Roleplaying character ignorance

[2E Phoinex]

When it comes to Roleplaying, specifically in D&D, I really dislike when I'm forced to play as though my character has very limited knowledge regarding the world and monsters etc. that I, as a player, know a bit about.

After playing for a while you learn that Mimics, slimes, rust monsters and other creatures can be baneful to unwary adventurers- how meta is it to suppose your character could have at least some understanding of the most basic abilities of such things? I prefer to suppose my character has heard some vague tales in the past and can use the context to connect the dots; yet, a lot of people seem to almost passive aggressively thrive off of walking the party to their doom because they argue the characters wouldn't know.

Honestly, I hate role playing through these encounters where characters have to discover tons of stuff that the players know. Its the same with campaigns where players discover a modern type device in a medieval setting. In our game last night the party found an observatory type building and it took intelligent characters a long time of cave man bs before we could figure out it was a "spy glass aimed at the sky to study stars"- I'm paraphrasing a bit. It's awkwardly disjointed and I'm never sure how I'm supposed to proceed. Authentic fumbling and experimenting is fun, but when it's fake it's just frustrating and time wasting for me.

So whaddya think? Am I missing out on some fun because of my attitude and this separation of character and player knowledge type of thing really is the point of role playing? Or does anybody else not like playing that way? I'm actually not overly passionate about this issue so I certainly don't mean to knock anyone's play style, but I'm curious what the voices of the playground, who usually put me in my place pretty quickly, think about all this ranting.

[Algeh]

I admit I'm not familiar with the newer editions of D&D (the last game I played in regularly was a 2nd edition AD&D game), but are there in-game skills you could take that would allow your character to start off with that knowledge that you have as a player and find it frustrating not to use?

I mostly run GURPS, which is a very skill-based system, and I encourage players who want to use their previous or out-of-game knowledge to throw a point or two into it to justify their character knowing it. Of course, I also don't punish them for making non-optimized characters with points in probably-useless skills to represent the things their character has picked up along the way out of interest, so spending a few points on this kind of thing doesn't hurt very much.

I have, however, had players have an absolute blast deliberately playing dumb. I was running an ongoing game based, more or less, in modern Europe, and I had a new player join about a year in. He decided to play someone from a small, Basque-speaking village with limited skills in any other language. I think his best was a 9 in French, which the rest of the party all spoke well enough that I didn't make them roll to use it amongst themselves even if it wasn't their native language. (This is in GURPS, where you roll 3d6 and try to get under your target number to succeed, so a 9 means that if there's no difficulty modifier of any kind attached, you will be succeeding somewhat less than half of the time. Difficulty modifiers are really common and can make this either easier or harder - I'd generally have to decide if the particular conversation he was trying to follow was above or below average in difficulty.) The actual around-the-table conversation was almost always entirely in English, which that player spoke just fine, so the player knew what was going on even when his character didn't. His character would often listen to the rest of the characters arguing about what to do next, and then, rather than try to make himself heard with his limited language skills, go off and do some practical thing based on his understanding of whatever the current problem was (with variable results depending on how well he understood what was going on).

Of course, he deliberately chose to play that character at character creation. I even looked through everyone's character sheets and warned him exactly what he'd be getting into. I wouldn't have stuck a player with something like that on my own.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't get the idea of fake character ignorance myself. In my game a player can ''metagame'' anything they know to also be what their character knows. At least for fluff, not game mechanics. I even allow players to have characters know things other characters know or knew. For example Bob once had a character named Ryn who was a thief in Waterdeep and knew lots of npc criminals. Later on down the road, with Ryn long dead, Bob's character Zorn the wizard comes to Waterdeep. Zorn knows all the criminals and things Ryn knew, heard from stories or tales or whatever....so it is all second hand, but all the information might not be 100% current.

[Lord Raziere]

I dunno, a little ignorance can be fun. it can lead to humorous misunderstandings and a better story sometimes, like whenever two people of completely different cultures interact- not all roleplaying is paranoid dungeon crawling! some things that are not fun in the dungeon, can be very fun in the town.

[valadil]

I'll play ignorant if it's part of the character. A dwarf who has never seen the sky could be fun for a while.

What I don't like about the examples you list is that they're the same problem for every character. Let's go with mimics. The GM can surprise you with them once. It might be fun to react to that the first time. But there's going to be little variation between different characters each seeing mimics for the first time.

I don't like generic problems for this reason either. The first time a GM puts one million tin coins at the bottom of a cave and asks you to figure out how to get them back to town is a classic example. It's fun to do that once or twice. Maybe more if they give you different obstacles and different starting points. But it's solved by engineering, not by being in character. Once I've gone through one of those puzzles, there's no point in repeating it with a different PC.

[DigoDragon]

How well traveled and/or educated the characters are starting out usually dictates that in my games. Players can dither write a couple lines of backstory on some things they heard of or invest in skills that would make them knowledgeable about certain creatures. I Don't mind as a gm if pcs know something on bugbears or kobolds. Just work it somewhere in your character so that I know what you know.

[ShaneMRoth]

When it comes to Roleplaying, specifically in D&D, I really dislike when I'm forced to play as though my character has very limited knowledge regarding the world and monsters etc. that I, as a player, know a bit about.

After playing for a while you learn that Mimics, slimes, rust monsters and other creatures can be baneful to unwary adventurers- how meta is it to suppose your character could have at least some understanding of the most basic abilities of such things? I prefer to suppose my character has heard some vague tales in the past and can use the context to connect the dots; yet, a lot of people seem to almost passive aggressively thrive off of walking the party to their doom because they argue the characters wouldn't know.

Honestly, I hate role playing through these encounters where characters have to discover tons of stuff that the players know. Its the same with campaigns where players discover a modern type device in a medieval setting. In our game last night the party found an observatory type building and it took intelligent characters a long time of cave man bs before we could figure out it was a "spy glass aimed at the sky to study stars"- I'm paraphrasing a bit. It's awkwardly disjointed and I'm never sure how I'm supposed to proceed. Authentic fumbling and experimenting is fun, but when it's fake it's just frustrating and time wasting for me.

So whaddya think? Am I missing out on some fun because of my attitude and this separation of character and player knowledge type of thing really is the point of role playing? Or does anybody else not like playing that way? I'm actually not overly passionate about this issue so I certainly don't mean to knock anyone's play style, but I'm curious what the voices of the playground, who usually put me in my place pretty quickly, think about all this ranting.


I'm getting the sense that you are talking a little about being expected to refrain from meta-gaming, and a little about the DM withholding information based on your character's understanding.

In terms of "your character wouldn't know that"... that can get old fast.

There is a difference between "your character doesn't know exactly what that is" and "your character has a fatally impaired ability to assess threats."

I don't care if your character has never seen a Beholder before, you will know one the second you see it.

I don't know the difference between a crocodile or an alligator, but if I saw something that looked like one of those critters, I would assume it was dangerous and keep my distance.

As far as "playing dumb", sometimes you have to lean into it...

A 10 foot tall monster with a big-ass club approaches... let's say you as a player know it's a troll, based on the DM's description and the fact that you caught sight of the DM opening the Monster Manual to the Troll entry... but you are supposed to pretend you're character doesn't know.

Well, it's still a really big, really scary monster. So, you are entitled to treat it like a threat. Maybe you don't go straight for the fire, but you also don't drop your guard when it "dies" because you are not required to act like doomed characters in a horror movie. You are entitled to act like the character who will survive to the end credits.

It's almost like playing poker with yourself. Your ability to pretend what you might do without knowledge is a challenge, but it's not for everybody.

[Milo v3]

D&D generally has rules in the knowledge skill that govern what your character already knows about creatures.

[Hawkstar]

D&D generally has rules in the knowledge skill that govern what your character already knows about creatures.

And, as everyone who's actually played with them can attest, they are absolutely atrocious.

[Milo v3]

And, as everyone who's actually played with them can attest, they are absolutely atrocious.

In my experience they've worked fine. What issues have occurred?

[mephnick]

Knowledge skills work fine, people just don't want to invest in them at the expense of other utility. Experienced people want to meta-game knowledge so they can use their experience to dominate another aspect of the game without paying for it in character. They want to see a otyugh, smirk, and tell the noobies "oh, heh, I know what this is." even though their character has no idea and they should shut up for a second.

[Jay R]

When it comes to Roleplaying, specifically in D&D, I really dislike when I'm forced to play as though my character has very limited knowledge regarding the world and monsters etc. that I, as a player, know a bit about.

I agree that knowing a bit about creatures that your character wouldn't know is frustrating. The best solution is for the DM to keep the players from knowing it, by changing monsters and settings.


After playing for a while you learn that Mimics, slimes, rust monsters and other creatures can be baneful to unwary adventurers- how meta is it to suppose your character could have at least some understanding of the most basic abilities of such things?

Only if most people know such things, and anybody has the knowledge base of a seasoned adventurer. I'm currently running a game in which the players grew up in a small, isolated village, on a continent where nobody has seen monsters for decades. The knowledge base isn't there.

But I've made it fair for the players. They don't know things the characters don't know, because I've changed enough of the monsters that they cannot use their meta-knowledge. There are no elves or dwarves, goblins are half-bestial, the PCs have faced four different versions of zombies, and dragons are not color-coded for the benefit of the PCs.

And the players were warned about that fact in advance.


I prefer to suppose my character has heard some vague tales in the past and can use the context to connect the dots; yet, a lot of people seem to almost passive aggressively thrive off of walking the party to their doom because they argue the characters wouldn't know.

"A lot of people"? "walking the party to their doom"? Is this gross exaggeration, or have you seen a lot of TPKs?


Honestly, I hate role playing through these encounters where characters have to discover tons of stuff that the players know.

Agreed. This is the problem with only using published settings and monsters. The players know too much that the characters don't know.


Its the same with campaigns where players discover a modern type device in a medieval setting. In our game last night the party found an observatory type building and it took intelligent characters a long time of cave man bs before we could figure out it was a "spy glass aimed at the sky to study stars"- I'm paraphrasing a bit. It's awkwardly disjointed and I'm never sure how I'm supposed to proceed. Authentic fumbling and experimenting is fun, but when it's fake it's just frustrating and time wasting for me.

That's one reason that I don't like introducing a modern element. It messes up immersion. It's hard enough to maintain the approach and attitude of somebody in a magic based, non-technological society when confronted with magic. It's much harder when confronted with technology.

If the characters discover something that the players know nothing about, then they are actually fumbling and experimenting. But 21st century objects are inherently known by the players better than by the characters, and so are poor ideas for a game.


So whaddya think? Am I missing out on some fun because of my attitude and this separation of character and player knowledge type of thing really is the point of role playing? Or does anybody else not like playing that way? I'm actually not overly passionate about this issue so I certainly don't mean to knock anyone's play style, but I'm curious what the voices of the playground, who usually put me in my place pretty quickly, think about all this ranting.

I agree with your observation. Pretending you don't know things that the players actually know, when the characters wouldn't, is poor role-playing, and can be frustrating.

Of course, handling things with player knowledge that the characters don't know, while less frustrating, is equally bad role-playing.

The best solution is for the DM to provide things that the players don't know about as much as possible.

[dream]

D&D generally has rules in the knowledge skill that govern what your character already knows about creatures.


Knowledge skills work fine, people just don't want to invest in them at the expense of other utility. Experienced people want to meta-game knowledge so they can use their experience to dominate another aspect of the game without paying for it in character. They want to see a otyugh, smirk, and tell the noobies "oh, heh, I know what this is." even though their character has no idea and they should shut up for a second.
+1 both of these.

[The Fury]

D&D generally has rules in the knowledge skill that govern what your character already knows about creatures.

True, though there are probably some things a character should probably know just by virtue of being a person that lives in the campaign setting. Not things like monster lore necessarily, but things like who the king is, are peaches in season, what your country's flag looks like, that kind of thing.

When in doubt about things, paranoia can be helpful and even justified. For example:

DM: "You don't know if the water's unsafe to drink!

Player: "I don't know that it is safe either. I remember what happened to Trogg. Poor Trogg."

[Lapsed Pacifist]

Knowledge skills work fine, people just don't want to invest in them at the expense of other utility. Experienced people want to meta-game knowledge so they can use their experience to dominate another aspect of the game without paying for it in character. They want to see a otyugh, smirk, and tell the noobies "oh, heh, I know what this is." even though their character has no idea and they should shut up for a second.

So, say you're a first level ranger with Favoured Enemy: Dragon. You encounter a dragon with 10 HD. By RAW, the DC to identify it as a dragon is 20. Knowledge: Arcana isn't a class skill for rangers and you're not going to have a decent Int score, and if you fail you're not allowed to retry. So, you're this guy whose whole shtick is going around tracking and killing dragons, but if a typical one is going around burninating the countryside, by RAW you have a very good chance of not even recognizing is as your favoured enemy. Not sure that's working fine.

[Keltest]

In general, I rely on the DM to perpetuate the semblance of character ignorance rather than having to do it myself. Instead of saying "troll" which I know means "kill it with fire" (to be fair, so does everything else), he will describe a large lumbering monster which, while sounding similar to a troll, may not be, and therefore I should treat it as the unknown monster that it is.

That's not to say I blindly step into situations. I grew up playing 1st edition, so all of my characters have a healthy respect for the unknown, and a reasonable amount of paranoia. Chests are never to just be opened without being poked and rogued, all monster corpses are to be incinerated if time permits, and so on...

[BWR]

I don't get the idea of fake character ignorance myself. In my game a player can ''metagame'' anything they know to also be what their character knows. At least for fluff, not game mechanics. I even allow players to have characters know things other characters know or knew. For example Bob once had a character named Ryn who was a thief in Waterdeep and knew lots of npc criminals. Later on down the road, with Ryn long dead, Bob's character Zorn the wizard comes to Waterdeep. Zorn knows all the criminals and things Ryn knew, heard from stories or tales or whatever....so it is all second hand, but all the information might not be 100% current.

There is a difference in deciding that a PC may know something they do not have a skill for and saying they know stuff it's impossible (or highly unlikely) for them to know. How, for instance, would the PCs know about this brand new monster no one in any world has ever seen before without metagaming? It doesn't matter if the players know what it is, the characters haven't a clue. Same with in-universe secrets about a setting - if we play pre-SCC L5R, no way your characters know that Hantei XXXIX is possessed by Fu-fu. Or if one PC is plotting against the others in a game of AM or V:tM - just because the players know it and play along doesn't mean the PCs automatically know it.

[Honest Tiefling]

I get annoyed when players do it, actually. I don't like assuming the player characters are ignorant clods unless that is the theme of the campagin or character. However, I'd greatly appreciate that players ask about myths and legends they would know about before assuming that they were only told stories that are 100% accurate about everything in the monster manual.

Goodness forbid that people make up silly stories about creatures they have never seen! And thank you, player, for making up details of my campaign setting that are only benefical and never impede you. I love it when players have done that in the past to me without any communication about it.

So if this bugs you, I really implore you to communicate with the DM before the first session so everyone can be on the same page and make the game enjoyable for everyone involved. Please do not be like my previous players and assume things mid-game.

Also, not a huge fan of this idea on the basis that it favors experienced players who know the system and lore. They already have advantages, I rather not widen the gulf if I can, but this is my personal taste in DMing style.

[Milo v3]

True, though there are probably some things a character should probably know just by virtue of being a person that lives in the campaign setting. Not things like monster lore necessarily, but things like who the king is, are peaches in season, what your country's flag looks like, that kind of thing.

When in doubt about things, paranoia can be helpful and even justified. For example:

DM: "You don't know if the water's unsafe to drink!

Player: "I don't know that it is safe either. I remember what happened to Trogg. Poor Trogg."

Thing is, if it's something everyone would know it's probably either DC 0 or DC 5, DC 8 at the most. That'd probably be a survival check anyway.


So, say you're a first level ranger with Favoured Enemy: Dragon. You encounter a dragon with 10 HD. By RAW, the DC to identify it as a dragon is 20. Knowledge: Arcana isn't a class skill for rangers and you're not going to have a decent Int score, and if you fail you're not allowed to retry. So, you're this guy whose whole shtick is going around tracking and killing dragons, but if a typical one is going around burninating the countryside, by RAW you have a very good chance of not even recognizing is as your favoured enemy. Not sure that's working fine.
... Your character is an idiot if they play a dragon hunter with no ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) or Lore (True Dragons). Also, the DC to identify it and identify it as a dragon are probably different. It's harder to go "Hmm... this spider is an x" than it is to go "this is a spider. Don't know what type, but it's a spider."

[Earthwalker]

So, say you're a first level ranger with Favoured Enemy: Dragon. You encounter a dragon with 10 HD. By RAW, the DC to identify it as a dragon is 20. Knowledge: Arcana isn't a class skill for rangers and you're not going to have a decent Int score, and if you fail you're not allowed to retry. So, you're this guy whose whole shtick is going around tracking and killing dragons, but if a typical one is going around burninating the countryside, by RAW you have a very good chance of not even recognizing is as your favoured enemy. Not sure that's working fine.

Yeah too right.

I will tell you what else needs fixing this whole base attack bonus thing, its completely broken.

Say a level 1 wizard wants to hit CR 10 monster its going to have like over 20 AC. I mean the wizard is going to have no chance to hit, its going to have to roll a natural 20 just to hit. Base attack bonus should be scrapped. Thats even if the wizard takes weapon focus dagger, so like stabbing things with daggers is there main thing.

While we are on with this Skill checks are rubbish. Say I have a CR 10 trap that needs a DC of 30 to beat and I choose a ranger thats lvl 1 to defeat it. Even if I choose to take the feat to boost disable device I am never going to make the DC.

Also saving throws right ? I mean you get hit by a CR 10 effect and your level one you have next to no chance of making it. You would get completely wipped out. We should just scrap saving throws as well they are a broken system.

[goto124]

Your examples don't address the problem - which, I believe, is that Knowledge skills break versimilitude since they aren't tied in with the rest of the DnD system.

I would argue that having a Favored Enemy grants you Knowledge ranks in your chosen enemy. I wonder what else in the DnD system could be tweaked this way, and if it's worth the effort.

Which non-DnD systems used some form of knowledge-as-mechanics?

[Milo v3]

Your examples don't address the problem - which, I believe, is that Knowledge skills break versimilitude since they aren't tied in with the rest of the DnD system.

I would argue that having a Favored Enemy grants you Knowledge ranks in your chosen enemy. I wonder what else in the DnD system could be tweaked this way, and if it's worth the effort.
Except favoured enemy already does grant you a bonus to knowledge checks against your chosen enemy.


Which non-DnD systems used some form of knowledge-as-mechanics?

Well from the games I have; Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, World of Darkness, Cyberpunk, Eclipse Phase, Exalted, Legend, Mutants and Masterminds, Pokemon Tabletop United, Talislanta, Unknown Armies, Scion, Ars Magica, CthulhuTech....

[Earthwalker]

Your examples don't address the problem - which, I believe, is that Knowledge skills break versimilitude since they aren't tied in with the rest of the DnD system.

I would argue that having a Favored Enemy grants you Knowledge ranks in your chosen enemy. I wonder what else in the DnD system could be tweaked this way, and if it's worth the effort.

Which non-DnD systems used some form of knowledge-as-mechanics?

My examples were to show the prolem being stated by the first example was a problem with a level based system and not a problem with knowledge skills.

I find the knowledge skills in DnD (I play Pathfinder) tolerable and effective for most of what I need.

They allow a archtype of know it all without having to have a player learn all the monster stats or all the background lore. I can think of examples where they don't work but most of these are rare and in general they do disappear with aomse simple ruling from the GM.

For example. I would be happy to say that a ranger with at least one rank in knowledge arcane and favoured enemy Dragon would always know when they saw a dragon. They could then roll to see what weaknesses / game information they also know.

I mean in the example if I was a dragon hunting ranger character and that was my thing. I would be more likely to stat her this way.

Trait to grant know(arcana) as a class skill and +1 bonus at lvl one.
10 ranks in know(arcana)
Favourite enmy bonus (I think its +4 at lvl 10 I could be wrong)
+3 class skill bonus.

Means for a lvl 10 ranger to spot a dragon you need to roll 2 or more, and you get more information on 7, 12 and 17. (Also if never failing was important to the ranger there are things she can do, skill focus <shudder>)

My biggest objection to the knowledge skills is they take up resources that are used for active things as well. I prefer how it is handled in shadowun. You get dome free points to spend at character creation to make up whatever knowledge skills you have. They are then rolled / used later in the game as a means to get information about the world.

My fix for this in pathfinder is usualy give players 2 knowledge skill ranks every level for free.

[Milo v3]

My fix for this in pathfinder is usualy give players 2 knowledge skill ranks every level for free.

This is sort of an official variant now in pathfinder, since a recent book added a variant that grants an additional 2 skill points per level can be spent on out of combat skills.

[erikun]

Character ignorance is something that tends to come up with any setting where exploration is a thing and where a lengthy amount of time will be spent. Characters will poke around quite a bit in those game, and especially in long-running ones where a group runs different characters, some of the same ground will be covered. Unless the game system has some sort of randomization of creature abilities, different parties will end up running across the same stuff more than once. And really, a brand new character to adventuring knowing where the Iron Golem's off switch is located, or every party member knowing exactly where the Fountain of Resurrection twenty leagues east of the grand city is located, seems to be quite strange.

That said, the examples you give tend to be on the far other side of the spectrum. Medieval characters would not be completely ignorant to the idea of magnification; D&D characters are considerably smarter and more technologically proficient than them. I have a hard time believing that any wizard of 5th level or higher would have difficulty understanding how a spyglass pointing in the air works, especially if it can be moved around to change the perspective. Slimes, rust monsters, etc. are also something that most characters would've at least heard rumors about, unless the have all been restricted to an isolated hamlet their entire lives and absolutely nobody, anywhere, is allowed outside their hometown.

Actually, that's kind of one of the things about D&D. There is a stupidly large number of different slimes, mimics, undead, and so on in the game. Most tend to be quite deadly. I've always taken it as intentional that players gradually learn what they are and how they are dangerous, so that new PCs don't immediately die to hazards the same way their older, deader brethern did. While D&D3e tends to assume that everyone comes out alive from most challenges, I would find it hard to believe that most AD&D or even OD&D characters ended up surviving every first encounter with each new slime, undead, or various demon.

That's probably a bit of a problem with D&D, as well. So much of the monster manual is dedicated to strange stuff which primarily works thanks to being a new or unknown encounter. A cloaker or piercer is an exceptionally silly creature outside the surprise factor, and is somewhat nonsensical at that. A lot of the difficulty in fighting strange creatures is a factor of "We're fighting a werewolf and didn't bring any silver!" as opposed to "We're fighting a werewolf, how do we hit it with this silver without getting torn apart?" It makes fights a lot less about overcoming a difficult foe and more about having the proper equipment in your golf bag of weapons.

This became a bit rambly but I guess I'll post it anyways.

[Earthwalker]

This is sort of an official variant now in pathfinder, since a recent book added a variant that grants an additional 2 skill points per level can be spent on out of combat skills.

Ha Piazo copying me yet again. Well if you are listening to me Piazo I am going to be putting a large amount of money into MY bank account tonight, lets see you copy that.....

[Jay R]

So, say you're a first level ranger with Favoured Enemy: Dragon. You encounter a dragon with 10 HD. By RAW, the DC to identify it as a dragon is 20. Knowledge: Arcana isn't a class skill for rangers and you're not going to have a decent Int score, and if you fail you're not allowed to retry. So, you're this guy whose whole shtick is going around tracking and killing dragons, but if a typical one is going around burninating the countryside, by RAW you have a very good chance of not even recognizing is as your favoured enemy. Not sure that's working fine.

The problem here is an incompetent DM who makes somebody roll when a roll is meaningless.

If somebody is trying to hit a naked sleeper with a sword, I do not have her role an attack; she automatically hits. If she's trying to hit somebody 30 feet away, I do not have her role an attack; she automatically misses. Everybody knows that. It's just common sense.

But suddenly common sense goes away when it's a knowledge skill. You see a dragon. Put down that die; of course you know it's a dragon without rolling. You don't have Knowledge (Arcana)? Put the die down, I said: you don't know anything specific about it beyond being a dragon.

Same as the sword example. If there's no way to fail, don't roll. If there's no way to succeed, don't roll.

Never roll a die unless it's reasonable for the character to succeed, and reasonable for the character to fail.

[dream]

The problem here is an incompetent DM who makes somebody roll when a roll is meaningless.

If somebody is trying to hit a naked sleeper with a sword, I do not have her role an attack; she automatically hits. If she's trying to hit somebody 30 feet away, I do not have her role an attack; she automatically misses. Everybody knows that. It's just common sense.

But suddenly common sense goes away when it's a knowledge skill. You see a dragon. Put down that die; of course you know it's a dragon without rolling. You don't have Knowledge (Arcana)? Put the die down, I said: you don't know anything specific about it beyond being a dragon.

Same as the sword example. If there's no way to fail, don't roll. If there's no way to succeed, don't roll.

Never roll a die unless it's reasonable for the character to succeed, and reasonable for the character to fail.
It's reasonable that a person can miss hitting a sleeping target. It's also reasonable that a person wouldn't know a dragon from a tarrasque or a T-Rex. Die rolls serve a purpose within the system & denying them via GM Fiat can take your game down a very slippery slope.

If rolling a dice for a knowledge check is burdensome for a player, I'd question why rolling them for combat or anything else isn't.

[goto124]

I momentarily thought the Naked Sleeper was some weird creature from an obscure book.

Now, which Knowledge skill is used to identify the Naked Sleeper?

[Jay R]

It's reasonable that a person can miss hitting a sleeping target.

Not 5% of the time by somebody trained in that weapon.


It's also reasonable that a person wouldn't know a dragon from a tarrasque or a T-Rex.

Not somebody who knows enough about them to have them as a Favored Enemy.


Die rolls serve a purpose within the system & denying them via GM Fiat can take your game down a very slippery slope.

Denying a die roll when the situation calls for automatic failure or automatic success is not fairly characterized as "denying them via GM Fiat".

And if there is any sort of slippery slope involved, then I would have slipped off decades ago. I started DMing in the 1970s. Now, nearly 40 years later, people still want to play at my table.


If rolling a dice for a knowledge check is burdensome for a player, I'd question why rolling them for combat or anything else isn't.

I don't know where the idea of "burdensome" came from. It certainly wasn't in the post you cited. I don't suggest not rolling because rolling is burdensome. I suggest not rolling when the result is already determined.

I repeat the main point, which you did not respond to:
Never roll a die unless it's reasonable for the character to succeed, and reasonable for the character to fail.

[ShaneMRoth]

...
If somebody is trying to hit a naked sleeper with a sword, I do not have her role an attack; she automatically hits. If she's trying to hit somebody 30 feet away, I do not have her role an attack; she automatically misses. Everybody knows that. It's just common sense.

Never roll a die unless it's reasonable for the character to succeed, and reasonable for the character to fail.


It's reasonable that a person can miss hitting a sleeping target.

If you are the DM and you rule that it is reasonable that a person can miss a sleeping target, then so be it.

But Jay R's position enjoys the unambiguous support of the Rules As Written.

SRD (Combat Modifiers)

A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.
...
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

[Mastikator]

So, say you're a first level ranger with Favoured Enemy: Dragon. You encounter a dragon with 10 HD. By RAW, the DC to identify it as a dragon is 20. Knowledge: Arcana isn't a class skill for rangers and you're not going to have a decent Int score, and if you fail you're not allowed to retry. So, you're this guy whose whole shtick is going around tracking and killing dragons, but if a typical one is going around burninating the countryside, by RAW you have a very good chance of not even recognizing is as your favoured enemy. Not sure that's working fine.

If you see a big flying fire breathing red lizard, it's entirely justified to know it's a red dragon. What is not justified is trying to infer it's age and abilities from it's size without having knowledge (arcana) skill ranks.

Dragons are famous enough that everyone can tell it's a dragon just by looking at it.

[erikun]

Never roll a die unless it's reasonable for the character to succeed, and reasonable for the character to fail.
One, this weighs heavily on a GM's experience and ability to determine when it is reasonable for a character to succeed or fail. This is not a problem for an experienced GM, but a new GM may not realize the limits or may have other ideas on what is reasonable. This is fine for the experienced GM, but it can turn the game of an inexperienced GM into a slapstick comedy of failures - all thanks to the system.

Two, if a system has multiple ways to resolve an issue, then those ways really should return the same or similar results. D&D's system is particularly bad at this, because you could have a roll with difficulty [character skill+8] which will auto-succeed with a Take 10 but fail one third of the time on an actual roll. How competent a character is depends entirely on a GM's decision on how to resolve the situation. It means that, in one game, a character can be a savant and instantly answering questions where in another game, the very same character in the very same situation struggles with forgetting a third of the context.


Rules are designed to be a guide in how to run a game. Good rules help it run smoothly; bad rules cause it to run poorly. Experienced GMs already know when to avoid a rule that would cause problems with the game, and so an official rule telling them to do this isn't that practical.

[dream]

If you are the DM and you rule that it is reasonable that a person can miss a sleeping target, then so be it.

But Jay R's position enjoys the unambiguous support of the Rules As Written.

SRD (Combat Modifiers)
Lol :smallsmile:

So. What you're trying to convey here is it's impossible to fail an attack targeting a sleeping character in D&D? :smallconfused:

Ray J's just being argumentative and that sort of thing always defeats itself along with any point he was trying to make.

You want a rule? "Play the game the way that's best for your group, not how others demand you play". If people want to roll dice to resolve a skill that, by the rules, allows or requires a check, dice can be rolled.

There is no "One-True-Way" to play TTRPGs. Sorry :smallsmile:

[Milo v3]

If you see a big flying fire breathing red lizard, it's entirely justified to know it's a red dragon. What is not justified is trying to infer it's age and abilities from it's size without having knowledge (arcana) skill ranks.

Dragons are famous enough that everyone can tell it's a dragon just by looking at it.

So is that big flying fire breathing red lizard a red-dragon, is it a flame drake, is it a solar dragon, is it a hellfire dragon, is it a pyroclastic dragon, is it a half-red dragon dire crocodile, is it a half-pyroclastic dragon tyranosaurus, is it a magma dragon?

[goto124]

That's... really specific. Would your players actually accept something like that?

[Gritmonger]

This kind of situation is not a frustration for me - it is a roleplaying opportunity. Yes, I might know just by living long enough OOC nearly everything in the first Monster Manual and even the names of the illustrators of some of the images I've memorized by just raw exposure.

But if I let that be my guide, I couldn't come up with new characters that had backgrounds that didn't include interacting with Slaads and gelatinous cubes and earseekers and whatnot.

I made a ranger that had favored enemy undead because his parents had been turned into zombies, and he kept them in the root cellar of his home. He knew nothing of vampires or other undead - it was all based on his own interactions and experiences, regardless of what I know about mummy rot and the paralyzing touch of wights. He wore a muffler because he was sure undeath was something you breathed in - or breathed out or had stolen in breath, because his parents didn't breathe anymore.

None of that would have been part of his character, or the fact that he was essentially a germophobic ranger and the fun I had playing that (it was not disruptive, it just meant he carried his own food and water and didn't dine at inns...). All of that dies when I just say "I'm playing a standard ranger, favored enemy undead. I'll always stay at range, and carry bottles of holy water."

To me, if you don't want to roleplay ignorance, I think you're missing out on some fun.

[goto124]

To me, if you don't want to roleplay ignorance, I think you're missing out on some fun.

But should you actively punish people who don't roleplay ignorance? Maybe in specific circumstances?

[Mastikator]

So is that big flying fire breathing red lizard a red-dragon, is it a flame drake, is it a solar dragon, is it a hellfire dragon, is it a pyroclastic dragon, is it a half-red dragon dire crocodile, is it a half-pyroclastic dragon tyranosaurus, is it a magma dragon?

Indeed, a layman can identify a snake, but telling a Ceylonese cylinder snake from a false coral snake is not something just anyone can do. Same with dragons, you can tell that it's a dragon, and that it's red. But without knowledge (arcana) you're at a loss to know which kind.
Or for that matter, knowing that it matters that there are different kinds.

[Shadowsend]

The knowledge skills shouldn't and don't represent the entirety of what a character knows (otherwise there would be a lot more knowledge skills, such as knowledge: smithing). The characters exist in a setting where local rumors are about the myriad big bad things that actually do exist. So the character should know things based on upbringing about certain beasts and monsters, and not about others. Can you really say you know personally where in the rainforest to find a specific bird and food for it? If you didn't grow up around it, I highly doubt it. However, if you use google to find that information, you're relying on a computer use check which is referencing someone else's knowledge skill (they learned about it and then wrote it down, making it accessible to others) Thus, the characters should know about the common monsters in their setting, like goblins in Varisia (in pathfinder). Using the knowledge skill should be about gaining specific information via remembering what was read in a tome or referenced by a teacher. In the red flying lizard case, the knowledge skill answers the question "Is it not a dragon?" Because the local people will call it a dragon anyway, unless they *know* something about it, like that they've never actually seen it breathe fire. Then if you ask the local hunters, they reference their experience (and if they live long enough, they might just write those experiences down).

Characters also should have a sense about certain things, like don't step in weird stuff if you don't have to, and if you did an attack and saw it connect but didn't cause damage, some sort of protection is in place. This is an incentive for those characters to slow down! Let the knowledge guy try to figure out what's going on first, then develop an attack plan. Charging in shouldn't be the best strategy every time. But when it becomes the only strategy, bad things start happening. The Leeroy Jenkins trope exists for a reason, even if it was staged.

Another thing is that the more metagaming the players do, the more incentive the DM has to counter it with the nastier and more obscure stuff. Or change monsters entirely. And when they do that, they get a bad name, even though they're simply responding to the players.

[Gritmonger]

But should you actively punish people who don't roleplay ignorance? Maybe in specific circumstances?

It doesn't have to be active punishment. If they cannot and will not feign ignorance of a standard monster, then refluffing occurs - which can emulate actual ignorance until there is enough evidence for an "aha!" moment, at which point the actual character might just have figured it out as well.

I don't tend to throw out punitive monsters like earseekers or mimics or dopplegangers...

For instance, players stumble on a strange farm - near the gate of a small pen holding a strange looking bird is a remarkably life-like statue of a pig, among other meandering live pigs elsewhere.

A few minutes of thought might lead characters to presume that it's a cockatrice, or similar bird with a similar ability, even if the players are unfamiliar with the new fifth edition version.

[mephnick]

So, say you're a first level ranger with Favoured Enemy: Dragon. You encounter a dragon with 10 HD. By RAW, the DC to identify it as a dragon is 20. Knowledge: Arcana isn't a class skill for rangers and you're not going to have a decent Int score, and if you fail you're not allowed to retry. So, you're this guy whose whole shtick is going around tracking and killing dragons,.

Well...for me specifically, this wouldn't get past session 0 because the player is really out to lunch if they think their first level character would have any experience hunting dragons. But yes, theoretically I would let him know it's a dragon, but pretty much nothing else about it unless he hit the DC. The fact he doesn't have arcana is more a slight against 3.5 than knowledge skills in general. In 5e he would have arcana if it was important to him.

[goto124]

Indeed, a layman can identify a snake, but telling a Ceylonese cylinder snake from a false coral snake is not something just anyone can do. Same with dragons, you can tell that it's a dragon, and that it's red. But without knowledge (arcana) you're at a loss to know which kind.
Or for that matter, knowing that it matters that there are different kinds.

It's a sea lion, not a seal!

[Mr.Moron]

I think this is a problem if you primarily frame things in terms of beating encounters and winning the game rather than experiencing them. If it's about winning, of course you'll be mad if your character doesn't know things you do because there is clearly a good path to victory that is being made less viable.

On the other hand if it's more about experiencing it "Guy in tough situation he doesn't know how to handle" or "Guy in tough situation he knows like the back of his hand" and everything in between are all equally valid and interesting scenarios, with different outcomes.

In a situation where winning is the goal, the only good outcome is kicking the monsters ass in the fastest way possible at the least expense. Something like getting your sword eaten because you tried to attack a sword eater with it is a horrible thing that does nothing to drive your primary engagement.

In a situation where experience & character exploration is the goal, kicking the monsters ass in the fastest way possible at the least expense will similarly drive engagement, "Bad Ass" is a cool thing to experience. However losing your sword to a sword-eater can also drive engagement because "Recovering from massive **** up" is also a interesting thing to explore.


EDIT: I don't mean to imply the "Winning" things mentality is wrong or inferior, even if I actively dislike the style. Just that there is no way for a knowledge-check like system to enhance the experience if that is what drives your engagement.