One Roll to Know it All

[Vorr]

So this came up in my game again. The idea that a knowledge check should tell a character everything. Like a single rank in knowledge(something) represents an intensive four year study course.

But, it just sucks all the fun out of the game. When you make a knowledge roll, your just skipping over the fun discovery of the game. Worse it makes D&D just a roll playing game, not a role playing game. It's a question of play styles.

The Game Theroy
The basic idea of the knowledge check is for the causal gamer. The one who has far too busy a life to care very much about a game. (Yet oddly, they still find the time to game and still want to game, but such things are beyond this thread). The kind of player that can't figure out, say, that ''the Red Wizards are a group of evil wizards'' after they see some npc's do cast some arcane spells and do evil things. Or maybe they just don't want to take the time or effort to do so.

But as D&D is a role playing game, and it might impact a players fun if they get left out as they don't know something. So the knowledge roll was made and put into place so that the casual gamer can know all.


So the question comes down to, why are so many players obsessed with sucking the fun out of the game and ruining it, just so they can ''know everything''? I just don't get it.

Example:The group enters a cavern and sees:Starting in midair in the center of the cavern dark black oil-like liquid falls ten feet or so down into a pool of the same liquid. Though several gallons of the liquid fall each second, the pool oddly does not seem to change the amount that is in it. The air around all this liquid is noticeably colder then the rest of the cavern. A nice strange and mysterious thing for the players to find...

The group with the causal player: Player:Oh I rolled a 30 on my know everything roll. DM:Oh, it's a physical manifestation of a portal to the plane of shadow, if you touch it it will zap you to the plane of shadow. Group:Oh, ok, we avoid that and look around for anything to kill or loot. So the nice encounter the DM had planed only takes like ten seconds, as everyone has 'fun' not doing anything

The involved group game:Slowly, the entire group approaches the strange pool of liquid, careful not to get close. Player 1:Adom carefully looks to see if any of the liquid is splashing out of the pool. DM:No, all the liquid stays within the pool area. Player 2:Reno takes out a copper coin and tosses it into the pool. DM:As soon as the coin touches the liquid if fades from sight, but you can't tell if it just sank or was teleported away. Player 3:Woah, ok, wait, I'll try to touch it with my ten foot pole. Player 4:Wait, don't hold onto the pole, I'll use mage hand to hold it. So the whole group is now involved in figuring out this encounter. It's no longer just ''one player causally rolling a dice''

Now I'm not saying it's wrong if a player just wants to ''roll to know it all'' and skip past all the fun discovery of a role playing game. My question is more: Why would you want too?

[Alefiend]

You may as well ask why bother having Knowledge skills at all, if it's incumbent on the players to dope things out through trial and error. Players put points into those skills to represent their characters' expertise, and they should get something worthwhile for the investment—especially if they use the information they get to drive how they roleplay the situation, rather than use it to make the best metagame decision.

It's up to the GM to moderate what information the players receive. The fault in your first example does not lie with the player who attempted to use a skill to get information relevant to the adventure; it's the fault of the GM who let that one roll give so much info that there was no tension or mystery.

[Flickerdart]

"Fun discovery" should be reserved for things that are discoveries. Knowledge checks are used to represent things that are already known. You don't need to "discover" that red dragons are immune to fire, for instance.

A portal to another plane is not an encounter, and hating on Knowledge checks because they mean players don't have to rediscover everything they see is extremely counter-productive.

[Barsoom]

I don't see why the DM should tell it to the player, even if he succeeded on a DC 30 Knowledge check. If it's something the DM created for the game, it stands to reason it's something special, and the player has no information about it. Even with a Knowledge check.

Or maybe the DM could just provide a useful, yet cryptic clue, to make things more interesting, not less interesting.

[ArcturusV]

In your example, I'd question why a character would know that is a door to the elemental plane of Shadow.

Usually my rule of thumb (With any skill) is "Justify it to me" then based on their justification I determine if they can just "roll it away". Also allows for outside the obvious box use. And I personally cringe every time a player goes, "Okay, what knowledge skill do I need to roll to know about..." If you as a player can't figure out if Knowledge (The Planes) or Knowledge (Architecture) applies then how would your character know if he's looking at something extra-planar or just a feat of neat engineering? Try one or the other and give me a reason why you think that. Even if it's wrong it might still reveal stuff.

[TaiLiu]

Example:The group enters a cavern and sees:Starting in midair in the center of the cavern dark black oil-like liquid falls ten feet or so down into a pool of the same liquid. Though several gallons of the liquid fall each second, the pool oddly does not seem to change the amount that is in it. The air around all this liquid is noticeably colder then the rest of the cavern. A nice strange and mysterious thing for the players to find...

The group with the causal player: Player:Oh I rolled a 30 on my know everything roll. DM:Oh, it's a physical manifestation of a portal to the plane of shadow, if you touch it it will zap you to the plane of shadow. Group:Oh, ok, we avoid that and look around for anything to kill or loot. So the nice encounter the DM had planed only takes like ten seconds, as everyone has 'fun' not doing anything

The involved group game:Slowly, the entire group approaches the strange pool of liquid, careful not to get close. Player 1:Adom carefully looks to see if any of the liquid is splashing out of the pool. DM:No, all the liquid stays within the pool area. Player 2:Reno takes out a copper coin and tosses it into the pool. DM:As soon as the coin touches the liquid if fades from sight, but you can't tell if it just sank or was teleported away. Player 3:Woah, ok, wait, I'll try to touch it with my ten foot pole. Player 4:Wait, don't hold onto the pole, I'll use mage hand to hold it. So the whole group is now involved in figuring out this encounter. It's no longer just ''one player causally rolling a dice''

Now I'm not saying it's wrong if a player just wants to ''roll to know it all'' and skip past all the fun discovery of a role playing game. My question is more: Why would you want too?

Why could it not be both? Just add 'think.'


Oh, you think it's a physical manifestation of a portal to the plane of shadow, if you touch it it will zap you to the plane of shadow.

The word 'think' would be used to create suspicion, so that the "casual players" would experiment and do things similar to the "involved players."

[RagnaroksChosen]

So this came up in my game again. The idea that a knowledge check should tell a character everything. Like a single rank in knowledge(something) represents an intensive four year study course.

But, it just sucks all the fun out of the game. When you make a knowledge roll, your just skipping over the fun discovery of the game. Worse it makes D&D just a roll playing game, not a role playing game. It's a question of play styles.

The Game Theroy
The basic idea of the knowledge check is for the causal gamer. The one who has far too busy a life to care very much about a game. (Yet oddly, they still find the time to game and still want to game, but such things are beyond this thread). The kind of player that can't figure out, say, that ''the Red Wizards are a group of evil wizards'' after they see some npc's do cast some arcane spells and do evil things. Or maybe they just don't want to take the time or effort to do so.

But as D&D is a role playing game, and it might impact a players fun if they get left out as they don't know something. So the knowledge roll was made and put into place so that the casual gamer can know all.


So the question comes down to, why are so many players obsessed with sucking the fun out of the game and ruining it, just so they can ''know everything''? I just don't get it.

Example:The group enters a cavern and sees:Starting in midair in the center of the cavern dark black oil-like liquid falls ten feet or so down into a pool of the same liquid. Though several gallons of the liquid fall each second, the pool oddly does not seem to change the amount that is in it. The air around all this liquid is noticeably colder then the rest of the cavern. A nice strange and mysterious thing for the players to find...

The group with the causal player: Player:Oh I rolled a 30 on my know everything roll. DM:Oh, it's a physical manifestation of a portal to the plane of shadow, if you touch it it will zap you to the plane of shadow. Group:Oh, ok, we avoid that and look around for anything to kill or loot. So the nice encounter the DM had planed only takes like ten seconds, as everyone has 'fun' not doing anything

The involved group game:Slowly, the entire group approaches the strange pool of liquid, careful not to get close. Player 1:Adom carefully looks to see if any of the liquid is splashing out of the pool. DM:No, all the liquid stays within the pool area. Player 2:Reno takes out a copper coin and tosses it into the pool. DM:As soon as the coin touches the liquid if fades from sight, but you can't tell if it just sank or was teleported away. Player 3:Woah, ok, wait, I'll try to touch it with my ten foot pole. Player 4:Wait, don't hold onto the pole, I'll use mage hand to hold it. So the whole group is now involved in figuring out this encounter. It's no longer just ''one player causally rolling a dice''

Now I'm not saying it's wrong if a player just wants to ''roll to know it all'' and skip past all the fun discovery of a role playing game. My question is more: Why would you want too?


So those are both extreme examples. I know when I gm and I run an encounter similar to what you described If a player wants to roll a knowledge check... because lets be honest the groups sage character may have knowledge about this thing... Generally players could roll knowledge about the liquid, known effects that are similar. I see it as helping the players understand the world... ecology, mineralogy, genealogy, the effects of magic... To me it is a way the GM gets to explain the reasons why things are, even the in game rules of the cosmos.

[Urpriest]

D&D 3.5 doesn't work without knowledge checks. There are lots of monsters that have abilities that will destroy a party that doesn't expect them, and that aren't immediately evident from their description.

In a high lethality game like 2nd end and earlier, you can get rid of knowledge checks because if the mystery monster kills a character it's no big deal. In a more forgiving game the characters can take a few rounds to make mistakes and figure out the monster's abilities, and there is a sense of discovery. D&D 3.5 is neither of those games: combat is fast, characters are detailed and take effort to create, and "discovering a new monster" often means a character will die.

[Douglas]

If you as a player can't figure out if Knowledge (The Planes) or Knowledge (Architecture) applies then how would your character know if he's looking at something extra-planar or just a feat of neat engineering?
The same way a character with ranks in Knowledge (Electronic Devices) and Knowledge (Construction Materials) would know he's looking at the core part of a desktop computer and not a strangely colored large brick, even if the player has never seen so much as a light bulb or a building not made of wood.

Identifying which knowledge skill is applicable is itself a use of knowledge, and as such should be granted by the skill.

[ArcturusV]

That is misrepresenting what I was saying quite a bit. If you look at the description of the example? That could be magic (Arcana), it could be extra-planar (The Planes), it could be the result of a cursing (Religion), or it could be a variation of a simple fountain with an unusual alchemical liquid (Architecture and Engineering). And it's NOT obvious which of those it is. Not at all.

A more apt version of your example would be someone looking at an Astrolabe and trying to guess if it was a Navigational Instrument or a tool of Astronomy. Someone skilled in Astronomy might go "Oh, it's a tool for Astronomy!" and look at it that way. A skilled navigator might go "Oh, it's a tool for celestial navigation!" and look at it that way.

They are both possibly correct. But if it was an enchanted object it might serve a purpose for only one use, or neither use.

[GoddessSune]

D&D 3.5 doesn't work without knowledge checks. There are lots of monsters that have abilities that will destroy a party that doesn't expect them, and that aren't immediately evident from their description.

In a high lethality game like 2nd end and earlier, you can get rid of knowledge checks because if the mystery monster kills a character it's no big deal. In a more forgiving game the characters can take a few rounds to make mistakes and figure out the monster's abilities, and there is a sense of discovery. D&D 3.5 is neither of those games: combat is fast, characters are detailed and take effort to create, and "discovering a new monster" often means a character will die.

Now this is an interesting answer....

[Phelix-Mu]

D&D 3.5 doesn't work without knowledge checks. There are lots of monsters that have abilities that will destroy a party that doesn't expect them, and that aren't immediately evident from their description.

In a high lethality game like 2nd end and earlier, you can get rid of knowledge checks because if the mystery monster kills a character it's no big deal. In a more forgiving game the characters can take a few rounds to make mistakes and figure out the monster's abilities, and there is a sense of discovery. D&D 3.5 is neither of those games: combat is fast, characters are detailed and take effort to create, and "discovering a new monster" often means a character will die.

Not sure I agree about the game not working without Knowledge checks. Many a game has been played with all stupid characters.

And I totally disagree about the mystery-custom-monster-only-found-in-one-place-in-the-multiverse-and-just-recently-dumped-in-a-village-near-you meaning certain annihilation for the party. Cautious players, which I try to cultivate, will test out the waters of a "this is some kind of rare beast indeed"-type encounters. Unraveling mysteries not covered in books or seminars is also part of the game, and I find that rewarding Int-based characters for new discoveries can also be very rewarding.

On a slightly different note, I did find the psionic power hypercognition to be a little bit of a plot-exorcisist. One campaign I ran had a soulknife with psion seer cohort. She derailed a number of mysterious events and subplots by just manifesting that power. Granted, high level divinations are made to bypass normal research, but I was always caught off guard by this one for some reason.

Never again.:smallwink:

[Baroncognito]

There are a lot of things you can do in game without knowledge checks, but every once in a while you'll run up against a wall.

I was with a group that came up against a Quasit and, without knowledge (planes) we couldn't have figured out that we needed Cold Iron or Good Aligned weapons(though, needing invisibility purge was kind of obvious).

When we came up against a Flesh Golem, it was helpful to be able to retreat and buy adamantine weapons after a knowledge check.

[Urpriest]

Not sure I agree about the game not working without Knowledge checks. Many a game has been played with all stupid characters.

And I totally disagree about the mystery-custom-monster-only-found-in-one-place-in-the-multiverse-and-just-recently-dumped-in-a-village-near-you meaning certain annihilation for the party. Cautious players, which I try to cultivate, will test out the waters of a "this is some kind of rare beast indeed"-type encounters. Unraveling mysteries not covered in books or seminars is also part of the game, and I find that rewarding Int-based characters for new discoveries can also be very rewarding.

On a slightly different note, I did find the psionic power hypercognition to be a little bit of a plot-exorcisist. One campaign I ran had a soulknife with psion seer cohort. She derailed a number of mysterious events and subplots by just manifesting that power. Granted, high level divinations are made to bypass normal research, but I was always caught off guard by this one for some reason.

Never again.:smallwink:

See, custom monsters are different in that as the DM you can tailor them to the players capabilities and fears. You can make sure that, given however cautious the players happen to be, they will have enough time to figure it out, and you can make sure that the monster's appearance is such that they will be inspired to exercise caution. Plenty of published monsters don't have those attributes.

[Phelix-Mu]

See, custom monsters are different in that as the DM you can tailor them to the players capabilities and fears. You can make sure that, given however cautious the players happen to be, they will have enough time to figure it out, and you can make sure that the monster's appearance is such that they will be inspired to exercise caution. Plenty of published monsters don't have those attributes.

Actually, I usually ambush pcs with near-death experiences involving mistaken identity early on, since murder-mystery stuff really only works at low levels and is among my favorite setups for an adventure. "Look! the corpse bears wounds from the bite of a wolf." I think you can see where this is going; it wasn't the wolf.

At some point, a seemingly interaction encounter goes wrong, or in the middle of the fight with the enemy soldier, a hideous parasitic demon explodes from it's torso. It's not that I don't allow Knowledge checks. I just limit them to what is observable in the monster at hand, and I will occasionally make said appearances or behaviors misleading. Once the real fight is revealed, then I guess Knowledge checks are fine, though I do have a personal soft spot for aiming at the party weak spots, as much to make them aware of their weakness as to challenge them in combat. Steel tested in fire blah blah.:smalltongue:

[ArcturusV]

To be perfectly honest I almost never run into players using Knowledge Checks to ID Monsters. I know it exists, it's a thing. I see it mentioned in rules and such. Just players never use it.

I imagine because mostly they are used to just metagaming knowledge. "It's a Red Dragon." No one is gonna waste time rolling Knowledge to figure out it flies, breathes fire, can cast spells and such.

Until something weird happens because I homebrew abut 90% of my monsters and they see the Red Dragon spitting out Acid Baths. At which point they still usually don't Knowledge Check but just run with it. Least in my experience with several different groups over the years.

Instead I usually have them rolling Knowledge Checks to basically do Bardic Lore, or to try and short cut a non-combat encounter as per the OP's example.

[Flickerdart]

I imagine because mostly they are used to just metagaming knowledge. "It's a Red Dragon." No one is gonna waste time rolling Knowledge to figure out it flies, breathes fire, can cast spells and such.
DC 15: Bears live in caves.

[RagnaroksChosen]

That is misrepresenting what I was saying quite a bit. If you look at the description of the example? That could be magic (Arcana), it could be extra-planar (The Planes), it could be the result of a cursing (Religion), or it could be a variation of a simple fountain with an unusual alchemical liquid (Architecture and Engineering). And it's NOT obvious which of those it is. Not at all.

What? So if it could be any of those things the gm should tell each player who has ranks and makes the knowledge check exactly what some one with that knowledge would think it is. I've had encounters (similar to the fountain example) where 3-4 characters had in my world applicable but opposite knowledge each thought there idea was correct... Then the group figured out through trial and error(ya know like what every one has been saying they want).

To be honest if your GM lets you get through an encounter with a single knowledge check(and this happens consistently) they may need to touch up on what knowledge's do.. Personally I view this as poor GMing and would probably say something to the GM.

[Deophaun]

The involved group game:Slowly, the entire group approaches the strange pool of liquid, careful not to get close. Player 1:I waste 1 hour of play time going through the exact same routine we do for every mystery pool/portal/substance
This is why I <3 Knowledge checks.

If I want a rerun, I just turn on TV.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

And I personally cringe every time a player goes, "Okay, what knowledge skill do I need to roll to know about..." If you as a player can't figure out if Knowledge (The Planes) or Knowledge (Architecture) applies then how would your character know if he's looking at something extra-planar or just a feat of neat engineering? Try one or the other and give me a reason why you think that. Even if it's wrong it might still reveal stuff.

1. Sorry, but your ability to describe things will always be inferior to my character's ability to experience the world with their 5+ senses.

2. I don't have Knowledge X, at least not at the level of many characters.

[Deophaun]

1. Sorry, but your ability to describe things will always be inferior to my character's ability to experience the world with their 5+ senses.
Ditto. I'm amazed at how many DMs actually want to play "Guess what I'm thinking" instead of, you know, D&D.

[ArcturusV]

Maybe. Though it's also annoying as a DM to have a player in a roleplaying game say "Okay, how would my character act?" to the DM. We have a lot of stuff to run as is.

Not that I said they have to play "Guess what I'm thinking". I said they had to give a justification then roll it. And I would base what they get off the justification and how the roll came out, requiring them to take a bit of time to engage me, perhaps ask questions and show me what they are thinking. Rather than me telling them what they think.

That's a lot different than someone going, "Okay DM... what do I need to do this scene?" which is what I was talking about.

[Slipperychicken]

Because my character lives in this world, and knows about its inhabitants and dangers. Knowledge checks represent the likelihood of knowing a particular thing.

A real life example: Suppose I'm walking through some prairie in Africa, and I see in my way a big gray lumpy monster with a white spike on it. With enough examination, I determine it's a Rhinoceros, a giant angry short-sighted best which charges anyone who gets too close. I know these qualities about it almost entirely through popular media, all told precisely because the Rhino is so deadly and well-known for slaughtering unwary passers-by. I have also acquired similar information about elephants, scorpions, gorillas, firearms, rocket launchers, nuclear missiles, and other things well-known for killing people in seconds. For example, I know that firearms kick upward, informing me that keeping low should help against them.


In a similar fashion, people in a D&D universe would try to keep up-to-date on the myriad scary monsters which can slaughter them in seconds (And they aren't fairy tales. They're real, measurable and discrete: like Rhinos, elephants, and scorpions. You can walk up to a demon and poke it if you want. Someone has surely taken time to study all these monsters and spread the knowledge). They would learn because of safety concerns and wonder at such beasts and their power. They would be acquainted with the most common and famous threats, believe it or not, because people learn basic survival tips without needing formal education.

[Deophaun]

Not that I said they have to play "Guess what I'm thinking". I said they had to give a justification then roll it.
The justification is my character has ranks in Knowledge: Arcana, Dungeoneering, and The Planes, and therefore knows what to look for.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Instead I usually have them rolling Knowledge Checks to basically do Bardic Lore, or to try and short cut a non-combat encounter as per the OP's example.

That, ah... sounds like your players aren't interested in the "guess what this mystery liquid" encounters. In which case the DM should probably stop using those encounters.

In cases where the players are interested in them, don't give away the entire mystery with one check. Instead, have the checks give clues, the same as tossing a coin in. Knowledge (The Planes)? Well, that black good is extra-dimensional. Maybe from the Shadow Plane. Knowledge (Arcana)? Looks like someone used some sort of conjuration ritual. Unless someone has an abnormally high score, I figure that the obscurity of the effect is similar to the power of the group-- stronger parties will run into weirder, less well-known stuff, if only because it tends to kill most people who poke it.

A final point-- just because you know what something is, doesn't mean you know what to do about it. OK, so the players now know that the strange black waterfall is extraplanar matter from the Plane of Shadows. Great! Now how are you going to get past it?

EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget the DM's favorite use of knowledge skills-- info dumping. Have some cool/important setting information to share? Who has Knowledge (Local)? (The Dresden Files RPG actually has this as an explicit use of the Scholarship skill)

[Flickerdart]

OK, so the players now know that the strange black waterfall is extraplanar matter from the Plane of Shadows. Great! Now how are you going to get past it?

By walking around it? In the OP's description, the black sludge is just kind of...there.

[Grod_The_Giant]

By walking around it? In the OP's description, the black sludge is just kind of...there.

So... it's just pretty scenery? In that case, I think the knowledge check is exactly what you want-- you can convey the flavor, and you don't sidetrack the game for 20 minutes tossing rocks into an extradimensional portal.

[Deophaun]

By walking around it? In the OP's description, the black sludge is just kind of...there.
Which tends to be the pattern for puzzles that are defeated with a knowledge check; they're ultimately pointless. True puzzles/mysteries not only survive knowledge checks, but often get more interesting after those checks are made.

[ko_sct]

Ok, first thing first :

Your way of playing is not the only way.

second:

Just because peoples play a different way, does not mean they play ''wrong''


The ''game theory'' you point out is non-sense, being a casual gamer does not mean you don't care about the game or that it's odd you have time for games in your busy life. It means you play games in a more casual, relaxed format. Often, but not always, playing less serious games.

It also doesn't mean that you can't put 1+1 together or that you are lazy and don't want to make effort.

Please, don't assume that peoples don't want to make any effort or take any time to figures things simply because they prefer a different playstyle then yours.



So the question comes down to, why are so many players obsessed with sucking the fun out of the game and ruining it, just so they can ''know everything''? I just don't get it.

The reason you don't get it is that, while it may suck all the fun and ruin your games for you. This is not the case for many (if not most) peoples.

Other have pointed good uses of knowledge checks, You have to remember that while it seems like you prefer games about discovery and figuring things out, not everyone does. Some prefers to rush to the battle, others like intra-party conflicts, other games are all about the story, there's a lot of way to play DnD, not one is right.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Though it's also annoying as a DM to have a player in a roleplaying game say "Okay, how would my character act?" to the DM. We have a lot of stuff to run as is.

Not that I said they have to play "Guess what I'm thinking". I said they had to give a justification then roll it.

I would counter that I'm not asking "How would my character act?" I'm asking "What does my character's particular set of skills mean they know?" Then, and only then, can I tell you what my character would do.

Honestly I, get where your coming from with justification, but how long will it be before you get tired of hearing "Well, my character reads a lot. You probably remember that I often mention going to libraries and booksellers once more pressing party business has been attended to and read them when I'm on watch or waiting around for any number of reasons. You may also recall that I said I was going to sit up for awhile talking with the woodsman when we stopped at his cabin for the night and he may have mentioned something pertinent." five times a session?

Personally, I recommend keeping track of character's Knowledge skills just like many DMs do with Spot, Listen or Perception. Then you can add bits yourself in the initial description adding that this or that bit of insight is the result of so and so's Knowledge Arcana or what's her face's keen eyes.

[TuggyNE]

The basic idea of the knowledge check is for the causal gamer. The one who has far too busy a life to care very much about a game. (Yet oddly, they still find the time to game and still want to game, but such things are beyond this thread). The kind of player that can't figure out, say, that ''the Red Wizards are a group of evil wizards'' after they see some npc's do cast some arcane spells and do evil things. Or maybe they just don't want to take the time or effort to do so.

But as D&D is a role playing game, and it might impact a players fun if they get left out as they don't know something. So the knowledge roll was made and put into place so that the casual gamer can know all.

I disagree rather strongly; there are quite a few people on these boards who will vehemently defend the utility of Knowledge checks for immersion and who quite evidently are willing to spend lots and lots of time and effort discussing the game (and if you accept their own accounting, generally spend a good bit of time in actual games).

Instead, I think the real divide is elsewhere: between those who believe the character should be responsible for doing things (and the player is just guiding the character around in a plausible way), and those who believe the player should be responsible for doing things (and the character is just a pretty face and an odd voice to talk in).


So the question comes down to, why are so many players obsessed with sucking the fun out of the game and ruining it, just so they can ''know everything''? I just don't get it.

Perhaps because they find different things fun?

Actually there's no "perhaps" about it; I can testify for myself I don't find "guess the proper extremely paranoid protocol" especially fun... if I wanted that, I'd play an old videogame like NetHack.Yeah I went there.


Example:The group enters a cavern and sees:Starting in midair in the center of the cavern dark black oil-like liquid falls ten feet or so down into a pool of the same liquid. Though several gallons of the liquid fall each second, the pool oddly does not seem to change the amount that is in it. The air around all this liquid is noticeably colder then the rest of the cavern. A nice strange and mysterious thing for the players to find...

The group with the causal player: Player:Oh I rolled a 30 on my know everything roll. DM:Oh, it's a physical manifestation of a portal to the plane of shadow, if you touch it it will zap you to the plane of shadow. Group:Oh, ok, we avoid that and look around for anything to kill or loot. So the nice encounter the DM had planed only takes like ten seconds, as everyone has 'fun' not doing anything

The involved group game:Slowly, the entire group approaches the strange pool of liquid, careful not to get close. Player 1:Adom carefully looks to see if any of the liquid is splashing out of the pool. DM:No, all the liquid stays within the pool area. Player 2:Reno takes out a copper coin and tosses it into the pool. DM:As soon as the coin touches the liquid if fades from sight, but you can't tell if it just sank or was teleported away. Player 3:Woah, ok, wait, I'll try to touch it with my ten foot pole. Player 4:Wait, don't hold onto the pole, I'll use mage hand to hold it. So the whole group is now involved in figuring out this encounter. It's no longer just ''one player causally rolling a dice''

This is kind of a lousy set of examples, honestly, possibly because, as others have mentioned, there's really not all that much going on. Let's see if I can think of a better example.

Character Knowledge:

DM: You see a group of robed figures approaching with a distinctive fractal cross symbol on their robes.
Player 1: Vehrn tries to recognize this symbol; he has ranks in K:Religion and one rank in K:Arcana.
DM: Roll Knowledge: Religion then.
Player 1: *rolls 21*
DM: *passes note with results to Player 1*
Player 1: "These are members of the Waldrenz, an evil and deceptive cult. Be on your guard!"

The other members of the group then respond as they see fit; Vehrn may be mistaken, or even lying, or may simply be acting as a useful source of information for the party.

Player Knowledge:

DM: You see a group of robed figures approaching with a distinctive fractal cross symbol on their robes.
Player 1: Hmm, a fractal cross symbol? I don't think I recognize that....
Player 2: Hang on, let me dig through my notes... I thought I wrote down something about that.
Player 3: How long will that take? And what's a fractal, anyway?
Player 2: Never mind, found it. Um... it says something about a deceptive evil cult.
Player 3: Oh, OK. I charge!

Here there's no doubt for any of the players, but there's some delay, and it relies on the players to have heard and remember any clues they might have been provided, as well as on the DM to remember to give those clues initially and subtly. This decreases flexibility and involves a lot of metagaming.

In each case, of course, it's likely that there'll be some way to progress even if no player or character has the desired knowledge about this enigmatic emblem, but that knowledge may be quite useful, and steer plot events.

[Mnemnosyne]

The player doesn't have to justify knowledge rolls. The DM has to determine which knowledge a particular piece of information falls under. Perhaps it falls under several, and different bits of information can be found under each one. A lot of the time, I think knowledge rolls should in fact be passive, rolled in secret by the DM as soon as the character sees a thing that falls under the purview of one of their knowledges. Because it represents the character's knowledge.

A character that knows what portals to the plane of shadow look like would automatically recognize one on sight, just like you as a player know what an airplane looks like, and can recognize one on sight. Why should the characters have to poke around and experiment with a thing, when they have already invested character resources (skill points) into knowing about this exact sort of thing!? It's a roleplaying game; we're meant to use our character's knowledge, not our own.

Granted, there are occasions when a player should explicitly announce the use of a knowledge check; if they're paying close attention to a detail that the DM thinks might be overlooked, then the player announces their intention to pay attention to that detail. But if it's an obvious feature that the character is clearly going to notice, the knowledge check is pretty much automatic.

Also, if the knowledge check is particularly difficult, or the character comes close to failing, that might be a good excuse not to spit out the knowledge right away. That could easily represent something the character has to stop and think about. So, if they pass their check by say, 1-3, the DM can withhold that information until the player asks. The character actually has to think about the topic to recognize what they're seeing, exactly. The DM might give some general information and wait and see if the player asks for details, or describes their character as thinking about the topic. But if the knowledge check passes with a wide margin, there's no reason for the DM not to give the character all the information right away; that pretty much can be assumed to represent the character knowing something well enough to not have to devote extra attention to recalling the details.

[Sheogoroth]

I was in a game with some friends of mine and we encountered a cave with a huge red crystal in front. Upon touching the crystal we got stunned for 1d4 rounds if we failed a will save. Our ranger decided that this was the greatest thing ever and, since he had a pick-axe, set to removing the thing.
We left him.
Turns out that he was the lucky one, as the cave had a nymph on the inside and we were all successively blinded save our Ranger who proceeded to lead us to safety.

Moral of the story: it takes all kinds, even the skill monkeys.

Also you can just tell your players whatever you want, knowledge without examination and testing only gets you so far.

[nedz]

There are different play-styles and so this is only really an issue if part of the group prefer one approach, and part the other. It is quite easy to opt out of this, as an individual player, by simply spending your skill points elsewhere. When you have a group with different play-styles then this is likely to be the least of your concerns.

I do think that they help to avoid meta-gaming. Dragons may be colour coded for your convenience: but does your character actually know the code ?

[PersonMan]

I do think that they help to avoid meta-gaming. Dragons may be colour coded for your convenience: but does your character actually know the code ?

To be honest, despite the RAW Knowledge rules, something powerful and with obvious defining traits will be fairly well known. There will probably be stories about mighty heroes fighting red flame breathing dragons, green acid-spitting dragons, etc.

A nice thing to add in some metagaming-positive, Knowledge ranks-negative parties is that what one finds in the PHB/MM/etc. is "common knowledge". Trolls are dim-witted, fearless and hunt all the time. Unless you have Knowledge(arcana) and know that these are actually stories about trolls who undergo a specific ritual and the rest are secretive shape-shifting mages.

Sometimes common knowledge is right, sometimes it's dead wrong.

[Flickerdart]

I do think that they help to avoid meta-gaming. Dragons may be colour coded for your convenience: but does your character actually know the code ?
Red = fire is kind of an obvious one. So is white = cold and green = acid. Black and blue are kind of iffy, and all of the metallics are hard to tell, and don't get me started on the non-core dragons. The environments these dragons live in can also be a clue - you wouldn't use ice attacks against a white dragon that lives in an icy cave, not unless you were an idiot.

[ArcturusV]

Maybe. But maybe not on the environmental thing. One thing I typically don't like is that you'll have something like the Tundra Barbarians. Who worship Ice Gods. Use Ice Magic. And use Icy Weapons. Why would they worship something that they have an abundance of that makes life more difficult? Why use Icy weapons in a location where most are protected against cold? Same with Icy Magic.

Does it not make more sense that the Tundra Barbarians worship the Fire God and ask for his blessings against the evils of the live stealing cold? That they would use Fire Magic to combat those weak against cold? And use Flaming Weapons to drive off the Yetis?

Similarly wouldn't a dragon of Fire find it a much easier time to kill enemies mostly adapted to cold, thus the Tundra location? And would not such a dragon take a white/pale countenance as a natural camouflage instead of being a bright red "See me coming 12 miles away and hide before I get there"?

Of course I would also allow them to roll Knowledge (If they thought of it) to know it was a Fire breather and not an inexplicable Ice Monster. Or just tell them they'd know that if they had some connection to local lore (Spent time swapping stories with the local barbarians? Grew up there or in a similar local?)

[Flickerdart]

Similarly wouldn't a dragon of Fire find it a much easier time to kill enemies mostly adapted to cold, thus the Tundra location? And would not such a dragon take a white/pale countenance as a natural camouflage instead of being a bright red "See me coming 12 miles away and hide before I get there"?
No. A dragon is a dragon. It has no need for energy weaknesses, it can just find a deer or something and eat it. Being comfortable on the other hand is important, and a fire dragon living in the tundra would be perpetually cold for no reason.

[Darius Kane]

Does it not make more sense that the Tundra Barbarians worship the Fire God and ask for his blessings against the evils of the live stealing cold? That they would use Fire Magic to combat those weak against cold? And use Flaming Weapons to drive off the Yetis?
They worship what they know and fear. They pray to the Ice God so that he spares them from icy death. I mean, it is cold in the tundra. But they can manage with just warm clothes and some fires. But it might be worse, there might be a snow storm or snow monsters might attack. Only the God that commands Ice can do something about it, a Fire God is powerless in a cold dominated environment.
Basically they choose to adapt to cold rather than fight it.

[awa]

i like knowledge checks so i know what my character knows.
me the player has read the monster manual and knows trolls are vulnerable to fire.

But does my character know that? you cant even use the excuse about exploration and discovery because i already know the answer its just deciding if I'm allowed to use what i already know.

[NichG]

You can have it both ways in this case. I use Knowledge skills as a means for introducing things that people know or could know, despite those things being of a higher level of detail than I want to get into with exposition normally. When the party encounters things that people don't know about then Knowledge skills don't function or at best act as a means for acquiring hints and comparisons.

So if you enter a famous city and want to find the most interesting sites for adventurers, a Knowledge(Local) check will do just fine. Similarly if you want some idea of what the local underworld looks like. There's no mystery there to be solved by the players, its just that when the game starts I don't want to be naming two dozen NPCs and businesses that the PCs might know about. If on the other hand there is something like a murder mystery, the Knowledge check basically is going to tell you background information that may act as hints; it won't solve the murder.

As far as monsters go, if I throw something recognizable at the party I don't really care if the players metagame it. Its far more annoying to players to have to intentionally hold back just enough to seem like they're avoiding the appearance of metagaming (i.e. if you know its vulnerable to fire but your PC doesn't, do you intentionally avoid fire attacks even though you're a Swordsage with Desert Wind maneuvers just because it'd look like metagaming). If I want the players themselves to have to work out how a monster's abilities work, I use a homebrewed monster that is rare or unique - in which case Knowledge checks will give reference to similar entities, but not this particular one.

For example, in my current campaign there are a whole class of basically unique 'monsters of the deeps' that were mutated from ordinary creatures. The entire class of creature is called 'Depthborn' and there are some things that are generally known about all of them that could be gotten with fairly easy Knowledge checks. All Depthborn have special harvestable parts that are valuable for different enchantments. Depthborn tend to have elemental Immune/Vulnerable pairs. Depthborn tend to be very durable and resilient but all have bestial intelligence at best (e.g. lots of HD, moderate to high saves, but no Feats or Class Abilities).

Higher Knowledge checks might reveal hints to a specific Depthborn, like "Those hollow spires on its back are reminiscent of pipe organ pipes - it may be able to produce supernatural sounds." or "This one has an almost metallic-looking hide, and probably will take less damage from physical attacks." or "The orb in this one's forehead seems to be pulsing at a particular rate. Strobing lights of that frequency can be hypnotic."

Similarly, if the players are in a fantasy world and a bit of future tech is uncovered, a Knowledge check won't let them figure out everything about the device at a glance, no matter how high. They might be able to say 'oh, that has the ergonomic design of a handheld ranged weapon', but not 'this thing uses something called quantum mechanics to cause the emission of light that is millions of times more efficient than heat-based light' at a glance.

[Phelix-Mu]

No. A dragon is a dragon. It has no need for energy weaknesses, it can just find a deer or something and eat it. Being comfortable on the other hand is important, and a fire dragon living in the tundra would be perpetually cold for no reason.

Flavor.


They worship what they know and fear. They pray to the Ice God so that he spares them from icy death. I mean, it is cold in the tundra. But they can manage with just warm clothes and some fires. But it might be worse, there might be a snow storm or snow monsters might attack. Only the God that commands Ice can do something about it, a Fire God is powerless in a cold dominated environment.
Basically they choose to adapt to cold rather than fight it.

Flavor.

In my mind, Knowledge skills should be useful, but only about as useful as book knowledge or some other form of reliable communicated knowledge in setting. In some settings books may be like diamonds, rare and hoarded by the wealthy and influential. An Int-character might have precious little in the way of reliable sources. In such a world, rumor and local superstition will have greater sway than esoteric scholarly treatises. A DM for a game in such a setting may make Knowledge checks significantly less useful, increasing DCs or just ruling that no one actually knows the name of the dragon organ responsible for the breath weapon; THE DM IS OBLIGATED IN THIS CASE TO LET THE PLAYERS KNOW THIS AT THE START OF THE CAMPAIGN. Just because this knowledge is readily available irl, the DM does not need to allow it to be so in game.

Yes, a campaign like the one described above will probably increase lethality if run multiple times with multiple playing styles. But capable players will probably manage to survive, especially if the DM isn't totally trying to annihilate them, in which case they are doomed even with Knowledge checks working at full effectiveness. This can just be another method for the DM to challenge the pcs. Any alteration to skill functionality should be laid out up front, and if somehow this is miscommunicated, free, on the spot retraining should be allowed, as the wizard probably stops reading the same 5 books over and over and instead goes with some cross-class Gather Info and Sense Motive, and the wizard would have known to do this even if the player didn't.

In the end, flow of knowledge about what is and isn't a feature of the game world is entirely in the hands of the DM. PCs that are knowledgeable should be able to turn on the faucet earlier than others, but DC of any knowledge check is ultimately down to setting. If there is only one red dragon in a setting and it doesn't eat people, then all knowledge of it will be different and plausibly less available than the given range of DCs might indicate. If the average irl person is suddenly confronted with a dragon, their knowledge of fantasy dragons is going to be woefully inadequate to the situation at hand, because it seems like that knowledge should be useful, but maybe the dragon doesn't act like that, or has no wings, can't use spells. Knowledge on a creature is always what applies generally, and case-by-case can be as wrong as any kind of knowledge used in the wrong context. The PC knows what is known, not what is true in every circumstance.