PDA

View Full Version : Knowledge Skills



Earthwalker
2016-02-03, 06:54 AM
Passive Rolls
Knowledge skills are an odd beast. Normally when Gming I describe the scene to the players and then maybe after the description ask the players to make some knowledge rolls. If they make the DC I ask for I then give them more specific information about the scene.
I am going to call these passive knowledge rolls as the player isn’t actively trying to find things out its just player is getting more information because his character has knowledge X.
I mean I usually know the characters so I might just “take 10” on knowledge skill for them and tell them the addition information if they would make it on a 10. The information is given in the form that lets the player know he gets extra information because his character has high levels of knowledge(nature).

Active Rolls
Active knowledge rolls are when the Players want to know more about the world and are asking questions. Usually in the form of does my character know if...
These generally work the same as passive skills if they pass they get more information to work with. Of course sometimes there is no more information or as I see it no way for the character to know something so they don’t get to roll.

Mechanical Benefit
I also use knowledge rolls that provide a mechanical advantage in game. For example (this is shadowrun now) each success on a knowledge (fine wines) might be added to any influence attempts while at a nova rich diner party.

What’s this thread about ?
It came about when I started thinking how my “Passive Knowledge” rolls move the players towards solutions that may have already thought of. I am also what other GMs / Players takes are on knowledge rolls. I know what I do I am curious what others think. I mean clearly I like what I do, that’s why I do it.
Does anyone play a system with knowledge skills but then doesn’t use them. As a player how useful do you think a point in knowledge:Nature Is ? Should it be more useful?

NichG
2016-02-03, 08:06 AM
I don't really like knowledge skills in any incarnation I've found. It can be like a tax to justify knowing things you already know OOC in some cases. In others, there's information the DM wants to provide anyhow, so the skill ends up just being a formality. In terms of actually asking things protectively, it feels jarring to suddenly be told 'by the way, your character knew this all along'. It also feels dissonant that in-character, if I want to know more about something I should go to a library or a scholar or a school and just ask, but OOC I should try to get more XP.

In more narrative systems, knowledge skills let you define how things are rather than query how things are, which is an interesting direction. I like the idea of it but I think that makes it hard for the DM to maintain the illusion that the world is deeper than what's said at the table or in the books.

I guess the direction I'd favor is to replace knowledge with more proactive things. Rather than Knowledge: Botany just have a Gardening skill, etc. Focus on what the knowledge enables you to do.

Earthwalker
2016-02-03, 08:30 AM
I don't really like knowledge skills in any incarnation I've found. It can be like a tax to justify knowing things you already know OOC in some cases. In others, there's information the DM wants to provide anyhow, so the skill ends up just being a formality. In terms of actually asking things protectively, it feels jarring to suddenly be told 'by the way, your character knew this all along'. It also feels dissonant that in-character,

Some of my examples were pathfindery and I know just what you are saying. Not really liking knowledge skills as presented. I am unsure what I want from them. I use them becuase they are there.
Oddly in Pathfinder knowledge skills are a resource you have to spend instead of spending them on other things you might need. Mr Fighter with his 2 skills a level doesnt have much spare for knowledge:Arcane.
I don't get rid of the knowledge skill system but I do change it, giving all characters a pool of points to spend on "hobby" skills, usual knowledge or profession.
For example in my current campaign one character is looking into the fall of the last human empire and the death of the human god. As such he has picked up.
Knowledge: Religion
Knowledge: History

I have no idea why I think its better he has those two skills on his character sheet as opposed to just a line saying.

"I am looking into the death of the old human god and the fall of the empire"



if I want to know more about something I should go to a library or a scholar or a school and just ask, but OOC I should try to get more XP.


This just gets me thinking of the value of knowledge skills in the modern age. If you are playing in a modern day setting do you need knowledge botany ? I mean I can look up what I need online.
Spend your skill points on google instead.



In more narrative systems, knowledge skills let you define how things are rather than query how things are, which is an interesting direction. I like the idea of it but I think that makes it hard for the DM to maintain the illusion that the world is deeper than what's said at the table or in the books.


I am currently running a fate game and I guess the Lore skill works like this. Unfortunatly in my system I have removed lore and replaced it with technology. This new skill functions more like "Magic" than anything else in the setting.
I certainly like the idea of knowledge skills being a way for the players to add information into the setting. I have not seen it tho.



I guess the direction I'd favor is to replace knowledge with more proactive things. Rather than Knowledge: Botany just have a Gardening skill, etc. Focus on what the knowledge enables you to do.

Would the gardening skill be used for anything different than the botany skill ?
Would having the gardening skill be only something you would activly use (no passive use like I described in the original post) ?

Douche
2016-02-03, 08:41 AM
I don't really like knowledge skills in any incarnation I've found. It can be like a tax to justify knowing things you already know OOC in some cases. In others, there's information the DM wants to provide anyhow, so the skill ends up just being a formality. In terms of actually asking things protectively, it feels jarring to suddenly be told 'by the way, your character knew this all along'. It also feels dissonant that in-character, if I want to know more about something I should go to a library or a scholar or a school and just ask, but OOC I should try to get more XP.

In more narrative systems, knowledge skills let you define how things are rather than query how things are, which is an interesting direction. I like the idea of it but I think that makes it hard for the DM to maintain the illusion that the world is deeper than what's said at the table or in the books.

I guess the direction I'd favor is to replace knowledge with more proactive things. Rather than Knowledge: Botany just have a Gardening skill, etc. Focus on what the knowledge enables you to do.

Yeah, I agree. Most of the time it's me or another player asking the DM for exposition. Fail the check - sorry for trying to help you add depth to the story. I'll just shut up and be a murderhobo instead, I guess. What's up with these ancient ruins? Who cares?!? Too busy killin' stuff!!!

nedz
2016-02-03, 08:46 AM
I don't really like knowledge skills in any incarnation I've found. It can be like a tax to justify knowing things you already know OOC in some cases. In others, there's information the DM wants to provide anyhow, so the skill ends up just being a formality. In terms of actually asking things protectively, it feels jarring to suddenly be told 'by the way, your character knew this all along'. It also feels dissonant that in-character, if I want to know more about something I should go to a library or a scholar or a school and just ask, but OOC I should try to get more XP.

The idea is to move away from OOC knowledge. Whether you like this or not is a play-style issue I guess.

There is a related problem in that: if you provide pertinent background information up-front then it can become a Chekhov gun. This is a DMing style issue: do you want to use Chekhov guns ?

Earthwalker
2016-02-03, 09:01 AM
Yeah, I agree. Most of the time it's me or another player asking the DM for exposition. Fail the check - sorry for trying to help you add depth to the story. I'll just shut up and be a murderhobo instead, I guess. What's up with these ancient ruins? Who cares?!? Too busy killin' stuff!!!

I know what you are saying here as a player I have been in the same situation.
I guess when designing a scene or adventure I try to make it so that the aceint ruins over there is something one player is interested in.
Then when presenting it will tell that player additional information (as if they had taken 10 on the knowledge roll)
Then they can still roll for even more information that may help with what ever activities they are up to.

Of course this isnt how you are suppose to do it in Pathfinder but then I guess I am a tyrant GM breaking the rules just to upset bards with thier ability to take 10s on knowledge rolls.

On that note

Guy that knows things

Is that a useful or helpful character concept ?

We have

Guy that hits things.
Guy that cast spells
Guy that steals things.

Can Guy that knows things fit in there ?

Lacco
2016-02-03, 09:42 AM
I know what you are saying here as a player I have been in the same situation.
I guess when designing a scene or adventure I try to make it so that the aceint ruins over there is something one player is interested in.
Then when presenting it will tell that player additional information (as if they had taken 10 on the knowledge roll)
Then they can still roll for even more information that may help with what ever activities they are up to.

Of course this isnt how you are suppose to do it in Pathfinder but then I guess I am a tyrant GM breaking the rules just to upset bards with thier ability to take 10s on knowledge rolls.

On that note

Guy that knows things

Is that a useful or helpful character concept ?

We have

Guy that hits things.
Guy that cast spells
Guy that steals things.

Can Guy that knows things fit in there ?

As for the first part - I don't play DnD, but knowledge skills are also in the system we play. And IF a person has the skill, I always provide them at least basic information. Skill roll can provide more information (in case of botched roll less precise one), but whenever a player puts points into the skill, he gets basic info.

Guys that know things is a good archetype :smallsmile:.
In RoS they get called "academics" and they have the wonderful skill of "Ancient Languages", without which the players are nearly lost if they venture to an ancient city (where they don't know if the sinister runes represent "Enter and be doomed!" or "Toilets"). Also they get four lore/language skills. When you select the lore skill, you select a topic - if the information is within the topic, you know it (select "Legends and Mythology of Xanar" and you already know that this altar belonged to the elder god of blood and war), if it's close enough, you roll (this dungeon may be the one which contains the fabled sword of ...whoever).
I have one player that loves to play academics, due to the fact that he likes discussing the history & lore of the world. Usually I provide him with few pointers for next games or feed him the info during breaks. He is also the local specialist on fauna/monsters and is searching for legendary weapons. He is also a skilled fencer.

Or did you mean a creation of a class, whose point would be creation of advantages based on knowledge? E.g. architecture = knows where the secret doors should be/orients easily within buildings, parazoology - knows the weaknesses of monsters and gives bonus to hit/damage...?

nedz
2016-02-03, 09:42 AM
On that note

Guy that knows things

Is that a useful or helpful character concept ?

We have

Guy that hits things.
Guy that cast spells
Guy that steals things.

Can Guy that knows things fit in there ?

Knowledge is power. Also, it's usually just another hat worn by the Guy that cast spells.

Mastikator
2016-02-03, 10:01 AM
Yeah, I agree. Most of the time it's me or another player asking the DM for exposition. Fail the check - sorry for trying to help you add depth to the story. I'll just shut up and be a murderhobo instead, I guess. What's up with these ancient ruins? Who cares?!? Too busy killin' stuff!!!

As much of the exposition as possible should be given, at least when asked for. Honestly I think a knowledge check should give you a real advantage in the form of exposition, one that couldn't have been acquired without it.

"You see the ancient ruins, moss and vines have all but covered the lower base but the watch tower still look pristine.
Rumor has it that they once belonged to the Draba empire, not much is known about it other than that it was destroyed by elves."

"I want to do a history knowledge check"

"Success, you know these ruins once belonged to the Draba empire, a nation of hobgoblins that was defeated and destroyed by elves 600 hundred years ago.
They used magic to reinforce military structures, the watch towers are still pristine, the runes on the inner walls of the watch tower will give you a clue to where the item is"

Which then leads them to a magic item worth some amount of money, they wouldn't have found it without that history check.

Earthwalker
2016-02-03, 10:47 AM
Knowledge is power. Also, it's usually just another hat worn by the Guy that cast spells.

Playing Pathfinder its so nice that "Guy that casts spells" gets another hat to wear. They need a hand up with versitility. (yes I am joking)

Oddly my guy that knows things is a Bard (well Bardalier) more a concept of jack-of-all-trades but with guy that knows things thrown in.

Has anyone played a character in any system where thier main thing (maybe even only effective thing) was knowing stuff ?

Slipperychicken
2016-02-03, 11:59 AM
It also feels dissonant that in-character, if I want to know more about something I should go to a library or a scholar or a school and just ask, but OOC I should try to get more XP.

What does that mean? You can't afford to stop adventuring for a few hours to ask someone about the dungeon you're going to?

VoxRationis
2016-02-03, 12:01 PM
I think it's important to be able to make the distinction between in-character and out-of-character knowledge. What you know (and conversely, what you don't know) is as much a part of the role you are playing as how strong you are.

Regarding the "I'll just murderhobo my way around if I fail the check" idea: You can still reason and puzzle and infer from what you do know, even if you don't know the background trivia. Frankly, I usually become even more invested in the lore of a dungeon if I don't know all about it to begin with. I start looking for clues I can use to puzzle out the background. I start positing suppositions to the other players. A failed knowledge check, if the adventure is properly designed, is no more detrimental to immersion in the setting than a failed attack roll is to excitement about a combat.

@Earthwalker: I once played a low-Strength barbarian with a lot of knowledge skills. They ended up being more important than his combat skills (largely because the latter were rather mediocre).

Flickerdart
2016-02-03, 12:47 PM
This just gets me thinking of the value of knowledge skills in the modern age. If you are playing in a modern day setting do you need knowledge botany ? I mean I can look up what I need online.
Spend your skill points on google instead.

Knowledge is not only facts. Knowledge is knowing the right question to ask, then being able to understand the results, and then being able to meaningfully combine the results of different questions into a sensible conclusion.

If you google a botany question and get five 60-page papers, you're going to need some of those Knowledge ranks to even understand the titles and abstracts, never mind the contents.

Thrudd
2016-02-03, 01:17 PM
I don't like knowledge skills. I want my players to take in and interpret the information I give them about the world to make decisions and solve problems. If there is information their characters should have, I give it to them. Additional knowledge is gained by roleplay: the players get information if they think to ask the right questions or have their characters ask the right people or search in the right places. That's the point of playing the game, thinking and figuring things out.

In this kind of game "the guy that knows stuff" is not a valid archetype. All characters start out as "guys that don't know stuff" and become "guys that know stuff" over time as they explore the world and gain experience.

nedz
2016-02-03, 01:41 PM
Has anyone played a character in any system where thier main thing (maybe even only effective thing) was knowing stuff ?
I've run games with Adventuring Librarians before now: Sail across two seas, trek across three deserts, all for a few obscure history books.

I don't like knowledge skills. I want my players to take in and interpret the information I give them about the world to make decisions and solve problems. If there is information their characters should have, I give it to them. Additional knowledge is gained by roleplay: the players get information if they think to ask the right questions or have their characters ask the right people or search in the right places. That's the point of playing the game, thinking and figuring things out.

In this kind of game "the guy that knows stuff" is not a valid archetype. All characters start out as "guys that don't know stuff" and become "guys that know stuff" over time as they explore the world and gain experience.
It's a play-style issue.

So: you have a highly intelligent player whose character has low intelligence.

Is this played with the intelligence of the player, or the character ?

Thrudd
2016-02-03, 01:55 PM
I've run games with Adventuring Librarians before now: Sail across two seas, trek across three deserts, all for a few obscure history books.

It's a play-style issue.

So: you have a highly intelligent player whose character has low intelligence.

Is this played with the intelligence of the player, or the character ?

The player. The character's intelligence score determines whether or not it can be a magic user, how many languages known, and the mechanical chances of resolving certain contests (like maybe a magic item or psionic stuff that affects your mind). In other words, the ability scores and class determine the tool set the player has to work with. A character with a lot of low scores, in fact, requires an intelligent character if they are going to survive, because the game mechanics certainly aren't giving your character a lot of advantages.

Adventuring librarian searching for books is great. It's just that the knowledge possessed by the librarian is revealed to the player de-facto by the DM. If the character would know it, I tell the player, no roll required. Rolling for knowledge isn't a part of adventuring, the player can't bypass my challenges by writing a skill on his sheet or rolling a die.

nedz
2016-02-03, 02:01 PM
The player. The character's intelligence score determines whether or not it can be a magic user, how many languages known, and the mechanical chances of resolving certain contests (like maybe a magic item or psionic stuff that affects your mind). In other words, the ability scores and class determine the tool set the player has to work with. A character with a lot of low scores, in fact, requires an intelligent character if they are going to survive, because the game mechanics certainly aren't giving your character a lot of advantages.

Well that's one play-style, but other people play the game differently. There's no right or wrong here, though it does mean that Knowledge skills aren't for you.

Darth Ultron
2016-02-03, 05:05 PM
I hate the knowledge skills. I see them as something made for the casual player that does not care about the game. The casual player is just too lazy to care about knowing things, so they have to roll and have the DM tell them everything.

I try to encourage players to simply role play through the game, and not just roll a dice.

Often, when the bad players roll play by using knowledge checks, I just waste their time and tell them things they already know. Or at least should know.

Flickerdart
2016-02-03, 06:49 PM
I hate the knowledge skills. I see them as something made for the casual player that does not care about the game. The casual player is just too lazy to care about knowing things, so they have to roll and have the DM tell them everything.
Let's say I create a character; let's call him Name. Name is an upper class citizen of Place for fifty-odd years, and now has become tangled up in the game's plot.

Session one begins. During the course of the session, the party encounters a wealthy merchant, and wishes to wine-and-dine him to get in his good graces. Name, as a veteran of Place, ought to know the best restaurant for the job. But I, as the player of Name, have no means of knowing this information. So I pick up my dice, roll Knowledge (Local), and ask the DM for a list of Place's best restaurants.

Am I a casual player that does not care about the game? Am I too lazy to know things?

Aliquid
2016-02-03, 06:50 PM
I hate the knowledge skills. I see them as something made for the casual player that does not care about the game. The casual player is just too lazy to care about knowing things, so they have to roll and have the DM tell them everything.

I try to encourage players to simply role play through the game, and not just roll a dice.

Often, when the bad players roll play by using knowledge checks, I just waste their time and tell them things they already know. Or at least should know.My problem is the opposite: Where the character has Int as a dump stat and the player knows way more than the character would possibly know, and refuses to "role play" their ignorance.

"A troll? my fighter attacks it with fire."
"but your character knows nothing of trolls, why would he use fire?"
"He just feels like using fire today, that's all"

Slipperychicken
2016-02-03, 07:26 PM
My problem is the opposite: Where the character has Int as a dump stat and the player knows way more than the character would possibly know, and refuses to "role play" their ignorance.

"A troll? my fighter attacks it with fire."
"but your character knows nothing of trolls, why would he use fire?"
"He just feels like using fire today, that's all"


No no no, it's okay. He spends 6 hours of his daily life reading the monster manual and employing exploits found online. That means he isn't a filthy casual, which qualifies him for ultron's respect.

VoxRationis
2016-02-03, 07:50 PM
The player. The character's intelligence score determines whether or not it can be a magic user, how many languages known, and the mechanical chances of resolving certain contests (like maybe a magic item or psionic stuff that affects your mind). In other words, the ability scores and class determine the tool set the player has to work with. A character with a lot of low scores, in fact, requires an intelligent character if they are going to survive, because the game mechanics certainly aren't giving your character a lot of advantages.

Adventuring librarian searching for books is great. It's just that the knowledge possessed by the librarian is revealed to the player de-facto by the DM. If the character would know it, I tell the player, no roll required. Rolling for knowledge isn't a part of adventuring, the player can't bypass my challenges by writing a skill on his sheet or rolling a die.

But what knowledge is and is not known by your character isn't necessarily something that's easy for the DM to determine. There's lots of facts that are obscure, or not necessarily applicable to everyday life, but which a person may have picked up by chance. Even in one's own field, there's usually lots of holes in one's knowledge, because only the smallest of sub-fields are small enough for a person to reasonably expect to cover.

Imagine you're playing a librarian character working in a scholarly library. You've probably read a lot of the books, but if the library is of any significant size, probably not even half of them. Which ones depend on a lot of factors, including personal interest, whether they recently were checked out/in (drawing one's attention to them), how flashy the spine is, et al. It's unreasonable to say that your librarian knows everything in the total collection of books, and unreasonable to expect the DM or player to know which one or two hundred, out of the thousands that are on the shelves, the character has read, before the issue comes up in play (which would incentivize the player to say "of course I've read that" after the fact). I agree that there is some knowledge which is automatic—the DM knows that the characters know it and thus says it to them straight—but there's a lot where it's more or less up to chance.

Also, you shouldn't be writing your challenges so they can be bypassed wholly with a single skill roll. The challenge should be made easier by succeeding on something, not completely obviated. The roll helps predict enemy tactics, allowing the PCs to prepare for them, or it enables them to pick the most efficient route through the enemy fortress, or it skips the time and trouble necessary to find a sage to tell them the significance of their find, or it allows them to get a better price on their treasure.

Thrudd
2016-02-03, 07:51 PM
My problem is the opposite: Where the character has Int as a dump stat and the player knows way more than the character would possibly know, and refuses to "role play" their ignorance.

"A troll? my fighter attacks it with fire."
"but your character knows nothing of trolls, why would he use fire?"
"He just feels like using fire today, that's all"

My opinion on that scenario is to not use the same creatures and tricks on experienced players in game after game. For a group of players that have memorized all the published monsters, I'll need to change things up in order to challenge or surprise them.
Sometimes, we can write such things off as being "common knowledge" for adventurers, in-world. Other times, I avoid using the same old tricks. I feel, as a player and a DM, that it is silly and annoying to expect someone to pretend they don't know something and purposefully make ineffective and possibly deadly actions with their character. I prefer not to put them in a situation where proper role play and sound tactics are at odds.

In that example, I would choose not to use MM standard trolls in a D&D campaign full of veteran players if I didn't want the players metagaming published knowledge.

NichG
2016-02-03, 07:57 PM
Would the gardening skill be used for anything different than the botany skill ?
Would having the gardening skill be only something you would activly use (no passive use like I described in the original post) ?

The idea would be to focus on what the skill lets you do. So if you have Gardening, you can:

- Transplant plants without killing them
- Harvest the useful parts of plants
- Find a plant in the wilderness with the desired properties

etc.

Maybe Knowledge(Botany) would let you do this too, but it implies that the focus is on having information rather than on using information. E.g. rather than 'okay, you transplant the plant', the DM is encouraged more to say things like 'to safely transplant the plant you will need to do X,Y, and Z' followed by the player saying 'um, okay, so I do that'. Same outcome perhaps, but more awkward play, and it differs in that if its a Gardening skill the implication is that there's hands-on experience that cannot be replaced with a list of instructions - anyone can look up how to safely transplant a plant, but the guy who has done it a thousand times will still have the higher success rate.


Can Guy that knows things fit in there ?

I've played lots of academic and scientific characters, and it's never been what they knew that was central to the character's mechanical contributions, but rather what kinds of things they could do with that knowledge. My doctor in 7th Sea was useful because he could perform surgery, mix together medicines, etc - proactive things. My scientist in a World of Darkness mashup campaign was useful not because he could spout off stuff about physics, but because he was able to do supernatural engineering and build things like detectors for magical creatures, airships, time machines, or even create new supernatural types from the ground up. Those abilities required him to know things to come up with the means, and to have the attitude of a scientist about the things that happened around him, but all of that was represented primarily by IC knowledge gathering rather than mechanical investment.

I guess this gets back to my point. When I want to know something in-game, the natural thing is to just go and find out rather than invest in a skill to have the DM tell me. If I want to know what vampire essence is good for, its time to go harvest some, compress it down in an aetheric crucible until it crystalizes, infuse the crystals into some lead, and fire the result out of a gun at a target dummy. Going and trying that is a more natural way of playing that character, compared to putting a point into 'Aetheric Mechanics' and having the DM just tell me what would happen.


What does that mean? You can't afford to stop adventuring for a few hours to ask someone about the dungeon you're going to?

The point is exactly that you can do that, and that's the most natural way to pursue information in-character. If I want to know about a dungeon, go and research it - find records about its history in the libraries of local churches, talk to explorers or adventurers and gather rumors, etc.

That basically means that the IC natural behavior erodes the value of the actual skill investment, because it can replace it.

Thrudd
2016-02-03, 08:03 PM
But what knowledge is and is not known by your character isn't necessarily something that's easy for the DM to determine. There's lots of facts that are obscure, or not necessarily applicable to everyday life, but which a person may have picked up by chance. Even in one's own field, there's usually lots of holes in one's knowledge, because only the smallest of sub-fields are small enough for a person to reasonably expect to cover.

Imagine you're playing a librarian character working in a scholarly library. You've probably read a lot of the books, but if the library is of any significant size, probably not even half of them. Which ones depend on a lot of factors, including personal interest, whether they recently were checked out/in (drawing one's attention to them), how flashy the spine is, et al. It's unreasonable to say that your librarian knows everything in the total collection of books, and unreasonable to expect the DM or player to know which one or two hundred, out of the thousands that are on the shelves, the character has read, before the issue comes up in play (which would incentivize the player to say "of course I've read that" after the fact). I agree that there is some knowledge which is automatic—the DM knows that the characters know it and thus says it to them straight—but there's a lot where it's more or less up to chance.

Also, you shouldn't be writing your challenges so they can be bypassed wholly with a single skill roll. The challenge should be made easier by succeeding on something, not completely obviated. The roll helps predict enemy tactics, allowing the PCs to prepare for them, or it enables them to pick the most efficient route through the enemy fortress, or it skips the time and trouble necessary to find a sage to tell them the significance of their find, or it allows them to get a better price on their treasure.

The specifics of a character's knowledge doesn't need to be determined to that level of granularity. If it is relevant to the campaign and your character would know it, I'll tell you. Otherwise, you learn things through role playing. If it isn't relevant to adventuring, it generally isn't relevant to the player, regardless of whether the character might know it.

All the things that knowledge rolls do in your examples are things I would want my players to role play or figure out themselves.

There are times when something should be up to chance, and at those times the DM decides on a probability and rolls for it. But that fringe situation hardly requires investment of character resources or an official mechanic.

ImNotTrevor
2016-02-03, 08:08 PM
I tend to see knowledge skills as a tool to bring people more into their character.

For example, there are things the character should know but that the player just... wont. Can't know. How could Joe on his first session know the recent 500 year history of this made-up empire?

So knowledge skills are a way for me as a GM to pause and say "Joe, you don't know this but Vezzer, your character, knows that ________."

It draws us out for a moment, but it also reminds us that these characters are distinctly different people from us. We're simply pretending to be them.

Cluedrew
2016-02-03, 08:29 PM
Well I have two things to say:

The first is that knowledge should not be viewed as mere memorization of facts. Every "action skill" has a knowledge aspect to it. If a fighter has 8 points in sword swinging that pretty much demands (on top of some physical conditioning) that the fighter know how to properly grip a sword, how to avoid over committing, where to aim and probably some stuff about sword care.

On the other end I have walked people through things I have never done my self (and in some cases have never seen done) just because I knew the theory behind it. Not very often, but the main point is the knowledge of how to do something allows (and often is required for) one to actually do it. So I don't really think knowledge skills can help but unlock character options.

The second thing is... if character's back story says they should know something, than generally they should just know it. Even if they have 0 points in the skill.

VoxRationis
2016-02-03, 09:03 PM
The specifics of a character's knowledge doesn't need to be determined to that level of granularity. If it is relevant to the campaign and your character would know it, I'll tell you. Otherwise, you learn things through role playing. If it isn't relevant to adventuring, it generally isn't relevant to the player, regardless of whether the character might know it.

All the things that knowledge rolls do in your examples are things I would want my players to role play or figure out themselves.

Really? I, for example, know standard Zulu and Roman battle tactics, but not 16th-century Ottoman, or Mughal, or Sengoku-era Japanese. It could easily have been the other way around. If someone were playing me, how would they know, from the character description of "college graduate (biology major)," which of those I know? If you make them "roleplay" it, they'll be forced to say "Eh, he's a bio major; he probably doesn't know that," or "It's a pre-modern battle tactic; of course he knows that!" Either conclusion doesn't help with roleplaying, because it's a shallow generalization about my knowledge and interests.

If you insist they figure it out in-game, you're forcing them to assume that their character is ignorant of the subject, rather than give them a realistic chance to know it, and thus are forcing them to learn the hard way (usually by falling into the trap the enemy has set for them).


There are times when something should be up to chance, and at those times the DM decides on a probability and rolls for it. But that fringe situation hardly requires investment of character resources or an official mechanic.

Regarding "investment of character resources:" Why is combat more important to invest character resources than noncombat skills? If knowledge doesn't take up a resource of some sort, what stops every PC from being an erudite Renaissance man who has memorized several encyclopedias, on top of their combat skills and the like?

Tiktakkat
2016-02-03, 09:10 PM
I hate the knowledge skills. I see them as something made for the casual player that does not care about the game. The casual player is just too lazy to care about knowing things, so they have to roll and have the DM tell them everything.

I try to encourage players to simply role play through the game, and not just roll a dice.

Often, when the bad players roll play by using knowledge checks, I just waste their time and tell them things they already know. Or at least should know.

Know things like what?

The Core deity list?
Maybe.
What a setting specific deity list? While that isn't too difficult for Eberron, it is rather overwhelming for Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.
Throw in arch-fiends and it gets even harder.

The Core monster list?
Again, maybe.
What about every monster in every WotC splat book?
Including setting books!
Probably not.

A published city?
Perhaps.
But do you want the players reading a setting book?
And just how big a city is it, and how detailed is the setting book?

A personal setting?
How many words have you written for your setting?
I haven't bothered counting mine since the total went over 50K.

One of the things I wrote was an overview of what a character would know about a particular kingdom, particularly at DC 5 and 10 that can be done untrained. That was because I expected players who didn't have a clue about the setting would be using it and wanted to have an idea of what they might know without having to pester the DM for "ordinary" background. Sometimes you wind up with very serious players who are simply new to a setting, and haven't had time to catch up on a dozen or more, often out of print, products containing all the fine details that someone using it for 20 years might have.

Thrudd
2016-02-03, 10:00 PM
Really? I, for example, know standard Zulu and Roman battle tactics, but not 16th-century Ottoman, or Mughal, or Sengoku-era Japanese. It could easily have been the other way around. If someone were playing me, how would they know, from the character description of "college graduate (biology major)," which of those I know? If you make them "roleplay" it, they'll be forced to say "Eh, he's a bio major; he probably doesn't know that," or "It's a pre-modern battle tactic; of course he knows that!" Either conclusion doesn't help with roleplaying, because it's a shallow generalization about my knowledge and interests.

If you insist they figure it out in-game, you're forcing them to assume that their character is ignorant of the subject, rather than give them a realistic chance to know it, and thus are forcing them to learn the hard way (usually by falling into the trap the enemy has set for them).



Regarding "investment of character resources:" Why is combat more important to invest character resources than noncombat skills? If knowledge doesn't take up a resource of some sort, what stops every PC from being an erudite Renaissance man who has memorized several encyclopedias, on top of their combat skills and the like?

If knowledge of historical battle tactics of specific cultures would be relevant in a game (hard to imagine), I would let the player know. Otherwise, whether or not such knowledge is possessed is irrelevant. The player doesn't need to know everything their character has ever read, it will never come up. They need to know what their character can do that is relevant to the type of adventures they will face in the game.

The game is about the players figuring stuff out, not the characters. If you (the player) know Roman tactics, and you see the enemy using them and think of a good way to counter them, good for you, that's good playing. If you roll a die and I tell you how to fight the battle, I have negated the whole point of the game and you (the player) have accomplished nothing.

If a player has memorized several encyclopedias, they are welcome to attempt to apply that to their character's adventures however they can. It is likely there won't be much overlap, in general.

Thrudd
2016-02-03, 10:10 PM
Know things like what?

The Core deity list?
Maybe.
What a setting specific deity list? While that isn't too difficult for Eberron, it is rather overwhelming for Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.
Throw in arch-fiends and it gets even harder.

The Core monster list?
Again, maybe.
What about every monster in every WotC splat book?
Including setting books!
Probably not.

A published city?
Perhaps.
But do you want the players reading a setting book?
And just how big a city is it, and how detailed is the setting book?

A personal setting?
How many words have you written for your setting?
I haven't bothered counting mine since the total went over 50K.

One of the things I wrote was an overview of what a character would know about a particular kingdom, particularly at DC 5 and 10 that can be done untrained. That was because I expected players who didn't have a clue about the setting would be using it and wanted to have an idea of what they might know without having to pester the DM for "ordinary" background. Sometimes you wind up with very serious players who are simply new to a setting, and haven't had time to catch up on a dozen or more, often out of print, products containing all the fine details that someone using it for 20 years might have.

Again, if a character ought to know something about the setting, the DM can just tell the player. There is no need to have a knowledge skill or to roll a die to randomly see how much your character knows. If it's important to the game, the DM tells you. If it isn't you don't need it. It isn't common that a game expects or requires the players to have read multiple novels or sourcebooks just to participate in a reasonable manner, even in published settings. If there is a required reading list for players, the DM should tell them that before the game starts.

Tiktakkat
2016-02-03, 11:35 PM
Again, if a character ought to know something about the setting, the DM can just tell the player. There is no need to have a knowledge skill or to roll a die to randomly see how much your character knows. If it's important to the game, the DM tells you. If it isn't you don't need it. It isn't common that a game expects or requires the players to have read multiple novels or sourcebooks just to participate in a reasonable manner, even in published settings. If there is a required reading list for players, the DM should tell them that before the game starts.

Define "ought to".
You can find dozens of articles and videos around the net about how little some group that "ought to" know some body of facts actually knows.
You can find hundreds of threads and questions in just these forums about game rules and historical facts and factoids that half the people think are so obvious they don't even slow down in answering, half argue with myths and obsolete CW, half are glad someone else asked such an "easy" question, and half have even more questions.

Define "important".
Certainly reminding players that mocking the dwarf king's beard will start a war is both important and obvious enough not to require a skill check.
But what about "mysteries" with obscure knowledge that require research?
You've got multiple genres, sub-genres, and individual stories that get disappeared with that.

Define "common".
The very existence of "Appendix N" and its numerous imitations and expansions suggests otherwise.
Further, I was replying to a direct accusation of a lack of interest in the game due to reliance on skill checks, again clearly suggesting otherwise.

As for a "required" reading list, "once upon a time" "Appendix N" reflected more a list of specific books "everyone" was presumed to have already read that should be recalled, with probably only a few being in the "to be read" pile, and fewer still not yet stumbled across, rather than a list to be acquired.

Rather than make assumptions about any of those, all of which have bitten me in the past, I prefer to use Knowledge skills as the useful tool they can be, and just skip sitting around staring at players, wondering why they are baffled by my "brilliant" homage, pop culture references, and layered references to the setting's trivia.

VoxRationis
2016-02-03, 11:52 PM
If knowledge of historical battle tactics of specific cultures would be relevant in a game (hard to imagine), I would let the player know. Otherwise, whether or not such knowledge is possessed is irrelevant. The player doesn't need to know everything their character has ever read, it will never come up. They need to know what their character can do that is relevant to the type of adventures they will face in the game.

Obviously, an enemy's normal battle tactics are completely irrelevant.
So if it's relevant, they automatically know it? You can't conceive of a single piece of relevant knowledge that a character might know, but might not?
Edit: Adventurer types often fight numerous different sorts of foes, and come into nonaggressive contact with numerous cultures, over their career. For each culture, there's a whole list of different pieces of potentially relevant data:

Political structure (useful for infiltration/subversion attempts, or for avoiding giving offense);
Cultural values (ditto);
Typical battle tactics;
Technology;
Typical building layouts (useful for planning efficient routes through a dungeon).

It is unlikely that the characters know all this for all the cultures, but it's highly likely that at least one character knows some of it. How do you determine which bits?


The game is about the players figuring stuff out, not the characters. If you (the player) know Roman tactics, and you see the enemy using them and think of a good way to counter them, good for you, that's good playing. If you roll a die and I tell you how to fight the battle, I have negated the whole point of the game and you (the player) have accomplished nothing.

Knowing the enemy's tactics and formulating counter-tactics are two different things. But often in order to counter it, you need to see the tactic coming. If you only realize "They're using a hammer-and-anvil ploy" when you see the cavalry come over the hill behind you, you're probably screwed. Knowing that that's the common method of deployment for your enemy and you can expect a cavalry contingent to try to flank you allows you to pre-empt it before it's too late.


If a player has memorized several encyclopedias, they are welcome to attempt to apply that to their character's adventures however they can. It is likely there won't be much overlap, in general.

You don't believe in in-character and out-of-character knowledge separation? If a player reads the Monster Manual, their character knows all the stats automatically? If a player sees your notes over your screen, their character knows what's in the next room?

Thrudd
2016-02-04, 12:12 AM
Define "ought to".
You can find dozens of articles and videos around the net about how little some group that "ought to" know some body of facts actually knows.
You can find hundreds of threads and questions in just these forums about game rules and historical facts and factoids that half the people think are so obvious they don't even slow down in answering, half argue with myths and obsolete CW, half are glad someone else asked such an "easy" question, and half have even more questions.

Define "important".
Certainly reminding players that mocking the dwarf king's beard will start a war is both important and obvious enough not to require a skill check.
But what about "mysteries" with obscure knowledge that require research?
You've got multiple genres, sub-genres, and individual stories that get disappeared with that.

Define "common".
The very existence of "Appendix N" and its numerous imitations and expansions suggests otherwise.
Further, I was replying to a direct accusation of a lack of interest in the game due to reliance on skill checks, again clearly suggesting otherwise.

As for a "required" reading list, "once upon a time" "Appendix N" reflected more a list of specific books "everyone" was presumed to have already read that should be recalled, with probably only a few being in the "to be read" pile, and fewer still not yet stumbled across, rather than a list to be acquired.

Rather than make assumptions about any of those, all of which have bitten me in the past, I prefer to use Knowledge skills as the useful tool they can be, and just skip sitting around staring at players, wondering why they are baffled by my "brilliant" homage, pop culture references, and layered references to the setting's trivia.

Again, why does there need to be a skill for any of that? Mysteries with obscure knowledge that requires research would be something the players do through roleplay during the game.

As a DM, I don't assume my players know anything, especially in my own setting. Anything I didn't tell them about the setting, I assume they don't know. I tell them what they need to know to create characters that fit into the setting, and to play the game as 1st level characters. Everything else is meant to be discovered through play, asking questions, interacting with NPCs, exploring the world, trial and error, etc.

If a player makes a blunderous decision that seems like their character should have known to avoid, I might say "are you sure you want to do that? Your character probably knows tugging on the dwarf's beard is a serious insult". But usually, they know what they're doing, even if I didn't give them a dissertation on dwarven culture in my setting.

Appendix N was never a required reading list for players. Most of the books on it are only peripherally related to the creation of D&D. It is inspiration for DMs. Also, it appeared in the Dungeon Master's Guide, which was intended only to be seen by the Dungeon Master.

If a player doesn't know something I thought they would about the real world, and that knowledge is required to solve a puzzle or some such in my game (like a five-elements arranging puzzle), well that's too bad. They'll either figure it out by in-game experimenting, or they won't get it. You don't get a free pass with a number on your sheet and a roll of the die.

Thrudd
2016-02-04, 12:39 AM
Obviously, an enemy's normal battle tactics are completely irrelevant.
So if it's relevant, they automatically know it? You can't conceive of a single piece of relevant knowledge that a character might know, but might not?
Edit: Adventurer types often fight numerous different sorts of foes, and come into nonaggressive contact with numerous cultures, over their career. For each culture, there's a whole list of different pieces of potentially relevant data:

Political structure (useful for infiltration/subversion attempts, or for avoiding giving offense);
Cultural values (ditto);
Typical battle tactics;
Technology;
Typical building layouts (useful for planning efficient routes through a dungeon).

It is unlikely that the characters know all this for all the cultures, but it's highly likely that at least one character knows some of it. How do you determine which bits?



Knowing the enemy's tactics and formulating counter-tactics are two different things. But often in order to counter it, you need to see the tactic coming. If you only realize "They're using a hammer-and-anvil ploy" when you see the cavalry come over the hill behind you, you're probably screwed. Knowing that that's the common method of deployment for your enemy and you can expect a cavalry contingent to try to flank you allows you to pre-empt it before it's too late.



You don't believe in in-character and out-of-character knowledge separation? If a player reads the Monster Manual, their character knows all the stats automatically? If a player sees your notes over your screen, their character knows what's in the next room?

I strive to give players as immersive an experience as possible (in D&D). This means that I want there to be as little separation between in and out of character knowledge as possible. My players shouldn't be reading the monster manual while they are actively participating in my game. If they are veteran players or have been DMs themselves, then I avoid using those monsters which would be "spoiled" by prior experience. I create new monsters to give new surprises. They better not be looking over the screen. If they do see my notes, then nothing I say or do will stop them from knowing what they now know, even if they pretend they don't. I doubt they would proceed to have their character walk into the pit trap they just saw, even if they don't tell the others about it.

I want my players to discover everything about the game world through playing. After the first time an enemy uses hammer and anvil tactics against them, then they will know, not before. They could seek out npcs that could tell them about an enemy's practices before going into battle, if they had forewarning, that's another way to gain knowledge.

Adventurers do encounter many things over their career, and the game starts at the very beginning of their career. They know nothing yet, at level 1. Whatever the players learn and remember over the course of the game is what the characters know.

VoxRationis
2016-02-04, 02:47 AM
I want my players to discover everything about the game world through playing. After the first time an enemy uses hammer and anvil tactics against them, then they will know, not before. They could seek out npcs that could tell them about an enemy's practices before going into battle, if they had forewarning, that's another way to gain knowledge. Adventurers do encounter many things over their career, and the game starts at the very beginning of their career. They know nothing yet, at level 1. Whatever the players learn and remember over the course of the game is what the characters know.

You do realize that many people learn to avoid dangerous things through education and upbringing, not asking random strangers about them or blundering into them headlong and hoping they survive, don't you? Do you also realize that people begin learning things before the starts of their careers? The ability to impart information in anticipation of future need, rather than learn everything by trial and error, is one of the greatest evolutionary advantages humanity has. I'm not sure why you're denying it to your players.

goto124
2016-02-04, 03:04 AM
My problem is the opposite: Where the character has Int as a dump stat and the player knows way more than the character would possibly know, and refuses to "role play" their ignorance.

"A troll? my fighter attacks it with fire."
"but your character knows nothing of trolls, why would he use fire?"
"He just feels like using fire today, that's all"


My opinion on that scenario is to not use the same creatures and tricks on experienced players in game after game. For a group of players that have memorized all the published monsters, I'll need to change things up in order to challenge or surprise them.
Sometimes, we can write such things off as being "common knowledge" for adventurers, in-world. Other times, I avoid using the same old tricks. I feel, as a player and a DM, that it is silly and annoying to expect someone to pretend they don't know something and purposefully make ineffective and possibly deadly actions with their character. I prefer not to put them in a situation where proper role play and sound tactics are at odds.

In that example, I would choose not to use MM standard trolls in a D&D campaign full of veteran players if I didn't want the players metagaming published knowledge.

Don't use easy-to-solve 'puzzles' if you want the puzzles to be hard to solve. Just create hard-to-solve puzzles.

@Tiktakkat: In practice (aka in actual tabletop gameplay), do you encounter problems with Knowledge Skills that boil down to not getting the details of various types of Knowledge correctly? I have never experienced issues with the "DM tells the players what their characters know" model. The worst issue I can think of is the players later discovering a fact of the world, causing said players to tell the DM "hey my character should've known this fact already for [reasons], but you didn't tell me". Not that I've actually run into that issue. [/sincerity]

Thrudd
2016-02-04, 03:08 AM
You do realize that many people learn to avoid dangerous things through education and upbringing, not asking random strangers about them or blundering into them headlong and hoping they survive, don't you? Do you also realize that people begin learning things before the starts of their careers? The ability to impart information in anticipation of future need, rather than learn everything by trial and error, is one of the greatest evolutionary advantages humanity has. I'm not sure why you're denying it to your players.

It's a game. The point is for the players to figure things out, often by trial and error, so the characters are purposefully intended to be largely ignorant of the world they are venturing into. They have left the places they are familiar with and gone to the strange wild places where adventure is found. It's essential to the premise of the game.
Yes, people do learn things by asking other people that know more than them, nobody said they all had to be "random strangers".
Teenagers and early twenty-somethings who have recently completed apprenticeships and are embarking for the first time into an unfamiliar world don't have a whole lot of prior information to go on outside their professional knowledge. People also learn by doing.

goto124
2016-02-04, 03:12 AM
@Thrudd To be honest, that also depends on playstyle. What of the player who walks up to the DM with a character sheet stating Juliana has a certain background with a certain profession giving her a nice amount of Knowledge in certain areas?

What you described is a perfectly valid playstyle, and one that I personally prefer. I doubt everyone runs adventures where all the characters involved are clueless youths at the start.

Thrudd
2016-02-04, 03:57 AM
@Thrudd To be honest, that also depends on playstyle. What of the player who walks up to the DM with a character sheet stating Juliana has a certain background with a certain profession giving her a nice amount of Knowledge in certain areas?

What you described is a perfectly valid playstyle, and one that I personally prefer. I doubt everyone runs adventures where all the characters involved are clueless youths at the start.

The DM needs to approve the character and her background, first of all. If he/she does, then the DM would tell Juliana's player what knowledge she possesses that will be relevant to the campaign. If something comes up during the game and the DM thinks Juliana ought to know something about it, they would tell the player what she knows. It isn't complicated. If the player thinks she might know something, they ask the DM, who then decides what, if anything, she would know.

If the characters don't start out as level 1 beginners, then the players should probably have more knowledge of the setting, either from prior campaigns or from DM handouts.

If this is not D&D, then the premise of the game is probably entirely different and nothing I said is applicable. The differentiation and adjudication of character vs player knowledge is completely different depending on what the game is about.

Lacco
2016-02-04, 04:53 AM
My players shouldn't be reading the monster manual while they are actively participating in my game. If they are veteran players or have been DMs themselves, then I avoid using those monsters which would be "spoiled" by prior experience. I create new monsters to give new surprises.

I like this point and second it. I remember a book from Sapkowski - something like a small RPG for beginners, which had nice advice. I don't have it (I borrowed it from library), but it went something like this: "There is not monster manual in this book. I think it takes away some enjoyment if the players see a red dragon and immediately start an OOC debate - this is a fire-breathing dragon and we should fight it with ice, mage - bring out the fire resistance spells, warriors, switch to ice-based attacks, it should have X HP and we can get him without major losses in 5-7 rounds. This set of players was surprised when my mutated dragon breathed chlorine and spat acid. Build your monsters so that there is the element of surprise and mystery, however, keep them consistent and give players clues about them before they encounter these monsters".

This set of players also takes away my enjoyment. Luckily, I managed to explain to my players that I assume roleplaying does not end with first round initiative, so they don't do this anymore.

Back to original topic - if a player had "Knowledge: Dragons" skill, I would immediately warn him that he noticed something is off and the dragon will most probably not breathe fire. To bounce off goto124's question - if he took "Ranger/Hunter" as profession, I would warn him about the smell in the area, cleanly washed skulls and give him other clues a ranger might notice. Heck, even if he had "Mythology" as his knowledge, I could chime in reminding him about the legend of red dragons with toxic breath. This, I think, is what knowledge skills are for - to give advantage (the players invested points in those, they should get a reward). However, if they ignore the clues and just bring the anti-fire shield, prepare for surprise!

goto124
2016-02-04, 05:07 AM
I think it takes away some enjoyment if the players see a red dragon and immediately start an OOC debate - this is a fire-breathing dragon and we should fight it with ice, mage - bring out the fire resistance spells, warriors, switch to ice-based attacks, it should have X HP and we can get him without major losses in 5-7 rounds.

How would you answer if a player asked "But this is a game, of course we'll talk about tactics at some point..."

Also, the characters could easily have learned from books and their mothers' stories that red dragons breath fire, and using ice attacks against a fire-based creature is also logical from an in-game point of view.


To bounce off goto124's question - if he took "Ranger/Hunter" as profession, I would warn him about the smell in the area, cleanly washed skulls and give him other clues a ranger might notice. Heck, even if he had "Mythology" as his knowledge, I could chime in reminding him about the legend of red dragons with toxic breath. This, I think, is what knowledge skills are for - to give advantage (the players invested points in those, they should get a reward). However, if they ignore the clues and just bring the anti-fire shield, prepare for surprise!

This is great use of Knowledge skills!

hifidelity2
2016-02-04, 05:27 AM
Back to original topic - if a player had "Knowledge: Dragons" skill, I would immediately warn him that he noticed something is off and the dragon will most probably not breathe fire. To bounce off goto124's question - if he took "Ranger/Hunter" as profession, I would warn him about the smell in the area, cleanly washed skulls and give him other clues a ranger might notice. Heck, even if he had "Mythology" as his knowledge, I could chime in reminding him about the legend of red dragons with toxic breath. This, I think, is what knowledge skills are for - to give advantage (the players invested points in those, they should get a reward). However, if they ignore the clues and just bring the anti-fire shield, prepare for surprise!

Exactly!
If the games has Knowledge Skills you can spend hard earnt XP on then as a DM its my job to make them useful. I try and not make the mainplot "Roll against X SKill" for a one off chance to find the BBEG but do use it for extra info, pointers to treasure/ how to interact with the world

example- Modern Day.
Party are in London. Everyone one knows without a check where or how to get to the mian landmarks etc. Someone with Local Area Knowledge(London) will know the good / bad areas, where the best Pub is etc. Combine that with Streetwise and they will know a few shady characters , where they hang out and how to get hold of a firearm. Now they could use Google for some of this but there is a difference between actaully knowing anm area (esp if running away from the gangster / police whatever and stopping to look at your smartphone for a map!)

Lacco
2016-02-04, 05:38 AM
How would you answer if a player asked "But this is a game, of course we'll talk about tactics at some point..."

Also, the characters could easily have learned from books and their mothers' stories that red dragons breath fire, and using ice attacks against a fire-based creature is also logical from an in-game point of view.

My answer would be: "Then, gentlemen, discuss tactics in character if you please." And usually they will. However, I have noticed that whenever players enter combat, they start to think/discuss tactics OOC instead of IC. But that may be only my feeling.

However, the usual answer of my players to statement involving an existence of a dragon in their vicinity is... "Woooow..." (the barbarian/aesthete) or "Oh, we are so dead..." (the fencer/tactician).


This is great use of Knowledge skills!

Thank you! To expand a bit on my use of knowledge skills, see spoiler below - it will concern the dragon situation.

What do I tell the player with profession:ranger / knowledge:dragons / knowledge: mythology

9 (untrained) - "You don't see any burnt grass around and don't smell sulphur"/"This dragon seems a bit off - it doesn't look exactly like the one on the drawings you studied"/"You seem to remember an old story about two types of red dragons - and only one breathed fire"
8 (appretice) - "You smell something else - and notice few whitewashed skulls and bones, not burned, but clean of meat"/"This dragon has larger head and seems to be dripping a strange liquid out of his mouth - when his mouth opens, you don't see the flicker of flame that the authors wrote about"/"The legend says dragons may only have breath composed of one element - fire, cold, acid, noxious fumes or lightning"
7 (trained) - "You notice the trees around have signs of contact with acid, not burns. Also you notice his neck is thinner and less armoured."/"This dragon is closer to the brick red than fiery red. And brick red means usually no fire, but acid, but vulnerable throat and stronger legs"/"Oarin the Wise wrote about a dragon like this - you remember the verse from his poem which said that it breathed a liquid which dissolved his bodyguard."
6 (journeyman) - As above, but add "you remember a fight with such dragon - axes bounced off his armour, but arrows and spears were able to penetrate it" for the first two/"...and also the stanza about him successfully attacking its throat"
...and I would continue adding details the better skill they have. Notice - the mythology is a bit sparse on the details, since it is only partially tied to dragons. However, if the player catches up and asks if he remebers more, I will allow a roll and give him more information based on the sucesses.


Exactly!
If the games has Knowledge Skills you can spend hard earnt XP on then as a DM its my job to make them useful. I try and not make the mainplot "Roll against X SKill" for a one off chance to find the BBEG but do use it for extra info, pointers to treasure/ how to interact with the world


:smallsmile: I would rephrase it a bit. If the game has a Knowledge Skill and the player wants to have it, he should discuss with GM the possible uses. If he thinks it will be useless (e.g. knowledge: religion in game where religion seldom comes to play), they should discuss other possibilities or find a compromise.

I also don't use rolls for core clues - these should be available automatically. But clues that will give them advantage - yes, they can either spend time looking for someone who knows (the old witch in the forests knows a lot about dragons) or have a skill, which will help them.

Earthwalker
2016-02-04, 07:05 AM
The idea would be to focus on what the skill lets you do. So if you have Gardening, you can:
- Transplant plants without killing them
- Harvest the useful parts of plants
- Find a plant in the wilderness with the desired properties
[snip]
I've played lots of academic and scientific characters, and it's never been what they knew that was central to the character's mechanical contributions, but rather what kinds of things they could do with that knowledge. My doctor in 7th Sea was useful because he could perform surgery, mix together medicines, etc - proactive things. My scientist in a World of Darkness mashup campaign was useful not because he could spout off stuff about physics, but because he was able to do supernatural engineering and build things like detectors for magical creatures, airships, time machines, or even create new supernatural types from the ground up. Those abilities required him to know things to come up with the means, and to have the attitude of a scientist about the things that happened around him, but all of that was represented primarily by IC knowledge gathering rather than mechanical investment.
[snip]


This is a major shift in perspective than what I am used to (kind of why I asked the question). It is certainly a very interesting point and I can see where you are coming from.
This outlook does kind of put a kibosh on my idea of a concept “Guy that knowns things”. The guy that doesn’t need steady hands as he can just give instructions to the street samurai. He doesn’t need a forceful personality, he will just give leverage to the party face, then let the face apply it.


Knowledge is not only facts. Knowledge is knowing the right question to ask, then being able to understand the results, and then being able to meaningfully combine the results of different questions into a sensible conclusion.
If you google a botany question and get five 60-page papers, you're going to need some of those Knowledge ranks to even understand the titles and abstracts, never mind the contents.

While I do agree with this in part. I think there is certainly a skill “using Google” and how important that skill is compared to the particular knowledge I am unsure of. “Using Google” becomes much better if you have a particular question in mind.
Shadorun (one version at least) kind of handles it with the data search skill. This skill pretty much replaces any knowledge skill concerned with specific questions.


I hate the knowledge skills. I see them as something made for the casual player that does not care about the game. The casual player is just too lazy to care about knowing things, so they have to roll and have the DM tell them everything.
I try to encourage players to simply role play through the game, and not just roll a dice.
Often, when the bad players roll play by using knowledge checks, I just waste their time and tell them things they already know. Or at least should know.

I don't like knowledge skills. I want my players to take in and interpret the information I give them about the world to make decisions and solve problems. If there is information their characters should have, I give it to them. Additional knowledge is gained by roleplay: the players get information if they think to ask the right questions or have their characters ask the right people or search in the right places. That's the point of playing the game, thinking and figuring things out.
In this kind of game "the guy that knows stuff" is not a valid archetype. All characters start out as "guys that don't know stuff" and become "guys that know stuff" over time as they explore the world and gain experience.

So many things raised by these two posts (and other Thrudd replies)

I can see how starting at lvl 1 as a blank slate and learning about the world has a certain appeal. I mean it does nicly tie IC knowledge to OOC knowledge. This again certainly makes the concept as person that knows stuff a none starter. (A problem for me as I like that concept)

I would like to say just because I like the concept of “guy that knows stuff” does not mean I am a bad role player or a lazy player or a casual gamer or any other deogatory term you would care to level. I love exploring new worlds. I know how to play my character and just because my style is not yourrs does not some how make me Bad or Lazy it just means I have a different style.

I think we both have hang ups on knowledge skills. Thrudd and Darth Ultron not liking them because of players in the past expecting them to be a “win button”.

I have had issues with GMs in the past telling me something about the world in session 2. Then a year later building an encounter on that one bit of information and then when I ask for clarification getting a “Well I told you once if you are so lazy you can be bothered to remember then your character suffers.”

Mechalich
2016-02-04, 08:11 AM
Generally, TTRPGs allow players to have characters do things they don't actually know how to do - ranging from swinging a sword to making a sword to captaining a ship in high winds and on and on.

As such TTRPGs also need to allow players have characters who know things they don't actually know. I don't know how to read nautical charts properly, but if I was playing a ship captain that character ought to have that ability, and that capability needs to be mechanically represented - misreading a chart is absolutely something that could get the whole party killed.

The knowledge skills serve an extremely important purpose in d20 - the real problem is they serve that purpose poorly. The skills system in general is one of the weakest areas of the d20 system and the knowledge skills are particularly bad (not as bad as diplomacy by RAW, but still very problematic), and they are based around highly arbitrary judgment calls in the first place, since the GM has to decide how obscure some particular set of facts actually is.

Lacco
2016-02-04, 08:24 AM
This is a major shift in perspective than what I am used to (kind of why I asked the question). It is certainly a very interesting point and I can see where you are coming from.
This outlook does kind of put a kibosh on my idea of a concept “Guy that knowns things”. The guy that doesn’t need steady hands as he can just give instructions to the street samurai. He doesn’t need a forceful personality, he will just give leverage to the party face, then let the face apply it.

...and I would play this as a class. Basically a support guy, whose main schtick is providing information (this could work with well-prepared worlds, where enough information is provided, such as Forgotten Realms and players who like to read a lot/question the GM a lot between the sessions), which then transforms into bonuses/advantages for other PCs.


I can see how starting at lvl 1 as a blank slate and learning about the world has a certain appeal. I mean it does nicly tie IC knowledge to OOC knowledge. This again certainly makes the concept as person that knows stuff a none starter. (A problem for me as I like that concept)

Amnesia works well too. As a GM I am still waiting for a player to come and say "I want the amnesia flaw, here is an empty charsheet"... :smallsmile:


Generally, TTRPGs allow players to have characters do things they don't actually know how to do - ranging from swinging a sword to making a sword to captaining a ship in high winds and on and on.

As such TTRPGs also need to allow players have characters who know things they don't actually know. I don't know how to read nautical charts properly, but if I was playing a ship captain that character ought to have that ability, and that capability needs to be mechanically represented - misreading a chart is absolutely something that could get the whole party killed.

The knowledge skills serve an extremely important purpose in d20 - the real problem is they serve that purpose poorly. The skills system in general is one of the weakest areas of the d20 system and the knowledge skills are particularly bad (not as bad as diplomacy by RAW, but still very problematic), and they are based around highly arbitrary judgment calls in the first place, since the GM has to decide how obscure some particular set of facts actually is.

Are there any systems where better solution is found for knowledge skills? Or do you have any pointers how to make something better? I would be interested in getting some ideas, for me the knowledge system works, but I always want to tinker and improve the systems I work with...

goto124
2016-02-04, 08:41 AM
GM: Amnesia doesn't affect your STR score! At least fill in that bit!
:smalltongue:

Lacco
2016-02-04, 08:45 AM
GM: Amnesia doesn't affect your STR score! At least fill in that bit!

I agree. However, if you start the game with full amnesia, I assume you woke up with a hole where your memory was just as the game starts. Until you test your strength, you don't know how strong you are. But we digress... :smallsmile:

Earthwalker
2016-02-04, 09:04 AM
I agree. However, if you start the game with full amnesia, I assume you woke up with a hole where your memory was just as the game starts. Until you test your strength, you don't know how strong you are. But we digress... :smallsmile:

I seem to remember the flaw in shadowrun had two levels.
Low level Amnesia you made a character sheet with stats / skills as normal but couldnt remember your past GM fills it in.
highest points value Amnesia you didnt get to know anything. So you basically played without a character sheet. I remember it being very annoying with every situation the amnesiac in the group trying to work out what they could do....

I am guess this was prolly house rules by the GM at the time as it seemed so crazy.

Lacco
2016-02-04, 10:35 AM
I seem to remember the flaw in shadowrun had two levels.
Low level Amnesia you made a character sheet with stats / skills as normal but couldnt remember your past GM fills it in.
highest points value Amnesia you didnt get to know anything. So you basically played without a character sheet. I remember it being very annoying with every situation the amnesiac in the group trying to work out what they could do....

I am guess this was prolly house rules by the GM at the time as it seemed so crazy.

It works this way in ROS (minor amnesia = you don't know your background, major amnesia = you don't know anything about your character).

However, this would be a debate for a separate thread I think - how to pull of the amnesia thing without much fuss. Anyone interested? I have few pointers, but I only had a character who "forgot" last 3 years of his life...

Segev
2016-02-04, 11:20 AM
You use Knowledge skills/stats/whatever for the same reason you use Pickpocketing ones: to see if the CHARACTER can do something. You don't let a character pick a pocket just because the player can describe the perfect method to do so, nor do you deny him the ability just because all the player knows is that it's a "near-magical" ability to get something from a pocket into your hand without the pocket-owner noticing.

Thrudd
2016-02-04, 12:29 PM
You use Knowledge skills/stats/whatever for the same reason you use Pickpocketing ones: to see if the CHARACTER can do something. You don't let a character pick a pocket just because the player can describe the perfect method to do so, nor do you deny him the ability just because all the player knows is that it's a "near-magical" ability to get something from a pocket into your hand without the pocket-owner noticing.

But knowledge isn't "doing something". That's the only problem with it. What does a skill list full of knowledge skills let your character do? It is highly subjective and basically DM's decision in all cases. It is a skill the player spent points on that only serves the purpose of giving the DM an excuse to reveal information (which they probably wanted to reveal anyway).

Sure, there are ways knowledge skills like this could be fixed. A DM could limit them to a few well-defined categories and design specific objective uses for them. Make them work like other skills, in other words. In which case, calling them "knowledge" isn't even really necessary.

Like NichG said, it makes more sense to just say what the character can do. Information known by the character can be extrapolated from their profession and background (if such things are used). Profession and craft skills come with them associated knowledge which is adequate for roleplaying purposes. It is a more efficient way of describing a character's background.

Your character is a sea captain? Just saying that means they know a whole slew of things which are pointless to break down into individual numbers. Can the sea captain read a map? Yes. Can the captain read the tides and weather? Yes. Can the captain identify different types of seagoing vessels? Yes. Unless the game is literally about simulating the details of piloting a ship, there is little point in breaking down his knowledge in a more granular way.

Thrudd
2016-02-04, 12:34 PM
I have had issues with GMs in the past telling me something about the world in session 2. Then a year later building an encounter on that one bit of information and then when I ask for clarification getting a “Well I told you once if you are so lazy you can be bothered to remember then your character suffers.”

That is just being a d*** DM. Having a knowkedge skill wouldn't change that.

Segev
2016-02-04, 12:41 PM
But knowledge isn't "doing something". That's the only problem with it. What does a skill list full of knowledge skills let your character do? It is highly subjective and basically DM's decision in all cases. It is a skill the player spent points on that only serves the purpose of giving the DM an excuse to reveal information (which they probably wanted to reveal anyway).

Sure, there are ways knowledge skills like this could be fixed. A DM could limit them to a few well-defined categories and design specific objective uses for them. Make them work like other skills, in other words. In which case, calling them "knowledge" isn't even really necessary.

Like NichG said, it makes more sense to just say what the character can do. Information known by the character can be extrapolated from their profession and background (if such things are used). Profession and craft skills come with them associated knowledge which is adequate for roleplaying purposes. It is a more efficient way of describing a character's background.

Your character is a sea captain? Just saying that means they know a whole slew of things which are pointless to break down into individual numbers. Can the sea captain read a map? Yes. Can the captain read the tides and weather? Yes. Can the captain identify different types of seagoing vessels? Yes. Unless the game is literally about simulating the details of piloting a ship, there is little point in breaking down his knowledge in a more granular way.
That's certainly one way to do it. "Profession:Scholar" is too much for D&D to let it work that way, but I personally have seen a lot of DMs allow most Profession skills to cover a smattering of other skills where they relate to the profession in question. It can't substitute completely, but it can cover specific instances.

Thrudd
2016-02-04, 12:55 PM
That's certainly one way to do it. "Profession:Scholar" is too much for D&D to let it work that way, but I personally have seen a lot of DMs allow most Profession skills to cover a smattering of other skills where they relate to the profession in question. It can't substitute completely, but it can cover specific instances.

Profession: scholar is too vague in any case. Scholar of what? literature? Medieval history? Mathematics?
The point is making sure the skill accurately portrays something the character can do.

VoxRationis
2016-02-04, 12:56 PM
But knowledge isn't "doing something". That's the only problem with it. What does a skill list full of knowledge skills let your character do? It is highly subjective and basically DM's decision in all cases. It is a skill the player spent points on that only serves the purpose of giving the DM an excuse to reveal information (which they probably wanted to reveal anyway).

It lets your character gain information, at least on the mechanical level (in-universe, the gain of information took place beforehand and is only now being revealed to the player, but that's quibbling). That's not a goal unheard-of in other aspects of game mechanics. Lots of spells exist to gain information. Other skills exist in various systems to gain information.

And you keep referring to cases of bad DMing to discredit a game mechanic. If the DM wants or relies on the players knowing something, then he should tell them. But a good DM doesn't require that a particular attack roll succeed, or a particular spell succeed. The adventure goes on regardless, and that's how it should be for knowledge rolls. The knowledge rolls grant advantages in the adventure (that's why they're worth the investment), but they neither are required to succeed nor obviate the rest of the adventure.

Tiktakkat
2016-02-04, 01:00 PM
Again, why does there need to be a skill for any of that? Mysteries with obscure knowledge that requires research would be something the players do through roleplay during the game.

Why does there need to be a skill for finding a trap?
Why not just require the players to "role-play" the explicit steps they take in examining every object?


As a DM, I don't assume my players know anything, especially in my own setting. Anything I didn't tell them about the setting, I assume they don't know. I tell them what they need to know to create characters that fit into the setting, and to play the game as 1st level characters. Everything else is meant to be discovered through play, asking questions, interacting with NPCs, exploring the world, trial and error, etc.

That's a whole lot of assuming.


If a player makes a blunderous decision that seems like their character should have known to avoid, I might say "are you sure you want to do that? Your character probably knows tugging on the dwarf's beard is a serious insult". But usually, they know what they're doing, even if I didn't give them a dissertation on dwarven culture in my setting.

That's a whole of lot of subjective decision making for the design and background of another player.


Appendix N was never a required reading list for players. Most of the books on it are only peripherally related to the creation of D&D. It is inspiration for DMs. Also, it appeared in the Dungeon Master's Guide, which was intended only to be seen by the Dungeon Master.

Well, no.
While it wasn't required, it reflected the depth of experience in the genre that most players of games of that sort had at the time the game was written. It certainly reflected what Gary Gygax had read, and which had a significant impact on his writing of the game, both in style and content.
It was never intended to only be seen by one person in a group, as if that person was in a position somehow exclusive of every other participant.


If a player doesn't know something I thought they would about the real world, and that knowledge is required to solve a puzzle or some such in my game (like a five-elements arranging puzzle), well that's too bad. They'll either figure it out by in-game experimenting, or they won't get it. You don't get a free pass with a number on your sheet and a roll of the die.

Except it isn't a free pass. It is a limited character resource being used in a hard-wired mechanical manner.
By your reasoning, if a player cannot demonstrate a particular kind of parry, then they should not get a "free pass" with the BAB "number on [their] sheet and a roll of the die." (Never mind going right back to finding and disarming traps.)

Tiktakkat
2016-02-04, 01:28 PM
@Tiktakkat: In practice (aka in actual tabletop gameplay), do you encounter problems with Knowledge Skills that boil down to not getting the details of various types of Knowledge correctly? I have never experienced issues with the "DM tells the players what their characters know" model. The worst issue I can think of is the players later discovering a fact of the world, causing said players to tell the DM "hey my character should've known this fact already for [reasons], but you didn't tell me". Not that I've actually run into that issue. [/sincerity]

I was heavily involved in organized play with the RPGA Living Greyhawk campaign.
"Yes" doesn't begin to cover my answer to that.
Granted that represents multiple extremes in play experience and player expectation and attitude, but it is definitely there.
From setting details to trope structures, assuming people would "get" something and writing five pages of NPC exposition to "explain" things were the biggest factors in derailing adventures.

While not as common in ordinary play, particularly when you get a new player in an unfamiliar setting they can be just as much a trap.

As it goes:

Don't use easy-to-solve 'puzzles' if you want the puzzles to be hard to solve. Just create hard-to-solve puzzles.

This is one of those prime categories of the differences in subjective knowledge, with two anecdotes from my LG experience showcasing the effect.

First Example
An adventure featured magic squares as a puzzle challenge.
The text indicated that one of the magic squares could "confuse" players with a different potential answer.
I read that, looked at the magic square, and was utterly baffled at how such a thing could possibly happen. I know what magic squares are, how to resolve them, and there was simply only one possible answer.
Then I ran the adventure, and as I was presenting it to the players I suddenly understood what he meant. There was another way of looking at the puzzle that could make it a sequence fill-in instead of a magic square. And of course, the players promptly leaped at that answer because none of them knew what the heck a magic square even was.
With no Knowledge task DC included that one puzzle that was absurdly easy to me but next to impossible to the actual players would have derailed the entire adventure.

Second Example
While being editor for another author on an adventure he decided he wanted a puzzle challenge. I mentioned not to assume that players would be able to solve it, and he said he knew the problem and would keep it in mind.
He settled on a chess puzzle from a book, a very common type of puzzle, but of course requiring at least some ability to play chess to resolve it.
And then . . .
He moved one piece over one square, making it impossible to solve.
The "puzzle" was not a chess puzzle anymore, but a "how to cheat and get away with it puzzle".
It didn't matter if you knew chess or not, you could resolve the puzzle with a variety of other skills.
And then . . .
One of my personal friends is a rated chess player.
So when he played the adventure he looked at the puzzle, thought about it for around 15 seconds, and announced "It can't be done. We have to cheat."
The DM looked at him shocked how he could do it so fast, and called it to the attention of the author who was standing nearby talking with me.
I laughed and said "On, you have my friend at your table. Yeah. That's what I expected would happen when he played it."
In that case, he subverted the subverted puzzle. Instead of needing 15 minutes to give up and try to cheat, he "solved" that it wasn't a chess puzzle instantly and moved on to solving the "how to cheat and get away with it puzzle" without losing any time.
Mind you, had it been a chess puzzle, it would have been less-than-easy for him. It would have been medium-hard for me. And most likely difficult to impossible for many players. As a non-chess puzzle, it was a moderate-to-easy role-playing puzzle for everyone, with a moderate-to-easy skill resolution for everyone (depending on personality and character design).

What any particular player knows and what sort of task any particular player finds easy is MASSIVELY subjective. (Can I highlight that anymore?)
While they can be cheesy short-cuts to wallowing in die-rolling, Knowledge skills, or other skills, or even just ability score checks, are pretty much essential to getting past the wide range of differences in individuals for a variety of challenges that can appear in a game.

Segev
2016-02-04, 02:56 PM
Puzzles are, if not a frequent, then at least a perennial topic of threads on RPG forums, because the eternal question is whether they're something for the PLAYERS to solve, or something for the CHARACTERS to solve. It's similar to the roleplaying social situations problem.

The trouble, of course, being that a puzzle becomes just a roll or two if it's for the players to solve, but doesn't use the PCs' stats much if at all if it's for the players to solve.

The best approach I've seen to it is to have the puzzle rely on information that is impossible to have from real-world experience. Use background information from the setting, use rules for some game in the setting, or something like that. Basic knowledge rolls are used to build up that background information for the players. If it's enough for the players to solve it, great; move on. If they're stumped, still, more information is available through other gameplay avenues that ultimately lead to triggering more knowledge rolls. The more rolls they make, the more hints are dropped, until the PCs can in theory solve it through nothing but rolls and the DM telling them how to do it. But it's an incremental process, so the players are either playing a sub-game of finding the triggers for knowledge checks, or they're playing the sub-game of solving the puzzle for themselves. But they HAD to make some knowledge gathering efforts before they could even really start. (Obviously, this can't be a show-stopper if the knowledge checks there can fail, but if they're just a short-cut past having to explore other parts of the dungeon for the answer, that's fine.)

Thrudd
2016-02-04, 06:21 PM
Why does there need to be a skill for finding a trap?
Why not just require the players to "role-play" the explicit steps they take in examining every object?

Except it isn't a free pass. It is a limited character resource being used in a hard-wired mechanical manner.
By your reasoning, if a player cannot demonstrate a particular kind of parry, then they should not get a "free pass" with the BAB "number on [their] sheet and a roll of the die." (Never mind going right back to finding and disarming traps.)

For the first comment: in some cases I do want/expect that. The players at least need to examine the environment enough to decide whether they need the thief to search for traps. If there is no thief, then role play solutions are all they have access to.

On the second comment: The distinction is that the game is not about players mimicing sword fights. Combat is abstracted to a single die roll that represents a whole period of fighting with its attendant activities. The game IS about players thinking and figuring things out. For this reason, you don't need mechanics to determine what the characters know, because I want to know what the players think, not what their characters would think.

For an analogy: I see rolling knowledge skills to be similar to a Risk player rolling to see what country they should invade and where to put their reinforcements, in addition to the results of the invasions. Or maybe more accurately, asking a Risk expert looking over their shoulder where to make their moves. And all the players are asking the same Risk expert what they should do on each of their turns. Those are things the player should be deciding, it's the whole point of the game. Yes, maybe the Risk game will progress as though each of the players are strategic masterminds (the argument that the characters should all be heroes with exceptional abilities and not depend on the player's ability). Except, the players aren't really playing the game and aren't being challenged in any way. This analogy situation actually has better results than in D&D, because at least the players will get to see a Risk expert play and might learn something for next time. Rolling for their characters to solve all the problems and remember the important info does not help them get better at figuring things out or remembering things.

I'm not sure what the examples of the magic square or fake chess puzzle were meant to convey, other than how difficulty is relative to a person's experience, but both of those sound like great examples of players solving puzzles without knowledge skills, sometimes in unexpected ways. I wouldn't see a problem with the chess expert solving it in 15 seconds, that's awesome. It also is fine if the players can't solve it and need to pass it by after thinking on it for a while. Your whole adventure shouldn't be bottlenecked behind a task that the players could possibly fail at. Solving a puzzle deserves the reward, regardless of how long it took to solve it.

You don't need to "get around" differences in players' abilities. Let the players play, succeed or fail, as they will.

Tiktakkat
2016-02-04, 10:31 PM
For the first comment: in some cases I do want/expect that. The players at least need to examine the environment enough to decide whether they need the thief to search for traps. If there is no thief, then role play solutions are all they have access to.

On the second comment: The distinction is that the game is not about players mimicing sword fights. Combat is abstracted to a single die roll that represents a whole period of fighting with its attendant activities. The game IS about players thinking and figuring things out. For this reason, you don't need mechanics to determine what the characters know, because I want to know what the players think, not what their characters would think.

According to you.
Not according to a lot of people.
And not according to the actual rules.
While the game can be played more simulationist in the combat and less in the problem solving and the social interactions, it can also be done the other way.

As for what the players think versus what their characters think, that is definitely not in the rules. The game is not structured as an avatar LARP, though it can be played that way.

Of course when you take that too far, you run into the problem of losing any random variability in regards to success. Particularly with social skills, everything becomes dependent on the DM's whim for success or failure. The players must be able to read the DM's mind to know the "proper" resolution of certain challenges.
Random die rolls within a skill system are supposed to reduce that.


For an analogy: I see rolling knowledge skills to be similar to a Risk player rolling to see what country they should invade and where to put their reinforcements, in addition to the results of the invasions. Or maybe more accurately, asking a Risk expert looking over their shoulder where to make their moves. And all the players are asking the same Risk expert what they should do on each of their turns.

Except of course those aren't in the rules of Risk, while knowledge and other skills are in the rules for many RPGs.


I'm not sure what the examples of the magic square or fake chess puzzle were meant to convey, other than how difficulty is relative to a person's experience, but both of those sound like great examples of players solving puzzles without knowledge skills, sometimes in unexpected ways.

Except the players didn't solve the puzzles without knowledge (or other) skills.
In the magic square, I as the DM solved it, and was confused by the references to a false alternate "solution" in the text, until I saw players about to make the mistake. Without the possibility of a skill check the players would have lost catastrophically simply because none of them had ever encountered the particular puzzle form.
In the chess puzzle, my friend being able to "solve" the surface puzzle is an amusing personal anecdote to highlight the point that design must account for people who aren't master rated players in a particular activity. Every other group I know of that has played the event took several minutes to decide to "cheat", and then were able to resolve the puzzle in other, accounted for, ways.


Your whole adventure shouldn't be bottlenecked behind a task that the players could possibly fail at.

Your whole adventure also shouldn't be bottlenecked behind a task that the players could not possibly succeed at.
Not because of the lack of a particular character class ability within the party;
Not because of the lack of a particular skill within the party;
And definitely not because of the lack of particular knowledge among the players of the characters in the party.

VoxRationis
2016-02-05, 10:51 AM
For an analogy: I see rolling knowledge skills to be similar to a Risk player rolling to see what country they should invade and where to put their reinforcements, in addition to the results of the invasions. Or maybe more accurately, asking a Risk expert looking over their shoulder where to make their moves. And all the players are asking the same Risk expert what they should do on each of their turns. Those are things the player should be deciding, it's the whole point of the game. Yes, maybe the Risk game will progress as though each of the players are strategic masterminds (the argument that the characters should all be heroes with exceptional abilities and not depend on the player's ability). Except, the players aren't really playing the game and aren't being challenged in any way. This analogy situation actually has better results than in D&D, because at least the players will get to see a Risk expert play and might learn something for next time. Rolling for their characters to solve all the problems and remember the important info does not help them get better at figuring things out or remembering things.

Except that it's more like asking an expert Risk player which spaces connect overseas. Yes, the answer will inform one's decisions (as well it should), but it's far from being told what to do. This is a fundamental flaw in your thinking regarding knowledge skills: you aren't (or at least shouldn't be) telling the players, when they make a knowledge roll, what to do in their situation. You are giving them more information about their situation. Given that information, a player may make a completely different strategic choice than you would.

Furthermore, Risk does not have 100–300 pages of ethnographies, geographies, histories, bestiaries, and other supplementary information attached to it. Its rules are fairly simple, posited to the players from the beginning, and all other information (except for the cards) is there on the board.
A well-fleshed-out setting has vast amounts of information, some but not all of which is appropriate for the characters to know. Which sections of this information are appropriate to know in-character aren't always clear, or easily determined by a generalization of the character's background. It's also difficult to sit down and give all this information to players at the beginning of the game, unlike in Risk. Many tables don't like it if you give them a required reading list prior to starting play.

Edit: To provide a counteranalogy, when playing chess, the same information is available to all chess players ever at the start of the game, but people's opening moves differ, and sometimes their opening strategies vary wildly. Giving them information isn't telling them what to do, just enabling them to make an informed decision. Or to compare it to an RTS game: Knowledge checks are like scouting. They don't solve your problems, but they do tell you what the problems are.

Darth Ultron
2016-02-06, 08:26 AM
Am I a casual player that does not care about the game? Am I too lazy to know things?

Yes.


My problem is the opposite: Where the character has Int as a dump stat and the player knows way more than the character would possibly know, and refuses to "role play" their ignorance.



I think this is fine. I think the average D&D folk would all know things like ''fight trolls with fire''. I think it's crazy when DM's try and say ''ok, your characters are clueless and don't know common stuff''.


You use Knowledge skills/stats/whatever for the same reason you use Pickpocketing ones: to see if the CHARACTER can do something. You don't let a character pick a pocket just because the player can describe the perfect method to do so, nor do you deny him the ability just because all the player knows is that it's a "near-magical" ability to get something from a pocket into your hand without the pocket-owner noticing.

I'm fine with this. As DM I'll tell the character the information.....but not the player. The same way the player does not know how to pick pockets or cast spells, they don't know the information either.

Kyberwulf
2016-02-06, 10:32 AM
I use it like most skills. If they are passively using it. They can just use it without trying. Like Stealth checks. You can walk around and most of the time people don't hear you. It's kind of cool that way cause it adds coolness to a character.

Knowledge checks. Are the same. For the most part, you don't need to make a check. You can look at something and depending on your knowledge passive skills, glean a lot of general knowledge. Specifics and what not require a check. Also I allow some crossover from knowledge checks. Say for instances you see a building. Three people can look at it. One will tell you a lot of Religious facts. Another will be fascinated by the Architect. While another will tell you about all the happenings around, how it serves as a soup Kitchen, and which of the towns officials go their to their thing.

Same thing with Dungeoneering, Mining and geology. Some things don't mess well.

ON the whole thing of using what you know as a player, such as battle tactics and whatnot. That's metagaming.

Segev
2016-02-06, 04:55 PM
I'm fine with this. As DM I'll tell the character the information.....but not the player. The same way the player does not know how to pick pockets or cast spells, they don't know the information either.

This is an interesting approach. How does it look in actual play?

Darth Ultron
2016-02-06, 08:27 PM
This is an interesting approach. How does it look in actual play?

It is simple enough. The player says ''my character tells the noble things'' and the player knows nothing of what is said.

gtwucla
2016-02-06, 09:34 PM
I think this is one of those things that isn't an all or nothing approach. As the DM you take stock of what a player knows and when they run into things I let them know what it is if I feel like they've either experienced it before (based on their backstory) or because of their knowledge skills. I generally ask for knowledge checks when characters want more details or if they are 'recalling' specific information they could know but wouldn't necessarily immediately put together in the situation. This approach hinders role playing in no way and it makes the players feel like the character they've designed is getting to do the things they'd designed them to do/know.

But as an added caveat general knowledge such as knowledge history or religion (basically all the knowledges as written) are rewarded with only vague or very general information, meaning there's usually no need for checks because you don't have access to details ( because your knowledges are too broad). I encourage the players to create their own knowledge types. The more specific, the more knowledge they're rewarded when it's applicable, i.e. Knowledge geography + knowledge history--> Knowledge (place) --> Knowledge (history of place) --> knowledge (history of place in this period). That's actually a step more specific than normal, but in letting players know where they are going to play, it aids in immersing oneself in the game. That said we play less of an encounter by encounter game and more of a living world game.

ImNotTrevor
2016-02-06, 11:08 PM
It is simple enough. The player says ''my character tells the noble things'' and the player knows nothing of what is said.

I would at least give them the gist of the conversation. Like "You talk to the noble about regional politics for a while. Crap neither of us know enough about to detail it, but the convsersation is at least pleasant."

Giving them literally nothing is bad. And having something that was said in this unheard conversation come back to haunt them would be a major **** move. So I hope that doesn't happen, at leaat.

Segev
2016-02-07, 12:08 AM
It is simple enough. The player says ''my character tells the noble things'' and the player knows nothing of what is said.


I would at least give them the gist of the conversation. Like "You talk to the noble about regional politics for a while. Crap neither of us know enough about to detail it, but the convsersation is at least pleasant."

Giving them literally nothing is bad. And having something that was said in this unheard conversation come back to haunt them would be a major **** move. So I hope that doesn't happen, at leaat.

I've rarely seen knowledge rolled so that a PC could tell an NPC something. I'm sure it can be done, but that's not the typical use for it.

The typical use for it is to give the PC information on which he can base decisions. "That symbol is the Ducal crest of a neighboring duchy, and that particular badge style is reserved for messengers carrying the personal words of the duke or his immediate family," for example. Or, "the arrow is tipped in a kind of berry juice native to this region; it's a paralytic toxin when injected directly into the bloodstream."

Darth Ultron
2016-02-07, 12:40 PM
The typical use for it is to give the PC information on which he can base decisions. "That symbol is the Ducal crest of a neighboring duchy, and that particular badge style is reserved for messengers carrying the personal words of the duke or his immediate family," for example. Or, "the arrow is tipped in a kind of berry juice native to this region; it's a paralytic toxin when injected directly into the bloodstream."

For me this goes back to the lazy, casual player. They don't want to role play and just want the DM to tell them everything. They might as well just get rid of the check part and just skip to the DM tells all part.

Tiktakkat
2016-02-07, 01:17 PM
For me this goes back to the lazy, casual player. They don't want to role play and just want the DM to tell them everything. They might as well just get rid of the check part and just skip to the DM tells all part.

Or they just might not know the setting well enough yet, or know the ways they could interact with it.
Rather than provide them a way in, your preference is to just ignore them and stick with die rolling, thus ensuring they will never be able to do anything else.
And of course it means you aren't role-playing either.
It also means you are denying any players who are already role-playing the benefit of picking up interaction with the setting through those the actions of those other players.

Rather than just rest on the scape-goat of the "lazy, casual player", who may be nothing of the sort, just keep developing the setting through skill check based exposition and see where it leads.
Unless you have an active player who outright prefers another style of play that doesn't involve engaging the background, everybody at the table wins that way.

Darth Ultron
2016-02-07, 01:29 PM
Or they just might not know the setting well enough yet, or know the ways they could interact with it.
Rather than provide them a way in, your preference is to just ignore them and stick with die rolling, thus ensuring they will never be able to do anything else.
And of course it means you aren't role-playing either.
It also means you are denying any players who are already role-playing the benefit of picking up interaction with the setting through those the actions of those other players.

Rather than just rest on the scape-goat of the "lazy, casual player", who may be nothing of the sort, just keep developing the setting through skill check based exposition and see where it leads.
Unless you have an active player who outright prefers another style of play that doesn't involve engaging the background, everybody at the table wins that way.

Well, my way is the pure role play way.

The Other Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-*rolls* DM tell me all about it''. Awesome roll play in action.

My Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-"Hum, guess we will just keep role playing the game and see if we can figure it out. Hey, lets go ask the druid we meet if he knows anything about that symbol''. See, pure role play.

VoxRationis
2016-02-07, 01:53 PM
Well, my way is the pure role play way.

The Other Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-*rolls* DM tell me all about it''. Awesome roll play in action.

My Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-"Hum, guess we will just keep role playing the game and see if we can figure it out. Hey, lets go ask the druid we meet if he knows anything about that symbol''. See, pure role play.

The "earn every scrap of trivia about the world through sweat and blood" approach turns knowledge from an aspect of your character to an inventory system. You can't play a scholar straight from the beginning. You can't play an expert in anything, and the fact that you're the only people in the setting who can't be experts in some aspect of lore is reinforced by the fact that the DM forces you to track down all the experts in order to pry even minor setting details out of him.

Darth Ultron
2016-02-07, 02:09 PM
The "earn every scrap of trivia about the world through sweat and blood" approach turns knowledge from an aspect of your character to an inventory system. You can't play a scholar straight from the beginning. You can't play an expert in anything, and the fact that you're the only people in the setting who can't be experts in some aspect of lore is reinforced by the fact that the DM forces you to track down all the experts in order to pry even minor setting details out of him.

Very true. You can not start the game at 1st level and be an all knowing scholar in exactly the same way you can't be an archmage or the most powerful swordsman in the land.

Weird that people think it is ok that a 1st level wizard does not have 9th level spells, but they say a 1st level scholar should know everything about everything....

Jormengand
2016-02-07, 02:17 PM
Very true. You can not start the game at 1st level and be an all knowing scholar in exactly the same way you can't be an archmage or the most powerful swordsman in the land.

Weird that people think it is ok that a 1st level wizard does not have 9th level spells, but they say a 1st level scholar should know everything about everything....

You start with cantrips and first-level spells. You don't have to pry the knowledge of burning hands out of the cold dead hands of Jon the Pyromancer, so why should you have to pry basic setting information out of the hands of Jim the Scholar?

Slipperychicken
2016-02-07, 02:26 PM
Well, my way is the pure role play way.

The Other Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-*rolls* DM tell me all about it''. Awesome roll play in action.

DM: "The orcs have a red snake on their armor"

Player: "Mot thinks back to his travels to recall the meaning of red snakes iconography" [rolls]

DM: "That is the symbol of the Blood-Snake Clan, a relatively new Orc house still looking to establish a place among the ruling Orc families"

Player (in-character): "I recognize this symbol. These are fighting-orcs of the Blood-Snake Clan. I saw their heraldry some years ago upon a voyage to Orsinium, though their armor was not so well-polished then. We should be wary, for this family seeks respect, which among Orcs is too often won through violence against foreigners like us."

Awesome role play in action.

VoxRationis
2016-02-07, 03:07 PM
Very true. You can not start the game at 1st level and be an all knowing scholar in exactly the same way you can't be an archmage or the most powerful swordsman in the land.

Weird that people think it is ok that a 1st level wizard does not have 9th level spells, but they say a 1st level scholar should know everything about everything....

That's a straw man argument. I wasn't saying that it's necessary that one be "all knowing," or even "the best" in a field. You can't even play a passable scholar under the Darth Ultron method! All you can know to begin with is common knowledge that everyone else in the party, as well as every NPC, knows. That's like saying the fighter has to start with a commoner's attack bonus, or saying the wizard begins without any spells, and has to mug other wizards and take their spellbooks in order to actually start doing their job.

Edit: And that's ignoring the fact that at higher levels, when the wizard is an archmage and the fighter is the greatest swordsman in the land, one's intended scholar, under the Darth Ultron/Thrudd method, still doesn't know any more than the rest of the party, and likely still only knows a handful of disjointed facts about an eclectic assortment of things that wise old NPCs have told them relating to local dungeons, rather than anything resembling a coherent body of study.

Tiktakkat
2016-02-07, 06:11 PM
Well, my way is the pure role play way.

The Other Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-*rolls* DM tell me all about it''. Awesome roll play in action.

My Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-"Hum, guess we will just keep role playing the game and see if we can figure it out. Hey, lets go ask the druid we meet if he knows anything about that symbol''. See, pure role play.

Actually, your way sounds a whole lot more like the Power Tripping DM Blaming The Players For Not Grokking His Power Tripping Awesomeness And Punishing Them For Not Reading His Mind way.

The Other Way:
DM: "The orcs have a red snake on their armor."
Player: "Is there some information about that I may have come across in my studies?" *rolls*
DM: "The Blood Serpent orcs are known for their use of poisons."
Player: (to the rest of the party) "That is the sign of the Blood Serpent orcs. We should be ready with counters to the poisons they use in battle."
Other Player: "Hey, I wonder if we can get some from that druid we saw in town."
Yet Another Player: "Maybe he knows more about these orcs that could help."
Player: "What might I know about the druid that would help me convince him to help us?" *rolls*

Wow. Lot's of party engagement and role-play there, even from the other players who weren't previously involved.

Your Way:
DM: "The orcs have a red snake on their armor."
Player: "Is there some information about that I may have come across in my studies?"
DM: "I don't know, is there?"
Player: Well, I said during the last down time session I was studying up on the region. Was there anything in what I studied?"
DM: "I don't know, was there?"
Player: "Whatever, let's keep going."
<after the poison-fueled TPK>
Player: "Well that sucked."
DM: "It's your own fault for not going back to town and asking the Old Ranger NPC."
Other Player: "The who?"
DM: "The Old Ranger NPC. He could have told you all about the Blood Serpent orcs, and the poisons they use. You would have been completely immune."
Other Player: "How were we supposed to know he could tell us that?"
DM: "You could have asked in town before heading out, or gone back to get the information."
Yet Another Player: "We didn't have time. You gave us the mission fifteen minutes after we sat down in the tavern, and told us it was time sensitive and we had to leave at once."
DM: "That was just in character. It's not my fault you didn't ask first or go back."
Player: "And my research beforehand?"
DM: "What about it? You never said which books you read."
Player: "You never told me what titles were available."
DM: "You never asked. Next time don't be so lazy, and role-play instead of roll-play."
All the Players: . . .

Hmmm . . . No real chance for role-play, and probably a group looking for another DM that way.

Segev
2016-02-07, 06:14 PM
For me this goes back to the lazy, casual player. They don't want to role play and just want the DM to tell them everything. They might as well just get rid of the check part and just skip to the DM tells all part.


Well, my way is the pure role play way.

The Other Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-*rolls* DM tell me all about it''. Awesome roll play in action.

My Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-"Hum, guess we will just keep role playing the game and see if we can figure it out. Hey, lets go ask the druid we meet if he knows anything about that symbol''. See, pure role play.
So, your definition of "pure role play" is "whatever the player knows, the character knows." Thus, if the player has red about this campaign setting, his street rat who has never seen an orc not only knows the intricate tribal customs of the Red Snake Orc clan, but the secret handshake that can be offered to any orc to get them to sit down and parley.

But the guy playing a ranger who has orcs as his favored enemy and has grown up in the region where the party is encountering these orcs because this is Red Snake territory, but who hasn't read the obscure campaign book that has all the details of this particular tribe, is totally clueless.


You realize that Knowledge skills exist to help the player, who neither wants to metagame nor fail to have his PC know things that his PC should know based on backstory and mechanics, to determine if his character does, in fact, have a relevant piece of knowledge. Your "pure role play" way is actually "pure metagaming."

goto124
2016-02-07, 09:25 PM
Would Darth Ultron be a good game developer?

VoxRationis
2016-02-07, 09:35 PM
Would Darth Ultron be a good game developer?

I feel like we can't answer that question without getting unacceptably personal for the standards of this forum. Frankly, all the "my way/your way" talk, and a few of my own comments ("The Darth Ultron method"), are skirting the edge of civility already.

Slipperychicken
2016-02-07, 10:46 PM
I feel like we can't answer that question without getting unacceptably personal for the standards of this forum.

We crossed that line a long, long time ago.

Either that, or the forum's standards dropped since I took a hiatus from posting here. I'm not sure which.

Mechalich
2016-02-08, 12:50 AM
To bring this back a little, it is important to remember that while d20 system games do not allow a player to roll up a world-class scholar at 1st level, plenty of other systems do allow that and in fact may even encourage that character concept as highly important (ex. many high-tech games value 'hacker' type characters who necessarily have fairly high levels of several knowledge types). In such a game restricting a player to developing a character that utilizes only the knowledge they personally possess is incredibly restrictive, unfair, and quite possibly makes the game unplayable (ex. no doctors and nurses in your gaming group means no healers).

d20 has a problem in that the Knowledge skills often represent tactical hacks - they are a highly cumbersome system designed to represent a sort of 'fog of war' with respect to the monster manual, and they are powerful enough that TPK scenarios can easily hang on whether or not some character has sufficient knowledge of a monster to tell the party they really need to run away right now or something - but that's a tactical and mechanical problem with how d20 represents knowledges (and is actually a sub-problem of d20s skill system and its encouragement of all or nothing skill progression), not a problem with the idea of players producing characters who have a large degree of knowledge about a world.

Now, there is an argument that players who take high levels of knowledges shouldn't be super-lazy about it. Hypothetical character knowledge is not an excuse to make the GM spoon-feed you all the time. In the case of published settings that means the player needs to read up about the setting a bunch. In the case of mundane knowledge, then the player should probably read a few Wikipedia articles just to get a feel for when their knowledge would be relevant.

hifidelity2
2016-02-08, 10:17 AM
To bring this back a little, it is important to remember that while d20 system games do not allow a player to roll up a world-class scholar at 1st level, plenty of other systems do allow that and in fact may even encourage that character concept as highly important (ex. many high-tech games value 'hacker' type characters who necessarily have fairly high levels of several knowledge types). In such a game restricting a player to developing a character that utilizes only the knowledge they personally possess is incredibly restrictive, unfair, and quite possibly makes the game unplayable (ex. no doctors and nurses in your gaming group means no healers).

In the case of mundane knowledge, then the player should probably read a few Wikipedia articles just to get a feel for when their knowledge would be relevant.
I agree to a degree
Take a Modern setting - I pl;ay a doctor and put some of my "Skill Point" into Medicine
Now by doing this I am weakening my Character in other areas (Say sneak)
A party member gets shot / stabbed etc. I will just use my medicine skill. I as a PC dont need to know what to do - afterall I have not spent 7 years in medical school. So if the DM expects me to give them a runnign commentry on what I am doing to save thier life then they will be in for a big shock

Earthwalker
2016-02-08, 10:27 AM
For me this goes back to the lazy, casual player. They don't want to role play and just want the DM to tell them everything. They might as well just get rid of the check part and just skip to the DM tells all part.

Lazy and causual are loaded words and cast people not playing the same way as you in a negative light with no proof provided.

Saying that someone who uses knowledge skill also does not want to role play is equally false.
Different people find diffreent aspects of a role playing game fun. If someone enjoys different aspect fun to what you find that does not make them casual players, Lazy players, Bad players or people that don’t want to role play.


Well, my way is the pure role play way.
The Other Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-*rolls* DM tell me all about it''. Awesome roll play in action.
My Way: DM: ''the orcs have a red snake on their armor'' Player-"Hum, guess we will just keep role playing the game and see if we can figure it out. Hey, lets go ask the druid we meet if he knows anything about that symbol''. See, pure role play.

Oddly in your example you use a term for role playing that I do not find fun.

Lets take an example of a character I have recently made for a game. This character has the aspect “Shy around new people”. Meaning that he finds it very difficult talking to new people and it can provide a negative on roles when in social situations with new people.

So when the information needed to succeed is only available through a new druid as a player I am stuck between choosing the role play my character or meta game my way through the social scene to get the information I need.

See I think the idea of character knowledge tied to player knowledge can work. Your character knows what your player knows. Its simple but it does have problems.

It works well when you start as lvl 1 characters. It fall to bits when you start as higher level.
When players have already played to lvl 20 and start again in the same world its also weird, so is character death. Oh bob died but here is andy and he knows the same as bob some how.

Its also worth mentioning that DnD has other systems that provide information to the player that is given because of a dice roll.

Pathfinder examples -

Perception
Sense Motive
Diplomacy (gather information)
Disable Device (searching for traps)

Flickerdart
2016-02-08, 11:50 AM
Yes.
Explain how. My character would know this information. I, as a player, could not possibly know this information. Hell, most player wouldn't be interested in it.

Why does wanting to learn more about the setting make me lazy and casual?

Tiktakkat
2016-02-08, 01:12 PM
So when the information needed to succeed is only available through a new druid as a player I am stuck between choosing the role play my character or meta game my way through the social scene to get the information I need.

See I think the idea of character knowledge tied to player knowledge can work. Your character knows what your player knows. Its simple but it does have problems.

Particularly if the player happens to know the setting better than the DM or the author of a published adventure, and rolling knowledge checks is more an exercise in asking the DM how much you can act on and share with the party rather than seeing how much he will tell you.

And then there are the completely outrageous bits of general knowledge/trivia that a player has from study that a character absolutely could not know while the rest of the party is stumped. The group would have to choose between meta-gaming anyway or eating a total fail "just because".

Only rarely do you get situations where it is possible to role-play yourself through meta-gaming, though that can be harder that just getting quality role-play in the first place.

NichG
2016-02-08, 01:27 PM
Player knowledge = character knowledge works just fine in completely custom settings. There's no issue of unintentional prior knowledge in that case. It can then be done intentionally by using well-known tropes.

Segev
2016-02-08, 02:02 PM
Player knowledge = character knowledge works just fine in completely custom settings. There's no issue of unintentional prior knowledge in that case. It can then be done intentionally by using well-known tropes.

Even then, unless the PCs are all insertion characters from modern Earth in the culture and society of the players, some amount of knowledge of the world exists in the heads of the characters more thoroughly than it does in those of the players. They grew up there; the players have, at BEST, read a synopsis document.

If they come from disparate backgrounds in the setting, then it gets even worse; the sailor, the blacksmith's apprentice, the exiled noble, and the wandering charlatan will all have very different background experiences, knowing different things about sea monsters, the lower-class politics of the guilds, secret codes used to exchange information in bouquets of flowers, and the rumors that are growing more common from town to town.

The GM certainly can just tell them what they know, but if there's any doubt, having a knowledge check to see if a particularly obscure bit of information is one this particular sailor may have come across or not can be useful.

NichG
2016-02-08, 07:18 PM
Even then, unless the PCs are all insertion characters from modern Earth in the culture and society of the players, some amount of knowledge of the world exists in the heads of the characters more thoroughly than it does in those of the players. They grew up there; the players have, at BEST, read a synopsis document.

If they come from disparate backgrounds in the setting, then it gets even worse; the sailor, the blacksmith's apprentice, the exiled noble, and the wandering charlatan will all have very different background experiences, knowing different things about sea monsters, the lower-class politics of the guilds, secret codes used to exchange information in bouquets of flowers, and the rumors that are growing more common from town to town.

The GM certainly can just tell them what they know, but if there's any doubt, having a knowledge check to see if a particularly obscure bit of information is one this particular sailor may have come across or not can be useful.

I think this is a goal difference. Simulate a specified individual accurately, vs experience being that individual. The tradeoff of accuracy for immersion makes sense in that case.

That is to say, for accuracy you may need to consider that this person may have had a chance to encounter some random bit of knowledge. But if the goal is more to feel 'there', you can just say 'no, I haven't'. There's no need to ask the dice because you already know the answer.

Segev
2016-02-09, 09:25 AM
I think this is a goal difference. Simulate a specified individual accurately, vs experience being that individual. The tradeoff of accuracy for immersion makes sense in that case.

That is to say, for accuracy you may need to consider that this person may have had a chance to encounter some random bit of knowledge. But if the goal is more to feel 'there', you can just say 'no, I haven't'. There's no need to ask the dice because you already know the answer.

At that point, yes, you're playing yourself, inserted into the world. Which is valid, but not typically considered "role playing" unless you literally have that as your character concept.

NichG
2016-02-09, 10:25 AM
At that point, yes, you're playing yourself, inserted into the world. Which is valid, but not typically considered "role playing" unless you literally have that as your character concept.

Its not quite the same as just playing yourself. The character can have a different personality and mindset and so on, but what you try to do is to make it so that playing that different persona is as close to natural as being yourself is outside of the game. In theatre, it'd be called method acting I guess.

Segev
2016-02-09, 10:56 AM
Its not quite the same as just playing yourself. The character can have a different personality and mindset and so on, but what you try to do is to make it so that playing that different persona is as close to natural as being yourself is outside of the game. In theatre, it'd be called method acting I guess.

Method actors have to know everything their characters would know, at least as it relates to all scenes in which they appear.

Knowledge skills in a game help you find out what your character knows. It also helps you, the method actor, determine what the less-than-average-education character you're playing does not know despite your real-world education telling you about it. Sure, you can just decide, but that runs the risk of unrealistically deciding he's more ignorant than he should be (in the name of "being fair") or that he's more educated than he should be (in the name of "playing your knowledge").

NichG
2016-02-09, 11:38 AM
Method actors have to know everything their characters would know, at least as it relates to all scenes in which they appear.

Knowledge skills in a game help you find out what your character knows. It also helps you, the method actor, determine what the less-than-average-education character you're playing does not know despite your real-world education telling you about it. Sure, you can just decide, but that runs the risk of unrealistically deciding he's more ignorant than he should be (in the name of "being fair") or that he's more educated than he should be (in the name of "playing your knowledge").

This is back to the difference in goal again - whether the realism (or 'accuracy') of the character matters, or just the degree to which you are able to immerse.

Segev
2016-02-09, 11:49 AM
This is back to the difference in goal again - whether the realism (or 'accuracy') of the character matters, or just the degree to which you are able to immerse.

Those aren't separate goals, though.

My immersion is broken when I'm playing Dudley the Wildborn Barbarian and I have to second- and third-guess myself as to whether Dudley really would know about weather patterns that I understand due to knowledge of pressure fronts. Or could figure out a puzzle based on math; it doesn't seem like hard math to ME, but would it be too hard for HIM?

It ruins my immersion to have to guess what my PC knows when I know I'm torn between wanting to be effective and wanting to play him "right," and that even going against "effective" doesn't always mean I'm playing him "right." Immersion means knowing my role and playing it. The more I have to meta-examine the role, the less immersed I am.

NichG
2016-02-09, 12:05 PM
Those aren't separate goals, though.

My immersion is broken when I'm playing Dudley the Wildborn Barbarian and I have to second- and third-guess myself as to whether Dudley really would know about weather patterns that I understand due to knowledge of pressure fronts. Or could figure out a puzzle based on math; it doesn't seem like hard math to ME, but would it be too hard for HIM?

It ruins my immersion to have to guess what my PC knows when I know I'm torn between wanting to be effective and wanting to play him "right," and that even going against "effective" doesn't always mean I'm playing him "right." Immersion means knowing my role and playing it. The more I have to meta-examine the role, the less immersed I am.

I can believe this is how you experience playing. I'd like you to consider though that actually, not everyone is going to have that kind of problem. You find yourself meta-examining the role as you play, checking for correctness, but if I'm trying for immersion then I don't perform that kind of meta-check at all, so for me there's no such dissonance.

Segev
2016-02-09, 12:20 PM
I can believe this is how you experience playing. I'd like you to consider though that actually, not everyone is going to have that kind of problem. You find yourself meta-examining the role as you play, checking for correctness, but if I'm trying for immersion then I don't perform that kind of meta-check at all, so for me there's no such dissonance.

Oh, I appreciate that others don't have this concern. I am not saying knowledge skills must exist at all times. I am saying that this is part of WHY they exist and why they are USEFUL. Which was the topic of the thread.

Thrudd
2016-02-09, 03:34 PM
I would like to point out that the act of deciding to make a knowledge check and rolling the dice is an equally meta-game/immersion breaking action as is simply asking yourself or the GM "would my character know this?". And the results are basically identical, as well. There are few objective ways for the GM to decide exactly what a character knows, so regardless of the result of the die roll or if the dice were rolled at all, the GM is making a subjective/unilateral decision. The only thing the skill does is give the player some leverage in the GM's decision, which might be required in a combative GM environment or where the GM's interpretation of the game is a "if it's not written down, you can't do it/don't know it" variety. Unfortunately, D&D 3.x's skill system does tend toward that interpretation for some groups.

Segev
2016-02-09, 03:38 PM
Die rolls allow the GM to set a value on the rarity of knowledge, which translates to a probability that a given person of a given stat would know it. It allows the GM and player to not feel like they have to alternate "know/not know" nor worry about whether they're being too generous or too stingy based solely on how often the PC does (not) know things as they come up.

It has similar, but not identical results. And of course, if the GM determines the PC should or should not know something, he can forgo the roll, but that's also true of deciding if a PC should be able to hop over a low fence or not: if it's really that trivial compared to the PC's capabilities in fence-hopping, why bother rolling?

VoxRationis
2016-02-09, 04:47 PM
I would like to point out that the act of deciding to make a knowledge check and rolling the dice is an equally meta-game/immersion breaking action as is simply asking yourself or the GM "would my character know this?". And the results are basically identical, as well. There are few objective ways for the GM to decide exactly what a character knows, so regardless of the result of the die roll or if the dice were rolled at all, the GM is making a subjective/unilateral decision. The only thing the skill does is give the player some leverage in the GM's decision, which might be required in a combative GM environment or where the GM's interpretation of the game is a "if it's not written down, you can't do it/don't know it" variety. Unfortunately, D&D 3.x's skill system does tend toward that interpretation for some groups.

Well, if the GM makes the roll, immersion is preserved just fine. I'm not sure how a die roll is subjective, though.

Siegemonkeys
2016-02-09, 08:38 PM
Honestly, I've got no problem with knowledge rolls. The alternative would be that characters wouldn't know anything about things they couldn't justify with their backstory, which may sound good, but when you think about it, it makes sense that characters might hear a couple things from travelers or rumors that they wouldn't normally know. Bob the farmer-turned-fighter might not be in a position to know much about hydras, but maybe at some point he overheard Joey One-Eye, the old man who claims he used to be an adventurer but everyone thinks is crazy, talking about some multi-headed snake monster he once saw in his travels that grows new heads unless you burn the stump of it's head. Bob might not believe him at the time, but after he becomes an adventurer and runs into a multi-headed snake monster, he might remember what Joey One-Eye said and decide it's at least worth a shot.

That's the idea of knowledge rolls. It represents stuff you might have heard on the side, or something you might logically know from your own background. The dice roll is just to throw some random chance in, nothing wrong with that. If dice rolling is immersion breaking, then why do we even roll dice to hit things? Why not just say the barbarian should be able to hit it since, logically, that's what he does and thus he should be efficient at hitting things.

Thrudd
2016-02-09, 08:59 PM
Honestly, I've got no problem with knowledge rolls. The alternative would be that characters wouldn't know anything about things they couldn't justify with their backstory, which may sound good, but when you think about it, it makes sense that characters might hear a couple things from travelers or rumors that they wouldn't normally know. Bob the farmer-turned-fighter might not be in a position to know much about hydras, but maybe at some point he overheard Joey One-Eye, the old man who claims he used to be an adventurer but everyone thinks is crazy, talking about some multi-headed snake monster he once saw in his travels that grows new heads unless you burn the stump of it's head. Bob might not believe him at the time, but after he becomes an adventurer and runs into a multi-headed snake monster, he might remember what Joey One-Eye said and decide it's at least worth a shot.

That's the idea of knowledge rolls. It represents stuff you might have heard on the side, or something you might logically know from your own background. The dice roll is just to throw some random chance in, nothing wrong with that. If dice rolling is immersion breaking, then why do we even roll dice to hit things? Why not just say the barbarian should be able to hit it since, logically, that's what he does and thus he should be efficient at hitting things.

I would rather roleplay Joey one-eye telling Bob about the Hydra, when the players hang out in town looking for rumors and adventure leads.

I understand how the skills are supposed to be used. I just think there is no difference between rolling and just asking the DM if you have heard anything about hydras. If the DM wants to surprise and challenge the players with regenerating hydra heads, he won't reveal that fact no matter what the results of any skill checks. Even a character with 20 ranks in knowledge:whatever won't know something the DM doesn't want them to know.

Yes, characters might have learned things "off stage", but I strive to make what happened outside of and before the game as irrelevant as possible to the game itself.

Flickerdart
2016-02-09, 11:56 PM
I would rather roleplay Joey one-eye telling Bob about the Hydra, when the players hang out in town looking for rumors and adventure leads.

What if it happened a month before the campaign started? A year? How long do you need to go back to play out info dump scenes?

Thrudd
2016-02-10, 12:15 AM
What if it happened a month before the campaign started? A year? How long do you need to go back to play out info dump scenes?

That's the point, it didn't happen before the game started. I don't play out anything from before the game started. Pre game info is conveyed pre game. When the game starts, you know everything relevant your character should know at that point. After that point, you know whatever you discover by playing the game. Meeting one-eyed joe will happen during the game.

Darth Ultron
2016-02-10, 02:46 AM
I would rather roleplay Joey one-eye telling Bob about the Hydra, when the players hang out in town looking for rumors and adventure leads.

I understand how the skills are supposed to be used. I just think there is no difference between rolling and just asking the DM if you have heard anything about hydras.

The first big problem i have is with the lazy knowledge rules. They are again just made for the lazy, casual gamer. It is ''does my Pc know something: yes or no''. And the rules are horrible. One rank in a knowledge skill and a character has ''studied in school'' every single thing about the topic. There is a vague rule that says a DM can make stuff ''rare'', but the character automatically knows all common things and uncommon things. And after like 3rd level in ''rare'' is pointless.

Take knowledge arcane, one rank and a character knows all about the ''common'' rune magic done by the stone giants 2,000 miles away. Not to mention is bad enough the character knows all about the ''common'' elven magic of the nearby elf kingdom, even if the elves don't openly share their magical secrets with everyone in the world. And making it ''rare'' is pointless, as after a couple levels a character will have a huge plus in the skill. And then ''rare'' is not so rare.

And worst is the storytelling part: Knowledge checks are absolute facts. There is no room for rumor, hearsay, misinformation or outright wrong information. With out telling the player ''oh this might be wrong''. Everyone assumes that knowledge checks are absolute facts, and worse they are metagame information.

For example: the local elves ''animate'' dead bodies to do farm work. As far as every human knows, this is simple necromancy. One rank of knowledge and a character automatically knows for an absolute fact that the elves use telekinesis to ''animate'' bodies.

Or take knowledge local: it has to be a true fact. There is no room for anything else. A lazy player has to be told the absolute truth or be told something is a rumor or such. They can never know an incorrect or wrong fact. And there should be a huge difference between ''what people know'' and the ''truth'', and like 75% of ''what people know'' should be wrong, incorrect and incomplete. And, at least, 50% of that would be unknown that it's wrong, incorrect and incomplete.

And this just ruins the game play.

Earthwalker
2016-02-10, 07:27 AM
The first big problem i have is with the lazy knowledge rules. They are again just made for the lazy, casual gamer.

There is no evidence that people that use knowledge skills in games are lazy. There is no connection between “casual gamers” (whatever that tag means) and people that use knowledge skills in game. Also if you would like to explain why being a casual gamer is a bad thing that needs rules removing to prevent ?

I have already said I can see where knowledge skills are not needed if you tie player knowledge to character knowledge. This seems valid but it works only with one style of gaming where the characters start out knowing nothing and develop knowledge as they play.
It also causes problems when a character dies. Have a new guy turn up that knows everything can be weird and difficult to explain.
Take Shadowrun for example, character in shadowrun are not on a power level or level similar to level 1 characters in DnD. Different versions of the game have handled things differently. One version gives starting characters a number of free points to spend on knowledge skills.
So for example you can have two characters with the same active skills but one with knowledge skills

Lone Star Police Procedures : 4
UCAS Law : 4
Seattle Street Gangs : 2
Seattle Organized Crime Syndicates: 2

The other has

Seader Krupp Battle Language : 3
Corporate Politics : 2
Corporate Finance : 2
Mercenary Groups : 3
Secure Battlefield Networks : 2

The choice of knowledge skills in of itself sets up a different background for the characters. Now the first guy is probably a former lone star cop now working the other side of the law. The second seems to be corporate military. As well as being a way for the player to gather more information about the world it is also a way for a player to tell the GM what the player is interested in. What connections he has, what information he knows without having to write a long background. It also makes the background process in a way formalize and balanced as you only get so many knowledge skill points.

Going back to my concept of guy that knows things. In the shadowrun world you have something similar. Voice with an Internet connection. (Usually a role played by the decker / hacker but doesn’t have to be in some versions of Shadowrun. You have one guy with the computer skills firing off data searches for the team. Then coming over comms with the answer. Data Search is an active skill but in all ways it functions like a knowledge skill. Its main purpose is to get information into the player’s hands.

hifidelity2
2016-02-10, 08:55 AM
I would rather roleplay Joey one-eye telling Bob about the Hydra, when the players hang out in town looking for rumors and adventure leads.

I understand how the skills are supposed to be used. I just think there is no difference between rolling and just asking the DM if you have heard anything about hydras. If the DM wants to surprise and challenge the players with regenerating hydra heads, he won't reveal that fact no matter what the results of any skill checks. Even a character with 20 ranks in knowledge:whatever won't know something the DM doesn't want them to know.


But the same could be said for combat (its just a skill) If the DM does not wnat you to kill the BBEG then no matter what weapon / spell etc you use it will be immune

A PC can however roll against his "Knowledge - Fantasy Animals" skill to see if he knows what to do.
The issue can be that the Player knows what to do but his 1st level fighter has no idea until he makes the check to remember something that was said down the guild

NichG
2016-02-10, 09:51 AM
But the same could be said for combat (its just a skill) If the DM does not wnat you to kill the BBEG then no matter what weapon / spell etc you use it will be immune

A PC can however roll against his "Knowledge - Fantasy Animals" skill to see if he knows what to do.
The issue can be that the Player knows what to do but his 1st level fighter has no idea until he makes the check to remember something that was said down the guild

The practical difference is that combat isn't resolved by a single roll. Even the outcome isn't well captured by a binary result. Any single roll just gives you a yes/no answer with no input from you beyond whatever your state is at the time you make the roll. So you can replace any single roll with an outright decision without losing much gameplay depth.

Combat on the other hand is made out of a sequence of decisions, and those decisions get updated as the combat progresses and partial outcomes are revealed. It's just a different kind of gameplay than a skill check or other single die roll resolution event.

Flickerdart
2016-02-10, 10:00 AM
When the game starts, you know everything relevant your character should know at that point.
Everything. You think of everything that a 60 year old wizard might know about everything in the multiverse and write it down in a digestible document?

Segev
2016-02-10, 10:01 AM
Darth Ultron, you clearly do not play with people who know how to properly run "failure modes" on skill checks. (I say "proper," but probably should hedge it a bit; the way that seems to result in the most interesting games as far as I have seen.)

I will restrict myself to discussion of Knowledge skills, as that's sufficient to make my point.

Your objections seem to boil down to two main points, once you strip away the ad-hominem attacks about people being "lazy" or otherwise unworthy role-players: knowledge skill rolls result in either "I know this for certain" or "I know nothing about this;" and knowledge skill rolls result in completely destroying the ability to have rumors that may or may not be true.

Both of these are patently untrue. Knowledge of a subject, first of all, includes potentially all of the rumors. The more knowledgeable you are, the more rumors of which you are aware, and also most likely the more aware you are that not all of them can be true. With sufficient knowledge, you may even have specific anecdotal, researched, or experimental evidence to eliminate some rumors or lend credence (or even outright confirm) others.

A knowledge check, even in D&D, is best done with a whole list of DCs, ranging from low ones offering some of the most common rumors and superstitions, to higher ones offering more of these with a bit more detail and demonstrating greater conflicts between them. Higher still, and the DM helps out by telling you something of the patterns that your character might see emerging, and gives more definite boundaries to what is known vs. what is speculated.

This also comes back to your secondary objection (though listed early), that 1 rank in Knowledge makes a character studied in every aspect of everything about a field. In part, you're right; it's an abstraction, just like "martial weapon proficiency" lets you use nearly any weapon you happen to come across. But in truth, one rank and a very high Int mod will still only get you, on a GOOD roll, into the mid-20s. And that's when you luck out.

Your theory of "if backstory says..." comes closer to giving 100% knowledge for having your backstory say "I studied this subject" than the actual skill system: if it's just "your backstory" that determines if you know something (or worse, the player's own metagame knowledge), then you know everything about it, unless the DM arbitrarily decides you don't. Doesn't matter how much or how little you studied it in your backstory.

The skill roll, on the other hand, may mean that the guy with 1 rank of K:Dungeoneering does, in fact, know some really obscure and useful fact about a Beholder because he rolled a nat 20 and has an 18 int. But he won't necessarily know more than a few basic things on the Mind Flayer his party encounters a little later, because he only rolled a DC 5 knowledge check on it. 1 rank, even with high int, only translates to sporadic knowledge, a smattering of facts. Some may be obscure or rare, but you'll only randomly know a few of them, having randomly stumbled across them. Whereas a true scholar in the field with far more ranks will know more of them more regularly. Exactly what the system is intended to model, and exactly what one might expect from varying levels of study in a field!

Thrudd
2016-02-10, 10:38 AM
Everything. You think of everything that a 60 year old wizard might know about everything in the multiverse and write it down in a digestible document?

A.) You're not a 60 year old wizard, you're a young new wizard that knows four spells and just went out on his own, and honestly still could use a master's tutelage.

B.) Everything relevant to the game, yes. Not literally everything known, that is impossible to model even with skills. Sure, the wizard might know all kinds of magical equations and theorems and whatever, but they aren't important to the adventure game. If there is a relevant metaphysical/magical bit of knowledge that all wizards would know, like that there is an astral plane, or that improperly stored magical energy is volatile, then that will be in the packet/introduction for a wizard player or will be revealed during the game if it comes up. If it isn't something all wizards would know, then the character doesn't know it, because they are just beginning their journey as a wizard.

Thrudd
2016-02-10, 10:49 AM
But the same could be said for combat (its just a skill) If the DM does not wnat you to kill the BBEG then no matter what weapon / spell etc you use it will be immune

A PC can however roll against his "Knowledge - Fantasy Animals" skill to see if he knows what to do.
The issue can be that the Player knows what to do but his 1st level fighter has no idea until he makes the check to remember something that was said down the guild

Incorrect. The difference is, the rules of the game tell you the results of the combat. A hit is a hit, and when hit points drop to zero the rules dictate what happens. The DM is cheating if they are surreptitiously giving creatures immunities to everything or raising their hp total in the middle of combat or fudging the dice rolls to make their saving throws every time.

When the PC rolls their knowledge:animals skill, the game rules do not tell them what happens. The rules for that are: the DM decides what the roll means. So if DM doesn't want you to know what immunity his creature has, your skill won't help you. You'll learn something else about the creature instead.

If a player knows what to do, they should do it. It either means the DM is using standard book monsters with experienced players, which is a mistake if you're trying to surprise them, or the players are smart and figured something out from hints or patterns, and that is exactly what they should be doing.

Flickerdart
2016-02-10, 11:37 AM
A.) You're not a 60 year old wizard, you're a young new wizard that knows four spells and just went out on his own, and honestly still could use a master's tutelage.
I'm pretty certain that the game rules allow me to start at any age I want.


or will be revealed during the game if it comes up.
So...you actually do do the same thing as everyone else, only instead of rolling the Knowledge check, you yourself make the decision. I guess that's a way to handle it.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-10, 12:25 PM
I think knowledge checks can be a pretty good addition to writing down what the character knows. If I'm playing a chemist with maximum ranks in knowledge (chemistry) and I've specifically stated that the character collects samples of the elements than of course know the atomic number of Lawrencium, if that ever came up. But if I only stated that he's a chemist? Hell, I'm a chemist (of sorts), and I don't know it. But he's not me, is he? By this point in the campaign he's probably discovered at least one world saving molecule, and even if he had the exact same skill level I do he might know things I do not.

Now, if the DM and player can agree that with his background my chemist either does or does not know that number, that's fine. If we don't know if he'd know it rolling for it might be more fun than just saying no.

As far as I'm concerned the rules are not meant to tell people what they do not know. "You've got five ranks in knowledge (boy scout), you've specified you go camping a lot, but setting up a tent is DC7, roll for it." That's just weird. But I'm fine with rolling for anything not (even just sort of) specified in the background. And I'm fine with the concept of "paying" for knowledge. It might be a little expensive for how often it comes up, but the general principle is fine by me.

P.S. 103

Segev
2016-02-10, 12:43 PM
"You've got five ranks in knowledge (boy scout), you've specified you go camping a lot, but setting up a tent is DC7, roll for it."

Well, DC 7 with 5 ranks means you only fail if you have no Int mod (since this is apparently a Knowledge check) and roll a 1.

Or if, I suppose, you have a negative Int mod and roll higher, but even with a 3 Int, if you have (somehow) 5 ranks of K:Boy Scout, that's still a +1. You succeed, as somebody barely smarter than an animal, at that DC 7 check on a 6+. You're going to get the tent set up 3/4 of the time, and since there's nothing preventing you from just taking 10, you still can't fail.

Thrudd
2016-02-10, 02:14 PM
I'm pretty certain that the game rules allow me to start at any age I want.


So...you actually do do the same thing as everyone else, only instead of rolling the Knowledge check, you yourself make the decision. I guess that's a way to handle it.

Yes, that's what I've said all along. In D&D, the DM makes the decision on what knowledge is revealed, even if there is a knowledge skill in use. I don't make character-only knowledge an important feature of the game.

The game rules (of some games) let you start at any age you want. But if you're level 1, you don't know any more game-relevant information than any other level 1 character regardless of age. Background (which is what pre game knowledge is) shouldn't give you an advantage relative to the other players.

Tiktakkat
2016-02-10, 03:47 PM
The first big problem i have is with the lazy knowledge rules. They are again just made for the lazy, casual gamer. It is ''does my Pc know something: yes or no''. And the rules are horrible. One rank in a knowledge skill and a character has ''studied in school'' every single thing about the topic.

Incorrect.
The character has "studied in school", and may know any random single thing about the topic.


There is a vague rule that says a DM can make stuff ''rare'', but the character automatically knows all common things and uncommon things.

That rule is not vague at all, but critical to the overall system.
The character does not automatically know ALL common and uncommon things.

If you want a silly effect of that, look at it from the other direction:
Without a rank in a Knowledge skill, a character cannot know anything that is not absolutely common.
A farmer with max ranks in Profession (farmer) but no ranks in Knowledge (nature) is completely unable to identify a cow or horse, and may, depending on you rate "partial" hit dice, be thoroughly baffled by a chicken.
If he also has Handle Animal he may be perfectly aware of how to train them, use them for work, get milk and eggs from them, and so on, but he is utterly incapable of telling you just what those bizarre beasts are.


And after like 3rd level in ''rare'' is pointless.

That depends on just how "rare" a particular bit is.


Take knowledge arcane, one rank and a character knows all about the ''common'' rune magic done by the stone giants 2,000 miles away.

No, he has a chance to know all of what is "common" knowledge about the rune magic done by the stone giants 2,000 miles away. That is likely to just be "the stone giants do their magic with runes rather than by the regular spellcasting methods that everyone else uses."


Not to mention is bad enough the character knows all about the ''common'' elven magic of the nearby elf kingdom, even if the elves don't openly share their magical secrets with everyone in the world.

Again, that just means he knows the "common" stories about what magic of the elves others have observed "commonly".
Unless the elves never perform any magic where anyone can possibly see the effects, directly or indirectly, there is going to be some "common" knowledge about their magic.


And making it ''rare'' is pointless, as after a couple levels a character will have a huge plus in the skill. And then ''rare'' is not so rare.

So? After a couple of levels the player has met and casually talked with more people, who have seen more aspects of the elven magic, or has even encountered the elven magic himself.


And worst is the storytelling part: Knowledge checks are absolute facts. There is no room for rumor, hearsay, misinformation or outright wrong information. With out telling the player ''oh this might be wrong''. Everyone assumes that knowledge checks are absolute facts, and worse they are metagame information.

Unless of course the player fails his Knowledge skill check and must rely on his Gather Information skill check.


For example: the local elves ''animate'' dead bodies to do farm work. As far as every human knows, this is simple necromancy. One rank of knowledge and a character automatically knows for an absolute fact that the elves use telekinesis to ''animate'' bodies.

So?
One detect magic and the character "automatically" knows for an absolute fact that the corpse is not radiating necromancy but is radiating transmutation magic. (Well, he needs a successful Spellcraft check, but that is not Knowledge (arcana).)
And one conversation later he has told everyone in the tavern that.
And several more conversations later and the whole town knows it.
A few more iterations and . . . common knowledge!


Or take knowledge local: it has to be a true fact. There is no room for anything else. A lazy player has to be told the absolute truth or be told something is a rumor or such. They can never know an incorrect or wrong fact. And there should be a huge difference between ''what people know'' and the ''truth'', and like 75% of ''what people know'' should be wrong, incorrect and incomplete. And, at least, 50% of that would be unknown that it's wrong, incorrect and incomplete.

Again, assuming he makes the skill roll.
If he doesn't . . .
However:
"Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)"
How exactly does that allow for the kind of "secret" information you are talking about?
"Legends" by its very nature means information can be false.
"Personalities" is thoroughly subjective, but hardly particularly "secret". And it can easily account for "former personalities" with higher DC, aka "rare", results.
"Inhabitants" is again thoroughly straightforward.
"Laws" is absolutely an issue of fact.
"Customs" are squishy, but again you either know them or you don't.
"Traditions" are just like "customs".
"Humanoids" is a direct rules artifact, and refers to identifying monster traits.
So pretty much nothing that you'd be rolling a Knowledge (local) check for is something that would be subject to rumors and false information in the first place.

Perhaps your problem is that you are allowing people to use Knowledge skills instead of other skills.
For rumors and stories the skill is Gather Information or Diplomacy, not Knowledge (local).
For building a tent or finding food the skill is Survival, not Knowledge (geography) or Knowledge (nature).
And so on.
Use the right skills for the right tasks and you'll get rid of a whole bunch of your presumed problems.


And this just ruins the game play.

How does it ruin game play for players to know about the setting?


Yes, that's what I've said all along. In D&D, the DM makes the decision on what knowledge is revealed, even if there is a knowledge skill in use. I don't make character-only knowledge an important feature of the game.

The DM also makes the decision on how effecting your Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate skill is.
He decides just how much knowledge the NPC knows, and how much he reveals as a result of your skill check.
He sets the DC for the task wholly by fiat.

Should all the social interaction skills be removed as well because of that?
At what point does that stop before the DM becomes an organic math co-processor with no actual creative influence on the game?

The rules of the game are that the DM makes a whole bunch of subjective decisions on a constant basis.
Adjudicating the results of Knowledge checks is one of them.

Zumbs
2016-02-10, 04:43 PM
Incorrect. The difference is, the rules of the game tell you the results of the combat. A hit is a hit, and when hit points drop to zero the rules dictate what happens. The DM is cheating if they are surreptitiously giving creatures immunities to everything or raising their hp total in the middle of combat or fudging the dice rolls to make their saving throws every time.

When the PC rolls their knowledge:animals skill, the game rules do not tell them what happens. The rules for that are: the DM decides what the roll means. So if DM doesn't want you to know what immunity his creature has, your skill won't help you. You'll learn something else about the creature instead.

If a player knows what to do, they should do it. It either means the DM is using standard book monsters with experienced players, which is a mistake if you're trying to surprise them, or the players are smart and figured something out from hints or patterns, and that is exactly what they should be doing.
That is a fault in the rules. If a system has a Knowledge:Animals skill, it should specify how it is used to interact with an animal, which information can be given at which difficulty and the difficulty of using said knowledge to avoid some immunity or ill effect. This helps both players and GMs determining when and how the skill can be used. Building such mechanics takes a lot of time and effort, but it gives such skills actual value other than "because my character would totally know something about that, so I waste my building points to get a nice number of my sheet that gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside".

Thrudd
2016-02-10, 04:43 PM
The DM also makes the decision on how effecting your Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate skill is.
He decides just how much knowledge the NPC knows, and how much he reveals as a result of your skill check.
He sets the DC for the task wholly by fiat.

Should all the social interaction skills be removed as well because of that?
At what point does that stop before the DM becomes an organic math co-processor with no actual creative influence on the game?

The rules of the game are that the DM makes a whole bunch of subjective decisions on a constant basis.
Adjudicating the results of Knowledge checks is one of them.

Social skills are a different thing because they represent a character's ability to affect the outcome of an action or condition. For example, the DM determines a creature or npc's reaction to a character (reaction roll). A diplomacy skill can adjust that reaction, because the character is good at talking and being convincing. There is an action taken by the character and an objective mechanical result of the action: the reaction of the creature improves by some degree (or not). Yes, it is DM fiat that decides just how that reaction plays out, but rolling for it is a fair way to adjudicate this situation. A friendly reaction result will not be portrayed as the character acting belligerent or unhelpful. A neutral result should not seek to harm the pc, but won't help either. The details of the role play is up to DM creativity.

The only time dice should be rolled for knowledge is if the DM doesn't know whether or not a character could know something and you want to give them a fair chance. If this is the case, it is likely something not important to the adventure. If it were, the player would either be able to come across it in-game or have been informed about it pre-game, rather than rely on a die roll.

For instance, does bob the fighter know of the existence of the lost city of gold? With a knowledge skill system, bob rolls his knowledge:whatever and maybe he knows it exists and where it is, or he knows it exists but not where it is, or he doesn't know it exists. If he gets the best result, that's the end of it. He buys his gear and sets off. If he gets a lesser result, he asks around town for rumors or looks for an expert who can tell him where the lost city might be.
Without a knowledge skill system, the DM decides that Bob knows nothing. So bob's player asks around town for rumors, hears about the lost city, seeks an expert that tells him where to find it. Then he buys his gear and sets off. The only thing having a knowledge skill did, in this case, was cut out role playing and in-game character development.

I favor in-game character and story development rather than a-priori development of either.

Thrudd
2016-02-10, 04:56 PM
That is a fault in the rules. If a system has a Knowledge:Animals skill, it should specify how it is used to interact with an animal, which information can be given at which difficulty and the difficulty of using said knowledge to avoid some immunity or ill effect. This helps both players and GMs determining when and how the skill can be used. Building such mechanics takes a lot of time and effort, but it gives such skills actual value other than "because my character would totally know something about that, so I waste my building points to get a nice number of my sheet that gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside".

I agree completely. I also think it is a ponderous task to attempt to do that, and may result in a system that is too overbearing. It would also require the rules be written for a specific setting. This is why I think it is better to not bother.

A few skills with clearly defined uses and boundaries is ok. For instance: knowledge of a region. 1 rank and you know about towns and locations in a 10 mile radius of your home, 2 ranks is 20 miles, etc. That is a well defined subject with clear answers. Does my character know where dwarves live? Has 2 ranks in knowledge of location. DM consults the map, no Dwarves live within 20 miles of home, so answer is "no".

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-10, 05:06 PM
Well, DC 7 with 5 ranks means you only fail if you have no Int mod (since this is apparently a Knowledge check) and roll a 1.

Or if, I suppose, you have a negative Int mod and roll higher, but even with a 3 Int, if you have (somehow) 5 ranks of K:Boy Scout, that's still a +1. You succeed, as somebody barely smarter than an animal, at that DC 7 check on a 6+. You're going to get the tent set up 3/4 of the time, and since there's nothing preventing you from just taking 10, you still can't fail.

Good point, and you actually got a laugh out of me. The point I was trying to make is that knowledge checks should not go before background. If someones knows their architecture because they spent 20 years building cathedrals (or, well, part of one cathedral) and has a good knowledge (architecture) rank they will probably know most things regarding cathedrals. Even for really obscure things they have no real reason for knowing, give them a bonus or something. For other buildings, unless you can find a really good reason why it's the same as in a cathedral, roll. Maybe even with a minor penalty for being specialized in something else.

Segev
2016-02-10, 05:08 PM
Using D&D 3.5 as an example still, the way that Knowledge and similar skills are codified into the rules do involve some arbitration by the DM. However, they do not require him to make choices on the spot, and they can actually be useful tools for helping him organize his adventures. The key is that a properly-done knowledge-type check (which also includes Bardic Knowledge, Gather Information, and probably a few other similar abilities) will have a chart of DCs. This chart will - very roughly - look something like this:

DC 5 - basic information, broad and common rumors or legends, something you can find out by asking around at a bar or stumble across in Wikipedia.

DC 10 - As DC 5, plus some more detailed rumors, and a name or two or a hint as to where more information can be found if one is interested

DC 15 - Some useful specifics; at least two rumors which contradict other ones designed to give hints as to what is "really" known and what is just speculation by whatever sources the PC is drawing from

DC 20 - Clarification of some of the rumors, and more details on the specifics which help identify patterns within the rumors and specifics; direct statements of some commonalities which are probably true or at least which lead to useful actions one can take regarding the subject

DC 25 - Specific, detailed information about one or more relevant sub-topics. Answers to one or two speculative questions the player might have as he is fed the information from prior DCs. At least one definite way he can make use of his knowledge, or an indication of where to go to get such a definite, useful detail.

DC 30 - 2-3 hard facts that identify truth from rumor, and additional broad or related information which can help obtain the tools or get to the prior-mentioned places for further information or aid.

DC 35 - Anything else the DM thinks is relevant to the topic as it pertains to the context of the adventure.

+5 DC: The topic is only tangentially related to the skill which is being rolled (e.g. Knowledge (Nature) to determine something about a noble who is also a druid)

+5 DC: The sources of information are not particularly good (e.g. using Gather Information to learn about a curse on a magic item from the sailors at a pub)

+10 DC: The subject is a secret, something those who know it are reluctant to share, and the PC is not of a background to have been initiated to these secrets directly

+10 DC: The topic is obscure, hard to learn about even by those who are scholars on the subject

+15 DC: The subject is a closely-kept, closely-guarded secret, either long-lost or which its keepers kill to protect

Segev
2016-02-10, 05:10 PM
Good point, and you actually got a laugh out of me. The point I was trying to make is that knowledge checks should not go before background. If someones knows their architecture because they spent 20 years building cathedrals (or, well, part of one cathedral) and has a good knowledge (architecture) rank they will probably know most things regarding cathedrals. Even for really obscure things they have no real reason for knowing, give them a bonus or something. For other buildings, unless you can find a really good reason why it's the same as in a cathedral, roll. Maybe even with a minor penalty for being specialized in something else.

I think - at least in D&D 3.5e - most of those would qualify as +2 circumstance bonuses.

And yes, there is a certain level of DM discretion to simply declare that you automatically know something if there's no reason you wouldn't. The expert on cathedral-building who's done it for decades is going to recognize when the drow have mysteriously built their temple to lolth in the same style as the cathedral he just finished building to Pelor. There's just no way he couldn't recognize it.

Zumbs
2016-02-10, 05:18 PM
For instance, does bob the fighter know of the existence of the lost city of gold? With a knowledge skill system, bob rolls his knowledge:whatever and maybe he knows it exists and where it is, or he knows it exists but not where it is, or he doesn't know it exists. If he gets the best result, that's the end of it. He buys his gear and sets off. If he gets a lesser result, he asks around town for rumors or looks for an expert who can tell him where the lost city might be.
Without a knowledge skill system, the DM decides that Bob knows nothing. So bob's player asks around town for rumors, hears about the lost city, seeks an expert that tells him where to find it. Then he buys his gear and sets off. The only thing having a knowledge skill did, in this case, was cut out role playing and in-game character development.

I favor in-game character and story development rather than a-priori development of either.
My players are actually running a campaign involving a lost city of gold :-)

Overall, I agree with the sentiment: In such a story, the search for the lost city of gold is just as important as the city itself. Maybe even more so. However, a skill check could give useful clues, e.g. which scholar to approach, and which scholar to avoid (either due to being incompetent or likely to send a competing team to search for the city), or tell the player that the civilization was famous for its pyrotechnics, hinting that there are going to be a lot of fire-based traps, so the players can prepare for that.

Segev
2016-02-10, 05:32 PM
The only time dice should be rolled for knowledge is if the DM doesn't know whether or not a character could know something and you want to give them a fair chance.That is definitely one of the biggest uses of it.


If this is the case, it is likely something not important to the adventure. If it were, the player would either be able to come across it in-game or have been informed about it pre-game, rather than rely on a die roll.Or the player's knowledge of it can change the shape of the adventure as they try to discover more about it.


For instance, does bob the fighter know of the existence of the lost city of gold? With a knowledge skill system, bob rolls his knowledge:whatever and maybe he knows it exists and where it is, or he knows it exists but not where it is, or he doesn't know it exists. If he gets the best result, that's the end of it. He buys his gear and sets off. If he gets a lesser result, he asks around town for rumors or looks for an expert who can tell him where the lost city might be.
Without a knowledge skill system, the DM decides that Bob knows nothing. So bob's player asks around town for rumors, hears about the lost city, seeks an expert that tells him where to find it. Then he buys his gear and sets off. The only thing having a knowledge skill did, in this case, was cut out role playing and in-game character development.

I favor in-game character and story development rather than a-priori development of either.You seem to assume that the Lost City of Gold's location is something that Bob could know, just by having a large Knowledge bonus. It might not be.

If the place has only recently been discovered, and only the people who found it currently know where it is, no amount of Knowledge roll will reveal their secret information to Bob. The best he can do is know all the rumors about it, know about past expeditions, maybe even know all about the expedition that did find it, because he read or heard about them before they left. He may even know where they were going, but not necessarily where in that area they found it.

Bob's knowledge may "shortcut" some aspects of the "adventure" involved in finding these people. He knows what they look like, who their financiers were, and probably even how to find one or more of their number. He doesn't have to ask around in seedy taverns hoping for a tidbit of information that isn't a red herring.

The adventure for Bob is one of dealing with high society and impressing people with his knowledge. He knows how to get exactly the right gear, too, to be properly prepared. For somebody of lesser knowledge, it is more difficult, with a different path to find out where the lost city is, and it's not guaranteed that they'll have everything they need when they pack.

The adventure is harder for not having Bob's spectacular knowledge of all things Metropolitan and Golden. But the RP isn't cut out. It's just different. And things that will get in Bob's way because he doesn't have the requisite skills would not so hamper another, equally-skilled adventurer who had a much harder time otherwise, because his skills are focused on those areas instead of the knowledge that Bob had and used to prepare.

Different gameplay experiences for different kinds of characters, all still going on the same adventure. Isn't that WHY we play TTRPGs rather than just sticking with cRPGs and their scripted paths?

Flickerdart
2016-02-10, 05:34 PM
The location of a lost city of gold would certainly be out of reach of a random fighter's checks, even if he took CC ranks in the skill. Placing the DC within his reach would be a mistake by the DM. A lost city is lost because nobody knows where it is, otherwise it wouldn't be lost. Sounds like a "nearly impossible" (DC 40) task.

Thrudd
2016-02-10, 05:36 PM
My players are actually running a campaign involving a lost city of gold :-)

Overall, I agree with the sentiment: In such a story, the search for the lost city of gold is just as important as the city itself. Maybe even more so. However, a skill check could give useful clues, e.g. which scholar to approach, and which scholar to avoid (either due to being incompetent or likely to send a competing team to search for the city), or tell the player that the civilization was famous for its pyrotechnics, hinting that there are going to be a lot of fire-based traps, so the players can prepare for that.

Is there something stopping the players from learning those things in-game, by researching and social interactions?

Zumbs
2016-02-10, 05:42 PM
Nothing is stopping them ... if they realize that those are even questions that make sense to ask. An appropriate knowledge skill can point them in the right direction and give actual value without actually introducing too many shortcuts.

Zumbs
2016-02-10, 05:47 PM
The location of a lost city of gold would certainly be out of reach of a random fighter's checks, even if he took CC ranks in the skill. Placing the DC within his reach would be a mistake by the DM. A lost city is lost because nobody knows where it is, otherwise it wouldn't be lost. Sounds like a "nearly impossible" (DC 40) task.
The DC of knowing where the lost city of gold is, is similar to the DC of jumping to the moon. Impossible. No roll allowed. At best, a roll could give information on where leading scholars believe it to be, e.g. in the Mountains of Crazy Doom, the Forrest of Eternal Night or under the waves of the Sulpheric Ocean.

Knaight
2016-02-10, 06:02 PM
The only time dice should be rolled for knowledge is if the DM doesn't know whether or not a character could know something and you want to give them a fair chance. If this is the case, it is likely something not important to the adventure. If it were, the player would either be able to come across it in-game or have been informed about it pre-game, rather than rely on a die roll.

What is important to the adventure isn't necessarily decided ahead of time, particularly if it isn't some linear pre-plotted story. I'd also add that knowledge skills don't necessarily have to be rolled to be important - they are in D&D, which has one very particular implementation of knowledge skills that isn't necessarily all that great. If not rolled, they can still influence what the GM informs the players of ahead of time. Then there are systems which can be used to make declarations, which requires a bit of a different style but can communicate the knowledgeable character idea very well.


For instance, does bob the fighter know of the existence of the lost city of gold? With a knowledge skill system, bob rolls his knowledge:whatever and maybe he knows it exists and where it is, or he knows it exists but not where it is, or he doesn't know it exists. If he gets the best result, that's the end of it. He buys his gear and sets off. If he gets a lesser result, he asks around town for rumors or looks for an expert who can tell him where the lost city might be.
Without a knowledge skill system, the DM decides that Bob knows nothing. So bob's player asks around town for rumors, hears about the lost city, seeks an expert that tells him where to find it. Then he buys his gear and sets off. The only thing having a knowledge skill did, in this case, was cut out role playing and in-game character development.

On the other hand, consider a situation where you have a thief running away from some guards after a heist gone bad. They've lived in the city all their lives, it's a large place with a population of a few tens of thousands of people, and they want to go somewhere where they can lose the guards. With a knowledge skill, they can either roll it or have some sort of advantage because of it, reflecting who the character is quite well. Without it, either the same thing happens based entirely on the GM judgement - which is made without the information provided by the choice to take the skill or not - or you just work with more information to begin with, by doing something like mapping out the entire city in meticulous detail (which almost certainly pulls work away from things that matter more, damaging the role playing side).

I'd also add that the whole matter of "learning things in game" isn't necessarily better. There's a reason that most stories aren't told in real time where every little thing that happens to a character is shown, there's a reason certain things are glossed over. Parts of the search for the lost city of gold in other media may be depicted as something like a montage in film, short lines that encapsulate long periods in books, even things like drastically reduced amounts of information in video games (e.g. looking at a book shelf producing a list of one title, as opposed to the dozens shown on that shelf). Knowledge skills can help with disseminating information such that the focus is put more on moments that are actually interesting, and not on the sorts of tedium that are generally excised from interesting stories. They can help ground characters in the setting, rather than leaving them looking like a fish out of water who somehow managed to avoid learning anything in what has at least been a decade and a half.

Tiktakkat
2016-02-10, 07:15 PM
Social skills are a different thing because they represent a character's ability to affect the outcome of an action or condition.

You mean like . . . solving a puzzle?


For example, the DM determines a creature or npc's reaction to a character (reaction roll). A diplomacy skill can adjust that reaction, because the character is good at talking and being convincing.

So the DM determines if a monster ask a riddle of a character (reaction roll). A Knowledge skill check can adjust that resolution, because the character has a wide base of information in solving puzzles.


There is an action taken by the character and an objective mechanical result of the action: the reaction of the creature improves by some degree (or not).

Right, the action taken of solving the puzzle and the objective mechanical result of that action: not getting eaten by the monster (or having to stop it from eating him).


Yes, it is DM fiat that decides just how that reaction plays out, but rolling for it is a fair way to adjudicate this situation. A friendly reaction result will not be portrayed as the character acting belligerent or unhelpful. A neutral result should not seek to harm the pc, but won't help either. The details of the role play is up to DM creativity.

So wait . . . only the DM role-plays?
The players just roll dice and the DM creatively interprets the rolls and tells the players the resulting story?


The only time dice should be rolled for knowledge is if the DM doesn't know whether or not a character could know something and you want to give them a fair chance. If this is the case, it is likely something not important to the adventure. If it were, the player would either be able to come across it in-game or have been informed about it pre-game, rather than rely on a die roll.

How can you be sure how important something will be?
What if the characters go off script?


I favor in-game character and story development rather than a-priori development of either.

So character background becomes irrelevant?

Thrudd
2016-02-10, 09:29 PM
You mean like . . . solving a puzzle?



So the DM determines if a monster ask a riddle of a character (reaction roll). A Knowledge skill check can adjust that resolution, because the character has a wide base of information in solving puzzles.



Right, the action taken of solving the puzzle and the objective mechanical result of that action: not getting eaten by the monster (or having to stop it from eating him).



So wait . . . only the DM role-plays?
The players just roll dice and the DM creatively interprets the rolls and tells the players the resulting story?



How can you be sure how important something will be?
What if the characters go off script?



So character background becomes irrelevant?
You've got it all backwards. There is no script, but the game has a general objective and theme. I know what will be relevant, for the most part, because I know that the game is about characters hunting for treasure in ruins and wild places, for instance. Or that the game is about urban infiltration and high-tech heists. Or whatever.

The players role play every interaction, at least by describing the gist of what their characters are saying, but the dice decide how npc's react, based on the character's charisma modifier. Otherwise, it would be completely DM fiat. The DM rolls the die to decide the npc's reaction and describes how the npc reacts to the player's advances. This is mainly for when a player initiates the interaction.

A knowledge skill isn't a "solve puzzle" skill (if it was, that would be even worse).
If there is a mental puzzle to solve, like a riddle, it is meant for the players to solve, with their own brains. A riddle wouldn't be decided by a reaction roll, it would be planned ahead of time as part of an adventure (unless there is a randomly encountered monster that always asks riddles as it's "thing").
I equate this to the challenge of making smart tactical combat decisions, and the strategic task of selecting the gear and hirelings and spells to memorize for an upcoming expedition. These things ARE the game, essentially, players figuring things out and making decisions. To allow a die roll to solve or even help with these decisions is removing the purpose of the game.

I consider charisma and social skill a character-game resource to be applied according to a player's strategy, that is why it is different than knowledge. Problem solving skill, however, must be possessed by the player themselves. Knowledge of the setting should be collected by the player as they play the game.

Character background is largely irrelevant to mechanical play, yes. The important parts of a character's life happen during the game, and the game isn't about what happened in a character's past. A background is a role playing aid for players, if they want to explain their character's personality and motives and why they have become adventurers.

NichG
2016-02-10, 11:04 PM
Screen-time balancing, pacing, etc are all important things to always keep in mind, but it doesn't follow that using skill rolls actually has anything to do with that - they could help, they could hinder, etc. I'd guess that most of the time it won't make a difference.

For example, take the lost city of gold thing. You can ask 'how would the player know about the city?' but you could also ask 'how would the player know to ask for a roll to know about the city?' and so on. At some point, the fact that we're talking about a lost city of gold must be because there was some kind of motion to include it in the game, either on the part of the DM or on the part of a player.

If its on the part of the DM, then the DM can provide the information at the point of contact and be smart about making sure there's enough information that the players don't fall into a 'okay, we ask townsperson A. No? Okay, we ask townsperson B...' kind of sequence. If the information is to be incomplete, such that the players cannot immediately pursue that lead, there should be a very carefully thought out reason behind doing it that way, because it risks falling into this kind of slog. Even if you have some mechanical access to methods of gaining this information, the gameplay problem with that is that the failure modes are boring - if you didn't invest in knowledge, the next thing you'll try is to go and ask people one by one at every town/etc, so you're back to the slow gameplay as a failure mode. If you failed the roll despite investing in knowledge, same thing. The issue is that only actually receiving the knowledge is an acceptable end-point of the gameplay - everything else basically just means 'try something else until you manage to receive the needed information' or 'give up', neither of which are really good for the pacing of the game. So for that kind of situation, the DM should just provide enough information in the first place, or make it so that there's a very clear sub-goal that can be pursued which would guarantee acquiring the information but perhaps at some additional cost.

Now, the other possibility is that the motion to include the lost city of gold was from a player rather than the DM. This is an interesting kind of situation, because normally the players wouldn't be able to decide 'there exists a lost city of gold to know about'. In games where the players are encouraged to participate this way, I wouldn't want to do it with a Knowledge system, but rather I'd want to explicitly use a dramatic editing system - so the player spends 3 points and says 'by the way, my character has heard rumors of a lost city of gold in the jungles to the west'. The player explicitly makes a decision 'this is a direction I want the game to potentially go in, and I want my character to know about it' - there's no question involved. The reason again is that the failure mode is really uninteresting and doesn't create motion. That said, I could see a hybrid system where success or failure on the Knowledge roll decides the degree to which the reality will differ from the motion that the player introduced - that could actually be quite interesting and it'd be good for pacing in either direction (since both success and failure lead to finding and interacting with the lost city).

There's of course a lesser case - things where the player assumes the existence of something because it's likely, but doesn't know the details. 'Hey, do I know any good taverns in the area?', etc. The thing is, because the answer can be so reasonably assumed to be 'yes', adding in a mechanical barrier to it being automatic is more likely to slow down pacing than to speed it up.

So I don't buy that having a skill or not really has anything to do with whether the pacing will be rapid or a slog. It's sort of orthogonal - different DM skills are needed to ensure the pacing will be good with the skill than without, but you can have good or bad pacing just as easily in either case.

Flickerdart
2016-02-11, 11:44 AM
The DC of knowing where the lost city of gold is, is similar to the DC of jumping to the moon. Impossible. No roll allowed.
Why should jumping to the moon be impossible?

The moon is 238,900 miles or 1,261,392,000 feet away. So you need to succeed on a DC 5,045,568,000 check. Except you don't really, because once you have broken out of the Earth's orbit, there's nothing to stop you from moving in the direction of the Moon until you hit it. The real DC is somewhere in the low tens of thousands, easily achievable through TO.

Segev
2016-02-11, 02:08 PM
Why should jumping to the moon be impossible?

The moon is 238,900 miles or 1,261,392,000 feet away. So you need to succeed on a DC 5,045,568,000 check. Except you don't really, because once you have broken out of the Earth's orbit, there's nothing to stop you from moving in the direction of the Moon until you hit it. The real DC is somewhere in the low tens of thousands, easily achievable through TO.

And Saitama's done it. Well, he got hit to the moon. He jumped back.

hymer
2016-02-11, 03:31 PM
The moon is 238,900 miles or 1,261,392,000 feet away. So you need to succeed on a DC 5,045,568,000 check.

Enough faffing about. Let's get down to some serious pedantry, shall we? Jumping to the moon would mean jumping at least as much up as sideways. The DM would be well right to demand you use the DC for high jump rather than long jump.


Except you don't really, because once you have broken out of the Earth's orbit, there's nothing to stop you from moving in the direction of the Moon until you hit it.

The term for what you need to acheive to get off the Earth is 'escape velocity'. To 'leave Earth's orbit' (extra pedantry: that's the term for Earth's orbit around the Sun; 'Earth orbit' is what satellites are in) is you'd have to first be in orbit. Once in orbit you're going to stay there indefinitely, unless you've got something very different from a jump check to leave orbit (rockets help); or you're in an unstable orbit, in which case you're may either crash back down to Earth for a second go, or just head off into interplanetary space.
Just picking the right direction, then making the jump correctly, and also timing it so you'll be going away from Earth on a trajectory where you'll get pulled onto the Moon is a real bugger.
There is, however, no rule that gravity or wind resistance has anything whatever to do with the DC on jump checks. You don't get penalized for jumping against a hurricane, nor are there different rules for jumping on a celestial body than on the average prome material plane.

So you see, nothing is so pointless that it cannot be made more so by a big dollop of willful pedantry! :smallbiggrin:

Flickerdart
2016-02-11, 03:38 PM
Enough faffing about. Let's get down to some serious pedantry, shall we? Jumping to the moon would mean jumping at least as much up as sideways. The DM would be well right to demand you use the DC for high jump rather than long jump.
The DC given is for high jump. There's a Stormwrack feat you can use that allows you to jump laterally at the same time as you jump vertically, which is nice for when you're not standing right under the moon.



'escape velocity'. ... There is, however, no rule that gravity or wind resistance has anything whatever to do with the DC on jump checks.
You seem to be arguing against yourself here?

hymer
2016-02-11, 03:42 PM
The DC given is for high jump. There's a Stormwrack feat you can use that allows you to jump laterally at the same time as you jump vertically, which is nice for when you're not standing right under the moon.

Okay, haven't seen that feat, so I'll just take your word for it,


You seem to be arguing against yourself here?

Are you sure it's worth our time for me to explain it? :smallwink:

Jormengand
2016-02-11, 04:44 PM
Enough faffing about. Let's get down to some serious pedantry, shall we? Jumping to the moon would mean jumping at least as much up as sideways.

Not really. (https://what-if.xkcd.com/68/)


However, the weird thing about escape velocity is that it doesn't matter which direction you're going.(... which is why it should really be called "escape speed"—the fact that it has no direction (which is the distinction between "speed" and "velocity") is actually very significant here.) If you go faster than the escape speed, as long as you don't actually go toward the planet, you'll escape.

Quertus
2016-02-11, 05:06 PM
Guy that knows things

Is that a useful or helpful character concept ?

We have

Guy that hits things.
Guy that cast spells
Guy that steals things.

Can Guy that knows things fit in there ?

That's my signature character.


Knowledge is power. Also, it's usually just another hat worn by the Guy that cast spells.


Playing Pathfinder its so nice that "Guy that casts spells" gets another hat to wear. They need a hand up with versitility. (yes I am joking)

Oddly my guy that knows things is a Bard (well Bardalier) more a concept of jack-of-all-trades but with guy that knows things thrown in.

Has anyone played a character in any system where thier main thing (maybe even only effective thing) was knowing stuff ?

Well, ability to cast spells is a secondary feature of my signature character ;) But knowing things is his only effective feature, owing to the fact that I play him as a tactically-inept academic. He'd be less fun for me to pay, but just as effective (or arguably more so) if I took away his magic, and replaced it with tactics.


Frankly, I usually become even more invested in the lore of a dungeon if I don't know all about it to begin with. I start looking for clues I can use to puzzle out the background. I start positing suppositions to the other players. A failed knowledge check, if the adventure is properly designed, is no more detrimental to immersion in the setting than a failed attack roll is to excitement about a combat.

I miss playing in games where puzzling through new, internally consistent information was a thing.


The second thing is... if character's back story says they should know something, than generally they should just know it. Even if they have 0 points in the skill.


@Thrudd To be honest, that also depends on playstyle. What of the player who walks up to the DM with a character sheet stating Juliana has a certain background with a certain profession giving her a nice amount of Knowledge in certain areas?

What you described is a perfectly valid playstyle, and one that I personally prefer. I doubt everyone runs adventures where all the characters involved are clueless youths at the start.


I would rather roleplay Joey one-eye telling Bob about the Hydra, when the players hang out in town looking for rumors and adventure leads.

I understand how the skills are supposed to be used. I just think there is no difference between rolling and just asking the DM if you have heard anything about hydras. If the DM wants to surprise and challenge the players with regenerating hydra heads, he won't reveal that fact no matter what the results of any skill checks. Even a character with 20 ranks in knowledge:whatever won't know something the DM doesn't want them to know.

The eternal spring of clueless youths got kind of old for me. So I started mapping out who trained whom, what knowledge was passed down, etc. It worked great, I loved it. Some of my characters also learned things by talking to other characters. Some of these things that they learned were false. Even more fun!

My signature character even researched custom spells to increase the amount of information he could glean from encounters with monsters. Good times.

But 30 years, several computers, and a pile of notes lost to mildew later, and I couldn't tell you exactly what more than maybe 5 of my first hundred surviving characters does and does not know with acceptable certainty. So, in that regard, I like knowledge skills as a simplified version of knowing roughly how much my character knows.


Those aren't separate goals, though.

My immersion is broken when I'm playing Dudley the Wildborn Barbarian and I have to second- and third-guess myself as to whether Dudley really would know about weather patterns that I understand due to knowledge of pressure fronts. Or could figure out a puzzle based on math; it doesn't seem like hard math to ME, but would it be too hard for HIM?

It ruins my immersion to have to guess what my PC knows when I know I'm torn between wanting to be effective and wanting to play him "right," and that even going against "effective" doesn't always mean I'm playing him "right." Immersion means knowing my role and playing it. The more I have to meta-examine the role, the less immersed I am.

I know exactly how you feel. Knowledge skills are nice for that, too.


Yes, characters might have learned things "off stage", but I strive to make what happened outside of and before the game as irrelevant as possible to the game itself.

That... sounds horrible. It sounds too close to, "I strive to make the character as irrelevant as possible to the game itself". Given that, you know, most of the character, why they are who they are, what they know, etc, is off camera. Although I'm hoping that's not what you mean...


And worst is the storytelling part: Knowledge checks are absolute facts. There is no room for rumor, hearsay, misinformation or outright wrong information. With out telling the player ''oh this might be wrong''. Everyone assumes that knowledge checks are absolute facts, and worse they are metagame information.

And this just ruins the game play.

One downside to knowledge skills in a game is figuring out how to incorporate both facts and rumors, I agree with you there. Whether knowledge checks should give rumors on success or failure, or whether rumors should be known even if you have no ganja in the knowledge, it would be nice if it were easy to incorporate them.


The DC of knowing where the lost city of gold is, is similar to the DC of jumping to the moon. Impossible. No roll allowed. At best, a roll could give information on where leading scholars believe it to be, e.g. in the Mountains of Crazy Doom, the Forrest of Eternal Night or under the waves of the Sulpheric Ocean.

Someone already addressed that both DCs are not "not allowed". Well, that the jumping to the moon has a DC, at least. Given that people have found lost cities via maps and knowledge (checks) IRL, I can't accept that it is impossible in game.

Flickerdart
2016-02-11, 06:09 PM
One downside to knowledge skills in a game is figuring out how to incorporate both facts and rumors, I agree with you there. Whether knowledge checks should give rumors on success or failure, or whether rumors should be known even if you have no ganja in the knowledge, it would be nice if it were easy to incorporate them.
What the character knows about a thing doesn't have to be 100% empirical fact. There are plenty of Knowledge check examples that are common knowledge (bears live in caves) and various things like "people say that so and so does this and that." Both are useful things that give the PCs something to work with, without straight up giving them the answer they're after.

For example, if the PCs want to find the lost city of gold, a Knowledge (History) check with DC 10 (common knowledge) might give them something like "adventurers frequently come back from the east, telling tales of wondrous and magnificent ruins built by a now-gone people". DC 20 might tell them of the ancient and wealthy Dudeians, who lived along the banks of the remote Water River before disappearing centuries ago. Similarly, Knowledge (Geography) would give them "there are vast unexplored regions to the east, as opposed to the well-known and civilized lands in the west" for the same DC 10. Nobility might give them "many noble houses claim their lineage stems from the legendary King Dudean, a ruler of great wealth and power said to have built a kingdom far in the east centuries ago."

VoxRationis
2016-02-11, 06:34 PM
One downside to knowledge skills in a game is figuring out how to incorporate both facts and rumors, I agree with you there. Whether knowledge checks should give rumors on success or failure, or whether rumors should be known even if you have no ganja in the knowledge, it would be nice if it were easy to incorporate them.


Since we're discussing knowledge skills in general, and not say, the application of them in d20, I would like to point out that Ars Magica includes, to the best of my knowledge, a separate roll for determining whether a failure creates a counterproductive result.

(D&D 3.5 often has this in the form of "if you fail by 5 or more" clauses, but that creates odd situations where, for example, a person with some study of a subject will come up completely blank while his less-educated companion remembers incorrect information—surely the studied person would have heard the misinformation as well!)

Thrudd
2016-02-11, 06:54 PM
That... sounds horrible. It sounds too close to, "I strive to make the character as irrelevant as possible to the game itself". Given that, you know, most of the character, why they are who they are, what they know, etc, is off camera. Although I'm hoping that's not what you mean...

No. I want the character to be formed by gameplay, not written as a story beforehand. I only need the player to assign a motive for their character's intended adventuring career (in D&D). Everything important in the character's life happens "on screen", in the game.

VoxRationis
2016-02-11, 08:31 PM
What you want is to play Skyrim, where everything about your character just changes one line of dialogue in thirty, as a tabletop game. You want all of your players to have nothing outside of what they gather in-game, while wandering your dungeons along predefined routes (in order to get the clues and enemy journals in just the right order), and to be complete strangers to the setting, regardless of whether that makes even a modicum of sense.

ko_sct
2016-02-11, 08:35 PM
No. I want the character to be formed by gameplay, not written as a story beforehand. I only need the player to assign a motive for their character's intended adventuring career (in D&D). Everything important in the character's life happens "on screen", in the game.

That's a perfectly valid gaming style. It's actually quite close to how I play, with very short backgrounds for the characters and pretty much everything that tie the characters to the story happening at the table.

But I still use knowledge skill. And I personally think they are closer to a spot or perception skill than fighting or social skills. They provide additional information that's generally optional but can change a given situation.



Personal anecdote time !

The players were hired by a noble house (le'ts say Lannister) to do some investigating on something unimportant to the story.

They were talking to a group or man-at-arms/guards/mercenary and trying to get informations out of them, mentioning who they were working with.

The man-at-arms than mention casually which noble house (let's say, house Targaryen) they worked for and the players are given the chances to make a skill check depending on which one was higher.

A successful,
Sense motive check : The man-at-arms have adopted an agressive stance and they now speak with an agressive tone, they are pissed and/or looking for a fight.

Spot/perception check : Two of the man-at-arms have started slowly circling your group, this put you in a precarious situation should they attack.

Knowledge (noblity) : Your employer's and the man-at-arm's noble houses have hated each other since X event 20 years ago and the man-at-arms could very well gain a promotion from beating you up.


A success in all 3 check lead to the same result in this case, not being surprised by a sudden fight.



The exact result vary from situation to situation, but I still see them as being similar. A successful spot will allow you to not be taken by surprise by the strange predatory beast following your group. A successful Knowledge check will allow you to not be taken by surprise by the strange predatory beat's breath weapon.

Neither check is necessary for the game, they provide additional information.

Thrudd
2016-02-11, 09:02 PM
What you want is to play Skyrim, where everything about your character just changes one line of dialogue in thirty, as a tabletop game. You want all of your players to have nothing outside of what they gather in-game, while wandering your dungeons along predefined routes (in order to get the clues and enemy journals in just the right order), and to be complete strangers to the setting, regardless of whether that makes even a modicum of sense.

There is no order or predetermined paths, only a world and series of adventure locations. Yes, it is more important to me to provide an immersive experience for the player exploring the setting than it is to simulate the behavior and knowledge of a resident of that setting, so if those two goals conflict my choice of game design is in favor of the former. They don't always conflict.

I don't design this game around character backstories, because any character could die at any time, and the roster of characters may change from session to session even when they don't die. A player's effort in that area (writing backstory) would not be prohibited, but it is not guaranteed to bear any fruit.
I build a game designed for players (not always the same ones) to be able to insert themselves into the setting with any character (not necessarily the same one every time), and have an adventure that is exciting and full of challenges. It isn't a story-game with a crafted plot and intertwined dramatic characters; it is a pulpy, episodic game where the feature is the setting full of unexpected wierdness. Over time, stories are told of exploits, and characters that survive develop personalities and relationships with each other and the world.

hymer
2016-02-12, 08:23 AM
Not really. (https://what-if.xkcd.com/68/)

I applaud your pedantry even if it is second-hand, :smallbiggrin: and offer you some in return:

If you move at escape 'speed' or faster, and remain on the surface you haven't left, and you arent' moving into the planet. Direction matters!

goto124
2016-02-12, 08:37 AM
Jumping from the Earth to land on the moon requires direction, otherwise one could miss the moon entirely and go right towards the rest of space...

I think.

Jormengand
2016-02-12, 08:57 AM
Jumping from the Earth to land on the moon requires direction, otherwise one could miss the moon entirely and go right towards the rest of space...

I think.

Yes, but there exist two tangents to the Earth (Actually, two areas in which there are tangents to the earth, because the moon isn't actually a point) on which the moon lies, meaning that there exist positions where you can jump sideways to the moon...

And of course, positions where it's a lot easier to know about the lost city of gold. Such as in the lost city of gold.

Segev
2016-02-12, 10:52 AM
And of course, positions where it's a lot easier to know about the lost city of gold. Such as in the lost city of gold.

Assuming your DM isn't going for a twist where the city you started in was the legendary lost city; the gold was a rumor and the "loss" came from a breakdown in communications that have long-since been restored, but without anybody on the "other side" of it knowing they'd re-discovered the "lost" city when they spread the rumor to your hometown.

hymer
2016-02-12, 10:54 AM
@ Segev: I never said that! :smallconfused:

Jormengand
2016-02-12, 10:59 AM
@ Segev: I never said that! :smallconfused:

More to the point, I did! :smalltongue:

Segev
2016-02-12, 12:27 PM
@ Segev: I never said that! :smallconfused:


More to the point, I did! :smalltongue:

Weird, my apologies to both of you. I don't know how the quote got screwed up.

Edit: Corrected.

hymer
2016-02-12, 01:14 PM
Weird, my apologies to both of you.

Apology accepted on behalf of Jormengand. :smallbiggrin:

Cluedrew
2016-02-14, 07:44 AM
Well there a bunch of things I would like to say. I'm going to start by talking about some views forwarded previously in the thread.

On Darth Ultron's Player Knowledge=Character Knowledge: Nothing is wrong with this, but it is very much a test of player ability, which makes it... I'm not really sure what exactly but less of a role-playing game. To me role-playing games have always been about the character, or role, and less about the player. Before you think I'm saying "your game" is in anyway bad I am a big fan of the hybrid role-playing game and turn based strategy game called Dungeons & Dragons. Now in that context would be absurd to have Knowledge (Small Group Tactics) but in other games I could see a skill that gives you the ability to yell out ill-defined formations that give a bonus to rest of combat, whether or not the player knows what these formations would be.

The ill-defined knowledge is actually another thing I have against that equality. Spellcraft has been mentioned, which is approximately Knowledge (Spell Design), plus some other stuff. Is it possible to then remove that from the game and have the players interact it with it exactly? If you had a set of real world rules there would be a list of "epic-level spells re-written at 3rd or lower" out on the web by now.

On Thrudd's In Play Character Development: Characters should evolve/develop during play yes. But why should every character start off as a blank slate? In my last campaign I played an character who's age was officially declared to be "old". This was someone who had been through a lot and I certainly didn't know of all of what that was. I would of had to spend at least a week of non stop planning to pull it off. So allow some room for backstories too.

As for knowledge skills themselves... I think we are doing them a disservice if we view them as the isolated act of knowing something. I say isolated because even if the only thing about your character is that they know more now they should be able to do things with that knowledge. What exactly that is depends on the type of knowledge, just like other skills.

Thrudd
2016-02-14, 01:17 PM
On Thrudd's In Play Character Development: Characters should evolve/develop during play yes. But why should every character start off as a blank slate? In my last campaign I played an character who's age was officially declared to be "old". This was someone who had been through a lot and I certainly didn't know of all of what that was. I would of had to spend at least a week of non stop planning to pull it off. So allow some room for backstories too.

As for knowledge skills themselves... I think we are doing them a disservice if we view them as the isolated act of knowing something. I say isolated because even if the only thing about your character is that they know more now they should be able to do things with that knowledge. What exactly that is depends on the type of knowledge, just like other skills.

The problem with the old or veteran character starting out at level 1 is that you are writing into your backstory a resource (knowledge and experience) that gives you an advantage in play. In 3.x D&D it would be unrealistic (breaking verisimilitude) for a level 1 character to be that old, because mechanically you'd have the same skill points available as a character that was 15 years old. In AD&D or older, that background would seem like a blatant attempt to gain an extra advantage which had not been earned, because you could always argue "my character is old, surely he's seen or heard if x y and z in all that time!". Also, AD&D adjusts your abilities according to age, increasing int and wisdom and decreasing physical abilities over time. So if that was an option, almost everyone that wanted to be a magic user or cleric would choose to be old and get their primary scores higher.

Darth Ultron
2016-02-14, 01:28 PM
On Darth Ultron's Player Knowledge=Character Knowledge: . To me role-playing games have always been about the character, or role, and less about the player..

Yea, I don't go for the whole ''the player does not matter and should act like a game playing robot'' and ''the character is alive''. The game is about a player having fun acting out a character, not some kind of weird hard line drama where ''nothing'' is acting out the character.



On Thrudd's In Play Character Development: Characters should evolve/develop during play yes. But why should every character start off as a blank slate? In my last campaign I played an character who's age was officially declared to be "old". This was someone who had been through a lot and I certainly didn't know of all of what that was. I would of had to spend at least a week of non stop planning to pull it off. So allow some room for backstories too.

.

Knowledge skills represent this poorly. Knowledge skills are ''university classes'', not common knowledge. And just as someone is ''old'' does not mean they have gone to school for like 100 years to learn everything about everything they have taken one rank of knowledge in.

And worst of all, knowledge skill checks are always 100% true facts. Sure you can tell the player ''They call themselves the wolf runners, but their true name is unknown'', but you can never, ever say ''that monster is a zorg'' unless it is 100% true metagame information. And even if every single person in the whole game world thinks that (whatever), a single roll gives anyone the true 100% pure metagame fact.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-14, 02:34 PM
And worst of all, knowledge skill checks are always 100% true facts.

But that can be house ruled. Inform the players that a higher roll will not result in more information, but more accurate. For extra fun make those rolls in secret.

If my current game had mental stats to begin with (it operates closer to "if you've figured it out then so did your character") that's probably how I'd handle it. But to be fair not every setting thrives on quite the same level of paranoia.

Cluedrew
2016-02-15, 09:28 AM
The problem with the old or veteran character starting out at level 1 is that you are writing into your backstory a resource (knowledge and experience) that gives you an advantage in play. In 3.x D&D it would be unrealistic (breaking verisimilitude) for a level 1 character to be that old, because mechanically you'd have the same skill points available as a character that was 15 years old. In AD&D or older, that background would seem like a blatant attempt to gain an extra advantage which had not been earned, because you could always argue "my character is old, surely he's seen or heard if x y and z in all that time!".

Playgrounder's Fallacy, who said I was talking about 3.5? And secondly what's wrong with me using my backstory as a resource? The GM certainly used it as a resource to beat me down with. I got attacked by old enemies, and through out my hip (twice!). Actually the hip thing came about because I put the DEX equivalent pretty low because he was old and starting... be old. Also it was a really short campaign so I didn't have to worry about levelling him up much, so I represented him as being on his way out. So his stats were higher 5 years ago.

This reminds me of an old conversation, "How to I have an old fighter?" One point was that the 1st level fighter title was, when the levels had titles, "veteran" which implied that they were a bit older and had plenty of real life expectance. Also although adventurers level up quickly, the XP gain for a normal person is almost 0, so if the character was living a normal life up until now they probably would have the same adventuring experience as a 15 year old. Actually I read a comic earlier today where the point of view character is a 60 year old who is less experienced than the 20 somethings around him. 40+ years as a company man doesn't equip you for a rebellion very well.


Also, AD&D adjusts your abilities according to age, increasing int and wisdom and decreasing physical abilities over time. So if that was an option, almost everyone that wanted to be a magic user or cleric would choose to be old and get their primary scores higher.

That actually strikes me as good design, because in encourages people to play old clerics and magic users, as they tend to be in the literature. The literature just being the random sampling of things I have read, not any hard data.


Yea, I don't go for the whole ''the player does not matter and should act like a game playing robot'' and ''the character is alive''. The game is about a player having fun acting out a character, not some kind of weird hard line drama where ''nothing'' is acting out the character.And that is fine, it just strikes me as more of a Rogue-like than a role-playing game. I also enjoy rogue-likes. Still it is not the only way to play the game.

goto124
2016-02-15, 09:32 AM
Playgrounder's Fallacy, who said I was talking about 3.5?

Should I quote this? Or should I just memorize it and use when appropriate?

Cluedrew
2016-02-15, 09:38 AM
Either or, I've been noticing it for years* and just came up with the name for it. I called it 3.5 bias before, but that one isn't as catchy.

*OK maybe not quite that long, I've only been a member for 11 months now.

Segev
2016-02-15, 10:39 AM
Just try not to be rude when pointing it out. 3.5 is the dominant system in this forum, so it will tend to be the default unless emphasis is put on avoiding that in a given topic. It is therefore polite to provide that emphasis without pointing fingers or otherwise insinuating that those who might have made that assumption are somehow bad people.

JoeJ
2016-02-15, 02:02 PM
And worst of all, knowledge skill checks are always 100% true facts. Sure you can tell the player ''They call themselves the wolf runners, but their true name is unknown'', but you can never, ever say ''that monster is a zorg'' unless it is 100% true metagame information. And even if every single person in the whole game world thinks that (whatever), a single roll gives anyone the true 100% pure metagame fact.

I'm pretty sure that's not universally true in every game that has knowledge skills. Even if it's true in yours, it's not a problem. "Gerald of Issington wrote that the chief god of the Wolf People is Mercury, and a majority of scholars agree, but Lady Elizabeth Mallory claims that's it's actually Apollo" can be a 100% true fact.

VoxRationis
2016-02-15, 02:53 PM
A DM is more than within his rights to say "a Knowledge skill represents the knowledge base of your society—things that are not within that knowledge base are off-limits."

Cluedrew
2016-02-15, 06:50 PM
Good point Segev. I meant no offence to Thrudd (and Thrudd if I caused any I apologize), rather I meant to come across as sort of an ironic/humours way. I interpreted this thread to be "skills that represent knowledge" and not "the Knowledge (__) skills of D&D 3.5", but I'm not sure if it was called out as one or the other. If it was I have forgotten.

So I suppose talking about 3.5 was reasonable here. I can remember one time (although the details have escaped me) where someone quoted the 3.5 rule-book to prove that their valid view on the topic was the correct one in a thread that was explicitly labeled as system agnostic. That is the incident was really what highlighted it for me.

Anyways, I realize I am starting to go on about the Playgrounder's Fallacy and not about knowledge skills. So I will stop.

Segev
2016-02-15, 07:53 PM
Good point Segev. I meant no offence to Thrudd (and Thrudd if I caused any I apologize), rather I meant to come across as sort of an ironic/humours way. I interpreted this thread to be "skills that represent knowledge" and not "the Knowledge (__) skills of D&D 3.5", but I'm not sure if it was called out as one or the other. If it was I have forgotten.

So I suppose talking about 3.5 was reasonable here. I can remember one time (although the details have escaped me) where someone quoted the 3.5 rule-book to prove that their valid view on the topic was the correct one in a thread that was explicitly labeled as system agnostic. That is the incident was really what highlighted it for me.

Anyways, I realize I am starting to go on about the Playgrounder's Fallacy and not about knowledge skills. So I will stop.

No, you're quite right; we HAVE slipped into said Fallacy wrt this thread; it is about Knowledge-type skills in general, but we keep referencing 3.5. It's just best not to treat it as an admonishment, was my only point. Sorry if I came off harsh, myself; I just...am very conscious that we can often sound less kind in text than we think we do, because of how poorly tone carries over the internet.

That, and 3.5 isn't a bad example in this case; its knowledge skills are no more or less advanced than any others in the vast majority of RPGs that bother with them at all.



To step away from this fallacy for a moment, Exalted 3e has an interesting use for Lore (their "knowledge skill"): Players who roll on it successfully may introduce facts into play. The GM can say "no," but he's only supposed to if the introduced fact contradicts something the GM already has established (whether explicitly on screen or ready to reveal just off-screen), and if so, the GM should explain the "real" fact.

This has led to things, in anecdotes players have shared on the Exalted forum, such as a party Lore-centric character revealing that the random thug the party just KO'd was a local magistrate's son, which sparked an entire plot thread.

(Admittedly, this is something players can do anyway in the form of, "Wouldn't it be cool, GM, if this were the case?" but it's interesting to see it codified in the rules.)

JoeJ
2016-02-15, 07:57 PM
To step away from this fallacy for a moment, Exalted 3e has an interesting use for Lore (their "knowledge skill"): Players who roll on it successfully may introduce facts into play. The GM can say "no," but he's only supposed to if the introduced fact contradicts something the GM already has established (whether explicitly on screen or ready to reveal just off-screen), and if so, the GM should explain the "real" fact.

That sounds similar to using a hero point in M&M to introduce a minor change into the scene.

nedz
2016-02-15, 07:59 PM
Good point Segev. I meant no offence to Thrudd (and Thrudd if I caused any I apologize), rather I meant to come across as sort of an ironic/humours way. I interpreted this thread to be "skills that represent knowledge" and not "the Knowledge (__) skills of D&D 3.5", but I'm not sure if it was called out as one or the other. If it was I have forgotten.

So I suppose talking about 3.5 was reasonable here. I can remember one time (although the details have escaped me) where someone quoted the 3.5 rule-book to prove that their valid view on the topic was the correct one in a thread that was explicitly labeled as system agnostic. That is the incident was really what highlighted it for me.

Anyways, I realize I am starting to go on about the Playgrounder's Fallacy and not about knowledge skills. So I will stop.
So you made your Knowledge ( Playground ) roll, then a Sense Motive and now a Diplomacy roll. :smallamused:

No, you're quite right; we HAVE slipped into said Fallacy wrt this thread; it is about Knowledge-type skills in general, but we keep referencing 3.5. It's just best not to treat it as an admonishment, was my only point. Sorry if I came off harsh, myself; I just...am very conscious that we can often sound less kind in text than we think we do, because of how poorly tone carries over the internet.

That, and 3.5 isn't a bad example in this case; its knowledge skills are no more or less advanced than any others in the vast majority of RPGs that bother with them at all.
Which other games have Knowledge skills though - certainly not AD&D

To step away from this fallacy for a moment, Exalted 3e has an interesting use for Lore (their "knowledge skill"): Players who roll on it successfully may introduce facts into play. The GM can say "no," but he's only supposed to if the introduced fact contradicts something the GM already has established (whether explicitly on screen or ready to reveal just off-screen), and if so, the GM should explain the "real" fact.

This has led to things, in anecdotes players have shared on the Exalted forum, such as a party Lore-centric character revealing that the random thug the party just KO'd was a local magistrate's son, which sparked an entire plot thread.

(Admittedly, this is something players can do anyway in the form of, "Wouldn't it be cool, GM, if this were the case?" but it's interesting to see it codified in the rules.)
Oh right, Exalted 3e.

Any others ?

We can only discuss Knowledge Skills in the context of rulesets which have them.

VoxRationis
2016-02-15, 07:59 PM
To step away from this fallacy for a moment, Exalted 3e has an interesting use for Lore (their "knowledge skill"): Players who roll on it successfully may introduce facts into play. The GM can say "no," but he's only supposed to if the introduced fact contradicts something the GM already has established (whether explicitly on screen or ready to reveal just off-screen), and if so, the GM should explain the "real" fact.

This has led to things, in anecdotes players have shared on the Exalted forum, such as a party Lore-centric character revealing that the random thug the party just KO'd was a local magistrate's son, which sparked an entire plot thread.

(Admittedly, this is something players can do anyway in the form of, "Wouldn't it be cool, GM, if this were the case?" but it's interesting to see it codified in the rules.)

Ech, I personally hate post-facto revisionist mechanics. They are great for stories and settings where no one, including the GM, bothered to put any effort into the story and setting before sitting down to play. As a person whose gaming experience consists of 99% world-building and setting creation in the background and 1% actual play, this does not describe me or fit my playstyle.

Furthermore, they break immersion terribly, by introducing aspects of the setting which the entire table knows to be made up on the spot, and quite possibly changed from how they previously were, in order to make a player's zany plan possible.

Edit: Which is not to say that a DM shouldn't hear suggestions from the players, and maybe quietly work them into background lore! Far from it; players have good ideas for setting building sometimes. But to change something that's currently in the spotlight because a player demands it to me seems the opposite of verisimilitude.

@nedz: I believe L5R has different Knowledge skills. They aren't terribly well-defined in the edition I have (which I believe is 3rd), but they do establish that the knowledge comes from somewhere in-universe, as it is considered shameful to display knowledge of certain taboo subjects without good reason ("The Blue Lotus is a popular opium den." "How do you know that, Toshiro?").

Cluedrew
2016-02-15, 09:06 PM
That, and 3.5 isn't a bad example in this case; its knowledge skills are no more or less advanced than any others in the vast majority of RPGs that bother with them at all.In addition 3.5 serves as a good standard to measure other systems from because it is so well known. So we can get some good out of that as well.


Any others?

We can only discuss Knowledge Skills in the context of rulesets which have them.I've played a homebrew game with a skill that translated to Knowledge (Arcana), which my character became known for despite the fact it never got used. Of games most people would know I think ShadowRun has some. And I recall something about GURPS folding knowledge skills into other types of skills, but that was hearsay and I've never played GURPS.

Actually in one of my homebrewed systems, which is still a work in progress, one version had knowledge skills which were defined as previous knowledge and your ability to gain new knowledge in that area. So if you had Knowledge (Theoryology) you didn't only know the important principles of theoryology and its common practices, but learned people in the field of theoryology, the best journals on the topic and even how most theoryology books are laid out so you can read them faster.


Ech, I personally hate post-facto revisionist mechanics. They are great for stories and settings where no one, including the GM, bothered to put any effort into the story and setting before sitting down to play. As a person whose gaming experience consists of 99% world-building and setting creation in the background and 1% actual play, this does not describe me or fit my playstyle.Your probably right, but it probably does quite well in a more improvised style. Which is not about laziness, but instead is about fitting the evolving plot and even the entire world to the story evolving around the player characters. There is a lot of very interesting stuff you can do with that.

Also you may (or maybe its me) have misunderstood something about Exalted's system, at least as Segev explained it as compared to this line:

But to change something that's currently in the spotlight because a player demands it to me seems the opposite of verisimilitude.Let me go back to Segev:

Players who roll on it successfully may introduce facts into play.In other words the lore system doesn't change anything, unless you include the change from unknown to known. ... Which is sort of a change but no more than the GM revealing something pre-set to the players, it just comes from a different source. You can still hate it if you want but I don't think it counts as "post-facto revisionist mechanics".

Segev
2016-02-16, 01:42 AM
It's certainly a possible problem, and the fact that it diminishes quickly if the ST has a specific idea about everything that's happening, such that no new facts can possibly be introduced, that aspect of it goes away.

But Exalted tends to assume that you're operating in a world that has a lot of blank space to fill, because - let's be honest - that's usually true of any game. Even the most well-prepared DM often has things about NPCs that aren't totally defined, or introduces a merchant who doesn't even have a name unless the players ask for one, or similar stuff. I imagine, though, that it works just as well as a "traditional" knowledge skill: if the PC introduces a fact counter to what the ST knows is there, the ST instead informs him of what he knows that makes that fact impossible.

ImNotTrevor
2016-02-16, 08:12 PM
I think my favorite "Knowledge Skill" is the Open your Brain move from Apocalypse World.

Basically, they roll 2d6 plus their Weird stat to open their brain to the influence of the Psychic Maelstrom (whatever form that may take in the setting) and receive information, often at a cost.

And a lot of times it is very vague information or nightmarish and pointless flashes rather than concise, convenient information. Things like...

"The Maelstrom seeps into your mind, and you fall backwards out of reality. In front of you sits Peacock, tilting her head at you. She takes your hand and places gold coins into it, and as you watch them tumble between your fingers she sticks a dagger into your chest and yanks down. You are forced to stare numbly while she pulls out your heart and shows it to you. A voice behind you screams "LIAR!" and startles you back into reality."

There's also Read a Person and Read a Situation, and these explicitly state that they can be used only in "charged situations." Now, it doesn't define what those are in explicit terms, but it does say that normal conversation certainly isn't that. It's up to the table to figure out when a situation has become Charged. (And my players have never abused this, as it happens.)

Anyways. These three are my current favorite "knowledge skills" just because they break from tradition.