Custom Creations in a Game?

[Martin Greywolf]

When you come down to it, all TTRPG gaming comes down to trust among the people at the table - DM trusts that his players won't derail his campaign with utter stupidity and/or random murderhoboing the bystanders, players trust that DM will not throw encounter after encounter at them with each individual one being just "rocks fall, everyone dies", only with more math.

So, what about dem custom creations? There are three general types of them:

1) Just like vanilla

These are just different things that are little different from the published material. Take a Fighter, add some social skills and call it a Knight, for example. These don't really violate trust at all.

2) Breaks the soft rules

These break the rules, but not really. They break the rules or preconceptions that the characters themselves or players have, like orcs are always chaotic evil, or, to use Naruto as an example, Susano-o is the perfect defence. These are fine as long as you don't toss them at your players during every single encounter, and you can respond to indigation with "Yah, your characters are pretty shocked too, and hurt to boot. No, seriously, there are, like, 20 arrows in your chest."

3) Breaks the hard rules

This one is the real problem. It breaks something in the rules that is established in a meta sense. A good example of this is being able to take two actions per turn, or use Teleport whenever you please, action order be damned.

The thing about this is that it can work, but it HAS to be a big deal, and treated as such. A major villain having it is fine, giving it to every elite mook isn't, unless it's the theme of campaign or something. These also work best with foreshadowing.

An example is Alien Rulers from XCOM 2 being able to take an action after every action you take, as opposed to just once per turn. They can **** all over your squad if you aren't prepared for them, but most players agree that they are awesome addition. There are also only three of them and die permanently, and you first have to go through a long mission that builds them up.

TTRPGs and characters

Here's a final point: TTRPGs are games about the characters the players play, therefore a player should have access to all information a character has access to. If I create a class for knight, then the player should know that there are knights around and also know what the class does - not necessarily all the bonuses, but a decent grasp of what he can expect. There are some exceptions to this, but they are usually a result of a very unusual game premise, and are stated at the start of the game.

How much custom creations they will have access to depends on DM entirely, but there's an important caveat to this - custom creations shouldn't completely change the feel of the game. If I want to play some Naruto, and everyone suddenly has 20 magic items, well, that's a problem. It's a bit like reading a Harry Potter book, and then suddenly, Queen of England brings in an SAS taskforce to shut down Voldemort - I read a fic like that and liked it, but if you expect a magical romp and get this dropped on you, you'll likely stop right there.

[Drynwyn]

The answer to all of these is "it depends", in some capacity. More specifically:

1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?

No, but if it's not an active secret or otherwise genuinely restricted (as opposed to merely unusual) knowledge in the setting, the players should probably know about it. After all, your character creation decisions are made by the player, even though the character wouldn't necessarily get to discreetly choose-
for example- what spells were available for him to learn during his apprenticeship. If it is an active secret, you should probably set it up so the players can take advantage of it after they learn about it. In some systems that's easy. In other systems, like 3.5, with highly locked-in character development, that can require careful thought. The gist of it is, "enemies-only" abilities, whether literally enemy-only or simply de facto enemy-only, tend to be frustrating, especially when powerful or unique.

2. Do players always get full rule write-ups of Custom Creations?
Not necesarilly. But, if you refuse to give your players exact rules information about how the thing that they're fighting works, you had damn well better play the enemies as though they don't necessarily have full information about how the players abilities work. After all, even though the players (potentially) know how every spell and ability in the book works, the characters don't necessarily know them, so neither should their enemies. The key here is that the players should feel like they're playing by the same rules as their enemies. The resource distribution doesn't have to be fair, and neither does anything else- but if players feel like their enemies don't have to play by the same rules they do, they quickly lose the feeling of agency.

3. Do players get to approve Custom Creations?
It depends on the game. Burning Wheel, a personal favorite, specifically calls on the GM to discuss changes and additions to the rules with their players. But Burning Wheel makes some very significant changes to the role of the GM, so it's not necessarily transferable to other games. More generally, I'd say they don't, but if a custom creation is going to be important or central to the game, being a good host obligates you to give players a general idea of how that creation works, or to specifically tell them that you're keeping central rules a secret from them, but trust me, it'll be fun.

Have a cake analogy for why that's the case:

If I invite you over for cake, and we eat cake, that's good.

If I invite you over for "a surprise desert- trust me, it'll be great" and we eat cake, that's also good (though it should probably be a pretty special cake to justify keeping it a secret.)

But if I invite you over for cake, and the cake is merely a thin shell disguising a chocolate mousse- first, that's some really freakin' impressive baking. But more importantly, I may enjoy it, but if I was expecting cake I might also be quite disappointed. And if I don't like mousse, I might be upset!

If you set up a game, the game should contain what you says it contains, even if some of the contents are labelled as "mysterious things!".

4. How many Custom Creations is too many?
This is a lot like 3. There's no point at which it's definitely too much, but what they're in for should be clear to your players out of respect for their time investment.

[Grod_The_Giant]

1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?
2. Do players always get full rule write-ups of Custom Creations?

These are kind of the same question, methinks, and the answer is that it depends on the thing. Most homebrew content I make is either aimed at players (class rewrites for 3.5, custom stuff they've requested, etc), or monsters I've invented at some point the week before the session for those specific encounters. So I can't exactly hand them a list of every custom monster even if I wanted to, but if they ask later I'll probably share. I trust my players not to metagame too much, and I want to show off the stuff I made

In general, I don't think the game needs to be 100% PC/NPC transparent, but it does need to make sense. If the NPC wizard was able to raise an army of undead via sacrifice and ritual, the players should be able to learn to do the same thing, if they get their hands on his notes. If the NPC fighter has a funky combat style, they should be able to learn it too, if they can find the master who trained her. They might not get the exact same write-up, it'll probably be balanced differently for PCs vs NPCs, but "only person X can do this" is a pretty poor justification.

And if a player has the thing on their character sheet, than yeah, they should know how their class/spell/item/whatever works, in however much full detail is needed for the system to function. Not only is it unfair to do otherwise, the DM has way too much work to do as it is without having to keep track of half your characters' mechanics for you.

3. Do players get to approve Custom Creations?

Not individually, but the overall concept, perhaps. Certainly there needs to be trust if you're homebrewing significant amounts of significantly new stuff. If the campaign is going to lean heavily on your own creations, you should make that clear ahead of time-- not so much to forestall this hypothetical "waaah, you're not sticking to the rules, you're cheeeaaating" player that gets conjured up in every discussion of this sort of thing, but as a warning and a sort of preemptive apology-- "hey, I'm using some new stuff, so please bear with me." Not everyone is going to want to play in a game where all the classes and monsters and spells and all are different, because...

4. How many Custom Creations is too many?

The game might not stop being fun, but it might stop feeling like the original system. "Let's play D&D" and "let's play my homebrew system" are two different invitations, and people who might accept one might well reject the other.

[Quertus]

This stance doesn't fix the incongruity of residents of a world knowing nothing about it.

It would be as strange as a story about suburban teenagers where they've never seen a schoolbus or end up in a zoo totally flabbergasted by all the strange, unknown creatures they've never seen before. (Assuming, obviously, they really are just elephants and usual zoo life)

I did have a co-worker once who was very concerned about the "large cat-sized rats" she saw. A bit of thought later, I asked her if she knew what possums were. She looked perplexed.

Still, for the whole party to be ignorant of the environment requires some heavy-handed setup or some ridiculous odds.

Well, I like the more ''the characters know nothing'' myself. I want player and character knowledge to come from game play. Too many players don't want to just 'know' about the setting: they want to be super experts on the setting. And they use their knowledge to prevent the adventure, encounters or any type of experience from happening. So their character just walks around.

I mean, the reason my signature character Quertus is a worlds-famous author is because be goes around testing everything he encounters, and records his findings. He develops custom spells to facilitate this process. Quertus is bloody dedicated to ignorance! I'd contend that he's what Expert level ignorance looks like.

A good half the point of Custom Creations is to add mystery and wonder back into the game. Like the first time a new player encounters say a Rust Monster is priceless...a memory that they will remember forever. But you only get it once. Playing the game for even a short while and you will encounter and know all the common, iconic things in the game..again and again and again. And the ''sigh, whatever I do X to defeat or over come Y...again'' gets very boring.

Learning about werewolves from the local sage / crazy person / wise woman / village idiot for the umpteenth time is boring. Doing so promoted me to carefully track who trained whom, what they knew, etc, so I never had to sit through that again.

There is a balance between knowledge and ignorance. Different games place that balance point at different places. 3e assumes characters are skilled - too skilled for both your and my tastes. 2e assumes characters are morons - too stupid for my tastes.

But, yes, first time encounters are priceless.

Spoiler: You never forget the first time...

Show

So, my first campaign, been playing for long enough for the party to reach low teens in level IIRC. Players commit the cardinal sin of splitting the party.

The new player - very smart, but has never played pen & paper RPGs before - stumbles upon a room of artifacts. I carefully describe the contents. The other players go silent as I describe the black orb floating in the middle of the room. You can cut the tension with a knife when the new player becomes fascinated with this particular object, asking about its composition, what's holding it up, etc. I maintain my best poker face, asking very neutral questions about the exact details of what the character is doing, and providing the best answers to his inquiries that I can.

Eventually, his data collection (un)successful, he declares he is taking the orb with him. You could hear a pin drop as I ask him how he is taking it with him. The new player explains that he unclasps his cloak, throws it over the floating sphere, gathers up the corners, and drags it along behind him.

The more experienced rest of the party breath a collective sigh of relief. I explain that the cloak settles to the ground, a perfectly round hole in the middle of it.

And that is how one player in my first ever campaign learned of the Sphere of Annihilation.

[Knaight]

The game might not stop being fun, but it might stop feeling like the original system. "Let's play D&D" and "let's play my homebrew system" are two different invitations, and people who might accept one might well reject the other.

This is a fairly key point - the extent to which one changes the system is highly system specific. If I'm playing Burning Wheel, I expect it to be pretty close to by the book Burning Wheel. If someone's busting out Fudge, I don't expect it to bear that much mechanical resemblance to other Fudge games, because that sort of dramatic customization is pretty much the central ethos of the system. D&D goes across a pretty wide range depending on edition, and that makes the central questions of the thread edition dependent. There's a few constants (custom monsters are totally fine as a general class, although implementations can be bad), but the extent to which the rules are rules as opposed to rough guidelines varies.

[Darth Ultron]

I did have a co-worker once who was very concerned about the "large cat-sized rats" she saw. A bit of thought later, I asked her if she knew what possums were. She looked perplexed.

Still, for the whole party to be ignorant of the environment requires some heavy-handed setup or some ridiculous odds.

I'm fine with players knowing..or thinking they know whatever they want to. I even believe in the ''reverse metagaming'' where if the player knows X, I'm fine with the character also knowing X.

And it's loads of fun, even with just real world animals in a game. Like a player have a character running from a constructor snake or a bear and will have the character climb a tree and they will say ''ah, the animal can't get me now!''. And then you have all the stuff in the game rules that they, sort of remember too....

I mean, the reason my signature character Quertus is a worlds-famous author is because be goes around testing everything he encounters, and records his findings. He develops custom spells to facilitate this process. Quertus is bloody dedicated to ignorance! I'd contend that he's what Expert level ignorance looks like.

It is impossible to even fake the idea that a character is super smart, other then the ''sigh, stop the game, DM tell me what my character knows''. I know a lot of gamers ''love'' to play the game this way, but to me it's just annoying.

Worse, you can't have a player ''fake being an all knowing expert'' just by having the DM tell them a sentence or two. So even if you do it this way, there will be massive holes in the character and player knowledge. Unless you really do want to stop the game and really do nothing for the next several hours other then ''X 101 everything you wanted to know about x''.

So I take the other route in my games: your character knows next to nothing (but does know anything the players knows). Both the player and character will learn things Slowly, through game play. You won't be penalized outside the game if you ''don't know something'', though sure the character is going to have wacky, fun encounters and adventures based around lack of knowledge...but that is part of the fun of the game.

Also, thought it's rare, I'm more then happy to give a good player that wants to play an 'expert type' handouts and information. Like during the game the character might read a book about X, and then later I'd e-mail them the ''cliff notes'' of what the character read. Then come the next game the player is free to use that information.

A LOT of movies and TV shows do the ''Clueless character'' to great effect, and I think it is worth emulating. Harry Potter is a great example, the poor guy is clueless, even after several books/movies. But it does nicely let the author/writer do the ''oh a portkey is.....''. Even shows where ''everyone is a super highly trained expert'', like Star Trek, has do have the silly thing where Once an Episode a ''super highly trained Starfleet expert'' who should know, will stop and ask ''oh, what is X?'', just so another character can explain it to the viewers/audience. Just think of the famous time on ST:TNG Disaster when Consular Troi did not know what a ''core breech'' was and had to have others explain to her ''it means the ship will explode''.

This is a fairly key point - the extent to which one changes the system is highly system specific. D&D goes across a pretty wide range depending on edition, and that makes the central questions of the thread edition dependent. There's a few constants (custom monsters are totally fine as a general class, although implementations can be bad), but the extent to which the rules are rules as opposed to rough guidelines varies.

Well, mostly I stick to ''theme '' things. The Demon Cultists have a Demon Thug class, some demonic spells and demonic items. Really just adding to what is there. And I do love the more simple items, like Grease Darts(oh, they explode and cover a 5 foot square) that the Cult of Jubilex has.

[Quertus]

Worse, you can't have a player ''fake being an all knowing expert'' just by having the DM tell them a sentence or two. So even if you do it this way, there will be massive holes in the character and player knowledge. Unless you really do want to stop the game and really do nothing for the next several hours other then ''X 101 everything you wanted to know about x''.

IME, with a competent player and a skilled GM who knows how to work with others rather than being a gotcha GM, this isn't a problem. Making a character come off as knowledgeable even when the player isn't is a solved problem.

A LOT of movies and TV shows do the ''Clueless character'' to great effect, and I think it is worth emulating. Harry Potter is a great example, the poor guy is clueless, even after several books/movies. But it does nicely let the author/writer do the ''oh a portkey is.....''. Even shows where ''everyone is a super highly trained expert'', like Star Trek, has do have the silly thing where Once an Episode a ''super highly trained Starfleet expert'' who should know, will stop and ask ''oh, what is X?'', just so another character can explain it to the viewers/audience. Just think of the famous time on ST:TNG Disaster when Consular Troi did not know what a ''core breech'' was and had to have others explain to her ''it means the ship will explode''.

These are examples of ignorance done poorly, or, in the case of Harry Potter (whom I was actually thinking about when I was talking about ignorance) an example of beginner level ignorance. Harry is beginner level ignorant because he is not self aware enough to act upon his ignorance, and because he stays ignorant; Quertus represents expert level ignorance, because he is fully cognizant of his ignorance and the disadvantages thereof, and he does everything in his considerable power both to compensate, and to remedy the situation.

[Darth Ultron]

IME, with a competent player and a skilled GM who knows how to work with others rather than being a gotcha GM, this isn't a problem. Making a character come off as knowledgeable even when the player isn't is a solved problem..

Well, maybe you can give an example. Lets say the group, along with the know it all expert character encounter the DM's new Custom Race: the Swamp Orcs. So, how does this skilled DM give the player and character ''all'' the information about the race.

Unless you stop the game and do nothing but ''DM tells player stuff'' for like a couple hours, you really can't have a player or character ''know'' all about a topic.

Or are you talking about the lame ''faking it '' with lots of ''do overs''. So like:

Player of Super Expert Character: "I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some cooked meat."
DM-"Um, wait stop, your character knows swamp orcs are vegetarians and find eating meat offensive. Do over."
Player of Super Expert Character: "Oh, um, I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some vegetables."

Or just the endless slow the game down to a crawl questions:

Player-"Um, DM who is the main swamp orc god?"
DM-"Samprattor"
Player-"Quarktor says ''bless you in the name of Samprattor!''
DM-Swamp orc says "We thank you and offer you a mud path."
Player-"Ok, DM, what is a 'mud path' ?"
DM-"A mud path is..."

I see both as bad game play.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Unless you stop the game and do nothing but ''DM tells player stuff'' for like a couple hours, you really can't have a player or character ''know'' all about a topic.

"A couple hours?" How much detail are you putting into these things? A paragraph's worth (sometimes put into the character's mouth, with permission) is usually plenty. For example:

"These are swamp orcs; unlike their cousins, they're vegetarian, though no less ferocious. They have a strong emphasis on tight-knit family groups, usually dominated by an older matriarch, who is also in charge of forging their weapons. They worship most of the same orcish gods, who they see as a family, but place less emphasis on Gruumish and more on his mother, Samprattor. You would be familiar with their language and basic rites-- probably the most important right now is the 'mud path,' a challenge of valor newcomers have to undergo to prove their worth to the tribe."

Combine that with a bit of deliberate muddying when you don't have specifics-- "I hail them using the traditional greeting, and tell them that I'm here on a quest from their god"-- and you're fine.

[Tinkerer]

Well, maybe you can give an example. Lets say the group, along with the know it all expert character encounter the DM's new Custom Race: the Swamp Orcs. So, how does this skilled DM give the player and character ''all'' the information about the race.

Unless you stop the game and do nothing but ''DM tells player stuff'' for like a couple hours, you really can't have a player or character ''know'' all about a topic.

Or are you talking about the lame ''faking it '' with lots of ''do overs''. So like:

Player of Super Expert Character: "I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some cooked meat."
DM-"Um, wait stop, your character knows swamp orcs are vegetarians and find eating meat offensive. Do over."
Player of Super Expert Character: "Oh, um, I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some vegetables."

Or just the endless slow the game down to a crawl questions:

Player-"Um, DM who is the main swamp orc god?"
DM-"Samprattor"
Player-"Quarktor says ''bless you in the name of Samprattor!''
DM-Swamp orc says "We thank you and offer you a mud path."
Player-"Ok, DM, what is a 'mud path' ?"
DM-"A mud path is..."

I see both as bad game play.

That sounds more like a bad player than a bad GM to me. It takes a certain amount of practice to play a know it all effectively, like in the first example rather than saying "I invite my Swamp Orc Buddies to eat some cooked meat." when he doesn't know what they eat a know it all should be saying:

Player "I invite my Swamp Orc Buddies to a meal of their local cuisine."
GM "Okay you make up a sumptuous meal of roots and tubers, the preferred meal of this tribe".

On rare, rare occasion you may need a do-over or question but I haven't really found it happening anymore with a know it all than with a environmental warrior or a scientific mage.

Plus if it's a short write up of the species give the player a copy. I've often had luck using the Sally method where the player comes up with all sorts of niggling little details of the local culture. Of course this method involves a fair amount of GM/player trust and co-operation.

[Jay R]

Or are you talking about the lame ''faking it '' with lots of ''do overs''. So like:

Player of Super Expert Character: "I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some cooked meat."
DM-"Um, wait stop, your character knows swamp orcs are vegetarians and find eating meat offensive. Do over."
Player of Super Expert Character: "Oh, um, I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some vegetables."

Or just the endless slow the game down to a crawl questions:

Player-"Um, DM who is the main swamp orc god?"
DM-"Samprattor"
Player-"Quarktor says ''bless you in the name of Samprattor!''
DM-Swamp orc says "We thank you and offer you a mud path."
Player-"Ok, DM, what is a 'mud path' ?"
DM-"A mud path is..."

I see both as bad game play.

Of course they are. You made them up for that purpose. These are excellent examples of the problems created by an incompetent player and an unskilled gotcha GM, who were both creating situations that required information that the player didn't know. He specifically said, "IME, with a competent player and a skilled GM who knows how to work with others rather than being a gotcha GM."

But suppose the skilled, non-gotcha GM didn't expect the player to provide fluff information that he doesn't know, and the competent player didn't make up unnecessary details that he doesn't know.

Player: Using his knowledge of their culture, Quarktor prepares his camp to receive them properly.
DM: OK. He prepares their favorite vegetarian dish, and blesses them in the name of their god. They respond with a traditional blessing of their people. At the end of the evening they have accepted Quarktor as a cultured and respected friend.

[Cluedrew]

I have mostly the same things to say as other people, including such that it depends on the system, but I'm going to assume something rules heavy. I have one that might stand out.

3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?

If you want it to be a surprise or mystery you probably don't want to show it to them. Still at the same time ask yourself, would they approve it? If not you might want to ask yourself why they wouldn't. You might have to fix some things.

[Jay R]

One more important nuance needs to be discussed.

3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?

I don't want or need to approve each specific GM choice, and doing so would prevent certain fun surprises during a game. So, no, players should not get to approve custom creations on the individual level. But, much more importantly, we do get to approve of the GM's judgment as a whole, by deciding whether or not to join the game.

Of my most recent GMs, I have complete faith in Brian's judgment in custom creations. I have general but not complete faith that if one of Michael's creations causes a problem, he will address it fairly. Rob could easily make a mistake in judgment, but he's so fun to play with that I would accept that to play in his game. Dirk makes mistakes in judgment occasionally, and I've been frustrated by them occasionally, but I will play in his game anyway, because his military knowledge and character development more than make up for it. Wil's custom creations are great, due to his complete encyclopedic knowledge of AD&D 1e.

By contrast, I've played with a couple of DMs whose judgment I don't trust. I don't intend to play with them again -- whether they make custom creations or not.

[Darth Ultron]

"A couple hours?" How much detail are you putting into these things? A paragraph's worth (sometimes put into the character's mouth, with permission) is usually plenty.

Combine that with a bit of deliberate muddying when you don't have specifics-- "I hail them using the traditional greeting, and tell them that I'm here on a quest from their god"-- and you're fine.

But this is my exact point. The DM can take a minute to give the player a ''standard handout paragraph''. And it's great for giving the player a tiny bit of information....but nothing even close to what an ''expert'' would know.

And the ''my character does things and stuff the right way'' is great if you don't like role playing and want to just skip past the boring fluff stuff and get back to the combat.

Player: Using his knowledge of their culture, Quarktor prepares his camp to receive them properly.
DM: OK. He prepares their favorite vegetarian dish, and blesses them in the name of their god. They respond with a traditional blessing of their people. At the end of the evening they have accepted Quarktor as a cultured and respected friend.

So, your way is just the player is vague and then sits back and lets the DM fill in the details. And like the one above yours is ''skip the fluff and role play to get quickly back to the combat and roll play''.

Now don't take it the wrong way, the ''zip quickly through anything except combat'' is a great way to play the game. Though I wonder why you would just not skip it all anyway....

[Grod_The_Giant]

But this is my exact point. The DM can take a minute to give the player a ''standard handout paragraph''. And it's great for giving the player a tiny bit of information....but nothing even close to what an ''expert'' would know.

And the ''my character does things and stuff the right way'' is great if you don't like role playing and want to just skip past the boring fluff stuff and get back to the combat.

You can't have it both ways, dude. You can't refuse to give out information and then demand that players act out exact details on pain of "gotcha" moments. You have to:

• Give your players general information and let them gloss over the details that weren't covered.
• Give your players general information and let them make up small details that weren't covered.
• Accept the odd question or correction mid-stream when you hit a detail that wasn't covered. (Which, honestly, shouldn't come up that often if your brief intro was good)

Or some combination thereof. Either that, or tell your players that knowledge skills are null and void, and the only way their characters can know things is via metagaming.

Also, no one is suggesting that players go "I do all the right stuff, back to the killing." Just that, when the exact nature of a detail is in doubt, you gloss over it with language like "in the name of their god" (instead of "in Gruumish's name") or "make the correct ceremonial greeting" (instead of "I make a quarter-bow and the sign of the sun").

[Jay R]

So, your way is just the player is vague and then sits back and lets the DM fill in the details. And like the one above yours is ''skip the fluff and role play to get quickly back to the combat and roll play''.

No, this bizarre interpretation is not my way. My way is to use all the details I have and not sweat the details I don't have.

I did not mention combat; in fact, I specifically said that it led to the PC being accepted "as a cultured and respected friend." That's not combat; it just isn't. Furthermore, I did not mention a single roll whatsoever.

You invented the emphasis on combat and the emphasis on roll play based on zero evidence in my words. There is no rational way to interpret a discussion without combat or rolling as a desire to "get quickly back to the combat and roll play''.

Now don't take it the wrong way, ....

I'm not taking it the wrong way. I'm taking it as the falsehood and insult it is.

[Darth Ultron]

You can't have it both ways, dude. You can't refuse to give out information and then demand that players act out exact details on pain of "gotcha" moments.

Well, your the one that is saying the whole ''gotcha'' bit, based on I guess your own personal bias. I never said I did that. I said, repeatedly, that I have the players Role Play everything out. So they start knowing nothing, then they have at act and speak, in character, to figure things out.

You have to:

Sure is odd to see you say ''you have to do one of the following'' and ''you must play the game this way or no way".

Or some combination thereof. Either that, or tell your players that knowledge skills are null and void, and the only way their characters can know things is via metagaming.

Well, guess I take option C then.

No, this bizarre interpretation is not my way. My way is to use all the details I have and not sweat the details I don't have.

Odd, your clearly said that the player could just sit back and causal say their character would vaguely do something and then the DM would take control of the character and do the fluff and role playing for the player. You did not use the exact words, but that is what you said.

So your style is the players don't need to role play at all: they just tell the DM what they want their character to do, and sit back and let the DM game by himself.

Now to me, talking control of a character rarely a good idea, and to do it every time the character has to ''know'' anything, is going to be a lot of the game time. And worse it does encourage the players to not pay attention as the fluff and role play don't matter and ''the DM will take care of all that stuff''.

A follow up question would be, when you take control of a players character, do you have any limit as to what you can do with their character?

For Example: Like say the character needs to make an offering at a temple.
Player: "Whatever, um, my expert character makes the appropriate offering at the temple''
The DM knows the offering must be an item of great personal worth to the character, but the player is clueless
So the DM will step in take control of the character and then says "Your character does the ceremony he knows as he is a religious expert and then puts his Belt of Battle on the offering table. The Clerics take your belt and thank you.
Player: "Wait, what?!"

Or do you stop the game, explain everything to the player and then ask them what item they want to offer?

Now, for the record, my way is known as Role-Playing:
Player-'Qutbert the gnome walks up to the temple''
DM: Temple Guard- "Halt gnome! You must make an offering to the Goddess before you can enter the temple!"
Player Qutbert-"Oh, I had no idea, I'm not from around her and I'm not a member of your faith."
DM: Temple Guard-"It is all right, Good Gnome, just make your offering."
Player Qutbert-"Um, I'm not sure what to offer..."
DM: Temple Guard-"You must give up an item of great WORTH and VALUE to you personally. Something you treasure, and will give to the goddess in return for entering her temple."
Player thinks using real life reasoning and intelligence-"All right, I'll offer my solid gold gnome joke trophy. "
DM: Temple Guard-"Very well, you may pass.."

Now granted my way does ''take time'', but we call this ''playing the game''.

[Cluedrew]

Well, your the one that is saying the whole ''gotcha'' bit, based on I guess your own personal bias. I never said I did that. I said, repeatedly, that I have the players Role Play everything out. So they start knowing nothing, then they have at act and speak, in character, to figure things out.

You never said you did gotcha, but the style you are describing can very easily lead to that. What if there are characters who are supposed to know more than nothing? I know lots of characters that worked because they were part of setting, they had lived in an area for their whole life, they new the locals, had friends and enemies there. Any it was easy to do if we accepted a little back and forth outside of the game.

[Jay R]

Odd, your clearly said that the player could just sit back and causal say their character would vaguely do something and then the DM would take control of the character and do the fluff and role playing for the player. You did not use the exact words, but that is what you said.

You did the same when you said he cooked a vegetable meal without discussing what vegetables or what recipe he used. In both cases, we ignored details the character knew and the player didn't, when those details were not pertinent to the character decisions.

The point is that the amount of detail needed in a given situation is fluid, and trying to use detail you don't have can be just as much a problem as refusing to use the details that you do have available.

Yes, I sometimes require less detail than you do. We haven't shared enough information about our games to be sure how often, or how much. And since I have not mentioned combat, rolling dice, or taking away a character's magic items, you have absolutely no basis for forming an opinion about how I treat such things.

And in any case, we have nowhere near enough information for either of us to make a general claim about the other person's game.

So your style is the players don't need to role play at all: they just tell the DM what they want their character to do, and sit back and let the DM game by himself.

Please stop making up nonsense. In my example, the DM did not "take over the character". He added the details that the player didn't have and the DM did. The important decision (the PC prepares to receive them the swamp orc way instead of his usual way) had already been made, and made by the player. I just skipped the step of having the DM say "vegetable" so the player could say "vegetable" back to him. The player had explicitly made the RP decision. You wanted to add the word "vegetable", without going on to add details like "steamed", or "carrots". Which one is the "correct" level of detail? Whichever one might be best, you are not the final arbiter of it.

Another example.

Player: I move quickly across the floor, but slowly enough that I look out for and avoid any obvious dangers.
DM: OK. There's a lot of rubble and other refuse on the near left, and a pit on the far right. This means that to get to the opposite door 40 feet away you actually have to travel 60 feet.

This isn't taking away role playing, and the relevant character decision (watch your footing) was made by the player.

Similarly, when a character is speaking in Elvish, I let him describe it in English. I don't track how the pack was packed to know which things he cannot reach without taking the pack off. And I don't make him describe how the aiming point changes when he shoots an arrow at a target 80 feet away instead of 40.

There are ten thousand details we leave out when we game, as is clear from the fact that we can simulate weeks of activity in a single five-hour session.

Now to me, talking control of a character rarely a good idea, and to do it every time the character has to ''know'' anything, is going to be a lot of the game time. And worse it does encourage the players to not pay attention as the fluff and role play don't matter and ''the DM will take care of all that stuff''.

I don't take control of players' characters. I just don't. What you're calling "taking over their characters" doesn't involve changing their minds - just providing more information when I have it and the player doesn't.

But for some reason it's important to you to extend this far beyond anything I said, and to make up nonsense based on it.

A follow up question would be, when you take control of a players character, do you have any limit as to what you can do with their character?

I don't take control of players' characters. When I add details that their characters would know but the players don't, I don't make any decision that wasn't inherent in what they said.

In the one example you're basing all these wild guesses on, the player had already said that he was preparing his camp to receive them in the swamp orc way.

For Example: Like say the character needs to make an offering at a temple.
Player: "Whatever, um, my expert character makes the appropriate offering at the temple''
The DM knows the offering must be an item of great personal worth to the character, but the player is clueless
So the DM will step in take control of the character and then says "Your character does the ceremony he knows as he is a religious expert and then puts his Belt of Battle on the offering table. The Clerics take your belt and thank you.
Player: "Wait, what?!"

What a silly guess. I have not said anything that can be fairly or honestly interpreted as taking away somebody's magic item, and in running many games starting in the 1970s, I have never done so.

So far, you have accused me of a focus on combat when I did not mention combat, of returning to roll playing when I did not mention a roll, and now taking away a magic item when I never even mentioned a magic item.

These ideas are coming out of your own head alone. You found nothing about combat, roll playing, or magic items in my words, and nothing I have said was analogous to a focus on combat, or on roll playing, or on giving away somebody's magic item.

Not requiring the player to parrot the word "vegetable" does not mean I would take away somebody's magic item. And you just look silly pretending that it does. Nobody reading this forum will believe you.

Please stop making up nonsense. You don't know the sum total of how I run a game. You really, really don't. And all your guesses so far have been false.

Or do you stop the game, explain everything to the player and then ask them what item they want to offer?

Before I could answer that question, I'd need much more detail about the situation. Just like you need far more detail about my games before you can accuse me of a focus on combat or roll playing, or giving away magic items.

Now, for the record, my way is known as Role-Playing:

All ways are known as role playing. It's a role-playing game.

Now granted my way does ''take time'', but we call this ''playing the game''.

I call my way "playing the game". I will also call your way "playing the game". In fact, everybody's way is "playing the game".

And even if I decided that I didn't like somebody's way of playing, I would still call it "playing the game". Even at my most self-absorbed and elitist, I've never been vain enough to believe that playing the game differently from my way isn't playing the game.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, your the one that is saying the whole ''gotcha'' bit, based on I guess your own personal bias. I never said I did that.

All of your examples have skewed that way, though. "I invite my buddies for food!" "Hah, you said the wrong food! They attack!" is gotcha DMing. "I make an appropriate offering." "Hah, you didn't specify, so you give up your most valuable item!" is gotcha DMing. It's imposing a serious disadvantage on the character because the player didn't act on information they not only didn't know, but didn't know they needed. When in doubt, assume basic competence.

I said, repeatedly, that I have the players Role Play everything out. So they start knowing nothing, then they have at act and speak, in character, to figure things out.

Which is a valid way of doing things, sure. Though it means that your players can only roleplay wide-eyed hayseeds and the like, who've never experienced most aspects of the world.

Sure is odd to see you say ''you have to do one of the following'' and ''you must play the game this way or no way".

I'm not saying that as an injunction, I'm saying that there are only so many options that can be done in a situation where the characters know things the players don't-- you can explain in exhausting detail, you can gloss over details, you can correct details, or you can ignore character knowledge altogether.

Odd, your clearly said that the player could just sit back and causal say their character would vaguely do something and then the DM would take control of the character and do the fluff and role playing for the player. You did not use the exact words, but that is what you said.

So your style is the players don't need to role play at all: they just tell the DM what they want their character to do, and sit back and let the DM game by himself.

No, it's letting the DM fill in minor details via narration, so that there doesn't need to be a constant back-and-forth you find so distasteful. Can you honestly not see the difference between "I make the appropriate ceremonial greeting, and ask how we might be of service" and "I roll a 24 on Diplomacy, tell me how it goes?"

A follow up question would be, when you take control of a players character, do you have any limit as to what you can do with their character?

Of course-- you don't do anything but fill in descriptive details.

Or do you stop the game, explain everything to the player and then ask them what item they want to offer?

Of course you do, because making informed choices is the point of roleplaying games.

[Tinkerer]

For Example: Like say the character needs to make an offering at a temple.
Player: "Whatever, um, my expert character makes the appropriate offering at the temple''
The DM knows the offering must be an item of great personal worth to the character, but the player is clueless
So the DM will step in take control of the character and then says "Your character does the ceremony he knows as he is a religious expert and then puts his Belt of Battle on the offering table. The Clerics take your belt and thank you.
Player: "Wait, what?!"

Now, for the record, my way is known as Role-Playing:
Player-'Qutbert the gnome walks up to the temple''
DM: Temple Guard- "Halt gnome! You must make an offering to the Goddess before you can enter the temple!"
Player Qutbert-"Oh, I had no idea, I'm not from around her and I'm not a member of your faith."
DM: Temple Guard-"It is all right, Good Gnome, just make your offering."
Player Qutbert-"Um, I'm not sure what to offer..."
DM: Temple Guard-"You must give up an item of great WORTH and VALUE to you personally. Something you treasure, and will give to the goddess in return for entering her temple."
Player thinks using real life reasoning and intelligence-"All right, I'll offer my solid gold gnome joke trophy. "
DM: Temple Guard-"Very well, you may pass.."

Now granted my way does ''take time'', but we call this ''playing the game''.

Wow, so in your games there is no option for playing a war weary veteran? A scholarly know-it-all? Every character has to be a complete shut-in who has never set foot outside his door? Your way takes longer and doesn't add anything to role-playing vs:

Player-'Qutbert the gnome walks up to the temple''
DM: Temple Guard- "Halt gnome! You must make an offering to the Goddess before you can enter the temple!" Your character (being familiar with this religion) knows that the traditional offering is an item of great worth and personal sentiment.
Player- "Good day my dear fellow! I offer to the Goddess this, my solid gold gnome joke statue. I earned it as a child when the elder of my tribe had taken quite ill. For you see..."

Because of course he's going to launch into a verbose explanation, he knows that the party thief is going to take advantage of the distraction to slip inside the temple. There is no way that greedy SOB is going to part with a treasured and valuable possession...

And most importantly the players and the GM aren't complete idiots. The GM taking control of the players actions is a critical part of all role-playing, the key part is knowing what decisions aren't important. If the player says "I am going to forage for some food to make a meal for the party" does the GM respond with
GM "Okay what direction are you heading? North, Northeast, East, Southeast, South, Southwest, West, or Northwest?"
Player "Uh, North."
GM "Okay you find a bush with 36 berries on it, also the roots of this plant are edible"
Player "Well I'll pick the berries and dig up the roots"
GM "What are you using to dig up the roots?"
Player "What? My spade obviously."
GM "Well I didn't want to assume and take away your control"
Player "Okay well I'll go back to camp and prepare them"
GM "How are you preparing them" Etc...

Of course the above situation apparently can't happen in your games since none of the players know anything about the game world and as a result they can't know what berries are poisonous so if they don't stock up on rations in town they are all going to die from starvation.

I'm so used to being on the other end of this discussion. A number of the other people here seem to be under the impression that every character has access to... well the Monster Manual and the internet, that I don't think they appreciate how rare and inaccurate a lot of the information is in this type of world.

[Darth Ultron]

You never said you did gotcha, but the style you are describing can very easily lead to that. What if there are characters who are supposed to know more than nothing? I know lots of characters that worked because they were part of setting, they had lived in an area for their whole life, they new the locals, had friends and enemies there. Any it was easy to do if we accepted a little back and forth outside of the game.

Sure, I guess anything can lead to anything. Well, why are there characters that are ''supposed'' to know so much? The player can't have the character really know ''so much'' as the player does not know all the ''much'', and the ways to fake it are very poor at beast. So maybe just have them ''not supposed'' to know so much?

And in any case, we have nowhere near enough information for either of us to make a general claim about the other person's game.

I think we do.

Please stop making up nonsense. In my example, the DM did not "take over the character". He added the details that the player didn't have and the DM did. The important decision (the PC prepares to receive them the swamp orc way instead of his usual way) had already been made, and made by the player. I just skipped the step of having the DM say "vegetable" so the player could say "vegetable" back to him. The player had explicitly made the RP decision. You wanted to add the word "vegetable", without going on to add details like "steamed", or "carrots". Which one is the "correct" level of detail? Whichever one might be best, you are not the final arbiter of it.

Well, you did clearly type that you, the DM, had the Player Character take actions and say things. Now this is called ''the DM controlling the character'', as you, the DM, controlled the character for the whole time. Sure the player gave up control, but it's still the Dm talking control of a player's character.

Another example.

Player: I move quickly across the floor, but slowly enough that I look out for and avoid any obvious dangers.
DM: OK. There's a lot of rubble and other refuse on the near left, and a pit on the far right. This means that to get to the opposite door 40 feet away you actually have to travel 60 feet.

This isn't taking away role playing, and the relevant character decision (watch your footing) was made by the player.

Well, this looks fine...for a simple action cut sequence that really does not fit ''how do you have an expert character know things'' question. But if you want to use this example...is there some reason this Bad DM did not describe the floor area before the player decided on what actions to take? Most normal games would have the DM describe everything first.

Similarly, when a character is speaking in Elvish, I let him describe it in English. I don't track how the pack was packed to know which things he cannot reach without taking the pack off. And I don't make him describe how the aiming point changes when he shoots an arrow at a target 80 feet away instead of 40.

There are ten thousand details we leave out when we game, as is clear from the fact that we can simulate weeks of activity in a single five-hour session.

Ok, well it is fair to say your very light on the details then..you like a game with light details. I for example, like details. And every item on a character is tracked and listed like ''dagger plus +1 right boot'' and such. Should a character say drop their backpack for some reason, I know exactly what is it in. Guess your more of the ''character can just 'pop' anything into their hand at any time''.

I don't take control of players' characters. I just don't. What you're calling "taking over their characters" doesn't involve changing their minds - just providing more information when I have it and the player doesn't.

But for some reason it's important to you to extend this far beyond anything I said, and to make up nonsense based on it.

But if you have a player's character speak and act, you are controlling the character, right? Look I agree it's a bad idea, and I'd never do it. But why are you saying you do it, and then are acting offended when I say your doing it.

I don't take control of players' characters. When I add details that their characters would know but the players don't, I don't make any decision that wasn't inherent in what they said.

In the one example you're basing all these wild guesses on, the player had already said that he was preparing his camp to receive them in the swamp orc way.

So you guess or interpret what you think the player might want to do, and then when you take control of the players character you try to do that.

Before I could answer that question, I'd need much more detail about the situation. Just like you need far more detail about my games before you can accuse me of a focus on combat or roll playing, or giving away magic items.

I'm not sure how much more detail I need: your games don't pay attention to details and you often ''use'' the player characters to do things in the game, so the player themselves don't have to role-play or act in the game. Seems clear cut enough.

All of your examples have skewed that way, though. "I invite my buddies for food!" "Hah, you said the wrong food! They attack!" is gotcha DMing. "I make an appropriate offering." "Hah, you didn't specify, so you give up your most valuable item!" is gotcha DMing. It's imposing a serious disadvantage on the character because the player didn't act on information they not only didn't know, but didn't know they needed. When in doubt, assume basic competence.

I thought I made it clear I don't ''got ya'' DM, but, yes, I do run a very hard core type game. So like a player's character will get at least three warnings of ''don't open the red door it leads to the Eternal Plane of Fire'', and later when the player is like ''My character Gorh opens the red door'', yes I do go ''Boom! fire shoots out and..."

Which is a valid way of doing things, sure. Though it means that your players can only roleplay wide-eyed hayseeds and the like, who've never experienced most aspects of the world.

Well, no, as I said, if you game with me for more then like an hour, a player is free to metagame anything the player knows. so game with me for a time, and a player will know a lot and can play...for real..a know-it-all.

[Dragonexx]

I will point out that the "clueless character who needs to have the world explained to them" is a device in single author fiction that exists so one can explain information to the reader while staying in character and not breaking the flow of the story.

In the shared narrative that is roleplaying, it's not necessary, as everyone can just read the setting details beforehand.

[Darth Ultron]

And most importantly the players and the GM aren't complete idiots. The GM taking control of the players actions is a critical part of all role-playing, the key part is knowing what decisions aren't important. If the player says "I am going to forage for some food to make a meal for the party" does the GM respond with

Of course the above situation apparently can't happen in your games since none of the players know anything about the game world and as a result they can't know what berries are poisonous so if they don't stock up on rations in town they are all going to die from starvation.

Well, no, I would not do it your example way. I'd do it:
Player-"My character Grom wants to hunt!''
DM- "No problem. Grom can take a couple hours and get a deer and three rabbits. "

Now, at no time is the DM talking control of the character. It's more just a fast forward of time.

I'm so used to being on the other end of this discussion. A number of the other people here seem to be under the impression that every character has access to... well the Monster Manual and the internet, that I don't think they appreciate how rare and inaccurate a lot of the information is in this type of world.

Well, one of my big house rules....one that has made many a player run from my house screaming...is that Knowledge Checks are ''rumors/folk lore/hearsay/gossip/guesses/random incorrect information mixed with maybe a couple real facts." Unlike the very badly written 3x rules that say knowledge checks are absolute fact and everyone is a super hard core expert and never ever wrong ever.

And as I let players use their own intelligence....oh it's loads of fun to watch a player have a character run from a giant snake and jump in a river and be like ''ha, it can't follow me as snakes can't swim!"

I will point out that the "clueless character who needs to have the world explained to them" is a device in single author fiction that exists so one can explain information to the reader while staying in character and not breaking the flow of the story.

In the shared narrative that is roleplaying, it's not necessary, as everyone can just read the setting details beforehand.

I guess you can say it's not necessary, but it's like saying anything else is not necessary.

Though first the players would have to read the setting details, of course.

But, even assuming the players could be bothered to do that, the setting details are all ways vague and only contain a tiny bit of information. You can just look at the setting details of any game posted anywhere. You get some names and places and a couple paragraphs...that is it.

[Cluedrew]

Well, why are there characters that are ''supposed'' to know so much? The player can't have the character really know ''so much'' as the player does not know all the ''much'', and the ways to fake it are very poor at beast.

I can answer the question in sentence 1, sentence 2's meaning escapes me (poor beast?). Anyways, the answer is because it gives you more character concepts to work with, that feel quite different from the others. There are only so many variations on ignorant farmboy you can do. Plus things like being hunted by an old ally who my character partied ways with before the adventure started is more interesting than generic PC with which you have no history with attacks you.

Some of my favourite characters only worked because they had history with the setting and world. They had friends and allies, rivals and enemies. They had stories to tell and people knew their name. Certainly it might be harder than waking around with an empty headed character, but not by much and it opens up so many possibilities for the characters you can run.

[goto124]

sentence 2's meaning escapes me (poor beast?).

A typo. It's supposed to read "very poor at best".

[Darth Ultron]

I can answer the question in sentence 1, sentence 2's meaning escapes me (poor beast?). Anyways, the answer is because it gives you more character concepts to work with, that feel quite different from the others. There are only so many variations on ignorant farmboy you can do. Plus things like being hunted by an old ally who my character partied ways with before the adventure started is more interesting than generic PC with which you have no history with attacks you.

Some of my favourite characters only worked because they had history with the setting and world. They had friends and allies, rivals and enemies. They had stories to tell and people knew their name. Certainly it might be harder than waking around with an empty headed character, but not by much and it opens up so many possibilities for the characters you can run.

Your character does not need to be an unbelievable expert that knows everything about everything to have a backstory. You don't have to know all hard crunchy rules and exploits for everything in the game to role play a character.

You can even be ''hunted by an old ally and have a long detailed back story'' and NOT automatically know every single detail about the game world.

So your kind of mixing two things: a character with a back story vs the character that is an expert.

The second sentence should be ''at best'', as there is no good way to ''fake'' being an expert. You get:
1.DM stops the game to tell the player whatever the character knows, often..
2.The DM just handwaves things ''your character does whatever and it's good''
3.The DM takes control of the player's character.

My way is:
1.Your character starts out as clueless, but feel free to pay attention during the game and even role play to try and discover anything you want.
2.Feel free to ask the DM questions at any time outside of the game. The DM more then welcomes a questionnaire E-mail or two.
3.Feel free to read up on your own any rulebooks or fluff novels about the setting. You are also free to ask the DM for a recommended reading and viewing list.

[Lord Torath]

And it does get crazy with the 'old' stuff the players ''think'' they know. Like a couple weeks ago I had a PC group that was being escorted through some woods by some elves. At night the elves cut down a tree to make a fire. Two players really flipped out over this demanding that ''elves would never, ever cut down a live tree''. In their interpretation of elves, they think they would never do that. They agreed that elves can hunt for food, but can't cut down trees....

I quite agree with your players. Forest-dwelling elves would almost never cut down trees to throw on a fire. Green wood doesn't burn well, and forest-dwelling elves would know that. I wouldn't blink an eye if they chopped down a tree, cut and split it into appropriately-sized pieces, and then added those to a cache to be burned at a later date though.

On topic, players only get to know about custom creations if it's something their characters would know. They will know next to nothing about monsters that only emerge from the depths every 100 years, or the lost lore said monsters bring with them. But they'll know lots about their immediate area, and possibly even a bit about the surrounding regions.

As Jay R says, there is an inherent trust you are putting in the DM when you agree to take part in her game. Sometimes there's a lot of trust, and you will trust the DM not to play "Gotcha" with new stuff. Sometimes, not so much. The less trust you have in your DM, the more detail you're going to want on custom creations.

[Tinkerer]

Well, no, I would not do it your example way. I'd do it:
Player-"My character Grom wants to hunt!''
DM- "No problem. Grom can take a couple hours and get a deer and three rabbits. "

Now, at no time is the DM talking control of the character. It's more just a fast forward of time.



Well, one of my big house rules....one that has made many a player run from my house screaming...is that Knowledge Checks are ''rumors/folk lore/hearsay/gossip/guesses/random incorrect information mixed with maybe a couple real facts." Unlike the very badly written 3x rules that say knowledge checks are absolute fact and everyone is a super hard core expert and never ever wrong ever.

And as I let players use their own intelligence....oh it's loads of fun to watch a player have a character run from a giant snake and jump in a river and be like ''ha, it can't follow me as snakes can't swim!"

Well on the first point there it is most definitely a matter of the GM taking control of the character. I mean if my hunter went out hunting and brought back a deer and three rabbits I'd be kinda pissed as that's way more than I had intended to hunt for. That's going to be a ton of time that it's going to take out of my characters day to process it and a lot of weight added to the parties packs (~60-100 lbs). And I'm failing to see how that's less of an example of the GM taking control as the character making up a meal of the Swamp Orcs local cuisine.

For the second point I must admit I'm impressed. I thought that Wizards had screwed the skill monkey as hard it could get screwed but you've gone and proved me wrong. So it doesn't matter what the character knowledge is in the slightest, just what the player knowledge is. So a druid who has dedicated her life to the study of plants can't tell what a treant is but Groknar the barbarian with an intelligence of 3 can talk for days about how the aboleth is a psychic squid with hypnotic pattern, illusory wall, mirage arcana, persistent image, programmed image, project image, and veil, but they aren't very dexterous so if the mage uses a spell with a reflex save it probably can't dodge and watch out for it's tentacles because the only way to treat someone who fails a save if you don't have remove disease is to submerge them in water etc... Not only that but you went and made one of the character choices WORSE THAN USELESS. Since the knowledge skill return random information using them is literally worse than guessing. Trust me you will have less people running screaming from your table if you just remove the knowledge skills from your game altogether.

[2D8HP]

Ha. No to this crap. I run 1st edition adnd....

No, no, and no. The primary reason to have custom creations is to re-inject a bit of mystery - .

As an Administrator/DM/Keeper/GM/Referee (never "Storyteller" by Crom!), I pretty much just reuse the Cultist shenanigans that I stole from were inspired by Conan the Destroyer, and Young Sherlock Holmes, but as a player (probably to no ones suprise) I greatly prefer the FreddyNoNose and Jay R approach, and would feel priveledged to sit at their tables.

I really enjoy the "Hollow Earth/Lost World" trope, in which adventures stumble upon a strange unknown new land where somehow they quickly learn the language (in some of the stories the "Lost Race" inhabitants are descended from Greeks or Romans and speak a language that is conveniently little different from one a protaganist studied in school, or you just go full Burroughs and the heroes are quick learners of languages despite being otherwise dim).

I much prefer that my PC's are "not from here" and get to explore the setting in-character.

Being from an isolated peaceful "shire" works well too