|
It's something I've been wondering for a while as I run APs and played in some homebrew games, where history of the world and interesting things that don't add anything to the gameplay mechanic wise are hidden behind knowledge walls.
To give you an example: The party is exploring a castle ruin, filled with monsters. One players asks about the history of the castle and is told to make the knowledge check. If he suceeds, he finds out that the castle was once controlled by a tryant king who killed the lover of a powerful wizard. Enraged, the wizard destroyed the kingdom in a single night, buried his beloved, and killed himself to be with her.
Now, I could understand if there was some game mechanics or metagame issue here, but the reality is that so many times I see stuff like this just arbitrarily hidden from the party if someone doesn't have access to a knowledge skill and I just don't get the point. Why not have the party find a journal or something detailing the events. Why take the time to create a rich backstory to your game and then put it behind an artificial wall?
I don't think there is a problem with providing the players that information in another way.
But part of the reason for making that roll is because skills should have some role-playing value and to disguise when they may learn something mechanically beneficial.
When they fail that knowledge check they don't know if they missed out on the solution to a puzzle somewhere down the road or just an interesting back story.
Tension is kind of nice in games. But also your bard gets to feel useful, and your fighter has no way of knowing that stuff. Again, throw that book in so they get to find that stuff anyway if its really interesting, but the knowledge check has value.
|
RP, many players don't use RP and character knowledge in that way anymore (at least not that I've yet found) but the idea is to see if your character knows that and while it might not have any mechanical effect it may still affect the actions of the character, for those into heavier RP anyway.
For the modern kick in the door, MMO model players, it ends up being less fun, so you should skip the checks if your group doesn't play that way, it's still nice for RP people like me though.
(Note: by mmo model players I mean the ones that play the same or similar way they would play an mmo, selecting peak efficiency builds, party roles, RP as secondary. Nothing wrong with it, just different style)
Edit; ninjad by a post with many other good points :)
|
|
I guess my problem is that every group I have ever been in has always treated knowledges the same way
You have the "Good" knowledges:
Planes
Religion
Arcana
Dungeoneering
Nature
Religion
Local
and the "Bad" knowledges:
History
Geography
Nobility
Engineering
where typically you use the "good" knowledges every game, and the "Bad" knowledges rarely come up if every, and if they do, half the time the party doesn't learn anything "useful" and by that I mean clues to solving puzzles, or something of that nature, but rather just background fluff.
My point is that I don't see a reason for hiding background fluff from a party. It's sole purpose is to make the world more interesting and realistic. It's what turns Generic Castle Ruins #974 into Tidewater Bastion, the castle on the ocean cliff where 100 men held of an invading fleet for 3 months.
Yeah, so much can get hidden, it's a bit sad.
Dm looks on hopefully, oh, no one passed the check or they don't have the knowledge (and no bards around to save the day). Darn.
I recall a runelords game we played, we had to be ultra-fit combat machines. So we learned very little, and when we brought in a detective fighter with a mancatcher, he got killed by the boss. Sigh. lol.
I guess my problem is that every group I have ever been in has always treated knowledges the same way
You have the "Good" knowledges:
Planes
Religion
Arcana
Dungeoneering
Nature
Religion
Localand the "Bad" knowledges:
History
Geography
Nobility
Engineeringwhere typically you use the "good" knowledges every game, and the "Bad" knowledges rarely come up if every, and if they do, half the time the party doesn't learn anything "useful" and by that I mean clues to solving puzzles, or something of that nature, but rather just background fluff.
My point is that I don't see a reason for hiding background fluff from a party. It's sole purpose is to make the world more interesting and realistic. It's what turns Generic Castle Ruins #974 into Tidewater Bastion, the castle on the ocean cliff where 100 men held of an invading fleet for 3 months.
Good points, I've thought about this as well.
As a bit of a history buff, it'll always lead to at least something useful in my games. Geography is great for getting as much as you can on an area. Where to hold up, where to run to if it goes bad. Or you wander around with no info.
It's something I've been wondering for a while as I run APs and played in some homebrew games, where history of the world and interesting things that don't add anything to the gameplay mechanic wise are hidden behind knowledge walls.
To give you an example: The party is exploring a castle ruin, filled with monsters. One players asks about the history of the castle and is told to make the knowledge check. If he suceeds, he finds out that the castle was once controlled by a tryant king who killed the lover of a powerful wizard. Enraged, the wizard destroyed the kingdom in a single night, buried his beloved, and killed himself to be with her.
Now, I could understand if there was some game mechanics or metagame issue here, but the reality is that so many times I see stuff like this just arbitrarily hidden from the party if someone doesn't have access to a knowledge skill and I just don't get the point. Why not have the party find a journal or something detailing the events. Why take the time to create a rich backstory to your game and then put it behind an artificial wall?
I think there's a point (in that if they dont reveal such information then what are those knowledge skills for?). However, I think the adventure (and the associated DC checks), the DM and the players all have to be on the same page. I agree that they arent as mechanically useful as the knowledge skills which tell you what monsters are vulnerable to though.
Players more focussed on mechanical advantage will be less likely to invest in Knowledge (Nobility) than in Knowledge (Religion). If your group is like that, maybe you could grant two skill ranks for every point invested in the "bad" knowledge skills or something? (Or equivalently, lower the DCs of those checks). At least that way, they may toss a few spare points into those skills "just in case".
Alternately (if they really arent interested in devoting skills to those areas), perhaps you could grant extra ranks in those neglected areas at no cost based on background/training/general knowledge.
Ultimately, of course, the best solution is to introduce scenarios where those skills become more useful. It's hard to do utilising pre-written adventures though (without inadvertently creating one of those awkward situations: "Make this obscure DC check or the adventure stops for an hour").
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I've always run into the problem as a DM/Player:
Skills are limited and a player who puts skill points into a skill they never get to use is always going to have a bad time, and rightfully so because they've wasted a resource without really knowing that doing so was wasteful (I try to do the best I can to make sure this doesn't happen as a DM, but I'm not always successful).
Therefore, players are generally speaking going to go for skills that are going to be useful. It's why Perception is so damn ubiquitous.
I mean, I've literally played in games where people have yelled at other players for taking skills like "Knowledge: Geography" over things like "Knowledge: Nature" and it's saddens me both that the player with Knowledge: Geography is getting so little use out of his skill and that someone perceives the skill as so useless that they'll yell at someone for not taking a "More useful" skill.
Don't get me wrong, there are situations where the knowledges that aren't Monster Knowledges come in handy, such as the character with knowledge engineering noticing that the rope bridge will break if the party tries to cross it, or that a player with knowledge: History knows that the castle the party is about to assault was previously infiltrated hundreds of years ago through a secret passage in the town's salt mines, leading the party to the alternative route.
Those are great usages. But I find that they're so damn rare, especially in APs, and instead you only get what I said, fluff text by making a knowledge check, which leads to players getting disappointed when time comes for them to have an important skill, like knowledge nature to figure out what stops the monster's regeneration.
|
It's sort of a difference between old school and new school, and rollplayers and roleplayers.
If you want to roleplay it out you can do so and get the information by talking to some locals, checking the library, etc and not make a roll at all.
Then there are the rollplayers. Pick a skill, and do nothing more than roll some dice. Maybe you learn something maybe you don't. Them's the Tradeoffs.
Sounds like you prefer too roleplay rather than just rollplay. :-)
Well, I've always run into the problem as a DM/Player:
Skills are limited and a player who puts skill points into a skill they never get to use is always going to have a bad time, and rightfully so because they've wasted a resource without really knowing that doing so was wasteful (I try to do the best I can to make sure this doesn't happen as a DM, but I'm not always successful).
Therefore, players are generally speaking going to go for skills that are going to be useful. It's why Perception is so damn ubiquitous.
I mean, I've literally played in games where people have yelled at other players for taking skills like "Knowledge: Geography" over things like "Knowledge: Nature" and it's saddens me both that the player with Knowledge: Geography is getting so little use out of his skill and that someone perceives the skill as so useless that they'll yell at someone for not taking a "More useful" skill.
Don't get me wrong, there are situations where the knowledges that aren't Monster Knowledges come in handy, such as the character with knowledge engineering noticing that the rope bridge will break if the party tries to cross it, or that a player with knowledge: History knows that the castle the party is about to assault was previously infiltrated hundreds of years ago through a secret passage in the town's salt mines, leading the party to the alternative route.
Those are great usages. But I find that they're so damn rare, especially in APs, and instead you only get what I said, fluff text by making a knowledge check, which leads to players getting disappointed when time comes for them to have an important skill, like knowledge nature to figure out what stops the monster's regeneration.
Yeah - it's hard to make them more useful when you're running APs or modules. That's why I figured it might be a solution to make them better value. Maybe the shouters won't be so cross if that errant skill point of Knowledge (Geography) gives you two ranks.
I suspect a party of people who consider skill allocation to be shouting worthy together with people who 'waste skills' on non-mechanically useful options is always going to have some discordance though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not a roleplay vs rollplay or new school vs old school issue. It is an issue of being efficient. I do think the yelling is taking it too far though. Person A should not be telling Person B how to make their character. I understand why someone may be upset about it, but that does not excuse rude behavior. It is not that serious. Person A can calmly explain his position, but in the end the decision still belongs to Person B.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No it really is a difference between roll vs role playing.
People who use Pathfinder as a table top strategy game, like Pathfinder Society, rely upon rollplaying. That is they allocate points to a skill, such as Knowledge history, and need to have some use of it otherwise they feel ripped off for wasting a skill point. In these kinds of games the info is hidden behind skill checks to reward players who allocate more points than others (or who just get a lucky die roll).
In role playing it is not really necessary to have the actual skill. The player roleplays going to a bar, or to a sage and roleplays acquiring the knowledge. There are no die rolls required at all in this kind of play. Any one and any class can get the information if they can roleplay. The amount of information you receive depends on the questions you ask, not a roll of a die.
Putting the flavor text into a conversation, or a book or whatever, is more roleplaying than rollplaying. It relies upon characters and interaction with the environment and it's people. Hiding flavor text behind skill checks is obviously rollplaying, as the information is essentially only acquired by rolling a die.
The OP discussed why hide the info behind die rolls instead of giving it in some other way. The reason is rollplaying vs roleplaying. Anyone at anytime can roleplay and get the info. Rollplayers must have skill checks to get the info.
Is one better than the other? Certainly not. Are they different and require different approaches? Certainly yes. And according to the OP's question, the answer is the difference between those two styles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No it isn't and I say that because you presented it in an "either or" fashion, when it is not that simple. You can be a great roleplayer, and still like to have a strong character. A rollplayer to me is someone who does not really care about roleplaying at all, and only cares about stats, but is very possible to be passionate about both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can only rollplay to get the info if there is an NPC around that might know the info. Players also generally only hunt for campaign specific information, so if not for the knowledge check they are not likely to know it unless an NPC mentions it as part of a conversation. Not hunting for information you don't need does not mean you are not a roleplayer however. Many times the PC's have something to do, and looking for information they don't need is impractical. What hero, assuming the PC's are trying to be hero's, looks for information he does not need when he has lives to save?
To give you an example: The party is exploring a castle ruin, filled with monsters. One players asks about the history of the castle and is told to make the knowledge check. If he suceeds, he finds out that the castle was once controlled by a tryant king who killed the lover of a powerful wizard. Enraged, the wizard destroyed the kingdom in a single night, buried his beloved, and killed himself to be with her.
Now, I could understand if there was some game mechanics or metagame issue here, but the reality is that so many times I see stuff like this just arbitrarily hidden from the party if someone doesn't have access to a knowledge skill and I just don't get the point. Why not have the party find a journal or something detailing the events. Why take the time to create a rich backstory to your game and then put it behind an artificial wall?
For common folklore knowledge, such as the history of a local ruin, I make the DC of the Knowledge(history) check to be 5 or less. And give a +2 circumstance bonus for a player character who spent some time with the locals.
If the module sets the DC higher, I sweeten the result. I glance ahead to the treasure list, and add, "The tyrant king's circlet crown was never found. It is rumored to have the magic power to blast people that displeased the king."
Yeah, so much can get hidden, it's a bit sad.
Dm looks on hopefully, oh, no one passed the check or they don't have the knowledge (and no bards around to save the day). Darn.
I recall a runelords game we played, we had to be ultra-fit combat machines. So we learned very little, and when we brought in a detective fighter with a mancatcher, he got killed by the boss. Sigh. lol.
In the Rise of the Runelords I ran, the party specialized in gathering advance knowledge and coming to battle prepared. Due to them skipping unnecessary encounters, they usually ran a level low in experience, but I could count on them defeating CR level+3 challenges if they had enough information. In a few places I had to add an unlikely ally to feed them the information.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's sort of a difference between old school and new school, and rollplayers and roleplayers.
If you want to roleplay it out you can do so and get the information by talking to some locals, checking the library, etc and not make a roll at all.
Then there are the rollplayers. Pick a skill, and do nothing more than roll some dice. Maybe you learn something maybe you don't. Them's the Tradeoffs.
Sounds like you prefer too roleplay rather than just rollplay. :-)
No, it's not. If you don't use the skill system, you have to ad hoc what knowledge you as a character has (or write a very, very complex background story that's half a novel). If you use the skill system, you can roll to find out what _background_ knowledge the character has.
Anyone, regardless, can get the information through Gather Information, spending time with the locals, checking libraries and such. That's how you gain new information.
Knowledge doesn't determine what information you _gain_, just what information you _have_ from off-screen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To give you an example: The party is exploring a castle ruin, filled with monsters. One players asks about the history of the castle and is told to make the knowledge check. If he suceeds, he finds out that the castle was once controlled by a tryant king who killed the lover of a powerful wizard. Enraged, the wizard destroyed the kingdom in a single night, buried his beloved, and killed himself to be with her.
Now, I could understand if there was some game mechanics or metagame issue here, but the reality is that so many times I see stuff like this just arbitrarily hidden from the party if someone doesn't have access to a knowledge skill and I just don't get the point. Why not have the party find a journal or something detailing the events. Why take the time to create a rich backstory to your game and then put it behind an artificial wall?
For common folklore knowledge, such as the history of a local ruin, I make the DC of the Knowledge(history) check to be 5 or less. And give a +2 circumstance bonus for a player character who spent some time with the locals.
If the module sets the DC higher, I sweeten the result. I glance ahead to the treasure list, and add, "The tyrant king's circlet crown was never found. It is rumored to have the magic power to blast people that displeased the king."
Which is fine, but my point is that game mechanics, like skills, exist to facilitate the storytelling aspect of the game. My point is that I think it's bad game design to take a pure story element and hide it behind game mechanics.
It would be like writing a novel for an English speaking audience and then arbitrarily writing a chapter in Chinese, hoping that your audience took the time to learn Chinese at some point. Your audience is there to enjoy your story, so why would you do soemthing ridiculous like hide an important portion of it from any of your readers who didn't have the foresight to learn Chinese?
|
|
I understand what you are saying, but I would say the advantage is that it's more interactive. An RPG is not a novel, it's an interactive story controlled by both the players and the DM. It should be an interesting experience with enough depth no matter what the players do, but if there's parts of the story that the players only get to see if they seek it out (knowledge checks/they find the old diary in the back of the locked chest and read it/ they find the secret door and find rooms they might have missed/whatever) then that makes it feel more interactive.
Which is fine, but my point is that game mechanics, like skills, exist to facilitate the storytelling aspect of the game. My point is that I think it's bad game design to take a pure story element and hide it behind game mechanics.It would be like writing a novel for an English speaking audience and then arbitrarily writing a chapter in Chinese, hoping that your audience took the time to learn Chinese at some point. Your audience is there to enjoy your story, so why would you do soemthing ridiculous like hide an important portion of it from any of your readers who didn't have the foresight to learn Chinese?
But I think it can be interactive without having it be a skill barrier issue. If the party is moving through the dungeon and they miss the diary of the Ser Whatshisface because they never searched the room, that's ok, the diary is still there and they can always come back and find it. But if the party fails a skill check or doesn't have the requisite skill, mechanics wise they are BARRED from that information, and I think that's bad game design and AWFUL storytelling.
Obviously, this is easily fixed by the GM, but my point is that fact that I have to do it at all is frustrating. It just shouldn't be that way.
I base it off the party and whether or not the information is essential or would otherwise add great detail/fun/immersion to the game.
If it's just a little snippet, they may never come to know it. However, if it's awesome or essential and none of the PCs have the appropriate skill than they will invariably find it in a tome, hear it from an NPC, or otherwise obtain it from some similar source. If a PC has an appropriate knowledge skill, then he gets the pleasure of explaining it to the party himself, allowing him to roleplay his intellect and strengthen his chosen role as a scholar.
I've seen GMs withhold ESSENTIAL information, and watch as the entire game fell apart due to player confusion. I never understood that. What's the point of roleplaying if you aren't even going to tell a good cohesive story?
Flat out GIVING them the information doesn't always work either. I made up a clue filled letter, carefully scorched from a fire that the players eventually ignored rather than tried to put out or even rescue papers from. Sealed the prop with wax and dotted it with red ink for blood! In game, I had to make the melted wax actually stick to the Fighter's boot and make a scrapping noise (noticed by the Rogue) before anyone even thought to look. He ripped it open didn't see any treasure mentioned and THREW IT INTO THE FIRE!!!! Trash can, out of game.
A few days later, I had another group that included said fighter, doing a sweep of the same ruins and the Bard 'found the letter, even more destroyed and deciphered all manner of stuff from it, more than I really put in. He recognized the paper's watermark, the wax in the seal, ink, handwriting quirks that I hadn't planned on (Hey, a natural 20 with a +11), all to the previous party Fighter's amazement.
I must plead guilty to actually 'hitting' the party with information they really needed to be looking for, an imp throwing wadded paper from the Wizard's waste bin. After GMing nearly 40 years, I do tend to demand more of the players these days.
|
|
No it isn't and I say that because you presented it in an "either or" fashion, when it is not that simple. You can be a great roleplayer, and still like to have a strong character. A rollplayer to me is someone who does not really care about roleplaying at all, and only cares about stats, but is very possible to be passionate about both.
I disagree, I say that's a matter of opinion.
I personally consider rollplayers to be those who play like it's an mmo, with clearly defined limits and a goal of making awesome raid worthy characters with the intent to win, and roleplayers to be those who play to play and usually make well rounded characters.
Rollplayers thus are the ones who have a problem with other's characters being unnderpowered, because it weakens the groups ability to fight.
It doesn't mean rollplayers don't like RP, it's more a matter of priority (ability over flavor) that heavily infuences your style.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The purpose of "hiding" flavor text behind Knowledge checks is to reward players who have characters who are good at Knowledge checks. It's also a handy game mechanic to explain why secrets can exist; if there were no Knowledge checks, why couldn't everyone know everything? The act of exploring unknown ruins is fun, as is the act of learning those ancient secrets.
But you as the GM don't need to be shackled by them. You know what is and isn't vitally important for the PCs to learn in order to progress in the adventure you're running, just as you know what particular bits of lore you really want the PCs to learn because you think they'd appreciate it. And as such.. you shouldn't worry about fudging Knowledge checks now and then. Rather than adhere to a DC 30 check, for example, as long as there's a character who's got ranks in that needed Knowledge, feel free to treat the highest check as the success, regardless of the roll.
If that kind of die/DC fudging is not your cup of tea, you can instead drop books and notes and scrolls and talkative NPCs into your adventure who can impart the knowledge to the PCs automatically if they don't make earlier checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do we hide secret doors behind perception checks?
I want my players to be able to find that secret door because that is where the badguy they have been tracking is hiding. If they fail the perception check or don't have it as a skill and are unable to find it due to its difficulty I have just made that badguy impossible to find!
Its still a matter of balancing skills and benefiting the players. If I want the players to know that flavor text I will give it to them eventually.
Sometimes players need to know that they failed a check and not know what they missed- they may find out that info later (or may find that secret door later) but they don't need to know I am making up for their failed roll.
Additionally I think there is some merit to the roll v role player argument.
I believe that most good players will make good choices for their character and will also make good mechanical choices. But you also have the extremes on either end who will refuse to make non-optimal choices (ignoring other good choices for the best choices) so that they have what they believe is the most effective character regardless of the characters personality and reasoning. There are other players who will go out of their way to make a sub-optimal character because they want to roleplay that kind of character. The mechanics to these players is a means to an end, they have an idea and could care less if that character is maximally effective.
None of those are bad, I tend to fall in the middle and occasionally veer to both sides of that continuum. It just depends on what I think would be fun right then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No it isn't and I say that because you presented it in an "either or" fashion, when it is not that simple. You can be a great roleplayer, and still like to have a strong character. A rollplayer to me is someone who does not really care about roleplaying at all, and only cares about stats, but is very possible to be passionate about both.I disagree, I say that's a matter of opinion.
I personally consider rollplayers to be those who play like it's an mmo, with clearly defined limits and a goal of making awesome raid worthy characters with the intent to win, and roleplayers to be those who play to play and usually make well rounded characters.
Rollplayers thus are the ones who have a problem with other's characters being unnderpowered, because it weakens the groups ability to fight.
It doesn't mean rollplayers don't like RP, it's more a matter of priority (ability over flavor) that heavily infuences your style.
It is not an either/or situation. You can like both sides of the game. Not caring about what a party member does with regard to mechanics does not mean you are closer to roleplaying. Caring about what a party member does with regard to mechanics does not make you less of a roleplayer.
Well rounded(can do more than one thing( characters are generally better at helping the party succeed. The inability or lack of desire of a player to make such a character does not make them less of a roleplayer.
Caring about another party member being effective is not a bad thing. If he does not do a decent job, then your character might die for it. That does not mean player A should have a temper tantrum because player B refused to make better mechanical choices, but in a team oriented game I think it is worthy of notice. I generally make my characters last when I get to play in order to cover such holes. It helps everyone because the focus is off of the character who is not providing what the party normally needs. Player B also gets to play what he wants.
PS:I have never had anyone tell at anyone when I was a player or a GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The purpose of "hiding" flavor text behind Knowledge checks is to reward players who have characters who are good at Knowledge checks. It's also a handy game mechanic to explain why secrets can exist; if there were no Knowledge checks, why couldn't everyone know everything? The act of exploring unknown ruins is fun, as is the act of learning those ancient secrets.
But you as the GM don't need to be shackled by them. You know what is and isn't vitally important for the PCs to learn in order to progress in the adventure you're running, just as you know what particular bits of lore you really want the PCs to learn because you think they'd appreciate it. And as such.. you shouldn't worry about fudging Knowledge checks now and then. Rather than adhere to a DC 30 check, for example, as long as there's a character who's got ranks in that needed Knowledge, feel free to treat the highest check as the success, regardless of the roll.
If that kind of die/DC fudging is not your cup of tea, you can instead drop books and notes and scrolls and talkative NPCs into your adventure who can impart the knowledge to the PCs automatically if they don't make earlier checks.
I would like to add that there is nothing that says the GM can't use that information as a springboard for another adventure. It doesn't even have to be with that same party. Imagine that the party finds the story in the opening post. Maybe Maximumus the Mysterious Mage of Myrkle finds it interesting but they know they have a bigger mission that needs their attention but they want to know more. So they decide to hire someone to look into it more. A few weeks later, Jerry can't make it to the session and it's an important session so the GM asks everyone to come over with 6th level characters. They are going to explore the story that Max was researching. So the players get a side quest that can fill in for the group, all from an interesting bit of knowledge that was gained in another quest.
|
|
The purpose of "hiding" flavor text behind Knowledge checks is to reward players who have characters who are good at Knowledge checks. It's also a handy game mechanic to explain why secrets can exist; if there were no Knowledge checks, why couldn't everyone know everything? The act of exploring unknown ruins is fun, as is the act of learning those ancient secrets.
But you as the GM don't need to be shackled by them. You know what is and isn't vitally important for the PCs to learn in order to progress in the adventure you're running, just as you know what particular bits of lore you really want the PCs to learn because you think they'd appreciate it. And as such.. you shouldn't worry about fudging Knowledge checks now and then. Rather than adhere to a DC 30 check, for example, as long as there's a character who's got ranks in that needed Knowledge, feel free to treat the highest check as the success, regardless of the roll.
If that kind of die/DC fudging is not your cup of tea, you can instead drop books and notes and scrolls and talkative NPCs into your adventure who can impart the knowledge to the PCs automatically if they don't make earlier checks.
And typically, that's what I do. Where I tend to run into problems sometimes is when a player simply doesn't have a requisite knowledge.
I guess my big issue is that it creates a culture (at least from my observations) of "Good" or "Useful" knowledges and "Bad" or "Useless" knowledges. And that leads to more games where no one has History, Nobility, Geography, which leads to more games where those knowledge checks go unmade, and therefore re-enforces the stereotype that those knowleges are bad.
I guess what upsets me about the situation is that as someone who writes a fair bit, it's sad to think of someone writing details of a story and then people who should be reading it don't.
|
|
Why do we hide secret doors behind perception checks?
I want my players to be able to find that secret door because that is where the badguy they have been tracking is hiding. If they fail the perception check or don't have it as a skill and are unable to find it due to its difficulty I have just made that badguy impossible to find!
I don't think that's a great analogy to what I'm talking about, because there are mechanical benefits to finding the badguy behind the secret door.
What I am talking about is PURELY fluff information, like "The Mayor has two dogs, Scooby and Skipper" with a knowledge local check. I haven't learned anything mechanically useful from that knowledge check, but I have fleshed out the world more and made it more real to the players.
And that's my argument: It doesn't make sense to write up history and character and all sorts of quirky nuances about your world and then hide the ball if your characters didn't take the very specific skill required.
My point is that if you only make people roll perception when there is a trap or a secret door they will no something is up.
If you only have people roll knowledge when there is a mechanical benefit it is the same thing.
you can roll perception to notice fluff in the game in the exact same way you can roll knowledge to learn fluff.
|
|
My point is that if you only make people roll perception when there is a trap or a secret door they will no something is up.
If you only have people roll knowledge when there is a mechanical benefit it is the same thing.
you can roll perception to notice fluff in the game in the exact same way you can roll knowledge to learn fluff.
Well, I hate to say it, but perception is always the "Something is about to go down" skill. I've never, in all my years of gaming, rolled a perception check without having mechanical repercussions. You may no always know what those repercussions were, but they existed. That's why I make my players tell me their perceptions and roll it in secret many times. They know I'm rolling, but not what.
Likewise, I think the problem is that you've given yourself away by naming the knowledge. If the DM asks me to roll knowledge Arcana, I know it's important. If they tell me to roll Nobility, I can be pretty sure that if I fail, I wasn't missing out on anything mechanically detrimental.
The problem is that Knowledge skills aren't Class skills in most cases. Even if a fighter puts some of his meager allotment of skill points into a Knowledge skill he's not going to be good enough at it to make much difference. As opposed to the wizard who has little else to put his skill points into and has a high INT to boot. So there's little incentive to put an already limited resource (skill points) into a skill that, unless you're a bard, wizard or some other INT-based character , is unlikely to ever do you any good (as opposed to Perception which is useful to any character and any bonus in it is good to have).
The purpose of "hiding" flavor text behind Knowledge checks is to reward players who have characters who are good at Knowledge checks. It's also a handy game mechanic to explain why secrets can exist; if there were no Knowledge checks, why couldn't everyone know everything? The act of exploring unknown ruins is fun, as is the act of learning those ancient secrets.
But you as the GM don't need to be shackled by them. You know what is and isn't vitally important for the PCs to learn in order to progress in the adventure you're running, just as you know what particular bits of lore you really want the PCs to learn because you think they'd appreciate it. And as such.. you shouldn't worry about fudging Knowledge checks now and then. Rather than adhere to a DC 30 check, for example, as long as there's a character who's got ranks in that needed Knowledge, feel free to treat the highest check as the success, regardless of the roll.
If that kind of die/DC fudging is not your cup of tea, you can instead drop books and notes and scrolls and talkative NPCs into your adventure who can impart the knowledge to the PCs automatically if they don't make earlier checks.
And typically, that's what I do. Where I tend to run into problems sometimes is when a player simply doesn't have a requisite knowledge.
I guess my big issue is that it creates a culture (at least from my observations) of "Good" or "Useful" knowledges and "Bad" or "Useless" knowledges. And that leads to more games where no one has History, Nobility, Geography, which leads to more games where those knowledge checks go unmade, and therefore re-enforces the stereotype that those knowleges are bad.
I guess what upsets me about the situation is that as someone who writes a fair bit, it's sad to think of someone writing details of a story and then people who should be reading it don't.
Back in a D&D 3.0 adventure, our first-level party needed to swim across an underground stream in order to reach the bad guy. No-one had put ranks into swim and we ended up using ropes and hauling out people swept downstream. Afterwards, our party vowed that we would all learn to swim.
The same party, with a few new members, had to swim again at 7th level. Only half of the original party members had put ranks into swim. My cleric had only two ranks in swim.
If characters don't use a skill, why should they put ranks into it? Even if they realize that one day they might desperately need that skill, it is easy to put it off to next level. The skills that are immediately useful are the ones that get attention.
It is easy to see the uses of Knowledge(Nature): watch out, I've heard that beast has venom in its claws. Or Knowledge(Religion): those devils always keep their word, but use tricky phrasing. The less immediate Knowledge is the knowledge skills overlooked. Just like swim skill.
Thus, we GMs and the authors of modules need to reward people for having the less immediate Knowledge skills. Someone took Knowledge(History) and the party is battling thoroughly modern enemies. Have him remember a historical battle that gives a hint as to enemy tactics. Someone took Knowledge(Geography) when the GM provided maps to every place the party wants to go? Let her hold the maps and guide the party.
In order to make the less immediate knowledge seem useful, we need to offer small rewards for easy DC rolls. I often say, "Okay, everyone make a Knowledge(History) or Knowledge(Religion) roll, whichever is best. Anyone roll over 10? Good, you few remember that the Lamashtu cult had a major presence in this area a hundred years ago. That's all ... for now." Sometimes the clue has to be buried in fluff to keep it from being that obvious. Sometime an amusing fluff story is the only reward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is the DM / Module writer's responsibility to ensure that ANY ability is useful.
How many AP's/modules has Paizo written where Profession (Cobbler) was a useful skill to have? Is Skulls & Shackles a bad AP because the Ranger who chose Arctic as his favored terrain isn't provided with a chance to use it? Or his Profession (Shepherd)? How useful is any Profession skill? Or any Craft skill outside of magical item creation?
If the DM never includes anything hidden, then Perception is useless.
Unlike the 3.x division of Search/Spot/Listen, the Perception skill covers a far greater range than just what the DM has deliberately hidden. Unless you're running a game where nobody ever has to pay attention to anything, Perception will always be a useful skill.
I also don't set ridiculously low DC's just to force my players to roll some dice. I don't have my Varisian player make a roll to know that a Garund's native language is Osirian anymore than I make them roll to know that Orcs speak Orc; I just tell them and get on with the game. I can see little reason to enforce such rolls except to deliberately slow the pace of the game.
I guess it does just come down to how you want to play the game and how you have fun.
I think having those skills (cobbler) can add something to the character. No they may not be massively mechanically beneficial but the GM could do something with it.
I want my players to have to work for some of their knowledge, if they just know it without reason then the game loses whatever level of simulation that it has.
That does not mean that people who want to hand their players the information are doing it wrong, I just prefer to validate my players roleplaying choices rather than ignore them. On the other hand I try and challenge (punish?) my players who make strictly meta game or mechanic choices.
Nope I'm not punishing someone for doing that. You are engineering a situation that doesn't really exist and you're ignoring what I'm talking about.
I am not requiring someone to put points anywhere. If, however, someone chooses to put a point there then maybe I can reward them for that choice in some non-combat related way.
I have never insisted that someone take points in a skill for their background. Though it would seem funny to claim you are a blacksmith but not know how to be a blacksmith. Those skills exist for a reason.
Additionally, if someone puts a single point into cobbling I don't really see that having a massive impact on party survivability.
So what your saying is that if one of your players were to take a point in cobbling then you would punish them for not taking a mechanically beneficial choice?
My point is that all choices are fine. If someone wants to say they were a dwarven blacksmith who became a fighter later in life then I think thats fine. If they put a point into blacksmithing because their character would know how to do it, thats fine too.
It sounds like the way you are approaching the game is to punish players for their decisions, while what I am talking about is rewarding them for it.
If someone wants to make a decision that makes sense for their character (I was a tailor before I became a wizard!) then okay, we can figure something out for that. If they say "my dad was a tailor but I never picked up on the skills" so he takes no points in it then fine. But I am not going to give the character the knowledge and capability to use skills that they have not paid for.
I will also not give a character knowledge they don't have the capability of gaining either.
It is simply a matter of perspective, I view this as a role playing game that uses tactics, and even focuses on tactics. I will let my players have fun with that. But it is a role playing game before it is a tactical game- so I will reward my players for roleplaying decisions as well. If you choose to put a point in swimming rather than knowledge nobility because it is mechanically better I will not reward them with all kinds of knowledge about the nobility. Its a choice, and the player should accept that choice as part of the inherent advantages and disadvantages of their character.
Here's how I look at it - Knowledge skills partially represent your characters' interests, hobbies, and vocational knowledge. Characters don't just spring into being, forged only with the tools and mindset for killing things and looting. They had interests - maybe they couldn't read, but always asked the storyteller for the one about the ancient kingdom that used to be in the lands across the mountains. Maybe the character used to spent hours building wooden block castles, or playing with blacksmith's puzzles. Knowledge (nobility) can be useful for determining that the loudmouth ponce the barbarian's about to punch out isn't just some upper class twit slumming it, he's the dauphin, due to the type of sash he's wearing or how his hair is styled or whatever; you read it somewhere and it just came to mind (with a successful check). Knowledge (geography) means that maybe the character knows that if you follow the river towards the northwest, you'll get to old abandoned city, because they read stories about the place once. Knowledge (engineering) might tell you that the wooden debris you've come across used to be a wagon axle, that appeared to have split under a heavy load. Or that since the stones in the castle wall weren't mortared well and there aren't any earthworks behind them, it won't be overly difficult to break via impact or siege engine.
If you're making a character who has a personality, they may very well have impractical interested that they invest time and effort in, that could be used more practically. Don't we all? Heck, isn't that what gaming is?
|
|
Here's how I look at it - Knowledge skills partially represent your characters' interests, hobbies, and vocational knowledge. Characters don't just spring into being, forged only with the tools and mindset for killing things and looting. They had interests - maybe they couldn't read, but always asked the storyteller for the one about the ancient kingdom that used to be in the lands across the mountains. Maybe the character used to spent hours building wooden block castles, or playing with blacksmith's puzzles. Knowledge (nobility) can be useful for determining that the loudmouth ponce the barbarian's about to punch out isn't just some upper class twit slumming it, he's the dauphin, due to the type of sash he's wearing or how his hair is styled or whatever; you read it somewhere and it just came to mind (with a successful check). Knowledge (geography) means that maybe the character knows that if you follow the river towards the northwest, you'll get to old abandoned city, because they read stories about the place once. Knowledge (engineering) might tell you that the wooden debris you've come across used to be a wagon axle, that appeared to have split under a heavy load. Or that since the stones in the castle wall weren't mortared well and there aren't any earthworks behind them, it won't be overly difficult to break via impact or siege engine.
If you're making a character who has a personality, they may very well have impractical interested that they invest time and effort in, that could be used more practically. Don't we all? Heck, isn't that what gaming is?
And those are all very practical uses of the skills, and I have no problem with that. But very often, information with no gameplay value, only story value, is also hidden behind those knowledge checks and I just can't see a good reason for it.
For example, you talk about knowledge nobility being used to identify a royal sash on the loudmouth, but what about the knowledge nobility check to know why the sash is the particular color that it is? Because of course it's color is some historical significance yadda yadda yadda, and ultimately knowing why the sash is the color that it is has ZERO affect on the gameplay, but it makes the game more intresting.
And THAT is my argument. Why would you hide that information from players unless they have a knowledge? Why not just TELL them that info somehow? What story is BETTER with less detail?
|
|
But not every story is a mystery. So often you see stuff that only exists to make the world around players more interesting, and then the players only have access to that info if they have a knowledge that they probably didn't take. So unless you as the GM fix it, you're left with a less interesting world and bored players.
To put it in perspective, I was playing a game once where the players could learn a bunch of cool, but absolutely "worthless" information about a town with a knowledge history check, but no one had knowledge history. So instead I had them find an official history in the town hall.
My point is that the book didn't want them to know the history without that skill check, and I think that's stupid. They didn't learn anything "valuable" by reading that book.
|
|
I understand what you're saying Elamdri, and I agree that it's a problem. Even a typical Adventure Path has a bucket load of information the players won't ever learn.
Here's some methods I've used to communicate flavour:
1) Taking 10 - Make a note of all the knowledges your players have, whenever there is a DC the PCs can beat when taking a 10, then just relay that information to the PC (if you have prep time write it on a note so that player can communicate it).
2) Clues, Journals, Expository NPCs: Sometimes your characters aren't going to have Knowledge (History), but will want to know about the Halls of Hungry Hoplites. They can consult a sage, or capture an NPC from that place, you might seed clues in various rooms or have a handy journal hand-out for the PCs to grab.
3) House-Rules: You can give each PC a bonus skill rank that they must put into a knowledge skill (between 4 players that's an extra 4 types of knowledge).
4) Only use the Knowledge Rules in Combat: It's okay to remove Knowledge (History, Engineering and Geography) from the rules entirely, the other knowledges are used for Monster Identification, but otherwise story/background information just gets distributed as the GM sees fit.
In any case I can see the problem, but I like the knowledge skills, because they provide flavour for a character that the player can tee off from.
I houseruled that perception, just like initiative, is not a skill but rather it's own stat. To be improved with a feat, by the higher of Int or Dex and by a fixed amount per level (3 Rogue/Ninja/Bard/Monk, 2 Martials/Divines/Hybrids, 1 Arcanes).
This takes into consideration that perception is by far the most used skill in my games.
Else I do not hide flavor text ever unless it has some important connection to the game which I try to establish as much as possible.
I think of this as the "good" way.
The "bad" way is to hide the information and the "ugly" way is to give it to whoever rolled highest.
|
|
I understand what you're saying Elamdri, and I agree that it's a problem. Even a typical Adventure Path has a bucket load of information the players won't ever learn.
Here's some methods I've used to communicate flavour:
1) Taking 10 - Make a note of all the knowledges your players have, whenever there is a DC the PCs can beat when taking a 10, then just relay that information to the PC (if you have prep time write it on a note so that player can communicate it).
2) Clues, Journals, Expository NPCs: Sometimes your characters aren't going to have Knowledge (History), but will want to know about the Halls of Hungry Hoplites. They can consult a sage, or capture an NPC from that place, you might seed clues in various rooms or have a handy journal hand-out for the PCs to grab.
3) House-Rules: You can give each PC a bonus skill rank that they must put into a knowledge skill (between 4 players that's an extra 4 types of knowledge).
4) Only use the Knowledge Rules in Combat: It's okay to remove Knowledge (History, Engineering and Geography) from the rules entirely, the other knowledges are used for Monster Identification, but otherwise story/background information just gets distributed as the GM sees fit.
In any case I can see the problem, but I like the knowledge skills, because they provide flavour for a character that the player can tee off from.
Typically what I do is make sure that each skill has some practical uses in game. A player with Engineering could help build the walls around a town or determine that if the party crosses the rope bridge, it will collapse under their weight. Nobility lets the players know that when seeking an audience with the king, it's customary to bring a tribute of gold. Geography lets the players know that the map the merchant is trying to sell them is a fake. History lets the players know that the castle they are trying to assault was previously infiltrated by a master thief via the old sewer system which still exists.
What I don't do is make players roll Engineering for example to know that the buildings in a town have elements of Thassilonian architecture and things of that nature. I just tell them that.
I've also toyed around with the idea of making knowledge untrained. Think of it as sort of the "Jeopardy" principle: Everyone has little bits of useless knowledge that they've collected throughout their lives, and may know something interesting or useful without having been trained in that subject.
Yeah - it's hard to make them more useful when you're running APs or modules.This, echoed and enhanced by this:
The purpose of "hiding" flavor text behind Knowledge checks is to reward players who have characters who are good at Knowledge checks. It's also a handy game mechanic to explain why secrets can exist; if there were no Knowledge checks, why couldn't everyone know everything? The act of exploring unknown ruins is fun, as is the act of learning those ancient secrets.
But you as the GM don't need to be shackled by them.
A GM needs to know their group, and cater to their desires for gameplay. If you want to fudge Knowledge checks because it's got good story elements, you should do it, even if you're running an AP or module. At no point should the letter of the AP or module feel like the holy unbreakable law. APs and modules, just like the rules, are designed to enhance your game, and make it easier for the GM to prepare. They are at no point designed to be the impenetrable rule. Besides the fact that unless your players have read the AP/module or run through it before (and have a good memory) they're not going to know about the knowledge check.
Heck, I sometimes throw in completely useless knowledge check rolls for those supposedly "bad" knowledge skills, with interesting tidbits about the local: lands, people, nobles, architecture, etc. just so those players that have those ranks are pleased that they took them.
I don't want to slam anyone's GMing or their GMing style, but I've always been of the mind that a good GM uses the rules to make things fun for the players. If you're sticking to the rules so strictly that neither you nor the players are enjoying the game (and many times for players this means feeling like their character is useful and vital) then it might be time to switch things up a bit.