Have rules for creature identification ever shown up? [Archive]

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-09, 09:14 AM

I don't think they have such rules in 5th edition, but 4th edition had rules for this that could easily be ported to 5th.

Just map the various monster types to the different knowledge checks (religion, nature, arcana). Then decide the DC to learn any specific set of characteristic.

Ex:
Undead, Fiend = religion or arcana
Humanoid, Plant, Ooze, Giant, Beast = Nature
Aberration, Construct, Fey, Elemental = Arcana
Celestial = Religion
Dragon, Monstrosities = Nature or Arcana

DC
10 = Name, basic racial history
15 = Life cycle, known habitable regions, hp range, default attacks
20 = One feature, vulnerabilities / resistance, sense, known "legendary" member of the race
25 = Read the MM

(These are just examples)

I have a slight problem with this concept. Fixed DCs make setting-based variance more difficult. If, in a particular setting, kobolds (for example) are a strange new creation that literally has never existed before, knowing facts about them should be much more difficult. If dragons are (relatively) common in one area but not another, they should be easier to identify for people from the common area.

I default to the following:

* Everyone gets information about things that are obviously visible. The weaponry, the armor, etc. After a few rounds I'll usually tell AC.
* For other things, it depends on background and the specific creature. Common monsters are taught about (habits, resistances, vulnerabilities, key facts) in adventurer's school, so it's an (easy) INT check to see if you remember in the heat of the combat. Uncommon monsters may have been mentioned, but the DC goes up. One-off monsters don't allow anything.

Because of my campaign structure, I'm considering allowing the players to declare a "I payed attention to this in school" specialization (within bounds I haven't decided yet)--they'll basically always succeed on things that are known to scholars in that specialization. So someone who took Dragons 501 might always know everything there is to know about dragons, no roll needed. The idea is that they'd declare this retro-actively, but not be able to change it after that. Sort of a quantum superposition of backgrounds.

mephnick

2018-06-09, 09:17 AM

Lunali

2018-06-09, 09:35 AM

I use Passive Knowledge and set the DC based on how rare the monster is in my setting. Of course I allow backgrounds and stuff to get knowledge if they apply. This prevents the "everyone rolls" cluster**** that happens every time a new monster pops up. So I simply tell the character(s) what they know as I describe the monster.

The downside of this approach is that everyone learns the exact same monsters in the exact same order. You may want to increase or decrease the DC based on each character's background.

Millstone85

2018-06-09, 09:41 AM

Ex:
Undead, Fiend = religion or arcana
Humanoid, Plant, Ooze, Giant, Beast = Nature
Aberration, Construct, Fey, Elemental = Arcana
Celestial = Religion
Dragon, Monstrosities = Nature or ArcanaMy own take would be:
Aberration, Construct, Elemental = Arcana
Beast, Fey, Ooze, Plant = Nature
Celestial, Fiend, Undead = Religion
Dragon, Giant, Humanoid = History
Monstrosity = any of the above

MaxWilson

2018-06-09, 09:48 AM

I know they're not in the PHB, but have rules been developed for identifying creatures and knowing their strengths and weaknesses?

Maybe in a UA, one of the recent books, or perhaps some excellent 3PP?

Nope.

For reasons of dramatic tension and pacing, I suggest that after combat is the best time to identify monsters and tell strengths and weaknesses. The game is most fun if players have access to information in order to make decisions, but you don't want every single monster that shows up to be instantly perfectly understood by PCs because that kills tension. So, just say that if they kill the monster, they can examine its corpse (you could impose a Medicine check if you want, DC = 10 + CR, or an equivalent Arcana check for weird magical entities without biological bodies) and gain access to certain information about it, e.g. its stat block and some basic lore about it. Then next time they encounter a similar creature, or what looks like a similar creature, they can be reasonably confident they understand what they're dealing with and what its capabilities are.

Giving access to the stat block is just plain easier, for both players and DMs, than trying to translate all the facts about its intelligence, strength, toughness, etc., into in-game terms to relate to the PCs, which the players then have to translate back in their heads. It would be fine to munge the stat block to make it more approximate ("HP: roughly 200" instead of "HP: 193") but again, do whatever is the least work for you and the players because the extra information doesn't matter that much for decision-making in most cases .

There are a few cases where e.g. Necromancers might be interested in knowing whether a given undead creature had an Int of 11 or 12 (because 12+ gets a fresh Command Undead save every hour), and if you've set the precedent that the DM can and sometimes does munge information, you can preserve the uncertainty and dramatic tension.

mephnick

2018-06-09, 09:51 AM

The downside of this approach is that everyone learns the exact same monsters in the exact same order. You may want to increase or decrease the DC based on each character's background.

This is true, but I rarely have overlapping knowledges in the same party (if the idiots take them at all). I do just grant or deny information depending on background and stuff too.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 09:51 AM

No, and IMO it's intentional. If the DM wants to make Monster Combat Knowledge ability checks, they can add them in easily. But DMs that don't want that, who want to resolve Lore for non-mechanical things, or at least descriptive knowledge of a mechanical feature, can use it that way.

Generally speaking, I assume players either already know common knowledge D&D monster capabilities in general terms, or I tell them. For non-common creatures they can go research it, which is Lore checks. But they don't get state-of-my-characters-knowledge checks to determine if they've ever learned something about a creature. They're not quantum-knowledge PCs that have either known or not known about things until the creature is standing in front of them and they roll a check to decide it. :smallamused:

mephnick

2018-06-09, 10:03 AM

Nope.

For reasons of dramatic tension and pacing, I suggest that after combat is the best time to identify monsters and tell strengths and weaknesses. The game is most fun if players have access to information in order to make decisions, but you don't want every single monster that shows up to be instantly perfectly understood by PCs because that kills tension. So, just say that if they kill the monster, they can examine its corpse (you could impose a Medicine check if you want, DC = 10 + CR, or an equivalent Arcana check for weird magical entities without biological bodies) and gain access to certain information about it, e.g. its stat block and some basic lore about it. Then next time they encounter a similar creature, or what looks like a similar creature, they can be reasonably confident they understand what they're dealing with and what its capabilities are.

Hmm, I like this. I'll consider integrating it into my knowledge system somehow.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 10:16 AM

Hmm, I like this. I'll consider integrating it into my knowledge system somehow.
Intelligence (Investigation) checks would be better IMO. That was it can include deductive ability based on observations made during combat.

SiCK_Boy

2018-06-09, 11:01 AM

By the way, the examples I get were just that, an example to illustrate the concept. These are not the rules I use, or the DC I would set necessarily (I just threw those things up as I was making the post).

I can see the value in not having this be part of the base rule to leave flexibility for DMs who don't like that (the eternal debate about whether Lvl 1 PCs should know that trolls can be hurt by fire). But they could have easily included it as an optional rule, considering that it was a system use widely in 3rd and 4th edition (or maybe they just decided to stay away from it because it was used in 3rd and 4th edition).

JNAProductions

2018-06-09, 11:38 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-09, 11:49 AM

Naanomi

2018-06-09, 11:53 AM

Rangers get advantage on the Intelligence Checks to recall info about their Favored Enemy... sort of implies a few things about the mechanic

Pex

2018-06-09, 12:09 PM

I have a slight problem with this concept. Fixed DCs make setting-based variance more difficult. If, in a particular setting, kobolds (for example) are a strange new creation that literally has never existed before, knowing facts about them should be much more difficult. If dragons are (relatively) common in one area but not another, they should be easier to identify for people from the common area.

Fixed DCs work fine. It's for generic any campaign benchmark reference point. Then print a small paragraph before or after the table stating "If your setting has a creature be more rare or relatively unknown, add 5 to the DC. Similarly, lower the DC by 5 for a creature more commonly known.

Of course, there's still the problem for the generic table of one DM might set a troll at DC 15 while another at DC 20 when there's nothing specifically different about them other than DM felt like it as appropriate differently. That may not be a problem to worry about, but a fix to that is add to the table CR ranges for the corresponding appropriate DCs. For the DM who cares more about specific details he can say that even though the monster of CR X has DC Y, because it has special ability Z bump the DC by 5.

Now we have the best of both worlds. A defined example table as a reference point with the flexibility of the DM to adjust if his world is significantly different enough than "typical". Define "typical" as Forgotten Realms-like since it's the default setting.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 12:12 PM

Now we have the best of both worlds. A defined example table as a reference point with the flexibility of the DM to adjust if his world is significantly different enough than "typical". Define "typical" as Forgotten Realms-like since it's the default setting.
Except for DMs that don't want Monster Knowldge checks to learn mechanical combat capabilities, a la 4e, in their games. They get hosed or have to make a house rule removing it.

Edit: a more general table of DCs could work, like:
DC 10 common knowledge
DC 15 uncommon knowledge
DC 20 rare knowledge
DC 25 almost unknown knowledge
DC 30 completely secret knowledge

But we already have that "table". It's in the DM's guide under how to set DCs as Medium, Hard, Very Hard etc.

LudicSavant

2018-06-09, 12:39 PM

It's gonna vary setting to setting, and even within a setting.

I agree with this. That said, I think we can at least discuss a few things that are not particularly good methods for assigning DCs.

CR or other strength-based criteria for identifying creatures have always been a bit problematic. As is the call of "you've never encountered this creature before." After all, which do you think the average guy on the street in your world is gonna the most know about? A tiger, a tyrannosaurus rex, a vampire, or aphids? The fact that the tyrannosaurus is extinct and the vampire isn't even real is irrelevant, everyone's going to have heard about vampire and tyrannosaurus traits anyways (even if the accuracy of this knowledge can be questionable).

And this isn't just a property of the modern world with its information superhighways and such. The entire reason that everyone basically knows what medusas are in the real world is because they were a part of ancient pop culture that had such staying power that it persisted for millenia. Pop culture was just as much of a thing back then, that's why Bards are even a thing. The thing is, people usually know all kinds of things about dangerous, exotic creatures that they've never encountered (though sometimes the things they "know" are completely inaccurate).

This is why it's such a facepalm-worthy moment when you see inexperienced DMs complaining about people "metagaming" about knowing what a troll is, even if trolls are a thing that regularly rampages around in their setting and is a common danger to the people just over the next hill and even if it would be trivially easy for the player to come up with in-character reasons to know such things if they were simply asked how they came to that conclusion in character. In such a world, players not knowing that you kill trolls with fire is about as silly as expecting characters from earth to not know that tigers have stripes and will pounce on you. It's even sillier when you consider that these aren't just random folks on the street, they're highly skilled expert adventurers, who have every reason to know a great deal more than the average person about these things (again, even if they've never actually encountered them).

It's worth keeping in mind that giving your players some information isn't going to spoil everything and leave nothing left for the players to learn. For example, the people in the world of Attack on Titan all know about titans (how could they not?), and indeed know quite a lot about them. However, without giving anything away, this is still only the tip of the iceberg, and countless hours of entertainment are devoted to learning more about the properties of these creatures despite basically everyone knowing quite a lot about what a titan is and what they can do right from the outset. No tension is lost from people knowing right away that titans are resistant to just about everything other than a well-placed neck cut, or that they are very strong and eat people.

Another myth worth busting is that a sense of mystery comes from giving as little information as possible to the audience. It's actually pretty much the opposite, a room in a novel lent almost no description (and therefore including almost no information) has a far lesser sense of mystery than a richly detailed crime scene bursting with potential clues. The empty room creates a sense of boredom, emptiness, and artificiality (because on some level we all know that pretty much any observation of the real world is informationally dense). The crime scene creates a sense of mystery because the information provided raises further questions, and presents a puzzle that promises a potential solution.

Weak DM:
- "You see a common monster. I'm not really going to tell you anything about it. Roll a knowledge check and maybe I'll give you like, one of its resistances if you roll really well, and I definitely won't let you know any of the context for how you learned that information."

Strong DM:
- "Here's an evocative and detailed description of the monster's appearance and how it behaves as you observe it. You might've heard such and such stories about the monster based on your background (perhaps including some false details or embellishments, as pop culture lore is unreliable), or information is conspicuous by its absence (such as if it's an original experiment, a new species in an uncharted land, the creature is unfamiliar to your culture, or simply an obscure species for some reason or other). Roll knowledge and you can get more useful and accurate details (even if it's an original experiment, expert knowledge may allow you to make inferences or educated guesses or know things about similar types of beings)."

My own take would be:
Aberration, Construct, Elemental = Arcana
Beast, Fey, Ooze, Plant = Nature
Celestial, Fiend, Undead = Religion
Dragon, Giant, Humanoid = History
Monstrosity = any of the above

I usually make multiple knowledge skills applicable in different ways. A historian might know about that one time a fiend established an empire on the material plane, while a theologian might know more of their battles in the heavens, while an arcanist might be more familiar with arcane rituals related to fiends. That sort of thing.

JackPhoenix

2018-06-09, 01:29 PM

Snip

Sounds like the infamous Bear Lore (https://1d4chan.org/images/7/7d/Bear_lore.png) from 4e, where it was DC 20 check to know bears will maul you to death with their claws.

I usually make multiple knowledge skills applicable in different ways. A historian might know about that one time a fiend established an empire on the material plane, while a theologian might know more of their battles in the heavens, while an arcanist might be more familiar with arcane rituals related to fiends. That sort of thing.

That is my approach too. Different lore will get you different informations.

Nifft

2018-06-09, 01:38 PM

Sounds like the infamous Bear Lore (https://1d4chan.org/images/7/7d/Bear_lore.png) from 4e, where it was DC 20 check to know bears will maul you to death with their claws.

Writer: "Why do we need a DC 20 entry at all? The DC 15 alone should be fine."

Boss: "Design says we need at least two entries per monster."

Writer: "It's a f'n bear. Everybody knows about bears."

Boss: "I hear you. But the Design guide says we need two. They're not going to accept this. Could you just split the current contents?"

Writer: "I'll show you idiots... er, I mean, sure thing boss. I'll split the entry."

Boss: "Thanks! Solid work otherwise."

Writer (aside): "Yes. Yeeeeeesssssssss. This'll make those Design jerks look dumb. Yeah. This is great."

Boss (aside, looking at Writer in concern): "I wonder if that's productive malevolent muttering, or non-productive malevolent muttering."

LudicSavant

2018-06-09, 01:49 PM

Edit: a more general table of DCs could work, like:
DC 10 common knowledge
DC 15 uncommon knowledge
DC 20 rare knowledge
DC 25 almost unknown knowledge
DC 30 completely secret knowledge

I think these DCs are way too high for 5e. DC10 means that even a trained expert will often be missing so much as a shred of common knowledge. And the average man will only have common knowledge about 50% of the time. That's not how common knowledge works. More than 50% of people know that a bear mauls you with its claws. In fact, it would be pretty strange for any outdoorsman in any culture that has had any contact with any culture that has had contact with bears would not know that a bear mauls you with its claws. Seriously.

JoeJ

2018-06-09, 02:00 PM

Intelligence checks are to recall lore, not to see if you learned it in the first place. I could see even a highly educated naturalist momentarily forgetting some important detail during the first few seconds of an encounter. (Not to the point of forgetting that bears maul people, though. Even somebody who'd never heard of bears should be able to see that it has big claws and deduce their obvious use.)

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-09, 02:03 PM

I think these DCs are way too high for 5e. DC10 means that even a trained expert will often be missing so much as a shred of common knowledge. And the average man will only have common knowledge about 50% of the time. That's not how common knowledge works. More than 50% of people know that a bear mauls you with its claws.

Right. That's the issue with setting fixed DCs in 5e--things that are common knowledge shouldn't require a roll at all.

In fact, the whole "monster knowledge checks" (along with lots of other similar mechanics) do a couple things I strongly dislike:

* Ignore the threshold question--should this require mechanical resolution at all? Setting any non-trivial DC is the same as saying "yes, always." But the game instructs us that checks are for things that are in doubt, where the consequences are meaningful.
* Presumes incompetence. Even DC 5 says that an average person (+0 to the relevant modifier) will fail 20% of the time. That's frankly absurd if that's a "common knowledge" check.
* Enforces a mechanistic approach to the game. It promotes playing the character sheet (finding mechanical buttons and levers to push) instead of playing the character. It also pushes abstract game-mechanics (HP, AC, condition immunities, attack bonuses, etc) down to the fiction level.

Remember, in 5e players don't call for checks. The player declares intent and means, and the DM, through negotiation with the player, decides the appropriate resolution mechanic. This resolution mechanic may (but does not always) involve a check. Players can suggest that a proficiency might apply (even to a check of a different attribute), but they don't decide when a check happens.

LudicSavant

2018-06-09, 02:26 PM

Yeah. All too often when DMs say "DC 10: Common Knowledge" they totally will make you know literally nothing about a creature at all unless you hit that DC, and these DMs also tend to have an unrealistic idea of how easy a DC10 roll is. Your highly educated naturalist doesn't know that it's a bear. They don't know what purpose fur serves. They don't know that it mauls you with claws. They don't know what a mammal is. They don't know what binocular vision does. They don't know anything at all other than that some Large nondescript thing is moving towards them. And at that point... well, your game's suffering from a serious case of information drought which undermines fundamental gameplay (which is all about players being able to make meaningful decisions), player investments in information-gathering skills, and last but not least immersion in the fictional world.

Mind, this usually isn't literally happening with bears (though it sometimes is, as in the infamously stupid case of 4e D&D's take on Knowledge skills). It happens more often with things that are *like* bears from an in-world perspective, but are alien to our world, like trolls. And it's just as awful when DMs do it for trolls, but it's more likely to fly under their radar because they don't have that direct real world reference. While the players are screaming on the inside but are too polite to say anything.

JoeJ

2018-06-09, 02:42 PM

Yeah. All too often when DMs say "DC 10: Common Knowledge" they totally will make you know literally nothing about a creature at all unless you hit that DC, and these DMs also tend to have an unrealistic idea of how easy a DC10 roll is. Your highly educated naturalist doesn't know that it's a bear. They don't know what purpose fur serves. They don't know that it mauls you with claws. They don't know what a mammal is. They don't know what binocular vision does. They don't know anything at all other than that some Large nondescript thing is moving towards them. And at that point... well, your game's suffering from a serious case of information drought which undermines fundamental gameplay (which is all about players being able to make meaningful decisions), player investments in information-gathering skills, and last but not least immersion in the fictional world.

I think of Intelligence checks to remember lore as being like Jeopardy questions. They're not about whether or not you know something, but whether or not you can immediately recall it. That, obviously, means I don't call for them unless there's severe time pressure. And I never force players to pretend they don't know what they know. If the player remembers some information, their character automatically remembers it too, unless that player chooses to roleplay that they don't.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 02:51 PM

I think these DCs are way too high for 5e. I agree. I was just pulling a table out of my ass that has a DC 10, 15, 20 etc. and doesn't have specific things about monsters combat capabilities on it.

Point being that we already have a table that's general and has "baseline 50% chance of success stuff = DC 10" on it, that doesn't screw DMs by telling them they must give out information about monster's combat capabilities, or make a house rule.

Conversely, your point in reaction to my pulling a table out of my ass perfectly demonstrates Pex's normal complaint about the 5e system. :smallamused:

Otoh do remember that Intelligence checks are to remember something in the heat of the moment with one chance to succeed, and consequences for failure. If you have ten times as long and can possibly succeed and no failure consequences other than time, it's an automatic success. So whatever you set at 50% chance of success should be based on "I need to recall this info right now, and only get this one one shot at it."

And of course, there's no need for a check if a player knows something. It should only be necessary if they have forgotten something and need to recall it. Again, right now.

If you're going to use Intelligence checks as quantum-knowledge state-of-my-character checks, to see if someone knows something or not, instead of can my character succeed in doing something checks, go for it. That'll screw with the system and the DCs you set for "recalling" (actually resolving the state of the characters) knowledge though.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-09, 03:01 PM

Otoh do remember that Intelligence checks are to remember something in the heat of the moment with one chance to succeed, and consequences for failure. If you have ten times as long and can possibly succeed and no failure consequences other than time, it's an automatic success. So whatever you set at 50% chance of success should be based on "I need to recall this info right now, and only get this one one shot at it."

Or if there is no/little reasonable chance of failure or no meaningful consequences. All checks should be about needing to know/do it now without lots of room for retries.

I'm a firm believer that every check should have a consequence that changes the scenario. Succeeding or failing should have different consequences, but there shouldn't be "you fail, nothing happens. Try again." That's a boring waste of table time.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 03:07 PM

Or if there is no/little reasonable chance of failure or no meaningful consequences. All checks should be about needing to know/do it now without lots of room for retries.

I'm a firm believer that every check should have a consequence that changes the scenario. Succeeding or failing should have different consequences, but there shouldn't be "you fail, nothing happens. Try again." That's a boring waste of table time.
Attack rolls work fine for that. Checking to see if you disabled a trap this round, or unlocked a lock this round, or find the secret thing this round, works fine for that. Likewise if you need to see if they do it on the first attempt or not. (Edit: "that" meaning "you fail, nothing happens. Try again")

Otherwise, I agree. That's exactly why the automatic success rule exists. No consequences except time, and the PCs have time.

Similarly, the passive rule is there's for when they have a series of single attempts in a row, but only one attempt per thing. Checking for traps as they go along a passage. For that matter, disabling a series of traps while going along a passageway would technically qualify for using passive, if you only tried once on each one and then proceeded successful or not. Although most DMs would probably have the player roll for each one. Mainly because passive eliminates randomness so you're either disable them all or none of them.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-09, 03:22 PM

Attack rolls work fine for that. Checking to see if you disabled a trap this round, or unlocked a lock this round, or find the secret thing this round, works fine for that. Likewise if you need to see if they do it on the first attempt or not. (Edit: "that" meaning "you fail, nothing happens. Try again")

But missed attack rolls do have meaningful consequences. It's now someone else's turn to act, and you didn't harm them. That's a meaningful consequence that changes the situation in a combat context.

For traps, the only time I'd allow a re-attempt is if there is some other pressure. Otherwise the trap goes off/gets worse/etc.

For locks, the only time I'm rolling those for "normal" locks is to see how long it takes. One-time locks (that have a mechanism to prevent further attempts) deserve their own do-or-not roll.

Otherwise, I agree. That's exactly why the automatic success rule exists. No consequences except time, and the PCs have time.

Similarly, the passive rule is there's for when they have a series of single attempts in a row, but only one attempt per thing. Checking for traps as they go along a passage. For that matter, disabling a series of traps while going along a passageway would technically qualify for using passive, if you only tried once on each one and then proceeded successful or not. Although most DMs would probably have the player roll for each one. Mainly because passive eliminates randomness so you're either disable them all or none of them.

I find that traps (especially) are best if they're obvious but have to be faced either way. If detecting them is the same as avoiding them, then I've failed. Traps should change the scenario and should be an "encounter" (or part of one). I don't do generic checks to disable a trap (except possibly to unlock a lock without triggering the trap). They have to actually interact with the game world in some way, as opposed to the mechanics layer. Do they cut the wire? Do they put something in front of the dart holes? Do they use a stick to trigger the trap from a distance? None of these are susceptible to passive checks.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 03:32 PM

But missed attack rolls do have meaningful consequences. It's now someone else's turn to act, and you didn't harm them. That's a meaningful consequence that changes the situation in a combat context.Right. In other words, the only consequence is time.

(Edit: But in this case, time itself is a meaningful consequences. More on that below.)

For traps, the only time I'd allow a re-attempt is if there is some other pressure. Otherwise the trap goes off/gets worse/etc.Thats very specific way for the trap to work. If it's failure = nothing try again, then the only consequence is time and they can just take ten times as long. Which would be an out of combat thing, and why I specified "this round".

For locks, the only time I'm rolling those for "normal" locks is to see how long it takes. One-time locks (that have a mechanism to prevent further attempts) deserve their own do-or-not roll.I have had plenty of locks in adventures where the only consequence of failure is time, but time matters. Technically taking ten times to succeed matters, because I have "wandering monster or other bad stuff happens" checks periodically, but players will always take then ten times as long to succeed option anyway because they know they're going to keep going until they succeed.

For things like searching a room, this makes choosing to roll once or twice vs take ten times as long a valid choice for them to make. They don't know anything is there. They do know that tossing a room quickly for a check or two only takes a few minutes, but taking 10-20 minutes to be sure they found everything, if anything is there, means more "bad things might happen" checks.

I find that traps (especially) are best if they're obvious but have to be faced either way. If detecting them is the same as avoiding them, then I've failed. Traps should change the scenario and should be an "encounter" (or part of one). I don't do generic checks to disable a trap (except possibly to unlock a lock without triggering the trap). They have to actually interact with the game world in some way, as opposed to the mechanics layer. Do they cut the wire? Do they put something in front of the dart holes? Do they use a stick to trigger the trap from a distance? None of these are susceptible to passive checks.I prefer those kinds of traps too. Low DC to find / figure out via passive check, but decisions to make anyway.

But I'm not adverse to putting hard to find DC traps or hard to figure out how it works DC traps on doors or locks of doors. Mainly because my players know it, and they know they can take ten times as long to check a door over carefully if they want, but the cost is more "bad things" checks.

In other words, time should have its own consequences, otherwise "no consequences except time" situations remove a decision on the part of the players, and become less interesting for a DM to include.

Edit: in case it's not obvious, I'm adding an "consequence for time" mechanic, and making it Visible to the players. But the important thing to adding in a decision point of whether or not they have a decision point regarding taking time, is that they know there are some consequences for time. It doesn't need to be a game mechanic specifically. It can just be they know they're on a ticking clock, or know the area has patrols. In the case of combat, it's immediate and obvious to them: you do nothing with your action for the round.

Boci

2018-06-09, 05:26 PM

They're not quantum-knowledge PCs that have either known or not known about things until the creature is standing in front of them and they roll a check to decide it. :smallamused:

Isn't that how all knowledge-type skills work though? The character either does or doesn't know the story of the Court of the Minotaur King, but they only roll history to check when it becomes relevant for the game.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 05:43 PM

Isn't that how all knowledge-type skills work though? The character either does or doesn't know the story of the Court of the Minotaur King, but they only roll history to check when it becomes relevant for the game.
Nope. That's one way to choose to use them, but it doesn't fit very well with a couple of things in 5e
1) you can keep doing something over and over again until you succeed, if the only consequence for failing to succeed is time and it is possible to do, by taking ten times as long.
2) intelligence and Lore checks are about recalling. Not determining if you know.

That said, the ability check system is there for any question of resolution. If DMs want to use it to gate handing out knowledge to characters based on a state-of-the-world check, in this case the character's knowledge, they should. But it's akin to rolling an athletics check to determine if the gap is 10ft or 15ft when a character tries to jump it. Very few DMs would do that, nor would many players accept that.

JoeJ

2018-06-09, 05:48 PM

Isn't that how all knowledge-type skills work though? The character either does or doesn't know the story of the Court of the Minotaur King, but they only roll history to check when it becomes relevant for the game.

No, you don't roll to see if they know the story like you would in 3.x. There's no specific rule to determine what a character knows or doesn't know, but it's only when they do know the information that an intelligence (relevant skill) check is made to see if they can remember it when they're put on the spot.

Boci

2018-06-09, 05:52 PM

No, you don't roll to see if they know the story like you would in 3.x. There's no specific rule to determine what a character knows or doesn't know, but it's only when they do know the information that an intelligence (relevant skill) check is made to see if they can remember it when they're put on the spot.

And how do you determine if a character recalls the story of the Court of the Minotaur King? A history check? How is that any different to a history check to see if cahracter knows?

This really seems like players trying to convince themselves this edition is different, for some reason. "Recall" and "know" are functiuonally the same for a character when the player doesn't have the asnwer.

Nope. That's one way to choose to use them, but it doesn't fit very well with a couple of things in 5e
1) you can keep doing something over and over again until you succeed, if the only consequence for failing to succeed is time and it is possible to do, by taking ten times as long.
2) intelligence and Lore checks are about recalling. Not determining if you know.

So, none of the players know the court of the minotaur story. How do you determine if the characters do? Noble background 100%, any other background 0%?

As mentioned previously, rangers get a bonus for int checks for their favoured enemy. Which rather seems at odd with your interpretation of how thign sshould work.

JoeJ

2018-06-09, 06:08 PM

And how do you determine if a character recalls the story of the Court of the Minotaur King? A history check? How is that any different to a history check to see if cahracter knows?

This really seems like players trying to convince themselves this edition is different, for some reason. "Recall" and "know" are functiuonally the same for a character when the player doesn't have the asnwer.

So, none of the players know the court of the minotaur story. How do you determine if the characters do? Noble background 100%, any other background 0%?

As mentioned previously, rangers get a bonus for int checks for their favoured enemy. Which rather seems at odd with your interpretation of how thign sshould work.

The whole point of the DM creating a story about the Court of the Minotaur King at all is so that the PCs can do something with it, right? Usually that means they're either supposed to find a clue to something by thinking about it (in which case they have to know it), or discover it as the result of an investigation (in which case they have to not know it initially). If it matters whether or not the PCs know it, you have your answer. If it doesn't matter, just ask the player why they think their character would know it, and go with whatever they say that sounds reasonable.

I mean, who creates a world of wonderful detail just so they can hide it from the players?

Boci

2018-06-09, 06:15 PM

The whole point of the DM creating a story about the Court of the Minotaur King at all is so that the PCs can do something with it, right? Usually that means they're either supposed to find a clue to something by thinking about it (in which case they have to know it), or discover it as the result of an investigation (in which case they have to not know it initially). If it matters whether or not the PCs know it, you have your answer. If it doesn't matter, just ask the player why they think their character would know it, and go with whatever they say that sounds reasonable.

I mean, who creates a world of wonderful detail just so they can hide it from the players?

I do all the time. It keeps my players guessing, whether its an irrelevant fluff detail or something that will later matter. And due to how games are structured, its not always clear at the time which it will be, as players often have a lot of agency in choosing their goals.

I build a setting knowing that not all of the details will be known by the players, and in my expirience players value details more when a dice roll determined whether or not they knew it, as oppose to me deciding whether or not they did, for the same reason slaying a monster wouldn't be as satisfying if the DM told you not to roll and just decided what the result of the attack was.

I also don't get this "ask players why they think their character would know it". A character could be a noble, which would certainly give them a chance to know about the court, but the idea that every noble knows 100% of all mortal courts of the land dating back 200 years seems off to me.

JoeJ

2018-06-09, 06:50 PM

I do all the time. It keeps my players guessing, whether its an irrelevant fluff detail or something that will later matter. And due to how games are structured, its not always clear at the time which it will be, as players often have a lot of agency in choosing their goals.

I build a setting knowing that not all of the details will be known by the players, and in my expirience players value details more when a dice roll determined whether or not they knew it, as oppose to me deciding whether or not they did, for the same reason slaying a monster wouldn't be as satisfying if the DM told you not to roll and just decided what the result of the attack was.

If that's what your players prefer, then do it that way. You can manage information any way you like. Do you also have players roll a strength (athletics) check to see how wide a chasm is?

I also don't get this "ask players why they think their character would know it". A character could be a noble, which would certainly give them a chance to know about the court, but the idea that every noble knows 100% of all mortal courts of the land dating back 200 years seems off to me.

How did you get from "go with whatever they say that sounds reasonable" to "every noble knows 100% of all mortal courts of the land dating back 200 years?"

Boci

2018-06-09, 06:54 PM

If that's what your players prefer, then do it that way. You can manage information any way you like. Do you also have players roll a strength (athletics) check to see how wide a chasm is?

No, because athletics isn't a knowledge-type skill. They can tell that by looking.

How did you get from "go with whatever they say that sounds reasonable" to "every noble knows 100% of all mortal courts of the land dating back 200 years?"

I run an immersive world. If the player knows what the Court of the Minotaur King is because they are a noble, then that must mean they know every court, otherwise they wouldn't necicssarily know that exact court just for being a noble. If they know say 60% of the lands court, which yes we both seem to agree would be more reasonable, then there would be a 40% chance the Minotaur King's court is not one of the courts they are familiar with.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 06:55 PM

How did you get from "go with whatever they say that sounds reasonable" to "every noble knows 100% of all mortal courts of the land dating back 200 years?"
It's worth noting, that due to the way 5e tells DMs to handle ability checks and automatic success, that if you choose to allow Int-related checks to determine if they know something, technically they should be able to take ten times as long and succeed in knowing anything.

Of course, you can discard that DMG rule specially in the case of knowledge checks. Or choose to interpret the failure state as having changed something (in this case the characters knowledge) in such a way as they cannot repeat the check. Just as in many cases, Charisma checks are interpreted as one-and-done checks even for failures, because if you fail to 'social' the other party they have made up their mind.

MaxWilson

2018-06-09, 07:03 PM

The whole point of the DM creating a story about the Court of the Minotaur King at all is so that the PCs can do something with it, right? Usually that means they're either supposed to find a clue to something by thinking about it (in which case they have to know it), or discover it as the result of an investigation (in which case they have to not know it initially). If it matters whether or not the PCs know it, you have your answer. If it doesn't matter, just ask the player why they think their character would know it, and go with whatever they say that sounds reasonable.

I mean, who creates a world of wonderful detail just so they can hide it from the players?

Evil DMs who enjoy taunting players with important knowledge just out of reach?

Picture this: you know your DM is into optional sidequests, secret doors, and letting players overlook the best treasure if that's what their actions result in. You're in a dungeon staring (in character) at the painting of a noble-looking Minotaur on a throne. At the actual physical table, you're staring at a note card the DM has just tossed onto the table, with writing on its visible side: "The Tale of the Court of the Minotaur King." He says, "something about that painting jogs your memory. Maybe you've heard this story before, somewhere, you think. Anyone who succeeds on a DC 20 History check right now gets to flip over that note card and read the back."

How badly do you now want to pass that History check?

JoeJ

2018-06-09, 07:41 PM

No, because athletics isn't a knowledge-type skill. They can tell that by looking.

You use strength ability checks to determine whether the PC can do something, but intelligence ability checks to determine facts about the world?

I run an immersive world. If the player knows what the Court of the Minotaur King is because they are a noble, then that must mean they know every court, otherwise they wouldn't necicssarily know that exact court just for being a noble. If they know say 60% of the lands court, which yes we both seem to agree would be more reasonable, then there would be a 40% chance the Minotaur King's court is not one of the courts they are familiar with.

You've lost me. Are you saying that everybody in your world who knows about the Court of the Minotaur King also know about every other court? Or that nobles in your world know about some completely random selection of courts? But wouldn't they be more likely to know some courts than others? I'm not following your train of logic here. I would just ask if it makes sense that this particular character (noble or not) knows about that specific court, using the player's knowledge of their character and my knowledge of how obscure that court is.

How badly do you now want to pass that History check?

Meh. You'd do better by offering me candy if I roll above a certain number. I already know the information isn't important, or the DM wouldn't take the risk of us never finding it out.

MaxWilson

2018-06-09, 08:04 PM

Meh. You'd do better by offering me candy if I roll above a certain number. I already know the information isn't important, or the DM wouldn't take the risk of us never finding it out.

It's up to you then I guess. If you get stoned by a princess who reveals herself to be a Medusa because you were looking at her when she lifted her veil (and then failed your saving throw), and then your buddies later look up the tale and learn all of the Minotaur King's servants were blind men because all of the king's progeny were cursed to become medusas, I as DM would consider my duty to telegraph threats fulfilled and wouldn't feel at all bad about your fate. You could have avoided it via saving throw or history check or pure player savvy, and if you blow all three, bad things happen.

JoeJ

2018-06-09, 08:20 PM

It's up to you then I guess. If you get stoned by a princess who reveals herself to be a Medusa because you were looking at her when she lifted her veil (and then failed your saving throw), and then your buddies later look up the tale and learn all of the Minotaur King's servants were blind men because all of the king's progeny were cursed to become medusas, I as DM would consider my duty to telegraph threats fulfilled and wouldn't feel at all bad about your fate. You could have avoided it via saving throw or history check or pure player savvy, and if you blow all three, bad things happen.

Not a problem. If you're hiding your clues behind die rolls, I'll probably never get the message to go to wherever that medusa is in the first place. My dice don't give me any love in situations like that.

MaxWilson

2018-06-09, 08:52 PM

Not a problem. If you're hiding your clues behind die rolls, I'll probably never get the message to go to wherever that medusa is in the first place. My dice don't give me any love in situations like that.

I'm afraid there aren't many adventures which can be completed with nothing but a defeatist attitude and a set of dice that only roll low. Even if you did get the information via pure player savvy, you'd never get past the kobold guarding the outer gates. In theory you could try to sneak past, bribe him, or intimidate him, but where would you get the gold with which to bribe him if you've failed every roll you've ever made in 5e? You're right, it's hopeless--why even try?

mgshamster

2018-06-09, 09:07 PM

Made a thread asking if the rules exist somewhere, and instead got a debate on whether the tukes should exist at all. :(

Thanks for the advice, everyone!

In my situation, I've got a Level 20 Wizard going through a solo module - so when we got to an adult black dragon, how much does he know? What about the elementals? Or the ogre and Oni? Or the flumphs?

So we were hoping for just a quick chart to use without having to put much thought into it, since this is a single module that's meant to be over fairly quickly.

Anyways, I guess the answer to my questions is: Nothing Official, Nothing in UA, and no one knows of a 3PP for it.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 10:56 PM

MaxWilson

2018-06-09, 11:23 PM

In my situation, I've got a Level 20 Wizard going through a solo module - so when we got to an adult black dragon, how much does he know? What about the elementals? Or the ogre and Oni? Or the flumphs?

So we were hoping for just a quick chart to use without having to put much thought into it, since this is a single module that's meant to be over fairly quickly.

Anyways, I guess the answer to my questions is: Nothing Official, Nothing in UA, and no one knows of a 3PP for it.

Honestly, in your specific situation my answer would just be, "Yes, he knows everything the player knows about those particular monsters." You don't get to be a 20th level wizard by collecting bottlecaps.

If it's a new player, the wizard could realistically know lots of things the player doesn't know, but in that case it would still spoil the new player's fun to give away the surprises. And a new player probably will find a playing 20th level wizard a confusing experience anyway--too many options, not enough context to understand the difference between them. For such a player I'd recommend a 20th level Swashbuckler instead, or a 20th level Samurai, or maybe even a 20th level Warlock if they really like magic. (But at least a Warlock doesn't force you to learn all about spell slots and upcasting: you can just give him a list of spells [Armor of Agathys, Fear, Fly, etc] and say "you can cast up to four of these and then you need to rest to get them back" and another list [Mass Suggestion, True Polymorph, etc.] that you say "you can cast each of these spells once during the adventure and that's it.") Plus, a new player will have more fun roleplaying and making choices than reading through exposition (and possibly feeling like he "doesn't know enough" to play D&D until he learns a bunch of monster lore first).

So anyway, that's why I'd just skip the monster lore checks in this scenario, even if published rules did exist, and say the wizard knows whatever the player knows.

Tanarii

2018-06-09, 11:30 PM

Honestly, in your specific situation my answer would just be, "Yes, he knows everything the player knows about those particular monsters."
This is always the answer. Players can't not know something the player knows, there for neither can PCs not know something the player knows.

The only possible, but not required, things knowledge checks can be used for are:
1) things the player knew but has forgotten.
2) things the player never knew, but the PC might have known.

Pex

2018-06-09, 11:54 PM

Except for DMs that don't want Monster Knowldge checks to learn mechanical combat capabilities, a la 4e, in their games. They get hosed or have to make a house rule removing it.

Edit: a more general table of DCs could work, like:
DC 10 common knowledge
DC 15 uncommon knowledge
DC 20 rare knowledge
DC 25 almost unknown knowledge
DC 30 completely secret knowledge

But we already have that "table". It's in the DM's guide under how to set DCs as Medium, Hard, Very Hard etc.

It's easier to not use something then need to make something up which is what we have to do now since this table we're talking about is based off someone posting here, not anything official. What you mention is for generic skill use. It is something, but has the same problem as other skill uses of the DM having to make it up, what is hard DC for one DM is easy DC for another etc. That satisfies PhoenixPhyre's desire for flexibility. It does not satisfy SiCK_Boy who wanted specific examples to work with.

In any case, I'd argue to the DM who resents the existence of the table that PCs are not ignorant of the world they live in. It is not a crime against humanity for players to know things. I will call out DM who loathe players knowing things as being a DM who hates his players. I have no sympathy for such DMs.

Right. That's the issue with setting fixed DCs in 5e--things that are common knowledge shouldn't require a roll at all.

In fact, the whole "monster knowledge checks" (along with lots of other similar mechanics) do a couple things I strongly dislike:

* Ignore the threshold question--should this require mechanical resolution at all? Setting any non-trivial DC is the same as saying "yes, always." But the game instructs us that checks are for things that are in doubt, where the consequences are meaningful.
* Presumes incompetence. Even DC 5 says that an average person (+0 to the relevant modifier) will fail 20% of the time. That's frankly absurd if that's a "common knowledge" check.
* Enforces a mechanistic approach to the game. It promotes playing the character sheet (finding mechanical buttons and levers to push) instead of playing the character. It also pushes abstract game-mechanics (HP, AC, condition immunities, attack bonuses, etc) down to the fiction level.

Remember, in 5e players don't call for checks. The player declares intent and means, and the DM, through negotiation with the player, decides the appropriate resolution mechanic. This resolution mechanic may (but does not always) involve a check. Players can suggest that a proficiency might apply (even to a check of a different attribute), but they don't decide when a check happens.

We get back to the old problem that different DMs have different ideas as to what is common knowledge enough not to need a roll. Already LudicSavant disagrees with Tanarii on what the appropriate DCs are. It is not enough to say to DMs there's no need to roll when the knowledge is common enough. The game designers themselves needed to tell DMs what constitutes common knowledge. Base it on creature type, CR, appropriate Knowledge proficiency, give something to distinguish levels of difficulty in identifying a creature and what it can do.

Tanarii

2018-06-10, 12:43 AM

It's easier to not use something then need to make something up which is what we have to do now since this table we're talking about is based off someone posting here, not anything official.Have you ever played official play?

For that matter, even outside official play, taking something away from players via house rule is more likely to cause bad blood than adding it if desired.

Also, in case you missed it, I pointed out that that another posters objection to my improvised table perfectly backs up your complaint about DM variability. :smallamused:

In any case, I'd argue to the DM who resents the existence of the table that PCs are not ignorant of the world they live in. It is not a crime against humanity for players to know things. I will call out DM who loathe players knowing things as being a DM who hates his players. I have no sympathy for such DMs.Good thing that isn't the position I'm arguing then. At all.

I don't believe in gating information behind "does your character know this?" checks at all. My preference is: if the players should conceivably know something based on their character's knowledge of the world, provide it to them. And use intelligence checks for things the player may have forgotten but needs to recall on the spot, figuring things out by putting two and two together, or figuring out clues.

What I don't like is hard coded checks providing them with hard mechanical combat details, aka monster knowledge checks.

JoeJ

2018-06-10, 01:32 AM

The game designers themselves needed to tell DMs what constitutes common knowledge. Base it on creature type, CR, appropriate Knowledge proficiency, give something to distinguish levels of difficulty in identifying a creature and what it can do.

That's not the job of the game designers, it's the job of whomever creates the world the campaign is set in.

Boci

2018-06-10, 03:48 AM

You use strength ability checks to determine whether the PC can do something, but intelligence ability checks to determine facts about the world?

No, I never said that and have no idea how you could possibly read that in my posts. Intelligence checks determine if your character knows facts about the world.

You've lost me. Are you saying that everybody in your world who knows about the Court of the Minotaur King also know about every other court? Or that nobles in your world know about some completely random selection of courts? But wouldn't they be more likely to know some courts than others? I'm not following your train of logic here. I would just ask if it makes sense that this particular character (noble or not) knows about that specific court, using the player's knowledge of their character and my knowledge of how obscure that court is.

I was using %-tage to simplify things. Yes ofcourse some courts are more familiar than others, but when you take the more obscure courts of land, you're left with a noble player likely knowing some but not all of them. Which is the Court of the Minotaur King? A court the character does know, or a court the character doesn't know about?

How do you decide what "makes sense" for a character to know? Unless backstories are 30 pages long, whether an older, no longer existing court is known by a player will not have been explored.

Player: "Well, I'm a human noble. I've learned about courts, so maybe I do, maybe I don't."
DM: "Yes, that seems reasonable. How do we decide?"

Maybe a history check?

SiCK_Boy

2018-06-10, 08:25 AM

For that matter, even outside official play, taking something away from players via house rule is more likely to cause bad blood than adding it if desired.

Agreed, but they still could have come up with an optional rule. They did so with multiple aspects that were part of previous editions (ex: flanking rules); a monster-knowledge system would have been nice, as it's the kind of thing that eventually comes up in all campaigns anyway.

As for earlier debate about all nobles knowing about all king's court in the world, I don't think anyone made that claim. But assuming nobody has time to fully detail the entire life history of their characters and all the information he may know, the options are limited. You could have (I'm sure there are additional systems you could come up with):
- The DM decides if you know it or not
- The DM sets an arbitrary chance that you know it or not
- Use an ability check to determine if you knew it or not (adding skill as fits the situation)
- Use a random number to determine your chance of knowing the information or not (ex: roll 1d100, then roll again; if the second roll is lower than the first, you know the information)

(In all cases, even after establishing that the character "knows" the information, the DM can still ask for an Intelligence check to allow you to remember it in the heat of the moment)

The main advantage of the skill / ability check in these scenarios is that it allows a specific character choice (the way you assigned abilities; the skills you picked) to influence your odds of success. It also reflect the notion that being skillful in these areas bring specific benefits in relation to these area of specialization (and then, maybe background - such as noble in regard to knowledge of noble's courts - could be used to grant advantage / disadvantage to the check).

Tanarii

2018-06-10, 09:53 AM

(In all cases, even after establishing that the character "knows" the information, the DM can still ask for an Intelligence check to allow you to remember it in the heat of the moment)Uh, what? That's ... horrible.

If a player knows something, the player gets to decide how they use that information in making decisions for the PC.

Checks cannot take away player knowledge, since that's impossible. But neither should they ever remove player agency.

Edit: If a player chooses to decide their "character" will not act on something the player knows because reasons, such as pretending their character does not know the information, that's their choice as well.

JoeJ

2018-06-10, 11:17 AM

No, I never said that and have no idea how you could possibly read that in my posts. Intelligence checks determine if your character knows facts about the world.

Whether or not Sir Justin knows about the Court of the Minotaur Kings is a fact about the world, like how tall Sir Justin is, or the color of Sir Justin's eyes.

I was using %-tage to simplify things. Yes ofcourse some courts are more familiar than others, but when you take the more obscure courts of land, you're left with a noble player likely knowing some but not all of them. Which is the Court of the Minotaur King? A court the character does know, or a court the character doesn't know about?

How do you decide what "makes sense" for a character to know? Unless backstories are 30 pages long, whether an older, no longer existing court is known by a player will not have been explored.

Player: "Well, I'm a human noble. I've learned about courts, so maybe I do, maybe I don't."
DM: "Yes, that seems reasonable. How do we decide?"

Maybe a history check?

How do you decide if there's a blueberry bush within sight of the PCs? Assuming you don't map the location of every bush in the world, you have to make a decision when a player comes up with some goofy plan requiring fresh blueberries. If you want to set a number and roll dice, that's fine, or you can just make up whatever feels right, if that's easier. Rolling dice isn't the official rule, because there isn't any rule for the distribution of plants, but that doesn't mean it's bad if you do it that way. The same goes for the distribution of knowledge. Who knows what is part of your world building, not part of the rules set. Do it however you like.

Boci

2018-06-10, 11:28 AM

Whether or not Sir Justin knows about the Court of the Minotaur Kings is a fact about the world, like how tall Sir Justin is, or the color of Sir Justin's eyes.

I mean, I guess that's technically right. But rolling to see if your character knows it how pretty much every other gaming system handles knowledge-type skills. Being origional is great, but it never hurts to stop and wonder if there is perhaps a reason no one else has tried an idea.

How do you decide if there's a blueberry bush within sight of the PCs? Assuming you don't map the location of every bush in the world, you have to make a decision when a player comes up with some goofy plan requiring fresh blueberries.

As A DM I generally have an idea of local plant life. Won't have bushes mapped indevidually, but I'll know if blueberries or something similar grows in the surrounding area. Why do they need to be within sight of the PCs?

I would also point out that a goofy plan involving fresh blueberries is way more situational than determining whether or not a chasracter knows a detail about the setting. Furthermore, whether or not there is a blueberry tree nearby is not character dependent. Whether or not a character knows something however is.

You also didn't answer my question. How in the above scenario does the DM determine if the Court of the Minotaur King is one of the courts the player has heard of? Just decides for himself? 5th ed is still a d20 game.

JoeJ

2018-06-10, 12:04 PM

I mean, I guess that's technically right. But rolling to see if your character knows it how pretty much every other gaming system handles knowledge-type skills. Being origional is great, but it never hurts to stop and wonder if there is perhaps a reason no one else has tried an idea.

Every other gaming system? That's certainly not correct.

As A DM I generally have an idea of local plant life. Won't have bushes mapped indevidually, but I'll know if blueberries or something similar grows in the surrounding area. Why do they need to be within sight of the PCs?

I would also point out that a goofy plan involving fresh blueberries is way more situational than determining whether or not a chasracter knows a detail about the setting. Furthermore, whether or not there is a blueberry tree nearby is not character dependent. Whether or not a character knows something however is.

You also didn't answer my question. How in the above scenario does the DM determine if the Court of the Minotaur King is one of the courts the player has heard of? Just decides for himself? 5th ed is still a d20 game.

I did answer: the DM decides who knows what. Like every other part of world creation, the rule is that the DM decides. Perhaps you determined when you created the Court of the Minotaur King in the first place how well known it is. Or maybe when you created this particular adventure. It's possible you didn't decide until a situation involving that court arose during play. At whatever point, though, you decide. How you do that is up to you. How do you determine anything about the game world?

Personally, I would take into account what I know about the court. How far is it from the PC's homeland? Is it past or present? If past, how long ago? How much diplomatic contact do/did they have with their neighbors? How often do/did they go to war with their neighbors? Then I compare that to what the player says about why they think their character might know this information and make a decision.

Boci

2018-06-10, 12:18 PM

Every other gaming system? That's certainly not correct.

I'd be really interested in hearing of another gaming system where a knowledge-type skill is used to recall rather than to see if a character knows. D&D 4th and 3.5, pathfinder, WoD, FF's 40k games all involve rolling to see if a character knows.

How do you determine anything about the game world?

This isn't the game world though. Its the character. The DM controlls the game world, but generally isn't an arbiter of the characters abilities, including whether or not they know some uncommon lore about the land.

This also just seems to be begging for a disagreement between DM and player, when one feels they would know and the other disagrees. Rolling acts as a neutral arbiter in such cases. Its also way quicker than going over the laundry list of considerations you just listed.

Naanomi

2018-06-10, 12:53 PM

Is... there a meaningful distinction between ‘never knew it in the first place’ and ‘knew it but can’t recall it right now’ in most gameplay situations?

Boci

2018-06-10, 01:12 PM

Is... there a meaningful distinction between ‘never knew it in the first place’ and ‘knew it but can’t recall it right now’ in most gameplay situations?

I you cannot retry an attempt to recall then not really, barring the existence of a spell that can deeply prob into someones brain.

If you can reroll recall attempts, then it means you need a different way to decide whether or not a character knows something out of combat/any other situation where time is an issue.

Tanarii

2018-06-10, 01:16 PM

Is... there a meaningful distinction between ‘never knew it in the first place’ and ‘knew it but can’t recall it right now’ in most gameplay situations?
Any time you have time to recall it, as opposed to making a single check to recall it right now.

Naanomi

2018-06-10, 01:25 PM

Any time you have time to recall it, as opposed to making a single check to recall it right now.
Kind of makes the Ranger ability even more of a ribbon than it already is... you don’t know more about Sahuagin than anyone else, you just are quicker on the spot in trivia contests?

Nifft

2018-06-10, 01:38 PM

Is... there a meaningful distinction between ‘never knew it in the first place’ and ‘knew it but can’t recall it right now’ in most gameplay situations?

As a DM, it gives me TWO chances to tell the player "No", and that's twice as good.

Tanarii

2018-06-10, 03:42 PM

Kind of makes the Ranger ability even more of a ribbon than it already is... you don’t know more about Sahuagin than anyone else, you just are quicker on the spot in trivia contests?
I guess the ability to use theives tools to make a high stress check to disable a trap in a round is a ribbon too.

Naanomi

2018-06-10, 06:14 PM

I guess the ability to use theives tools to make a high stress check to disable a trap in a round is a ribbon too.
So... a tool proficiency acquireable by any background... or with cash and time... and has many other uses... and the results of which are neither likely to be given to a player for free, nor supersceded by player knowledge... and is likely to result in an immediate change to the battlefield or damage evasion... compared to what is arguably intended to be a class defining feature (or at least one of the few unique tools the ranger gets at all)

And I don’t play at many tables (or read many published modules) that let anyone with that tool proficiency automatically disable traps with no repercussions in non-combat situations either

Pex

2018-06-10, 10:07 PM

That's not the job of the game designers, it's the job of whomever creates the world the campaign is set in.

I don't need the game's permission to do what I want as DM. I can already do what I want. What I need is the game math. I create my world. It's the game designers' job to create the rules to be used. When it comes to skills 5E does not provide enough.

Nifft

2018-06-10, 10:54 PM

I don't need the game's permission to do what I want as DM. I can already do what I want. What I need is the game math. I create my world. It's the game designers' job to create the rules to be used. When it comes to skills 5E does not provide enough.

Indeed.

Ideally, they'd lay out some usable default numbers, and then also give you the reasoning behind those numbers so you could easily modify the math to suit your game's needs.

Trickshaw

2018-06-10, 11:21 PM

I think fixed DC's are fine provided you also utilize a Passive skill variant.

If a Ranger has a passive Nature skill of 15 (10 + skill mod) then any information garnered with a DC of 10 or 15 is essentially "known". If he/she wants information past that then make them roll.

Pelle

2018-06-11, 03:44 AM

I don't need the game's permission to do what I want as DM. I can already do what I want. What I need is the game math. I create my world. It's the game designers' job to create the rules to be used. When it comes to skills 5E does not provide enough.

What more do you need of the game math? When you set a DC for recalling something, you directly set the probability of success.

I can understand, though not agreeing with, wanting help setting DCs for climbing trees etc. After all, the same tree in different settings is equally difficult to climb. But when it comes to lore, what is well known/secret/non-existing varies a lot between settings. It can also vary tremendously locally within each setting. So finally, no matter what, the DM has to first decide what the odds of knowing something is, and then set the DC accordingly. The game designers can't know and shouldn't interfere with how common things are in my setting.

DeadMech

2018-06-11, 04:07 AM

The lack of rules for knowledge skills is possibly 5e's most infuriating aspect for me. I like playing knowledgeable characters. Knowing what abilities creatures have is the difference between life and death in high stakes combat. Either you know trolls regenerate unless burnt by fire or acid or you get smashed by trolls. You either know to spread out before a dragon's breath attack or you tpk in a dragon's breath attack cone.

When I build a character dedicating every available build resource from skill proficiencies to subclass to attributes towards knowing things... I god damned expect to know things. And 5e's rules don't just fall flat on their face in this regards, they stand staring at the sun, drool dripping from it's mouth in a catatonic stupor. What in heaven's name was wrong with 3.5's method? Beat a DC based on the creature's CR to learn one piece of information. Beat it by even more to learn more pieces of information. Event he dullest DM could figure out that meant they should tell the player about the signature thing that makes whatever monster you're fighting unique, dangerous and interesting. Well... what is wrong with that method other than 5e's damned bounded accuracy where a peasant would identify things adventuring scholars won't just because they rolled a d20 better.

Nothing has made me want to strangle a DM more than the time I rolled a 28 on a nature check and got a three word answer in reply. "So what's the deal with this forest of madness people are talking about?"

"It causes madness."

I could very well memorize every monster manual that comes out for 5e. I wouldn't even have to pay for the books to do it. But you know what we call people who use information from outside of the game? Dirty metagaming cheaters.

Pelle

2018-06-11, 04:14 AM

Knowing what abilities creatures have is the difference between life and death in high stakes combat. You either know to spread out before a dragon's breath attack or you tpk in a dragon's breath attack cone.

What in heaven's name was wrong with 3.5's method? Beat a DC based on the creature's CR to learn one piece of information.

Knowing that a dragon breaths fire is something every commoner should know. Correlatating DC to CR is possibly the worst way to formalize knowledge DCs.

DeadMech

2018-06-11, 04:27 AM

Knowing that a dragon breaths fire is something every commoner should know. Correlatating DC to CR is possibly the worst way to formalize knowledge DCs.

Commoners are dirt farmers who never travel more than a few miles from the place they were born til the day they die. They are illiterate. And they can't tell the difference between truth and lies told by travelers just trying to make themselves sound important. Unless they see a dragon breath fire they should have no idea what it's capable of. Much less sorting out that red dragons breath fire and other colored dragon's don't.

CR is not a perfect system I'll admit. A red dragon wyrmling does allot of what an adult red dragon does. But just to a lesser degree. Which is why you should probably keep the lower CR versions of a creature in mind when giving out info on the higher CR versions.

Pelle

2018-06-11, 04:34 AM

Commoners are dirt farmers who never travel more than a few miles from the place they were born til the day they die. They are illiterate. And they can't tell the difference between truth and lies told by travelers just trying to make themselves sound important. Unless they see a dragon breath fire they should have no idea what it's capable of. Much less sorting out that red dragons breath fire and other colored dragon's don't.

Depends heavily on your setting, which again is a big argument for not formalizing the knowledge DCs.

Maybe the country is ruled by a dragon and people pay taxes to avoid getting torched, maybe dragonborn are a big part of the population, maybe what you said above holds true, etc. Context matters for knowledge DCs.

DeadMech

2018-06-11, 04:55 AM

Depends heavily on your setting, which again is a big argument for not formalizing the knowledge DCs.

Maybe the country is ruled by a dragon and people pay taxes to avoid getting torched, maybe dragonborn are a big part of the population, maybe what you said above holds true, etc. Context matters for knowledge DCs.

Maybe but that's also the sort of thing circumstance bonuses seen all through 3.5 would logically pop up for. Though this is all also far off the point. NPC's in dragonborn centric towns lorded over by dragon monarchs aren't the people in the course of playing DnD who need to make knowledge checks to see if they know something or not about dragons. Players do. And without some formalized method of giving the players that information the only thing you've done is created a trap out of entire character archtypes in a sizable percentage of the games people play.

Pelle

2018-06-11, 05:21 AM

DeadMech

2018-06-11, 06:00 AM

PCs can be from those same countries, not only the commoners. You could formalize it, but to me a simple rule like CR-based would just be non-sensical and jarring, or it would have to be really complex and contain a lot of modifiers, 3.5 style. That's worthless to me.

If you are worried that your Wizard with +5 in Int(Arcana) knows if a dragon breath fire, ask the DM how common dragons are in the setting. I can vary from one is your neighbour to doesn't exist. I see no traps. The DM still needs to assign certain pieces of knowledge to certain DCs, and reflect on how that affects the PCs. For me it is less work to assign a DC based on the probability something has in the setting. For others, it is less work to look up lots of tables, add modifiers for this and that. This always seems to be the divide in these discussion, by the way...

You're on a first name basis +10
Unavoidable +5
Common +2
Uncommon -2
mythical -5
One of a kind being that came into existence literally a minute ago -10
Super complex. Took me literally a minute to type up on the fly.

You call it nonsensical and jarring where I call it completely common sense.
Higher CR beings tend to more unique and rare. Even if they are well known the stories about them are often exaggerated, or incomplete, or malicious lies, or purposeful subterfuge. They are also generally more dangerous so the people who do have first hand knowledge of them are less likely to live long enough to tell the tale.

I'm not trying to take away your ability to make things up on the fly. I'm trying to package it in a way that works for everyone on both sides of the screen so that Player and DM are both on the same page about what PC's can and can not do and so that players can reasonably predict the outcome of their choices.

Pelle

2018-06-11, 07:04 AM

You're on a first name basis +10
Unavoidable +5
Common +2
Uncommon -2
mythical -5
One of a kind being that came into existence literally a minute ago -10
Super complex. Took me literally a minute to type up on the fly.

You call it nonsensical and jarring where I call it completely common sense.
Higher CR beings tend to more unique and rare. Even if they are well known the stories about them are often exaggerated, or incomplete, or malicious lies, or purposeful subterfuge. They are also generally more dangerous so the people who do have first hand knowledge of them are less likely to live long enough to tell the tale.

Your table isn't more complex than the 5e skill rules, so just use those instead. If it is that easy for you to come up with the modifiers, you should have no problem assigning DCs either. More rules is not necessarily better, and in this case you obviously don't need them.

I don't agree with the high CR stuff needing to be unkown, but maybe it is in your setting, fine. On the other end of the scale, why should low CR creatures be more well known, even if they are more rare than something with a high CR? You are assuming that thing with low CR is common, and things with high CR is uncommon. Even if so, base the DC on the rarity, not the CR. Correlation, not causation.

I'm not trying to take away your ability to make things up on the fly. I'm trying to package it in a way that works for everyone on both sides of the screen so that Player and DM are both on the same page about what PC's can and can not do and so that players can reasonably predict the outcome of their choices.

That's fine. Alttough Tanarii already did something like that:

DC 10 common knowledge
DC 15 uncommon knowledge
DC 20 rare knowledge
DC 25 almost unknown knowledge
DC 30 completely secret knowledge

But we already have that "table". It's in the DM's guide under how to set DCs as Medium, Hard, Very Hard etc.

Tanarii

2018-06-11, 07:42 AM

That's fine. Alttough Tanarii already did something like that:
Caveats: It should have been 5 lower for the first two, with another inserted between uncommon and rare, to align more closely with the DMG table. Which is what I was emulating. Just using different words.

Pex

2018-06-11, 08:01 AM

What more do you need of the game math? When you set a DC for recalling something, you directly set the probability of success.

I can understand, though not agreeing with, wanting help setting DCs for climbing trees etc. After all, the same tree in different settings is equally difficult to climb. But when it comes to lore, what is well known/secret/non-existing varies a lot between settings. It can also vary tremendously locally within each setting. So finally, no matter what, the DM has to first decide what the odds of knowing something is, and then set the DC accordingly. The game designers can't know and shouldn't interfere with how common things are in my setting.

Which I accounted for previously. Have a table that sets DCs by CR. Before or after the table can be a sentence saying to increase or decrease the DC by 5 if in the DM's gameworld a particular monster is less or more known respectively than default. The math is done for you.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-11, 08:04 AM

Pex

2018-06-11, 08:07 AM

Your table isn't more complex than the 5e skill rules, so just use those instead. If it is that easy for you to come up with the modifiers, you should have no problem assigning DCs either. More rules is not necessarily better, and in this case you obviously don't need them.

I don't agree with the high CR stuff needing to be unkown, but maybe it is in your setting, fine. On the other end of the scale, why should low CR creatures be more well known, even if they are more rare than something with a high CR? You are assuming that thing with low CR is common, and things with high CR is uncommon. Even if so, base the DC on the rarity, not the CR. Correlation, not causation.

That's fine. Alttough Tanarii already did something like that:

The point is he shouldn't have had to come up with his own table. That was the game designers' job.

As mentioned, CR is a horrible way to do anything for DCs. That makes the famous archmage harder to know about than the never seen before CR 1/2 aberrations. And if it doesn't, then the situational modifiers have swallowed the standard and it's useless.

I don't care if it's by CR or not. That was just an example. What I want is for a table to have existed by whatever criteria works the game designer's should have made when creating the game working out the math.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-11, 08:28 AM

The point is he shouldn't have had to come up with his own table. That was the game designers' job.

I don't care if it's by CR or not. That was just an example. What I want is for a table to have existed by whatever criteria works the game designer's should have made when creating the game working out the math.

They did make such a table. That was the whole point of Tanarii's exercise. You just don't like it, so you reject it's existence.

Edit: And you're mixing up the job of a game designer and a setting designer. The game designer tells you what DCs map to what probabilities of success. This is generic, and what the Very Easy/Easy/Medium/Hard/Very Hard/Impossible table tells you.

A setting designer's job is to map those probabilities onto in-universe entities. How hard is it to identify a kobold? In some parts of some settings, trivial (DC 0). In others, impossible (DC No, they don't exist). How hard is it to identify an archmage? Could be anything.

There is no generic answer. Any default you set is wrong, possibly in multiple different ways within the same setting. Fixing a DC implies a particular setting. And that's something 5e isn't willing to do; it's something that 3e completely ignored that they were doing.

Naanomi

2018-06-11, 08:42 AM

The 3e system was what... look on 100 books to find the DC you like (and ignore the ones you don’t, since it may be different in different source books even for the same task), then apply any of dozens of situational modifiers at your whim, found across 10 or so other books. This assumes you find it at all, PCs are creative so 50% of what they try won’t be in any book at all. Also, be sure that DCs variability is such that characters above the lowest levels will either automatically succeed or automatically fail.

Don’t forget, and this is important; make sure no published module really seems to follow the guidelines from any of those other sources and just seems arbitrary or totally based on the expected level range of the adventure.

Pelle

2018-06-11, 08:56 AM

Which I accounted for previously. Have a table that sets DCs by CR. Before or after the table can be a sentence saying to increase or decrease the DC by 5 if in the DM's gameworld a particular monster is less or more known respectively than default. The math is done for you.

When it comes to settings, there is no default. How common things are in the Forgotton Realms is meaningless to me. How common things are should decide the DC, and is directly what you use when following the 5e skill rules. If something is easy to recall - call it "common". I something is hard to recall - call it "rare" or whatever.

The math is already done by the game designers. To recall something in the heat of the moment, with +9 you have a 50 % chance of hitting DC 20, and 100 % chance of hitting DC 10. With -1, you have 0 % and 50 % respectively. What percentage is appropriate depends on the setting and context, something the game designers should not be involved in. The DM should make that decision.

If you had wanted, the game designers could have formalized what the DC should be for different degrees of knowledge. Like on a scale of:
Have witnessed personally - Have been told by witness - Have heard about - Unkown - Not existing
What they can't decide, and is up to the DM/setting/character, is where different things fit on that scale. You might have seen a dragon breathing fire personally (High CR), but never heard of a fox (low CR).

Amdy_vill

2018-06-11, 11:06 AM

I know they're not in the PHB, but have rules been developed for identifying creatures and knowing their strengths and weaknesses?

Maybe in a UA, one of the recent books, or perhaps some excellent 3PP?

i would just say make a skill role(i would have the player justify to me why the skill they choose would work) and then based on the rarity of the creature and the legends around it set a dc. something like a drow on krynn would have a dc of 30 where a tarraques would have a dc of like 5. while they are rare there legends are prolific

MagneticKitty

2018-06-11, 05:47 PM

Favored enemy
"Additionally,
you have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks
to track your favored enemies, as well as on
Intelligence checks to recall information about
them."

Seems to indicate you can regularly do an intelligence check to try and recall information about it

JoeJ

2018-06-11, 06:21 PM

Back in AD&D, monsters stat block included Frequency, to indicate how rare each critter is. If WotC had not chosen to do away with that, it could have provided a reasonable basis for a DC to recall lore, as well as helping guide the creation of random encounters (its original purpose). Of course, it would still be subject to the criticism that the rarity of different monsters is campaign specific (which for some reason was considered important for monsters but not for magic items, which are still classed by rarity in the DMG).

Shining Wrath

2018-06-11, 06:43 PM

I mapped creature type to knowledge type (e.g., Humanoids = History), and then gave each creature type a base DC (e.g., Beasts = 5, Celestials = 15; knowledge of cows is a lot more common in my world than knowledge of angels); and then increased DC with CR (+1 DC per 2 CR) on the reasoning that CR maps roughly to rarity.

Exceptions do exist (ask your DM): for example, it does not get more difficult to know that a red dragon breathes fire as it increases in size.

Meeting the minimum CR gets you minimum information. Going higher gets you more. Beat the minimum check by 10 or more, read the MM entry.

Lair actions are one of the things you have to roll well to know.

Knaight

2018-06-11, 06:44 PM

It's gonna vary setting to setting, and even within a setting.

One character is from the Trollands, where trolls are more common than orcs and goblins? No check needed, they know fire and acid hurt them. The setting has literally just had trolls invented by a mad wizard? No check needed, they know jack diddly about them.
Firstly, I'm just going to go ahead and second* this. Monster frequency is a setting thing, and formalizing it at all (beyond the Easy/Medium/Hard or similar) starts getting in the way there. It's a bit of unnecessary setting homogenization, even beyond having the same monsters in most settings.

*Or fourth, whatever.

I very much agree.

I think, though, that one should err on the side of more information rather than less. May just be my preference, but I'm not fond of things where the answer is obvious, but only to the DM. Occasional puzzle monsters are fine, but not if they're everywhere.
It depends on the campaign. A monster-hunting campaign where the PCs play veteran exterminators? Almost everything should be known, quite possibly to being open about exact stats, where an unknown creature is a big deal. A barely fantasy campaign were almost everyone is human, and anything else showing up is a big deal? Bring the mystery, though occasional repeats of monsters after they've been figured out are still often a good idea.

Except for DMs that don't want Monster Knowldge checks to learn mechanical combat capabilities, a la 4e, in their games. They get hosed or have to make a house rule removing it.

Edit: a more general table of DCs could work, like:
DC 10 common knowledge
DC 15 uncommon knowledge
DC 20 rare knowledge
DC 25 almost unknown knowledge
DC 30 completely secret knowledge

But we already have that "table". It's in the DM's guide under how to set DCs as Medium, Hard, Very Hard etc.
Also this - the general case works well here.

And how do you determine if a character recalls the story of the Court of the Minotaur King? A history check? How is that any different to a history check to see if cahracter knows?

This really seems like players trying to convince themselves this edition is different, for some reason. "Recall" and "know" are functiuonally the same for a character when the player doesn't have the asnwer.
The difference is in finality of the check. If you operate with knowledge, then if you don't know you just don't know until you learn. That failed check stays failed, there's no rerolling, go hunt the information now. If you can't recall there's still an opportunity to recall later, on a future roll.

This difference is why I'd actually generally prefer the knowledge model. Repeating rolls over and over until succeeding is a bit of a design pet peeve.

What in heaven's name was wrong with 3.5's method? Beat a DC based on the creature's CR to learn one piece of information. Beat it by even more to learn more pieces of information. Event he dullest DM could figure out that meant they should tell the player about the signature thing that makes whatever monster you're fighting unique, dangerous and interesting.

Besides the aforementioned setting homogenity, this also produces weird results. Big, notable, terrifying creatures likely to come down in stories? Those are basically impossible to know about. Every subtle variety of tiny, unthreatening creature? That's going to be common knowledge. That just doesn't square with how it seems like it should be - here in the real world people are likely to be familiar with exceptional megafauna, and not so much with every tiny insect, or small mammal, or whatever. I'd expect someone to know what a blue whale or elephant is. A pika? Not so much.

Naanomi

2018-06-11, 06:46 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-11, 08:46 PM

In my own game I up the DC compared to that, but mostly utilize it as a passive skill system... DC 10 is what average people without training would be expected to know, and adjudicate up (or occasionally down) from there.

DC 10 means that an average person would only know it 55% of the time. That's...not much.

I'd put "common knowledge" at DC 0. DC 10 would be for things that are known/talked about, but not common.

I'm in the process of writing a "common knowledge" document for my setting. Right now I'm focusing on political and social things (taboos, geography, political geography, culture, etc). If something's on the common knowledge list for a region, it's DC 0 for anyone from that region.

When I get around to doing the same for monsters, I'll do something similar. Beyond that, they have to ask specific questions.

Things they get for free
* Immediately visible things (the weapons, the basic demeanor, any visible armor, any visible auras/elemental effects).
* Anything that's common knowledge for the area. Wolves hunt in packs. Orcs are aggressive. Goblins are cowardly. Etc.
* Health (specifically HP relative to 50%)--I imported the bloodied status from 4e for this.

Things that they can ask about, using an INT (Investigation) check, but no action.
* Things that can be deduced from the monster's behavior. Does it shy away from the campfire?
* Relative balance of physical attributes.
* A rough idea about intelligence.
* Perceived tactical information (favored strategies)

Things they can ask about, using a WIS (Insight) or WIS (Animal Handling) check, but no action
* Attitudes
* Willingness to negotiate (rough idea)

Things they can ask about using an INT (Arcana/Religion/Nature/History) check, but no action
* Things that would have been recorded. Vulnerabilities for commoner monsters.
* If the current behavior is normal for this type of creature.
* Information about habitat, habits, etc.

Things that require a check and an action
Here I'll give almost anything specific. Uses INT (investigation) unless the creature is legendary (as in, in the legends and written down). You're trying to study the creature and learn all its vulnerabilities and abilities. Since most combats only last a few rounds, spending one action for this should be a big benefit.

DCs are in the range 10-20, with 10-15 being most common. Anything that would be less than 10 is just flat given. Stuff 20+ requires specific research or isn't known/knowable.

Tanarii

2018-06-11, 08:59 PM

DC 10 means that an average person would only know it 55% of the time. That's...not much.
Depends what you're using it for.

Passive (secret) checks to gate giving players free info, it'd be 100%

To recall something commonly known in a combat or other stressful situation right now ... it's probably a bit high for really well known stuff. DC 5 would be better. And it would be automatic to remember if you had a moment minute to think about it. But you'd have had to know it in the first place.

For a rolled one-check-allowed state-of-the-character does she / doesn't she know this factoid in non-stressful situations with plenty of time to think about it, it's probably too high even as DC 5. Because well known stuff should probably be known by everyone, even if they can't recall it all under stress right away.

Naanomi

2018-06-11, 09:12 PM

Tanarii

2018-06-11, 09:19 PM

Yeah I almost exclusively use it as a passive system; rolling only if you take an action to ‘puzzle out’ obscure things you didn’t notice/think of on first sight. It makes the Ranger advantage really valuable.

If I used ‘standard’ DCs, it would end up too easy; even the stupidest people with no training would still hit ‘common knowledge’ unless they had disadvantage
I fairly regularly use Passive lore for puzzling out clues from things a character is studying as they explore. Which takes concentration equal to mapping, navigating, or searching for threats. Ie you can't so it while using passive perception and passive investigation.

But it really does require thinking ahead if you're setting a DC for a rolled check of a passive score or both, and what the PC needs to be doing to access either.

Technically that shouldn't be necessary, just set a single DC. But some things don't fit so well into the rolled, passive, automatic system of 5e. No adjudication system is perfect.

Naanomi

2018-06-11, 09:58 PM

A quick fix would be to make all normal passive skills 5+modifier, and only contested passive skills (like Stealth VS Perception) at 10+modifier... but getting more obviously into heavy homebrew there

Pex

2018-06-11, 10:31 PM

Naanomi

2018-06-11, 10:51 PM

Naanomi, Tanarii, PhoenixPhyre. Three different DMs three different interpretations of how to use the same vague rules. It's as if the ability of my character to know things depends on who is DM that day. I have to relearn how to play the game based on who is DM.
Mine is explicitly a houserule... and I have a very stable group of players, so relearning my style and houserules is not much of an issue

3e wasn’t much different, different GMs being prone to different circumstance modifiers. More guidance, but not much more predictability in the end

Pex

2018-06-12, 12:13 AM

Mine is explicitly a houserule... and I have a very stable group of players, so relearning my style and houserules is not much of an issue

3e wasn’t much different, different GMs being prone to different circumstance modifiers. More guidance, but not much more predictability in the end

But the problem is you have to make a house rule.

It's been awhile since I've read 3E, but in Pathfinder you have the defined example table that I want along with adjudication others want. The DC to know a monster is 15 + CR, 10 + CR for more common monsters and 20 + CR if lesser known, DM deciding what is more common or lesser known. You can ask one question to learn something and for every 5 you beat the DC you get another question. In my old Pathfinder game where the skill was used a lot the DM set everything at 15 + CR so as he didn't have to think about it for every monster. A player was playing an Inquisitor where knowing about monsters was part of his shtick so deciding between 10, 15, 20 for every monster got old real fast. Therefore he settled it all at 15 + CR.

In 5E the DM has to think of a number on his own for every monster. It can get tiresome. It would have been nice if the game designers assigned numbers to have something so the DM doesn't have to stop to think about it. It could be a formula, 5 + CR + creature type modifier. Aberrations would have a higher modifier than beasts for example. Not married to that particular formula idea, just something. Having assigned numbers does nothing to prevent those DMs who want to be meticulous in assigning whatever number they feel like for every monster from doing so, letting the players know in session 0 that's what he'd be doing of course.

JoeJ

2018-06-12, 02:49 AM

But the problem is you have to make a house rule.

It's been awhile since I've read 3E, but in Pathfinder you have the defined example table that I want along with adjudication others want. The DC to know a monster is 15 + CR, 10 + CR for more common monsters and 20 + CR if lesser known, DM deciding what is more common or lesser known. You can ask one question to learn something and for every 5 you beat the DC you get another question. In my old Pathfinder game where the skill was used a lot the DM set everything at 15 + CR so as he didn't have to think about it for every monster. A player was playing an Inquisitor where knowing about monsters was part of his shtick so deciding between 10, 15, 20 for every monster got old real fast. Therefore he settled it all at 15 + CR.

In 5E the DM has to think of a number on his own for every monster. It can get tiresome. It would have been nice if the game designers assigned numbers to have something so the DM doesn't have to stop to think about it. It could be a formula, 5 + CR + creature type modifier. Aberrations would have a higher modifier than beasts for example. Not married to that particular formula idea, just something. Having assigned numbers does nothing to prevent those DMs who want to be meticulous in assigning whatever number they feel like for every monster from doing so, letting the players know in session 0 that's what he'd be doing of course.

I believe the intent was not for individual DMs set their own DCs to know facts about monsters, but that ability checks wouldn't be used for that purpose at all.

DeadMech

2018-06-12, 03:05 AM

I believe the intent was not for individual DMs set their own DCs to know facts about monsters, but that ability checks wouldn't be used for that purpose at all.

Because it's so much more fun to be constantly blindsided by enemy abilities while creating traps out of entire character archtypes? Doubtful. And if true only reinforces my reservations about this edition.

JoeJ

2018-06-12, 03:31 AM

Because it's so much more fun to be constantly blindsided by enemy abilities while creating traps out of entire character archtypes? Doubtful. And if true only reinforces my reservations about this edition.

For the majority of D&D's history there was no rule that let you roll dice to know facts about monsters. IMO there was never a need to add any such rule. If they were going to add such a rule anyway, the way they went about it in 3e was particularly bad since it neither offered verisimilitude, nor did it reward clever play.

DeadMech

2018-06-12, 03:45 AM

JackPhoenix

2018-06-12, 04:19 AM

It breaks verisimilitude that a knowledgeable character... knows things? Sure. And the majority of D&D history narrative wasn't the main thrust of a campaign. Also conga-lines of character sheets fed into a meat grinder were common. Certainly not my preferences in a roleplaying game.

No, it breaks versimilitude that it's CR based. That legendary red dragon? Nobody has ever heard of him. That random non-threating critter from the other side of the world? Everyone knows what it is.

Well, no, actually, as you need to put skill points in the appropriate knowledge skill to attempt the check at all. Those big, green, ugly tusked humanoids that raid the village twice a year for centuries? None of the villagers has any idea what they are.

JoeJ

2018-06-12, 04:29 AM

It breaks verisimilitude that a knowledgeable character... knows things? Sure. And the majority of D&D history narrative wasn't the main thrust of a campaign. Also conga-lines of character sheets fed into a meat grinder were common. Certainly not my preferences in a roleplaying game.

It breaks verisimilitude that every character by default knows more about darkmantles and quasits than they know about vampires or dragons. It breaks verisimilitude hard that becoming legendary makes a monster less well known. It breaks verisimilitude that knowledgeable characters know random bits of knowledge, and that the dice often result in an uneducated barbarian knowing more about some magical monstrosity than the wizard.

Rolling dice to know monster facts does not reward player ingenuity or cleverness. It helps promote an anti-metagaming attitude while ironically forcing players to metagame. It adds nothing positive to the game.

DeadMech

2018-06-12, 04:33 AM

No, it breaks versimilitude that it's CR based. That legendary red dragon? Nobody has ever heard of him. That random non-threating critter from the other side of the world? Everyone knows what it is.

Well, no, actually, as you need to put skill points in the appropriate knowledge skill to attempt the check at all. Those big, green, ugly tusked humanoids that raid the village twice a year for centuries? None of the villagers has any idea what they are.

Gathering information is something a character is doing in their downtime throughout their entire career. As they travel the world(s) they come across new sources of information. The big well known dangerous creature everyone should have heard of. People not versed in sorting true information from false information don't know what stories are true or false. I've said this stuff before. I'm arguing at a brick wall at this point it feels like.

I don't care if it's CR based or not. But I want actual game mechanics. When I make a knowledgeable character in a game I want them to be knowledgeable. Simple. It shouldn't be a matter of hoping and praying DM fiat doesn't screw me. Roleplaying is about making choices as a character. Meaningful choices. Choices aren't meaningful if they are made devoid of information.

If I make a strong character I expect the game to reward me by letting me use that strength to do interesting things like breaking down doors, or shoving enemies off non-work place safety compliant ledges and catwalks down into pools of lava.

If I make a tough character I expect the game to reward me by letting me do cool things like shrugging off things that would send a normal person to their knees.

Pelle

2018-06-12, 04:48 AM

In my own game I up the DC compared to that, but mostly utilize it as a passive skill system... DC 10 is what average people without training would be expected to know, and adjudicate up (or occasionally down) from there.

I do the same, using passive checks to determine state-of-the-world knowledge. DC 10 for common stuff everyone knows, and then DC 15 for what talented and skilled people know. And I try to distribute the facts gradually based on that benchmark. If you have a relevant background you get advantage (+5) and if you have no reason to know anything, disadvantage (-5). If not in a hurry, you just remember everything, and if time is important roll actively to recall what you know.

The point is here to make characters who invest in Int and Knowledge skills actually knowledgeable, to make sure they aren't upstaged by other people in the party randomly rolling high. But if an untrained stupid character has a relevant background, the +5 matters a lot and the character can still contribute valuably. And it's just a matter of calibrating the knowledge provided to make the lore skills useful.

Naanomi, Tanarii, PhoenixPhyre. Three different DMs three different interpretations of how to use the same vague rules.

It's not different interpretations, it is different ways of using the framework the rules provide. Isn't it great to be able to adapt the rules to fit the game you want to play?

In 5E the DM has to think of a number on his own for every monster. It can get tiresome. It would have been nice if the game designers assigned numbers to have something so the DM doesn't have to stop to think about it.

I don't find it tiresome. Actually thinking about the world and deciding on what makes sense there is one of the things I enjoy about GMing. If you think that is hard work and prefer to apply a formula every time instead, just use what the skill rules suggest, DC 10, 15 etc. You can just use DC 15 for every monster, and the game will work much better than having the DC scale with CR, IMO.

Because it's so much more fun to be constantly blindsided by enemy abilities while creating traps out of entire character archtypes? Doubtful. And if true only reinforces my reservations about this edition.

It breaks verisimilitude that a knowledgeable character... knows things? Sure.

Your assumption seems to be that if the DM is responsible for determining what knowledge is given out for hitting a certain DC, the DM will use that to not give any useful information to the players, making it a trap option. Sure, if DMs do that it will be a trap, but it's a bad assumption to think that DMs will do that.

I find using a d20 3.5-style to determine state-of-the-world knowledge checks is way too random and breaks versimilitude. The well educated wizard rolls low and knows nothing about blue dragons, but the stupid fighter is lucky and knows everything. Then for a red dragon, suddenly the wizard knows everything and the fighter nothing. Then they meet a blue dragon again, and no one remembers what people rolled last time, and now suddenly the wizard knows everything. You could possibly track what people have rolled before, and also use previous checks to inform what you know about similar topics (penalty to red dragon lore if you know nothing about blue dragons), but the 3.5 system is just a mess.

5e doesn't provide a way to determine state-of-the-world knowledge. Preferably, the DM/player can just decide automatic success/failure. If you want, you can just say that the knowledgable character automatically knows evertyhing, no need to rely on the whims of an unreliable die. If it's uncertain who knows, you need to decide on a resolution method. At least, using passive checks to determine state-of-the world checks is consistent, and specifically ensures that knowledge archetypes is not a trap option, by giving the information to the smart people, not the lucky.

holywhippet

2018-06-12, 05:09 AM

I know they're not in the PHB, but have rules been developed for identifying creatures and knowing their strengths and weaknesses?

Maybe in a UA, one of the recent books, or perhaps some excellent 3PP?

The monster slayer subclass for rangers from Xanathar's guide has an ability called hunter's sense. It can reveal what resistances, immunities and vulnerabilties a monster has unless it has something blocking divination magic.

JackPhoenix

2018-06-12, 05:19 AM

The monster slayer subclass for rangers from Xanathar's guide has an ability called hunter's sense. It can reveal what resistances, immunities and vulnerabilties a monster has unless it has something blocking divination magic.

On similar note, Battlemaster fighter can give you creature's physical ability scores, HP, AC and class levels (or at least values comparable to the fighter), while Mastermind rogue gives you mental ability scores and class levels, both after one minute of non-combat observation or interaction.

Naanomi

2018-06-12, 07:39 AM

On similar note, Battlemaster fighter can give you creature's physical ability scores, HP, AC and class levels (or at least values comparable to the fighter), while Mastermind rogue gives you mental ability scores and class levels, both after one minute of non-combat observation or interaction.
True, it wouldn’t be super optimal (not terrible either) but a Monster Slayer 3/Battle Master 7/Mastermind 9 would be able to know the bulk of someone’s stats

Tanarii

2018-06-12, 09:58 AM

I believe the intent was not for individual DMs set their own DCs to know facts about monsters, but that ability checks wouldn't be used for that purpose at all.

For the majority of D&D's history there was no rule that let you roll dice to know facts about monsters. IMO there was never a need to add any such rule. If they were going to add such a rule anyway, the way they went about it in 3e was particularly bad since it neither offered verisimilitude, nor did it reward clever play.That's my view too. And I thought the 3e was a BRILLIANT INNOVATION at the time. Same for 4e. In fact, I still like it for 4e, since it fits the over-all design goals of that system.

But partially because of my own personal desires, and partially because of what the designers have explicitly said, 5e pretty clearly is aiming to work closer to old-school. If players want to know something, they can go research it using downtime. There are even specific rules for it using the XtGE downtime rules now. They appear to have explicitly built in the old fashioned way of the DM providing information everyone should know + PCs figuring things out, as opposed to just rolling a die to determine Schrodinger's-PC-knowledge. Intelligence checks and Lore checks, for the most part, are specific they are about recalling information. Not deciding if you know knowledge. They are Lore checks, not Knowledge checks.

But the wonderful thing is the system is so flexible. The DM can use the ability score resolution system as they desire to make the game work the way they want it to work. If she wants Schrodinger's-PC-knowledge checks, she can do that. If she wants to provide combat-specific knowledge via Monster Knowledge checks, she can do that too. It's a broad tent system designed to handle multiple styles of play.

Galactkaktus

2018-06-12, 11:05 AM

I just asks the players to make a knowledge check that i find appropriate för the monster beasts whould be nature for example.
And then i have a base DC of 15 if they succed they get to ask one question about one thing about the monster that i have to answer truthfully it can be anything from lore to stuff on their statblock. For every extra 5 they get on their skill check they get to ask an extra question so if they get 20 they whould get two questions and if they get 25 3 questions.

Pex

2018-06-12, 11:55 AM

For the majority of D&D's history there was no rule that let you roll dice to know facts about monsters. IMO there was never a need to add any such rule. If they were going to add such a rule anyway, the way they went about it in 3e was particularly bad since it neither offered verisimilitude, nor did it reward clever play.

That doesn't mean that was a good thing. I applaud 3E introducing the concept PCs may know something about the creatures they face. The game does not fall apart into complete uselessness because a player knows something. Knowing about a creature encourages tactics because you have deal with the abilities.

It also helps the metagame. Players are going to read the Monster Manual. They are not forbidden from doing so on threat of incarceration or execution. They may DM their own games or just feel like reading. The Knowledge check provides a means for permission for the player to use his out of character knowledge in character because it has become in character knowledge.

It breaks verisimilitude that every character by default knows more about darkmantles and quasits than they know about vampires or dragons. It breaks verisimilitude hard that becoming legendary makes a monster less well known. It breaks verisimilitude that knowledgeable characters know random bits of knowledge, and that the dice often result in an uneducated barbarian knowing more about some magical monstrosity than the wizard.

Rolling dice to know monster facts does not reward player ingenuity or cleverness. It helps promote an anti-metagaming attitude while ironically forcing players to metagame. It adds nothing positive to the game.

The devil is in the details. Even accepting the math behind Knowledge checks of 3E was imperfect doesn't mean the concept of having Knowledge checks was wrong. 5E could have done something else. I don't care if it would not have been based on CR at all, as long as there was something besides telling the DM make it up yourself. Let creature type be a factor. Let frequency of appearance be a factor. Have something.

It's not different interpretations, it is different ways of using the framework the rules provide. Isn't it great to be able to adapt the rules to fit the game you want to play?

No because it means the ability of my character to do stuff, know about monsters in this case, depends on who is DM that day, not my choices in creating my character. I have to relearn how to play the game.

I don't find it tiresome. Actually thinking about the world and deciding on what makes sense there is one of the things I enjoy about GMing. If you think that is hard work and prefer to apply a formula every time instead, just use what the skill rules suggest, DC 10, 15 etc. You can just use DC 15 for every monster, and the game will work much better than having the DC scale with CR, IMO.

Good for you. Now add in check for swimming a river with a rough current, climbing a tree, looking for tracks, and all sorts of DCs I'm to decide on spur of the moment let alone determine if there should even be a roll ad infinitum. After two hours of this, everything becomes player rolls high: success, player rolls low: fail, player rolls middle: what's my mood at that particular moment.

KorvinStarmast

2018-06-12, 12:15 PM

Passive knowledge checks are a thing. You don't need rules text to do this.

The players didn't grow up in a vacuum. Some of them will have heard stories or true accounts of someone encountering some creatures and some monsters. Folk lore and fables, maybe even stories about a werewolf being subject to silver weapons.

All of this comes from the years before the character becomes an adventurer.

And some creatures are mysterious and incredibly rare; sometimes folklore is wrong!

now and again, remind the players of something they might know about a creature if their background looks like it would fit, or if their class ability (like ranger's favored enemy) fits. Other times, consider a lore check of some kind, or a history check, or a nature check.

This isn't a computer game with a bunch of on / off switches.

darknite

2018-06-12, 12:33 PM

I don't like to play too coy with monster info, especially stuff from the MM. The PCs are adventurers so it's their business to know these things. Also the knowledge of monsters in their world is sunk so deeply into the folklore that it would be impossible to not know that trolls regenerate until fire is applied or it requires a silver weapon to harm a devil.

However this doesn't mean there are unknown threats lurking out there somewhere, in which case it's a check of my choice as to what clues players can gather based on their exposure to a mysterious creature.

JoeJ

2018-06-12, 12:39 PM

That doesn't mean that was a good thing. I applaud 3E introducing the concept PCs may know something about the creatures they face. The game does not fall apart into complete uselessness because a player knows something. Knowing about a creature encourages tactics because you have deal with the abilities.

Not having a die roll doesn't mean that PCs don't know anything.

TIt also helps the metagame. Players are going to read the Monster Manual. They are not forbidden from doing so on threat of incarceration or execution. They may DM their own games or just feel like reading. The Knowledge check provides a means for permission for the player to use his out of character knowledge in character because it has become in character knowledge.

On the contrary, it forces players to metagame every time they fail a roll for their character to know something that the player knows. Instead of thinking about tactics because, of course, everybody knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire, you're trying to figure out how to accidentally-on-purpose discover that fire is a good idea, or trying to read the DMs mind and guess how many spell slots you have to waste before you're allowed to try a fire spell.

So the players read the MM? Great! That's just that much less information I have to give them so that they can roleplay a character who actually grew up in a fantasy world. They're even roleplaying a character who believes false information sometimes - without having to metagame - because the players' memories aren't perfect, and because occasionally I change a monster's stats. And anytime there's a need for the PCs to be genuinely unaware of a monster's ability, I can just use something that isn't in the MM.

Intelligence checks are great for remembering lore that the character knows but the player doesn't. Using them the other way around, to try and force players to pretend they don't know what they know, IME just creates problems and is immersion breaking.

Pelle

2018-06-12, 12:39 PM

No because it means the ability of my character to do stuff, know about monsters in this case, depends on who is DM that day, not my choices in creating my character. I have to relearn how to play the game.

I knew the answer already to that one :smallsmile: If you know who is DM that day, just take that into account when you create your character and the choices you make will impact the abilities. It's fine that you don't want to adapt to different ways of applying the rules, but it's up to you if you want to play this game or not.

Good for you. Now add in check for swimming a river with a rough current, climbing a tree, looking for tracks, and all sorts of DCs I'm to decide on spur of the moment let alone determine if there should even be a roll ad infinitum. After two hours of this, everything becomes player rolls high: success, player rolls low: fail, player rolls middle: what's my mood at that particular moment.

Yeah yeah. You obviously want a rule for all of that, and prefer memorizing everything or looking it up all the time. I want as few rules as possible, and instead a framework for resolving actions.

When it comes to knowledge, can you agree that it is up to the DM to determine what is common or not in the setting, although you probably would like a formalized way to set the DC once that is established? Or do you insist that the game designers should also dictate the frequency and publicity of every monster in the manual? Not to speak of every other type of lore and knowledge.

Tanarii

2018-06-12, 12:44 PM

It also helps the metagame. Players are going to read the Monster Manual. They are not forbidden from doing so on threat of incarceration or execution. They may DM their own games or just feel like reading. The Knowledge check provides a means for permission for the player to use his out of character knowledge in character because it has become in character knowledge.Players always have permission to use their own knowledge. They already have that knowledge. Whether or not they choose to use it is their choice. Denying player agency to use knowledge they already have based on a random dice roll is just flat out terrible adjudication. It's a case of OH NOES METAGAMING screaming gamer herpes to run it that way.

On the contrary, it forces players to metagame every time they fail a roll for their character to know something that the player knows. Instead of thinking about tactics because, of course, everybody knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire, you're trying to figure out how to accidentally-on-purpose discover that fire is a good idea, or trying to read the DMs mind and guess how many spell slots you have to waste before you're allowed to try a fire spellYeah. What's ironic is those complaining about metagaming are the ones creating the player/character seperation and metagaming themselves.

Pex

2018-06-12, 06:02 PM

JoeJ

2018-06-12, 06:16 PM

Back then in 2E and early 3.0 DMs were complaining players were using their knowledge of Monster Manual entries when they encountered monsters. It was an accepted criticism and all the angst against metagaming that produced. They were upset players immediately went to their fire and acid attacks when a troll appears. Personal anecdote I still remember a game session where the DM was vehemently insistent no one said the word "bugbear" when the party first encountered one. If that doesn't bother you now, great, but it still bothers others. The Knowledge check is a method to reconcile the conflicting interests of players wanting to use what they know and DMs not wanting metagaming.

In the groups where I played AD&D, without exception, not using what you knew about the monsters was a quick ticket to a dead character. I'm not certain, but I think the knee-jerk reaction against metagaming came in along with the very plot-heavy adventures that started with Dragonlance.

And as I pointed out above, using a die roll to gate character knowledge doesn't prevent metgaming, it forces metagaming.

Tanarii

2018-06-12, 07:02 PM

Back then in 2E and early 3.0 DMs were complaining players were using their knowledge of Monster Manual entries when they encountered monsters. It was an accepted criticism and all the angst against metagaming that produced. They were upset players immediately went to their fire and acid attacks when a troll appears. Personal anecdote I still remember a game session where the DM was vehemently insistent no one said the word "bugbear" when the party first encountered one. If that doesn't bother you now, great, but it still bothers others. The Knowledge check is a method to reconcile the conflicting interests of players wanting to use what they know and DMs not wanting metagaming.
DMs that don't understand why "metagaming" isn't a problem unless they make it a problem are DMs not worth playing the game with. Yes, this has been true since the early days of the game. And the rest of us have to waste time in un-training players from all the stupid crap those DMs have trained players to do.

mgshamster

2018-06-12, 08:08 PM

DMs that don't understand why "metagaming" isn't a problem unless they make it a problem are DMs not worth playing the game with. Yes, this has been true since the early days of the game. And the rest of us have to waste time in un-training players from all the stupid crap those DMs have trained players to do.

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what meta-gaming is, there are some aspects of it that I'm not a fan of for certain types of games. For heavy RP games, I'd prefer it if all the players separated player knowledge from PC knowledge, especially in terms of what's actively going on in the game. For example, if the group gets split, I don't want them to coordinate tactics when their PCs never would be able to.

For games that are less on the RP side, I've no issue with that. I've even run games where I've done extreme meta-gaming, and actively encouraged everyone to use full on real world knowledge for their PCs, despite the fact that the PCs would never know that info. It's all in good fun.

JoeJ

2018-06-12, 08:30 PM

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what meta-gaming is, there are some aspects of it that I'm not a fan of for certain types of games. For heavy RP games, I'd prefer it if all the players separated player knowledge from PC knowledge, especially in terms of what's actively going on in the game. For example, if the group gets split, I don't want them to coordinate tactics when their PCs never would be able to.

For games that are less on the RP side, I've no issue with that. I've even run games where I've done extreme meta-gaming, and actively encouraged everyone to use full on real world knowledge for their PCs, despite the fact that the PCs would never know that info. It's all in good fun.

It's probably worth noting that the one paragraph in the DMG about metagame thinking talks about the players making decisions based on the DM's behavior, not based on their knowledge of the MM. The examples are thinking that the DM wouldn't use a monster that's too tough for the party, and thinking that a door has to be important purely based on the richness of the DM's description of it.

For me, having PCs try to manipulate the situation in order to "accidentally" discover something that the player already know is a bad kind of metagaming.

Pelle

2018-06-13, 03:46 AM

DMs that don't understand why "metagaming" isn't a problem unless they make it a problem are DMs not worth playing the game with. Yes, this has been true since the early days of the game. And the rest of us have to waste time in un-training players from all the stupid crap those DMs have trained players to do.

I think that's an unfair statement. In my experience (although with a limited group), players are more worried about and negative to metagaming than DMs. Some people really do not appreciate it, independent of being player or DM. It's not a DM training players issue, it's a gaming culture and preference issue.

Just curious, what do you think about 'metagaming' information obtained during play? Like when splitting the party, and one group decides to go somewhere not previously agreed upon and gets in trouble, and then the other group 'coincidentally' decides to go there as well, totally not to save them, but for some random business?

I try to encourage my players to do this more if it will improve the flow of the session and increase the enjoyment of the players who would otherwise be forced to not participate. However, I do like to see some token effort to justify why the characters decide to do something that would otherwise look like the player acting on information their character do not have.

Tanarii

2018-06-13, 09:32 AM

I think that's an unfair statement. In my experience (although with a limited group), players are more worried about and negative to metagaming than DMs. Some people really do not appreciate it, independent of being player or DM. It's not a DM training players issue, it's a gaming culture and preference issue.Players worry about it precisely because DMs have trained them to worry about it. Or nowadays, the internet has.

Players shouldn't have to worry about it. They should be free to choose not to act on information they possess because it they have decided their character would not know such things. And they should be free to act on things they know if they so choose. The DM can easily figure out how to accommodate such things in their game, either way.

That doesn't mean a DM can't say "don't be an ass-hat" or "that doesn't really fit the tone of my campaign" if the player wants to do something ass-hatty or anachronistic or out of genre. It just means that a DM artificially causing a player/character separation against the players choice isn't stopping metagaming. It's causing it. If you want metagaming (ie it is appreciated) that's fine for the player & DM to work together to cause it. But if a DM is screaming about it being horrible & evil, or even just problematic, they need to realize the root cause of the "problem" is themself.

MaxWilson

2018-06-13, 09:59 AM

I think that's an unfair statement. In my experience (although with a limited group), players are more worried about and negative to metagaming than DMs. Some people really do not appreciate it, independent of being player or DM. It's not a DM training players issue, it's a gaming culture and preference issue.

Just curious, what do you think about 'metagaming' information obtained during play? Like when splitting the party, and one group decides to go somewhere not previously agreed upon and gets in trouble, and then the other group 'coincidentally' decides to go there as well, totally not to save them, but for some random business?

I try to encourage my players to do this more if it will improve the flow of the session and increase the enjoyment of the players who would otherwise be forced to not participate. However, I do like to see some token effort to justify why the characters decide to do something that would otherwise look like the player acting on information their character do not have.

I'm with you on this one. If the players didn't enjoy those kinds of dramatic coincidences fun, they wouldn't be doing it. And it doesn't wreck my suspension of disbelief and does not degrade my fun, so my take on it: they can do it if they want to.

Pelle

2018-06-13, 10:50 AM

Players worry about it precisely because DMs have trained them to worry about it. Or nowadays, the internet has.

I don't buy it. People (players) are perfectly able to judge for themselves, form their own opinions and have preferences for how to play the game, without it being just because someone else has indoctrinated them to believe that. When a player complains about other people metagaming, it is because that person don't like it. They might be convinced to not care so much about it, but their conviction is fully their own.

For the rest, nothing is a problem if you don't make it a problem. That doesn't mean you can't have personal preferences and try to do accomodate others'. So to me it is legitimate to want to be immersed, and see actions being taken based on the characters' (potentially possible) knowledge, but it's not the top priority.

Tanarii

2018-06-13, 11:11 AM

I don't buy it. People (players) are perfectly able to judge for themselves, form their own opinions and have preferences for how to play the game, without it being just because someone else has indoctrinated them to believe that. When a player complains about other people metagaming, it is because that person don't like it. They might be convinced to not care so much about it, but their conviction is fully their own.If another player is trying to make it a problem for a player, that's not an issue. The player can just ignore the other player. It's only when the DM makes it a problem by forcing player/character separation that it's an issue.

Pex

2018-06-13, 12:47 PM

Tanarii

2018-06-13, 01:08 PM

So the DM is playing the game wrong?Is it wrong to unnecessarily cause a problem that only exists in your own mind?

I generally consider it so whenever I catch myself doing it. 😂

mgshamster

2018-06-13, 01:10 PM

Is it wrong to unnecessarily cause a problem that only exists in your own mind?

I generally consider it so whenever I catch myself doing it. 😂

Fortunately for me, I never catch myself. Therefore, I'm never causing problems! :)

Tanarii

2018-06-13, 01:14 PM

Fortunately for me, I never catch myself. Therefore, I'm never causing problems! :)Now that's good logic!

holywhippet

2018-06-13, 05:01 PM

Pex

2018-06-13, 07:55 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-13, 08:11 PM

MaxWilson

2018-06-13, 09:08 PM

My group have run into the flipside of monster knowledge problem when the DM decides to throw custom monsters at use. We can't use OoC knowledge because we've never encountered them before. Any attempts to make knowledge checks to ID them fail because they are "too obscure" and they sometimes have some kind of trick to killing like one group that required either a critical hit or radiant damage to stop their regeneration. By the time we worked it out our paladin was out of smites, so we had to hope someone got a crit or hope our cleric actually hit with sacred flame.

Huh. Crits are supposed to be automatic against unconscious creatures, if you're within 5'. Even a single extra blow after they went down should have put them down permanently.

To your larger point: I can sympathize with your DM's desire for novelty (and instilling fear in players) and preventing players from just pulling the same old tricks on every single monster they meet. Modern D&D is arguably waaaay too tame and predictable compared to old-school gaming. But old-school DMs sometimes went way overboard too on the gimmicks (Nilbog anyone?) and it sounds like your DM may have gone a bit too far in that direction for your group's taste. It's not much fun when literally everything is novel. My sympathies to you as well as to your DM.

Kane0

2018-06-13, 09:25 PM

I run with an altered skill list that includes a 'Lore' skill, so that usually covers IDing items and critters. I usually pull a DC out of my ass, my player's haven't said anything yet.

Edit: Oh, in my current game the PCs have been given a bundle of old scrolls by a retired druid that detail a lot of monsters he knows of, so there's a good chance they will know a bit about an enemy they fight. It's the ones that they don't have recordings of or are known in the area that are the ones that need the checks.

Pex

2018-06-13, 11:08 PM

Kane0

2018-06-13, 11:12 PM

And so delightfully meta!

Pelle

2018-06-14, 03:35 AM

<checks for falling chunks of atmosphere>I actually agree with Pex here. Denying knowledge checks and making non-standard puzzle monsters is player-unfriendly behavior. One or the other is fine, but "guess what the DM's thinking" isn't. And if you deny any non-direct-experience way to find out key puzzle-monster vulnerabilities (like how to stop regen, if it keeps them from dying), you need to drop blatant hints. More blatant than you think you need to. Because what's obvious to one isn't necessarily obvious to others.

Depends on what the group is into. If the players like solving puzzles, then getting served the answer by an ability check is no fun if they want to figure it out themselves. But yes, the DM should provide clues and enough information to deduce the answers. Roll knowledge to get the answer directly is a bit unsatisfying however.

Tanarii

2018-06-14, 09:01 AM

Classic DM hating players knowing things.

<checks for falling chunks of atmosphere>I actually agree with Pex here. Denying knowledge checks and making non-standard puzzle monsters is player-unfriendly behavior. One or the other is fine, but "guess what the DM's thinking" isn't. And if you deny any non-direct-experience way to find out key puzzle-monster vulnerabilities (like how to stop regen, if it keeps them from dying), you need to drop blatant hints. More blatant than you think you need to. Because what's obvious to one isn't necessarily obvious to others.
Actually, I mostly agree with Pex too. It's important to give players information on which to base their decisions. That's the entire point of the term telegraphing. And of course, it needs to be done well.

And if you're going to have a puzzle anything, it's important to have solid and obvious clues. Unless you know the players well and they love those horrible sphinx-riddles that only make sense to the riddler. And even, it's probably a good idea to make clear when something is a riddle and when it's not. Either that, or you better give them a save-point before each riddle, because the first few runs butting heads against it are going to be frustrating as all get-out.

That's why I was making it clear, my preference is not to gate information behind state-of-a-character's-knowledge checks at all. However, I do sometimes still put additional clues, on top of critical ones necessary to figure something out, behind Investigation checks. Old habits die hard.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-14, 09:08 AM

Actually, I mostly agree with Pex too. It's important to give players information on which to base their decisions. That's the entire point of the term telegraphing. And of course, it needs to be done well.

And if you're going to have a puzzle anything, it's important to have solid and obvious clues. Unless you know the players well and they love those horrible sphinx-riddles that only make sense to the riddler. And even, it's probably a good idea to make clear when something is a riddle and when it's not. Either that, or you better give them a save-point before each riddle, because the first few runs butting heads against it are going to be frustrating as all get-out.

That's why I was making it clear, my preference is not to gate information behind state-of-a-character's-knowledge checks at all. However, I do sometimes still put additional clues, on top of critical ones necessary to figure something out, behind Investigation checks. Old habits die hard.

I break down the types of information as follows:

Plot Critical information (in this case, a "kill" condition for a creature that won't die otherwise but must die to proceed)
* Heavily telegraphed or outright stated. This is not an INFOCOM text adventure.
* Multiple routes. No single points of failure, especially on single checks. "Well, you rolled a 1, guess you all die" is not fun to me.

Useful information (like a resistance or vulnerability that can be bypassed with straight brute force)
* INT-based check to see if they remember it (if there's a chance they've ever heard it). My characters have all been through Monster Identification 101, so they've got a good baseline.
* Directly stated if they trigger a vulnerability or resistance or immunity.

Other stuff (HP, class levels, etc)
* Stated if it's directly observable, maybe behind an INT (investigation) check if it needs to be deduced.
* Otherwise...:shrug:

Pelle

2018-06-14, 10:11 AM

If another player is trying to make it a problem for a player, that's not an issue. The player can just ignore the other player. It's only when the DM makes it a problem by forcing player/character separation that it's an issue.

It's still an issue for the players who don't enjoy seeing other people 'metagame' (having their characters act on information the character do not have). If some players in the group get less enjoyment then the group has a problem, irrespective of what the DM forces or not. Everyone should try to help increase the total enjoyment of the group, whether that is not 'metagaming' to not ruin others immersion, or if it is 'metagaming' to increase someone elses fun.

Tanarii

2018-06-14, 10:25 AM

It's still an issue for the players who don't enjoy seeing other people 'metagame' (having their characters act on information the character do not have).That's a problem with the other player insisting that the player in question's character does not have the information. Or the DM giving information to the player in question that their character cannot possibly have. Or the DM & player in question failing to find a reasonable explanation for why the character DOES have it, or the player can act on it anyway even if the character might not have it.

In short, there's a plethora of 'solutions' to the 'problem', and insisting you cannot apply any of them means you are actually creating the problem in the first place.

Nifft

2018-06-14, 10:31 AM

Pex

2018-06-14, 11:59 AM

Actually, I mostly agree with Pex too. It's important to give players information on which to base their decisions. That's the entire point of the term telegraphing. And of course, it needs to be done well.

And if you're going to have a puzzle anything, it's important to have solid and obvious clues. Unless you know the players well and they love those horrible sphinx-riddles that only make sense to the riddler. And even, it's probably a good idea to make clear when something is a riddle and when it's not. Either that, or you better give them a save-point before each riddle, because the first few runs butting heads against it are going to be frustrating as all get-out.

That's why I was making it clear, my preference is not to gate information behind state-of-a-character's-knowledge checks at all. However, I do sometimes still put additional clues, on top of critical ones necessary to figure something out, behind Investigation checks. Old habits die hard.

I can enjoy this method if you aren't going to have Knowledge checks. Discovery of things is its own fun. It's a sense of accomplishment. I'll allow for the once in a while monster the players don't have a clue about where the lack of knowledge won't mean a TPK or nearly and the fun is in facing it and defeating it anyway somehow. The players need a reasonable means to get the information. What is unreasonable is subjective, but I'd know it if getting the information itself is one of frustration. Not saying that's what you do, just a general comment.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-14, 12:41 PM

I do like using custom monsters which don't have known vulnerabilities / weaknesses.

But the monster secrets last roughly 3 rounds of combat, because that's about how long the novelty of "WTF is this?" remains entertaining to the group. Often less, occasionally more.

And then they'll encounter the things again, often in front of NPCs who are clueless, so they get to show off how much more they know -- because the players knowing secrets and the PCs kicking disproportionate posterior is entertaining, too.

Benefits of custom monsters:
- Players "probe" in combat more, using at-will powers (cantrips etc.) & lower-level spells, rather than opening with the optimal spell or weapon every time.
- PCs sometimes swap weapons in combat. The Rogue gets to do object interactions.
- Combat can be longer & more tactically interesting ("Push it into the bonfire! Let's see how it likes fire damage!"), with less danger of TPK in spite of being longer.

My issue with this is that it only really works with solo monsters (or small homogeneous groups). And solos and small groups (2 NPC) are the weakest place in 5e's combat system.

I'm not against custom monsters, but I'd rather them have custom abilities than vulnerabilities, weaknesses, or resistances. That's because I prefer active to passive. Instead of simply no-selling the party until they figure out the right combination of tactics, the party has to react to the enemy changing the battlefield in some way. Whether that's shifting to a one-winged angel form, breaking/forming new terrain, or just threatening bad things on certain areas. All of these clearly telegraphed. In fact, I don't get much use out of hiding information from the players. I'd prefer that they know things and then have to figure out how to deal with them. Allows them to be much more creative without wasting tons of table time poking and prodding. This goes for monsters, for plot elements, etc.

A puzzle boss can work once in a while, but a steady diet of the things is just an annoyance.

Nifft

2018-06-14, 01:45 PM

I can enjoy this method if you aren't going to have Knowledge checks. Discovery of things is its own fun. It's a sense of accomplishment. I'll allow for the once in a while monster the players don't have a clue about where the lack of knowledge won't mean a TPK or nearly and the fun is in facing it and defeating it anyway somehow. The players need a reasonable means to get the information. What is unreasonable is subjective, but I'd know it if getting the information itself is one of frustration. Not saying that's what you do, just a general comment. For new players, I like to give them information that their PCs would find obvious. Stuff like: "That's an Undead monster. Undead means..."

For experienced players, I like to call for monster knowledge checks after a few rounds of combat have occurred, especially if it's a puzzle encounter and the PCs haven't hit upon the key yet.

My issue with this is that it only really works with solo monsters (or small homogeneous groups). And solos and small groups (2 NPC) are the weakest place in 5e's combat system.

I'm not against custom monsters, but I'd rather them have custom abilities than vulnerabilities, weaknesses, or resistances. That's because I prefer active to passive. Instead of simply no-selling the party until they figure out the right combination of tactics, the party has to react to the enemy changing the battlefield in some way. Whether that's shifting to a one-winged angel form, breaking/forming new terrain, or just threatening bad things on certain areas. All of these clearly telegraphed. In fact, I don't get much use out of hiding information from the players. I'd prefer that they know things and then have to figure out how to deal with them. Allows them to be much more creative without wasting tons of table time poking and prodding. This goes for monsters, for plot elements, etc.

A puzzle boss can work once in a while, but a steady diet of the things is just an annoyance. I also like active abilities, but IMHO the most relevant active abilities are the ones that the PCs use.

For example, a monster might be able to petrify the PCs. To me, that's less fun than the PCs learning that cold damage slows the monster.

Maelynn

2018-06-14, 01:57 PM

Initially, when I encountered a page on the skill Useful Knowledge (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/10/on-useful-knowledge-skill.html), I thought it'd be a nice way to have players determine if/how they know something. Tweak some of the possible results a little, like adding in a "you know this from a bedtime story called 'Fred and the <insert name of monster>'". And let them roll this either before or instead of a standard knowledge check.

Now, after reading this thread, I'm starting to doubt. In fact, I'm starting to doubt about everything I thought I knew about knowledge checks, just because some of the responses here are so vehemently opposed to what I thought was decent. :<

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-14, 02:14 PM

For new players, I like to give them information that their PCs would find obvious. Stuff like: "That's an Undead monster. Undead means..."

For experienced players, I like to call for monster knowledge checks after a few rounds of combat have occurred, especially if it's a puzzle encounter and the PCs haven't hit upon the key yet.

I also like active abilities, but IMHO the most relevant active abilities are the ones that the PCs use.

For example, a monster might be able to petrify the PCs. To me, that's less fun than the PCs learning that cold damage slows the monster.

Being able to petrify isn't the fun part. It's conditionally being able to petrify (or change shape, or whatever). So the PCs are either trying to keep it from being able to do <big nasty thing> (carefully telegraphed) or are trying to push it into doing <big nasty thing that leaves it vulnerable> or something like that. Or multi-phase fights.

All of these are mostly for climactic bosses. Minor fights rely on numbers and terrain. Doing anything complicated with minor fights (where you might have a bunch of monsters to run) is just too exhausting. It's why spell-casting monsters are obnoxious--they take way too much table time and attention unless they're the only thing around, and can either be overpowering or too weak (depending on which abilities you use when).

SaintRidley

2018-06-14, 04:41 PM

Gonna make some slight tweaks to Tanarii's table:

DC 0 trivial knowledge
DC 5 common knowledge (most people know it, but that doesn't quite mean everybody does)
DC 10 uncommon knowledge
DC 15 specialist knowledge
DC 20 rare knowledge
DC 25 almost unknown knowledge
DC 30 completely secret knowledge

DC 15 and up is basically the kind of thing only experts in the field of studying whatever you're looking at (or those with firsthand experience equivalent to that expertise) would be likely to know. Not every expert's going to know every thing at that level, and you might have some amateurs who are supernerds who might know a thing or two at that level, but there you go.

For monsters, I'm in the camp of rolling monster knowledge myself for each player and letting them know what they know, usually by passing notes out. Apply advantage/disadvantage based on factors like where the character is from relative to the monster's locality, character's roleplayed interests in fields of knowledge (wizard character interested in the planes - advantage when encountering a Balor for the first time), etc.

Worth noting that I tend to make slight ttweaks here and there to monsters, so this works best for me.

JoeJ

2018-06-14, 04:42 PM

<checks for falling chunks of atmosphere>I actually agree with Pex here. Denying knowledge checks and making non-standard puzzle monsters is player-unfriendly behavior. One or the other is fine, but "guess what the DM's thinking" isn't. And if you deny any non-direct-experience way to find out key puzzle-monster vulnerabilities (like how to stop regen, if it keeps them from dying), you need to drop blatant hints. More blatant than you think you need to. Because what's obvious to one isn't necessarily obvious to others.

I agree too, assuming that we have the full story of what happened. If the DM just expected the party to guess what kind of damage would work, they were being a jerk. OTOH, if the PCs were alerted to an unknown monster by a frightened villager who told them that Old Seamus saw it with his own eyes, but they decided not to try and talk to Old Seamus before taking it on, then I would attribute their deaths to their own stupidity.

Pex

2018-06-14, 06:34 PM

holywhippet

2018-06-14, 06:38 PM

Huh. Crits are supposed to be automatic against unconscious creatures, if you're within 5'. Even a single extra blow after they went down should have put them down permanently.

The fight was a few weeks ago, but I have a feeling they didn't go unconscious after reaching 0 but just lost their next turn. This was a monster that also split itself like certain ooze type monsters after taking enough damage (up to 4 in the end), had a shield attack that could knock someone prone and a bonus action that impaled a prone person onto a stalagmite that rose from the ground so the regeneration was far from the worst of the problem.

Pex

2018-06-14, 06:40 PM

I agree too, assuming that we have the full story of what happened. If the DM just expected the party to guess what kind of damage would work, they were being a jerk. OTOH, if the PCs were alerted to an unknown monster by a frightened villager who told them that Old Seamus saw it with his own eyes, but they decided not to try and talk to Old Seamus before taking it on, then I would attribute their deaths to their own stupidity.

Point. New to roleplaying players may need to be told specifically to speak with Old Seamus through an NPC if they didn't get the hint from the frightened villager in a few instances until they get the hang of it. Experienced players will go to Old Seamus on their own. Then if they don't it's on them.

JoeJ

2018-06-14, 06:52 PM

Point. New to roleplaying players may need to be told specifically to speak with Old Seamus through an NPC if they didn't get the hint from the frightened villager in a few instances until they get the hang of it. Experienced players will go to Old Seamus on their own. Then if they don't it's on them.

For new players, if an NPC mentions that Old Seamus saw the monster and they're not taking the hint, I'd probably suggest OOC that it might be useful to talk to Old Seamus. If they still don't want to do that, well, there's a limit to how hard I can hit the players with my clue bat.

Tawmis

2018-06-14, 07:24 PM

I know they're not in the PHB, but have rules been developed for identifying creatures and knowing their strengths and weaknesses?

Maybe in a UA, one of the recent books, or perhaps some excellent 3PP?

I don't think there's rules for this - but I believe there's a song Bards can do to determine an enemy's strength and weakness.

Tanarii

2018-06-14, 09:02 PM

I don't think there's rules for this - but I believe there's a song Bards can do to determine an enemy's strength and weakness.
Sounds like an Intelligence (Performance) check to me. :)

Pelle

2018-06-15, 04:46 AM

That's a problem with the other player insisting that the player in question's character does not have the information. Or the DM giving information to the player in question that their character cannot possibly have. Or the DM & player in question failing to find a reasonable explanation for why the character DOES have it, or the player can act on it anyway even if the character might not have it.

In short, there's a plethora of 'solutions' to the 'problem', and insisting you cannot apply any of them means you are actually creating the problem in the first place.

There are always plenty of solutions to that problem, but maybe not that also increase the total enjoyment of the whole table. You could for example hold private sessions for when the party splits up, but that would reduce the enjoyment for me. I like to have out of character information, but not necessarily acting on it.

What is a good solution depends on the differences in playstyle preference among the group. My original point was just that players can honestly prefer a certain playstyle over another because of their own personal opinions. Not because they were trained to have that preference by a previous DM, or were not yet taught the superior playstyle by another DM, which you seemed to be suggesting.

Tanarii

2018-06-15, 09:02 AM

There are always plenty of solutions to that problem, but maybe not that also increase the total enjoyment of the whole table. You could for example hold private sessions for when the party splits up, but that would reduce the enjoyment for me. I like to have out of character information, but not necessarily acting on it.

What is a good solution depends on the differences in playstyle preference among the group. My original point was just that players can honestly prefer a certain playstyle over another because of their own personal opinions. Not because they were trained to have that preference by a previous DM, or were not yet taught the superior playstyle by another DM, which you seemed to be suggesting.
If their "playstyle" is causing them to have problems with the other players, or the DMs "playstyle" is causing them to have problems with the other players, it's because they're insisting that their playstyle is necessary.

Lets say a player or DM insists your character make a Wis check determine if you're allowed to decide if you want your PC to join the attack, or should run away or hide, any time you're outnumbered. That's fine if the DM and players agree to it, or they choose to use a system where you buy a mechanical disadvantage that specifically states that should happen, or even if a player chooses to use that to represent their chosen Flaw that states "I run and hide when I'm outnumbered". But if another player suddenly insisted that this should happen for YOUR character, and said it's a "playstyle" and you should get on board or you're ruining their fun, how would you react to that? What if the DM started complaining about you "metagaming" because you can't feel the character's fear?

Pelle

2018-06-15, 10:35 AM

If their "playstyle" is causing them to have problems with the other players, or the DMs "playstyle" is causing them to have problems with the other players, it's because they're insisting that their playstyle is necessary.

I am not talking about causing problems and insisting, just players realizing that the playstyle of the group is not their own preferred style. If one player mostly enjoys acting and talking in character, but the rest of the group is only into the mechanics and tactical combat, then that player will not enjoy himself as much as he could if no one gives him opportunities to mess around. Same thing, you can't just say that player should just decide to enjoy heavy crunch, it's a personal preference. The other players, since they are nice people and know the other player's preferences, can choose to listen to him if it is worth it to them to make sure everyone is having fun.

Lets say a player or DM insists your character make a Wis check determine if you're allowed to decide if you want your PC to join the attack, or should run away or hide, any time you're outnumbered. That's fine if the DM and players agree to it, or they choose to use a system where you buy a mechanical disadvantage that specifically states that should happen, or even if a player chooses to use that to represent their chosen Flaw that states "I run and hide when I'm outnumbered". But if another player suddenly insisted that this should happen for YOUR character, and said it's a "playstyle" and you should get on board or you're ruining their fun, how would you react to that? What if the DM started complaining about you "metagaming" because you can't feel the character's fear?

First I would acknowledge that something would ruin another player's fun. Then I would consider if accomodating the player would be ok for me. In this case, probably not. It would be rude of the player to insist on it, but it is good to know what he likes.

That was a bit strange example, though. I was thinking about cases were one player say "Hey guys, just so you know, I find myself not enjoying myself when all your characters act on secret information that only one character has learned yet. I like it when we play games where the actions make more sense in-game". Responding "Cool, that's fine, but we will still do it because we find that more fun" is a fair response. Instead, "No, you actually do enjoy what you say you don't, you were just trained by a bad DM" is dismissive.

Again, what I was really protesting to was the claim that players aren't able to form their own opinion about what they themselves find enjoyable. I am not saying that it is reasonable to expect others to accomodate the preferences, just that it is not wrong to have them.

Tanarii

2018-06-15, 11:06 AM

That was a bit strange example, though. I was thinking about cases were one player say "Hey guys, just so you know, I find myself not enjoying myself when all your characters act on secret information that only one character has learned yet. I like it when we play games where the actions make more sense in-game". Responding "Cool, that's fine, but we will still do it because we find that more fun" is a fair response. Instead, "No, you actually do enjoy what you say you don't, you were just trained by a bad DM" is dismissive."Why do you think that it is secret information that only only that character has learned?"

"It doesn't matter if only one character has learned it."

"I don't like having to spend time justifying why my character makes decisions based on information I have at hand."

"Okay, that checks out. I hadn't even considered I was acting on something my character didn't know, and I also like to try and make decisions based directly on putting myself in my character's mindset."

But people (DMs or players) who scream 'metagaming' rarely come at other players with "just so you know", nor anything about playstyles they enjoy. They almost universally come at them with "you're doing it wrong". And that's the problem. And when they're the DMs, they train players to defensively jump through hoops to justify why their character knows what they know, making the 'problem' into a problem. Then the rest of us have to deal with the fallout of players who worry about justifying what their character knows, instead of just making decisions and doing things.

Pelle

2018-06-15, 11:26 AM

"Why do you think that it is secret information that only only that character has learned?"

"It doesn't matter if only one character has learned it."

"I don't like having to spend time justifying why my character makes decisions based on information I have at hand."

"Okay, that checks out. I hadn't even considered I was acting on something my character didn't know, and I also like to try and make decisions based directly on putting myself in my character's mindset."

All fine responses!

And when they're the DMs, they train players to defensively jump through hoops to justify why their character knows what they know, making the 'problem' into a problem. Then the rest of us have to deal with the fallout of players who worry about justifying what their character knows, instead of just making decisions and doing things.

I guess I just disagree with this, then. When a player/DM scream 'metagaming', I assume they actually don't like it. I have faith in people deciding that for themselves.
Not that it isn't rude or a problem.