying monsters, as it's not part of the general rules for "answering questions" due to it's position in a completely different paragraph.

mmm.
Fine enough, but I believe there can be penalties due to circumstances, regardin' particular subjects (Asmodeus spreading false rumors since a half dozen of centuries to cover a plan still to come, or in the case of the OP, a lying mentor and a player that didn't take any additional skill rank past its first level).

[NichG]

There are many many examples in the rules of tiered Knowledge DCs where you get all the information whose DC is lower than your check. Not just for identifying monsters or encounters.

An example, the Uncanny Trickster lore block in Complete Scoundrel says:



Characters with ranks in Knowledge(local) can research Uncanny Tricksters to learn more about them. When a character succeeds on a skill check, the following lore is revealed, including the information from lower DCs.


This is followed by four pieces of information: DC 10, DC 15, DC 20, and DC 30. Nothing in this text suggests you have to be encountering an Uncanny Trickster at the time. In fact, the specific kinds of knowledge you get suggest very strongly out-of-encounter usage. For instance, the DC 30 result is:



Characters who achieve this level of success can learn important details about specific uncanny tricksters in your campaign. ...


Okay, so thats one example. Of course this same mechanic is used for every PrC in that book. This is the same format as the Lore chart for classes in Tome of Battle, Complete Mage, Races of Destiny, and some of the classes in Complete Champion (though not all have Lore blocks). There are likely more sources that use this as well, but it will take some time to be comprehensive.

Its true that these charts don't appear in every source, but these aren't 3rd party things here. The fact that they appeared later in the timeline does suggest an internal change in how the Knowledge skills were thought to work, but its still precedent that Knowledge skills can work that way by RAW, and that that model was encouraged later on in the product timeline (when conceivably some of the problems and omissions within the initial material had been recognized).

[LordBlades]

True though this can be circumvented if the wrong information in question is sufficiently obscure so that it is highly unlikely to come up any time soon (ie somewhere when you reach knowledge xyz 30 you might read about it to further your studies).

Which, unlike the player specifies exactly what he's reading to further his knowledge, it's an arbitrary decision he DM must make.


And of course there is still the other possibility that everyone in the world have this factoid completely wrong, which means no amount of studying would give you a different answer.

This a very interesting point of view, and a question that to my knowledge is never answered in the books: do knowledge checks only reveal existing knowledge that you've acquired or do they allow you to connect the dots on your own and draw your own conclusion?

For example, imagine a game set in RL in let's say the 19th century. Answering a question like 'What are the laws that govern the motion of a body?' would require a knowledge (physics) check, but would any result, no matter how high produce the answer 'the laws of Newtonian mechanics'(because that's what everyone knows about the subject at the time) or would beating a fairly high DC allow you to figure out on your own that Newtonian mechanics doesn't hold up at high speeds(even if nobody had thought of it before you) and set the basis for the theory of relativity?

[TuggyNE]

This a very interesting point of view, and a question that to my knowledge is never answered in the books: do knowledge checks only reveal existing knowledge that you've acquired or do they allow you to connect the dots on your own and draw your own conclusion?

For example, imagine a game set in RL in let's say the 19th century. Answering a question like 'What are the laws that govern the motion of a body?' would require a knowledge (physics) check, but would any result, no matter how high produce the answer 'the laws of Newtonian mechanics'(because that's what everyone knows about the subject at the time) or would beating a fairly high DC allow you to figure out on your own that Newtonian mechanics doesn't hold up at high speeds(even if nobody had thought of it before you) and set the basis for the theory of relativity?

I strongly suspect the answer given is a matter of much preference, and (obviously) is probably pretty strongly correlated with initial responses here.

[Avilan the Grey]

Doing this effectively makes your Knowledge check useless for almost all purposes.

This is definitely not true. Not even by the OP's description.

[Saph]

This a very interesting point of view, and a question that to my knowledge is never answered in the books: do knowledge checks only reveal existing knowledge that you've acquired or do they allow you to connect the dots on your own and draw your own conclusion?

If I was DMing it, I'd rule it like this:

Average to good Knowledge checks will reveal current consensual opinion on a subject. This knowledge will be correct as far as everyone else knows, but is limited by the pool from which you're drawing it, which means it may be misleading or even wrong in rare cases.
Very good to excellent Knowledge checks will reveal secret or esoteric information. This covers bits of information which are not in normal circulation, or which are actively kept hidden by people attempting to spread disinformation on the subject. This is also enough to reveal weaknesses in current consensual opinions – it can't tell you the correct answer if no-one knows the correct answer, but it can let you know what you don't know.
Really amazing Knowledge checks let you develop new information that no-one else has. This is very difficult, because it means that you have to get a better result than literally everyone else. Would generally require dedicated research work to rack up high circumstance bonuses – if it could be done by something as simple as casting a few buff spells and rolling a natural 20, someone else would have done it by now.
In practice few adventurers would be willing to take several months off to do research, but there's probably the odd scientifically minded one who'd find that kind of thing great fun. Would be a good thing to do in downtime while the rest of the party is making money/crafting items/training.

[Jerthanis]

This is definitely not true. Not even by the OP's description.

By making knowledge skill check results unreliable, you make it so you cannot trust them to be accurate, so you no longer depend on their accuracy when making plans. That's less useful than if you CAN depend on their accuracy when making plans.


Consider three players.

Player1: I attack the Lightning Monster with the sword (rolls) I succeed.
DM: Roll for damage. (records the damage.) Now take (rolls again) 17 points of electricity damage.
Player 1: That's not fair! I rolled a success!
DM: Yes, you successfully hit a lightning monster with a metal sword. You did what a sword does, but you also touches an electric field with a conductor.
Player1: But I rolled a success! That's supposed to be beneficial. You're making my skill unusable!
DM: You rolled a successful hit with a sword, and hit your opponent. But no sword roll magically prevents the effects of electricity.

DM: As you run from the guards, you see an eight-foot tall wall in front of you.
Player2: I make a Jump roll, to jump over the wall. (rolls) I succeed.
DM: OK, you leap over the wall, and land on the other side, in the twenty-foot pit with spikes. You take (rolls again) 17 points of falling and spike damage.
Player2: That's not fair! I rolled a success!
DM: Yes, you successfully jumped over the wall, but the other side of the wall has a twenty-foot pit with spikes.
Player2: But I rolled a success! That's supposed to be beneficial. You're making my skill unusable!
DM: You rolled a successful leap over the wall, and cleared the wall. No Jump check magically removes any dangers on the other side.

Player3: Hey! I thought I made a Knowledge check about this situation.
DM: Yes, you successfully recalled everything you had ever heard about it. You hadn't heard about the <whatever>.
Player3: That's not fair! I rolled a success!
DM: Yes, you successfully recalled all the information available to you. This aspect was information that your character never knew.
Player3: But I rolled a success! That's supposed to be beneficial. You're making my skill unusable!
DM: Yes, you rolled a successful Knowledge check, and successfully remembered all knowledge that your character had on the situation. But no Knowledge check magically grants you powers of Detect Lie, ESP, and Legend Lore combined.

I sincerely hope that all three players find a game they can enjoy, run by a DM whose rulings they accept. But mine is not that game, and I am not that DM.

Yes, if the negative repercussions are a truly guarded secret that no one outside the conspiracy knows about, then knowledge (religion) doesn't tell you about truly unknown things any more than knowledge (History) lets you know about details of the past which were never recorded or Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) lets you know that a specific prince in the past was illegitimate if no one ever found out. However, if it's not a conspiracy that has a truly well guarded secret, and is merely esoteric knowledge, it makes more sense for the information to have a set DC on a tier, and at best, malformed training could give a check penalty.

Like:
DC 10: Kermit is depicted as a lanky, humanoid frog
DC 15: Kermit is the god of frogs
DC 20: Kermit is married to a goddess of war named Ms. Piggy
DC 22: Kermit is the god of pig farming
DC 25: Ms. Piggy and Kermit make foils for one another because of their different temperments, Piggy jealous and wrathful or cloyingly sweet by turns, and Kermit honest and energetic.
DC 30: Kermit is the god of eating kittens as well
DC 35: Now you know Kermit is the god of eating kittens, even if you were trained by a jerk mentor who taught you wrong as a joke.

And then, if they don't get a 30-35, then don't tell them about the kitten eating.

I would also recharacterize your third example as follows:

Player3: Hey! I thought I made a Knowledge check about this situation.
DM: Yes, you successfully recalled everything you had ever heard about it. You hadn't heard about the <whatever>.
Player3: The <whatever> doesn't seem all that esoteric, and I had a really high check, on par with <example of a high check> and <other example>... are you sure I've never heard about it?
DM: Yes, you successfully recalled all the information available to you. This aspect was information that your character never knew.
Player3: Oookay... Uh, should I be in-character specifying that I'm going to libraries to brush up between sessions or--
DM: Yes, you rolled a successful Knowledge check, and successfully remembered all knowledge that your character had on the situation. But no Knowledge check magically grants you powers of Detect Lie, ESP, and Legend Lore combined.
Player3: Hey wait a minute, if I made a DC 24 Spellcraft check, will I successfully identify a 9th level spell being cast, even if that spell isn't on my spell list and I've never seen it cast or seen a spellbook that contains it?
DM: Uh... sure, yeah, I guess.
Player3: Okay, I guess I'm going to stop investing in Knowledge (Arcana) and start dumping it into Spellcraft, because that actually returns useful information. I guess it's too much to ask that I be allowed to retrain my Knowledge ranks, huh?
DM: Oh... uh... I was just using your misinformed state as a plot hook to get you somewhere.
Player3: Seems a bit railroady, but I'll go with it, why didn't you say so? Warn me in the future when things are going to go your way regardless my character's investment in personal power, skill, knowledge, or spells cast, it'll lead to me wasting fewer resources.

[Saph]

Player3: Hey wait a minute, if I made a DC 24 Spellcraft check, will I successfully identify a 9th level spell being cast, even if that spell isn't on my spell list and I've never seen it cast or seen a spellbook that contains it?

Presumably the Spellcraft skill also teaches you about spells that you haven't seen or encountered. Given the way D&D settings are presented, it'd be reasonable to assume that most spells are widely dispersed enough that even people who don't have access to them might have heard enough about them to identify them when they see them being cast, in the same way that you can identify a 747 without knowing how one's constructed or ever having seen one in real life.

If a spell is unique (individually researched or otherwise inaccessible to everyone outside a certain group) then it would be reasonable for the DM to impose a heavy circumstance penalty on anyone attempting to identify it upon seeing it cast for the first time, as they'd have to reverse-engineer the whole thing on the fly.

[Ashtagon]

If I was DMing it, I'd rule it like this:

Average to good Knowledge checks will reveal current consensual opinion on a subject. This knowledge will be correct as far as everyone else knows, but is limited by the pool from which you're drawing it, which means it may be misleading or even wrong in rare cases.
Very good to excellent Knowledge checks will reveal secret or esoteric information. This covers bits of information which are not in normal circulation, or which are actively kept hidden by people attempting to spread disinformation on the subject. This is also enough to reveal weaknesses in current consensual opinions – it can't tell you the correct answer if no-one knows the correct answer, but it can let you know what you don't know.
Really amazing Knowledge checks let you develop new information that no-one else has. This is very difficult, because it means that you have to get a better result than literally everyone else. Would generally require dedicated research work to rack up high circumstance bonuses – if it could be done by something as simple as casting a few buff spells and rolling a natural 20, someone else would have done it by now.


Personally, I wouldn't allow such "really amazing" checks in your last bullet point. It's such a campaign changing event that it really should be the focus of a campaign arc, not just hinge on a single die roll.

[Saph]

Personally, I wouldn't allow such "really amazing" checks in your last bullet point. It's such a campaign changing event that it really should be the focus of a campaign arc, not just hinge on a single die roll.

True enough, though it depends on how it's being run. If the player just wants to be able to RP a university professor who knows vast amounts of esoteric and incredibly detailed (but not very useful) things, then I'd be fine with a die roll. If it's something that actually has significant consequences for the whole campaign, then it should probably be an adventure so that the whole party gets to contribute.

[Avilan the Grey]

Yes, if the negative repercussions are a truly guarded secret that no one outside the conspiracy knows about, then knowledge (religion) doesn't tell you about truly unknown things any more than knowledge (History) lets you know about details of the past which were never recorded or Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) lets you know that a specific prince in the past was illegitimate if no one ever found out. However, if it's not a conspiracy that has a truly well guarded secret, and is merely esoteric knowledge, it makes more sense for the information to have a set DC on a tier, and at best, malformed training could give a check penalty.

But the point is that from the PCs point of view it WAS a truly well-guarded secret. That's the POINT.

[Anteros]

What I don't get is why people keep acting like kitten eating is a bad thing. Those things are delicious...

[The Random NPC]

What I don't get is why people keep acting like kitten eating is a bad thing. Those things are delicious...

Most of the posters are American, and they have some weird hangup about eating cats and dogs. I haven't been able to get a decent stirfry since leaving Korea.

[cucchulainnn]

Most of the posters are American, and they have some weird hangup about eating cats and dogs. I haven't been able to get a decent stirfry since leaving Korea.

as an american i can safely say that we associate cats and dogs with pets. it is hard for us to eat some thing you've named.

in this case it is being used as a silly way to show something is evil, cause kittens are cute, not only cute but cute babies, in general we believe that hurting some thing cute is a heartless action, hens evil.

[Yukitsu]

as an american i can safely say that we associate cats and dogs with pets. it is hard for us to eat some thing you've named.

in this case it is being used as a silly way to show something is evil, cause kittens are cute, not only cute but cute babies, in general we believe that hurting some thing cute is a heartless action, hens evil.

We eat all kinds of cute things. As far as I can best tell, we don't eat cats or dogs because we're not used to it. We're not used to it because we don't raise them to be eaten, because it's too expensive to raise them to eat, because they're carnivores.

[The Random NPC]

as an american i can safely say that we associate cats and dogs with pets. it is hard for us to eat some thing you've named.

in this case it is being used as a silly way to show something is evil, cause kittens are cute, not only cute but cute babies, in general we believe that hurting some thing cute is a heartless action, hens evil.

Blue means I'm joking/sarcastic.


We eat all kinds of cute things. As far as I can best tell, we don't eat cats or dogs because we're not used to it. We're not used to it because we don't raise them to be eaten, because it's too expensive to raise them to eat, because they're carnivores.

Dogs are omnivores, they just prefer meat. Wolves too.

[cucchulainnn]

Blue means I'm joking/sarcastic.


fair enough, didn't know about the blue rule. is that some thing you do or is a universal thing as this is the first time i've encountered.

there are enough people from enough different cultures posting here it can be hard to tell what is an honest question and what is joke.

[Yukitsu]

Dogs are omnivores, they just prefer meat. Wolves too.

Coincidentally, the few cultures that do eat them outnumber the ones that eat cats.

[navar100]

fair enough, didn't know about the blue rule. is that some thing you do or is a universal thing as this is the first time i've encountered.

there are enough people from enough different cultures posting here it can be hard to tell what is an honest question and what is joke.

It was originally a comment in someone's signature, and the idea caught on. It gave more emphasis you're joking than using the smiley faces.

[Avilan the Grey]

Dogs are omnivores, they just prefer meat. Wolves too.

Not really. They are carnivores, not omnivores. They can't survive on anything but meat. The fact that dog food tend to contain 60% vegetabilia (if cheap) is another matter. Also, they need some of the nutrients from vegetables to be healthy, which they get by eating the stommach content of the prey they kill. They can NOT, in any shape or form, eat vegetbles straight and gain enough nutrience from it to be worth it.

That doesn't mean that domesticated dogs cannot learn to like the TASTE of them though; my mom's dog is nuts about cucumbers, but that is because of the TASTE. (It helps that dogs and wolves, unlike cats, can detect the tast of Sweet, which helps them enjoy snacks like this. Cats don't have the tastebuds for it and simply are unable to detect sweet things).

Cats are even more extreme carnivores though, and do not need the extra boost, so they leave the stommach alone. They prefer startin with the brain instead, and then the muscle meat and then marrow.

[Killer Angel]

fair enough, didn't know about the blue rule. is that some thing you do or is a universal thing as this is the first time i've encountered.

It' not a written rule, and it's done only here in the Playground (AFAIK).


It was originally a comment in someone's signature, and the idea caught on.

Probably Seerow, but I could be wrong.

[The Random NPC]

Not really. They are carnivores, not omnivores. They can't survive on anything but meat. The fact that dog food tend to contain 60% vegetabilia (if cheap) is another matter. Also, they need some of the nutrients from vegetables to be healthy, which they get by eating the stommach content of the prey they kill. They can NOT, in any shape or form, eat vegetbles straight and gain enough nutrience from it to be worth it.

That doesn't mean that domesticated dogs cannot learn to like the TASTE of them though; my mom's dog is nuts about cucumbers, but that is because of the TASTE. (It helps that dogs and wolves, unlike cats, can detect the tast of Sweet, which helps them enjoy snacks like this. Cats don't have the tastebuds for it and simply are unable to detect sweet things).

Cats are even more extreme carnivores though, and do not need the extra boost, so they leave the stommach alone. They prefer startin with the brain instead, and then the muscle meat and then marrow.

Wolves actually can eat plant matter straight, and will do so when meat is in short supply (mostly eating berries and other fruits). However, by the strictest scientific definition, wolves and dogs are carnivores. On the other hand, they can survive on an, admittedly extremely less efficient, herbivorous diet. They also prefer meat and their digestive system is optimized for it. And don't bring up the order Carnivora, because both bears and racoons are a part of it and are omnivores.

[Allan8100]

Wolves actually can eat plant matter straight, and will do so when meat is in short supply (mostly eating berries and other fruits). However, by the strictest scientific definition, wolves and dogs are carnivores. On the other hand, they can survive on an, admittedly extremely less efficient, herbivorous diet. They also prefer meat and their digestive system is optimized for it. And don't bring up the order Carnivora, because both bears and racoons are a part of it and are omnivores.
I'm totally agree with you.You'r 100% good here that they also choose beef and their digestive system is enhanced for it. And don't carry up the transaction Carnivora, because both holds and racoons are a part of it and are omnivores.
I agreed what's said above!!!

[Jay R]

By making knowledge skill check results unreliable, you make it so you cannot trust them to be accurate, so you no longer depend on their accuracy when making plans. That's less useful than if you CAN depend on their accuracy when making plans.

I suspect that our biggest disagreement is how often we think this would happen. Based on the initial description, I assumed that it happened exactly once, for a specific situation.


Yes, if the negative repercussions are a truly guarded secret that no one outside the conspiracy knows about, then knowledge (religion) doesn't tell you about truly unknown things any more than knowledge (History) lets you know about details of the past which were never recorded or Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) lets you know that a specific prince in the past was illegitimate if no one ever found out.

Yup. That's what I'm assuming. If all Knowledge checks suddenly go haywire, I wouldn't argue with the DM; I'd leave the game.


I would also recharacterize your third example as follows:

Player3: Hey! I thought I made a Knowledge check about this situation.
DM: Yes, you successfully recalled everything you had ever heard about it. You hadn't heard about the <whatever>.
Player3: The <whatever> doesn't seem all that esoteric, and I had a really high check, on par with <example of a high check> and <other example>... are you sure I've never heard about it?.

DM: [Thinks "Exactly four people in the world know it. The only one you've ever met deliberately misled you to get you into this situation. But your character doesn't know that, and if I tell you, today's game is destroyed."] Yes, it actually is that esoteric. You only heard about it once in your life, and accurately recalled what you heard.


Player3: Oookay... Uh, should I be in-character specifying that I'm going to libraries to brush up between sessions or--

DM: [desperately trying to preserve the game] I can't give you more specific information now; it will ruin today's game. Can we talk about it after your character actually explores this situation and learns what's going on?


Player3: Hey wait a minute, if I made a DC 24 Spellcraft check, will I successfully identify a 9th level spell being cast, even if that spell isn't on my spell list and I've never seen it cast or seen a spellbook that contains it?

DM: [Gives up. The game and the situation are destroyed.] If that's supposed to be an analogy, let's make it analogous. If the spell is known to a conspiracy of only four wizards in the world, who keep it as a closely guarded secret, and if the only one of those who ever spoke to you deliberately misled you about it, and if you missed the secret Discern Lies roll I made for you at the time, and if it will destroy the game for you to learn it now, instead of an hour from now when you have all the information, then no, you would not get more information about it.


Player3: Okay, I guess I'm going to stop investing in Knowledge (Arcana) and start dumping it into Spellcraft, because that actually returns useful information. I guess it's too much to ask that I be allowed to retrain my Knowledge ranks, huh?

DM: Your knowledge skill works just fine, unless you are deliberately deceived, just as your sword skill works fine, but doesn't hit anything if you're fighting an illusion.. This plot has been running for a long time, and the DM has to keep some things hidden from you.


Player3: Seems a bit railroady, but I'll go with it, why didn't you say so? Warn me in the future when things are going to go your way regardless my character's investment in personal power, skill, knowledge, or spells cast, it'll lead to me wasting fewer resources.

DM: Don't bother. Today's game is destroyed, because you wouldn't let us play without you getting unfair meta-knowledge. It turns out that the BBEG is the mentor who trained you, and your specific knowledge of his weaknesses was likely to play a major role, once you found out it was him. (To everybody else.) Sorry, guys, the game is over today. We'll start again next week. Player3 will not be invited back. Anybody else who will not trust me to run the plot can take this opportunity to drop out of the game. No hard feelings, Player3, but without trusting the DM, there's no way to play. Either I've failed to earn your trust, or you won't offer it. Either way, you can't play in a game I run.

[Jerthanis]

Yup. That's what I'm assuming. If all Knowledge checks suddenly go haywire, I wouldn't argue with the DM; I'd leave the game.

Well okay, then we have no disagreement, if it's a secret conspiracy which no one knows, it's fine, because it's not known.




DM: [Thinks "Exactly four people in the world know it. The only one you've ever met deliberately misled you to get you into this situation. But your character doesn't know that, and if I tell you, today's game is destroyed."] Yes, it actually is that esoteric. You only heard about it once in your life, and accurately recalled what you heard.

P3: Okay, if it IS actually esoteric, that changes things, okay, I say, "I've studied Kermit at length, and have never heard of this Kitten eating thing... likely no one else knows either, so we must be careful who we reveal this to. Others might not be so tempered in their responses, and I'm sure the vast majority of his worshipers are innocently deluded."




DM: [desperately trying to preserve the game] I can't give you more specific information now; it will ruin today's game. Can we talk about it after your character actually explores this situation and learns what's going on?


P3: Well, I don't think exposing information to the PCs ruins anything, I mean, if we find out about something ahead of schedule, we'll still have to figure out how we react to this information... I mean, I appreciate you not wanting to skip over content you had planned, but part of my job is to throw you curveballs and react in unexpected ways, I don't think it's unreasonable to try to use my abilities to their fullest and ask for clarification when it appears you're marginalizing my abilities to keep on the path you laid out for us...



DM: [Gives up. The game and the situation are destroyed.] If that's supposed to be an analogy, let's make it analogous. If the spell is known to a conspiracy of only four wizards in the world, who keep it as a closely guarded secret, and if the only one of those who ever spoke to you deliberately misled you about it, and if you missed the secret Discern Lies roll I made for you at the time, and if it will destroy the game for you to learn it now, instead of an hour from now when you have all the information, then no, you would not get more information about it.

P3: Oh, jeez, okay, if seriously only four people knew about Kermit, then us finding out firsthand is actually us breaking open a conspiracy, and re-contextualizes this scene... okay, I say, "No one knew, but now we know... and so it's up to us to stop this evil god who has wormed his way into being trusted as the god of frogs and pig farming. We have a responsibility now."



DM: Your knowledge skill works just fine, unless you are deliberately deceived, just as your sword skill works fine, but doesn't hit anything if you're fighting an illusion.. This plot has been running for a long time, and the DM has to keep some things hidden from you.

P3: Yeah, but if I was in a swordfight with a person who I knew well, and was known around town, and I would regularly see interacting with the world and picking things up, and then my sword passed right through him, I'd need a more comprehensive explanation than "He's an illusion", because it doesn't match my wider understanding of his being. "He's a unique illusion with special powers" or "He appears to be an illusion right now, perhaps he's displaced or is projecting his image from nearby." would perhaps be better justifications, but without them I really can't be said to be unjustified in calling for an explanation for unbelievable circumstances.




DM: Don't bother. Today's game is destroyed, because you wouldn't let us play without you getting unfair meta-knowledge. It turns out that the BBEG is the mentor who trained you, and your specific knowledge of his weaknesses was likely to play a major role, once you found out it was him. (To everybody else.) Sorry, guys, the game is over today. We'll start again next week. Player3 will not be invited back. Anybody else who will not trust me to run the plot can take this opportunity to drop out of the game. No hard feelings, Player3, but without trusting the DM, there's no way to play. Either I've failed to earn your trust, or you won't offer it. Either way, you can't play in a game I run.

P3: Okay, it's apparently unfair metaknowledge for Knowledge of Religion to know things about Religions and I'm totally out of line for being surprised when it didn't give me knowledge of a religion. The idea that I need an explanation for why my character's investments didn't pay off doesn't mean you need to throw a tantrum and reveal the rest of the plot just so you've got an excuse to blame it all on me after I accuse you of hamhandedly railroading us.

[Grundy]

Is a DM tantrum any less excusable than a player tantrum? Also, apparently many people on this forum play a lot differently than my group. I can't imagine walking out of a game- or kicking out a player- under any of the circumstances I've read on this thread, unless it was my first time at the table with that DM/player. Or if there was other stuff going on.

The opportunity to play dnd with people I like is too precious for one act like these to ruin it for me. I guess this isn't the case with most of you.

[TuggyNE]

Is a DM tantrum any less excusable than a player tantrum? Also, apparently many people on this forum play a lot differently than my group. I can't imagine walking out of a game- or kicking out a player- under any of the circumstances I've read on this thread, unless it was my first time at the table with that DM/player. Or if there was other stuff going on.

The opportunity to play dnd with people I like is too precious for one act like these to ruin it for me. I guess this isn't the case with most of you.

Don't read too much into the hyperbole.

Still, a number of people would consider this game-breaking on one side or another, even if in practice they might not quite leave/kick on the first such offense.

[Yukitsu]

Is a DM tantrum any less excusable than a player tantrum? Also, apparently many people on this forum play a lot differently than my group. I can't imagine walking out of a game- or kicking out a player- under any of the circumstances I've read on this thread, unless it was my first time at the table with that DM/player. Or if there was other stuff going on.

The opportunity to play dnd with people I like is too precious for one act like these to ruin it for me. I guess this isn't the case with most of you.

I've outright walked for similar. DMs that pull one thing tend to go on and do more, and that is consistent enough that I'll spend my time doing something else if they pull stuff like that. I'm not going to be all pissy about it, and it's not like we can't still be friends, I just won't play when they're DMing. I'm not entirely sure if it's because I stop playing those, but they tend to disintegrate shortly after, so I generally don't at all regret my decision.

[ArcturusV]

It's like most things Grundy. The story of "We all sat down, drank some beer, ate some snacks, had fun and cleared out a goblin warren" typically doesn't make the story roster. But the ones where someone threw a fit (on either side) stormed off, put down ultimatums, etc, stands out and gets remembered a lot more.

[Grundy]

Fair enough. I basically play with the same group, and our members don't change too often. We pretty much know what to expect from our DM, so if he pulled something that was a little off, we'd know he had a good reason.

[Jay R]

I've never thrown anyone out, and I've never walked out on a game. But that's because I play with DMs and players I trust, and who trust me.

[Amphetryon]

I've never thrown anyone out, and I've never walked out on a game. But that's because I play with DMs and players I trust, and who trust me.

That's fortunate. I know that I've been invited to game with people where the person inviting me was the only person I'd even met before, so claiming I'd trusted the others sight unseen would be. . . premature, at best. I know other folks find groups (for example, after moving to a new city) off lists at the FLGS, or from various internet boards. Trust in those situations would also seem premature.

[Jay R]

That's fortunate. I know that I've been invited to game with people where the person inviting me was the only person I'd even met before, so claiming I'd trusted the others sight unseen would be. . . premature, at best.

I don't think so. There's a guy in our current game I only met when the game started, but Wil said he was fun to play with, so I trusted Kevin because I trust Wil. Meanwhile, Wil trusts us because Wil said we were trustworthy.

Two things have happened in that game that I didn't understand. I trust Wil to be fair, so I assumed that it seemed wrong to me because I didn't have all the information. In one case, that assumption has been proven true. (The other one is still unresolved, but I will certainly not stop a game in progress to complain about a ruling when I know that my character doesn't know everything.)


I know other folks find groups (for example, after moving to a new city) off lists at the FLGS, or from various internet boards. Trust in those situations would also seem premature.

That I've never done. I have no more interest in playing D&D with strangers than I do in watching a football game with strangers.

[Grundy]

I don't think so. There's a guy in our current game I only met when the game started, but Wil said he was fun to play with, so I trusted Kevin because I trust Wil. Meanwhile, Wil trusts us because Wil said we were trustworthy.

Two things have happened in that game that I didn't understand. I trust Wil to be fair, so I assumed that it seemed wrong to me because I didn't have all the information. In one case, that assumption has been proven true. (The other one is still unresolved, but I will certainly not stop a game in progress to complain about a ruling when I know that my character doesn't know everything.)



That I've never done. I have no more interest in playing D&D with strangers than I do in watching a football game with strangers.

Which makes me think of some surreal scene of a stadium full of people playing the worlds largest game of dnd. Talk about stressful DMing!

[ArcturusV]

Whereas I've had a lot more problems as, well, the gaming I tend to be interested in isn't something I always have a decent representation of among my friends. For example I love Robotech, but I could never get a RPG going in it because most of my friends just kneejerk dislike Anime/Anime Based stuff or aren't interested in Sci-Fi, or don't like "unrealistic" sci-fi, etc. So I end up with a lot of pick up groups that I form at stores and such, just leaving little notices/fliers with the owner's permission that "Hey, I wanna game X. Interested? Contact me at..."

Sometimes you get good stuff. Sometimes you don't.

[Amphetryon]

I don't think so. There's a guy in our current game I only met when the game started, but Wil said he was fun to play with, so I trusted Kevin because I trust Wil. Meanwhile, Wil trusts us because Wil said we were trustworthy.

Two things have happened in that game that I didn't understand. I trust Wil to be fair, so I assumed that it seemed wrong to me because I didn't have all the information. In one case, that assumption has been proven true. (The other one is still unresolved, but I will certainly not stop a game in progress to complain about a ruling when I know that my character doesn't know everything.)



That I've never done. I have no more interest in playing D&D with strangers than I do in watching a football game with strangers.Then I hope you never lose your current group, or have to move.

[Jay R]

Then I hope you never lose your current group, or have to move.

If I moved, I would join both the local SCA group and the church. Pretty soon I would know people, and it doesn't take long to find out who shares your tastes in movies, books, etc.

After settling in and getting involved with people, I could figure out who I wanted to game with.

The crucial distinction is "I want to game with my friends", not "I want some people to game with."

[Amphetryon]

If I moved, I would join both the local SCA group and the church. Pretty soon I would know people, and it doesn't take long to find out who shares your tastes in movies, books, etc.

After settling in and getting involved with people, I could figure out who I wanted to game with.

The crucial distinction is "I want to game with my friends", not "I want some people to game with."

And - to avoid gaming with strangers - you'd have to know every member of the prospective party, or be defining 'game with my friends' more broadly than I understand the term.

EDIT: I'd also define the time spent with the (new) local SCA group as time spent "gaming" with folks that weren't yet my friends, incidentally.

[Killer Angel]

I have no more interest in playing D&D with strangers than I do in watching a football game with strangers.

You don't go at conventions, neither ad the stadium, I suppose... :smallwink:

[Jay R]

You don't go at conventions, neither ad the stadium, I suppose... :smallwink:

I still go to the occasional convention, but not to play D&D. It's a good place to talk to people, look at the dealers, and play board games.

The last D&D convention tourney I entered was at Tacticon I, in 1976 (which my team won).

I also was a DM for the AD&D tourney at a very early Nancon in 1979.

Watching a football game at a stadium? Love it, but only when I go with friends. I wouldn't consider going alone. I attended the Armed Forces Bowl last month.