Adventures and Research

[Xavrias]

This thread is made mostly out of curiosity rather than necessarily a need for help. Often in my campaigns, adventures, etc. I enjoy using monsters that aren't always the norm. I like to get away from the classics every once in awhile to some of the lesser known Monster Manuals.

Due to this, my players often come across monsters they don't know. Which often means, abilities they don't recognize and weaknesses they aren't aware of. This creates the need for research, as in Buffy or Supernatural style. Often they find out what monsters are before they go to fight them, in order to compile information and buy gear. Now some of my players love this part of the game, and some of them are vaguely disinterested. While any tips on how to help out the disinterested players would be great, that isn't exactly what this thread is about.

My real inquiry here is, do you use research in your game? Do you keep it to 'knowledge' checks, and how do you give out that information if they make the check? Do you simply read out the most important parts of the stat block, even show them the stat block, or simply paraphrase in character knowledge? How do you approach this kind of "baddie of the week" style? Or do you simply find that the researching and preparation of monsters is just too much work and keep a more streamlined game?

I'll end this by saying, that my game is not wholesale only this style. It does have a plot that moves forward and the majority of enemies are actually humanoid and pretty normal. But I do like monsters to be, well monstrous, and not necessarily something you see everyday.

TL;DR: Do your characters have to research monsters in your game, and if so how do you approach it?

[ksbsnowowl]

Yep, the PC's can and do research monsters in my games. In one, they make use of the Library of the Lady in Sigil. Expedition to the Demonweb Pits has a decent-sized section on it, and what bonuses it gives, and how long it takes to research topics of various difficulty.

When the PC's perform their research on a monster, they make their check (DC = 10 + Monster base HD; or DC's as outlined in later MM entries; or DC 20 or 10 + total HD, whichever is lower, for templated creatures [as per Libris Mortis p. 19]) they get the basic info (creature name, type, subtypes, and what those types/subtypes grant), plus one piece of info for every 5 points by which they beat the check. They get to pick what type of info they want for each of those extra tidbits (special attack, special quality, or vulnerability [i.e. - what overcomes DR, bypasses regeneration, or deals extra damage]), and then I just pick from among the things the monster has of the type they were asking about. I usually pick the thing that will aid their efforts the most, but not always.

A few years ago I started a homebrew game where I specifically aimed to use the "little-used" monsters of Third Edition. Unless the plot has specifically gone in one direction or another, I often try to spice things up with some monster I've never used before. There very specifically is a library in their "home city" that they can and do use to research things.

Monsters I've used for the first time (in my ~10 years of DMing) in that campaign: Ethereal Scarabs, Ethereal Marauders, Ethereal Filchers, Kenku, Taint Elementals, Tainted Minions, Gibberlings, Yak Folk, Osquips, Kir-Lanan, a Dune Hag, Whitespawn Hoardlings, a Bluespawn Godslayer, Bluespawn Stonegliders, Greenspawn Sneaks, Reth Dekala, Meenlocks, Brood Monkeys, Fyhir, Phthisic, Stained Glass Golems, Grell, an Artaaglith, a Greathorn Minotaur, Xorvintaal Dragons, a Rukarazyll, Redspawn Arcaniss, Elemental Magi (Ken-Kuni), Kocrachon, a Rogue Eidolon, Haunting Presences, Boggles, a Storm Giant, an Ocean Giant, a Kraken. Soon I might use Kopru for the first time.

It's fun. It spices things up. It's really funny when the players are completely confused about what's happening, because they had no idea this "new" monster even existed.

[Darth Ultron]

In general, no.

Too many players just use research to exploit things in the game, and while that is super fun for them, it is not fun for everyone else.

If a monster is made to be ''unknown'', it does not make much sense for the players to then just ''know'' about it.

I'm all for discovering things during the game, but not stopping the game to do so.

And, most of the time the poor bad players that are trying to exploit the rules do an epic fail. Like I used an Old, Old Spelljammer race: The Infernites, who are humanoids made of living flame. The bad players loaded all up on anti fire stuff, and then where shocked when they fought the Infernites and they used cold and water magics...

[Crake]

In general, no.

Too many players just use research to exploit things in the game, and while that is super fun for them, it is not fun for everyone else.

If a monster is made to be ''unknown'', it does not make much sense for the players to then just ''know'' about it.

I'm all for discovering things during the game, but not stopping the game to do so.

And, most of the time the poor bad players that are trying to exploit the rules do an epic fail. Like I used an Old, Old Spelljammer race: The Infernites, who are humanoids made of living flame. The bad players loaded all up on anti fire stuff, and then where shocked when they fought the Infernites and they used cold and water magics...

Can you explain how characters doing research "exploit things in the game"? Or are you talking about out of character, metagaming research? And your example doesn't exactly highlight anything negative, it seems like a reasonable thing to do, to bring fire protection against a race literally made of fire.

[Fizban]

My real inquiry here is, do you use research in your game? Do you keep it to 'knowledge' checks, and how do you give out that information if they make the check? Do you simply read out the most important parts of the stat block, even show them the stat block, or simply paraphrase in character knowledge? How do you approach this kind of "baddie of the week" style? Or do you simply find that the researching and preparation of monsters is just too much work and keep a more streamlined game?
I love the idea of a lot of Buffy style things in a game (protip: most of the gang is 1st level and vampires are Vampire Spawn, that's how they know kung-fu), but DnD does not support research mechanically. The knowledge skills don't care, and attempts at research mechanics also fail: Eberron's Research feat charges you a feat, time, and skill checks, for the privilege of a "general understanding" of something the DM says can be found in the library. It also doesn't actually care about your skill check or the size of a library, since it's a flat DC 10, so a skilled person can get the same info out of a tiny library as they would a huge one, which doesn't make any sense.

In order to make a research mechanic work, it has to be able to provide information the characters can't already get with a knowledge check. But it also can't penalize them for having knowledge skills by making them not matter. You have to have a knowledge skill system where characters can fail to know things until they learn them. You have to have some idea of what's in the books in relation to the existing knowledge skill system. The one leniency you have is that unlike a single book which should have a starkly limited amount of information due to being a single book, you can hand-wave how much info is in the library.

I have an attempt at my own research system which I'll clean up here. Never actually been used and I still don't think it's great, but it's something:
First off, you need to close the holes in the existing system. No spell, item, or magic item should give a skill bonus to knowledge, because you either know something or you don't. When you fail a knowledge check for a certain piece of info, you don't know it, and cannot roll again until you've both increased your skill rank and justified a reroll on that info. Typically this is by nameless between level studying and experimentation for your class, which for knowledge should include tutoring and peer exchange (else you can only know what you've found in the library or seen firsthand). Dedicated effects that are fluffed as bringing in outside knowledge could use a bonus or allow a reroll, but frankly they devalue the heck out of the system.

A given book does not give a bonus on skill checks, it simply has the information or it doesn't.

First we have to define libraries:

SBG has book lots, with a 20' by 20' library holding 3 book lots, these are a good starting place.
1,000gp for a general lot
3,000gp for a basic lot
5,000gp for a x3 size fancy lot
20,000gp for a x6 size master lot

In order to research, you must be able to understand the books by making a skill check, and make a number of checks depending on the size of the library you're searching through.

Each check takes 1d4 hours, and each +5 by which you exceed the DC reduces the time by half. Thus, a knowledgeable person who botched a roll still knows where to look and can get the info much faster.

Information you can find is rated by its DC, the same as if you were rolling a knowledge check directly. Standard DCs are 10 for common knowledge, eg: Tome and Blood's silver vs lycanthropes example, then 15, 20, etc as in the base knowledge system, based on monster HD, or whatever arbitrary DC is set by the DM or book. Each library is rated based on how high it's maximum DC goes, and can be randomized for each piece of information when it's asked for, so that a given library may or may not have it: it's very important that libraries of the same size and focus can still have more or less info, as this is not mass-printed textbooks like in real-life. The DM can of course ignore this roll and place plot-critical information wherever, and if their setting does have mass produced textbooks with all available knowledge they can forgo the roll entirely.

General info: DC 5 to read, max DC 6+1d8, one success
Basic lot: DC 10 to read, max DC 11+1d8, one success
Fancy lot: DC 10 to read, max DC 16+1d8, three successes
Master lot: DC 10 to read, max DC 21+1d8, six successes

This allows anyone to spend 6d4 (avg 15) hours taking 10 on searching a master library for a piece of info, guaranteeing anything of DC 22 or less and potentially up to DC 29 if they get lucky and it's present (or the DM has determined this info is automatically there). A skilled person with a +10 bonus who failed a check could do the same thing in about four hours (DC +5 twice for 1/4 time). With the most basic of general libraries, any given piece of common knowledge (DC 10) has a 50% chance of being present, and can be found in an hour or two.

More technical libraries could have higher DCs to read, but anything more than 15 rather defeats the point of having a library, which is for people who don't know something to find out about it. Maybe a "theoretical" tier lot would have DC 20, max DC 30+1d10, six successes. This would contain the answers to all "really tough" questions, as well as many more, but require a skilled reader of +10 or more to dig through them reliably.

As for how I actually run knowledge skills: pretty fast and loose, with a nod to the monster DCs. I find the idea of knowledge focused characters who just know everything incredibly distasteful, so past a certain point you're not actually going to get anything more out of me. There's plenty of stuff I'll wave off as common knowledge or good adventurer practices simply because I don't want to screw the players, but if you've put ranks in a knowledge skill and make the check for the monster you will always get more than I'd give out for free. If you ask a particular question you'll get that answer first, otherwise I'll give you what seems like the most "relevant" piece of info that people would think of regarding that monster, and exceeding the DC in increments of +5 will get you more bits as appropriate.

So you probably already know that dragons are immune to the same type as their breath weapon (and red=fire btw), medusas have a petrifying gaze, skeletons and zombies want blunt and slashing weapons, you should fight lycanthropes with silver, and demons and devils have lots of resistances. But if you want to know what resistances, how lycanthropy works, how far that gaze reaches, or how fast that dragon is, those are going to require skill checks. Most fancy creatures have a ton of SLAs, special attacks, and defenses so it's easy to pick out a few that stand out to reward extra high checks. These can be doled out singly, such as "this guy has Dispel Magic," or in groups such as "these guys have a bunch of attack SLAs including Fireball at-will," and don't forget basic numbers, feats, and tactics such as "Dread Wraiths use Spring Attack to stay hidden in the walls." Generally you want to supplement what the players know, but if the players already know everything you think is reasonable, you should feel no obligation to give them more: it's up to the DM to decide how much monster knowledge is appropriate.

Research-wise: like I said, I'm not actually fully satisfied with the system I have for a "research based" game, but it's what I'd pull from if I needed to supply mechanics for finding a piece of info (say because the module didn't), or if someone failed a check and wanted to try a library. I wouldn't really make a point of it though, since I don't want to encourage things like spending all your time between adventures mining a virtual skill result.

[Darth Ultron]

Can you explain how characters doing research "exploit things in the game"? Or are you talking about out of character, metagaming research? And your example doesn't exactly highlight anything negative, it seems like a reasonable thing to do, to bring fire protection against a race literally made of fire.

It is a big rule problem. If you know about a foe, you can with little effort make a fight one sided and pointless. A foe can do X, so the players counter X. A foe is vulnerable to X, so the players do X.

So combat becomes a joke like:

DM: "The Farnate breathes a cone of fire on your character!"
Player: "Duhhhh, My character is immune to fire!"
DM: "so nothing happens then..."
Player: "My character then uses my super special anti fire attack!"
DM: "You hit and kill the monster"

Now sure the above player puts on their little paper King Hat from Burger King and dances around the room for several minutes singing about how great of a player they are....

....but the end result does not make for good game play.

When All combat will be over in two rounds, and the players will all ways win with no risk or challenge at all, the game becomes pointless.

This leads to some of the worst types of games:
*Players vs DM
*The Who has more Game Mastery?
*Roll Playing
*Pure Rules Exploitation

It can really make it pointless for the DM to ever use any ''monster'', and have the DM just stick to ''your foe is a human'' as the players can't research any thing to exploit about humans.

I do love when a player encounters an unknown monster...discovers it abilities...and then has to come up with a clever counter on the fly.

I don't like when a lazy player just learns everything, then takes the appropriate spell/feat/ability/magic item/whatever to auto win the encounter.

Yes, a lot of players will whine and cry and say they are ''just playing smart'', but that is just a lie to cover their jerk actions.

It is really a social contract/gentleman's agreement sort of thing. Part of where ''even though this does make sense, the players agree not to do it for the sake of the game''. A lot like: many monsters could attack the characters at night or other times with the characters are helpless or easy targets, and this makes very much sense.....but most DM's just ''don't'' have that happen as having a monster suddenly surprise attack and kill the characters in two rounds in bad for the game.

[Xavrias]

It is a big rule problem. If you know about a foe, you can with little effort make a fight one sided and pointless. A foe can do X, so the players counter X. A foe is vulnerable to X, so the players do X.

So combat becomes a joke like:

...

When All combat will be over in two rounds, and the players will all ways win with no risk or challenge at all, the game becomes pointless.

...

I do love when a player encounters an unknown monster...discovers it abilities...and then has to come up with a clever counter on the fly.

...

It is really a social contract/gentleman's agreement sort of thing. Part of where ''even though this does make sense, the players agree not to do it for the sake of the game''. A lot like: many monsters could attack the characters at night or other times with the characters are helpless or easy targets, and this makes very much sense.....but most DM's just ''don't'' have that happen as having a monster suddenly surprise attack and kill the characters in two rounds in bad for the game.

I would say that just because you know the weaknesses of the monster, does not necessarily make the monster easy to defeat. Using something boring such as werewolves as an example, let's say our low level party encounters these werewolves but is unable to manage enough damage to kill them because they are simply unaware that silver goes through the damage reduction, or even that lycanthropy can be transferred through the bite of such a creature. Allowing the pcs to do research may bring the encounter from 'near impossible' to 'difficult but manageable'.

Following along on the Buffy or Supernatural example one can see that the beings they are fighting are not easy to beat, but that background information makes it possible.

And I do agree that in some cases, coming up with a solution on the fly is also cool. When Heracles fights the Hydra, he is initially unaware that he must burn the stumps of the severed heads in order to defeat the beast, but comes up with the solution and defeats it. On the other hand, if there was available research, maybe he could've saved himself some trouble. Not that Heracles is the best example since his defeat is basically impossible in any scenario.

I would say that having such a gentleman's agreement actually detracts from many games. If the monsters/antagonists know the pcs are there and resting, it would only make sense for them to attack. And if the pcs aren't intelligent enough to either hide or ward themselves from such an assault, it serves them right to be attacked.

As I've said, not every adventure is a research-able strange monster to hunt down, but I think that the ability to track down scrolls, tomes and even eye-witness accounts of survivors lends itself nicely to a D&D game that could otherwise devolve into a lot of short adventures that proceed as,

"there is a beast in the swamp,"
"we go into the swamp and fight it"
-insert treasure collection, proceed to next quest.

[Darth Ultron]

I would say that just because you know the weaknesses of the monster, does not necessarily make the monster easy to defeat.

The thing is 3+ D&d and Pathfinder make it too easy past low level. Cast a couple ''protection from X'' and the characters are all powerful....and then they do more.

Like I said...it is more a rule problem.