PDA

View Full Version : Gamer Drama Venting - Skill Checks and Role Playing vs Roll Playing



Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 03:16 PM
This has probably been covered before, but after a while playing 3.x and later versions of the "world's first RPG," something is just wrong with the way role vs. roll is reflected in the game. Maybe I am just too old school to get used to this, but it is just darn aggravating what Skill Checks can do. They take all the mystery, excitement and danger out of the game.

No matter what challenge the DM places in the adventure, there is a Skill Check that will tell characters everything they need to know about it, regardless of what the player might know. Examples (using Pathfinder rules):

#1. DM places a book that has been altered by magic to look like a book of bad poetry. The book radiates magic.

With Detect Magic, a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 18 (15 + spell level) identifies it as Transmutation. Not too bad if it stopped there. BUT... add a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 23, and it is revealed to be writing protected by a Secret Page spell (Identify a spell effect that is in place, DC 20 + spell level). THEN a Spellcraft DC 18 (15 + spell level, again) reveals the "properties of the magic item," which some players argue includes the "command word" to decode the writing.

While this may be a bit of a challenge for low level parties, by the time a character reaches mid-level, there isn't much that they can't find out just by looking at or studying an item. Sure, there are ways in the rules to make it harder, like the Heighten Spell feat. Still, special measures should not be a requirement to make every single challenge harder. It starts to become bland when every single NPC caster has Heighten Spell, and the number of these options is limited.

#2. DM places some obscure reference to a local custom in the adventure. None of the characters are part of the local culture, or from anywhere near there, BUT... one or more of them have Knowledge (Local) and the players argue that they should be able to roll to see if their character knows all the details about this custom (that their characters have never been exposed to):


Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations DC 10
Know a common rumor or local tradition DC 15
Know hidden organizations, rulers, and locations DC 20

I realize that there is a possibility that any character could have heard something about the local customs of somewhere, but this happens everywhere and every time some obscure reference is made. And not just local customs, but local rulers, local geography, and so on. There is a Skill answer for almost every non-combat challenge conceivable.

And even combat challenges fall victim to this process.


"Identify the abilities and weaknesses of:"


Constructs, dragons, magical beasts - Knowledge (Arcana)
Aberrations, oozes - Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
Humanoids - Knowledge (Local)
Animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin - Knowledge (Nature)
Outsiders - Knowledge (Planes)
Undead - Knowledge (Religion)


DC 10 + monster's CR

So a CR 10 monster is a DC 20.

What's that? You want to get around this by creating new monsters? Nope... every creature must be one of the types listed, and is therefore subject to the knowledge check. This is where the whole thing breaks down. It is true that perhaps a character would have some local knowledge, no matter how obscure or slight, but to have knowledge of a creature that was just created?

How many times are the players going to use the excuse "my character could have found it out somewhere," and "it doesn't matter how my character knows it, I just beat the DC so tell me!"

Where is the danger, the mystery, the excitement of encountering something new and actually having to work to find out about it instead of simply rolling a D20? (not to mention "Take 10 " and "Take 20") Skills give knowledge to players through their characters that they would not otherwise have.

True, the DM can just rule that the character didn't roll high enough, but that's kind of hard to do when the character is trying to "Identify a spell effect that is in place." The Knowledge (Arcana) DC is 20 + spell level, for a maximum possible of 29 for a 9th level spell. The player rolls his D20 and gets a result in the 30's... telling the player they didn't roll high enough would be a bit of a stretch.

Then there is always the Rule #1 thing about the DM always being right, but having to continually fall back on that starts to wear thin among players who think their characters can solve the mysteries of the universe with a single D20 roll. Roll playing has overtaken role-playing.

In fact, almost anything that is used to oppose these Skill checks is going to be a kludge, a solution that is inefficient, clumsy, or patched together.

Ok, end of venting. It is just aggravating when a player dismisses all the work you put into something by claiming that their character can roll a D20 and know all there is to know about it. And they can even give you what they think the DC should be... <sigh>

So what are some solutions I have used? I tend to pin down the player and point out that there is just no way their character could have that knowledge. I might be more generous on this point if the players didn't try to know everything, no matter how obscure or hidden, with a single D20 roll. Some players have complained, saying that no where in the rules does it say that, which forces me to resort to Rule #1. There is no way they can know everything about a new spell, or a strange new creature.

I suppose this could be thought of as injecting some "realism" into a "fantasy" game, but without it, the game is nothing but tossing some dice and scribbling on a battle mat.
.

Rhynn
2014-02-12, 03:40 PM
All of that is subject to DM adjudication. Old editions explicitly left more to the DM, which I find preferrable, but it's up to each DM to use or not use any particular rules.

But if you don't want a game that tries to make explicit rules for everything, then D&D 3.X is definitely the wrong game. It is way too cumbersome for no real benefit to me, so I play ACKS.

Also retroclones in sig, etc. etc.

veti
2014-02-12, 03:58 PM
D&D 3+ is, quite deliberately, a mass-market, commoditised game. The books no longer pay more than lip service to DM creativity. The goal is that any 13-year-old can pick up the books and start running a game, with no knowledge of - well, anything that's not in the books.

(And if you decide you want more - good news! There are plenty more "Official" books to sell you! No need to sully your campaign with ideas taken from other media, or (shudder) sources not Officially Sanctioned by WotC, such as literature or mythology! Everything you could possibly need is right here in our store!)

Older editions, explicitly, required a lot more knowledge and input from the DM. I think WotC came to the (probably correct) conclusion that this was limiting their sales, as it raised the minimum ability threshold for a DM, and that's what they set to lower.

Being a good DM is probably about as hard as it ever was, but being a minimally competent DM is now within reach of just about anyone.

Rhynn
2014-02-12, 04:01 PM
The goal is that any 13-year-old can pick up the books and start running a game, with no knowledge of - well, anything that's not in the books.

Hey, now, I did that with Basic D&D (of BECM) at age 10, and it's a great game.

Pretty sure Basic D&D was the only RPG I actually used the rules right in at that age. :smallbiggrin:

Brookshw
2014-02-12, 04:14 PM
No arguments here op, I agree. I'm also more than willing to hamfistedly say when you can make those checks. You can always home brew / house rule as you like to get the "feel" you want. Granted, many players may dislike this so always good to lay it out up front.

I know my players have cringed a time or two when I told them that I have a homebrew fiat feat called "favored of the dm" not for players that's effectively, "screw it, this happens".

I'm curious what 5e will bring.

NichG
2014-02-12, 04:30 PM
Take away with the left hand but give with the right. If you just take away these skill functions, the players will gripe. If you say 'I want to replace these very nebulous skill functions with very specific things that are easier to adjudicate so we don't get into cowboys and indians territory' then its easier to swallow. Especially if it lets them get mechanical bonuses they couldn't otherwise have.

For example, you cannot tell 'everything' about an existing spell effect by making a Spellcraft check, but what you can do is give the party a +4 Insight bonus on saves against that effect when someone triggers it. Or get a +4 bonus on CL checks to dispel it.

You cannot tell everything about a monster by making a Knowledge check, but you can decrease its DR with respect to your attacks by 5 points if you hit the usual DC, or 10 points if you beat it by 20. Or (not and) you can decrease its elemental resistance for a specific energy type with respect to your attacks by the same amount.

Or how about this - as a Swift action, make a Knowledge check about a monster with respect to one specific spell/skill/ability/attack. If you succeed, you know whether the monster would: Be particularly vulnerable (as in take more damage or a penalty to saves, not tactical sense), have no particular resistance or vulnerability, be resistant to it, or be immune to it.

The new things are still nice for the players, and they also interfere a lot less with your ability to have things be mysterious or make the players figure things out.

PersonMan
2014-02-12, 04:31 PM
Maybe I am just too old school to get used to this, but it is just darn aggravating what Skill Checks can do. They take all the mystery, excite

It's a playstyle issue, plain and simple. You dislike the PCs having lots of knowledge, other people probably hate playing games where they just sort of stumble around in the dark until the DM lets them gain enough knowledge to continue (to put it in a way biased in that direction, to give you an idea of their view).

Glimbur
2014-02-12, 04:52 PM
Some of the later monster manuals have examples of what information you should give out on a Knowledge check on a monster. It's not a case of DC 10+CR means you know everything; you get one thing and each 5 points (I think) gets you another thing.

The balance, as Nich was suggesting, is to make the skills useful but not mandatory. If the players beat the DC for a red dragon by 30 and you give them "it has claws", "it has teeth", "it has wings", and so on, you might as well just ban the skill entirely so it's not a trap. On the other hand, you don't have to tell them "it casts as a sorcerer of this level and these are its spells known" either. Tell them about the [fire] subtype first, then the presence of sorcerer casting, then breath weapon, then other useful stuff. His other suggestions seem like reasonable homebrew.

As far as your book example,
With Detect Magic, a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 18 (15 + spell level) identifies it as Transmutation. Not too bad if it stopped there. BUT... add a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 23, and it is revealed to be writing protected by a Secret Page spell (Identify a spell effect that is in place, DC 20 + spell level). THEN a Spellcraft DC 18 (15 + spell level, again) reveals the "properties of the magic item," which some players argue includes the "command word" to decode the writing.
It is not a magic item they are identifying; it is a spell effect they are examining. Therefore they don't get the command word to the spell effect.

BWR
2014-02-12, 05:02 PM
Hey, now, I did that with Basic D&D (of BECM) at age 10, and it's a great game.

Ditto (well, age 12, but you get the idea).

The OP's problem I think is one of communication and expectation. A lot of players expect the game to run by the rules presented in the books or at least with house rules presented at character creation. This isn't an unreasonable expectation, to be honest. If the rules say you can, you expect that you can. Yes, there are problems with RAWtards and stupid rules and loopholes and resetting-Wishtraps and whatnot, but most people are fine with ignoring things like that so long as the majority of the rest works as presented. It's when you build a character to do something and the DM on the spot nerfs or invalidates your attempt that you have a right to feel a bit annoyed. I've been on both sides of that and on the receiving end it's very easy to feel that the DM is not acting fairly.
As a DM I try to be upfront about changes to the default rules of the game, and if I change them during the game I try to explain why, perhaps compromise and allow them to either rebuild their character to something more palatable or give them the benefit of the rules then and there and implement the changes later.

So basically if you communicate your problems with the RAW and how you are going to run things - that the Skill DCs are guidelines rather than hard limits, that things like rarity of of monsters/spells/whatever will impact how likely it is they have heard of it, that a unique, never seen before monster has not been written of in any book they've read or spoken of in any story, etc. I think most players will accept this. It's all about being on the same page, about feeling that the DM is treating you fairly.

Edit: regarding Knowledge (local) I think it's a very poorly worded and defined skill. The only sensible way to interpret it as Knowledge (specific area). I treat it like this: You choose one geographical area and can use it as a generic Knowledge for everything in the area: history, denizens and monsters, etiquette, religion, etc. Thus you can have just about as many Knowledges (local) as you want, each applying to a different area, possibly overlapping in some respects.

The exact DC is dependant on size of area, length of history, importance of formal education, contact with rest of the world, frequency of interactions with monsters etc. Using K. (your city) to know how the city was founded will be possible with a lower DC K. (history) check but can be done with K (your city). Likewise K. (your city) can tell you who the leader is and who the local nobles are probably at a lower DC than K. (nobility).

sktarq
2014-02-12, 05:16 PM
I find a few house rules about knowledge's useful

To know anything about any monster from a knowledge check someone must have survived and been able to write it down or talk about it and have that knowledge get to you. New monster is an unknown factor in the world and thus there is know way that any character in the world knows anything about it. The knowledge check covers how much of the knowledge available to be learned in the books and stories of your home region (and the regions traveled through adventuring) that you have personally absorbed and have at you fingertips. And nobody can know knowledge that has yet to be discovered. This is logic of how a world works trumping RAW.
And for local knowledge-give it a home region advantage only. Possibly transferable after months or years of living someplace.
And unless the spell specifically states that it can give a command word then it doesn't. . . good grief.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-12, 05:37 PM
Error in example #1: the target of a secret page spell is -not- a magic item. That use of spellcraft doesn't apply. You can only get the password from someone who already knows it.

At the core issue of #1 is the simple fact that the mid-level wizard -should- know more about magic, having studied it for years both in the lab and the field, than any yutz rolling dice in his or his buddy's basement.

If you don't have access to that spell and those skills, having chosen some other class or simply not to put the necessary ranks into know (arcana) or spellcraft, then they don't do anything for you. You're irritated with a possibility, not a guaranteed occurrence.

There's also the fact that you can booby trap that book in a way that doesn't endanger its contents or that will destroy it if they're not properly bypassed. At mid-levels you -should- be putting more guards and wards on sensitive information that a simple secret page. At bare minimum you can lay a mystic aura over the secret page, obscuring its aura and making it impossible to even make those checks without first making a successful saving throw. If you know the system it's trivial to make -any- task prohibitively difficult, regardless of level.

#2 is a simple fix. Just go back to the 3.0 rule; requiring separate ranks in know (local) for each locale.

On creatures; there's supposed to be a direct correlation between a creature's CR and its rarity in the world. Any given CR 10 creature is supposed to be just as common as any other CR 10 creature. Making a new creature to thwart the player's knowledge is straight-up metagaming.

On the flip-side of the coin you can forbid the players from acting on knowledge they have of a creature unless one of the PC's can make the relevant knowledge check. For example; I -know- that daelkyr are vulnerable to the special material byeshk. It bypasses their damage reduction. If I'm playing a fighter with no ranks in know (the planes) or know (dungeoneering) then I'm forbidden from advising the other players, in character, that we should acquire byeshk weapons. If no one else can make the knowledge check we just have to deal with not having byeshk weapons when we fight daelkyr unless you put some in the treasure we find before those encounters.

The entire purpose in having such a rules intensive system as D&D 3.X is to free up the DM's creative juices for crafting the world, its characters, and the plots he wants to put the PC's through (without excessive railroading, of course) instead of having to figure out how to structure each mechanical interaction and to allow characters to simulate skills and abilities their players do not or even cannot have and to help separate the game from the metagame.

Faily
2014-02-12, 05:59 PM
At the core issue of #1 is the simple fact that the mid-level wizard -should- know more about magic, having studied it for years both in the lab and the field, than any yutz rolling dice in his or his buddy's basement.
.

This is, in my opinion, the reason why these Skill checks exist. They exist to cover knowledge that the players may not know, to fill in the character they're playing.

While everyone should of course make an effort to roleplay (roleplaying a conversation with an NPC), the dice and the mechanics are there to support everyone and putting them on an even playing field. Simply put, it can get pretty unfair if those who are simply more intuitive and/or charismatic to just steamroll through everything because they know what to say, where to look, etc, than those who are a bit more unsure. But with dicerolls, everyone can have an equal chance in the mechanical sense.


I will also wholly agree that Knowledge: Local as it is should go DIAF, or just be Knowledge: Local (One Specific Place).

Knowledge against monsters, it's a bit back and forth, imo. Even if it's a homebrew monster, I'd let players roll, but make it more difficult, and instead of them identifying what it is, I'd say something like "you think it resembles a Choker, but you know it's not because of its two heads. Judging by its long powerful limbs, you assume it might try grappling to incapacitate you." Remember as the GM, you decide what they learn. DC 10+CR gives them name (usually) and one useful bit of information. For every 5 thereafter, it's one more thing.

If it's a one of a kind monster that was specifically made for that adventure, I'd go with the "no name, but you think it resembles [insert name]"-route, to give them an idea of what it might fight like, or maybe even made from. In some cases, just knowing the creature-type it is also clears up some things like wether or not a Ranger gets Favored Enemy bonuses, or a Paladin gets Smite bonuses (Pathfinder Paladin do more damage on the first Smite against Evil Outsiders, Dragons or Undeads), and similar cases.

Eric Tolle
2014-02-12, 07:05 PM
Wow. Someone actually used "roleplay vs. rollplay" in a sentence non-ironically. I feel like it's 1996 and I'm back on Usenet, say rec.arts.frp.misc.

I mean I suppose I can sympathize with the whole "All these rules are keeping me from hiding important information from my players" (which in my experience usually translates our to "These rules are keeping me from screwing over my players), but that's why we have games like Dungeon World, Amber and the whole OSR thing. Open up Basic D&D and you can engage in roleplaying "20 questions" all you want.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 07:12 PM
It is fantastic to see that so many people understand where I am coming from, and also to see all the great ideas. Thank you everyone for the input so far. I have a few specific responses noted below.

But my faith in "role-playing" has been mended a bit.

Again, my problem isn't so much with the Skill system, it is how some seem to regard it as an infinite source of everything for their characters, regardless of the rarity of the information or difficulty of the task. Having precise sample DC's in the material doesn't help, as it gives the player a peg on which to hang their argument on why they should succeed.


For example, you cannot tell 'everything' about an existing spell effect by making a Spellcraft check, but what you can do is give the party a +4 Insight bonus on saves against that effect when someone triggers it. Or get a +4 bonus on CL checks to dispel it.

You cannot tell everything about a monster by making a Knowledge check, but you can decrease its DR with respect to your attacks by 5 points if you hit the usual DC, or 10 points if you beat it by 20. Or (not and) you can decrease its elemental resistance for a specific energy type with respect to your attacks by the same amount.

Or how about this - as a Swift action, make a Knowledge check about a monster with respect to one specific spell/skill/ability/attack. If you succeed, you know whether the monster would: Be particularly vulnerable (as in take more damage or a penalty to saves, not tactical sense), have no particular resistance or vulnerability, be resistant to it, or be immune to it.

These are some GREAT ideas. I think I will be using some (or all) of these. I have tried to Scale the Skill checks before, but usually just by the amount of information gained. These ideas open up lots more possibilities.


Some of the later monster manuals have examples of what information you should give out on a Knowledge check on a monster. It's not a case of DC 10+CR means you know everything; you get one thing and each 5 points (I think) gets you another thing.

...

As far as your book example, it is not a magic item they are identifying; it is a spell effect they are examining. Therefore they don't get the command word to the spell effect.

Yes, the scaling example has been used here, but there is one player who seems to think that a Skill Check is the answer to the Universal Question (instead of Forty-two). And they argue that an item with a magic spell cast on it by default makes it a magic item. I have not given too much on this point, and tried to scale the info received, to the howling of some.


Edit: regarding Knowledge (local) I think it's a very poorly worded and defined skill. The only sensible way to interpret it as Knowledge (specific area). I treat it like this: You choose one geographical area and can use it as a generic Knowledge for everything in the area: history, denizens and monsters, etiquette, religion, etc. Thus you can have just about as many Knowledges (local) as you want, each applying to a different area, possibly overlapping in some respects.

The exact DC is dependant on size of area, length of history, importance of formal education, contact with rest of the world, frequency of interactions with monsters etc. Using K. (your city) to know how the city was founded will be possible with a lower DC K. (history) check but can be done with K (your city). Likewise K. (your city) can tell you who the leader is and who the local nobles are probably at a lower DC than K. (nobility).

Yes, I agree and that was how I was trying to rule it. Each character had to declare the area they were from at creation, and I was basing their Knowledge (Local) on that area). The player tried to complain that Knowledge (Local) applied everywhere, as no matter where the character was at it was "local." The character could have heard it in a tavern on the way into the area, or stopped and talked to someone on the road, or whatever. Again, the argument I get tries to ignore how the character obtained the knowledge, just that it has it. Somehow.


To know anything about any monster from a knowledge check someone must have survived and been able to write it down or talk about it and have that knowledge get to you. New monster is an unknown factor in the world and thus there is know way that any character in the world knows anything about it. The knowledge check covers how much of the knowledge available to be learned in the books and stories of your home region (and the regions traveled through adventuring) that you have personally absorbed and have at you fingertips. And nobody can know knowledge that has yet to be discovered. This is logic of how a world works trumping RAW.
And for local knowledge-give it a home region advantage only. Possibly transferable after months or years of living someplace.

And unless the spell specifically states that it can give a command word then it doesn't. . . good grief.

Ahh... this hearkens back to earlier editions, when you actually had to travel and fight stuff (read: adventure) to find out about stuff. <sniff> Those were the days of high adventure...

Oh, sorry, back on topic, yes. Some sort of limit needs to be imposed on Knowledge checks, especially. Other skills are not quite so far reaching, like Climb and Heal. Disable Device gets to be a pain once in a while, when the player demands to know why his Skill roll of a bazillion-something didn't disable the trap.

As for the command word thing, yea, I didn't let that fly, but all they had to do was flip it over and read the runes on the back. I think Skills are also making for some lazy "role-players" who depend on their character's Skills to tell them everything.


At the core issue of #1 is the simple fact that the mid-level wizard -should- know more about magic, having studied it for years both in the lab and the field, than any yutz rolling dice in his or his buddy's basement.

There's also the fact that you can booby trap that book in a way that doesn't endanger its contents or that will destroy it if they're not properly bypassed. At mid-levels you -should- be putting more guards and wards on sensitive information that a simple secret page. At bare minimum you can lay a mystic aura over the secret page, obscuring its aura and making it impossible to even make those checks without first making a successful saving throw. If you know the system it's trivial to make -any- task prohibitively difficult, regardless of level.

...

The entire purpose in having such a rules intensive system as D&D 3.X is to free up the DM's creative juices for crafting the world, its characters, and the plots he wants to put the PC's through (without excessive railroading, of course) instead of having to figure out how to structure each mechanical interaction and to allow characters to simulate skills and abilities their players do not or even cannot have and to help separate the game from the metagame.

I agree completely that a mid-level wizard should know more about magic than any yutz rolling dice in his or his buddy's basement. (Eloquently spoken, too, if I may say so :smallcool: )

The problem come from those who think their wizard of any level should know all there is to know if they beat the DC. Period. Like dropping a coin in the slot machine and hitting the jackpot if you roll a 20. The problem with the magic traps is, well, that they are magic and I get hit with the argument again that beating the DC (so it says in the book) should give the player all the knowledge about it. In a world like that, I would begin to wonder what's the point of trying to protect anything, if all it takes to defeat the protection is a few rolls of the dice. In a game like that, I begin to wonder where the role-playing went, since it all seems to depend on rolls of a D20.

As far as the purpose of the rules-intensive system, I can see that, and even agree with it. I can remember when reading the AD&D DMG seemed like trying to decipher rocket science. <sigh> That all seems so simple, now. It does seem, though, like the mechanics are getting in the way of, or even replacing, role-playing.


This is, in my opinion, the reason why these Skill checks exist. They exist to cover knowledge that the players may not know, to fill in the character they're playing.

Again, eloquently said. The Skills are part of a rules system, and as such do seem to fit in nicely. I recall back in AD&D we would sometimes use an "ability check" (D20 plus ability score) to determine something the character might know that the player didn't. Sort of a primitive Skill system. Now it is all standardized, computized, figurized and homogenized... and I sometimes wonder where the mystery went.

Lots to think about, and again, great posts by all, not just the ones I replied to. :smallbiggrin:
.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-02-12, 07:13 PM
I like how you made the title rolepaying vs roleplaying. :smalltongue:

I was wondering if it was going to be about role in the party vs roleplaying.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 07:16 PM
Wow. Someone actually used "roleplay vs. rollplay" in a sentence non-ironically. I feel like it's 1996 and I'm back on Usenet, say rec.arts.frp.misc.

I mean I suppose I can sympathize with the whole "All these rules are keeping me from hiding important information from my players" (which in my experience usually translates our to "These rules are keeping me from screwing over my players), but that's why we have games like Dungeon World, Amber and the whole OSR thing. Open up Basic D&D and you can engage in roleplaying "20 questions" all you want.

Yes, it is like 1996 on Usenet, or even earlier. LOL

I must admit, the OSR games are appealing. Unfortunately, everyone here has become intoxicated with how "easily" they can trash a dungeon. They fail to mention, of course, that it was done with Skill checks and not role playing.
.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 07:18 PM
I was wondering if it was going to be about role in the party vs roleplaying.

LOL No, but that could be another whole topic. Skills do seem to blur the lines between classes, though, don't they...
.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 07:23 PM
I like how you made the title rolepaying vs roleplaying. :smalltongue:

Ooops.. darn it, that was supposed to be "Role" vs. "Roll"

I think I fixed it. My fingers were typing too fast.
.

Janus
2014-02-12, 08:40 PM
Unfortunately, everyone here has become intoxicated with how "easily" they can trash a dungeon. They fail to mention, of course, that it was done with Skill checks and not role playing.
I think you just put into words why I have so much disdain for "awesome builds."
Thanks!

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 09:00 PM
I think you just put into words why I have so much disdain for "awesome builds."

Thanks!

LOL You are welcome. I am sure that there are plenty of players and DM's/GM's who see nothing wrong with things the way they are. And character optimization devotes a fair amount of attention to Skills.
.

NichG
2014-02-12, 09:03 PM
Actually, skills tend to fall by the wayside in really high-op stuff, except for a few peculiar tricks. Hide/Move Silently is better than any sort of magical stealth, because True Seeing doesn't beat it; Sleight of Hand can be used for some high-op stuff because it can't be defended against by RAW; same with Diplomacy. Otherwise, I don't actually see that much focus on skills at the high end.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 09:05 PM
Actually, skills tend to fall by the wayside in really high-op stuff, except for a few peculiar tricks. Hide/Move Silently is better than any sort of magical stealth, because True Seeing doesn't beat it; Sleight of Hand can be used for some high-op stuff because it can't be defended against by RAW; same with Diplomacy. Otherwise, I don't actually see that much focus on skills at the high end.

Yea, I was thinking mainly of the Stealth (or Hide/Move Silent) stuff. That can get wicked at high levels.
.

TuggyNE
2014-02-12, 09:06 PM
This has probably been covered before, but after a while playing 3.x and later versions of the "world's first RPG," something is just wrong with the way role vs. roll is reflected in the game. Maybe I am just too old school to get used to this, but it is just darn aggravating what Skill Checks can do. They take all the mystery, excitement and danger out of the game.

No matter what challenge the DM places in the adventure, there is a Skill Check that will tell characters everything they need to know about it, regardless of what the player might know.

Counterpoint: "There is an evil wizard who has presumably made various plans to deal with any interference in his schemes." What skill check can a player make to be auto-informed of how to get past that? Gather Information? No. Spellcraft? They'd need to be near whatever spell effect they wished to investigate, which is of no value when it's a dominate person on some important personage halfway across the kingdom, called minions devastating several widely-separated targets at once, or scrying-protected items within a sealed vault.


#2. DM places some obscure reference to a local custom in the adventure. None of the characters are part of the local culture, or from anywhere near there, BUT... one or more of them have Knowledge (Local) and the players argue that they should be able to roll to see if their character knows all the details about this custom (that their characters have never been exposed to):


Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations DC 10
Know a common rumor or local tradition DC 15
Know hidden organizations, rulers, and locations DC 20

I realize that there is a possibility that any character could have heard something about the local customs of somewhere, but this happens everywhere and every time some obscure reference is made. And not just local customs, but local rulers, local geography, and so on. There is a Skill answer for almost every non-combat challenge conceivable.

Knowledge checks need to be seriously reformed; their primary problem is that they are oversimplified in an attempt to make them usable for play.

That said, how would you represent a character that really has read and studied a great deal about all the other cultures they can manage, and maintains a network of contacts in various areas? In 3.x, that'd be, in large part, through K: Local.

I am also curious; just how did you expect them to know about this obscure local custom to begin with? Was it some sort of planned-out "there's no way you could have known this, but here's why everything made sense" idea? That's great for overconfident villains to use, but it's also kind of cool when the heroes manage to figure it out early anyway and use it against them, as long as the scheme is not so fragile as to simply unravel the second they discover this.



DC 10 + monster's CR

So a CR 10 monster is a DC 20.

That's not actually the core rule, which is DC 10 + HD, not 10 + CR; most monsters must use the primary source rules on this. Both usually make DCs too high, not too low, such that, say, a level 11 Ranger (who should have a fair idea how their favored enemies are best fought) with a +15 K:Nature modifier (14 ranks, +1 Int) who rolls a 20 can only determine that a CR 11 cloud giant is a Giant (Air) and throws rocks. Their SLAs, battle strategies, and so on remain unknown.


What's that? You want to get around this by creating new monsters? Nope... every creature must be one of the types listed, and is therefore subject to the knowledge check. This is where the whole thing breaks down. It is true that perhaps a character would have some local knowledge, no matter how obscure or slight, but to have knowledge of a creature that was just created?

Here it would be useful, as part of a larger reform of those specific skills, to add a modifier (+8 or +10 or something) to represent the difficulty of extrapolating, from existing knowledge, the properties of a brand-new monster. Should it be impossible? No; naturalists can make predictions about newly-discovered species based on observed similarities to existing creatures, and someone with a ridiculously large amount of memorized knowledge should be even better at this. Of course, the more complex deductions are harder, but that's what the higher DC is for.


Where is the danger, the mystery, the excitement of encountering something new and actually having to work to find out about it instead of simply rolling a D20? (not to mention "Take 10 " and "Take 20")

You can't take 20 on Knowledge skills, or even retry them. Taking 10 is not possible in combat, either.


Skills give knowledge to players through their characters that they would not otherwise have.

That? That right there? Working as intended. That is precisely the entire purpose of skills. They make it possible to roleplay a character by the character's own merits, rather than through rampant metagaming.

This is a design goal. It is not one all share, but it is one that many players (and DMs) find desirable.


True, the DM can just rule that the character didn't roll high enough, but that's kind of hard to do when the character is trying to "Identify a spell effect that is in place." The Knowledge (Arcana) DC is 20 + spell level, for a maximum possible of 29 for a 9th level spell. The player rolls his D20 and gets a result in the 30's... telling the player they didn't roll high enough would be a bit of a stretch.

Again, working as intended. A character that gets a result in the 30s on a Knowledge check is one that is well-educated beyond pretty much all professors you can imagine; that's what their ranks represent.


Then there is always the Rule #1 thing about the DM always being right, but having to continually fall back on that starts to wear thin among players who think their characters can solve the mysteries of the universe with a single D20 roll. Roll playing has overtaken role-playing.

In fact, almost anything that is used to oppose these Skill checks is going to be a kludge, a solution that is inefficient, clumsy, or patched together.

Ok, end of venting. It is just aggravating when a player dismisses all the work you put into something by claiming that their character can roll a D20 and know all there is to know about it. And they can even give you what they think the DC should be... <sigh>

So what are some solutions I have used? I tend to pin down the player and point out that there is just no way their character could have that knowledge. I might be more generous on this point if the players didn't try to know everything, no matter how obscure or hidden, with a single D20 roll. Some players have complained, saying that no where in the rules does it say that, which forces me to resort to Rule #1. There is no way they can know everything about a new spell, or a strange new creature.

Being able to reach the high DCs needed to make this problematic involves either being of very high level, using Extraordinary abilities that explicitly go beyond what most NPCs could do, or using magic. In all of these cases, saying "there's no way you could do that!" is a little out of place; there's no way they could surround their foes with an impenetrable cage of force or imprison an enemy in a coma deep beneath the earth either, is there? A character so mystically knowledgeable that they can look at a brand-new spell effect and puzzle out how it was made and what it does is just par for the course. They're just that good.


I suppose this could be thought of as injecting some "realism" into a "fantasy" game, but without it, the game is nothing but tossing some dice and scribbling on a battle mat.

Generally, if a conflict is trivially bypassed merely by possessing one or a few pieces of information, it was not very robust. Most monsters, for example, do not simply roll over and fall down if the characters are aware of some or even all of their tricks and vulnerabilities. Preventing this is not injecting realism, or even verisimilitude in most cases; it's a shortcut to artificially make the game more difficult with less DM work, and when it backfires because it doesn't hang together right, well, them's the breaks.

neonchameleon
2014-02-12, 09:36 PM
#1. DM places a book that has been altered by magic to look like a book of bad poetry. The book radiates magic.

With Detect Magic, a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 18 (15 + spell level) identifies it as Transmutation. Not too bad if it stopped there. BUT... add a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 23, and it is revealed to be writing protected by a Secret Page spell (Identify a spell effect that is in place, DC 20 + spell level). THEN a Spellcraft DC 18 (15 + spell level, again) reveals the "properties of the magic item," which some players argue includes the "command word" to decode the writing.

Tell the players that that last part is ridiculous. The rest? Why not.


While this may be a bit of a challenge for low level parties, by the time a character reaches mid-level, there isn't much that they can't find out just by looking at or studying an item. Sure, there are ways in the rules to make it harder, like the Heighten Spell feat. Still, special measures should not be a requirement to make every single challenge harder. It starts to become bland when every single NPC caster has Heighten Spell, and the number of these options is limited.

In short you want high level PCs to be stumped on the same stuff that would have foiled them ten levels earlier. Why? Part of the point of levelling up is that you get new and different challenges as you've passed the old ones. I see no problem here, quite the reverse.


BUT... one or more of them have Knowledge (Local) and the players argue that they should be able to roll to see if their character knows all the details about this custom (that their characters have never been exposed to):

First, Knowledge (Local) is a bugged skill. There should be a Knowledge (Local) for each separate region. "I know local knowledge about everywhere" is just ridiculous. Second, they may not have seen it directly, but gossip? The fact that you and they do not play out every interaction they have had since the cradle?


And even combat challenges fall victim to this process.


"Identify the abilities and weaknesses of:"


Constructs, dragons, magical beasts - Knowledge (Arcana)
Aberrations, oozes - Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
Humanoids - Knowledge (Local)
Animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin - Knowledge (Nature)
Outsiders - Knowledge (Planes)
Undead - Knowledge (Religion)

Once again I'm with the game rather than the GMs who want to blindfold the players (unless you're using beasties explicitly from the Far Realms). A high enough level ranger should be able to take one look at a monster they have never seen before and say "Teeth? It's a herbivore, it doesn't bite often - but watch for the back two molars. From its musculature, the real danger is that sharp tail that it can crack like a whip, breaking the sound barrier. It needs lungs that are larger than you'd expect so its heart will be *scetches* there. Top speed? With those muscles? Twenty five miles per hour or so - and it can keep it up for a few minutes. From the gashes along its side, it's been in a fight and will lash out twice as fast at anyone on its left flank." And be pretty close on their estimates.

Not having monster knowledge skills that can cover monsters the PCs haven't met before assumes one of two things:

There are no laws of physics, biology, or magic
The PCs are incurious idiots who never learn or extrapolate


Frankly, DMs assuming they are oh so clever because they are changing the natural laws is something I think should have been left in the 70s.



DC 10 + monster's CR

So a CR 10 monster is a DC 20.

Now here's a problem. A baby red dragon might be fifteen points easier to identify than its mother (who just gets identified as "A big red flappy thing" even after they've killed the baby).


How many times are the players going to use the excuse "my character could have found it out somewhere," and "it doesn't matter how my character knows it, I just beat the DC so tell me!"

As often as the DM tries to blind them and destroy their immersion by denying that their characters are capable of learning about the gameworld.


Where is the danger, the mystery, the excitement of encountering something new and actually having to work to find out about it instead of simply rolling a D20?

Who says you know everything about new monsters? Their physiology? Quite a lot. Their politics? Very little. Literally the only place where I see you having a point is that Knowlege (Local) is bugged.


Skills give knowledge to players through their characters that they would not otherwise have.

And by doing so they help make up for the fact that the pipe by which the players may investigate the world is pathetically tiny - and is limited to the speed at which they can talk and the DM can answer questions, and possibly to a couple of illustrations rather than to having five senses and having lived in the world for many, many years.

Skills give knowledge to players that their characters would have but the players would not have unless the DM gave it to them.


True, the DM can just rule that the character didn't roll high enough, but that's kind of hard to do when the character is trying to "Identify a spell effect that is in place." The Knowledge (Arcana) DC is 20 + spell level, for a maximum possible of 29 for a 9th level spell. The player rolls his D20 and gets a result in the 30's... telling the player they didn't roll high enough would be a bit of a stretch.

This is not a problem. The DM trying to create a world even people who live in know nothing about is a problem. So is the DM fudging rolls to restrict the players understanding of the world still further than the very low bit rate of the DM talking.


Roll playing has overtaken role-playing.

No. What you call roll playing is making up for the fact that you are unable and apparently unwilling to give the PCs sufficient information to portray experienced characters who are capable of observing their world and learning patterns at a deeper level than their PCs.


In fact, almost anything that is used to oppose these Skill checks is going to be a kludge, a solution that is inefficient, clumsy, or patched together.

GOOD! Trying to lobotomise PCs and deny them their choices and place in the world is a bad thing. Now (other than on the Knowledge: Local front) stop it!


Ok, end of venting. It is just aggravating when a player dismisses all the work you put into something by claiming that their character can roll a D20 and know all there is to know about it. And they can even give you what they think the DC should be... <sigh>

It might be aggravating, but if the players weren't finding your game of 20 Questions annoying they wouldn't be doing this. The problem isn't at the players end. It's that you are wasting your time putting together things the players obviously don't find fun, that spoil the players' immersion, and that just lead to tedium and frustrated players.


So what are some solutions I have used? I tend to pin down the player and point out that there is just no way their character could have that knowledge. I might be more generous on this point if the players didn't try to know everything, no matter how obscure or hidden, with a single D20 roll. Some players have complained, saying that no where in the rules does it say that, which forces me to resort to Rule #1. There is no way they can know everything about a new spell, or a strange new creature.

In short you are using Rule #1 to ensure that Spellcraft literally is meaningless. That there are no laws to magic, and no common patterns between spells. Which is the only way they couldn't know at least something about spells they encounter. You're trying to force a Calvinball universe.


I suppose this could be thought of as injecting some "realism" into a "fantasy" game, but without it, the game is nothing but tossing some dice and scribbling on a battle mat.

Or you give them challenges that don't revolve around you changing the rules on the characters. Instead you give them interesting and situations that are more interesting the more they know.

Or you play a game other than D&D where the magic isn't half so formalised. It's not "This spell always does this thing." And there's no spellcraft skill.

Actually, my serious recommendation is that you get a copy of Dungeon World (http://www.dungeon-world.com/) and read the advice in there.

And seriously, as my final comment, if you take nothing else on board, the PCs apparently seem to think that they need to fight for every scrap of knowledge with you - because you are apparently adamant about denying it. I think everyone would be much more relaxed if you gave them more and only very occasionally kept some back rather than that they got used to fighting for every scrap of information. (In Dungeon World I'll sometimes ask the players why these monsters are especially scary - and if I get the Destroyer being made of marshmallow, I'll run with that).

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-12, 10:07 PM
As I read, I more and more get the impression that your issue isn't so much with the system as a rules-lawyer player being a bit of a munchkin.

Be firm with him. "If the magic and the item can be separated by simple dispel magic, it's not a magic item. It's the target of a spell effect. If you disagree, stow it. Whether that's RAW or not is irrelevant because that's how I'm ruling." Same goes for the know (local) issue. "I'm exercising rule zero here. I don't care that the book doesn't say it works that way, that's how it works when I'm the DM."

It -is- RAW but that's not the issue. The issue is that the player is causing disruptions by disrespecting the DM's position as arbiter of the rules. If the players want you to take on the responsibility of building and running a fun game, especially in such a complex system, they have to accept the fact that you must act as an authority to do so. Just don't let it go to your head and remember that the purpose of the game is for -everyone- to have fun.


On the issue of challenges being overridden by a single successful check, that's just poor planning. Information is like a bomb; if it's complete it can be very powerful when used properly but if it's incomplete or, worse, wrong then it can range from useless to extremely dangerous to the person that wields it. When a knowledge check gives the player the information that the rules say that check should grant, that's the system working exactly as it's supposed to.

For any given creature it's a DC 10 +CR to -identify- the creature. Determining anything beyond that is +5 to the DC for each piece of useful information. Take a troll; DC 15 to say "it's a troll. They're really hard to kill," DC 20 to add "if it hits you with both claws it'll tear a big chunk out of you (a description of the rend ability)" and DC 25 to add "they can regenerate, only fire and acid can harm them." Technically the rend and regeneration descriptions could be flipped at the DM's prerogative.

As I said, you can -forbid- the players from acting on knowledge they have as players unless they can make the relevant check(s). It's supposed to go both ways.

Honestly though, I don't really see the problem or even how to setup a problem that is virtually solved with a single check and still call it a fully constructed problem. Take your secret page example; choosing not to layer a mage's magic aura over it or lay a sepia snake sigil under it (both if I'm feeling nasty) just strikes me as careless. In any case knowing it's a secret page effect doesn't give them the password to bypass it.

If I was the mage that identified it, I'd immediately be suspicious. The lack of further protection suggests to me that the secret page is, itself, the clue I should be looking for. Perhaps it's a red-herring and dispelling the secret page will actually destroy the information I'm looking for, or at least part of it, instead of revealing it. Perhaps the "false" page is actually the cipher for the coded information it's covering up or vice-versa. Worse, say I was looking for research notes and the secret page effect constitutes half of what I'm looking for. I must -still- find the password if I'm to be sure.

I think you see my point.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 10:11 PM
Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
This has probably been covered before, but after a while playing 3.x and later versions of the "world's first RPG," something is just wrong with the way role vs. roll is reflected in the game. Maybe I am just too old school to get used to this, but it is just darn aggravating what Skill Checks can do. They take all the mystery, excitement and danger out of the game.

No matter what challenge the DM places in the adventure, there is a Skill Check that will tell characters everything they need to know about it, regardless of what the player might know.


Counterpoint: "There is an evil wizard who has presumably made various plans to deal with any interference in his schemes." What skill check can a player make to be auto-informed of how to get past that? Gather Information? No. Spellcraft? They'd need to be near whatever spell effect they wished to investigate, which is of no value when it's a dominate person on some important personage halfway across the kingdom, called minions devastating several widely-separated targets at once, or scrying-protected items within a sealed vault.

The problem is a gradual one. The "catch-all" Knowledge (Local) would tell the party some things, especially if there was no restriction on it to a specific area, which in the rules there is not. But, it doesn't really become broken until the party is confronting the evil wizard and his minions and with a few Skill checks they know exactly how to defeat them. Granted, it burns an Action (usually a Standard action) to do it, but the Knowledge gained can be crippling to the enemy. And while a lead lined vault protects from Scrying, it has no protection from Skills (Disable Device, for example) other than the quality of its construction.


Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
#2. DM places some obscure reference to a local custom in the adventure. None of the characters are part of the local culture, or from anywhere near there, BUT... one or more of them have Knowledge (Local) and the players argue that they should be able to roll to see if their character knows all the details about this custom (that their characters have never been exposed to):

Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations DC 10
Know a common rumor or local tradition DC 15
Know hidden organizations, rulers, and locations DC 20
I realize that there is a possibility that any character could have heard something about the local customs of somewhere, but this happens everywhere and every time some obscure reference is made. And not just local customs, but local rulers, local geography, and so on. There is a Skill answer for almost every non-combat challenge conceivable.


Knowledge checks need to be seriously reformed; their primary problem is that they are oversimplified in an attempt to make them usable for play.

That said, how would you represent a character that really has read and studied a great deal about all the other cultures they can manage, and maintains a network of contacts in various areas? In 3.x, that'd be, in large part, through K: Local.

I am also curious; just how did you expect them to know about this obscure local custom to begin with? Was it some sort of planned-out "there's no way you could have known this, but here's why everything made sense" idea? That's great for overconfident villains to use, but it's also kind of cool when the heroes manage to figure it out early anyway and use it against them, as long as the scheme is not so fragile as to simply unravel the second they discover this.

The first example that comes to mind here is this: the party enters a new area, has not stopped at any Inn and has not talked to anyone. They notice that some houses have a small statue of a warrior placed on the right side of their house doors. The player felt that a Knowledge (Local) DC 15 should tell him everything there is to know about this local custom. He argued when he caught wind that the DC might be more than 15, since it doesn't allow for that under the description of the Skill. This was perhaps one of the more aggravating scenarios. Actually, the statues were a local custom believed to protect the residence. The player wanted to find that out with a D20 roll rather than approaching an NPC and asking. Roll play was seemingly preferred over role-play. There wasn't really anything to it, it wasn't part of the BBEG's plan, and it had no real bearing on the rest of the adventure except to introduce the fact that the local populace was superstitious.

This group is also fond of trying to use Skill checks to overcome puzzles and riddles, arguing that "their character has a god-like intelligence, but they don't."

Yes, I do like it when the heroes have an A-ha moment. Unfortunately, too many of them come from Skill checks.


Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
DC 10 + monster's CR
So a CR 10 monster is a DC 20.


That's not actually the core rule, which is DC 10 + HD, not 10 + CR; most monsters must use the primary source rules on this. Both usually make DCs too high, not too low, such that, say, a level 11 Ranger (who should have a fair idea how their favored enemies are best fought) with a +15 K:Nature modifier (14 ranks, +1 Int) who rolls a 20 can only determine that a CR 11 cloud giant is a Giant (Air) and throws rocks. Their SLAs, battle strategies, and so on remain unknown.

Actually, in Pathfinder, it is DC 10 + CR to identify "a monster's abilities and weaknesses."

And I agree that Rangers should know more about some things than other classes. So too should any character that devotes themselves to being good at one thing. Good example with the Cloud Giant. :smallbiggrin:


Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
What's that? You want to get around this by creating new monsters? Nope... every creature must be one of the types listed, and is therefore subject to the knowledge check. This is where the whole thing breaks down. It is true that perhaps a character would have some local knowledge, no matter how obscure or slight, but to have knowledge of a creature that was just created?


Here it would be useful, as part of a larger reform of those specific skills, to add a modifier (+8 or +10 or something) to represent the difficulty of extrapolating, from existing knowledge, the properties of a brand-new monster. Should it be impossible? No; naturalists can make predictions about newly-discovered species based on observed similarities to existing creatures, and someone with a ridiculously large amount of memorized knowledge should be even better at this. Of course, the more complex deductions are harder, but that's what the higher DC is for.

Agreed, it should not be impossible. The problem here is that there are those who complain when DC's are "modified," even a little. Since the DC's are included in the descriptions, they think they know when they have beat it.


Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
Where is the danger, the mystery, the excitement of encountering something new and actually having to work to find out about it instead of simply rolling a D20? (not to mention "Take 10 " and "Take 20")


You can't take 20 on Knowledge skills, or even retry them. Taking 10 is not possible in combat, either.

Yes, agreed. This problem is not limited to just Knowledge checks, however, although those have been most of the examples.


Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
Skills give knowledge to players through their characters that they would not otherwise have.


That? That right there? Working as intended. That is precisely the entire purpose of skills. They make it possible to roleplay a character by the character's own merits, rather than through rampant metagaming.

This is a design goal. It is not one all share, but it is one that many players (and DMs) find desirable.

It is true that metagaming can be a problem in rules systems without Skills. However, Skills need to be carefully controlled so as not to swing the pendulum too far the other way, and the game becomes a roll-fest. I do think that Skills are a good thing, just that they need tweaking to prevent another sort of "power" gaming.


Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
True, the DM can just rule that the character didn't roll high enough, but that's kind of hard to do when the character is trying to "Identify a spell effect that is in place." The Knowledge (Arcana) DC is 20 + spell level, for a maximum possible of 29 for a 9th level spell. The player rolls his D20 and gets a result in the 30's... telling the player they didn't roll high enough would be a bit of a stretch.


Again, working as intended. A character that gets a result in the 30s on a Knowledge check is one that is well-educated beyond pretty much all professors you can imagine; that's what their ranks represent.

Agreed... and this is part of the Skill system that has been abused the most by the players here. Identifying a spell in place has way too low a DC. Perhaps the CL should be added to it. I dunno.


Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
Then there is always the Rule #1 thing about the DM always being right, but having to continually fall back on that starts to wear thin among players who think their characters can solve the mysteries of the universe with a single D20 roll. Roll playing has overtaken role-playing.

In fact, almost anything that is used to oppose these Skill checks is going to be a kludge, a solution that is inefficient, clumsy, or patched together.

Ok, end of venting. It is just aggravating when a player dismisses all the work you put into something by claiming that their character can roll a D20 and know all there is to know about it. And they can even give you what they think the DC should be... <sigh>

So what are some solutions I have used? I tend to pin down the player and point out that there is just no way their character could have that knowledge. I might be more generous on this point if the players didn't try to know everything, no matter how obscure or hidden, with a single D20 roll. Some players have complained, saying that no where in the rules does it say that, which forces me to resort to Rule #1. There is no way they can know everything about a new spell, or a strange new creature.


Being able to reach the high DCs needed to make this problematic involves either being of very high level, using Extraordinary abilities that explicitly go beyond what most NPCs could do, or using magic. In all of these cases, saying "there's no way you could do that!" is a little out of place; there's no way they could surround their foes with an impenetrable cage of force or imprison an enemy in a coma deep beneath the earth either, is there? A character so mystically knowledgeable that they can look at a brand-new spell effect and puzzle out how it was made and what it does is just par for the course. They're just that good.

I agree that, at a certain point, a character could know everything there is to know about something, I guess the question is when.. Certainly "Mythic" characters (the Pathfinder kludge for Epic) would have a good chance. And they really are "that good." I think some players have become accustomed to their characters gaining access to powerful knowledge and abilities at levels much lower than the typical 20th, sometimes even in the single digits.

If this is a play style that appeals to the local group, that is great, although I will be a voice in the background telling them about all the role-playing they are missing out on by rolling a Skill check to find an answer.


Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
I suppose this could be thought of as injecting some "realism" into a "fantasy" game, but without it, the game is nothing but tossing some dice and scribbling on a battle mat.


Generally, if a conflict is trivially bypassed merely by possessing one or a few pieces of information, it was not very robust. Most monsters, for example, do not simply roll over and fall down if the characters are aware of some or even all of their tricks and vulnerabilities. Preventing this is not injecting realism, or even verisimilitude in most cases; it's a shortcut to artificially make the game more difficult with less DM work, and when it backfires because it doesn't hang together right, well, them's the breaks.

This is also true. An encounter should demand more than a few Skill checks to defeat it. And Skill checks can give the party an advantage. I think the question that comes up is exactly what that advantage should be.

delenn
2014-02-12, 10:30 PM
The player tried to complain that Knowledge (Local) applied everywhere, as no matter where the character was at it was "local." The character could have heard it in a tavern on the way into the area, or stopped and talked to someone on the road, or whatever. Again, the argument I get tries to ignore how the character obtained the knowledge, just that it has it. Somehow.


Wow, I thought it was just a given that Knowledge (Local) meant, you know, local. Just because I know some things about NYC doesn't mean I know the same things about LA. I might give a character a synergy bonus to a skill like gather info if they're in a place that's very similar to their 'local' location, but if local means 'wherever the pc is right now,' that's absurd. I'm not even really that rules-oriented, but I didn't know people seriously tried to argue that.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 10:34 PM
In short you want high level PCs to be stumped on the same stuff that would have foiled them ten levels earlier. Why? Part of the point of levelling up is that you get new and different challenges as you've passed the old ones. I see no problem here, quite the reverse.

No, I don't think they should be stumped by the same stuff, and leveling up has many rewards besides skill points. The problem is the reverse, that no matter what the challenge is, the response is a Skill check to "know" how to deal with it, be it monster, or trap, or whatever.


First, Knowledge (Local) is a bugged skill. There should be a Knowledge (Local) for each separate region. "I know local knowledge about everywhere" is just ridiculous. Second, they may not have seen it directly, but gossip? The fact that you and they do not play out every interaction they have had since the cradle?

There is a class that encompasses a more general knowledge base: the Bard. And guess what, this party has one. <sigh> But I can't complain too much about that, they are historically the "adventuring party's library" anyway.


Once again I'm with the game rather than the GMs who want to blindfold the players (unless you're using beasties explicitly from the Far Realms). A high enough level ranger should be able to take one look at a monster they have never seen before and say "Teeth? It's a herbivore, it doesn't bite often - but watch for the back two molars. From its musculature, the real danger is that sharp tail that it can crack like a whip, breaking the sound barrier. It needs lungs that are larger than you'd expect so its heart will be *scetches* there. Top speed? With those muscles? Twenty five miles per hour or so - and it can keep it up for a few minutes. From the gashes along its side, it's been in a fight and will lash out twice as fast at anyone on its left flank." And be pretty close on their estimates.

This is actually a very good example of a Skill "in action." If only that was how Skills were played instead of, "I rolled a 25, tell me everything about the monster."


This is not a problem. The DM trying to create a world even people who live in know nothing about is a problem. So is the DM fudging rolls to restrict the players understanding of the world still further than the very low bit rate of the DM talking.

Well, actually, they are relying on their own skills to "know" things about the world rather than actually doing any investigating. Sometimes I think Knowledge (Local) is expected to produce a map of the dungeon.


It might be aggravating, but if the players weren't finding your game of 20 Questions annoying they wouldn't be doing this. The problem isn't at the players end. It's that you are wasting your time putting together things the players obviously don't find fun, that spoil the players' immersion, and that just lead to tedium and frustrated players.

Unfortunately it seems to be the other way... Sometimes it seems they don't have fun unless their characters can solve every challenge with a die roll. Forcing some of them to Role-play sometimes leads to frustration. Sad, really. But this is, I guess, a style of play issue.


In short you are using Rule #1 to ensure that Spellcraft literally is meaningless. That there are no laws to magic, and no common patterns between spells. Which is the only way they couldn't know at least something about spells they encounter. You're trying to force a Calvinball universe.

Actually, no, I don't want any of the Skills to be meaningless, and they always get the basics about a spell from Detect Magic. Beyond that, the DC's for Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft are ridiculously low, and can all be hit by most characters by mid-level, regardless of the source of the magic.


Actually, my serious recommendation is that you get a copy of Dungeon World (http://www.dungeon-world.com/) and read the advice in there.

Thanks! I will check it out.


And seriously, as my final comment, if you take nothing else on board, the PCs apparently seem to think that they need to fight for every scrap of knowledge with you - because you are apparently adamant about denying it. I think everyone would be much more relaxed if you gave them more and only very occasionally kept some back rather than that they got used to fighting for every scrap of information.

Actually no, they don't, as I generally default to the rules as written. It's just that the RAW are so... aggravating sometimes.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-12, 10:39 PM
As I read, I more and more get the impression that your issue isn't so much with the system as a rules-lawyer player being a bit of a munchkin.

Be firm with him. "If the magic and the item can be separated by simple dispel magic, it's not a magic item. It's the target of a spell effect. If you disagree, stow it. Whether that's RAW or not is irrelevant because that's how I'm ruling." Same goes for the know (local) issue. "I'm exercising rule zero here. I don't care that the book doesn't say it works that way, that's how it works when I'm the DM."

It -is- RAW but that's not the issue. The issue is that the player is causing disruptions by disrespecting the DM's position as arbiter of the rules. If the players want you to take on the responsibility of building and running a fun game, especially in such a complex system, they have to accept the fact that you must act as an authority to do so. Just don't let it go to your head and remember that the purpose of the game is for -everyone- to have fun.

...

Honestly though, I don't really see the problem or even how to setup a problem that is virtually solved with a single check and still call it a fully constructed problem. Take your secret page example; choosing not to layer a mage's magic aura over it or lay a sepia snake sigil under it (both if I'm feeling nasty) just strikes me as careless. In any case knowing it's a secret page effect doesn't give them the password to bypass it.

If I was the mage that identified it, I'd immediately be suspicious. The lack of further protection suggests to me that the secret page is, itself, the clue I should be looking for. Perhaps it's a red-herring and dispelling the secret page will actually destroy the information I'm looking for, or at least part of it, instead of revealing it. Perhaps the "false" page is actually the cipher for the coded information it's covering up or vice-versa. Worse, say I was looking for research notes and the secret page effect constitutes half of what I'm looking for. I must -still- find the password if I'm to be sure.

I think you see my point.

Yes, and a very good point (er.. points) it is. I don't think it's so much of a rules lawyer issue, although once in a while I get the: "but it doesn't say that in the book." Usually related to how skill checks work.

And you would be a great addition to this party, as none of your "suspiciouns" have even occurred to them. Sometimes it seems like they rely too much on Spells and Skills, and forget strategy and tactics. Or push them to the rear until they have stepped into deep doodoo..
.

TuggyNE
2014-02-12, 11:46 PM
The problem is a gradual one. The "catch-all" Knowledge (Local) would tell the party some things, especially if there was no restriction on it to a specific area, which in the rules there is not. But, it doesn't really become broken until the party is confronting the evil wizard and his minions and with a few Skill checks they know exactly how to defeat them. Granted, it burns an Action (usually a Standard action) to do it, but the Knowledge gained can be crippling to the enemy.

What's an example of "exactly how to defeat them"? If it's a matter of, say, the evil wizard sending dominated minions directly into battle with no other preparation, then the fact that Sense Motive DC 15 + dispel magic makes him lose is pretty much his own fault, because that's a lousy plan. A better plan is to mix minions from different sources, or still better, to have dominated minions order those they control into battle/provide resources/whatever. A BBEG needs to be clever and have contingencies, or else they're just asking to be shut down by a single trick.

If it's a matter of "they're immune to everything except sonic", well, that may or may not be exploitable (see :vaarsuvius:'s difficulty with Leeky Windstaff) and in any case is probably something a well-prepared enemy should manage.

There are not many skill checks that are just "you auto-defeat this enemy now that you know this, no save", in large part because 3.x moved away from those sorts of "weaksauce weaknesses" in any case. Rakshasas are no longer autodefeated by a single blessed bolt, and so on.


And while a lead lined vault protects from Scrying, it has no protection from Skills (Disable Device, for example) other than the quality of its construction.

Or, you know, guards. An obstacle without covering fire is not an obstacle.


The first example that comes to mind here is this: the party enters a new area, has not stopped at any Inn and has not talked to anyone. They notice that some houses have a small statue of a warrior placed on the right side of their house doors. The player felt that a Knowledge (Local) DC 15 should tell him everything there is to know about this local custom. He argued when he caught wind that the DC might be more than 15, since it doesn't allow for that under the description of the Skill. This was perhaps one of the more aggravating scenarios. Actually, the statues were a local custom believed to protect the residence. The player wanted to find that out with a D20 roll rather than approaching an NPC and asking. Roll play was seemingly preferred over role-play. There wasn't really anything to it, it wasn't part of the BBEG's plan, and it had no real bearing on the rest of the adventure except to introduce the fact that the local populace was superstitious.

DC 15 is probably too low, but honestly, it's not that hard for a moderately insightful person to look at patterns like that and deduce a general "these people are superstitious" vibe. This would be useful for a broad knowledge of how the region works.

And if it had no negative consequences, what's the harm of having a character that is just that great at finding patterns?


This group is also fond of trying to use Skill checks to overcome puzzles and riddles, arguing that "their character has a god-like intelligence, but they don't."

Ah yes, puzzles. Some people like solving puzzles themselves. Some people hate that with the burning passion of a thousand thousand flaming suns. If your players are in the latter group, do not force them to solve puzzles they dislike. That's just making them do stuff that's not fun for no other reason than that you think they should.


Yes, I do like it when the heroes have an A-ha moment. Unfortunately, too many of them come from Skill checks.

The problem there is not that the skill check defines it; it's that your players are, apparently, unwilling to roleplay out what that skill check means. This lack of roleplaying is not due to the skill check at all.


Actually, in Pathfinder, it is DC 10 + CR to identify "a monster's abilities and weaknesses."

Ah. I assumed 3.5, but whatever.


Agreed, it should not be impossible. The problem here is that there are those who complain when DC's are "modified," even a little. Since the DC's are included in the descriptions, they think they know when they have beat it.

This is a question of system predictability vs fiat; generally, changing DCs should be done with a light hand to avoid disrupting expectations too much for no good reason; if it doesn't matter, just let them have it.


Agreed... and this is part of the Skill system that has been abused the most by the players here. Identifying a spell in place has way too low a DC. Perhaps the CL should be added to it. I dunno.

It's worth considering, but whatever changes you make should probably be discussed, or at least explained, before you implement them.


This is also true. An encounter should demand more than a few Skill checks to defeat it. And Skill checks can give the party an advantage. I think the question that comes up is exactly what that advantage should be.

Ideally, the advantage should be commensurate with the action cost and resources invested or expended. After all, there's a lot of things you can do with a standard action and a 10kgp magic item besides making Knowledge checks to know that the frost worm explodes when it dies and freezes those who attack it.


No, I don't think they should be stumped by the same stuff, and leveling up has many rewards besides skill points. The problem is the reverse, that no matter what the challenge is, the response is a Skill check to "know" how to deal with it, be it monster, or trap, or whatever.

Skill checks only go so far by the rules. They mostly give a framework to approach things, not an auto-win, so for those struggling with creativity they can mean the difference between "I have no idea what to do" and "oh, it's vulnerable to fire? I guess we should fireball it!"


Unfortunately it seems to be the other way... Sometimes it seems they don't have fun unless their characters can solve every challenge with a die roll. Forcing some of them to Role-play sometimes leads to frustration. Sad, really. But this is, I guess, a style of play issue.

Solve it with a die roll, or solve it with nothing but a die roll? The former does not preclude roleplaying, as previously seen. Indeed, if properly managed, it provides a framework, much like the way old-school random monster tables can give some fascinating ideas to elaborate on a dungeon's structure.


Actually, no, I don't want any of the Skills to be meaningless, and they always get the basics about a spell from Detect Magic. Beyond that, the DC's for Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft are ridiculously low, and can all be hit by most characters by mid-level, regardless of the source of the magic.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are all their characters trained in Spellcraft? What are they doing with their knowledge of spells, exactly?


And you would be a great addition to this party, as none of your "suspiciouns" have even occurred to them. Sometimes it seems like they rely too much on Spells and Skills, and forget strategy and tactics. Or push them to the rear until they have stepped into deep doodoo.

Then the logical counter is to push these logical consequences on them. Run with their desire to use skills, and rely more on tactics and strategies that cannot be bypassed by a single roll.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-12, 11:51 PM
Yes, and a very good point (er.. points) it is. I don't think it's so much of a rules lawyer issue, although once in a while I get the: "but it doesn't say that in the book." Usually related to how skill checks work.

"I can't be expected to memorize the entirety of even just the three core rulebooks, much less the whole of the rules set. If I make a 'wrong' call, deal with it until the end of the session and bring it up then. I'll be happy to admit I was wrong then, if I am, but don't disrupt the game over it. Which is more important: being right or keeping the game moving?"

That's how I've always handled that particular issue. I try to remember to offer the same courtesy to DM's when I play unless the error is particularly egregious or would have an unusually great impact on the game.


And you would be a great addition to this party, as none of your "suspiciouns" have even occurred to them. Sometimes it seems like they rely too much on Spells and Skills, and forget strategy and tactics. Or push them to the rear until they have stepped into deep doodoo..
.

Mechanics, including spells, and information are tools. You don't pick out a hammer and expect the nails to just jump into place, do you? Of course not. You pick out your hammer, you learn or deduce which end of it to strike with and how to swing, and then you have to actually swing it if you want to build something.

Getting an adventurer through an adventure is no different. You pick your class(es), skills, feats, and spells then you use them to gather information about the scenario at hand and decide what to do.

I appreciate the complement but, if simple knowledge check results have been throwing you, I'd probably be a helluva headache for you. :smallamused: I'm all about cloak-and-dagger political games and chessmaster style BBEG's with a side of high-op mage conflict. The constant maneuvering of information and misinformation is my bread and butter. If you're not into the same kinda thing then I'd have to consciously hold myself back from snapping your campaign over my knee.

Sorry if that comes off a bit boastful or belittling. I don't mean any insult. :smallredface:

Dimers
2014-02-13, 01:10 AM
... no matter what the challenge is, the response is a Skill check to "know" how to deal with it, be it monster, or trap, or whatever.

This is really sounding like a play style mismatch. They want a railroad, not an exploration or mystery game.


... none of your "suspicions" have even occurred to them. Sometimes it seems like they rely too much on Spells and Skills, and forget strategy and tactics.

Deeeeeefinitely getting the feeling that the game they want isn't entirely in line with the game you want.

Brookshw
2014-02-13, 06:53 AM
I appreciate the complement but, if simple knowledge check results have been throwing you, I'd probably be a helluva headache for you. :smallamused: I'm all about cloak-and-dagger political games and chessmaster style BBEG's with a side of high-op mage conflict. The constant maneuvering of information and misinformation is my bread and butter. If you're not into the same kinda thing then I'd have to consciously hold myself back from snapping your campaign over my knee.


It sounds like from the way the op has presented his players approach that your maneuvering would be useless. Say you were the BBEG, a quick gather info check and they'd know all about your plans rather than actually investigating or possibly even a legitimate way to have FOUND this information. If that's the case I can sympathize with him and agree that there needs to be a balancing point between being able to use your skills and a reason that you're using skills. A personal example, I don't allow diplomacy checks until a pc is talking to someone and makes a comment/argument/etc that validates from an rp perspective why that check should take place.

Consider players stopped by a city guard under suspicion of being part of a crime.
Example one: I make a diplomacy check to get out of this.
Example two: "Hey, we're the heroes who stopped that raiding orcs and freed a lot of towns people. You know we have the cities interests at heart and look out for people."

Some form of rp justification to get the check in the first place makes sense as far as I'm concerned. Caveat: you should be pretty loose with this because it wouldn't be fair to punish someone who might not be particularly good at rp to begin with. I don't see the frustration here being with players being able to use their skills, just the when and why they're using them.

Maybe it is indeed just a difference in play styles and expectation.

Firest Kathon
2014-02-13, 07:27 AM
Just to clarify, this are the Knowledge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/knowledge) rules to identify a monster:


You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

So with a successful check you would get one piece of (useful) information, and another for each 5 by which you beat the DC. Which information that is is subject to the DM's decision.

For example, a Young Red Dragon is CR10, so with a Knowledge check of 20 you might find out that it is a Red dragon, and that red dragons breath fire. If you get a result of 30, you might find out in addition that it is vulnerable to cold, but immune to fire, sleep and paralysis.

skyth
2014-02-13, 08:49 AM
I have an idea...Make the fighters describe in detail each swing they make with the sword. Make the rogues describe in detail exactly how they are picking the lock. Make the mages' players demonstrate exactly the words and gestures used to cast each spell...If what the players can do in real life doesn't match what is required of the character, the action fails...

Or, how about we allow people to play characters that have abilities that are superior to their own and use the rules given to determine how those abilities work without complainging about it...

Personally, I don't have a problem with knowlege (local) as it just reflects the character being knowledgeable about the customs and idiocyncracies of a large area. Personally, I know a bit of trivia and customs of several areas, including ones I've never been to.

One thing to remember also is that if you get to a +10 or higher bonus, that is Einsteinian levels of knowledge on a subject. Also remember that the characters have lived their entire life in the world and have heard stories and seen things growing up that equals what you've seen/learned about the real world.

neonchameleon
2014-02-13, 08:50 AM
The problem is the reverse, that no matter what the challenge is, the response is a Skill check to "know" how to deal with it, be it monster, or trap, or whatever.

But "Knowing a monster's abilities and weaknesses" doesn't tell you that. Knowing that the slavering mawbeast has limited stamina and will sit down for a rest after a minute of combat won't help you if you can't survive those razor sharp incisors for a minute.


This is actually a very good example of a Skill "in action." If only that was how Skills were played instead of, "I rolled a 25, tell me everything about the monster."

So narrate the results of the skill check the way I described. Or take a leaf out of the pages of Dungeon World and the Spout Lore move and ask them how they know what they are rolling for.
From the SRD (http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/moves#TOC-Spout-Lore):

Spout Lore

When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int. ✴On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. ✴On a 7–9, the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful. The GM might ask you “How do you know this?” Tell them the truth, now.

You spout lore any time you want to search your memory for knowledge or facts about something. You take a moment to ponder the things you know about the Orcish Tribes or the Tower of Ul’dammar and then reveal that knowledge.

The knowledge you get is like consulting a bestiary, travel guide, or library. You get facts about the subject matter. On a 10+ the GM will show you how those facts can be immediately useful, on a 7–9 they’re just facts.

On a miss the GM’s move will often involve the time you take thinking. Maybe you miss that goblin moving around behind you, or the tripwire across the hallway. It’s also a great chance to reveal an unwelcome truth.

Just in case it isn’t clear: the answers are always true, even if the GM had to make them up on the spot. Always say what honesty demands.


Actually no, they don't, as I generally default to the rules as written. It's just that the RAW are so... aggravating sometimes.

This is why I might play Pathfinder but won't GM it.


The problem is a gradual one. The "catch-all" Knowledge (Local) would tell the party some things, especially if there was no restriction on it to a specific area, which in the rules there is not. But, it doesn't really become broken until the party is confronting the evil wizard and his minions and with a few Skill checks they know exactly how to defeat them. Granted, it burns an Action (usually a Standard action) to do it, but the Knowledge gained can be crippling to the enemy.

[quote]And while a lead lined vault protects from Scrying, it has no protection from Skills (Disable Device, for example) other than the quality of its construction.

No inherent protection. You then add spells.


The first example that comes to mind here is this: the party enters a new area, has not stopped at any Inn and has not talked to anyone. They notice that some houses have a small statue of a warrior placed on the right side of their house doors. The player felt that a Knowledge (Local) DC 15 should tell him everything there is to know about this local custom. He argued when he caught wind that the DC might be more than 15, since it doesn't allow for that under the description of the Skill. This was perhaps one of the more aggravating scenarios. Actually, the statues were a local custom believed to protect the residence. The player wanted to find that out with a D20 roll rather than approaching an NPC and asking. Roll play was seemingly preferred over role-play. There wasn't really anything to it, it wasn't part of the BBEG's plan, and it had no real bearing on the rest of the adventure except to introduce the fact that the local populace was superstitious.

In which case working out what the character already knew rather than behaving like a tourist from somewhere else strikes me as perfect roleplaying. Playing your character and their place in the world. And it should have had the added advantage of saving time and not boring everyone with inconsequential details. Actual roleplay was preferred to stumbling around in the dark, forgetting you knew anything.


This group is also fond of trying to use Skill checks to overcome puzzles and riddles, arguing that "their character has a god-like intelligence, but they don't."

In character riddles and puzzles should die in a fire. I've never seen one of them that wasn't annoying and anti-immersive as they force the players to metagame rather than roleplay.


Agreed, it should not be impossible. The problem here is that there are those who complain when DC's are "modified," even a little. Since the DC's are included in the descriptions, they think they know when they have beat it.

If you don't want a game like this don't play Pathfinder. One of the points of Pathfinder (and the rest of the 3.X family) is a predictable gameworld and formulaic magic system. This is both a good and a bad thing.


Agreed... and this is part of the Skill system that has been abused the most by the players here. Identifying a spell in place has way too low a DC. Perhaps the CL should be added to it. I dunno.

Identifying the spell doesn't tell you what to do about it.


This is also true. An encounter should demand more than a few Skill checks to defeat it. And Skill checks can give the party an advantage. I think the question that comes up is exactly what that advantage should be.

Knowing what is likely to work - lining it all up is up to the players.

neonchameleon
2014-02-13, 08:52 AM
Just to clarify, this are the Knowledge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/knowledge) rules to identify a monster:


So with a successful check you would get one piece of (useful) information, and another for each 5 by which you beat the DC. Which information that is is subject to the DM's decision.

For example, a Young Red Dragon is CR10, so with a Knowledge check of 20 you might find out that it is a Red dragon, and that red dragons breath fire. If you get a result of 30, you might find out in addition that it is vulnerable to cold, but immune to fire, sleep and paralysis.

And a Great Wyrm is CR22 so on a result of 30 you wouldn't figure out it was a dragon. This always amuses me.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-13, 04:56 PM
It sounds like from the way the op has presented his players approach that your maneuvering would be useless. Say you were the BBEG, a quick gather info check and they'd know all about your plans rather than actually investigating or possibly even a legitimate way to have FOUND this information. If that's the case I can sympathize with him and agree that there needs to be a balancing point between being able to use your skills and a reason that you're using skills. A personal example, I don't allow diplomacy checks until a pc is talking to someone and makes a comment/argument/etc that validates from an rp perspective why that check should take place.

If I'm DM'ing I'd flat tell them, "it doesn't work that way." If I'm not DM'ing then I'm the one reaping the benefits of those over-generous skill check results.

I presumed that he was saying I'd be nice to have as a player and was trying to explain why I doubt that would be true. If I'm controlling the BBEG and I'm -not- the DM, something weird is going on.

Brookshw
2014-02-13, 05:10 PM
If I'm DM'ing I'd flat tell them, "it doesn't work that way." If I'm not DM'ing then I'm the one reaping the benefits of those over-generous skill check results.

I presumed that he was saying I'd be nice to have as a player and was trying to explain why I doubt that would be true. If I'm controlling the BBEG and I'm -not- the DM, something weird is going on.

Fair point, the danger of early pre-caffinated posts (barring, as you say, the wierd).

Flip it around, you're setting up your chess board as a player and the bbeg is just making a check to figure out your plans with no feasible reason to have been able to do so. Only fair to have skills work the same across the board, yes?

NichG
2014-02-13, 05:46 PM
I presumed that he was saying I'd be nice to have as a player and was trying to explain why I doubt that would be true. If I'm controlling the BBEG and I'm -not- the DM, something weird is going on.

To be fair, I've had campaigns where some of the PCs have done far more disruptive and terrible things than the BBEG I had planned ever could. Like that one time someone summoned all of the evil gods to stop another PC from dropping the equivalent of a memetic virus belief-nuke from that hill in Pandemonium that lets you speak to and be heard by anyone in the planes whom you can accurately name. I'm not actually sure who was the BBEG there - the summoner, the evil gods that showed up, or the guy who was trying to redefine the nature of existence in one fell swoop.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-13, 06:40 PM
Flip it around, you're setting up your chess board as a player and the bbeg is just making a check to figure out your plans with no feasible reason to have been able to do so. Only fair to have skills work the same across the board, yes?

Then the DM has the grounds to make the changes he's wanting to make and the players -should- find it a much easier pill to swallow. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and being thwarted by your own methods is a good way to create a desire for change. It should also make a fine illustration for why the way they're insisting the rules work can't be right.

Though, to be fair, I'm not one to setup a board so easily tipped. What check do you have in mind? I'm sure I can name some way to either thwart it or use it to my advantage. If I can't prevent the BBEG from gleaning knowledge of what I'm doing then the solution, obviously, is to sow disinformation.


To be fair, I've had campaigns where some of the PCs have done far more disruptive and terrible things than the BBEG I had planned ever could.

That's kinda my point.


Like that one time someone summoned all of the evil gods to stop another PC from dropping the equivalent of a memetic virus belief-nuke from that hill in Pandemonium that lets you speak to and be heard by anyone in the planes whom you can accurately name. I'm not actually sure who was the BBEG there - the summoner, the evil gods that showed up, or the guy who was trying to redefine the nature of existence in one fell swoop.

That certainly sounds interesting.

nedz
2014-02-13, 07:02 PM
There was a bad aspect to the old school method in that metagaming could get quite rampant.
E.g.
After fighting a Troll experienced players would usually burn it to stop regeneration. Now you can demand a suitable Knowledge roll so that they only know to burn it if their characters actually have that knowledge. OK, good old school players would tend to not burn the Troll if their characters hadn't come across this before.

It is well known however that the skill system in 3.5 can be optimised to ridiculous levels — though this only tends to happen at high level, in real games at least since there are usually more important things to improve first.

NichG
2014-02-14, 12:00 AM
In some sense though, pretending for the umpteenth time that you don't know that trolls regenerate unless burned gets to be uninteresting. There's a tension between iconics and the desire for novelty that has to be addressed whether you're playing old-school style or not. I think if it came down to monsters that everyone just knows by now - trolls, chromatic dragons, etc - I would kind of sigh if the DM tried to make a big deal of 'your character has never encountered one of these before, so why wouldn't he use a fireball on the red dragon?' and the like. It's just kind of trite, and I might be tempted to see high Knowledge checks as a way to basically forestall that kind of thing. Then again, none of the DMs I play with would actually do that, so...

If on the other hand the DM puts a lot of effort into coming up with new monsters, re-imaginings of myths, etc that the players haven't seen before, I want the fun of discovering what it can do for the first time. So I guess that puts me in the 'old-school' camp there.

Arbane
2014-02-14, 12:27 AM
First, Knowledge (Local) is a bugged skill. There should be a Knowledge (Local) for each separate region. "I know local knowledge about everywhere" is just ridiculous.

:smalleek:

Who has THAT many skill-points to spare?!

As for 'using Knowledge (whatever) skills to know everything about a monster' being a problem, it's worth remembering that a LOT of D&D monsters have weird immunities/resistance/abilities that make trying to fight them purely by trial and error a waste of spells, hitpoints, and quite possibly characters.

NichG
2014-02-14, 01:04 AM
That 'waste' is, at least in the old-school sense, entirely a part of the game. The danger of the unknown is that, well, you don't know what it's going to do. You don't have a standard operating procedure but instead have to figure things out in real time.

Its very much a playstyle that has waxed and waned though. In by-the-book 3.5, the game is very heavily front-loaded - most of the tactics/strategic work goes into the character-creation minigame, and much less is actually figuring out things in play. In old-school D&D, there basically were very few real character creation options, so almost everything came down to 'how do you play?' rather than 'what have you built?'. That means a much larger focus on the unknown, since basically if you knew the right way to handle X threat, that knowledge would not change from encounter to encounter (or campaign to campaign) - figuring out the correct way to deal with the monster was, basically, the victory condition (usually 'hide behind an ablative shield of hirelings, then use the pummel chart')

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-14, 01:32 AM
:smalleek:

Who has THAT many skill-points to spare?!

No one. That's the point. It's absurd for any one character to have superb knowledge of all of the local customs of everywhere.

If you want a -very- broad selection of knowledge from all over the place, you want something like the bard's bardic knowledge or the loremaster's lore ability.

Knaight
2014-02-14, 01:55 AM
That 'waste' is, at least in the old-school sense, entirely a part of the game. The danger of the unknown is that, well, you don't know what it's going to do. You don't have a standard operating procedure but instead have to figure things out in real time.

There are much more interesting unknowns you can use than just fighting against some unfamiliar monster that is totally one of the same iconic few that shows up in every game.

As for the main topic - the D&D 3.5 and 4e method of handling skills is a bit of a mess in a few ways. They are level based systems with skills strapped on, and skill based systems tend to be far better with them as a result. That said, removing skills entirely and "roleplaying it" seems ridiculous to me. The cases where this is most obviously absurd is with the likes of climb and swim, where a check of some sort makes the most sense, but it also applies to more social skills. I have absolutely no problem with a rolled check for knowledge of etiquette and ability to use diplomacy or the like (though I enjoy the scenes more when they are also role-played through).

I'll use an example that could easily come up in the game I'm currently setting up. The core concept is that the player characters are officials of a merchant guild, seeking to insure it's prosperity and expand, while hopefully making fortunes on the side. There are, of course, lots of different issues here - you've got the matter of getting the best merchants in your guild, you've got keeping the smugglers under control enough that they don't under cut you, you've got the matter of the local political situation regarding taxes, tariffs, and similar.

Now lets take a concrete example. Trade barriers are going up between the local region and a nearby nation that is the main source of imported luxury textiles. Smugglers are already on this, undercutting legitimate merchants because they don't have to deal with tariffs and because some of their goods are probably stolen to begin with. A local noble who favors a complete trade sanction is gaining influence. The local military is starting up saber rattling, which threatens to turn several trade routes of guild merchants into a warzone. Merchants in the nation from which luxury textiles are sourced are immigrating in before sanctions come in from multiple angles, and a rival merchant guild is trying to snap up the good ones. So, what do the PCs do?

Lets say I'm using D&D 3.5 for this*. There is no skill that tells you how to prioritize all of this, and no skill that just gets you all the information up front. It needs to be looked for, and choices need to be made. There's could easily be mystery present - where have smugglers located themselves, what are they doing? There could easily be danger present - the local noble has a retinue, the military has soldiers, the smugglers have some thugs available, and every time the other merchant guild comes into conflict mercenaries seem to mysteriously appear. Every path has different risks and rewards to be weighed.

Skills also help with this, by dealing with the incremental challenges that come up along whatever the players end up doing. Perhaps investigation type skills (e.g. Search, Gather Information) come up when trying to figure out who smugglers have contact with and where they might be, followed by social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate) after getting ahold of these contacts. Even there, there are decisions - do they buy off the corrupt bureaucrat who's been concealing the location of the smugglers and getting their goods to merchants, do they seize him in the street and scare him into spilling his information, do they threaten far more than they are willing and possible even able to do to him to get cooperation? All of these have different consequences. All of them also use different skills, which provides an incentive for different characters to do it different ways. Or maybe they decide that the smugglers are low priority and that the import market must be protected instead - that could possibly involve running away with stolen found acquired documents from military correspondence that discredits them among the civilian decision makers so they pressure the ruler to not impose sanctions. Swim, Climb, Hide, Move Silently, and Endurance could all easily come into this, and it helps to have them there.

My point is: The skill system doesn't necessarily hinder roleplaying. It can even help it. It helps it more if what you're doing is particularly interesting, and while this varies from person to person I personally find navigating the scenario highlighted above more interesting than meticulously listing everything I search because the game doesn't have a skill for that.

*I'm using REIGN, but D&D is a better Lingua Franca for this sort of discussion.

jedipotter
2014-02-14, 02:06 AM
So what are some solutions I have used?

The basic core rules assume a player that utterly does not care about the fictional game world. The idea is that a character living in the world would know utterly everything about everything in the world. It's reasonable, as every single American can name every single member of Congress, right?(That would be like DC 10 right?) The player has to worry about ''real life'' and can't be bothered to read or remember fictional stuff. And it would be no fun for the player to not just know everything. If the player's character did not know everything the game might grind to a halt as they would have no idea where the NorthIce Castle is located(and they can't role play and ask a NPC because that is too hard). So they have the rolls.

I use three solutions myself:

1.No information skills. Your character knows what you the player knows.

2.Anything gotten from a skill roll is a rumor at best. You never, ever get facts. Roughly half of what you get is wrong, or at least incomplete.

3.You get just the bare bones of a simple short bit of information.

Though I will generally avoid gaming with the ''roll to know everything'' type players. And when playing with the ''all knowing'' players I will have things like this:

DM "Standing by the city gate are a dozen guards in plate armor, swords and shields. Each has a tabbard with a large black raven on it.

Player "I roll my check! Who are they?''

DM "The city guardsmen of the city of BlackRaven....."

Knaight
2014-02-14, 02:29 AM
1.No information skills. Your character knows what you the player knows.

2.Anything gotten from a skill roll is a rumor at best. You never, ever get facts. Roughly half of what you get is wrong, or at least incomplete.

3.You get just the bare bones of a simple short bit of information.


The characters who have lived in the world for 15 to several hundred years really should know more than the players do. Having no information skills seems kind of absurd. Also, even in D&D 3.5 having all the knowledge skills at a decent level takes a lot of points, it's not an issue - and this is with a game that is particularly bad. As for a character knowing absolutely everything, that is really not the case. Truly obscure information is outright outside the possible range for anything other than a specialist at the top of their field.

I'd also note that in just about any game other than a mystery even really good information is only worth so much. There are still choices to be made, and role playing to be done. See my example with the merchant guild - the officials know that the military has been saber rattling, they now that smugglers are exploiting the trade restrictions, they know that the nobility likes their fine fabrics and also likes their taxes, etc. Knowing all of this doesn't ruin the game. They could even have some of the hidden knowledge up front - such as what warehouses the smugglers are operating out of - and it still wouldn't, as it's not like that information could be immediately leveraged without a bunch of unwanted side consequences.

Deophaun
2014-02-14, 03:06 AM
No one. That's the point. It's absurd for any one character to have superb knowledge of all of the local customs of everywhere.
Then eliminate Knowledge (local), as otherwise it's just a trap option.

Really though, the only examples of "abuses" of the skill in this thread have been either eminently reasonable and not remotely game breaking, or so far outside of the scope of the skill that the players may as well have said "I rolled a 78 on my Jump check: I win D&D."

Knaight
2014-02-14, 03:20 AM
Then eliminate Knowledge (local), as otherwise it's just a trap option.

It depends on the campaign, really. If you've got a world traveling campaign wherein locations are visited once then Knowledge (local) is worthless. If you've got a campaign set within five coastal cities around an inland sea, Knowledge (local) for one of the five cities is much more reasonable.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-14, 04:16 AM
Then eliminate Knowledge (local), as otherwise it's just a trap option.

Only if you're constantly moving all over the place. Keeping a campaign in only one region of the world where there are maybe 5 locales to choose from shouldn't be -that- difficult. In that case, having ranks in know (local) for one of those five can prove invaluable when you're in that locale quite frequently.

You can, of course, take it too far if you break it down to requiring ranks for individual settlements but that's not what I'm suggesting and is, indeed, a terrible idea. I was suggesting something more like the regions system from FR. Each of those areas covers a pretty good chunk of ground.

SiuiS
2014-02-14, 04:18 AM
Knowledge (local) does not exist, OP. You replace the word local with a specific locality. If the players have knowledge (innsmouth) them they don't get to add those ranks to rolls for knowledge (Camelot).

But more important; if the player decides it is important to the character to have knowledge, why fight that? It's like being mad at someone for taking feats in obscure fighting styles. It's an investment. Less of one in a game where 'I take minimal investment and boost my intelligence' but still.

TuggyNE
2014-02-14, 04:47 AM
The basic core rules assume a player that utterly does not care about the fictional game world. The idea is that a character living in the world would know utterly everything about everything in the world. It's reasonable, as every single American can name every single member of Congress, right?(That would be like DC 10 right?)

More like DC 20. Each. Someone who knows a ridiculous amount about Congress (+19 modifier, no easy feat!) would, yes, be able to recite all of them from memory; this is not impossible for some hypothetical savant, since after all there are historical examples of people memorizing, and reciting, the entire thousand-page+ contents of the Bible.

However, that's an unusual character, and one that is just plain that good. Obviously, no player should be expected to live up to that, and I think it should be equally obvious that neither should you absolutely bar them from playing that character if they really want to. So what's the solution?

It's a little something I like to call "player/character separation". You are not really your character, and vice versa, so here's a little help to make sure that doesn't cause problems. In this case, skill checks.


The player has to worry about ''real life'' and can't be bothered to read or remember fictional stuff. And it would be no fun for the player to not just know everything. If the player's character did not know everything the game might grind to a halt as they would have no idea where the NorthIce Castle is located(and they can't role play and ask a NPC because that is too hard). So they have the rolls.

What do you do if a player has to miss a session in which some crucial bit of information was revealed? Do they have to trade notes with those who were there?

For that matter, what if they need to remember something that seemed insignificant at the time? Do they have to take notes on absolutely everything in case they need it later?

What happens if a very sharp player is playing a really dull-witted character, or an absent-minded player is running a really smart character?

These and other problems arise from this playstyle. Some people obviously don't mind them, but they're potentially serious enough that others definitely do. And this difference in approach should make one cautious in castigating those who don't roleplay the way you do (or worse, considering that they don't roleplay at all).

Sewercop
2014-02-14, 06:38 AM
US congress has what? 535 members.
Memorization for a normal person should make them remember that.
It is not exceptional at all.

Do you find it exceptional that someone can remember 535 lines in a play?
do you think that deserves +19 skill mod before a roll?
If a campaign world crumbles to dust due to simple skill rolls like this, I can`t fathom what it does if someone actually optimized a bit.

I like structured rules, makes it easier to actually generate chars with good fluff that are sound mechanicly. Dungeon world is a good exsample for the op.
It is a nice game that does what he want. I like it, but you have to be ok with that type of gaming as well. Cause it is different then pathfinder..
It is what i call a : Yes, but... game
(ps. well worth the money)

skyth
2014-02-14, 06:53 AM
For all those that have an issue with how much you can get from a knowledge skill roll, consider this...

Think of what you know about your favorite universe...Forgotten Realms, Golarion, Star Trek, Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Battletech, etc...

If you were shown a random picture from a bestiary, you would likely have a decent idea of the capabilities of the creature shown along with it's temperment, etc...

And remember that what you know likely represents (at best) a +7 or +8 to a relevant knowledge skill...

ReaderAt2046
2014-02-14, 07:06 AM
Once again I'm with the game rather than the GMs who want to blindfold the players (unless you're using beasties explicitly from the Far Realms). A high enough level ranger should be able to take one look at a monster they have never seen before and say "Teeth? It's a herbivore, it doesn't bite often - but watch for the back two molars. From its musculature, the real danger is that sharp tail that it can crack like a whip, breaking the sound barrier. It needs lungs that are larger than you'd expect so its heart will be *scetches* there. Top speed? With those muscles? Twenty five miles per hour or so - and it can keep it up for a few minutes. From the gashes along its side, it's been in a fight and will lash out twice as fast at anyone on its left flank." And be pretty close on their estimates.





This is actually a very good example of a Skill "in action." If only that was how Skills were played instead of, "I rolled a 25, tell me everything about the monster."



One problem here. The ranger can't roleplay out that scene until you give him the information he "discovered" OOC.

I do have an idea for this that might help. The Dresden Files RPG has a skill (sort of) called "Exposition and Knowledge Dumping", which basically lets the GM take control of a character to deliver a bit of exposition to the party. Try using this effect for Knowledge skills, and take possession of the character for a standard action to roleplay out the discovery of the information.

Deophaun
2014-02-14, 10:25 AM
Only if you're constantly moving all over the place. Keeping a campaign in only one region of the world where there are maybe 5 locales to choose from shouldn't be -that- difficult.
So wait, we're going to constrain the campaign world in order to make Knowledge (specific local) viable? If that's the case, why are we even bothering to nerf (local) in the first place? Seems to me if you're keeping the campaign to a single region anyway, the RAW version of (local) is going to be indistinguishable from this house-ruled variant.

NichG
2014-02-14, 12:21 PM
There are much more interesting unknowns you can use than just fighting against some unfamiliar monster that is totally one of the same iconic few that shows up in every game.

Look closely at my post. I agree its silly to make players struggle with knowing that a red dragon is immune to fire. I don't think its silly to make players have to figure out that a Nilbog can only be harmed by healing spells. Or that they should not stand behind a Bonnacon. Or that gargoyles are particularly vulnerable to the attacks of a condemned man. Or, for a more modern D&D example, the exact list of horrible effects that are caused by a Teratomorph's special attack.


As for a character knowing absolutely everything, that is really not the case. Truly obscure information is outright outside the possible range for anything other than a specialist at the top of their field.


This depends incredibly upon the optimization level of your players. Skill checks of 60 without significant skill point investment are not all that hard to achieve at fairly low levels with good op-fu. There are tons of spells out there that boost skills with different, stacking bonus types, allow rerolls of Knowledge checks, even let you 'take 20' on Knowledge checks. At, say, Lv7, I could expect:

+15 Divine Insight, +20 Guidance of the Avatar, roll of 20 from Surge of Fortune, +6 from Int by having the Wizard make the check under Fox's Cunning, +1 because you need to have at least one skill point in the Knowledge to beat 10. So thats a check of 62 with zero actual investment in the skill. If someone wants to be good at it, Item Familiar + full ranks means another +20 to that result for an 82. And this is before items that boost it.

Just something to keep in mind - there's a huge variation in what kind of checks get thrown around depending on optimization level.


For all those that have an issue with how much you can get from a knowledge skill roll, consider this...

Think of what you know about your favorite universe...Forgotten Realms, Golarion, Star Trek, Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Battletech, etc...

If you were shown a random picture from a bestiary, you would likely have a decent idea of the capabilities of the creature shown along with it's temperment, etc...

And remember that what you know likely represents (at best) a +7 or +8 to a relevant knowledge skill...

It also involves access to materials that would be considered Major Artifacts in-game. Drop a D&D core set into a D&D world and its the equivalent if you gave Newton the full library of modern scientific knowledge in this time, compacted down into a form designed to teach it to someone with no experience or knowledge to use as a basis. Add a setting book, and its like having access to the CIA's secret files on the power players of the world - except, there's not even any doubt as to whether its true.

Scow2
2014-02-14, 12:30 PM
US congress has what? 535 members.
Memorization for a normal person should make them remember that.
It is not exceptional at all.

Do you find it exceptional that someone can remember 535 lines in a play?
do you think that deserves +19 skill mod before a roll?
If a campaign world crumbles to dust due to simple skill rolls like this, I can`t fathom what it does if someone actually optimized a bit.

I like structured rules, makes it easier to actually generate chars with good fluff that are sound mechanicly. Dungeon world is a good exsample for the op.
It is a nice game that does what he want. I like it, but you have to be ok with that type of gaming as well. Cause it is different then pathfinder..
It is what i call a : Yes, but... game
(ps. well worth the money)the U.S. Congress has had thousands of people over the course of a normal person's lifetime, and it changes every two years.

DC 10 would be knowing your own state's representatives and senators, as well as high-profile, extremely active congressmen (Such as Joe Lieberman... who is no longer a senator as of last year), not the whole nation's up-to-the-minute. Knowing every single senator, much less representative as well, is NOT common knowledge.

NichG
2014-02-14, 12:33 PM
Also, there's a huge difference between 'I tried to memorize this and succeeded' and 'I just happen to know this at need, but I didn't particularly try to memorize this piece of knowledge'.

Memorizing the Congressmen's names? Thats either a DC 15 Autohypnosis check or a DC 15 Int check I would say. Retry till success, if you really want to know them.

Running into an ambush by a bunch of bandits, who say they will let you live only if you can recite them on the spot? That's a different matter entirely.

A more ridiculous example: knowing the 769312th digit of Pi is memorizing a single number, so it should be trivial.

Doug Lampert
2014-02-14, 12:44 PM
:smalleek:

Who has THAT many skill-points to spare?!

As for 'using Knowledge (whatever) skills to know everything about a monster' being a problem, it's worth remembering that a LOT of D&D monsters have weird immunities/resistance/abilities that make trying to fight them purely by trial and error a waste of spells, hitpoints, and quite possibly characters.

And fitting in at a new location is itself a skill.

There are people who've lived in the same house for decades, and have no idea who lives next door. There are others who move into a neighborhood and three weeks later seem to know everyone.

Knowledge local isn't a bad way to represent this skill. The guy who finds the best restraunts within a week of moving into town has a high knowledge local. The guy who knows where the local cops hang out (rather than just assuming it's a donut shop) even though he never does anything that involves the police has a high knowlege local.

There's a real skill that's represented by what RAW knowlege local does. It doesn't apply 5 minutes after you enter an area, but it does apply fast enough and is different from gather information.


Then eliminate Knowledge (local), as otherwise it's just a trap option.

Really though, the only examples of "abuses" of the skill in this thread have been either eminently reasonable and not remotely game breaking, or so far outside of the scope of the skill that the players may as well have said "I rolled a 78 on my Jump check: I win D&D."

Yep, just what's the problem with assuming that someone who studies humanoid customs and who is good at picking up local flavor knows the sort of general info that knowledge local can ACTUALLY give?

Brookshw
2014-02-14, 04:55 PM
Then the DM has the grounds to make the changes he's wanting to make and the players -should- find it a much easier pill to swallow. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and being thwarted by your own methods is a good way to create a desire for change. It should also make a fine illustration for why the way they're insisting the rules work can't be right.

One can only hope, but again, playstyles and expectations.


Though, to be fair, I'm not one to setup a board so easily tipped. What check do you have in mind? I'm sure I can name some way to either thwart it or use it to my advantage. If I can't prevent the BBEG from gleaning knowledge of what I'm doing then the solution, obviously, is to sow disinformation.


I doubt this will accomplish much without the op to help clarify or elaborate on his players approaches, or in an abstract manner without a setting/campaign to base the exercise on but why not.

Gather info to find out about you, your plans and actions (potentially including asking outsiders), sense motive to determine if we trust the info uncovered for starters. Potentially knowledge local (I'm assuming for this purpose both parties are acting in a semi-restricted area) to yield further info on you and any associates/acquaintences. Not sure how much stock we can put in this though.

It's a balance to allow skills to be meaningfully useful (as they should) without potentially impacting things negatively as the op feels is happening. Strikes me as good dming is kinda the lynchpin.

TuggyNE
2014-02-14, 07:42 PM
This depends incredibly upon the optimization level of your players. Skill checks of 60 without significant skill point investment are not all that hard to achieve at fairly low levels with good op-fu. There are tons of spells out there that boost skills with different, stacking bonus types, allow rerolls of Knowledge checks, even let you 'take 20' on Knowledge checks. At, say, Lv7, I could expect:

+15 Divine Insight, +20 Guidance of the Avatar, roll of 20 from Surge of Fortune, +6 from Int by having the Wizard make the check under Fox's Cunning, +1 because you need to have at least one skill point in the Knowledge to beat 10. So thats a check of 62 with zero actual investment in the skill. If someone wants to be good at it, Item Familiar + full ranks means another +20 to that result for an 82. And this is before items that boost it.

In such a case, the result is being obtained pretty much entirely by Divination magic. And what does Divination specialize in? Knowing things that shouldn't be knowable. Seems like that gets a free pass. :smallwink:

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-14, 10:04 PM
So wait, we're going to constrain the campaign world in order to make Knowledge (specific local) viable? If that's the case, why are we even bothering to nerf (local) in the first place? Seems to me if you're keeping the campaign to a single region anyway, the RAW version of (local) is going to be indistinguishable from this house-ruled variant.

Take a look at the example regions I mentioned: the regions a character choose for their origin in FR. The western heartlands, for example, is an area that covers 18 notable settlements and over 1.6 million people. If that's not a large enough area to conduct a campaign in, what is? an entire continent? the whole world?

Continuing with that example; say you were to constrain the campaign to the western heartlands, amn, the dragon coast, and the north. That's a pretty -huge- area but you local knowledge only covers the heartlands. You could also invest in knowledge for, say, two more regions without unduly straining your skill points and be -very- knowledgeable for the region you're playing in without the ridiculousness of knowing about absolutely everywhere on toril for pimping out one skill check. Your knowledge skill(s) are still relevant but not absurd.


I doubt this will accomplish much without the op to help clarify or elaborate on his players approaches, or in an abstract manner without a setting/campaign to base the exercise on but why not.

Gather info to find out about you, your plans and actions (potentially including asking outsiders), sense motive to determine if we trust the info uncovered for starters. Potentially knowledge local (I'm assuming for this purpose both parties are acting in a semi-restricted area) to yield further info on you and any associates/acquaintences. Not sure how much stock we can put in this though.

Gather info can explicitly only find rumors unless you're looking for a particular piece of information and even then reliability is questionable. Counter: deliberate spread of disinformation and red-herring movements.

Sense motive can only tell you if the person's lying, not if their information is actually accurate. No need to counter.

Know (local)'s utility, in this case, is dependent on how much of a local figure I am. Presumably, I'm relatively new to the region and some time must pass before know (local) applies at all.

That's two points of failure, with stiff DC's, and an irrelevance. Even then, knowing who I am and what I've led people to believe I'm doing doesn't automatically thwart me. Both can, in fact, work to my advantage pretty heavily.

Unless the OP says that his players are using the skills differently from this, in which case they're just flat wrong and he has solid grounds to tell them to stow it, I'm not all that concerned.


It's a balance to allow skills to be meaningfully useful (as they should) without potentially impacting things negatively as the op feels is happening. Strikes me as good dming is kinda the lynchpin.

Agreed. DM'ing is a position of authority and responsibility. If the players won't respect the authority then it's their own fault when the DM can't meet his responsibility.

To phrase it as a statement to the players, "I can't run a good game if you doorknobs won't follow my rulings. If you don't trust me to make good rulings then you shouldn't have asked me to make them in the first place and one of you should DM."

Deophaun
2014-02-14, 10:23 PM
Continuing with that example; say you were to constrain the campaign to the western heartlands, amn, the dragon coast, and the north. That's a pretty -huge- area but you local knowledge only covers the heartlands.
How huge is it? Is it bigger than the astral plane? And the Infinite Layers of the Abyss? And the Elemental planes? And the Ethereal? And the Plane of Shadow? Is this one region of Toril bigger than those things put together? Because a single skill covers all of that. Or does it barely manage to compare with a single Abyssal layer?

You could also invest in knowledge for, say, two more regions without unduly straining your skill points...
I'm sorry, but I don't play with house rules that give everyone 8+Int skill points at level up. Yes, spending three skill points to cover what one used to do is very straining on skill points, unless, maybe, possibly, if you're playing a Human Factotum that took Nymph's Kiss. Then yeah, you might be thankful for the extra tax.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-14, 10:34 PM
How huge is it? Is it bigger than the astral plane? And the Infinite Layers of the Abyss? And the Elemental planes? And the Ethereal? And the Plane of Shadow? Is this one region of Toril bigger than those things put together? Because a single skill covers all of that. Or does it barely manage to compare with a single Abyssal layer?

Know (the planes) covers general information about those subjects. If you want to find a particular legionaire devil's house in the Iron City of Dis in Baator, it's going to be a gather information check or a know (local [Dis]) check. The same goes for the lich queen's fortress and plans in the astral or Orcus doings in the Abyss. Indeed, it's a knowledge (the planes) check to determine that the material has the normal magic, gravity, and time traits.

This attitude you're expressing is, I suspect, exactly the kind of bunk that the OP's players are spouting and damaging their game with.


I'm sorry, but I don't play with house rules that give everyone 8+Int skill points at level up. Yes, spending three skill points to cover what one used to do is very straining on skill points, unless, maybe, possibly, if you're playing a Human Factotum that took Nymph's Kiss. Then yeah, you might be thankful for the extra tax.

If you -really- want to have access to such broad information without paying for it in skill points you can always play a bard or loremaster. There are even a few other classes with similar abilities, though I can't name them off the top of my head.

Coidzor
2014-02-14, 10:50 PM
I will also wholly agree that Knowledge: Local as it is should go DIAF, or just be Knowledge: Local (One Specific Place).

Then you just run into the problem of having wasted skillpoints entirely unless the game is confined to that one area, in which case having split Knowledge Local into thousands of individual subskills is redundant.


No one. That's the point. It's absurd for any one character to have superb knowledge of all of the local customs of everywhere.

If you want a -very- broad selection of knowledge from all over the place, you want something like the bard's bardic knowledge or the loremaster's lore ability.

And your proposed solution is to make the skill so useless no one will take it. Might as well just delete it entirely and make it so that no one, not even the most well-educated, can tell a human from an orc no matter what region they're from. :smalltongue:

jedipotter
2014-02-15, 12:24 AM
However, that's an unusual character, and one that is just plain that good. Obviously, no player should be expected to live up to that, and I think it should be equally obvious that neither should you absolutely bar them from playing that character if they really want to. So what's the solution?

The problem is that the DC's are too low and characters get too many skill points. But that is another thread. And if player really wanted to play a ''roll to know all'' character, I would not be their DM.






What do you do if a player has to miss a session in which some crucial bit of information was revealed? Do they have to trade notes with those who were there?

Yes? Or just not miss the game. Sure once in a life time a metor might land on your house an hour before the game and you might have to call off gaming that night. Otherwise I expect you there. And again if your the type to have ''emergencies'' every other week, we liked would not be gaming anyway.




For that matter, what if they need to remember something that seemed insignificant at the time? Do they have to take notes on absolutely everything in case they need it later?

The more immersed player does keep notes, or has the ability to remember things. Again, I don't game with the more casual gamer type.



What happens if a very sharp player is playing a really dull-witted character, or an absent-minded player is running a really smart character?

Well, the sharp player can ''dull down'' easy. The absent minded player with a smart character is just more an ''absent minded professor'' type.



These and other problems arise from this playstyle. Some people obviously don't mind them, but they're potentially serious enough that others definitely do. And this difference in approach should make one cautious in castigating those who don't roleplay the way you do (or worse, considering that they don't roleplay at all).[/QUOTE]

Again, I most likely would only be gaming with people that I agree with me.

NichG
2014-02-15, 12:46 AM
In such a case, the result is being obtained pretty much entirely by Divination magic. And what does Divination specialize in? Knowing things that shouldn't be knowable. Seems like that gets a free pass. :smallwink:

That doesn't actually change the impact it can have on the style of campaign and the structure of the game.

TuggyNE
2014-02-15, 02:39 AM
That doesn't actually change the impact it can have on the style of campaign and the structure of the game.

Aye. But if you can handle Divinations, you can handle them; if you can't, man up and ban (most of) the school already. Don't focus on the skill checks when those are not really the root of the problem.

squiggit
2014-02-15, 02:48 AM
Outside of this thread I don't think I've seen anyone try to use "local knowledge" as "knowledge of every locale on the material plane (and beyond)".

skyth
2014-02-15, 06:10 AM
The important thing that you're forgetting is that once you get to a +10 or so level in a knowledge skill, you effectively have encyclopedia level knowledge of something.

The skill DC's aren't too high...It's that you are underrating the characters. A 5th level character isn't a bumbling idiot that is still learning which end of the sword goes in the other guy...It is a hero of almost superhuman abilities. Really, 5th level is olympic level martial artist/fencer/etc. If you've taken a knowledge skill every level for 5 levels, you are an expert in the field.

lunar2
2014-02-15, 10:04 AM
The important thing that you're forgetting is that once you get to a +10 or so level in a knowledge skill, you effectively have encyclopedia level knowledge of something.

The skill DC's aren't too high...It's that you are underrating the characters. A 5th level character isn't a bumbling idiot that is still learning which end of the sword goes in the other guy...It is a hero of almost superhuman abilities. Really, 5th level is olympic level martial artist/fencer/etc. If you've taken a knowledge skill every level for 5 levels, you are an expert in the field.

while DnD 3.x was designed with relatively low level heroes being the cream of the crop, it is closer to level 10 than to 5. according to the dmg, characters don't even start to become famous until level 6.

so yeah, you can model einstein with a level 4 expert, but he was meant to be more like level 8, partly because WotC has low op expectations.

Doug Lampert
2014-02-15, 11:41 AM
while DnD 3.x was designed with relatively low level heroes being the cream of the crop, it is closer to level 10 than to 5. according to the dmg, characters don't even start to become famous until level 6.

so yeah, you can model einstein with a level 4 expert, but he was meant to be more like level 8, partly because WotC has low op expectations.

How low? The Einstein was level 5 argument doesn't use ANY high op tricks, it's purely obvious stuff from the PHB.

On the other side:
One skill rank is enough to speak a language, fluently. That's PHB.

One skill rank allows you to earn good money in a profession that can't even be attempted untrained. That's PHB.

One skill rank in a physical skill converts "good athlete but may not even qualify for the Olympics" to "world record by a massive margin". That's PHB and adding 1' to your longjump distance.

One skill rank is a BIG DEAL. There isn't a single skill where we can quantify what the effects are where this isn't the case. A typical human has a grand total of 12 skill points to represent the bulk of what he knows.

One skill point is, by itself, equivalent to years of training in a subject for a normal person. How long does it take to become a professional architect good enough that people will pay you a very good salary to design buildings? How many hours to learn a language well enough to speak it fluently for the rest of your life?

Most people in D&D land are level 1 commoners, THAT is the expectation and what the demographics in the DMG tell us.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-15, 11:57 AM
How huge is it? Is it bigger than the astral plane? And the Infinite Layers of the Abyss? And the Elemental planes? And the Ethereal? And the Plane of Shadow? Is this one region of Toril bigger than those things put together? Because a single skill covers all of that. Or does it barely manage to compare with a single Abyssal layer?


Know (the planes) covers general information about those subjects. If you want to find a particular legionaire devil's house in the Iron City of Dis in Baator, it's going to be a gather information check or a know (local [Dis]) check. The same goes for the lich queen's fortress and plans in the astral or Orcus doings in the Abyss. Indeed, it's a knowledge (the planes) check to determine that the material has the normal magic, gravity, and time traits.

This attitude you're expressing is, I suspect, exactly the kind of bunk that the OP's players are spouting and damaging their game with.

If you -really- want to have access to such broad information without paying for it in skill points you can always play a bard or loremaster. There are even a few other classes with similar abilities, though I can't name them off the top of my head.

OP here, and yes, the things Kelb is mentioning are the kinds of things that are driving me batty. For example, I give the group a set of clues over time to help them figure out what is going on. Instead of trying to figure it out, they want to use Skill checks to give them the answer. (Skill checks did help develop some of the clues).

They seem to view Skill checks as a "get out of any situation for free" [or anything I, as a player, can't figure out] card.


And your proposed solution is to make the skill so useless no one will take it. Might as well just delete it entirely and make it so that no one, not even the most well-educated, can tell a human from an orc no matter what region they're from. :smalltongue:

LOL


Outside of this thread I don't think I've seen anyone try to use "local knowledge" as "knowledge of every locale on the material plane (and beyond)".

Certain things about Knowledge (Local) I would say are "universal," like telling an Orc from a Human. Other stuff, not so much, and it should require staying in the area for a time before more is known. I don't know if devoting skill points to specific areas is the answer, though, as I get the sense it is more of a "replacement" process. The longer one spends in a given area, the more familiar they become with that area, and the more they forget about their previous area. Of course, some things would carry over, since unused knowledge is not truly forgotten completely. There just isn't any way built into the Skill system to reflect this.

SiuiS
2014-02-15, 12:30 PM
I have an idea...Make the fighters describe in detail each swing they make with the sword. Make the rogues describe in detail exactly how they are picking the lock. Make the mages' players demonstrate exactly the words and gestures used to cast each spell...If what the players can do in real life doesn't match what is required of the character, the action fails...

Or, how about we allow people to play characters that have abilities that are superior to their own and use the rules given to determine how those abilities work without complainging about it...

That's actually a good game, believe it or not. Certainly better than *clatter* "hit AC 37 for 19 damage. Your move." Or "I cast this chain of spells. I tell the duke who committed the crime and collect my fee".



One thing to remember also is that if you get to a +10 or higher bonus, that is Einsteinian levels of knowledge on a subject. Also remember that the characters have lived their entire life in the world and have heard stories and seen things growing up that equals what you've seen/learned about the real world.

Einsteinium knowledge is actually in the +15 range.


One problem here. The ranger can't roleplay out that scene until you give him the information he "discovered" OOC.

I do have an idea for this that might help. The Dresden Files RPG has a skill (sort of) called "Exposition and Knowledge Dumping", which basically lets the GM take control of a character to deliver a bit of exposition to the party. Try using this effect for Knowledge skills, and take possession of the character for a standard action to roleplay out the discovery of the information.

There are two solutions to this.
One; look around as DM and marvel at your ability to live in a first world country as you bang out notes on scratch paper/email/text message/IM private chat and give the player the info needed to shine, or
Two; allow player fiat. The player doesn't say "DM, do I know a place nearby with the supplies we need?" And then roll. The player says "there's actually a strong of small villages there, and the one up the third fork specializes I. Collecting and trading the stuff we need, it's part of their local culture because they were founded by traders and gypsies before going native and being annexed" and then the success or failure of the Knowledge (loca") check determines if it is true or not. Player rolls low? Maybe the village was somewhere else, or don't collect that thing, or were razed in a marauder attack, or... Etc.

jedipotter
2014-02-15, 12:49 PM
The important thing that you're forgetting is that once you get to a +10 or so level in a knowledge skill, you effectively have encyclopedia level knowledge of something.

The skill DC's aren't too high...It's that you are underrating the characters. A 5th level character isn't a bumbling idiot that is still learning which end of the sword goes in the other guy...It is a hero of almost superhuman abilities. Really, 5th level is olympic level martial artist/fencer/etc. If you've taken a knowledge skill every level for 5 levels, you are an expert in the field.

And that +10 is a problem. Most character's have at least +4 from the ability modifier, +2 to +4 from feats or magic items, +1 or +2 from some other miscellaneous source. Then all they need is +4 or so ranks, and they have +10. A first level character can have +10 no problem, and it is beyond easy by the high level of three.

So a first level character with a +10 is an expert and knows everything. And with hard DC's of only 20, they only need a 10 to know.

NichG
2014-02-15, 01:11 PM
Realism isn't the problem here - its a strawman. The issue isn't that it feels unrealistic that one of the heroes could be a heroic scholar and know all sorts of things that others wouldn't. The issue is that, for at least some people, the way that information-gathering skills in D&D work are too broad to allow a coexistence and well-defined set of 'things that the PCs could have pre-knowledge of' and 'things where the GM wants to preserve the need to figure them through play and interaction'.

So, for example, I could have a game mechanic where someone can wave their fingers in a certain way and magic happens. Whether that's realistic or even thematically consistent or not has nothing to do with whether or not there is a problem in the game system that the finger-wavers are on a completely different power level than the sword-users, and the sword-users have been complaining about being over-shadowed.

Coidzor
2014-02-15, 01:59 PM
OP here, and yes, the things Kelb is mentioning are the kinds of things that are driving me batty. For example, I give the group a set of clues over time to help them figure out what is going on. Instead of trying to figure it out, they want to use Skill checks to give them the answer. (Skill checks did help develop some of the clues).

They seem to view Skill checks as a "get out of any situation for free" [or anything I, as a player, can't figure out] card.

How are you presenting these things, anyway? Are you actually presenting them as puzzles or riddles to your players or are you just presenting them as things in world to their characters? Because if you want to have a metagame puzzle, you've generally got to actually tell your players what's what.

So, what, you want the game to just end in frustration and recrimination because your players aren't experts at deciphering the adventure game logic you're using for a given puzzle? :smalltongue:


LOL

Certain things about Knowledge (Local) I would say are "universal," like telling an Orc from a Human. Other stuff, not so much, and it should require staying in the area for a time before more is known. I don't know if devoting skill points to specific areas is the answer, though, as I get the sense it is more of a "replacement" process. The longer one spends in a given area, the more familiar they become with that area, and the more they forget about their previous area. Of course, some things would carry over, since unused knowledge is not truly forgotten completely. There just isn't any way built into the Skill system to reflect this.

One possible-to-plausible reason for the number of Half-Humans running around is that commoners can't tell the difference so they'll just sleep with anything with the logic that they're usually in a majority-human community so the odds are in their favor.

You'd basically have to just award skill ranks in Knowledge (Local) [Place] over the course of time and through dedicated efforts. And once you start with that sort of thing, you open the doors to players trying to get other super-niche skills without spending their actual skill points, like Profession (Sailor) or Craft (Widgets).

SiuiS
2014-02-15, 02:02 PM
How are you presenting these things, anyway? Are you actually presenting them as puzzles or riddles to your players or are you just presenting them as things in world to their characters? Because if you want to have a metagame puzzle, you've generally got to actually tell your players what's what.

So, what, you want the game to just end in frustration and recrimination because your players aren't experts at deciphering the adventure game logic you're using for a given puzzle? :smalltongue:


That's how my "worst DM ever" story happened!



One possible-to-plausible reason for the number of Half-Humans running around is that commoners can't tell the difference so they'll just sleep with anything with the logic that they're usually in a majority-human community so the odds are in their favor.

You'd basically have to just award skill ranks in Knowledge (Local) [Place] over the course of time and through dedicated efforts. And once you start with that sort of thing, you open the doors to players trying to get other super-niche skills without spending their actual skill points, like Profession (Sailor) or Craft (Widgets).

That's actually fine, and not a bad thing at all. It's a very good one. Especially given how dangerous both sailing and the crafting of widgets is.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-15, 02:25 PM
How are you presenting these things, anyway? Are you actually presenting them as puzzles or riddles to your players or are you just presenting them as things in world to their characters? Because if you want to have a metagame puzzle, you've generally got to actually tell your players what's what.

While there have been puzzles and riddles, those have (mostly) all been solved. Actually the plot information has come in a variety of ways: NPC interaction, recovered written materials, and some just general adventuring. It is not a puzzle, except in the sense that any story is a puzzle until it is figured out. The "plot" has practically been handed to them, and I can't figure out why they can't see it, unless some of them are just being difficult. I'd rather not think that, since it would be "out of character," so to speak.

They have another "big" encounter coming up, which could provide loads of info, provided they don't nuke the place and kill everything.

SiuiS
2014-02-15, 02:53 PM
Tunnel Visions: It's often easier for writers who come up with ideas to fill in the blanks than for those who read the ting. It's a common problem where things the DM thinks is obvious because of their perspective is almost obtuse from the other end.

Brookshw
2014-02-15, 03:11 PM
So, what, you want the game to just end in frustration and recrimination because your players aren't experts at deciphering the adventure game logic you're using for a given puzzle? :smalltongue:

Eh, I recall a game I played almost two decades ago where at the bottom of a large pit that eventually opening into caves were two small holes, about an inch in diameter set about a foot apart. We puzzled over these things for over an hour before we realized a ladder used to be there. Once we figured it out we felt immense gratification. That I still recall something so trivial after all this time says something I think about the reward of actually succeeding through your own devices than a quick die roll. Frustration is not a given negative.



Tunnel Visions: It's often easier for writers who come up with ideas to fill in the blanks than for those who read the ting. It's a common problem where things the DM thinks is obvious because of their perspective is almost obtuse from the other end.

A fair point perhaps but it works both ways. I've seen players kick themselves for missing something they considered blindingly obvious when what they considered obvious wasn't even on my radar.

Back to the op: to some extent I feel you should reread the rules for checks and consider alternative ways to adjudicate the skills. Talk with the players about how you think you should handle them, and reference Kelb and my exchange earlier on when the tables are flipped and they're on the receiving end. (sorry for not replying earlier Kelb, I'll respond to it hopefully tomorrow).

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-15, 03:14 PM
Tunnel Visions: It's often easier for writers who come up with ideas to fill in the blanks than for those who read the ting. It's a common problem where things the DM thinks is obvious because of their perspective is almost obtuse from the other end.

Yes, I have run into that before. I don't think that is happening here. I mean, I have practically handed them the jist of what is going on. I also thought maybe it was the "wall of text" syndrome, so I even distilled down their Adventure Log to a summary of the major points, and they still don't get it.

They try to do Skill Checks and complain that "their character has a 26 INT but they don't, so the character should be able to figure it out."
.

SiuiS
2014-02-15, 03:52 PM
Give it to them, then.

say "Okay, here is what's going on..." pull out the character log and put the pieces together with them, show them how they fit together. Accept that they didn't get it this time. Once they see how this works, they may begin doing it naturally on their own. It's possible to teach people to do these things, after all, and it's also fairly common for plot to be that thing being rammed down your throat, so they may just think you're being a bad DM because sitting back and waiting for the DM to enjoy his part, the grand reveal where he explains how clever and cool he is, is what players do.

if it is a mismatch of expectations to that effect, take their hand, smile, and say "we will learn together".

NichG
2014-02-15, 04:06 PM
For better or worse, I have a habit of chatting about things that happened in the game with players afterwards. This means that even if things are very confusing/unknown, sometimes I'll let things slip by accident. More often, I'll say 'so, what do you think is going on with X' or 'have you considered, there might be a reason for Y seemingly random event - what do you think it could be?'

That tends to at least help some of the players figure out stuff that's subtle. Of course, it can spoil the actual fun of figuring it out too, so its something I've been trying to watch and be more precise about.

lunar2
2014-02-15, 04:15 PM
And that +10 is a problem. Most character's have at least +4 from the ability modifier, +2 to +4 from feats or magic items, +1 or +2 from some other miscellaneous source. Then all they need is +4 or so ranks, and they have +10. A first level character can have +10 no problem, and it is beyond easy by the high level of three.

So a first level character with a +10 is an expert and knows everything. And with hard DC's of only 20, they only need a 10 to know.

1. really, so when, at most, 1/4 of characters are INT based casters, more than 2/4 of characters have their highest stat in INT? there's one problem: you're handing out too many 18s if more than half the characters in the game can afford to put one in INT, but only something like 1/10 of classes actually use INT.

2. who has magic items that grant bonuses to skill checks at level 1? are you giving your characters more than the standard amount of starting wealth? that would explain why they are more powerful than you like. also, you're complaining that your PCs are wasting a feat on increasing knowledge skills? if you think taking one of the weakest feats in the game is too strong, i'd hate to see how you handled a player who actually picked feats intelligently. note, i'm not talking high op characters, i'm talking about the barbarian with the great axe taking power attack.

3. yeah, random +2s just happen to show up for the majority of characters the majority of the time. again, DM just handing things to the players that the rules don't say they should get has no business complaining when those characters are more powerful than he expected.

4. yeah, it's so strange that a level one character will actually max out ranks in one of their skills. especially if it's a wizard, whose useful skills amount to: concentration, spellcraft, knowledge. so of course they are going to invest in knowledges. that's their job.

5. also, your math sucks. 4+2+1= 7. only need 3 ranks to get +10, not 4. and that's with the minimum on the super generous bonuses you are giving your players that by the book they aren't supposed to get.

now, in reality, a wizard is going to have a +2-5 int, depending on how ability scores are generated and if grey elves are available. they will have 4 ranks in knowledge, because they have nothing else to spend their skill points on. they, rarely, may have a +2 circumstance bonus if they are researching a subject in a library at the time of the knowledge check. but that depends on them having access to a library that has materials on the subject they are researching. they will have no other bonuses unless the DM, like you, is being generous and giving them access to things the rules don't.

so yeah, they'll generally have anywhere from a +6 to a +11, and that +11 is only if they maximized INT and are in a library. understand that even identifying a human is a DC 11, so the majority of wizards actually have to roll to identify a regular, baseline human.

but here is what you have to realize. a wizard is not a normal person, not even at level 1. wizards are the smartest people in existence, and they spend years training and studying to become a wizard. it makes perfect sense for them to have so much academic knowledge about the world. that's exactly how the world should work. the geniuses who spend all their time studying have huge reserves of academic knowledge that, while not directly applicable to any situation can, if from the proper subject, give insight into how best to approach the situation.

Deophaun
2014-02-15, 05:13 PM
Know (the planes) covers general information about those subjects. If you want to find a particular legionaire devil's house in the Iron City of Dis in Baator, it's going to be a gather information check or a know (local [Dis]) check.
No. It's going to be a GI check only. It may be a Know (planes) check to know that a particular legionaire devil (who is an outsider, and so covered under that skill) exists. Besides that, there is no skill that will tell you flat out where the legionaire devil is, or even anything but the broadest of his relationship with other devils (he's under Asmodeus) without doing leg work.

This attitude you're expressing is, I suspect, exactly the kind of bunk that the OP's players are spouting and damaging their game with.
Actually, it's more your attitude. You and the OP are attributing powers to knowledge (local) that do not exist, and then proceeding to nerf it to uselessness based on your overreach.

If you -really- want to have access to such broad information without paying for it in skill points...
Except everyone who has taken ranks in knowledge (local) has paid for it, thank you very much.

skyth
2014-02-15, 05:41 PM
Except everyone who has taken ranks in knowledge (local) has paid for it, thank you very much.

Exactly. If I put resources into something, I expect to get use out of those resources. If I take weapon focus, I expect to hit more often. If the AC of everything automatically goes up 1 point, then we have an issue. If I take power attack, I expect to be able to drop something quicker, not have everything's hit points increase automatically. If I have a high bonus in my spot skill and you make the required roll always be my bonus+15, then I'll have an issue. Same as if I spend resources making it so that my character actually knows things about the world that I don't.

jedipotter
2014-02-15, 05:50 PM
but here is what you have to realize. a wizard is not a normal person, not even at level 1. wizards are the smartest people in existence, and they spend years training and studying to become a wizard. it makes perfect sense for them to have so much academic knowledge about the world. that's exactly how the world should work. the geniuses who spend all their time studying have huge reserves of academic knowledge that, while not directly applicable to any situation can, if from the proper subject, give insight into how best to approach the situation.

But it is no fun to play with a ''genius'' character.......that is the point.

skyth
2014-02-15, 06:12 PM
Sounds like you'd be better off playing Paranoia than D&D...

neonchameleon
2014-02-15, 09:44 PM
The problem is that the DC's are too low and characters get too many skill points.

Personally from a players perspective I find one of the worst things about 3.X to be how cripplingly few skill points PCs get.


But it is no fun to play with a ''genius'' character.......that is the point.

That is your point. I couldn't disagree more. As GM I love it when my players run things on me I hadn't thought of and I need to run to keep up with them. Those are the moments that make GMing an absolute joy. Running with plodding and turtling characters is, on the other hand, something I find tedious.

lunar2
2014-02-15, 10:04 PM
Sounds like you'd be better off playing Paranoia than D&D...

QFT. i was going to go off on a rant about how horrible of a DM he is, and so on and so forth, but yeah, he's just playing the wrong system.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-15, 11:43 PM
And that +10 is a problem. Most character's have at least +4 from the ability modifier, +2 to +4 from feats or magic items, +1 or +2 from some other miscellaneous source. Then all they need is +4 or so ranks, and they have +10. A first level character can have +10 no problem, and it is beyond easy by the high level of three.

So a first level character with a +10 is an expert and knows everything. And with hard DC's of only 20, they only need a 10 to know.

It's already been pointed out but these numbers are -way- off. Most characters might have a +1 int mod and unless they have nothing better to do with their skill points they may have max ranks in -one or two- categories of knowledge. They won't have -any- skill boosting magic items at level one and those that boost knowledge skills are largely custom items. What you've described isn't "most" characters but a dedicated specialist; a character that will largely be incapable of doing anything else unless they're a spellcaster.


No. It's going to be a GI check only. It may be a Know (planes) check to know that a particular legionaire devil (who is an outsider, and so covered under that skill) exists. Besides that, there is no skill that will tell you flat out where the legionaire devil is, or even anything but the broadest of his relationship with other devils (he's under Asmodeus) without doing leg work.

You're right about it being useless to pick up any random legionaire devil but if it's the captain of the guard for a whole sector of the city, he's a personality for that area and -will- be known by those with ranks in knowledge local. Unless you break up knowledge local to apply to particular locales anyone, anywhere with ranks in Know (local) will be able to make the check, even if they've never left the material plane and have no ranks in knowledge (the planes). That's utterly absurd.


Actually, it's more your attitude. You and the OP are attributing powers to knowledge (local) that do not exist, and then proceeding to nerf it to uselessness based on your overreach.

You're overestimating the nerf; by a wide margin at that. Know (local), without the suggested change, lets the person who invests in it know about the laws, customs, and personalities of absolutely everywhere in the multiverse. No other skill has such far-reaching implications. If you feel the nerf is too harsh, you're free to simply not invest in the skill or, if you're the DM, not adopt it in the first place.

There're differences between nerfed, nerfed to excess, and nerfed into oblivion. Many, many people, including the game's designers at one point, feel that this is an appropriate level of usability for the skill.


Except everyone who has taken ranks in knowledge (local) has paid for it, thank you very much.

We're arguing costs here. I, and many like me, don't think a handful of skill ranks is nearly a high enough cost to know the laws, customs, and personalities of everywhere. I honestly can't fathom why you do.

Deophaun
2014-02-16, 12:14 AM
You're right about it being useless to pick up any random legionaire devil but if it's the captain of the guard for a whole sector of the city, he's a personality for that area and -will- be known by those with ranks in knowledge local. Unless you break up knowledge local to apply to particular locales anyone, anywhere with ranks in Know (local) will be able to make the check, even if they've never left the material plane and have no ranks in knowledge (the planes).
And? Explain how this breaks the game, while doing the exact same thing through Gather Information does not?

That's utterly absurd.So's someone who can jump 70 feet, or swim against a whirlpool. It's equally absurd that a bard, by your own system, can do it. What's your point?

You're overestimating the nerf; by a wide margin at that.
Let's see, we're taking a skill of marginal usefulness at the best of times, and complete worthlessness the rest, and tripling the cost, just 'cause. No, I really don't think I am.

Many, many people, including the game's designers at one point, feel that this is an appropriate level of usability for the skill.
Man, many people, including the game's designers at one point, think the monk is OP.

lunar2
2014-02-16, 12:37 AM
you know, i think there is one nerf to knowledge skills that actually makes sense.

do not allow characters to activate buffs before making a knowledge check. as soon as the player wants to know something, make the check as they are at that moment, with only the buffs they already have on. so the wizard will get his headband of intellect bonus, but he can't cast a spell to boost his knowledge check before he rolls for it, because as soon as the thought crossed his mind that he wants to know something, he will automatically search his memory then and there. there's a reason it is not an action to make a knowledge check.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-16, 12:43 AM
And? Explain how this breaks the game, while doing the exact same thing through Gather Information does not?

To gather information, you have to know what information you're looking for or make multiple checks, costing you several hours, days, or even weeks, to move along a chain of information. With knowledge local you just know; no time spent, no effort, no interacting with other characters. That last one's important, btw; interacting with NPC's while gathering information, while glossed over as a couple rolls of the dice, represents the possibility of other parties using that skill to find out about you looking and what information you seek. The knowledge skill precludes this possibility.

Nutshell: one is a form of lengthy interaction that can generate further plot events and the other is a result of information already gathered, perhaps incidentally, that precludes counteraction.


So's someone who can jump 70 feet, or swim against a whirlpool. It's equally absurd that a bard, by your own system, can do it. What's your point?

It's a matter of degree and implication. Someone jumping an immense distance or swimming far stronger than anyone of his build should be able to is, indeed, absurd but it's immensely less so than someone knowing things, including a great deal of minutia, about a place he cannot or has not ever reached in his life. It's no less absurd when a bard does it but a bard is paying a -much- higher opportunity cost for the privilege; class levels.


Let's see, we're taking a skill of marginal usefulness at the best of times, and complete worthlessness the rest, and tripling the cost, just 'cause. No, I really don't think I am.

The usefulness of know (local), beyond creature identification, is -entirely- dependent on campaign structure. It can be invaluable in a political campaign while it's next to worthless in a kick-in-the-door dungeon crawler campaign.

Information is power but the measure of that power is dependent on its relevance. How much relevance any given piece of information has, much less a whole field of information, is subjective.


Man, many people, including the game's designers at one point, think the monk is OP.

The difference, and it's a big one, is that the people you're talking about are provably wrong, since they're making a statement about something objectively measurable. Those that I'm talking about are making a judgement on a subjective matter. How right they are will vary from one game to another.

NichG
2014-02-16, 01:29 AM
So, here's a general question for both sides of the debate - putting aside how Knowledge checks work in D&D right now, what would your ideal mechanic for Knowledge checks be? That is to say, what would be your preferred way to represent 'I know stuff' mechanically, and what role does it serve in the overall structure of the game?

Sample answer from me, just so its more clear what I'm asking about:


- There are two functions for 'knowledge' in the game. One is to represent information that the character 'should have' but the player lacks. The other is to create the archetype of a scholar with pervasive knowledge who wields that knowledge as a weapon.
- I would separate these two functions into two mechanics, as their purposes are at odds.
- For 'should have' knowledge, replace 'Knowledge skills' with a single Lore skill that functions like Speak Language and is cross-class for everyone but Bards, Factotums, Experts. Each rank in Lore gives 'common knowledge' within a single topic or area of study, based on the most advanced civilization the character has lived in. For example, having Lore(Nobility) means the character can basically name the nobles of their country, list off ranks, bits of etiquette, etc. It does not mean they can know a historical secret of the crown or other 'hidden' or 'rare' knowledge.
- The second mechanic would be restricted to a special 'Scholar' class or PrC, who gains the pseudo-metagame ability to specify facts about the world that have not yet been stated by the DM. This can be done specifically to aid themselves or even surprise/hinder another. The precise nature of the types of facts that can be so specified, how often, etc, would have to be carefully constructed (I'd probably do something between a full spellcasting system and something more like Shadow Magic, where the scholar can build up a handful of 'types' of facts that they can create, and can create each type of fact a few times per day).

Main point: What I want from knowledge is either to 'passively fill in the gaps between player or character' or 'consistently be a central aspect of a character'. What I would want to avoid is a system where Knowledge represents 'okay, make a check so the DM can monologue at you/provide information you needed to progress the adventure anyhow/read his notes aloud/bypass puzzles or other player-challenge aspects of the game'.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-16, 02:08 AM
Actually, with the exception of knowledge (local), I like how D&D 3.X does it just fine except, perhaps, that the d20 is a bit more variance than I think is appropriate.

For most fields of study, being able to rattle off laymen levels of information without any training (dc 10 and under for no ranks) and some field specific information with minimal training (as high as the die says for 1 rank) but with some inaccuracies (missed by 5 or more) is a fine mechanic. Though, again, I think the d20 is probably a bit more unstable than is appropriate. Perhaps something more akin to 2d10 or a dice pool system or something would work better.

The big issue comes up when you need a mechanic for information that would be common and trivial in one locale and virtually unheard of in another or whose accuracy is inherently unstable such as that which is largely based on rumor like the reputations of various personalities. D&D covers this with the know (local) skill but that's a cumbersome method. Bardic knowledge also covers it but that ability covers -all- information, not just this field.

The problem is that I don't think there -is- an elegant way to handle such things mechanically and, worse, because the importance of such information is so subjective it certainly can't be handled well by just stuffing it into the same mechanic as the other fields of study.

Edit: There are two -other- issues with the D&D method. I don't think it's really appropriate for the knowledge mechanic to be tied quite so tightly to the leveling system and it should probably be possible to specialize within a given field, which the mechanic is a bit too broad to represent as-is.

squiggit
2014-02-16, 02:27 AM
To be fair, it's not just a problem with local. Like I said I haven't run into people abusing local but I do recall now someone using knowledge(history) to try to learn about the history of some isolated village that no one knew existed until we found it (same problem just a different skill).

It sorta feels like a rule 0 tug of war to me. GMs want to be judicious with information and players feel like GMs sometimes get too judicious and their knowledge skills end up being worthless.

Incidentally I like the way some of the other games do it. You have lore skills relating to a specific region that's broad enough to probably be relevant throughout the campaign without being ridiculously specific in areas you shouldn't know anything about.

Stuff that's super local should be GM fiat free knowledge. Really I think free knowledge should come up more often. Stuff like "You can't tell if it's an orc or a human" while pretty funny in the right moment comes off as just... dumb to me.

I've also run into this problem maddeningly often with the Streetwise skill. In games that don't have it or campaigns where no one is good at it I have a player go "I ask the bartender about local trouble" or "I surreptitiously ask the guy who looks like a thief where I can get [insert slightly illegal goods]" Or something less trite than that but similar in concept.

When the skill comes into play I instead see the rogue go "I roll streetwise to find the location of black markets and gangs"... which drives me insane when I DM.

!@#$ Streetwise.


off topic: your signature makes me want to write up a tiger made out of seaweed as a potential monster for an upcoming game.

NichG
2014-02-16, 02:38 AM
The problem is that I don't think there -is- an elegant way to handle such things mechanically and, worse, because the importance of such information is so subjective it certainly can't be handled well by just stuffing it into the same mechanic as the other fields of study.

Edit: There are two -other- issues with the D&D method. I don't think it's really appropriate for the knowledge mechanic to be tied quite so tightly to the leveling system and it should probably be possible to specialize within a given field, which the mechanic is a bit too broad to represent as-is.

Yes, the connection with leveling is tricky. Especially for something like knowledge/lore, I like a system where you can hand out free points of it for actually discovering/researching stuff/living in an area/etc. With D&D at slow level gain rate it feels sort of like 'I can live in this city for years and never be any more familiar with it than someone who just came here', because Knowledge(Local) only increases either at the cost of another skill or when you level up.

Deophaun
2014-02-16, 02:50 AM
To gather information, you have to know what information you're looking for or make multiple checks, costing you several hours, days, or even weeks, to move along a chain of information. With knowledge local you just know; no time spent, no effort, no interacting with other characters.
But the knowledge skill gets you barely any information at all. You want to know what the main product of the region is? You want to know what dish the country is most famous for? That's knowledge (local). You want to know who runs the Thieves Guild? Gather Information. Local's only going to get you what is, in essence, publicly accessible information, and nothing that ten minutes in a tavern isn't going to be able to net you.

That last one's important, btw; interacting with NPC's while gathering information, while glossed over as a couple rolls of the dice, represents the possibility of other parties using that skill to find out about you looking and what information you seek. The knowledge skill precludes this possibility.
You know what really precludes the possibility? Not bothering. "Gee guys, there might be a wizard here, there might not be. We could spend eight hours on a Gather Info check, but if it turns out there's not, we've wasted a whole day that we don't have. So, Plan B." Knowledge (local) precludes nothing. In fact, it's the very opposite. It's a low opportunity cost for low order information.

Nutshell: one is a form of lengthy interaction that can generate further plot events and the other is a result of information already gathered, perhaps incidentally, that precludes counteraction.
Nutshell: Completely Wrong.

It's a matter of degree and implication. Someone jumping an immense distance or swimming far stronger than anyone of his build should be able to is, indeed, absurd but it's immensely less so than someone knowing things, including a great deal of minutia, about a place he cannot or has not ever reached in his life.
Bahrain has a dish called Qoozi, which is grilled lamb stuffed with eggs, onions, and spices. If you aren't interested, however, you can get a burger at a local Fuddruckers (I'd still recommend the Qoozi first).

The state-run broadcaster operates 5 TV networks. Radio personalities include Ian Fisher, Mohamed Rumaihi, and Ali Dawood.

Its primary industries include petroleum refining, aluminum smelting, and offshore banking. One of the ten largest aluminum smelting companies in the world, Alba, is based there.

Now, I've never been to Bahrain, but right now I'd really like to see you jump 70 feet.

The usefulness of know (local), beyond creature identification, is -entirely- dependent on campaign structure. It can be invaluable in a political campaign...
You know how I said that you are attributing powers to Knowledge (local) that are not supported by the skill? This would be an example. In a political campaign, its value is still only in letting the players know an avenue of investigation exists before they waste time on it.

The difference, and it's a big one, is that the people you're talking about are provably wrong...
And I've just proven you wrong. Either I'm lying about having never been to Bahrain (and, by the way, you will either have been to Bahrain or find it completely impossible to remember any of the things I wrote here about it), or it's not ridiculous for someone to have local knowledge of some place they've never been.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-02-16, 03:19 AM
But the knowledge skill gets you barely any information at all. You want to know what the main product of the region is? You want to know what dish the country is most famous for? That's knowledge (local). You want to know who runs the Thieves Guild? Gather Information. Local's only going to get you what is, in essence, publicly accessible information, and nothing that ten minutes in a tavern isn't going to be able to net you.


local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids) Emphasis mine.

All characters over level 11 count as legends, according to the description of legend lore.

Personality: N. 7. a famous, notable, or prominent person; celebrity.

Inhabitants can be be broadly interpreted as what races are present in a given locale or how their social order is arranged, such as feudalism or egalitarian mercantilism, etc. It can also be interpreted more narrowly but that's not necessary.

You're just dead wrong here.


You know what really precludes the possibility? Not bothering. "Gee guys, there might be a wizard here, there might not be. We could spend eight hours on a Gather Info check, but if it turns out there's not, we've wasted a whole day that we don't have. So, Plan B." Knowledge (local) precludes nothing. In fact, it's the very opposite. It's a low opportunity cost for low order information.

If that wizard is over level 11 then the knowledge check -definitely- picks him up and if he's famous or otherwise important to the area it does too, even if he's below that level threshold. No need to go around looking for anything. There's no reason to presume that know (local) would be used after gather info and since, as you pointed out, it'd be a huge waste of time to make the attempt -before- checking to see if you already knew, it doesn't make much sense to make that presumption. You use what you know to decide what you need to find out.


Nutshell: Completely Wrong. Hardly.


Bahrain has a dish called Qoozi, which is grilled lamb stuffed with eggs, onions, and spices. If you aren't interested, however, you can get a burger at a local Fuddruckers (I'd still recommend the Qoozi first).

The state-run broadcaster operates 5 TV networks. Radio personalities include Ian Fisher, Mohamed Rumaihi, and Ali Dawood.

Its primary industries include petroleum refining, aluminum smelting, and offshore banking. One of the ten largest aluminum smelting companies in the world, Alba, is based there.

Now, I've never been to Bahrain, but right now I'd really like to see you jump 70 feet.

You live in a world where telecommunication and the internet are things. Your access to information is -massively- greater than it even -could- be in a pseudo medieval world.

I'm not impressed by your ability to use google.


You know how I said that you are attributing powers to Knowledge (local) that are not supported by the skill? This would be an example. In a political campaign, its value is still only in letting the players know an avenue of investigation exists before they waste time on it.

And yet, if they're from a region completely on the other side of the world, they'd still know, for example, that in Rokugan it's terribly impolite to accept a gift without first refusing it twice because it appears greedy and denies the giver the opportunity to show his sincerity in offering. Good etiquette is -very- important in political dealings after all. They'd also know who virtually all the important players are, all of them counting as personalities, even though they just walked into town, for the first time, this morning.


And I've just proven you wrong. Either I'm lying about having never been to Bahrain (and, by the way, you will either have been to Bahrain or find it completely impossible to remember any of the things I wrote here about it), or it's not ridiculous for someone to have local knowledge of some place they've never been.

A few random pieces of trivia about a given place, no, not that ridiculous. Their entire legal code, when it largely doesn't apply to you as a non-citizen that lives in another country; very much so. You could, of course, look it up on the internet, a thing for which there is -no- analog in D&D, but that's not knowledge (local), it's gather info.

You're shortchanging the skill by a -huge- margin and calling the nerf unnecessary. If you -really- insist, I can look through my books and get some more concrete examples of the kind of thing that know (local) covers.

Deophaun
2014-02-16, 04:37 AM
You're just dead wrong here.
If I'm dead wrong, you're going to have to actually provide evidence to back it up. Random quotes that have nothing to do with what I've said don't cut it.

There's no reason to presume that know (local) would be used after gather info and since, as you pointed out, it'd be a huge waste of time to make the attempt -before- checking to see if you already knew, it doesn't make much sense to make that presumption.
This is very confusing. You use Know (local) before you bother with a Gather Info check, not after.

You live in a world where telecommunication and the internet are things. Your access to information is -massively- greater than it even -could- be in a pseudo medieval world.
I live in a world that is devoid of divination magic and the ability to contact beings from beyond my imagination. I also did it with no training or education about Bahrain. Meanwhile, we're talking about someone who, with 4 ranks in the subject, has done the equivalent of memorizing the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, if the Encyclopedia Britannica were composed entirely of travel guides.

Since you use FR as your example, perhaps you've heard of Volo. Do you know what Volo did?

I'm not impressed by your ability to use google.
I'm also not impressed by your arguments.

And yet, if they're from a region completely on the other side of the world, they'd still know, for example, that in Rokugan it's terribly impolite to accept a gift without first refusing it twice because it appears greedy and denies the giver the opportunity to show his sincerity in offering. Good etiquette is -very- important in political dealings after all. They'd also know who virtually all the important players are, all of them counting as personalities, even though they just walked into town, for the first time, this morning.
And? I fail to see either the problem, or the improbability. We are dealing with a world where a) people make guide books of exotic places b) teleport is a thing, so distance is irrelevant when it comes to cultural knowledge and c) the printing press is a cantrip.

A few random pieces of trivia about a given place, no, not that ridiculous. Their entire legal code, when it largely doesn't apply to you as a non-citizen that lives in another country; very much so.
Do you know of the code of Hammurabi? Those are the laws governing Babylon. Do you know how large it is? If laws today were as brief as they were back in ancient or even feudal society, committing to memory the laws that bound dozens of nations would be about as impressive as memorizing one of Shakespeare's plays. Easily within the reach of someone who put 10 ranks into Know (local).

Keep in mind, Einstein is only a fifth level physicist.

You're shortchanging the skill by a -huge- margin and calling the nerf unnecessary. If you -really- insist, I can look through my books and get some more concrete examples of the kind of thing that know (local) covers.
Nothing that you've talked about here represents anything game breaking or unreasonable. You will have to do much, much better.

nedz
2014-02-16, 06:31 AM
It's already been pointed out but these numbers are -way- off. Most characters might have a +1 int mod and unless they have nothing better to do with their skill points they may have max ranks in -one or two- categories of knowledge. They won't have -any- skill boosting magic items at level one and those that boost knowledge skills are largely custom items. What you've described isn't "most" characters but a dedicated specialist; a character that will largely be incapable of doing anything else unless they're a spellcaster.

Are you familiar with the character class known as Wizard? Lots of skill points because Intelligence, and apart from Concentration and Spellcraft has no pressing need to spend them else where.

skyth
2014-02-16, 10:15 AM
Emphasis mine.

All characters over level 11 count as legends, according to the description of legend lore.

Sorry, but definitions are not uniform. Just because something is defined as something for a spell does not mean it is defined as something for a skill. It is likely the common vernacular of legend referring to what we would think of as a legend...A famous event that is believed to be true by the populace. In other words, knowledge(local) is very shallow information of a large area...Effectively, it's knowledge (trivia) :) Knowledge skills also cover how to find out the information that you are looking for easily. I got by through school on my personal ability to have a shallow understanding of a lot of things but also knowing where to find and understand an in-depth analysis of it.

Really, this whole discussion is a tug of war between 'I want to screw the players over' and 'I want to get on to the more interesting stuff' mentalities.

PersonMan
2014-02-16, 10:20 AM
Are you familiar with the character class known as Wizard? Lots of skill points because Intelligence, and apart from Concentration and Spellcraft has no pressing need to spend them else where.

Most characters are Wizards, now? If you look at the context of what you're replying to, you'll see that he was saying "no, most characters don't spend a lot of resources on Knowledge", not "nobody spends resources on Knowledge".

lunar2
2014-02-16, 10:58 AM
Are you familiar with the character class known as Wizard? Lots of skill points because Intelligence, and apart from Concentration and Spellcraft has no pressing need to spend them else where.

yeah, and as i pointed out, unless it's a grey elf wizard with 18 base INT (which, while not uncommon, can't be assumed as the default), it's not even getting close to the numbers jedipotter was putting up.

because what jedipotter described was a character with 18+ int, skill focus knowledge, an item boosting knowledge (minimum 50 gp, and all the INT based classes don't have 50 gp to spare for a masterwork tool at char gen), a circumstance bonus of +1 or +2 from an unspecified source, and 4 ranks in the skill. he then called this monstrosity "most characters".

ReaderAt2046
2014-02-16, 11:55 AM
It seems to me that the best thing to do with Knowledge(local) would be to change it to Knowledge(*place*) and thus have ranks in Knowledge(local) be restricted to a specific, definable region, and if you want to know about multiple regions, you pick up multiple copies of Knowledge(local). So a character with some ranks in Knowledge(Azure City) could list off all the major nobles and some of the more prominent citizens, but that same figure wouldn't be able to list off the names of the leading Dwarf houses unless he'd separately put ranks into Knowledge(Dwarf Lands).

jedipotter
2014-02-16, 12:52 PM
Personally from a players perspective I find one of the worst things about 3.X to be how cripplingly few skill points PCs get.

I say they get way too many. By 3rd level characters are god-like with skills as they can have +10 or more. And after 3rd, it just gets worse.




That is your point. I couldn't disagree more. As GM I love it when my players run things on me I hadn't thought of and I need to run to keep up with them. Those are the moments that make GMing an absolute joy. Running with plodding and turtling characters is, on the other hand, something I find tedious.

Oh, no, as a DM I love it when players (note:the players) pay attention and figure out things themselves. The Players. What I don't like is when the ''characters figure things out'', otherwise known as ''the DM tells the players what to do''.

So you have a three groups of wizards: Yellow, Blue and Green. Some how connected. All the Yellow and Blue wizards are young, all the green wizards are older. Anyone can join the Yellow or Blue, but to be Green takes a 'secret' way. There are 25 Yellow scrolls, and 25 Blue scrolls floating around(each of five of the same spells level 1-5), and all the Yellow and Blue wizards want all 50 and are ploting/moving/trying to get them all. The green wizards just sit back and relax and watch. Enter the PC's. So, they(again, the players) can figure out what is going on...or they can just roll for it.

The answer is, a wizard that gets all 50 scrolls can make a green spellbook and be a green wizard (Yellow+Blue=Green, get it, clever hum?). Players paying attention should be able to figure that out. Otherwise you get:

Boring Player"Um, we sit around...um, oh wait, I roll a I know everything check."
DM "Sigh, ok, the Yellow and Blue wizards are trying to become Green wizards...you know yellow+blue=green" DM holds up a Zip-Lock Baggie to show the color change.

NichG
2014-02-16, 01:02 PM
Google
Magical Location
Spells needed: Scry, Energy Transformation Field, Augury (for the binary search)

By attuning to this location, the user gains the ability to make a Gather Information check as if they were present at any location in the world remotely, so long as they have access to the location. Furthermore, such checks take 2d4 minutes rather than the usual length of time.


Using Google to find information about historical or remote things isn't an analogue of 'Knowledge', because you didn't have that information at hand. It's an analogue of 'Gather Information', because you're actively seeking specific information you don't have.

Now, if you can tell me off the top of your head the names of the leaders of the five most significant cave shrines of the Jammu region without using Google, Wikipedia, or other external resources, then we're talking.

And, even that is 'easier' than Kelb's suggested example of a village that has not seen outside contact in centuries, since many people do travel to and from that region, even if its not you personally. So perhaps a better example would be 'how many taverns were there in Schiltigheim in 1705?' Again, no Google/internet resources allowed.

The 'absurdity' issue of Knowledge(Local) is that its exactly as easy for me to answer 'what's the best pub in the city that I live?' as it is for me to answer 'what's the best pub in this city I had never heard of before just now?'

Doug Lampert
2014-02-16, 01:09 PM
It seems to me that the best thing to do with Knowledge(local) would be to change it to Knowledge(*place*) and thus have ranks in Knowledge(local) be restricted to a specific, definable region, and if you want to know about multiple regions, you pick up multiple copies of Knowledge(local). So a character with some ranks in Knowledge(Azure City) could list off all the major nobles and some of the more prominent citizens, but that same figure wouldn't be able to list off the names of the leading Dwarf houses unless he'd separately put ranks into Knowledge(Dwarf Lands).

Crap no. That's WORSE than any reasonable interpretation of knowledge local.

I haven't been to Berkeley in close to 20 years. I know what's CURRENTLY important there? What the good restaurants are? Who the local personalities are all because I lived there long enough to spend 1 skill point 20 years ago?

Crap no.

Meanwhile someone who's GOOD at fitting in and lives multiple places, like any number of army brats, needs to have knowledge (location) for 50 different places?

No. Just NO!

You're the DM, there are these things called circumstance bonuses and penalties, +2 if you live there, -2 if you haven't been there reasonably and recognize that legends and the like are not terms of art, they're normal English usage, they are not in the glossary, the game doesn't define what these things are or what the DC is to know what you think those things are. Nearly impossible is -20 to a skill, THAT'S in the rules, UNLIKE the DC to know the BBEG's exact location which is NOT in the rules.

The "abuses" people are complaining about are nonsense, the problems created by the "fix" which you are far from the only one to suggest are legion. The skill is fine as is.

Scow2
2014-02-16, 01:09 PM
... I wish skill point in 3.X was like Spell acquisition - You get a number of "Free" skill points on level-up, but you can spend time and/or money to gain extra skill points as needed over the course of a campaign, limited by Maximum Ranks in a skill.

Knaight
2014-02-16, 01:20 PM
Meanwhile someone who's GOOD at fitting in and lives multiple places, like any number of army brats, needs to have knowledge (location) for 50 different places?

Having some sort of skill for adapting to a new location is helpful, yes. That said, knowledge of particular locations still works - D&D just is a pretty bad system for it. In a skill based system it would be easy to have a number of skills in knowledge (specific location), at various levels, particularly if there was a good mechanic to reassign them so that they can gradually fall with time away from a location.

NichG
2014-02-16, 01:22 PM
... I wish skill point in 3.X was like Spell acquisition - You get a number of "Free" skill points on level-up, but you can spend time and/or money to gain extra skill points as needed over the course of a campaign, limited by Maximum Ranks in a skill.

Agreed. I've played in campaigns that homebrewed this in, and it was awesome. Spend 250xp at any time to get an extra skill point, get a free skill point per game session on top of that so long as you have access to the great library, etc.

Coidzor
2014-02-16, 01:32 PM
... I wish skill point in 3.X was like Spell acquisition - You get a number of "Free" skill points on level-up, but you can spend time and/or money to gain extra skill points as needed over the course of a campaign, limited by Maximum Ranks in a skill.

That'd be nice. Even some decent homebrew on the subject would be pretty nifty, come to think of it.

Lorsa
2014-02-16, 01:44 PM
This has probably been covered before, but after a while playing 3.x and later versions of the "world's first RPG," something is just wrong with the way role vs. roll is reflected in the game. Maybe I am just too old school to get used to this, but it is just darn aggravating what Skill Checks can do. They take all the mystery, excitement and danger out of the game.

No matter what challenge the DM places in the adventure, there is a Skill Check that will tell characters everything they need to know about it, regardless of what the player might know. Examples (using Pathfinder rules):

#1. DM places a book that has been altered by magic to look like a book of bad poetry. The book radiates magic.

With Detect Magic, a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 18 (15 + spell level) identifies it as Transmutation. Not too bad if it stopped there. BUT... add a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 23, and it is revealed to be writing protected by a Secret Page spell (Identify a spell effect that is in place, DC 20 + spell level). THEN a Spellcraft DC 18 (15 + spell level, again) reveals the "properties of the magic item," which some players argue includes the "command word" to decode the writing.

While this may be a bit of a challenge for low level parties, by the time a character reaches mid-level, there isn't much that they can't find out just by looking at or studying an item. Sure, there are ways in the rules to make it harder, like the Heighten Spell feat. Still, special measures should not be a requirement to make every single challenge harder. It starts to become bland when every single NPC caster has Heighten Spell, and the number of these options is limited.

#2. DM places some obscure reference to a local custom in the adventure. None of the characters are part of the local culture, or from anywhere near there, BUT... one or more of them have Knowledge (Local) and the players argue that they should be able to roll to see if their character knows all the details about this custom (that their characters have never been exposed to):


Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations DC 10
Know a common rumor or local tradition DC 15
Know hidden organizations, rulers, and locations DC 20

I realize that there is a possibility that any character could have heard something about the local customs of somewhere, but this happens everywhere and every time some obscure reference is made. And not just local customs, but local rulers, local geography, and so on. There is a Skill answer for almost every non-combat challenge conceivable.

And even combat challenges fall victim to this process.


"Identify the abilities and weaknesses of:"


Constructs, dragons, magical beasts - Knowledge (Arcana)
Aberrations, oozes - Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
Humanoids - Knowledge (Local)
Animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin - Knowledge (Nature)
Outsiders - Knowledge (Planes)
Undead - Knowledge (Religion)


DC 10 + monster's CR

So a CR 10 monster is a DC 20.

What's that? You want to get around this by creating new monsters? Nope... every creature must be one of the types listed, and is therefore subject to the knowledge check. This is where the whole thing breaks down. It is true that perhaps a character would have some local knowledge, no matter how obscure or slight, but to have knowledge of a creature that was just created?

How many times are the players going to use the excuse "my character could have found it out somewhere," and "it doesn't matter how my character knows it, I just beat the DC so tell me!"

Where is the danger, the mystery, the excitement of encountering something new and actually having to work to find out about it instead of simply rolling a D20? (not to mention "Take 10 " and "Take 20") Skills give knowledge to players through their characters that they would not otherwise have.

True, the DM can just rule that the character didn't roll high enough, but that's kind of hard to do when the character is trying to "Identify a spell effect that is in place." The Knowledge (Arcana) DC is 20 + spell level, for a maximum possible of 29 for a 9th level spell. The player rolls his D20 and gets a result in the 30's... telling the player they didn't roll high enough would be a bit of a stretch.

Then there is always the Rule #1 thing about the DM always being right, but having to continually fall back on that starts to wear thin among players who think their characters can solve the mysteries of the universe with a single D20 roll. Roll playing has overtaken role-playing.

In fact, almost anything that is used to oppose these Skill checks is going to be a kludge, a solution that is inefficient, clumsy, or patched together.

Ok, end of venting. It is just aggravating when a player dismisses all the work you put into something by claiming that their character can roll a D20 and know all there is to know about it. And they can even give you what they think the DC should be... <sigh>

So what are some solutions I have used? I tend to pin down the player and point out that there is just no way their character could have that knowledge. I might be more generous on this point if the players didn't try to know everything, no matter how obscure or hidden, with a single D20 roll. Some players have complained, saying that no where in the rules does it say that, which forces me to resort to Rule #1. There is no way they can know everything about a new spell, or a strange new creature.

I suppose this could be thought of as injecting some "realism" into a "fantasy" game, but without it, the game is nothing but tossing some dice and scribbling on a battle mat.
.

I'm sorry for skipping all the other conversation right now, but I wanted to reply to the first post.

I have a few questions that I'd like to ask.

How does skill rolls take away all the excitement, mystery and danger out of the game? Is this how your players feel? Have they told you, specifically, that they feel there's no mystery or danger or excitement? Are they dissatisfied?

Why do you feel you need to keep this information from the players? What is the problem, really, with them knowing? How fun is it for them if they have a poetry book that they never know is hiding something else beneath? I mean seriously, what is the problem? Isn't it fun for the players when their skillranks pay off and they can figure something out?

I'm fairly certain knowledge (local) refers to a very specific locale (like a country or region). It might help, together with Gather Information with expanding the region while traveling to learn customs and rumours about more types of locales.

Monsters in the typical D&D world are usually known and classified (at least the common ones). That's why people who have studied certain fields know how they work. Wouldn't it be rather strange if you'd been studying the magic for how to construct Golems but don't know how they work? I'm fairly certain most of my players would be fairly upset if the skill points they spent on knowledge skills never gave them any useful information.


There's a reason why roleplaying games usually have skill systems. It's so you can play a character that is different from yourself. That might know different things than you do. If you're not allowed to do this, it isn't roleplaying anymore, it would just be playing yourself. The skills are there to allow you to be a different person.

So again, why this burning desire to keep information hidden from your players?

squiggit
2014-02-16, 01:44 PM
Enter the PC's. So, they(again, the players) can figure out what is going on...or they can just roll for it.

That sounds more like a crap DM than a problem with skill checks.

huttj509
2014-02-16, 01:45 PM
Meanwhile someone who's GOOD at fitting in and lives multiple places, like any number of army brats, needs to have knowledge (location) for 50 different places?

No. Just NO!


Seems like a high Gather Information. You can just take 10 and pick up much more stuff than a standard folk without even trying.

lunar2
2014-02-16, 02:25 PM
I say they get way too many. By 3rd level characters are god-like with skills as they can have +10 or more. And after 3rd, it just gets worse.




Oh, no, as a DM I love it when players (note:the players) pay attention and figure out things themselves. The Players. What I don't like is when the ''characters figure things out'', otherwise known as ''the DM tells the players what to do''.

So you have a three groups of wizards: Yellow, Blue and Green. Some how connected. All the Yellow and Blue wizards are young, all the green wizards are older. Anyone can join the Yellow or Blue, but to be Green takes a 'secret' way. There are 25 Yellow scrolls, and 25 Blue scrolls floating around(each of five of the same spells level 1-5), and all the Yellow and Blue wizards want all 50 and are ploting/moving/trying to get them all. The green wizards just sit back and relax and watch. Enter the PC's. So, they(again, the players) can figure out what is going on...or they can just roll for it.

The answer is, a wizard that gets all 50 scrolls can make a green spellbook and be a green wizard (Yellow+Blue=Green, get it, clever hum?). Players paying attention should be able to figure that out. Otherwise you get:

Boring Player"Um, we sit around...um, oh wait, I roll a I know everything check."
DM "Sigh, ok, the Yellow and Blue wizards are trying to become Green wizards...you know yellow+blue=green" DM holds up a Zip-Lock Baggie to show the color change.

a +10 is god like? seriously? so a character who can high jump 5 feet is god like? note that the real world record is 8 feet, or a DC 32 jump check. meaning that, since the athlete probably "took ten", there is a real world human out there with a +22 jump modifier.

einstein's theory of relativity? probably a DC 30 knowledge (physics) check. again, that means einstein was probably well over a +10 modifier, since there's a 95% chance he didn't roll a twenty on his one chance to make the check. he was probably somewhere between +15 and +20.

or perform checks. the highest DC is 30, and we have people alive who make that check regularly. these international superstars, after "buffs" in the form of aid another checks from background singers and circumstance bonuses from technology, manage a bonus of, again, at least +20. figure the more heavily aided singers are around +10 on their own, while the better ones are between +15 and +20.

what about bluff checks? without getting into specifics because of forum rules, political and religious leaders routinely manage to fool the masses, despite telling lies that are so bald faced that those masses should be getting +10 or even +20 on their sense motive checks. now, most people don't have much in the way of sense motive (no more than 2 ranks, and no wisdom bonus), and the liars tend to have some sort of circumstance bonus in the form of media support (aid another gives +2 to bluff check) or people wanting to believe them (-5 to sense motive check). but these guys still need well over a +10 modifier on their own to consistently pull off the lies that they do. again, i want to note that i am not targeting specific religions or politicians with this, simply noting that those two categories of people are where the best liars are.


so yeah, a +10 skill bonus is hardly god like. it is well within the range of what even real people can accomplish. and since most people never make it beyond level 3, it is perfectly reasonable for level 3 characters to get +10 skill modifiers.

---

you know, in that wizard situation, i could see using your version of knowledge where all you get is a rumor or trivial information. that sounds like the kind of knowledge that only those 3 groups of wizards would actually know. so a successful knowledge: arcana check would be "you remember during your studies reading a cryptic phrase concerning the colored wizards: the primaries join for power." or something like that. it gives a hint to what's going on, but still leaves it to the players to figure it out in the end.

one thing i have an issue with in your style is that you actually give wrong information on successful checks. that should never happen. a successful check should always be good for the player, even if it only gives a hint.

another thing is that knowledge checks to identify monsters should always give useful information, and should always be accurate. now, as others have said, particularly rare monsters should have a circumstance penalty on the check. and you aren't supposed to give them all the information.

for example: trolls

a DC 16 check tells you it's a troll, which is a kind of giant. it should also give you the flavor text for trolls and their basic combat strategy (no fear of death, always attacks closest opponent, avoids fire if possible).

DC 21 they attack with claws and a bite, and if they hit with both claws they deal extra damage (rend).

DC 26 trolls rapidly heal from most wounds, and can even regrow lost body parts. however, a wound cauterized with fire or acid will heal much more slowly (regeneration).

DC 31 trolls can see further than most creatures in complete darkness, and can track their opponents by smell alone (darkvision 90' and scent).

notice how the information goes from most obvious to least obvious, so the information knowledge is most likely to give is the information you were going to find out pretty quickly anyway, while things like regeneration and scent won't be noticed as easily (since you have to actually damage the troll first, or have studied them extensively, to know about them, which is very difficult to do).

also, trolls are a CR 5 creature, so the wizard that faces them, unless they are optimized for knowledge (which is a silly thing to optimize for unless you have knowledge devotion, which wizards won't normally have), are going to have ranks + INT to their knowledge check. so 8 ranks for a 5th level wizard, and +2 to +5 INT, depending on race and ability score generation. +INT items are still rare at 5th level, so we won't add that in. a 5th level wizard will have between +10 and +13 knowledge nature, so on an average roll of 11, the wizard will know that trolls are fearless and aggressive, using no real tactics, and that they have rend.

the average 5th level party won't even know trolls have regeneration until they figure it out on their own. if they have a blaster wizard, they might get lucky and hit it with a fire spell, but other than that, fire is not common at this level, so they won't be able to actually kill the troll.

so yeah, even in monster encounters, knowledge is not the "know everything" check you think it is. even giving the players 100% accurate, factual information that is completely relevant to the situation, they still have to solve the "puzzle" of the troll encounter on their own. or they have to beat it into oblivion and run like hell, because it will come after them.

NichG
2014-02-16, 03:02 PM
So again, why this burning desire to keep information hidden from your players?

Not all knowledge that has the same DC has the same degree of impact to the direction of play. Lack of knowledge can actually be a very important pacing tool whose alternatives are often very metagamey.

For example, lets say I take a campaign where, at Lv1, someone in the party gets the absolute knowledge that 'The BBEG is Tharzidun, who is beginning to awaken. He's weak enough now that mortals could possibly slay his avatar and put him back in chains for another ten thousand years. A portal to the place where he is forming his new body lies in a crypt 150 miles due west. Everything bad that will ever happen in this campaign will trace its root cause back to him'.

Now, given that characters aren't aware of their levels, why would the characters muck about killing goblins until they're high enough level to actually fight Tharzidun? If the characters think they're big heroes, they'll go off and get slaughtered. If the characters are more strategic, they'll give the information to the biggest priesthood/kingdom/mage guild they can find. Which means that now, either NPCs finish off the BBEG offscreen, or the entire might of the NPC population (who are currently much stronger than the PCs) fail to do so, which leaves the PCs wondering 'What the heck can we do about it? This is completely unreasonable!'

Of course, this is a bit of a ridiculous example since there isn't really a way that that sort of knowledge would come from the use of these skills. But the point is, often its important for the pacing of the campaign that the PCs not know about certain villains/situations/details/etc directly, because it would engender a direct but counterproductive (to the game as a whole) response. The actual process of gradually figuring out what is going on is the campaign.

When a puzzle or scenario is bypassed by a single skill check, its basically this effect in microcosm. The players lacking certain knowledge is an important element to, say, a particular subplot lasting for the planned 4 hours or 6 hours of game time. There are many interesting plotlines and scenarios where complete player knowledge of the DM's notes would allow the scenario to be resolved in a few minutes of conversation with the right people. While you can restrict yourself to plotlines that do not have this structure, that can be a fairly stringent limitation towards running certain types of games.

So what this comes down to is that its not necessarily just 'I want my players to waste a round flinging fireballs at red dragons' - there are good reasons to want to limit direct acquisition of knowledge of certain types.

(Another extreme example - I had an entire campaign completely change course due to a single tiny bit of information. The characters had what was meant to be a subtle nod to a previous campaign, in the form of a comic book containing the exploits of the characters from that previous campaign. One player remembered that somewhere in the comic book there would have been an example of the local equivalent of 'Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu', tried it out, and ...)

Brookshw
2014-02-16, 04:21 PM
Consider a reframing of this conversation, aside from knowledge of a monster perhaps, the issue seems to be a question of when in a montage appropriate, when should a "regular" scene take place? That struck me as a certain focal point earlier when I was painting a ceiling thinking, "man, I wish I could finish this as a montage". That's kinda what it feels like this is boiling down to, the players are expecting more montages, the dm's expecting more scenes. Montages are fine, but would you watch a movie mostly comprised of them?

Lorsa
2014-02-16, 04:24 PM
Not all knowledge that has the same DC has the same degree of impact to the direction of play. Lack of knowledge can actually be a very important pacing tool whose alternatives are often very metagamey.

For example, lets say I take a campaign where, at Lv1, someone in the party gets the absolute knowledge that 'The BBEG is Tharzidun, who is beginning to awaken. He's weak enough now that mortals could possibly slay his avatar and put him back in chains for another ten thousand years. A portal to the place where he is forming his new body lies in a crypt 150 miles due west. Everything bad that will ever happen in this campaign will trace its root cause back to him'.

Now, given that characters aren't aware of their levels, why would the characters muck about killing goblins until they're high enough level to actually fight Tharzidun? If the characters think they're big heroes, they'll go off and get slaughtered. If the characters are more strategic, they'll give the information to the biggest priesthood/kingdom/mage guild they can find. Which means that now, either NPCs finish off the BBEG offscreen, or the entire might of the NPC population (who are currently much stronger than the PCs) fail to do so, which leaves the PCs wondering 'What the heck can we do about it? This is completely unreasonable!'

Of course, this is a bit of a ridiculous example since there isn't really a way that that sort of knowledge would come from the use of these skills. But the point is, often its important for the pacing of the campaign that the PCs not know about certain villains/situations/details/etc directly, because it would engender a direct but counterproductive (to the game as a whole) response. The actual process of gradually figuring out what is going on is the campaign.

When a puzzle or scenario is bypassed by a single skill check, its basically this effect in microcosm. The players lacking certain knowledge is an important element to, say, a particular subplot lasting for the planned 4 hours or 6 hours of game time. There are many interesting plotlines and scenarios where complete player knowledge of the DM's notes would allow the scenario to be resolved in a few minutes of conversation with the right people. While you can restrict yourself to plotlines that do not have this structure, that can be a fairly stringent limitation towards running certain types of games.

So what this comes down to is that its not necessarily just 'I want my players to waste a round flinging fireballs at red dragons' - there are good reasons to want to limit direct acquisition of knowledge of certain types.

See, I don't actually have a problem with the characters learning who a BBEG is at level 1. I don't see why them solving the problem by telling a friendly mage guild couldn't turn out to be an entirely fun game. The killing of Tharzidun doesn't need to happen offscreen either, the mages could enlist the characters for help with [something] that has to do with assaulting the dungeon or whatever. There's always more BBEGs to fight later.

It's only a problem if the premise of the campaign is "the characters uncover that Tharzidun is a major threat and eventually fights him". If you have another premise, like "the characters travel around and fight whatever evil they encoutner" then this isn't an issue anymore. There'll always be new situations, new foes for the players to take on.

Having decided how long a subplot will last is also kind of weird to me, because it limits the players ability to actually do something about the problem until a time decided upon by the GM. Why this insistence of robbing players of their ability to solve problems in their own way? If they want to do a skillcheck to get knowledge about something then that's their way of resolving an issue! So you "bypassed" a situation? Great! There's plenty more after that one! Yes?

NichG
2014-02-16, 07:14 PM
See, I don't actually have a problem with the characters learning who a BBEG is at level 1. I don't see why them solving the problem by telling a friendly mage guild couldn't turn out to be an entirely fun game. The killing of Tharzidun doesn't need to happen offscreen either, the mages could enlist the characters for help with [something] that has to do with assaulting the dungeon or whatever. There's always more BBEGs to fight later.

It's only a problem if the premise of the campaign is "the characters uncover that Tharzidun is a major threat and eventually fights him". If you have another premise, like "the characters travel around and fight whatever evil they encoutner" then this isn't an issue anymore. There'll always be new situations, new foes for the players to take on.


Deciding 'there are no long term plotlines in this campaign' is a highly constraining choice. While it is possible to run such a campaign, not all campaigns should be like this - different GMs and groups of players want different things out of the game.

In my group for example, my players would hate it, because even when there is long-term stuff going on they tend to have problems with self-direction. Having something where it's entirely up to them would tend to stall out (and the group does tend to stall out in sandboxy sections of my campaigns in general). In effect, the party would tend to split as people developed incompatible motives without the presence of a sustained external reason to actually journey together.

For another group, what you suggest would be perfectly fine, even ideal. But there's a problem with saying 'this particular mechanic does not cause trouble in one type of campaign, therefore there's nothing wrong with it at all!'



Having decided how long a subplot will last is also kind of weird to me, because it limits the players ability to actually do something about the problem until a time decided upon by the GM. Why this insistence of robbing players of their ability to solve problems in their own way?

In some sense, this is the method that removes the least amount of player agency while retaining the ability of the GM to control the pacing of the campaign. What the players do not know does not actively interfere with their choices.

If I say 'Tharzidun is the reason your cow died. Go!' then have Tharzidun TPK the party, or have NPCs take over the quest from them and hedge them out, then the PCs are being prevented from exercising any meaningful agency over their situation because everything they could do basically is going to fall flat against the threat.

If instead I say 'there's a goblin cleric that has been cursing the land, maybe he's why your cow died!' then thats something they can choose to deal with how they want. Then, when they discover 'hey, this cleric doesn't belong to any gods we know of' and 'the curse isn't stopping' they can investigate that and find more things where they can exercise meaningful choices. Even if dealing with the cleric didn't solve their core problems, it was something where they could exert a meaningful impact on the world by how they chose to deal with the situation. The fact that 'oh, it was Tharzidun all along but you didn't know it' doesn't remove any agency from them that they would have had, because they could e.g. still decide randomly to go searching out that crypt and happen upon the portal. Never at any stage are their choices being actively constrained - rather, things are hidden and must be proactively sought out and found.



If they want to do a skillcheck to get knowledge about something then that's their way of resolving an issue! So you "bypassed" a situation? Great! There's plenty more after that one! Yes?

No, not really. In many campaigns where the focus is on the characters and their own particular stories/motivations, there isn't some huge list of 'these are the world's problems and now they're yours'. Unless you have a setting where these guys keep saving the world and every week there's a new Elder Evil threatening it, at some point 'congratulations, you have accomplished your goals, now we end the campaign'. So this could lead to a very fast campaign.

The other thing is, the more trivialized the sub-parts of the campaign are, the less impact the campaign as a whole will have. Lets say, for example, we use an RPG where any situation can be resolved by describing the parameters of the situation and the desired resolution clearly, and then rolling a percentile check against a DC assigned by the DM.

Combat? If you want to kill these foes its a 75% chance of success and a 25% chance that the party dies - go and roll.

There is a pretender on the throne and you want to kick him off? Roll percentile - 30% chance you succeed, 50% chance your armies are routed but you escape, 20% chance you end up in jail.

While this is a system you could use, it feels very flat. Thats because it gives no actual depth to any particular part of the resolution. By focusing on the details of 'how' something happens, especially in cases where different details can have different nuanced outcomes, thats how you create meaningful gameplay. While 'combat' is one type of meaningful gameplay, 'finding stuff out' can also be a type of meaningful gameplay.

So, if you want to run a 'finding stuff out' campaign, its just a bad idea design-wise to load the entirety of the process into a single branch-point like a skill roll. Much like you couldn't have a 'tactical combat' game by lumping the entirety of the fight into a 'Tactics' skill roll.

Arbane
2014-02-16, 07:25 PM
On the offchance nobody's said this already:

Does it strike anyone else as ridiculous that the most powerful, scary, and memorable a monster is in D&D, the LESS likely it is that anyone knows what it is or can do?

Vovix
2014-02-16, 07:46 PM
A character with points in Knowledge skills knows things?! How horrible!

lunar2
2014-02-16, 08:38 PM
On the offchance nobody's said this already:

Does it strike anyone else as ridiculous that the most powerful, scary, and memorable a monster is in D&D, the LESS likely it is that anyone knows what it is or can do?

the more powerful, scary, and memorable a monster is, the less likely that anyone has fought it and survived to pass the knowledge on. that's why with my troll example, the info i listed was in order from most to least obvious.

anyone who has encountered a troll can see that they charge in with no fear of death, and always go for the closest opponent while avoiding any fires that may happen to be around.

anyone who has seen a troll fight for more than a round or two has probably seen it hit the same person with both claws, and rip him apart.

only those who have actually significantly damaged a troll and lived to tell about it will have noticed that it heals wounds quickly. only a small subset of those would have discovered that fire and acid stop it from healing.

only people who have repeatedly tried sneaking up on trolls in the dark would know that it can see further in the dark than most creatures with darkvision, and only someone who has autopsied a troll would know how developed its nose is.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-16, 09:01 PM
How does skill rolls take away all the excitement, mystery and danger out of the game? Is this how your players feel? Have they told you, specifically, that they feel there's no mystery or danger or excitement? Are they dissatisfied?

This is best answered with an Example:


the characters (ie, players) are presented with a "big question" in the campaign. And we are not talking monster info, or which way is safest, or who the local lord is. Nothing like that. This would be something one might have to use a Commune or similar magic, or good old fashioned role-playing, to find out. Hidden opponents, secret treaties, who's faking and who is truthful. Big, story arc stuff.

they have been unable to determine the answer to this "big question" by other means, although they have been gathering a steady stream of clues. But, they are impatient, and frustrated, and want to know nnoooowwww, as Veruca Salt would say.

some players seem to think that rolling a Skill check should "give" them the answer if they beat the DC, and they cite the example DC's in the Skill descriptions as target DC's for the "big question"

Now, several side issues are possible, such as the DM perhaps not making the clues clear enough, or the players perhaps having an off night, but none of that is brought up, just, "OK. I roll a check and I got a [impossibly high number here] so my character should be able to figure all this out because he has a 26 Intelligence and I don't." They want the answer given to them instead of having to continue working toward it.

If the answer were to be given, it kinda takes all the excitement, mystery and danger out of the game, doesn't it. Oh, and don't expect a partial answer, or another clue, to satisfy the player either.


Why do you feel you need to keep this information from the players? What is the problem, really, with them knowing? How fun is it for them if they have a poetry book that they never know is hiding something else beneath? I mean seriously, what is the [i]problem? Isn't it fun for the players when their skillranks pay off and they can figure something out?

They have used Skills for many things, and in some way they seem to think that this is a natural extension of how the Skills work. Perhaps it is frustration, perhaps boredom with the campaign, but whatever else it is never gets mentioned, just that they expect a Skill check to unlock the secrets of the universe. And are upset when it doesn't. And it's not everyone (thank goodness), so maybe it is just a play style issue. It is just aggravating to go through it every time a big question comes up.

I have been following the posts here with great interest. There are some great ideas floating around, including yours.
.

Arbane
2014-02-16, 09:28 PM
A character with points in Knowledge skills knows things?! How horrible!

Better thinslice the skills into utter uselessness. (http://irolledazero.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-sue-system-skill-rules.html)

TuggyNE
2014-02-16, 09:59 PM
Better thinslice the skills into utter uselessness. (http://irolledazero.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-sue-system-skill-rules.html)

Not sure if thread Godwin'd, or won.

At any rate, though, it is perhaps instructive to consider the mindset that led up to that, in order to avoid repeating the same mistake.

nedz
2014-02-16, 10:11 PM
Most characters are Wizards, now? If you look at the context of what you're replying to, you'll see that he was saying "no, most characters don't spend a lot of resources on Knowledge", not "nobody spends resources on Knowledge".

You have a group of adventurers.
Between them they have all of the knowledge skills maxed out.
The whole party now know the answer.

It will mainly be the Wizard who has these skills.

ReaderAt2046
2014-02-16, 10:52 PM
Better thinslice the skills into utter uselessness. (http://irolledazero.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-sue-system-skill-rules.html)


Not sure if thread Godwin'd, or won.

At any rate, though, it is perhaps instructive to consider the mindset that led up to that, in order to avoid repeating the same mistake.

Godwin'd, undeniably Godwin'd.

lunar2
2014-02-16, 11:13 PM
You have a group of adventurers.
Between them they have all of the knowledge skills maxed out.
The whole party now know the answer.

It will mainly be the Wizard who has these skills.

in most campaigns, not so much.

just to identify all the creatures, you have arcana, dungeoneering, local, nature, planes, and religion

average party will be fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. maybe one or two classes will be replaced with an equivalent.

rogue may pick up local

cleric will pick up religion, and maybe planes

fighter is useless for skills. but let's say ranger instead, so he gets nature.

wizard will pick up between 2 and 5 knowledges, depending on race and ability score generation. so, the wizard at least needs arcana and dungeoneering, and probably at least 2 out of local, planes, and nature. so that's 4-5 of his 5 possible knowledges. that means he can have only one out of history, geography, nobility/royalty, psionics, and whatever other knowledges i may be forgetting. so no matter what, the party will be missing at least 3 knowledges completely until mid/high level, when the wizard's growing number of skill points can pick up a few ranks in the other knowledges. there's simply no way they get all the knowledges maxed out pre epic.

now, if the party is wizard, cloistered cleric, factotum, and wild shape ranger (with enough INT to pick up both nature and dungeoneering, since he doesn't need strength or dex as much), then you can get all the knowledges covered. but that is not the average party.

PersonMan
2014-02-17, 12:39 AM
You have a group of adventurers.
Between them they have all of the knowledge skills maxed out.
The whole party now know the answer.

It will mainly be the Wizard who has these skills.

Great? This has absolutely nothing to do with the original strand of the conversation you were replying to, though. "Most characters will have +10 to Knowledge at level 1" and "No, they don't" isn't really related to "Not everyone in the party needs to have maxed out Knowledge skills".

If you're going to mention that point, feel free, 'cause it's a pretty valid one, just don't pretend you're actually replying to what I'm talking about because you aren't.

squiggit
2014-02-17, 01:22 AM
I sorta consider the knowledge bases being covered a good thing. It's a good way to offer limited exposition on a subject and create potential plot hooks.

It's also less obnoxious if there is something I want to explain to be able to handwave it with knowledge than to have an NPC or something drill information into their skulls. But maybe that's just because I'm sick of the whole "boneheaded PC/patronizingly brilliant NPC" paradigm.

The whole "reveal the entire secret of the plot because someone got a 70 on their arcana" check never comes up because I'm not dumb enough when I'm DMing to do that in the first place. Seriously.

I still hate streetwise though.

neonchameleon
2014-02-17, 07:46 AM
I say they get way too many. By 3rd level characters are god-like with skills as they can have +10 or more. And after 3rd, it just gets worse.

+10 = Godlike? You must have some very puny Gods in your campaign. 10 in Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) (the most broken skill in the game) won't reliably have any sort of effect unless you've at least a minute to work. 10 in Jump (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm) - long jump of 20 feet or high jump of 5ft reliably. The world record long jump is just under 30ft so with a natural 20 and a skill of +10 you on your best day are a superb real world athlete. The high jump world record is just over 8ft for a DC of 33. And then we take Knowledge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm) skills.


Check

Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.


+10 allows you to reliably answer tough questions - but only on a natural 20 can you answer really tough questions. You know very little about monsters. An average of three useful pieces of information about the common goblin or kobold.

Yeah, about being godlike? You're upper end of real world realistic and then if and only if you take 20. And the problem with skill points isn't the depth, it's the breadth. In 3.5 the ability to climb well, jump well, and swim well takes up all the fighter's skill points.

Your gods are physically weaker than human athletes, and less knowledgeable than someone who's just read through a decent bestiary/monster manual and remembers snippets.


Oh, no, as a DM I love it when players (note:the players) pay attention and figure out things themselves. The Players. What I don't like is when the ''characters figure things out'', otherwise known as ''the DM tells the players what to do''.

So you have a three groups of wizards: Yellow, Blue and Green. Some how connected. All the Yellow and Blue wizards are young, all the green wizards are older. Anyone can join the Yellow or Blue, but to be Green takes a 'secret' way. There are 25 Yellow scrolls, and 25 Blue scrolls floating around(each of five of the same spells level 1-5), and all the Yellow and Blue wizards want all 50 and are ploting/moving/trying to get them all. The green wizards just sit back and relax and watch. Enter the PC's. So, they(again, the players) can figure out what is going on...or they can just roll for it.

The answer is, a wizard that gets all 50 scrolls can make a green spellbook and be a green wizard (Yellow+Blue=Green, get it, clever hum?). Players paying attention should be able to figure that out. Otherwise you get:

Boring Player"Um, we sit around...um, oh wait, I roll a I know everything check."
DM "Sigh, ok, the Yellow and Blue wizards are trying to become Green wizards...you know yellow+blue=green" DM holds up a Zip-Lock Baggie to show the color change.

Um... no.

Boring player: We're going to spend the next 2 hours investigating this silly set-up and jumping through hoops that the DM thinks are "clever".

Better player: "I roll knowledge so we can actually get on with something worthwhile rather than following a tedious and meaningless sidequest".

Good DM: Just presents the information rather than forcing the players to jump through arbitrary hoops that the players blatantly don't care about, and that don't affect the character's relationships or threaten the characters themselves. And when the players keep rolling to bypass their ideas they adapt and come up with ideas the players care about enough to engage with.

Segev
2014-02-17, 09:35 AM
Now, now, there's nothing wrong with wanting players to go and talk to people and investigate things. D&D's skill system is weak there. That doesn't mean you can't use it to facilitate the gathering of information.

Rather than "I fumble around for 2 hours" or "I make a know everything check," the player should be thinking about ways to find out what he wants to know, then having his character go try it. This should lead to skill rolls, which tell him pieces of information (ranging from 'you're barking up the wrong tree' to 'it seems the scrolls contain the secrets for becoming a green wizard' to 'the newest green wizard is Roy G. Biv of the Two Forks Bivs').

This information should tip him off on another place to go for information, from attempting to get one of the scrolls, himself (which K: Arcana or Spellcraft might help him learn another tidbit, such as "this yellow scroll seems to have the same sort of casting requirements as Blue magic, oddly"), or to go interview somebody else (going from Gather Info to Bluff/Diplo/Sense Motive as he seeks out Mr. Biv to ask him about how he got his promotion). Heck, the fact that Mr. Biv used to be a Yellow wizard might be something only picked up through further investigation, requiring more Gather Info.

Through skill checks, the player gets more and more information about how to chase down this trail and hunt out the mystery. If the players are ever stumped, the DM should be offering them hints through asking for various skill checks and giving them insights or serendipitous encounters which key off of these checks.

neonchameleon
2014-02-17, 09:50 AM
Now, now, there's nothing wrong with wanting players to go and talk to people and investigate things. D&D's skill system is weak there. That doesn't mean you can't use it to facilitate the gathering of information.

Rather than "I fumble around for 2 hours" or "I make a know everything check," the player should be thinking about ways to find out what he wants to know, then having his character go try it. This should lead to skill rolls, which tell him pieces of information (ranging from 'you're barking up the wrong tree' to 'it seems the scrolls contain the secrets for becoming a green wizard' to 'the newest green wizard is Roy G. Biv of the Two Forks Bivs').

This information should tip him off on another place to go for information, from attempting to get one of the scrolls, himself (which K: Arcana or Spellcraft might help him learn another tidbit, such as "this yellow scroll seems to have the same sort of casting requirements as Blue magic, oddly"), or to go interview somebody else (going from Gather Info to Bluff/Diplo/Sense Motive as he seeks out Mr. Biv to ask him about how he got his promotion). Heck, the fact that Mr. Biv used to be a Yellow wizard might be something only picked up through further investigation, requiring more Gather Info.

Through skill checks, the player gets more and more information about how to chase down this trail and hunt out the mystery. If the players are ever stumped, the DM should be offering them hints through asking for various skill checks and giving them insights or serendipitous encounters which key off of these checks.

There's nothing wrong with getting players to go to talk to NPCs. Players should want to talk to NPCs. You do that by getting them emotionally invested in the setting. By offering them what they want.

The puzzle presented has literally no emotional payoff. It's just a case of the DM showing off how oh-so-"clever" the setting is. It's a riddle rather than a mystery, and like most answers it has a simple and glib answer. And solving it through a skill roll is treating such a riddle with all the respect it deserves.

A riddle is not a mystery. There's only one right answer and it's generally simple. Go for something deeper. And something involving people rather than primary chromatic colours (as opposed to primary light colours).

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-17, 10:33 AM
Oh, no, as a DM I love it when players (note:the players) pay attention and figure out things themselves. The Players. What I don't like is when the ''characters figure things out'', otherwise known as ''the DM tells the players what to do''.

So you have a three groups of wizards: Yellow, Blue and Green. Some how connected. All the Yellow and Blue wizards are young, all the green wizards are older. Anyone can join the Yellow or Blue, but to be Green takes a 'secret' way. There are 25 Yellow scrolls, and 25 Blue scrolls floating around (each of five of the same spells level 1-5), and all the Yellow and Blue wizards want all 50 and are plotting/moving/trying to get them all. The green wizards just sit back and relax and watch. Enter the PC's. So, they (again, the players) can figure out what is going on...or they can just roll for it.

The answer is a wizard that gets all 50 scrolls can make a green spellbook and be a green wizard (Yellow+Blue=Green, get it, clever hum?). Players paying attention should be able to figure that out. Otherwise you get:

Boring Player"Um, we sit around...um, oh wait, I roll a I know everything check."

DM "Sigh, ok, the Yellow and Blue wizards are trying to become Green wizards...you know yellow+blue=green" DM holds up a Zip-Lock Baggie to show the color change.

Nice example. Kind of reminds me of the "colors of the rainbow" type of puzzles, and "Roy G Biv" (who is, in fact, mentioned further below).


Um... no.

Boring player: We're going to spend the next 2 hours investigating this silly set-up and jumping through hoops that the DM thinks are "clever".

Better player: "I roll knowledge so we can actually get on with something worthwhile rather than following a tedious and meaningless sidequest".

Good DM: Just presents the information rather than forcing the players to jump through arbitrary hoops that the players blatantly don't care about, and that don't affect the character's relationships or threaten the characters themselves. And when the players keep rolling to bypass their ideas they adapt and come up with ideas the players care about enough to engage with.

But, what if becoming a Green Wizard was central to the storyline? Or, if it was the whole story line? Not so silly or meaningless, then...

Snippet from above:

And when the players keep rolling to bypass their ideas they adapt and come up with ideas the players care about enough to engage with.
That is a good idea, except when the players want to bypass all the way to the end and push the "I win" button. But, that is a good idea.

Reading on:


Now, now, there's nothing wrong with wanting players to go and talk to people and investigate things. D&D's skill system is weak there. That doesn't mean you can't use it to facilitate the gathering of information.

Rather than "I fumble around for 2 hours" or "I make a know everything check," the player should be thinking about ways to find out what he wants to know, then having his character go try it. This should lead to skill rolls, which tell him pieces of information (ranging from 'you're barking up the wrong tree' to 'it seems the scrolls contain the secrets for becoming a green wizard' to 'the newest green wizard is Roy G. Biv of the Two Forks Bivs').

This information should tip him off on another place to go for information, from attempting to get one of the scrolls himself (which K: Arcana or Spellcraft might help him learn another tidbit, such as "this yellow scroll seems to have the same sort of casting requirements as Blue magic, oddly"), or to go interview somebody else (going from Gather Info to Bluff/Diplo/Sense Motive as he seeks out Mr. Biv to ask him about how he got his promotion). Heck, the fact that Mr. Biv used to be a Yellow wizard might be something only picked up through further investigation, requiring more Gather Info.

Through skill checks, the player gets more and more information about how to chase down this trail and hunt out the mystery. If the players are ever stumped, the DM should be offering them hints through asking for various skill checks and giving them insights or serendipitous encounters which key off of these checks.

Ahh... "Roy G Biv of the Two Forks Bivs." Nice. But I digress...

This has all been happening here, but even with clues (many obtained by using Knowledge checks), it is frustrating to have a player who expects a Knowledge check to solve the whole thing for him/her. Should a single D20 roll provide the final solution? Or should it take just a little more role-playing, perhaps going back and talking to some people already talked to, or digging a little deeper into the musty library? This is an adventure, after all. Picture this:

Single D20 result translates to:

DM: "Here's the answer. What are we playing next?"

Working through skill checks, research, and some blood/sweat/tears translates to:

Player: "Aha! I have discovered the secret of immortal Green Magic! My character shall now live forever!"

Now, granted, some players/DM's may be OK with the first example. That is fine. The player who is "handed" the answer might even say something like the second example in response. But I would feel a little let down if I had a character in that group, and as DM that would not likely ever happen.

What is frustrating, and was the reason for the start of all this, is the presence of I guess what could be called one or more Example 1's in an Example 2 type game, so to speak. Although they didn't start out that way, and it only become evident when they decided to try and short-cut the story they couldn't figure out "any other way."
.

neonchameleon
2014-02-17, 10:59 AM
But, what if becoming a Green Wizard was central to the storyline? Or, if it was the whole story line? Not so silly or meaningless, then...

Then the mystery is a terrible one - it's something that might easily be seen in a second by a player familiar with the GM. It might be missed entirely. You can't base a storyline on something that's that flimsy and likely to break.

Segev
2014-02-17, 11:29 AM
Really, if the players are insisting that they should be able to solve it with that roll, you need to look again at your expectations and theirs. Perhaps they are frustrated not because you didn't hand it to them on a silver platter, but because, from their perspective, this is the umpteenth time they've "gone back into the musty library," and all they expect to get is another "go to the tavern and ask for Mark" pointer. They feel like they're chasing their tails and not getting anywhere. Or like they're getting the run-around.

It may help to pause every little bit and take stock as a group - DM and players - of what they've discovered so far. See if something that seems obvious to you is occluded from them, and make sure to give it to them or remind them of it as part of something they've already rolled, or ask for a roll to figure out how to present it to them. (A technique I like to use here is to ask players to tell me a skill they'd like to roll on, then give the piece of information to the highest roller colored by the skill he chose. If he chose one that just doesn't work, go to the next-highest roller until you find one that you can make work.)

Unless you genuinely want "failure is an option" - which is viable - you should make sure that the players are on the same page you are as to how far in the investigation they are. If they're spinning their wheels, it's not fun for them.

I cannot speak for your group, but it's been my experience that players - myself included - tend to ask for "can't I just roll to know this?" when they're out of ideas. Remember that the game is supposed to be fun, and if your players are out of ideas and spinning their wheels...they're probably not having fun.

If you truly feel they have failed to do anything that should get them further, that they're at a brick wall...give them a break. Make it a bad break, if you have to, but give them one. It oculd be as bad as having them fail to solve the problem before it comes to a head, and the problem revealing itself by being rampantly out of control. Now the mission changes to a different, mitigating strategy, rather than preventative. Or maybe a strategy of revenge if it's a mystery to stop a loved one from being murdered or something.

NichG
2014-02-17, 01:37 PM
Um... no.

Boring player: We're going to spend the next 2 hours investigating this silly set-up and jumping through hoops that the DM thinks are "clever".

Better player: "I roll knowledge so we can actually get on with something worthwhile rather than following a tedious and meaningless sidequest".


Here's the problem. You're assuming that whatever the DM follows this with would actually be more meaningful to you. But this may be the DM's 'A game' here. That may mean you should get another DM, but pushing the DM outside of the range of the stuff they're most confident about in search of something better is not likely to actually find you something better.

In general, if you're trying to speed through a part of the game and meeting resistance from the DM, that's a sign that you should examine whether you have compatible play styles, not a sign that you should 'speed through harder!'

Also, its pretty impolite if you're the only one who dislikes that part of the game and you're 'hurrying it along' in a way that prevents the other players, who might enjoy it, from actually engaging in it. Not saying this is the case here or anything, but its a fundamental problem with the idea that its okay to trivialize elements of the campaign just because you're bored with them.


Then the mystery is a terrible one - it's something that might easily be seen in a second by a player familiar with the GM. It might be missed entirely. You can't base a storyline on something that's that flimsy and likely to break.

Sure, no disagreement that its a terrible mystery, but that's missing the point of the argument to argue with the precise example. Things which someone can figure out by being clever and things which someone can figure out by making full use of information-providing mechanics in the game are not the same. You can certainly have mysteries that are central to large parts of the campaign which aren't silly/gimmicky, but which could be resolved by a mechanical source of knowledge (probably not the skills, but something like Commune or Contact Other Plane are the usual culprits).

You can also have things where the uncertainty is a potent tool even if you think you know the answer. If there's something where horrible stuff happens if you guess wrong, then even if you think you're very clever and have figured it out, there's an emotional effect to the uncertainty that can be compelling. For example, even in the yellow/blue mage case, if you had to finish off the search by performing a ritual, and if you didn't have the correct qualifications then it killed you (or, if you really want to horrify a PC, reduced your level by 2), then there's at least a little 'tension' to the scenario even if the answer is obvious.

And it doesn't change the fact that in general people will be more invested in solutions that they discovered themselves than solutions that were handed to them.

JusticeZero
2014-02-17, 02:03 PM
Skills should be good though.
One, by fifth level, you are very very good. At 6,all the people in your field of expertise know who you are. The epic heroes of myth peg between 6-8.
By level 10, the gods pay attention to you. At 15, they invite you to their parties. At 20,the gods get invited to your parties, and they rearrange their schedules and RSVP. It's OK if you can do surreal things with raw skill as you enter the upper end of that.

Two, I suspect that you have no problem telling a lot of that information to a wizard who reads off of a Scroll of Lesser Figure Out Clues.

Doug Lampert
2014-02-17, 02:51 PM
so no matter what, the party will be missing at least 3 knowledges completely until mid/high level, when the wizard's growing number of skill points can pick up a few ranks in the other knowledges. there's simply no way they get all the knowledges maxed out pre epic.

now, if the party is wizard, cloistered cleric, factotum, and wild shape ranger (with enough INT to pick up both nature and dungeoneering, since he doesn't need strength or dex as much), then you can get all the knowledges covered. but that is not the average party.

And about half the skills they DO have are being taken by the ranger, cleric, or rogue. None of whom have an Int focus, so we're looking at +4 or so bonuses at level 1, aka, they may not be able to get more than common knowledge, that the wizard can get untrained by taking 10.


Sure, no disagreement that its a terrible mystery, but that's missing the point of the argument to argue with the precise example. Things which someone can figure out by being clever and things which someone can figure out by making full use of information-providing mechanics in the game are not the same. You can certainly have mysteries that are central to large parts of the campaign which aren't silly/gimmicky, but which could be resolved by a mechanical source of knowledge (probably not the skills, but something like Commune or Contact Other Plane are the usual culprits).

Right, so in your opinion skills aren't likely to break a decent mystery. But this means that SKILLS AREN'T THE PROBLEM, which goes to the heart of what the original poster is arguing.

If the claim is that skills are a problem, then the precise example of skills being a problem matters because if it's any good then its an example of the problem being discussed. That a mystery can be broken by spells is NOT an example of the problem being discussed. It's an example of a different problem.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-17, 02:53 PM
But, what if becoming a Green Wizard was central to the storyline? Or, if it was the whole story line? Not so silly or meaningless, then...

Then the mystery is a terrible one - it's something that might easily be seen in a second by a player familiar with the GM. It might be missed entirely. You can't base a storyline on something that's that flimsy and likely to break.

Yes, that is a terrible example, if it were to actually be used. It is just to illustrate a point, not to give the point any value.
.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-17, 03:02 PM
Really, if the players are insisting that they should be able to solve it with that roll, you need to look again at your expectations and theirs. Perhaps they are frustrated not because you didn't hand it to them on a silver platter, but because, from their perspective, this is the umpteenth time they've "gone back into the musty library," and all they expect to get is another "go to the tavern and ask for Mark" pointer. They feel like they're chasing their tails and not getting anywhere. Or like they're getting the run-around.

It may help to pause every little bit and take stock as a group - DM and players - of what they've discovered so far. See if something that seems obvious to you is occluded from them, and make sure to give it to them or remind them of it as part of something they've already rolled, or ask for a roll to figure out how to present it to them. (A technique I like to use here is to ask players to tell me a skill they'd like to roll on, then give the piece of information to the highest roller colored by the skill he chose. If he chose one that just doesn't work, go to the next-highest roller until you find one that you can make work.)

Unless you genuinely want "failure is an option" - which is viable - you should make sure that the players are on the same page you are as to how far in the investigation they are. If they're spinning their wheels, it's not fun for them.

I cannot speak for your group, but it's been my experience that players - myself included - tend to ask for "can't I just roll to know this?" when they're out of ideas. Remember that the game is supposed to be fun, and if your players are out of ideas and spinning their wheels...they're probably not having fun.

If you truly feel they have failed to do anything that should get them further, that they're at a brick wall...give them a break. Make it a bad break, if you have to, but give them one. It oculd be as bad as having them fail to solve the problem before it comes to a head, and the problem revealing itself by being rampantly out of control. Now the mission changes to a different, mitigating strategy, rather than preventative. Or maybe a strategy of revenge if it's a mystery to stop a loved one from being murdered or something.

All good, solid ideas.

Now add to this mix the fact that this group has had multiple chances to get help figuring things out and they have been left behind, ignored, avoided, discarded, and forgotten. Important NPC's have been purposely avoided, or encountered only once and then never again. Places that could have helped if they were investigated further were ignored, avoided, and left behind. This has never happened with this group of players before, they are usually very thorough and concise about details. It is frustrating... to say the least.
.

NichG
2014-02-17, 03:13 PM
Right, so in your opinion skills aren't likely to break a decent mystery. But this means that SKILLS AREN'T THE PROBLEM, which goes to the heart of what the original poster is arguing.


Lets be clear - I think it unlikely for skills to break this kind of mystery because I think that the OP is letting his players bully him around into allowing the skills to do things that they do not actually do. Knowledge(Arcana) would not tell you about a wizard order's secret initiation trials - its just not covered by the skill.

For example, there was an earlier example up-thread about how 'coming up with the theory of relativity would be a DC such-and-such Knowledge check'. But I would say 'that is not covered by a use of Knowledge at all' and there is no problem. No matter what your result - 2000, 5 million, etc - you cannot make the skill do what it doesn't actually do, and 'performing original research' and 'coming up with clever ideas' are not part of the function of Knowledge skills. Similarly, no Knowledge(Nobility & Royalty) check will tell you who in the court is plotting to rebel against the crown.

But skills run the way that the OP's players believe they work are in fact problematic.

Also, a different kind of 'mystery' could be vulnerable to this as well. If the party encounters a monster/locale/etc that is supposed to be completely unheard of in the setting, then there can be problems with them automatically having knowledge of the monster if e.g. discovering its weaknesses is a significant plot point since it will let them inform NPC armies/etc and delay the advance of the new kind of monster. Infiltration/information gathering missions are perfect fodder for a small skirmish team like a party of PCs.

And, aside from the 'campaign mystery' kinds of problems, by the book skills can be problematic for other reasons as well. For example, by the book its a DC 25 Knowledge(Planes) check to know about 'Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu', which lets you get 1-3 'free' wishes if run in a by-the-book fashion. Clearly a DM shouldn't actually run this by the book, and so can make the problem go away, but that is something that needs to be explicitly acknowledged (especially since in this thread, the problem stems to a large degree from the DM caving to the players trying to do unreasonable things).

jedipotter
2014-02-17, 03:32 PM
so yeah, a +10 skill bonus is hardly god like. it is well within the range of what even real people can accomplish. and since most people never make it beyond level 3, it is perfectly reasonable for level 3 characters to get +10 skill modifiers.


But look at knowledge checks. By the book, a character with a couple ranks can know everything. They can roll and have a chance to know way, way too much. Take someone with knowledge nature, they know about every plant and animal in the world. And sure there are a couple genius zoologists, but not so for others like hunters. A hunter from, say Utah in the USA does not know about every animal in the world. He would not be able to give you exact encyclopedic knowledge of Arctic animals. It would be highly unlikely that the hunter could even, say, identify every breed of dog(though I'm sure there are dog experts that could).



Boring player: We're going to spend the next 2 hours investigating this silly set-up and jumping through hoops that the DM thinks are "clever".

Better player: "I roll knowledge so we can actually get on with something worthwhile rather than following a tedious and meaningless sidequest".

Good DM: Just presents the information rather than forcing the players to jump through arbitrary hoops that the players blatantly don't care about, and that don't affect the character's relationships or threaten the characters themselves. And when the players keep rolling to bypass their ideas they adapt and come up with ideas the players care about enough to engage with.

Or:

First Player:"I'm here to play this role playing game. I want to play the role of character, interact with the fictional world, and have an adventure full of action and excitement''

Second Player: "I'm here to fight! I'm gonna ignore all the fluff! Fight! Fight! Lets have more combat! "

Good DM: Sets up a fantasy world for the players to interact with. They weed out the all combat players and suggest they try another game. They set up all sorts of things for the players to find, figure out and play with during the game. And the discourage the ''lets roll past the fluff''.





Right, so in your opinion skills aren't likely to break a decent mystery. But this means that SKILLS AREN'T THE PROBLEM, which goes to the heart of what the original poster is arguing.

If the claim is that skills are a problem, then the precise example of skills being a problem matters because if it's any good then its an example of the problem being discussed. That a mystery can be broken by spells is NOT an example of the problem being discussed. It's an example of a different problem.

But skills are the problem. Make whatever mystery you want, by RAW the knowledge skills(and ones like spellcraft) ruin it.

The big problem is that the skills don't have limits. A couple ranks in a skill and you can automatically know all 'easy, common and hard' things about anything. And even difficult things are easy to get.

Segev
2014-02-17, 04:02 PM
But look at knowledge checks. By the book, a character with a couple ranks can know everything. They can roll and have a chance to know way, way too much. Take someone with knowledge nature, they know about every plant and animal in the world. And sure there are a couple genius zoologists, but not so for others like hunters. A hunter from, say Utah in the USA does not know about every animal in the world. He would not be able to give you exact encyclopedic knowledge of Arctic animals. It would be highly unlikely that the hunter could even, say, identify every breed of dog(though I'm sure there are dog experts that could). Except that this is an entirely false representation of what the skills do. There are DCs for knowing things, based on their rarity or commonality. "A couple ranks" is never sufficient for more than broad knowledge. Your claims are not backed up by the RAW.





The big problem is that the skills don't have limits. A couple ranks in a skill and you can automatically know all 'easy, common and hard' things about anything. And even difficult things are easy to get.
That's nonsense. You do not automatically know all of that for "a couple ranks." You have the chance to roll to know anything, sure, but with just "a couple ranks," the particularly esoteric stuff will still elude you no matter how well you roll.

If you're having this problem, you're setting DCs too low and/or giving too much specific information on a success. Knowledge checks remind players of details they may have forgotten but their character remembers, and relate what they're seeing to their experience and study. If he's never seen nor heard of a Chuul before, the Ranger with K:Dungeoneering isn't going to necessarily get "it's a Chuul; here's its MM entry." What he will get is, "This is clearly an aberration, and your experience with them tells you that the hash of parts it has give it these strengths and weaknesses." At least, he will if he rolls well enough. He won't get "they're slaves to Aboleths" or the like just from a K: check. He MIGHT, on a particularly good one, get, "the way it's behaving, it's too stupid to have come up with the strategy evinced by its placement here; something smarter directs its actions on a strategic scale."

All good, solid ideas.

Now add to this mix the fact that this group has had multiple chances to get help figuring things out and they have been left behind, ignored, avoided, discarded, and forgotten. Important NPC's have been purposely avoided, or encountered only once and then never again. Places that could have helped if they were investigated further were ignored, avoided, and left behind. This has never happened with this group of players before, they are usually very thorough and concise about details. It is frustrating... to say the least.
.
That's unfortunate.

I am not trying to be a jerk nor mean, here, but have you considered that it might be in part your fault? I know, as DM, I am always wondering if it's mine when what I think they should be paying attention to is ignored by my players.

Here's where you can use those skill checks to bring them back around though: Knowledge checks can have their successful result be, "You recall seeing something related to this back at [place they ignored that you think has the clues they need.] Gather Information can tell them, "[Person you want them to go back to] keeps coming up as knowing something about [thing they should be bothering him about]."

Use the skills to put them back on the tracks to the things they should be investigating.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-17, 05:12 PM
That's unfortunate.

I am not trying to be a jerk nor mean, here, but have you considered that it might be in part your fault? I know, as DM, I am always wondering if it's mine when what I think they should be paying attention to is ignored by my players.

Here's where you can use those skill checks to bring them back around though: Knowledge checks can have their successful result be, "You recall seeing something related to this back at [place they ignored that you think has the clues they need.] Gather Information can tell them, "[Person you want them to go back to] keeps coming up as knowing something about [thing they should be bothering him about]."

Use the skills to put them back on the tracks to the things they should be investigating.

An excellent strategy... I will have to try that. Although the response I may get is, "we've already talked to that person/been to that place, we're not going back!" Still, it's worth a try.
.

Segev
2014-02-17, 07:10 PM
An excellent strategy... I will have to try that. Although the response I may get is, "we've already talked to that person/been to that place, we're not going back!" Still, it's worth a try.
.

Yeah, it's worth a try. I'd also recommend, if they do say that? Drop to OOC. Tell them, flatly, "Look, you guys missed something there. You rolled well enough on your skills to let you figure that out. But there's no way to get the information you are looking for that I can think of other than to go back there and try again. If you DO think of something else that'd get you that info, I'll let you know, but so far, you haven't."

Maybe not verbatim, but sometimes the OOC clue-by-four is needed.


I'm glad you like the idea, though. The key, I think, to using skills is to see them as tools of storytelling. They, like anything you roll, are guides to tell you how good a given PC is at a given thing at a given moment. To help you simulate the lucky insights or the unfortunate moments of dumb, and to measure who is best able to figure out what's going on. WHAT skill is used can also color the way the information is presented.

But always use skills to point them in the right direction, if there is one; they needn't give all the answers. Even the infamous K:Local can, instead, give, "Well, in your hometown, it works like this, and in the other places you've been, you've seen these other ways of doing it. Here, your best guess is that they're using something close to this model..." At least until they've been there long enough to pick things up. The thing about knowledge is that you start noticing patterns. And when you notice patterns, it gets easier to master things based on how they compare and contrast to those patterns. So it still makes sense the guy with high K:Local would be the one who learns the local culture quickest, even if it's different from his own. He's academically familiar enough with underpinning causes to piece things together.

Anyway, that's probalby my best advice: use skills to help the players find the paths you've laid out, so they can choose to follow them. And, if they accuse you of railroading, invite them to try whatever they like; it's not railroading to have things planned out as to how they are WITHOUT the PCs interfering. As long as you let anything they do that should work to find Clue 7401B work, even if you hadn't thought of that method of finding it, you should be fine. The skills are a door for you to nudge them in the right direction by feeding them information and hints that show them how you think you would solve it if you were in the party. And they also let the players feel like they're the ones who did it, because they built their PCs to be capable at it.

Pocket lint
2014-02-17, 07:36 PM
One possible solution to the Knowledge: Local issue is to target it to wherever the player character lives. If you make a home for yourself by buying a house / renting a room and live there for more than e.g. three weeks, you have effectively moved, and are considered to have picked up enough local information to know your way around. Your memory about the old place now starts to fade, and you'll have to spend some time familiarising yourself if you go back.

In the examples given, if the characters set up a base in Dis for the required time, Knowledge: Local will give them enough information. Until then, Gather Information will give about the same info, but in a shorter span of time. The synergy bonus is a hint here; the two skills work in conjunction.

I'd also give everyone the ability to use the skill untrained, to represent what you know about where you live.


Another possible restriction is that Knowledge: Local only applies to more or less public knowledge. You will be able to tell that Lord X has two sons on a DC 15 or so, but not that one of them is plotting to kill the other. Higher results will give more basic info about their reputation around town, but this might be incorrect.


Knowledge skills in general are in my book a good way of getting the players and the DM on the same page about the setting - players have rarely read as much as the DM, so rolling Knowledge: whatever just saves time in getting on with the story. Many times you don't even realise there's something to know, so as a DM I usually call skill rolls unprompted (players may request a roll, but they aren't automatically granted).

FWIW, I led a deliberately retro 2nd ed dungeon bash at a convention, where the players encountered a green slime. After realising none of their attacks did any harm, and with the slime growing ever larger, the cleric went through his entire repertoire trying to do something against it. A single knowledge roll could have avoided this.

lunar2
2014-02-17, 07:38 PM
But look at knowledge checks. By the book, a character with a couple ranks can know everything. They can roll and have a chance to know way, way too much. Take someone with knowledge nature, they know about every plant and animal in the world. And sure there are a couple genius zoologists, but not so for others like hunters. A hunter from, say Utah in the USA does not know about every animal in the world. He would not be able to give you exact encyclopedic knowledge of Arctic animals. It would be highly unlikely that the hunter could even, say, identify every breed of dog(though I'm sure there are dog experts that could).


Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.

knowledge skills don't represent the random facts you pick up through actual experience. they represent the actual dedicated study of a subject. in other words, your utah hunter doesn't even have any ranks in knowledge nature, which is why he only knows about the animals he's actually encountered on his hunts. it is the zoologists who have ranks in knowledge nature.


But skills are the problem. Make whatever mystery you want, by RAW the knowledge skills(and ones like spellcraft) ruin it.

The big problem is that the skills don't have limits. A couple ranks in a skill and you can automatically know all 'easy, common and hard' things about anything. And even difficult things are easy to get.

this is just wrong, as has been proven already in this thread.

first off, knowledge skills only tell you what you found in your research of a subject. if a particular piece of information can't be found through research at a well stocked library dedicated the subject, the knowledge skill does not give that information.

to use your blue/yellow/green example, knowledge can't tell you their secret initiation ritual, because it is secret. the information isn't in the ideal dedicated knowledge arcana library, so no matter what the check result, the answer is "nope, you don't know". or, if you're feeling generous, you can give them a hint, like i said in an earlier post. the knowledge skill, by RAW, doesn't give them information they couldn't possibly know.

and second, as has already been shown in this thread, your numbers are way off. +10 bonuses are next to nothing when it comes to identifying creatures, which is the most common use of knowledge checks. and it most certainly takes more than "a couple of ranks" to make a DC 30 knowledge check.

as for spellcraft. let's see exactly what spellcraft can do

identify a glyph of warding if you are using read magic: DC 13. ok, low DC, but you have to already be using a specific spell to begin with, which means unless you have some reason to be suspicious, it will never come up.

identify a spell being cast by it's verbal and/or somatic components: DC 15+ spell level. well, this certainly isn't ruining anything. if you want to "preserve the mystery" about what spell your NPC is using, you can either cast it while they don't have line of sight, or use silent/still spell. i do think the DC would scale better if it was 2x spell level, though. but that's just my opinion.

learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll (wizard only): DC 15+ spell level. meh. it's a powerful effect, but if you control what scrolls are available for free, and make them pay fair market price for scrolls they buy, it's not so bad. it's the spells themselves that are the problem, after all, not the wizard's ability to learn a bunch of them.

when using detect magic, determine the school of the aura of a single item or creature: DC 15+ spell level (or DC 15+ 1/2 caster level, if the aura isn't a spell effect). this doesn't tell you the actual spell involved, and is disguiseable by the magic aura spell, among others. surely this little tidbit of information isn't ruining your game. it's hardly more information than what detect magic is giving in the first place "Derr.. dis ting is madgicull."

when using read magic, identify a symbol: DC 19. i don't like that all the symbols get the same DC, but again, how many people actually run around with read magic up? you'll rarely have to deal with this.

Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell: DC 20+ spell level. again, i think the DC should be 20 + 2x the spell level, to scale better. but because this only works on obvious spells that you can actually see or otherwise detect the effects of (detect magic picks up the aura of the spell, not the effects of it, btw), this is hardly going to ruin anything. and the DC is high enough that low/mid level characters are going to be hard pressed to identify level appropriate spells.

Identify materials created or shaped by magic, such as noting that an iron wall is the result of a wall of iron spell: DC 20+ spell level. now, i actually have a problem with this one. wall of iron is an instantaneous spell. once the wall is there, it is completely nonmagical, so there shouldn't be anything to spellcraft. but even this isn't going to ruin your campaign, it's just weird.

Decipher a written spell (such as a scroll) without using read magic: DC 20+ spell level. nope, no problems here. although why is the DC to decipher a spell higher than the DC to learn a spell?

After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was: DC 25+ spell level. now, this one, i don't like. i don't want my wizards to just know that someone tried to kill them when there are no obvious cues it happened. i'd say drop this one entirely. you should have to actually see/hear/whatever the spell in order to identify it.

Identify a potion: DC 25. no problems with this. maybe add a + spell level to the DC, but that's the only issue i have with it.

Draw a diagram to allow dimensional anchor to be cast on a magic circle spell: DC 20. are you actually allowing planar binding to begin with? planar ally, sure, but not planar binding.

Understand a strange or unique magical effect, such as the effects of a magic stream: DC 30 or higher. you get to set the DC at whatever you want, so this one can't possibly be an issue.

there are epic usages, too, but those start at DC 50, and go up from there, so they aren't going to be an issue in most campaigns.

so yeah, except for a couple of niche cases that are easily avoidable in game, and that one thing about identifying a spell just because you rolled a saving throw on it, spellcraft really can't ruin anything.

SiuiS
2014-02-18, 05:49 AM
but here is what you have to realize. a wizard is not a normal person, not even at level 1. wizards are the smartest people in existence, and they spend years training and studying to become a wizard. it makes perfect sense for them to have so much academic knowledge about the world. that's exactly how the world should work. the geniuses who spend all their time studying have huge reserves of academic knowledge that, while not directly applicable to any situation can, if from the proper subject, give insight into how best to approach the situation.

Nope.

An 18 is no longer anywhere near the smartest in existence. It doesn't match up to capacity and it doesn't match up to the math. The odds of having an 18 intelligence used to be about one in two hundred fifty six; nowadays you're guaranteed to have it if you want it (which is useless for this discussion) or you have a much higher chance; an eighteen is no longer three standard distributions from the norm.

If a +2 is someone who's clever but not a genius, then an 18 (+4) is only noticeably smarter than that, but not genius. You don't get into genius level until much later, and by then you have r improved your ability to self evaluate on a personality level at all. By the time you're smart enough to know obscure facts, you've got a habitually ingrained inefficiency that prevents using them to maximum. You lack, among other things, the clear indication of when knowledge matters. Logic is a tool, not a guarantee of success. Logic can be misapplied. The more sure you are of your intelligence the bigger the blind spots become.


you know, i think there is one nerf to knowledge skills that actually makes sense.

do not allow characters to activate buffs before making a knowledge check. as soon as the player wants to know something, make the check as they are at that moment, with only the buffs they already have on. so the wizard will get his headband of intellect bonus, but he can't cast a spell to boost his knowledge check before he rolls for it, because as soon as the thought crossed his mind that he wants to know something, he will automatically search his memory then and there. there's a reason it is not an action to make a knowledge check.

Wouldn't work. For one thing, casting a buff and spending time ruminating would count as enough change of circumstances to let them roll again, so you're actually less likely to know a fact by just rolling after buff than both before and after.


So, here's a general question for both sides of the debate - putting aside how Knowledge checks work in D&D right now, what would your ideal mechanic for Knowledge checks be? That is to say, what would be your preferred way to represent 'I know stuff' mechanically, and what role does it serve in the overall structure of the game?

Rolling happens when you do something. You just know stuff at a certain threshold, knowledge lets you do things correctly or declare something and have it be true (within reason). Player fiat.

Lorsa
2014-02-18, 06:51 AM
Deciding 'there are no long term plotlines in this campaign' is a highly constraining choice. While it is possible to run such a campaign, not all campaigns should be like this - different GMs and groups of players want different things out of the game.

I didn't say that there are no long term plotlines. What I said was that there doesn't have to be only ONE long term plotline. Why couldn't there be several? So if Tharzidun is taken out easily early on there could be other things to do that would be "long term" stuff. I would say that deciding that there's only one long term plotline is a more constraining choice than deciding that there could be several.


In my group for example, my players would hate it, because even when there is long-term stuff going on they tend to have problems with self-direction. Having something where it's entirely up to them would tend to stall out (and the group does tend to stall out in sandboxy sections of my campaigns in general). In effect, the party would tend to split as people developed incompatible motives without the presence of a sustained external reason to actually journey together.

For another group, what you suggest would be perfectly fine, even ideal. But there's a problem with saying 'this particular mechanic does not cause trouble in one type of campaign, therefore there's nothing wrong with it at all!'

Again, I didn't say nothing would ever happen to the players or that they'd have nothing to do. If one problem happens to be solved much more quickly or easily than the DM anticipated, what's the problem with introducing a new problem? I usually try to make sure my players always have something to do if they can't figure out goals for themselves. In my latest campaign they sort of have this issue where they feel they don't have enough time to deal with their own goals.


In some sense, this is the method that removes the least amount of player agency while retaining the ability of the GM to control the pacing of the campaign. What the players do not know does not actively interfere with their choices.

If I say 'Tharzidun is the reason your cow died. Go!' then have Tharzidun TPK the party, or have NPCs take over the quest from them and hedge them out, then the PCs are being prevented from exercising any meaningful agency over their situation because everything they could do basically is going to fall flat against the threat.

If instead I say 'there's a goblin cleric that has been cursing the land, maybe he's why your cow died!' then thats something they can choose to deal with how they want. Then, when they discover 'hey, this cleric doesn't belong to any gods we know of' and 'the curse isn't stopping' they can investigate that and find more things where they can exercise meaningful choices. Even if dealing with the cleric didn't solve their core problems, it was something where they could exert a meaningful impact on the world by how they chose to deal with the situation. The fact that 'oh, it was Tharzidun all along but you didn't know it' doesn't remove any agency from them that they would have had, because they could e.g. still decide randomly to go searching out that crypt and happen upon the portal. Never at any stage are their choices being actively constrained - rather, things are hidden and must be proactively sought out and found.

I think the discussion about skill checks are much more akin to a situation where the characters would notice some tracks in the field where the cow was slaughtered and instead of having them roll their knowledge: nature and survival to figure out that there are both tracks of wolves and humans and sometimes one transforms into the other, the DM desperately wants to keep the werewolf a secret so doesn't let the players figure this out.

If you build scenarios around the players only ever finding things out at the precise point it's been decided upon by the DM, or in the precise way the DM has decided, it DOES remove player agency. So they figured out a way to get information about the secret werewolf lair before you had anticipated? Why is that a problem? Players are usually quite happy when they figure things out and there's still the issue of actually doing something about the werewolf.


No, not really. In many campaigns where the focus is on the characters and their own particular stories/motivations, there isn't some huge list of 'these are the world's problems and now they're yours'. Unless you have a setting where these guys keep saving the world and every week there's a new Elder Evil threatening it, at some point 'congratulations, you have accomplished your goals, now we end the campaign'. So this could lead to a very fast campaign.

Having knowledge about a situation doesn't immediately solve the problem. You still need to do something with that knowledge. You'd need to have very few motivations and goals if a skill roll or two to bypass a "mystery" investigation leads to a very fast campaign.


The other thing is, the more trivialized the sub-parts of the campaign are, the less impact the campaign as a whole will have. Lets say, for example, we use an RPG where any situation can be resolved by describing the parameters of the situation and the desired resolution clearly, and then rolling a percentile check against a DC assigned by the DM.

Combat? If you want to kill these foes its a 75% chance of success and a 25% chance that the party dies - go and roll.

There is a pretender on the throne and you want to kick him off? Roll percentile - 30% chance you succeed, 50% chance your armies are routed but you escape, 20% chance you end up in jail.

While this is a system you could use, it feels very flat. Thats because it gives no actual depth to any particular part of the resolution. By focusing on the details of 'how' something happens, especially in cases where different details can have different nuanced outcomes, thats how you create meaningful gameplay. While 'combat' is one type of meaningful gameplay, 'finding stuff out' can also be a type of meaningful gameplay.

So, if you want to run a 'finding stuff out' campaign, its just a bad idea design-wise to load the entirety of the process into a single branch-point like a skill roll. Much like you couldn't have a 'tactical combat' game by lumping the entirety of the fight into a 'Tactics' skill roll.

Of course. That's why you have many skill rolls? What is your point here really? Before you can use your arcane knowledge to analyse the secret tome you need to figure out where it is located and you need to apprehend it. All these things will probably take multiple skill rolls.

I would argue though that 'finding stuff out' campaigns almost never work. This is why I prefer 'solve this problem' campaigns, which can include finding things out but that's just a part of it.

In a 'finding stuff out' campaign, either the players will have to be guided around by the DM, following the very obvious trail of clues (railroading), in which case the players actually never find anything out themselves. Or alternatively the players will need to be given the freedom to find answers in their own way and if that could logically boil down to a single skill roll (because the character knows the answer) then so be it!

What is "obvious" to the DM will never ever be obvious to the players, they will never figure things out when the DM expects them to. Sometimes they will have the answer right from the start because they were clever or whatever, or they'll never know. It's almost impossible to control the pacing in a 'finding stuff out' campaign without some heavy railroading.


This is best answered with an Example:


the characters (ie, players) are presented with a "big question" in the campaign. And we are not talking monster info, or which way is safest, or who the local lord is. Nothing like that. This would be something one might have to use a Commune or similar magic, or good old fashioned role-playing, to find out. Hidden opponents, secret treaties, who's faking and who is truthful. Big, story arc stuff.

they have been unable to determine the answer to this "big question" by other means, although they have been gathering a steady stream of clues. But, they are impatient, and frustrated, and want to know nnoooowwww, as Veruca Salt would say.

some players seem to think that rolling a Skill check should "give" them the answer if they beat the DC, and they cite the example DC's in the Skill descriptions as target DC's for the "big question"

Now, several side issues are possible, such as the DM perhaps not making the clues clear enough, or the players perhaps having an off night, but none of that is brought up, just, "OK. I roll a [insert Skill believed to be relevant here] check and I got a [impossibly high number here] so my character should be able to figure all this out because he has a 26 Intelligence and I don't." They want the answer given to them instead of having to continue working toward it.

Well, this issue is slightly different from the one you stated before. It might take a bit longer to go through and it has a lot of different parts in it. One of them is the problem with 'finding stuff out' campaigns that I listed earlier and can go into more in detail with later.


If the answer were to be given, it kinda takes all the excitement, mystery and danger out of the game, doesn't it. Oh, and don't expect a partial answer, or another clue, to satisfy the player either.

Again, is this how your players feel? Do they feel the excitement, mystery and danger are gone after they've been given the answer? I'm not asking how you feel as a DM, because I find that largely irrelevant, I am asking how your players feel.


They have used Skills for many things, and in some way they seem to think that this is a natural extension of how the Skills work. Perhaps it is frustration, perhaps boredom with the campaign, but whatever else it is never gets mentioned, just that they expect a Skill check to unlock the secrets of the universe. And are upset when it doesn't. And it's not everyone (thank goodness), so maybe it is just a play style issue. It is just aggravating to go through it every time a big question comes up.

I have been following the posts here with great interest. There are some great ideas floating around, including yours.
.

As I said, this issue is different than the one you started with. If the players have already done a lot of things to try and unlock the mysteries but seem to be at a dead end without any answer or idea or where to go now, can you blame them for resorting to their last hope?

Just like your players didn't mention whatever else, nor did you mention this something else when you first started talking about your problems with skill rolls.

TuggyNE
2014-02-18, 06:58 AM
Nope.

An 18 is no longer anywhere near the smartest in existence. It doesn't match up to capacity and it doesn't match up to the math. The odds of having an 18 intelligence used to be about one in two hundred fifty six; nowadays you're guaranteed to have it if you want it (which is useless for this discussion) or you have a much higher chance; an eighteen is no longer three standard distributions from the norm.

That's only for PCs; the vast majority of NPCs get 3d6 in order same as ever.

Iruka
2014-02-18, 08:24 AM
I'm all about cloak-and-dagger political games and chessmaster style BBEG's with a side of high-op mage conflict.

For some reason, I read that as "hip-hop mage conflict".



Now add to this mix the fact that this group has had multiple chances to get help figuring things out and they have been left behind, ignored, avoided, discarded, and forgotten. Important NPC's have been purposely avoided, or encountered only once and then never again. Places that could have helped if they were investigated further were ignored, avoided, and left behind. This has never happened with this group of players before, they are usually very thorough and concise about details. It is frustrating... to say the least.


Maybe ask them (again?) if they don't enjoy the current storyline. Actively avoiding NPCs that could help looks like this. If they did this roleplay investigation thing in the past (I assume that's what you meant in the bolded section) but stopped now, the rules for Knowledge checks are not your actual problem in this case.

Maybe they just wan't to get over that particular story, mabe just a bit of it, maybe they would prefer a complete change of how you guys play. Ask yourself how you would feel about a change and then have a dialog with your players. Encourage them to be honest, people often don't want to complain openly because it seems impolite.

If you already did all of the above, sorry, must have missed it.

HighWater
2014-02-18, 09:33 AM
A lot's been said so far. It is obvious not everybody agrees with the "gamebreaking" skill checks, but let's focus on constructive game advice. This is mostly a summary of what I retained from the previous 6 pages of discussion, with some of my own mixed in. The very first point is by far the most important.

- Talk to your players! You are NOT on the same page. Why do they suddenly want to skill-check everything, rather than going through your highly preferred roleplay? There are plenty of possible answers here that no nerf to skills will ever fix.

- It sounds like you are frustrated that you spent a-lot-of-time preparing social encounters that NEVER took place and planting clues that were never found. I feel your pain, I improvise poorly in social encounters (or am at least not confident I won't make 'em go FUBAR), so I prepare them extensively. If they get ignored, this hurts. Try giving them the information through a means that still utilises some of your preparation "you remember overhearing X and Y in tavern Z talking about this and that", if the Player wants more information, RetCon a conversation! At least some of your effort is salvaged. Modularity of information makes you much more flexible, while still having a well thought-out story, use their skillchecks to your advantage.

- Know what the knowledge skills actually do and allow! You are too generous if you hand out gamebreaking info on a result of 30. Make your players re-read the knowledge sections a billion times with the explicit instruction to pay attention to all the if's and but's regarding skill DC's. Let them produce the exact rules if they want to do something you don't think is rules-legal (such as finding out the password). Don't cheat yourself on knowledge skills, only give some of the information (the guidelines are actually pretty okay on this). Without magic or shenanigangs, the players should not Know The Plot, because their rolls simply won't be high enough.

- Don't cheat your players on knowledge skills either! I once only received the information "It's from the plane of Fire" on a pretty decent knowledge arcana roll, after my character saw the opponent (no special character either) coming out of a portal (with fire in the background), and striding around the countryside while covered in flames. No sh*t Sherlock! Any commoner should've known that, so this felt like being cheated, my char (a sorcerer) paid very expensive skill points to know exactly nothing useful, (compare the elder dragon vs young dragon dc's). That said, I do intent him to visit the library to find out more if I can (and it hasn't burned down yet).

- You can't retake knowledge checks, you also can't take ten or twenty.

- You can save (custom) monsters and BBEG's through secrecy. If your BBEG would be considered Legendary if people knew what he's capable off, have him either hide his powers when dealing with others, or have him hide his own existence. If a monster was newly created in a secret lab, the only thing a Knowledge check should reveal is anything that might be sensed by the observer directly. If this monster, however, is about as rare (read: common) as a Treant, being homebrew shouldn't protect it from characters inside your world knowing about it anymore than the Treant. The other way around: I made a particular type of 2HD MM1 monster impossible to identify without Plot, because it hasn't been seen for milennia and knowledge on it has been neigh completely destroyed. Explain to your players that each world is different and that DC's can vary due to that. A Knowledge check will still reveal apparant behaviour or weaknesses/strengths though, if appropriate.

- You should protect plot-relevant information through secrecy, layering and interconnected protections! No wizard will think his secrets are safe by hiding them behind a single secret page. As said by someone else before, an obstacle without covering fire is not an obstacle at all.

- Not all parties consist of 100% Int18+ Wizards! If they do, your problem is still not with the skills, it's with Wizards being way too powerful and versatile when optimised. Think of the poor sorcerer or rogue. Investing in knowledge arcana ánd spellcraft is expensive for a sorcerer who misses out on a lot of cross-class life-saving skills. Knowledge-skills are meant to save time and save lives, like every other skill.

- If you really hate info-gathering skills, you should ban all knowledge skills, spellcraft, gather information, and really, diplomacy and bluff too. Hell, if you want players to figure it out without character-help, get rid of sense motive too! Be up front about this to your players: none of the mental skills will do anything. Come out and Nix them, don't nerf them, without magic they aren't overpowered/game breaking just because they occasionally save time and lives, but if you want the players to do all the leg-work themselves, these skills will always need to go or they will feel cheated for investing in them.

- If (knowledge) skills are too powerful because they can go sky-game-breakingly-high through the application of magic, your problem isn't with skills, it's with magic. Magic breaks things, that's kinda magic's point though. Kill divination, it'll ruin your plot before you can say "wut?".


tl;dr, summary of summary:
-Please, talk to your players, something's going on there!
-Figure out exactly what knowledge skills really do. Find "counters" for them like you would with Divination: don't give the answer, just give information. You can do so through flashback conversations/scenes if you want to (and your players don't hate you for it).

lunar2
2014-02-18, 10:28 AM
Nope.

An 18 is no longer anywhere near the smartest in existence. It doesn't match up to capacity and it doesn't match up to the math. The odds of having an 18 intelligence used to be about one in two hundred fifty six; nowadays you're guaranteed to have it if you want it (which is useless for this discussion) or you have a much higher chance; an eighteen is no longer three standard distributions from the norm.

If a +2 is someone who's clever but not a genius, then an 18 (+4) is only noticeably smarter than that, but not genius. You don't get into genius level until much later, and by then you have r improved your ability to self evaluate on a personality level at all. By the time you're smart enough to know obscure facts, you've got a habitually ingrained inefficiency that prevents using them to maximum. You lack, among other things, the clear indication of when knowledge matters. Logic is a tool, not a guarantee of success. Logic can be misapplied. The more sure you are of your intelligence the bigger the blind spots become.

it doesn't matter how you generate ability scores, the smartest people are going to be wizards, and wizards are going to be the smartest people. unless archivists are a thing in your setting, in which case replace wizard with archivist. and 4d6b3 is still the default method of ability score generation, even if it isn't the most common. but that's why i said a wizard is going to start with anything from a +2 to a +5 bonus, depending on ability score generation methods and race access. also, your second paragraph may apply to some very intelligent people, but it won't apply to all of them.


Wouldn't work. For one thing, casting a buff and spending time ruminating would count as enough change of circumstances to let them roll again, so you're actually less likely to know a fact by just rolling after buff than both before and after.

knowledge checks do not allow retries unless you actually gain a new rank in knowledge. simply casting a buff and thinking about it won't help.

NichG
2014-02-18, 01:46 PM
I didn't say that there are no long term plotlines. What I said was that there doesn't have to be only ONE long term plotline. Why couldn't there be several? So if Tharzidun is taken out easily early on there could be other things to do that would be "long term" stuff. I would say that deciding that there's only one long term plotline is a more constraining choice than deciding that there could be several.


One constraint is self-imposed, the other is imposed by a suggested set of rules. So the two cases are not equal. I can decide 'I really suck at running military campaigns' and declare I will not run them, and that's a constraint, but its a self-chosen one. That's usually called a 'decision' rather than a 'constraint'. On the other hand, if I have rules that forbid me from running a military campaign, then even if I want to, I can't.



I think the discussion about skill checks are much more akin to a situation where the characters would notice some tracks in the field where the cow was slaughtered and instead of having them roll their knowledge: nature and survival to figure out that there are both tracks of wolves and humans and sometimes one transforms into the other, the DM desperately wants to keep the werewolf a secret so doesn't let the players figure this out.

If you build scenarios around the players only ever finding things out at the precise point it's been decided upon by the DM, or in the precise way the DM has decided, it DOES remove player agency. So they figured out a way to get information about the secret werewolf lair before you had anticipated? Why is that a problem? Players are usually quite happy when they figure things out and there's still the issue of actually doing something about the werewolf.


There's basically three stages to discovery in a game. Stage one is 'there is no awareness of the mystery'. Stage two is 'there is awareness of the mystery, but only small amounts of evidence'. Stage three is 'there is awareness of the mystery and a solid body of evidence'.

In general, the 'game' of a mystery game is for the players to use their own intuition and cleverness to solve the mystery during Stage two, and use that solution to get an advantage over all the people who are bumbling around, waiting for Stage three to happen (whether thats other investigators, the villain himself, whatever).

So PCs figuring things out in Stage two? That's fine for pacing (but for it to be a core part of the game it really should be due to their own cleverness, not because of a skill check). PCs figuring things out in Stage one can be a real problem though - the actual context to make the mystery meaningful is not present yet, and the PCs are likely going to be skipping over large sections of the campaign content.

A concrete example of this might be - you want to run a murder mystery. If the victim was just killed and a PC figures out 'aha, it must have been Lady Marigold, whose brother stands to inherit from this death; you can see, she was standing over my the piano before the lights went out, but she has since moved 3 meters over to the curtains!' before talking to all the witnesses, that does shorten things but its not such a big deal.

If on the other hand, the PCs arrive at the party and one of them says 'Sense Motive check - who is going to kill who?' and then announces 'Yeah, Lady Marigold is going to kill Lord Summersby in the Conservatory when the lights go out', then it basically makes the entire plotline fall flat. Because of the timing, not only was there basically no reason for the entire thing to exist in the game (there was no actual challenge or opportunity for the players to even think about the mystery - it was solved before it even got on screen), but the session is probably ending early after that.



Having knowledge about a situation doesn't immediately solve the problem. You still need to do something with that knowledge. You'd need to have very few motivations and goals if a skill roll or two to bypass a "mystery" investigation leads to a very fast campaign.


And that is a fairly common state for PCs. Especially with newer players, coming up with characters that would actually have something to do if all the pressures were absent is actually a fairly hard thing to learn how to do.

There's a certain degree of ego behind the idea of 'I can run a campaign where this isn't a problem, so everyone else should have to do the same'. If someone is having a problem with this - either because of the type of campaign they're running, their particular skill level as a DM, etc - then of course they should do what they need to do in order to provide the gaming experience that they want to.



Of course. That's why you have many skill rolls? What is your point here really? Before you can use your arcane knowledge to analyse the secret tome you need to figure out where it is located and you need to apprehend it. All these things will probably take multiple skill rolls.

This is a whole side-discussion about how dice probabilities work and the difference between 'complex methods of random result generation' and 'actual decision branches', but I don't want to get into that in depth here.



I would argue though that 'finding stuff out' campaigns almost never work. This is why I prefer 'solve this problem' campaigns, which can include finding things out but that's just a part of it.

In a 'finding stuff out' campaign, either the players will have to be guided around by the DM, following the very obvious trail of clues (railroading), in which case the players actually never find anything out themselves. Or alternatively the players will need to be given the freedom to find answers in their own way and if that could logically boil down to a single skill roll (because the character knows the answer) then so be it!

What is "obvious" to the DM will never ever be obvious to the players, they will never figure things out when the DM expects them to. Sometimes they will have the answer right from the start because they were clever or whatever, or they'll never know. It's almost impossible to control the pacing in a 'finding stuff out' campaign without some heavy railroading.


Personal experience shows me that this is very much not true. Of the last set of campaigns I've participated in, I would say that four of them were 'finding stuff out' style campaigns, and those were by far the most enjoyable campaigns I've been in - ever. As a result, I myself now run 'finding stuff out' campaigns pretty much exclusively.

I would say out of these campaigns, the one that acted as the best 'model' for how to run this kind of thing was one in which we were always two steps behind what was going on, but we never really stalled out. The idea was that, whether we understand or not, things happen that we'd want to do something about. The campaign wasn't really a die/survive thing, but rather about shaping the world, so if you understood more you could control more of how the world was going to end up looking at the end, and if you understood less then it was all you could do to try to take care of the symptoms of the underlying problems as they cropped up.

We never met, heard about, or even knew of the existence of the actual BBEG until the very last session. If we had, we would have bum-rushed him early on and it would have been pretty disappointing (especially because he had a thing where he got stronger the more we used up a certain source of power we had, so we would have just flattened him).

For myself, as a player, if we had just used powers/mechanics/etc to figure things out in these campaigns, there would have been no point to it. The fun was trying to stay ahead of the DM, anticipate stuff to come in his plot or quirks/twists before they happened, and use that information to do things that looked crazy or suicidal but turned out to be the exact right things to do.

I was pretty happy, for example, when we received a summons from a post-apocalyptic world saying 'we need heroes', encountered a bunch of slowly wakening zombies in the basement of an old facility, and I figured out 'the zombies must be the ones who need our help - I'm going to go negotiate' when everyone else wanted to douse them with oil and burn them. If it had been a matter of 'roll Sense Motive - okay, these zombies seem to be self-aware and not hostile' then it would have fallen flat.

Deadline
2014-02-18, 07:09 PM
Now add to this mix the fact that this group has had multiple chances to get help figuring things out and they have been left behind, ignored, avoided, discarded, and forgotten. Important NPC's have been purposely avoided, or encountered only once and then never again. Places that could have helped if they were investigated further were ignored, avoided, and left behind. This has never happened with this group of players before, they are usually very thorough and concise about details. It is frustrating... to say the least.

Two things:

1. Did you know that in addition to being a fun name, plot hooks are so named because the fishing metaphor is apt? You can't drop your fishing lure in one place, leave it there, and expect the fish to bite. You've got to bounce it around, make it dance, reach out and slap the fish so that they'll pay attention to it. And if the fish swim off? You've got to follow them and keep dropping that hook in front of them until they bite. Keep putting things with the available information in their path, and they'll go after one of them eventually!

DO NOT leave important piece of information X in the hands of NPC Y and nowhere else, especially if the players have no real need to go back and talk to them. It will only end with frustration. Remember, your plot can be the coolest thing since sliced bread, but it's pointless if the players don't see it.

2. I'm going to second a few of the folks here in saying that this sounds an awful lot like players who are either bored (because you are revealing stuff too slowly), or not having fun (possibly because of a difference in playstyles). While you don't want to hear this, these are both problems with you, not your players. Sure, if they are just being jerks, that's different. But if they are getting snippy with you because they aren't seeing the connections between the information they have that is "downright obvious" to you, then that actually isn't their fault. As someone mentioned earlier, you have an omniscient view of the information, and what appears obvious to you is almost certainly not obvious to them. TALK TO YOUR PLAYERS to find out if they are having fun, are frustrated, or are just looking to play a different kind of game.

Raine_Sage
2014-02-18, 08:31 PM
If on the other hand, the PCs arrive at the party and one of them says 'Sense Motive check - who is going to kill who?' and then announces 'Yeah, Lady Marigold is going to kill Lord Summersby in the Conservatory when the lights go out', then it basically makes the entire plotline fall flat. Because of the timing, not only was there basically no reason for the entire thing to exist in the game (there was no actual challenge or opportunity for the players to even think about the mystery - it was solved before it even got on screen), but the session is probably ending early after that.

Ignoring the fact that sense motive shouldn't give that layer of detail? At most it should reveal that Lady Marigold and Lord Summersby don't get along. It should also reveal several other people who don't get along with lord Summersby. In fact, an incredibly high roll on sense motive could in fact muddy the waters by revealing many people who share a mutual dislike Lord Summersby thereby providing many different angles the PCs can investigate because that's the only way they're going to get proof of whodunnit. A low roll can produce a red herring (lord summersby and the butler were having a very loud disagreement, which turns out upon investigation to have been about the family cat using the butler's slippers as a litter box).

There's literally no reason for a skill roll to derail things. The purpose of skill rolls are to help the party move along if they hit a stumbling block (that way they GM can provide a hint about what to do) or to overcome a challenge nonviolently (Instead of fighting the hungry wolf I climb a tree in the hopes it gives up. Or I try and bargain for our freedom rather than stage a messy jailbreak).

squiggit
2014-02-18, 09:25 PM
If on the other hand, the PCs arrive at the party and one of them says 'Sense Motive check - who is going to kill who?' and then announces 'Yeah, Lady Marigold is going to kill Lord Summersby in the Conservatory when the lights go out', then it basically makes the entire plotline fall flat. Because of the timing, not only was there basically no reason for the entire thing to exist in the game (there was no actual challenge or opportunity for the players to even think about the mystery - it was solved before it even got on screen), but the session is probably ending early after that.

"sense motive" isn't "read thoughts" though unless you're playing epic. The description of the ability allows you to gain a hunch or tell if you're being screwed with. Your roll might tell you "Lady Marigold looks nervous" or "Lady Marigold is giving Lord Summersby a weird look"

And if you are playing epic worrying about someone rolling good on their sense motive score is the least of your concerns in that scenario.

People giving skills far more power than they're supposed to and then complaining about them being broken does seem to be the crux of the issue here though.

NichG
2014-02-18, 10:51 PM
It was meant as an example of the way in which information can strongly influence events (and unlike a lot of the abuses of the Knowledge skills which don't actually work the way the OP's players think they do, a sufficiently large Sense Motive check actually can read thoughts, so this could actually happen for a sufficiently optimized group, even at ~Lv6)

Raine_Sage
2014-02-18, 11:35 PM
It was meant as an example of the way in which information can strongly influence events (and unlike a lot of the abuses of the Knowledge skills which don't actually work the way the OP's players think they do, a sufficiently large Sense Motive check actually can read thoughts, so this could actually happen for a sufficiently optimized group, even at ~Lv6)

Well it was an example that didn't hold a lot of water. Given that the check to "Discern surface thoughts" appears to be DC 100 I'm not sure how a level 6 party could even get close to scratching that. Also considering that Sense motive is only used in response to a bluff. So they would still have to talk to lady whatshername before they could roll to see if she was going to stab someone.

squiggit
2014-02-18, 11:46 PM
Well it was an example that didn't hold a lot of water. Given that the check to "Discern surface thoughts" appears to be DC 100 I'm not sure how a level 6 party could even get close to scratching that.

Optimize your sense motive to the limit and get 20 people with improved aid another to boost your skill check.

Raine_Sage
2014-02-18, 11:50 PM
Optimize your sense motive to the limit and get 20 people with improved aid another to boost your skill check.

Fair point. Though if the entire party it built around bypassing plot like that, then maybe your players are trying to send you a message.

Doug Lampert
2014-02-19, 12:07 AM
Optimize your sense motive to the limit and get 20 people with improved aid another to boost your skill check.

Usually the number of people who can aid a single check is GM option, does improved aid another change that?

NichG
2014-02-19, 02:57 AM
Well it was an example that didn't hold a lot of water. Given that the check to "Discern surface thoughts" appears to be DC 100 I'm not sure how a level 6 party could even get close to scratching that. Also considering that Sense motive is only used in response to a bluff. So they would still have to talk to lady whatshername before they could roll to see if she was going to stab someone.

Specific uses like 'discern alignment' or 'discern surface thoughts' don't actually have to be used in response to a Bluff. They're a separate mechanic. Also, even the non-epic skill can be used to 'assess someone's trustworthiness', which doesn't require a Bluff to trigger it.

Anyhow, I couldn't do DC 100 at Lv6, but maybe Lv7 (or you need some casting accelerants) - note this is not just one character, but the entire party cooperating to boost things this high - a Cleric, Marshal, and either a Bard or Wizard are required for this I believe. The central participant however is a Factotum 6/Ranger 1.

Note: I do not think this scheme would ever see play. This is theorycraft proof of concept.

- +4 from Wis, +2 from Owl's Insight.
- +10 from skill ranks, +10 from Item Familiar
- +2 from Masterwork item
- +20 Guidance of the Avatar (Competence)
- +15 CL-boosted Divine Insight (Insight). You just need +3 CL for this, which can be done with Elder Giant Magic (and a number of other things). The really tricky thing with this is getting it onto the Ranger/Factotum - for that you need Imbue with Spell Ability. Or hijinks with Arcane Dilletant and feats that add stuff to your spell list I suppose.
- +2 Morale (Heroism)
- 20 on the roll from Surge of Fortune
- Skill Focus (Sense Motive): +3
- Negotiator feat: +2
- Ranger with Favored Enemy (Human): +2
- Factotum Cunning Knowledge: +6 Competence
- Marshal 'Motivate Wisdom' aura with +4 Cha mod and +2 from Eagle's Splendor: +6
- Suspicious Trait: +1
- Soul of Sincerity Feat (Oriental Adventures): +4
- Kami's Intuition Feat (Oriental Adventures): +2

Total: 111

There may be more, but that does hit the goal. Also, I can probably push the Marshal's aura higher if needed by loading him down with templates/races for +Cha. The other potential source is taking feats to get access to Action Points.

If I could get an extra Immediate action I could boost this by another 5 (Luck bonus) or so using the spell 'Inspiration' with reasonable CL-boosters. The easiest way would probably be Eberron action points, but those give you an extra Standard, not a Swift...

Another method would be to use Dark Chaos Shuffle with Vile Feats and Chosen of Evil to get the insight bonus instead of using Divine Insight, which then frees up the Swift action to use Inspiration. But I'm not sure how many Vile feats there are...

HighWater
2014-02-19, 03:29 AM
- +4 from Wis, +2 from Owl's Insight.
- +10 from skill ranks, +10 from Item Familiar
- +2 from Masterwork item
- +20 Guidance of the Avatar (Competence)
- +15 CL-boosted Divine Insight (Insight). You just need +3 CL for this, which can be done with Elder Giant Magic (and a number of other things). The really tricky thing with this is getting it onto the Ranger/Factotum - for that you need Imbue with Spell Ability. Or hijinks with Arcane Dilletant and feats that add stuff to your spell list I suppose.
- +2 Morale (Heroism)
- 20 on the roll from Surge of Fortune
- Skill Focus (Sense Motive): +3
- Negotiator feat: +2
- Ranger with Favored Enemy (Human): +2
- Factotum Cunning Knowledge: +6 Competence
- Marshal 'Motivate Wisdom' aura with +4 Cha mod and +2 from Eagle's Splendor: +6
- Suspicious Trait: +1
- Soul of Sincerity Feat (Oriental Adventures): +4
- Kami's Intuition Feat (Oriental Adventures): +2

Total: 111
...

Hold on, at least half of that is straight-up spellcasting! Magic breaks all things, including skill checks, this doesn't mean skills are broken! Without magic you're only half away there (and under dubious circumstances). If you're casting magic, you might as well just cast a Divination or two, rather than roll a skill check...

The mundane tricks:
-What's a masterwork sense motive item supposed to look like?
-aid another is very open to DM intervention, I for one don't think sense motive is open to it, as large groups are in no way more immune to lies. More opinions actually just muddies the water.
-a character completely geared towards one skill (or even an entire group) is probably entitled to being a little better at it than "reasonable". The above example without magic (so an actual skill check) is still quite far away from reading surface thoughts.

NichG
2014-02-19, 05:07 AM
Hold on, at least half of that is straight-up spellcasting! Magic breaks all things, including skill checks, this doesn't mean skills are broken! Without magic you're only half away there (and under dubious circumstances). If you're casting magic, you might as well just cast a Divination or two, rather than roll a skill check...


Whether or not the information comes from a spell or skill, the point that I was originally trying to make is - information can be an extremely important element of the game. Simply handwaving it away as 'well if information could resolve this plot line, it was a bad plotline' ignores a large range of plotlines that a DM might want to use.

The particular messing around to get an Epic skill check at Lv7 was me proving that it can be done, since there seemed to be some disbelief on that part. As I said, I wouldn't expect to see this build in play, but I think some people aren't aware of just how much optimization range there is in D&D and sometimes its useful to point that out so that people whose players tend to have +10s at Lv6 and people whose players tend to have +30s at Lv6 can understand that 'other people's games can be different' - which means that what they think of as 'really high' could be 'bare minimum' or vice versa.



The mundane tricks:
-What's a masterwork sense motive item supposed to look like?


A glove that can measure someone's skin acidity and galvanic skin response? Glasses that can read out someone's body temperature pattern? A hearing aid that lets you hear someone's heart-beat from further away than normal? Heck, it could be a textbook that gives sketches of various micro-expressions that you can compare with, or the fantasy equivalent of a DSM-IV.



-aid another is very open to DM intervention, I for one don't think sense motive is open to it, as large groups are in no way more immune to lies. More opinions actually just muddies the water.


I don't use Aid Another anywhere in this.



-a character completely geared towards one skill (or even an entire group) is probably entitled to being a little better at it than "reasonable". The above example without magic (so an actual skill check) is still quite far away from reading surface thoughts.

Magic is part of the game, and you really can't get away from that fact. 'Lets remove spells' is a pretty radical suggestion to deal with the problems the OP and others seem to be having, and to my knowledge, no one has yet actually said that. Personally, I find altering (or rather, re-affirming) the way the Knowledge skills work to be a much less drastic course-correction than banning all magic.

Also, you have to keep in mind - for some groups, that level of optimization would be ridiculous, but for other groups thats 'merely par'. Rewarding optimization effort (e.g. 'because they optimized, they're entitled to X') is a very tricky thing as a DM, because you really don't want to encourage large differential levels of it within the group (e.g. a high-op game with a low-op player or a low-op game with a high-op player). In general, the stability of the game has to be a higher priority than rewarding effort - that's why high-op players tend to beget high-op DMs/enemies as well, because simply saying 'okay, the party just automatically wins without resistance' doesn't make for interesting gaming on either side of the screen.

HighWater
2014-02-19, 05:57 AM
Whether or not the information comes from a spell or skill, the point that I was originally trying to make is - information can be an extremely important element of the game. Simply handwaving it away as 'well if information could resolve this plot line, it was a bad plotline' ignores a large range of plotlines that a DM might want to use.
Information can indeed break the game wide open in a group that seeks information out and wields it effectively, we will agree on this point. The OP's point is that skills are the culprit, a conclusion based on a very generous assumption of what skills do.


The particular messing around to get an Epic skill check at Lv7 was me proving that it can be done.
I didn't doubt it was possible using magic (I haven't checked your build, but it looks close enough). Magic is going to ruin plenty of storylines through divination (unless the DM forges a lot of counters, which can be a lot of work), and can achieve the same amount of information through more effective means than boosting a skill check (which also has counters when necessary).


sometimes its useful to point that out so that people whose players tend to have +10s at Lv6 and people whose players tend to have +30s at Lv6 can understand that 'other people's games can be different' - which means that what they think of as 'really high' could be 'bare minimum' or vice versa.
Quite true.


A glove that can measure someone's skin acidity and galvanic skin response? Glasses that can read out someone's body temperature pattern? A hearing aid that lets you hear someone's heart-beat from further away than normal? Heck, it could be a textbook that gives sketches of various micro-expressions that you can compare with, or the fantasy equivalent of a DSM-IV.
I was just curious, in this case. ;) Though the mentioned methods will result in a fair few "false positives".


I don't use Aid Another anywhere in this.
Was just pointing out that DM-fiat is a thing when it comes to aid another's (which were mentioned before) and masterwork tools.



Magic is part of the game, and you really can't get away from that fact.
My point exactly, if you need magic to really break the skills open, it's magic that is doing the breaking, not the skills. A "fix" to skills will not necessarely fix the problem. As I (and others) mentioned, it's not only possible, but quite possibly more economical to use straight-up divination than rack up a really high skill check.


Rewarding optimization effort (e.g. 'because they optimized, they're entitled to X') is a very tricky thing as a DM, because you really don't want to encourage large differential levels of it within the group (e.g. a high-op game with a low-op player or a low-op game with a high-op player). In general, the stability of the game has to be a higher priority than rewarding effort - that's why high-op players tend to beget high-op DMs/enemies as well, because simply saying 'okay, the party just automatically wins without resistance' doesn't make for interesting gaming on either side of the screen.
A large op-differential in a party is always a problem, once again, skills aren't really the gamebreakers here, fixing a large op-difference through nerfs is counter-productive (it encourages even more op). Got a sky-high knowledge arcana check? Congratulations, you know everything you need to know about the enemy you're facing right now! (Unless he's brand new and no prior knowledge exists.) Does this mean all enemies should therefore be pushovers? Not really, the party, like all high-op parties, is now capable of taking on higher CR threats, with more convoluted plans, which is generally the reward high-op players always get from optimising anything (as already noted by you).

That being said, I didn't get the impression that the players being high-op was the real problem here, the real problem is that they expect their skills to fix everything and refuse to take roleplay bait. The OP should really ask them why they no longer go for leads, cause straightjacketing them into RP by nerfing the knowledge skills is just going to lead to resentment.

Brookshw
2014-02-19, 07:22 AM
A glove that can measure someone's skin acidity and galvanic skin response? Glasses that can read out someone's body temperature pattern? A hearing aid that lets you hear someone's heart-beat from further away than normal? Heck, it could be a textbook that gives sketches of various micro-expressions that you can compare with, or the fantasy equivalent of a DSM-IV.


Off topic, we're on DSM-V now!

HighWater
2014-02-19, 08:20 AM
Off topic, we're on DSM-V now!
Indeed we are! You're also not very likely to find "tells" for lying people in there, except for maybe some information on compulsive lying and the kind of personality disorders it's indicative off. :smallbiggrin:

Blackfang108
2014-02-19, 08:37 PM
Indeed we are! You're also not very likely to find "tells" for lying people in there, except for maybe some information on compulsive lying and the kind of personality disorders it's indicative off. :smallbiggrin:

Very true. My gf's copy doesn't have much on spotting liars.

The CIA Manual of Trickery & Deception is what we need for this.

Lorsa
2014-02-27, 07:50 AM
I'm sorry for having been quiet and almost forgetting this conversation due to being busy. I didn't mean to just drop it.


One constraint is self-imposed, the other is imposed by a suggested set of rules. So the two cases are not equal. I can decide 'I really suck at running military campaigns' and declare I will not run them, and that's a constraint, but its a self-chosen one. That's usually called a 'decision' rather than a 'constraint'. On the other hand, if I have rules that forbid me from running a military campaign, then even if I want to, I can't.

I'm not sure there are any game systems that prevents you from having more than one long-term goal?

Or are you talking about how the game system and the way skills can be used will restrict the campaign options? It is true that all systems restrict you in one way or another, I would say that's a reason why it's very important as a GM to learn the system before planning an adventure so it works within the system you are using.


There's basically three stages to discovery in a game. Stage one is 'there is no awareness of the mystery'. Stage two is 'there is awareness of the mystery, but only small amounts of evidence'. Stage three is 'there is awareness of the mystery and a solid body of evidence'.

In general, the 'game' of a mystery game is for the players to use their own intuition and cleverness to solve the mystery during Stage two, and use that solution to get an advantage over all the people who are bumbling around, waiting for Stage three to happen (whether thats other investigators, the villain himself, whatever).

So PCs figuring things out in Stage two? That's fine for pacing (but for it to be a core part of the game it really should be due to their own cleverness, not because of a skill check). PCs figuring things out in Stage one can be a real problem though - the actual context to make the mystery meaningful is not present yet, and the PCs are likely going to be skipping over large sections of the campaign content.

A concrete example of this might be - you want to run a murder mystery. If the victim was just killed and a PC figures out 'aha, it must have been Lady Marigold, whose brother stands to inherit from this death; you can see, she was standing over my the piano before the lights went out, but she has since moved 3 meters over to the curtains!' before talking to all the witnesses, that does shorten things but its not such a big deal.

If on the other hand, the PCs arrive at the party and one of them says 'Sense Motive check - who is going to kill who?' and then announces 'Yeah, Lady Marigold is going to kill Lord Summersby in the Conservatory when the lights go out', then it basically makes the entire plotline fall flat. Because of the timing, not only was there basically no reason for the entire thing to exist in the game (there was no actual challenge or opportunity for the players to even think about the mystery - it was solved before it even got on screen), but the session is probably ending early after that.

That's a pretty good analysis of the three stages of discovery. You did forget one thing though. What happens if the PCs fail to solve the mystery at all? That's a very real possibility and one I've seen happening quite often with some GMs. In what I call a 'finding-stuff-out' campaign this is usually very bad because the solution to one mystery will bring the characters further to next one or the next scene or something similar.

This often happens with GMs that are too afraid of the first or second option; that the players will figure things out either very early on or before there even is a mystery at all, so they make things so obscure that it is impossible to figure out and is then upset when the game screeches to a halt.

In either case, rolling Sense Motive to detect who is going to kill who just isn't going to work. That's not what the skill does and I think you know that too. It also doesn't really describe the problem Detect Magic and the book. If you've placed a magical book in the hands of the players then there already IS knowledge about the mystery, so phase 1 is already over.


And that is a fairly common state for PCs. Especially with newer players, coming up with characters that would actually have something to do if all the pressures were absent is actually a fairly hard thing to learn how to do.

I'm not going to disagree with this. It's one of those things some peopel are better at and some people worse.


There's a certain degree of ego behind the idea of 'I can run a campaign where this isn't a problem, so everyone else should have to do the same'. If someone is having a problem with this - either because of the type of campaign they're running, their particular skill level as a DM, etc - then of course they should do what they need to do in order to provide the gaming experience that they want to.

I thought it was more 'I can run a campaign where this isn't a problem, so everyone else should be able to do the same'. You might think it involves a certain degree of ego, but I personally believe that I am nothing special at all so if I can manage something why wouldn't other people? If they can't then that must mean I am better at something which goes against everything I've been tought to believe about myself. It's a logical extension of "jantelagen".


This is a whole side-discussion about how dice probabilities work and the difference between 'complex methods of random result generation' and 'actual decision branches', but I don't want to get into that in depth here.

Then do it somewhere else. Sounds like a fun discussion to have!


Personal experience shows me that this is very much not true. Of the last set of campaigns I've participated in, I would say that four of them were 'finding stuff out' style campaigns, and those were by far the most enjoyable campaigns I've been in - ever. As a result, I myself now run 'finding stuff out' campaigns pretty much exclusively.

I would say out of these campaigns, the one that acted as the best 'model' for how to run this kind of thing was one in which we were always two steps behind what was going on, but we never really stalled out. The idea was that, whether we understand or not, things happen that we'd want to do something about. The campaign wasn't really a die/survive thing, but rather about shaping the world, so if you understood more you could control more of how the world was going to end up looking at the end, and if you understood less then it was all you could do to try to take care of the symptoms of the underlying problems as they cropped up.

We never met, heard about, or even knew of the existence of the actual BBEG until the very last session. If we had, we would have bum-rushed him early on and it would have been pretty disappointing (especially because he had a thing where he got stronger the more we used up a certain source of power we had, so we would have just flattened him).

For myself, as a player, if we had just used powers/mechanics/etc to figure things out in these campaigns, there would have been no point to it. The fun was trying to stay ahead of the DM, anticipate stuff to come in his plot or quirks/twists before they happened, and use that information to do things that looked crazy or suicidal but turned out to be the exact right things to do.

I was pretty happy, for example, when we received a summons from a post-apocalyptic world saying 'we need heroes', encountered a bunch of slowly wakening zombies in the basement of an old facility, and I figured out 'the zombies must be the ones who need our help - I'm going to go negotiate' when everyone else wanted to douse them with oil and burn them. If it had been a matter of 'roll Sense Motive - okay, these zombies seem to be self-aware and not hostile' then it would have fallen flat.

Again, what would have happened if you never figured out there was a BBEG? Similarly, what if you never figured out the zombies where the ones that needed help?

It's great if the players and the GM think in somewhat similar ways so things can be figured out and solved. This isn't always the case however so if your campaign hinges on you 'finding-stuff-out' then it can easily break down.

I've had murder mysteries in my campaigns. I've had long-arcing plots where the players slowly realise what's going on. There's been plenty of mysteries, big and small, to solve. I wouldn't call them 'finding-stuff-out' campaigns though, becuase if they had solved a mystery in phase 1 or not at all the game would still go on. I just call it a 'campaign'.

NichG
2014-02-27, 12:04 PM
I'm sorry for having been quiet and almost forgetting this conversation due to being busy. I didn't mean to just drop it.

I'm not sure there are any game systems that prevents you from having more than one long-term goal?

Or are you talking about how the game system and the way skills can be used will restrict the campaign options? It is true that all systems restrict you in one way or another, I would say that's a reason why it's very important as a GM to learn the system before planning an adventure so it works within the system you are using.


The second one. I tend to be of the 'modify a (nearby) system so it can run the adventure I want to run' camp, since I have never found any system that runs 'perfectly' for anything at all out of the box. There's always tweaks to be done, and having that flexibility is useful for optimizing the system choice towards the things you can't change (like, for example, people's familiarity or lack thereof with a given system; people's access to books for a given system; etc).



That's a pretty good analysis of the three stages of discovery. You did forget one thing though. What happens if the PCs fail to solve the mystery at all? That's a very real possibility and one I've seen happening quite often with some GMs. In what I call a 'finding-stuff-out' campaign this is usually very bad because the solution to one mystery will bring the characters further to next one or the next scene or something similar.

This often happens with GMs that are too afraid of the first or second option; that the players will figure things out either very early on or before there even is a mystery at all, so they make things so obscure that it is impossible to figure out and is then upset when the game screeches to a halt.


There's two ways to resolve this particular problem. One is to give the campaign a natural timeline, such that if the PCs fail to solve the mysteries, things escalate and the number of clues increases (usually with the side-effect of some negative result for the failure). The canonical murder mystery example is that there's a second or third victim as the murderer continues to kill to attempt to hide the evidence of the crime (e.g. someone saw them leaving the crime scene and they go and kill the witness). In a grand, campaign-scale mystery the Elder Evil's signs begin to manifest or cities fall to internal rebellion and the populations are zombified or whatever, and then its a lot more direct.

Basically, you want to use a combination of the 'three clues' rule - make sure there's more evidence than is needed - and having escape valves for when things go wrong.



In either case, rolling Sense Motive to detect who is going to kill who just isn't going to work. That's not what the skill does and I think you know that too.

Switch 'Sense Motive skill' for 'Contact Other Plane spell' or whatever, if you like. My point is more general here - there has been a sort of sentiment on the thread of 'players getting information through unexpected means isn't a big deal'; I am saying 'that may be because you're running a different style of campaign, but there are campaigns/scenarios where it can be a huge problem'.



I thought it was more 'I can run a campaign where this isn't a problem, so everyone else should be able to do the same'. You might think it involves a certain degree of ego, but I personally believe that I am nothing special at all so if I can manage something why wouldn't other people? If they can't then that must mean I am better at something which goes against everything I've been tought to believe about myself. It's a logical extension of "jantelagen".


And yet, people are better and worse at things (and also have wildly different tastes, which factors in). Someone who has been running RPGs for 4 weeks is not necessarily going to be as good at it as someone who has run them for 10 years. Someone who is trying to run a 'beer and pretzels' bash in the door style game has an easier job than someone who is trying to run something with the complexity of Game of Thrones. Its a very wide hobby, and there's a very wide level of experience, skill, and also the challenges each DM takes on.

As far as jantelagen, I'm not sure its the right forum for that discussion. I can't argue that you should or shouldn't have a particular set of cultural values, but I do think that 'people shouldn't hold being better at something over others' is not the same thing as 'people cannot actually be better at something'. One is a statement of values, so its difficult to really debate in a meaningful way if those values are not shared; but the other is an assertion about facts, and those are open to debate.



Again, what would have happened if you never figured out there was a BBEG? Similarly, what if you never figured out the zombies where the ones that needed help?


In the former case, we discovered the BBEG when we satisfied the conditions for the reveal (which basically amounted to, we stopped doing the thing that made the BBEG more powerful and started trying to go in the reverse direction, so he came forward to deal with us during his moment of peak strength). Essentially as we spent a certain resource that we all got a finite amount of to start with, he got more powerful. By the end of the campaign we were starting to see that it was possible to actually use this resource to take it from others, so rather than spend it we began to hoard it by stealing it from other powerful beings, and that was a trigger for the guy to reveal himself. The hoarding idea itself was something we learned could be done by observing a minor villain who later became an ally (when we realized we were competing to achieve the same thing), not just something that we went 'aha, we can do this!' about.

In the second case, we would have massacred the beings we were there to save, and then had to deal with the second wave of horribleness that we were actually there to oppose. And then there would have been lots of accusations and hand-wringing and the like. But it would have been a reasonable, if tragic, conclusion of that particular game session, and in the long run it hardly would have been the worst thing the party had ever gotten up to. We also would have missed out on some sweet soul-based nanotech we got from the 'good zombies' eventually down the line.

Another example: in the same campaign there were a set of villains who basically had no choice and were being forced to be villains by a puppetmaster-type figure. Some of us had figured that out, others in the party didn't believe it. We effectively got to see behind the scenes in-character eventually to figure out what would have happened if we had killed all the 'villains' rather than realizing the situation and rescuing them. On the whole, things would have continued to 'go forward' but we would have ended up with far fewer allies in the coming conflict, and several important things in the campaign would have been put at dire risk or destroyed. So it was neither 'irrelevant' nor 'TPK/campaign freeze' if we hadn't figured out the mystery. But it was a good portion of 4-6 months of gameplay that would have been made very dissatisfying if it had been revealed trivially at some point rather than being something we had to work out on our own and also deal with the uncertainty of (e.g. if we knew 100% that the villains were actually bad guys or were actually good guys, we would not have had the party split on it, tensions about what to do in various situations, disbelief when some of us negotiated and didn't get blasted in a surprise round, etc).



It's great if the players and the GM think in somewhat similar ways so things can be figured out and solved. This isn't always the case however so if your campaign hinges on you 'finding-stuff-out' then it can easily break down.

I've had murder mysteries in my campaigns. I've had long-arcing plots where the players slowly realise what's going on. There's been plenty of mysteries, big and small, to solve. I wouldn't call them 'finding-stuff-out' campaigns though, becuase if they had solved a mystery in phase 1 or not at all the game would still go on. I just call it a 'campaign'.

I call it a 'finding-stuff-out' campaign if the central theme of the campaign is, well, 'finding stuff out'. Discovery, mystery, etc. If I were running a campaign that was centered around a megadungeon/dungeon crawl, I wouldn't just call that a 'campaign', I'd call it a 'dungeon crawl campaign'. If I were running a campaign that was centered around a scripted series of combats, I would tell players its going to be a 'combat-centric campaign'. If I were running a campaign that was about a group of thieves stealing from the greatest edifices of the multiverse, I'd tell players 'its a heist campaign'.

For each of these, there are things that can cause problems. For a dungeon crawl campaign, the ability to ignore walls/dungeon flow is problematic, because it works against the theme (e.g. I would be very hesitant about allowing a ghost character in a mid-level dungeon crawl) and more importantly because it short-circuits the content of play in an unsatisfying manner ('you ethereal-walk into the boss chamber, do the boss fight, and ethereal-walk out. That was a nice 1 hour game guys, see you next week').

For a heist campaign, I would want to make sure that the party can't just hire better thieves to steal the item for them, or can't just teleport in, take it, and teleport out - because it short-circuits the game content. For a combat-centric campaign, something that one-shots entire fights would be problematic because again, its short-circuiting the game content. For a campaign where 'finding stuff out' is the meat of the gameplay, one similarly has to look at means of acquiring information without cause as the potentially problematic abilities, because they can short-circuit large amounts of the content in a 'trivializing' way.

Lord of Shadows
2014-02-27, 12:53 PM
There's two ways to resolve this particular problem. One is to give the campaign a natural timeline, such that if the PCs fail to solve the mysteries, things escalate and the number of clues increases (usually with the side-effect of some negative result for the failure). The canonical murder mystery example is that there's a second or third victim as the murderer continues to kill to attempt to hide the evidence of the crime (e.g. someone saw them leaving the crime scene and they go and kill the witness). In a grand, campaign-scale mystery the Elder Evil's signs begin to manifest or cities fall to internal rebellion and the populations are zombified or whatever, and then its a lot more direct.

Basically, you want to use a combination of the 'three clues' rule - make sure there's more evidence than is needed - and having escape valves for when things go wrong.

OP here again, this is a fascinating discussion you and Lorsa are having. Just a couple of observations relating to my situation. I try to use the above three-clue formula, and it works sometimes. The stumbling block I ran into was when some in the group got tired of, well, "stumbling" and thought they could figure out "what was going on" with a skill check. Well, that, and the old line "my character has god-like intelligence, but I don't, therefore my character can figure it out." There are also multiple plots going on here, which does make it more challenging, although each sub-plot is connected to a character's back story, not to the main, overall plot. This seems to have been lost on some of the players, who think everything is connected, despite evidence to the contrary. As each "back-story sub-plot" gets resolved, I think they are starting to see "what is going on."


Switch 'Sense Motive skill' for 'Contact Other Plane spell' or whatever, if you like. My point is more general here - there has been a sort of sentiment on the thread of 'players getting information through unexpected means isn't a big deal'; I am saying 'that may be because you're running a different style of campaign, but there are campaigns/scenarios where it can be a huge problem'.

I would agree it is OK, to say, "players getting some information through unexpected means isn't a big deal." This bunch has used one Commune to good effect; although it's odd, a Commune almost seems more limited than a skill check sometimes. The "yes or no" answer thing and all that. Of course, the source is presumably more reliable than a character's ranks in a Skill.


And yet, people are better and worse at things (and also have wildly different tastes, which factors in). Someone who has been running RPGs for 4 weeks is not necessarily going to be as good at it as someone who has run them for 10 years. Someone who is trying to run a 'beer and pretzels' bash in the door style game has an easier job than someone who is trying to run something with the complexity of Game of Thrones. Its a very wide hobby, and there's a very wide level of experience, skill, and also the challenges each DM takes on.

Very true. That is also the crux, perhaps, of "roll-play" (bash in the door) vs. "role-play" (Game of Thrones). There are also the occasional new players who are just plain better at figuring stuff out, but that is an exception rather than the rule. And sometimes a fresh set of eyes sees things differently, too.


In the former case, we discovered the BBEG when we satisfied the conditions for the reveal (which basically amounted to, we stopped doing the thing that made the BBEG more powerful and started trying to go in the reverse direction, so he came forward to deal with us during his moment of peak strength). Essentially as we spent a certain resource that we all got a finite amount of to start with, he got more powerful. By the end of the campaign we were starting to see that it was possible to actually use this resource to take it from others, so rather than spend it we began to hoard it by stealing it from other powerful beings, and that was a trigger for the guy to reveal himself. The hoarding idea itself was something we learned could be done by observing a minor villain who later became an ally (when we realized we were competing to achieve the same thing), not just something that we went 'aha, we can do this!' about.

Sounds like a grand adventure. Unfortunately, some of the players here would expect their characters to pick up on the power transfer thing through... wait for it... a Skill Check! Still, a great twist and I applaud the DM who cooked that one up.


I call it a 'finding-stuff-out' campaign if the central theme of the campaign is, well, 'finding stuff out'. Discovery, mystery, etc. If I were running a campaign that was centered around a megadungeon/dungeon crawl, I wouldn't just call that a 'campaign', I'd call it a 'dungeon crawl campaign'. If I were running a campaign that was centered around a scripted series of combats, I would tell players its going to be a 'combat-centric campaign'. If I were running a campaign that was about a group of thieves stealing from the greatest edifices of the multiverse, I'd tell players 'its a heist campaign'.

I try to mix as much together as I can. Plenty of both action and discovery. A few single adventures have been of one type or the other, but overall I try to use many different themes. I also make a conscious effort to not take the railroad approach.


For each of these, there are things that can cause problems. For a dungeon crawl campaign, the ability to ignore walls/dungeon flow is problematic, because it works against the theme (e.g. I would be very hesitant about allowing a ghost character in a mid-level dungeon crawl) and more importantly because it short-circuits the content of play in an unsatisfying manner ('you ethereal-walk into the boss' chamber, do the boss fight, and ethereal-walk out. That was a nice 1 hour game guys, see you next week').

For a heist campaign, I would want to make sure that the party can't just hire better thieves to steal the item for them, or can't just teleport in, take it, and teleport out - because it short-circuits the game content. For a combat-centric campaign, something that one-shots entire fights would be problematic because again, its short-circuiting the game content. For a campaign where 'finding stuff out' is the meat of the gameplay, one similarly has to look at means of acquiring information without cause as the potentially problematic abilities, because they can short-circuit large amounts of the content in a 'trivializing' way.

Another example of short-circuiting: in a previous campaign (where I was a player, not the DM), our strategy boiled down to "Scry/Buff/Teleport." We would scry on the enemy to gain intel, buff as appropriate, and then use Greater Teleport (no error) to plop in on them. It was fun for a bit, but then became rather unsatisfying. Luckily the DM had the mastermind notice our strategy and adjusted, otherwise it would have been a very blah adventure. Of course, this was high level characters, too.

NichG
2014-02-27, 02:07 PM
Sounds like a grand adventure. Unfortunately, some of the players here would expect their characters to pick up on the power transfer thing through... wait for it... a Skill Check! Still, a great twist and I applaud the DM who cooked that one up.


Well, to give an example of the difference in skill between different GMs and also the difference in how much of a challenge a GM takes upon themselves, this GM in particular sprinkled a number of abilities throughout his campaigns that would allow you to get detailed and (mostly) true answers to any question you could think to ask, but under certain very specific constraints. It was a sort of game of chicken he was playing - how much can I hide things by making it so the players don't know the right questions to ask.

So for example, in one campaign he had an ability that would let you receive the answer to any question whose answer was known to no more than 3 beings in the entire multiverse. Anything that was more commonly known you couldn't get the answer to. Because of the restriction on the ability, often you needed to almost know the answer before asking the question, and he knew and intentionally designed it that way.

In the other campaign (the one with resource hoarding) my character had an ability that could be used to 'fiat' knowledge of things, but he (the GM) knew that I would prefer not to use that and instead figure out things myself. So because he knew his players he was able to put a broken ability into the game with the confidence that it wouldn't actually be used to break the game.

In yet another campaign, there was an ability where you could assert something about the game world - if you were right, it would tell you so; if you were wrong, you'd suffer some form of permanent harm to your character. He knew that player fear of having permanent character ability losses would prevent it from being used too widely, and that it would mostly be used to confirm things that the PCs were nearly certain about already. There were also various other things that would let you know if you were right or wrong about a particular thing, but you only got one guess.

All of these require very skilled DMing to pull off as well as it went. We had another DM who was a player in this guy's games try to introduce the same sorts of abilities into his own game, and his campaign basically blew up because of them.

Segev
2014-02-27, 02:35 PM
I still stand by the statement that one of two things should happen when players start arguing for a "give me the answer" skill check:

Give them the answer; they may well have exhausted everything they can think of and be tired of this. If it is a "game comes to an end" thing and you have a lot more discovery planned, give them the answer to the immediate problem, instead.
Give them some guidance on what their character should know and suggestions of what he might think of to try or be able to use as a hook to get the information he needs. If he has it already and just hasn't put it together, give him hints and tell him which important piece of information to look more closely at.

QuidEst
2014-03-07, 01:02 PM
A useful counter to the "My character has 26 Int!" argument is to point out that they dumped Wis. (I'm jumping to conclusions here, of course.) You're happy to provide them with facts, but any piecing together of those facts into a coherent picture is left to them. If the Cleric decides to jump in on it, well, have the Wizard explain what he knows to the Cleric, and have the Cleric present theories to you so you can give him questions to consider. Socratic method is pretty boss for getting people involved.

Lord of Shadows
2014-03-07, 01:24 PM
A useful counter to the "My character has 26 Int!" argument is to point out that they dumped Wis. (I'm jumping to conclusions here, of course.) You're happy to provide them with facts, but any piecing together of those facts into a coherent picture is left to them. If the Cleric decides to jump in on it, well, have the Wizard explain what he knows to the Cleric, and have the Cleric present theories to you so you can give him questions to consider. Socratic method is pretty boss for getting people involved.

OP here. Thanks, I have had to point that out before. They do get lots of "facts" by skill checks (and other means), it's the "putting it all together" that they think a skill check should do.

Fortunately, this last session went a lot smoother. Not quite sure why, but no one spouted off about wanting to be given all the answers by using Skills. This session was more combat-heavy, though, so the heavy thinking didn't really come up. We shall see what the future holds.
.

Jay R
2014-03-07, 02:26 PM
If you have a shovel, you look for somewhere to dig. If you have a corkscrew, you look for something to open.

Similarly, if you have a skill, you look for ways to apply it.

There's nothing wrong with people asking if their asset works here. It's the DM's job, not the players', to decide when it will not apply.

"You can't dig here; the ground is granite."
"You can't open that with a corkscrew; it's a can."
"You can't use local knowledge on this fact; it's a secret, not known to the local populace."

These are all reasonable answers. You might give them a useful hint sometimes when they try:
"The ground looks softer to the north where the grass is growing."
"The merchant might sell can-openers."
"You remember a fence near here who often sold useful knowledge."

But you must remember that the DM is in charge of when a skill can be used, whether it's digging, opening, or knowledge-finding.