Disallowing people to identify specific creatures with Knowledge rolls

[Slipperychicken]

Frankly I have had enough sessions where immersion was COMPLETELY destroyed by GMs stonewalling in response to successful knowledge checks. I play a Wizard with lots of Knowledge skills myself, and in my opinion making excuses about how every creature is totally new and unique destroys immersion.

You imagine having a hulking beast before you. Your character has studied such beasts for decades, and is one of the pre-eminent scholars in this field. Countless weeks at libraries, many late nights chatting with contemporary scholars, reading the ancient texts, sitting through innumerable lectures, theorizing about such creatures, writing well-regarded essays about their nature, talking to explorers who dealt with them. This is his time to shine. And what does the GM focus on? "I don't care how much sense it makes for your character to know about this thing, or that you blew that knowledge check out of the park. He doesn't have the slightest clue. So grovel at my feet and praise my lazy encounter-design in rhyming verse or I'll call you a roll-playing munchkin."

Ugh...

[mythmonster2]

The best part about making Knowledge rolls completely useless is that it actually encourages you to just go with other, possibly gamebreaking things. "Sure, I was thinking about getting Skill Focus (Knowledge: Dungeoneering) so I could identify aberrations we came across, even if it's not strictly optimal, but I guess I'll just have to settle for Arcane Thesis..."

[PersonMan]

Actually, that is pretty much the definition of bad roleplaying. I honestly am not sure you understand what the word "roleplaying" means.

Jedipotter uses different definitions than most people with several words. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of them.

[Agincourt]

Someone hypothesized in another thread that English may not be his first language and he is using some sort of translation program. It would actually explain a lot about his posts.

[jedipotter]

Actually, that is pretty much the definition of bad roleplaying. I honestly am not sure you understand what the word "roleplaying" means. It means to pretend to be someone else. When that is done well, a person thinks through how another person would think and act. That entails figuring out what the character would know. Instead you are encouraging your players to memorize and remember all the books. When you force your players to conflate player knowledge with character knowledge, you force bad roleplaying.

I agree up to the ''figuring out what they would know''. I like characters to be cabbageheads , that is they ''know less then they should.'' And then the players must play the game to figure things out, and not just sit there and have the DM say things like ''the large red scaled fire breathing creature is a red dragon, it's immune to fire'' and they players saying ''wow, gosh DM, thanks, we never would have figured out what it was unless you told us. ''

And I never said I encourage players to memorize all the books. Read the books, yes, but not memorize.

I got the idea from your multiple, repeated rants against "optimizers." Maybe, you just like the high powered to be one-sided from the DM, but if you are punishing players for optimizing, you are not running a high powered game. You're running a sadistic campaign where the DM is allowed to do cool things but the players are not.

My rants are against the cheating optimizers and the over zealous optimizers, not all the optimizers.

[facelessminion]

The best part about making Knowledge rolls completely useless is that it actually encourages you to just go with other, possibly gamebreaking things. "Sure, I was thinking about getting Skill Focus (Knowledge: Dungeoneering) so I could identify aberrations we came across, even if it's not strictly optimal, but I guess I'll just have to settle for Arcane Thesis..."

It makes things really easy in Pathfinder, too! "Oh, the only skill I need is Perception? Time to get that 8 INT!"

[Psychoalpha]

And I never said I encourage players to memorize all the books. Read the books, yes, but not memorize.

By definition the way you run your game encourages that. Players will often take the most advantageous path, and you've made it clear that memorization is an advantage because you don't allow peoples character knowledge to be determined by their actual character sheet, but by their RL knowledge.

If I said that I would be determining everyone's damage rolls by how many pieces of red clothing they're wearing RL, I'm merely stating a fact about how I run my game, sure. But claiming that doesn't encourage people to wear a lot of red clothing is pretty insane.

[GreenZ]

On-topic:

I personally, as a GM, build a mental scale of relevant information when knowledge skills are used:
Common knowledge are things most learned people understand (Dragons have breath weapons).
Uncommon knowledge are things that are generally known but not widely so (Red Dragons Breath Fire).
Rare knowledge are things that only a learned individual might know (Dragons have SR).
Unique knowledge are things that only very few might know, impossibly high rolls. (Ancient Red Dragons have a few unique abilities that include...)
Unknown knowledge are things that are impossible for a character to know (Almost nobody in the setting has ever seen space travel and cannot know that a Lunar Dragon can travel through space.)

Also, unique creatures should, in my opinion, not be completely unknown as a well learned individual should be able to (with a very high knowledge roll) extrapolate knowledge just from a creature's appearance or behavior. (Creature X seems to have plating similar to a Red Dragon... it might also have similar fire resistance.)




Off-topic: (Please read this jedipotter)

Spoiler: Off-topic stuff.

Show

I have read through some of jedipotter's posts and want to address his line of thought that many people obviously find erroneous. I would like to round up a few quotes and draw information from them.

Not sure where you got the idea I like a low power type game. I like ultra high powered games myself.

No. What you call an award, I call too much free information. The idea that if a character makes a save they ''remember'' that class in school where they learned the exact details of every single spell in the Multiverse is just silly.

Instead of automatically knowing and obliterating everything always.

These combined might be some of the cause of your problems. At high levels characters are super-human in every aspect, including knowledge. Until about 10th level (or with a knowledge dedicated character) there is no feasible way to just know everything about every creature you come across.

DM says ''how about i make you an aberration hand out'' and Tim says "Nah, don't bother''

But he has no time all week to get ready for the game, as he is so busy. Sure he can take like four hours to set up his man cave for the guys to come over and watch football, but he can't take ten whole minutes to read the player handout e-mailed to him.

So you only support ''I like it when the players just sit there and the DM tells them stuff''. Ok, that is one way to go.

You tread over this ground several times, making me thing that this is something that happened to you personally. This problem is derived from the people you are playing with and your interactions with them, not problems from the game mechanics themselves.

A player has an active character in the game and have a vested partial interest in the character. The player just plays in the game. The DM has no character in the game and is completely impartial. The DM runs and controls the game.

Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

I nerf knowledge rolls to handle three types of problem players:

Jedipotter, you seem to have a problem regarding your relationship with your fellow players. You are all players, all playing different roles of the same game, you are not enemies. The GM and the players are there together to tell a story: the players are nothing but actors and directors and the GM is little more than a playwright. Together, a game is crafted.

I can't stand the idea that they player will just sit back and roll and say ''oh tell me everything my character would know that stuff.''

Yes. I'm far to the right on this one. The characters know what the players know. No knowledge checks.

My way is you can learn things about the game....by playing the game.

Finally. I hope you realize that everyone at a gaming group is simply playing to have fun and that everyone has fun in a different way. Roleplaying is a diverse game that caters to all kinds of people, not everyone enjoys playing the game in the same way that you do.

What if I only want to play Pathfinder for a few hours on the weekend and want to ignore it the rest of the time? Your ideals punish my play.

What if I like having a scholarly character, built to be knowledgeable and well-learned in all manner of subjects but do not have the time to read through all the spells and monster entries and locations and important nobles? Your ideals punish my play.

What if I enjoy playing a character with less knowledge than me? I either have to feign ignorance or know more than I want to. Your ideals punish my play.

And what if I am mentally handicapped? Or blind? Or someone who could not read English easily? Your ideals punish my play.

The problem is not that players cannot have fun playing the game your way, as obviously your players do, but it is that not everybody desires to play in that manner. Your manner of playing is only your personal opinion and can be harmful advice to give depending on who you are giving it to.

[Genth]

You know, I just realized something....

Jedipotter's taking their players through a Choose Your Own Adventure book! Think about it, most of those old CYOA books needed the reader to stay really on top of things, recall small details that come up in the book's plot, in order to get past the obstacles! Makes sense, what with saying things like "I want to challenge the players mentally" and wanting to find out those small details in game. S'not the point of Pathfinder, but I'm sure there's a niche for that kind of game.

[Yogibear41]

Even if you roll a 1000 on your knowledge check how are you suppose to identify a creature that no one in your world has ever seen? You might be able to determine some distinctive features that lead you to believe that the creature is an abberration or something like that, but you still won't know what is it.

[the_other_gm]

Even if you roll a 1000 on your knowledge check how are you suppose to identify a creature that no one in your world has ever seen? You might be able to determine some distinctive features that lead you to believe that the creature is an abberration or something like that, but you still won't know what is it.

You (the player) tell me how! Player gets to name the thing!

Beyond that if the player is able to roll high enough to notice features and abilities of the thing, he's probably linking it to other creatures of similar type or similar abilities: "This thing's pulsating neck sack reminds me of the Firebelchers of Tor'toice I did an essay on in Wizard School. Guys, be careful, this thing probably pukes out slag! The burn marks on it's stony hide also seem to indicate it's probably immune to fire, so don't waste your time trying to burn it, 'K? As the first wizard to discover this noble beast, I will call it: Bumfarts."

[Arbane]

With experienced players, wouldn't that lead to more metagaming and immersion-breaking? (Character: what the heck is this? Player: that's totally a gibbering mouther. Everyone plug up your ears!)

I got a character killed once through good roleplaying. My farmboy turned fighter had NO IDEA what the floating spherical creature with way too many eyes was....

(Well, good roleplaying and a blown fortitude save.)

Do you want people to use the rules to simulate characters abilities or not?? Or is the game ALWAYS a test of player skill, with no intent at simulating character abilities in a cohesive modelling way at all??

I'm thinking Jedipotter would be happier playing AD&D, where player knowledge was ALL the PCs had to use. But to depend on metagaming in a game with a built-in skill system for knowing things seems perverse.

It is not a crime against gamedom for players to know stuff in character. Characters invest in the knowledge skills. They've earned the information gained. Adventurers are not ignorant doofuses who know nothing of the world they live in. They are right there learning and experiencing.

Unless they have too few skill points per level to afford any knowledge skills, in which case they WILL be ignorant doofuses. Nothing like a level 10 Fighter who STILL has no idea who these angry green people who keep swinging battle-axes at him are....

It's not bad role playing to ask and expect the players to read, remember and use game information. I give out plenty of game handouts, and if a player is too busy or lazy to read them, then they don't get the ''free roll to know all'' during the game.

Memorizing D&D books isn't a 'game', it's a _career_ at this point. How many books in just the "Monster Manual" series are there now!? And that's not even counting all of these...

I've often been reluctant to get too deep into RuneQuest's world of Glorantha because it feels like I'd need a PhD in Gloranthan Studies to do justice to it. But it sounds like you want players to have at least a MS in Teratology. (Or to die a lot. There's a fair number of creatures in D&D where NOT knowing what they can do can lead to very rapid TPKs. A basilisk, for example.)

This comic seems relevant.

I took basic chemistry at high school, so with a bit of work and the right ingredients I could whip up some gunpowder. Does that mean my barbarian savage who's never seen worked metal in his life can now make fireworks?
I studied social studies and psychology at uni. Does that mean my illiterate halfling ex-slave rogue has insight into the benefits and drawbacks of different forms of government, understands what the "bystander effect" is, or could replicate the Stanford prison experiment?

Don't do it! That way lies madness.

[Vizzerdrix]

I'm okay with this to a point. If the DM is throwing the common chaff at the party (Goblins, dragons, orcs, etc.) then no. You do not get to do this.

If the player makes a high knowledge roll, then the DM needs to give clues, or accept full dakka mode from the party with no fuss about "broken campaigns".

If the DM demands something silly like Knowledge of the creature in your back story, Players retain the right to add "worked for a summer in the kingdoms zoo" to their characters back story to cover the tax. Fussy DMs will be denied any purchased foods or beverages for the duration of the session along with a ban on any home cooking that happens to be going on at the time.


I am aware I did not use blue. This is not a blue text situation.

[Slipperychicken]

Even if you roll a 1000 on your knowledge check how are you suppose to identify a creature that no one in your world has ever seen?

Then don't name it, just provide strengths and weaknesses.

Perhaps it's a creature someone wrote about in a vision or something. Or it might bear resemblance to a fictional creature, like if one of us encountered a dragon or an elf IRL. Or it resembles a creature which has been theorized might exist (like if we ran into little green men on mars). Or it resembles creatures which do already exist, from which its abilities are guessed. Or the PC's knowledge check means using its appearance and behaviors to guess its abilities (giant armor plates mean it's AC is high, skin like that of an X means it's spell-resistant, creatures in this shape often have spell abilities, the wicked gleam in its eye indicates intelligence, etc etc).


Besides, in D&D, there people can chat with the all-knowing gods themselves to gain knowledge (as well as countless lesser beings), look at any location anywhere on a whim, and travel wherever they wish instantaneously. And those people have a voracious hunger for knowledge, and routinely go out on expeditions to learn new stuff. And they also love writing books full of all the stuff they've learned, and put it in places of learning for scholars to read. Pretty much any knowledge (short of something stupid like Vecna-Blooded creatures) can be justified by such travels, divinations, and lore.

[Pex]

Even if you roll a 1000 on your knowledge check how are you suppose to identify a creature that no one in your world has ever seen? You might be able to determine some distinctive features that lead you to believe that the creature is an abberration or something like that, but you still won't know what is it.

If the creature is something that unique, new, and/or literally no one knows in the game world, that's a different story. Usually such a creature is a Campaign Plot Point. The adventure's purpose, or part of its purpose, is to learn about the creature under first hand experience. The fact that the Monster Lore expert character doesn't know anything about it is important. It could be a plot hook for future study and reference. That's perfectly fine for campaign atmosphere purposes.

[Slipperychicken]

Usually such a creature is a Campaign Plot Point.

In my experience, they're almost always a thinly-veiled excuse to deny people their Knowledge rolls.

[Knaight]

I like characters to be cabbageheads , that is they ''know less then they should.'' And then the players must play the game to figure things out, and not just sit there and have the DM say things like ''the large red scaled fire breathing creature is a red dragon, it's immune to fire'' and they players saying ''wow, gosh DM, thanks, we never would have figured out what it was unless you told us. ''

Right. So the only acceptable characters for your players to play are uninformed rubes. That's just fascinating. That example is also a fascinating choice, as it conveniently happens to be about the most boring way the DM could deliver information. The thing about description is that it will innately disclude the vast majority of information there. Take a photograph of some random room somewhere - describing the exact location of every single object would likely take a very long time. Knowledge skills provide a nice way to illustrate particular things. Say the PCs find a pile of bones. If they're all elves from some sort of super isolated vegan elf hippy commune where nobody has died and there are no dead animals, they might not even recognize the material of bone. If they're trained zoologists, they'll notice things like the length of protrusions for muscle attachment points, and know what that means in terms of torque applied to bones and thus the strength of the animal that left them.

In D&D terms that's a knowledge skill of some sort, depending on what the bones are from. While there are no zoologists per se in most campaigns, there could very well be people who are experts in the subject. While the commune is a pretty extreme example of ignorance, there are also very much those who aren't particularly knowledgeable. The knowledge skills provide a very useful baseline for what information makes it into the description, and generally it will be partial. Sure, the bones have long protrusions at which the muscles are attached, which means high torque and probably high strength, unless the muscles themselves are seriously underdeveloped. That still hardly provides exact information on every particular and removes the "figuring things out" part.

[Pex]

In my experience, they're almost always a thinly-veiled excuse to deny people their Knowledge rolls.

That is if it happens with almost every combat, then the DM is being a jerk. For the truly unique for the campaign world creature that's part of the plot or subplot and it's only for that creature, that's the fun of the mystery to be discovered.