Hi,
I'm considering a change to my game, and I'm wondering what the community's thoughts are on it. I'm thinking of completely doing away with the gather information skill, and saying to my players that if they wanted to put ranks into GI, they should instead put them into diplomacy. The rational is that it seems to me that GI is very much a way around role playing - roll the dice and see what you find out, without actually talking to anyone. However, if ranks were instead put into diplomacy, one can then have one-on-one interaction with NPCs, where the diplomacy roll is used to see if the NPC is willing to give the specific information.
Has anyone else done this? Does it work well? Or are there going to be situations that I can't foresee where it would have been better had the players had GI ranks?
Thanks,
Greg
yep; pretty much my thoughts too; the way I use the skill though is to identify who might be a good person to talk to and likely places to gain the information through roleplaying; so if a person makes there GI roll then, I tell them in roleplayese that the area such and such or the guy so and so with the such and such item looks like a good information source.
Very interesting ideas,
thanks for posting that! :)
YW :)
The only thing Gather Info has going for it is the time and gold cost. Otherwise it's nothing that roleplaying, Diplomacy and Knowledge (local) couldn't do just fine.
I like that idea of using Knowledge (local) to identify the best way/place to get the information, and then Diplomacy in actual one-on-one interaction.
Thanks for the input, everybody!
Greg
I like that idea of using Knowledge (local) to identify the best way/place to get the information, and then Diplomacy in actual one-on-one interaction.
Much like Monte Cook merged Hide and Move Silently into "Sneak," and Listen and Spot into "Sense" or something. I'm all in favor--I've played in campaigns where all similar skills were grouped: Knowledge (local) + Gather Info; Knowledge (arcana) + Spellcraft; Knowledge (religion) + Knowledge (the planes); Search + Open Locks + Disable Device; Tumble + Balance + Jump; etc. Obviously, skill points worked differently, but the system cut down on bookkeeping and didn't noticeable reduce the amount of fun.
I understand merging skills, but I wouldn't remove Gather Information entirely, especially in favor of one of the ubiquitous (and overgamed) Knowledge skills. Gather Information can be used and include roleplaying as shown above, while in my opinion, it is the knowledge skills that skip that important step.
Personally Gather Information and Diplomacy have two totally different feels for me. Gather Information is getting the info kinda of on the sly. It is finding the information you want without being overly overt about it. It's getting the info from folks through round about conversation such that the really don't realize that they give you the info. Diplomacy is blantly asking for the information. You try and get the person on your side then ask them what you want to know directly. They are different for me.
As far as it goes around role playing. Sure if you play it that way. So me all the social skills should start with role playing and is augmented by the roll. Not everyone is a social person, but as part of fantasy they want to play one. They may not personally know what questions to ask but try and the actual roll helps them along.
First off, thanks for everybody's input. It's given me a lot to think about on a Monday morning at work, when I really should be doing something more productive. :-)
Personally Gather Information and Diplomacy have two totally different feels for me. Gather Information is getting the info kinda of on the sly. It is finding the information you want without being overly overt about it. It's getting the info from folks through round about conversation such that the really don't realize that they give you the info. Diplomacy is blantly asking for the information. You try and get the person on your side then ask them what you want to know directly. They are different for me.
I guess that's where we differ. I see the diplomacy skill as trying to get someone on your side, but not necessarily in a blatant way. You can get someone on your side, but getting them to say something they won't necessarily otherwise say is another matter. You could convince a local pickpocket that you're a nice guy (diplomacy) but getting him to give up the info on where the local thieves' guild is located is another matter entirely. That would more likely require a bluff roll, or maybe an intimidate roll to force the issue. Either way, it would (in my game) require at least some effort on the part of the player to role play the situation. I've actually had a situation in my game where a player just wanted to roll his gather information rather than actually go through the role play process. I guess that's where this is all coming from.
As far as it goes around role playing. Sure if you play it that way. So me all the social skills should start with role playing and is augmented by the roll. Not everyone is a social person, but as part of fantasy they want to play one. They may not personally know what questions to ask but try and the actual roll helps them along.
Absolutely, I completely agree with you. And that's why I think the Diplomacy (or even Intimidate) skill comes in handy. Just because a player talks tough, doesn't mean the NPC will buy it. However, with a bunch of ranks in intimidate, that tough talk now has a mechanic behind it. It also means that even if the player can't bluff his way out of a paper bag, his PC possibly can.
I guess I'm still not convinced that gather information really has a use other than short-circuiting the actual PC-NPC interaction process. But I'm sure my personal experiences play a lot into that.
Thanks,
Greg
I guess that's where we differ. I see the diplomacy skill as trying to get someone on your side, but not necessarily in a blatant way. You can get someone on your side, but getting them to say something they won't necessarily otherwise say is another matter. You could convince a local pickpocket that you're a nice guy (diplomacy) but getting him to give up the info on where the local thieves' guild is located is another matter entirely. That would more likely require a bluff roll, or maybe an intimidate roll to force the issue. Either way, it would (in my game) require at least some effort on the part of the player to role play the situation. I've actually had a situation in my game where a player just wanted to roll his gather information rather than actually go through the role play process. I guess that's where this is all coming from.
Yeah we do differ a bit. If you make someone friendly they would give up the information if it wouldn't put them in harm's way or negatively afffect them (just like any friend would do). If you make them helpful then they may actually tell you the info even if there could be some negative affect. Then there is some info that people will not tell you no matter how friendly you make them so that would require Intimidate or I guess Bluff. Just my take on things really. It was solidified for me when I the feat in PH2 called Master Diplomat (or something like that) that lets you actually try and get the info out of someone with Diplomacy by catching them in a lie and turn it around on them for the real info. It sounds like you already let Diplomacy do that. It doesn't matter either way as long as everyone at the table understands how it works.
|
Player- "I'm gonna go down to the docks tonight and stop in the local sailor's bar, have a few drinks chat up a few people and maybe speak to some of the workers loading up the ships. Maybe I can find something out about the disappearance of the Silver Anchor."
DM- "Roll your gather info check" Success. "One of the workers down at the dock that you are talking to seems to have some info he may want to share but looks reticent in giving it to you."
Player- "This info is VERY important to me, buddy, I would really appreciate any help you can give me." Hands him a few gold pieces.
DM- "Well, I heared tell o' one o' dem der Laughin' Mask cutthroats braggin' on de past eve of "findin'" da biggest, mos 'spensive paperweight ye laid eye on. The lass was deep inna her cups too!"
I don't see a problem with Gather Info checks.
FH
The only time we ever use GA checks is when one player wishes to go slink off and find out something else (usually something minor) without the other members of the party being there. The GA check represents what happens 'off-camera' and that sort of thing. Another time we use it is during 'fast forwarding' thats about it.
Mostly, if the characters are trying to find something out -it's roleplayed out.
I'm with Fake Healer. There's no problem with GI checks except what you make.
Player- "I'm gonna go down to the docks tonight and stop in the local sailor's bar, have a few drinks chat up a few people and maybe speak to some of the workers loading up the ships. Maybe I can find something out about the disappearance of the Silver Anchor."
DM- "Roll your gather info check" Success. "One of the workers down at the dock that you are talking to seems to have some info he may want to share but looks reticent in giving it to you."
Player- "This info is VERY important to me, buddy, I would really appreciate any help you can give me." Hands him a few gold pieces.
DM- "Well, I heared tell o' one o' dem der Laughin' Mask cutthroats braggin' on de past eve of "findin'" da biggest, mos 'spensive paperweight ye laid eye on. The lass was deep inna her cups too!"I don't see a problem with Gather Info checks.
FH
The only problem I see here is that Gather Info is a Charisma roll. What you seem to have outlined is more of a knowledge-type roll. The player has identified someone with info who is reluctant to pass on the info. At this point, your player hasn't tried to elicit the info (at least they way I read it) with his charisma stat. Its only after he's tossed a few gold has he actually started to influence the NPC. In your example, the Gather Info roll was successful. Shouldn't that mean, if its based on his charisma, that he's already influenced the NPC and gotten some info out of him?
In your example, if the Gather Information was an (Int) roll, then I see it working. But as a (Cha) roll, it doesn't seem to fit.
(edit) Ok - I've thought about it, and I think I see where you might be coming from. The Gather Info (Cha) is about finding out who has the info. That still may require some smooth talking and influencing, hence the Charisma modifier. I can see it that way.
Greg
I understand merging skills, but I wouldn't remove Gather Information entirely, especially in favor of one of the ubiquitous (and overgamed) Knowledge skills. Gather Information can be used and include roleplaying as shown above, while in my opinion, it is the knowledge skills that skip that important step.
Actually, my intention is really to exchange it with the diplomacy or intimidate skill (or potentially bluff, given the right circumstance). That's really where the info would be found. Not through the Knowledge skill. I only ever use Knowledge skills to identify those things the PC knows that the player can't possibly know. But not how to get it. In this case it would be to identify where to get the info, not to get the info itself.
Greg
Yeah we do differ a bit. If you make someone friendly they would give up the information if it wouldn't put them in harm's way or negatively afffect them (just like any friend would do). If you make them helpful then they may actually tell you the info even if there could be some negative affect. Then there is some info that people will not tell you no matter how friendly you make them so that would require Intimidate or I guess Bluff. Just my take on things really.
Actually, I think we are on the same page here. For your first two cases, that's diplomacy to me (accompanied by some role playing).
The last case is, like you say, bluff or intimidate (fool him or force him into telling you).
Gather Information doesn't seem to take into account NPC attitudes for me.
It was solidified for me when I the feat in PH2 called Master Diplomat (or something like that) that lets you actually try and get the info out of someone with Diplomacy by catching them in a lie and turn it around on them for the real info. It sounds like you already let Diplomacy do that. It doesn't matter either way as long as everyone at the table understands how it works.
That's a big difference, as I haven't seen PH2. (In fact we are just now going from 3.0 to 3.5 - part of the reason I'm looking at Gather Information - I'm revisiting and itemizing all my house rules prior to starting up with 3.5.)
I guess what I'm looking for is a way to personalise the process of gathering information, not just letting them "roll for it".
Greg
|
|
The only problem I see here is that Gather Info is a Charisma roll. What you seem to have outlined is more of a knowledge-type roll. The player has identified someone with info who is reluctant to pass on the info. At this point, your player hasn't tried to elicit the info (at least they way I read it) with his charisma stat. Its only after he's tossed a few gold has he actually started to influence the NPC. In your example, the Gather Info roll was successful. Shouldn't that mean, if its based on his charisma, that he's already influenced the NPC and gotten some info out of him?
In your example, if the Gather Information was an (Int) roll, then I see it working. But as a (Cha) roll, it doesn't seem to fit.
Greg
The PC uses his charisma to initiate conversation with people and to help engage people verbally without seeming overly eager and turning them off to the conversation. I added the reticence to give up the info as a flavor thing, not part of the mechanic.
I add in the idea that the player is trying to steer any conversations that happen that night in the direction of asking about the Silver Anchor, without seeming too interested in it and drawing suspicion, to try to Gather Info from the conversants.I don't see any correlation to my post inferring the use of Intelligence instead of Charisma. I just think that someone should who has valuable info that could potentially be dangerous if he gives it up should be compensated (a couple gold pieces). Alternately I could have substituted a Diplomacy check to get him to feel like it is the "right thing" to do, or intimadate him by threatening to bust him up, or just give the info in conversation without an additional check, as per just a plain ol' Gather Info check. The rest is just flavor and fun for a charisma/socially based character.
The skill is fine, your Roleplay-fu is weak.
FH
The skill is fine, your Roleplay-fu is weak.
FH
Hmm, sorry about that, I didn't realise that what I had said had earned a criticism like that. I was honestly not trying to criticize you, I was just thinking out loud while trying to logic out your post, hoping to have a conversation about the skill. I guess in hind-sight I should have waited to respond. (In any event, I did go and re-edit my post, realising that I had mis-construed your original intent, but that was before I saw your comment above.)
But no matter, I think I have the information I was looking for. (I guess that means I made a successful "Gather Information" roll, because based on your response, I certainly didn't succeed at a "Diplomacy" check.)
Greg
You thought you could best me and destroy my words, Paizo? You're wrong! HA! Praise be to Copy and Paste.
Ahem.
Gather Information could also be seen as Charisma based when the paladin or barbarian or anyone else is stern, uncompromising, and even frightening (but without actually rolling an intimidate check) and gets the info through that force of his personality.
Come to think of it, perhaps Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate should give synergy to Gather Info? Or did they skip that because a bard or rogue specializing as a diplomat-type character would then have a +6 bonus in the skill, +8 if they also had Knowledge (local)?
Speaking of Knowledge (local), it really rubs me wrong that the skill handles the knowledge of the local area for ALL areas. If that were its use, it seems like you would be somehow in the possession of small-town news that wasn't made overly public EVERYWHERE you went, instantly. Given that it is also the skill made to identify lore about humanoids (various tribes and such), I have come to agree with a post I originally saw here long ago (and don't remember who said it) that Knowledge (local) should be interpreted as Knowledge (cultural). Finding out anything about local events or news or any LOCAL information should be the soul provence of Gather Information. It makes the skill much more pertinant and useful.
Also, there can be more than one way/skill to get the same results. Look at many published adventures; they rarely have info that can be obtained using only one skill. They often allow several Knowledges or other related skills to overlap and discover similar information. I'm a big fan of this type of thing, as well.
I'm drifting, but I'm also much more heavy handed about what my players can discover just off the top of their heads with a Knowledge check. No, I don't want a lucky roll revealing a connection between Kyuss and the Ebon Triad in the first adventure. The whole plot becomes way too obvious.
|
|
The skill is fine, your Roleplay-fu is weak.
FHHmm, sorry about that, I didn't realise that what I had said had earned a criticism like that. I was honestly not trying to criticize you, I was just thinking out loud while trying to logic out your post, hoping to have a conversation about the skill. I guess in hind-sight I should have waited to respond. (In any event, I did go and re-edit my post, realising that I had mis-construed your original intent, but that was before I saw your comment above.)
But no matter, I think I have the information I was looking for. (I guess that means I made a successful "Gather Information" roll, because based on your response, I certainly didn't succeed at a "Diplomacy" check.)
Greg
Dude, I jest. I forgot to add a smiley is all. Didn't intend to sound mean, I was just clarifying. Come er *big hug*, it all good.
FH
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Speaking of Knowledge (local), it really rubs me wrong that the skill handles the knowledge of the local area for ALL areas. If that were its use, it seems like you would be somehow in the possession of small-town news that wasn't made overly public EVERYWHERE you went, instantly.
Actually, Knowledge (Local) is SUPPOSED to be sub-divided. In Forgotten Realms, for example, you might have 5 ranks of Knowledge (Local - Waterdeep) but only 2 ranks of Knowledge (Local - Silver Marches) and no Knowledge (Local - Thay) at all! We've always run it this way, but I'm not sure if it states it in any books or not. I think I've seen it in the FRCS somewhere...
Anyway, this makes such knowledges much less broad but, as a result, allows more detailed information when you have appropriate ranks. In my IK game, for example, the party is VERY happy to have a rogue with Knowledge (Local - Five Fingers) with them. Otherwise, they might never realize where they should and should not go.
Dude, I jest. I forgot to add a smiley is all. Didn't intend to sound mean, I was just clarifying. Come er *big hug*, it all good.
FH
No problem. I'm not easily offended, I was just a little taken a-back. As you say, its all good.
Greg
Actually, Knowledge (Local) is SUPPOSED to be sub-divided.
Only in the Forgotten Realms.
And it's a bad idea. Imagine if all of the Knowledge skills were similarly subdivided. Do I spend my precious skill points on a few ranks in Knowledge (dungeoneering: beholders and other spherical aberrations) or Knowledge (dungeoneering: black puddings and other dessert-like oozes)? Bleh!
Actually, Knowledge (Local) is SUPPOSED to be sub-divided. In Forgotten Realms, for example, you might have 5 ranks of Knowledge (Local - Waterdeep) but only 2 ranks of Knowledge (Local - Silver Marches) and no Knowledge (Local - Thay) at all! We've always run it this way, but I'm not sure if it states it in any books or not. I think I've seen it in the FRCS somewhere...
That does make more sense, but it does start getting a little complicated. (Which may be to one's liking or not.) I was thinking that as per Saern's idea, Knowledge (local) can be like Knowledge (cultural) with the added benefit of being Knowledge (your home town) by default. After that, if one wants to get ranks in another region, then maybe subdividing it per region is a reasonable way of doing things. (Although I fully suspect that my players would rather spend their hard-earned skill point elsewhere.)
Greg
In my game everyone knows that gather information=wasted skill points. "Just go ask the guard what he knows, jee"
Actually, Knowledge (Local) is SUPPOSED to be sub-divided. In Forgotten Realms, for example, you might have 5 ranks of Knowledge (Local - Waterdeep) but only 2 ranks of Knowledge (Local - Silver Marches) and no Knowledge (Local - Thay) at all! We've always run it this way, but I'm not sure if it states it in any books or not. I think I've seen it in the FRCS somewhere...That does make more sense, but it does start getting a little complicated. (Which may be to one's liking or not.) I was thinking that as per Saern's idea, Knowledge (local) can be like Knowledge (cultural) with the added benefit of being Knowledge (your home town) by default. After that, if one wants to get ranks in another region, then maybe subdividing it per region is a reasonable way of doing things. (Although I fully suspect that my players would rather spend their hard-earned skill point elsewhere.)
Greg
Note that Knowledge (Local) is a knowledge skill and if it follows the themes of the other knowledge skills it represents things one could learn in a book or be taught. So one might well learn in a book that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris or that most Chinese people are ethnically Han. One can't learn in a book that the Local carpenter is highly addicted to illicit drugs and sells them in order to pay for his habit.
I'd say that knowledge about ones home town would either be something the DM just gives you or alternately is covered by a Gather Information Check - in this case representing information you might have gathered at some point in the past.
It seems to me that people are confusing what the skills are meant to represent. As the description of Gather Information states, the skill is used for finding out general gossip and tracking down a specific person to talk to. Its actually separate to roleplaying. How is a player supposed to find out all the rumors going around a large city from asking a single person or three? It would take up "valuable" roleplaying time with important, unusual, etc. NPCs. Sure, talking to a local farmer can be entertaining, but most people are just ordinary folks and when you ask them a question you get a response and that's about it. In essence the Gather Information skill is used to track down the person you want to talk to and then the roleplaying starts (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc).
Here's another thing, if the first person you talk to has all the information you want every time that's just unrealistic. You might need to speak to dozens of people to find out where Blasko the Fence is located. Otherwise, it can border on the ridiculous:
PC: "Funny - every person we talk too seems to know exactly want we need to know."
You can see from this response how stupid it sounds, but its obvious that's what's happening in some people's campaigns.
Information gathering skills are based on Charisma because the person has to like you to tell you anything. Unless they are a Vulcan or formian they wont respond to logical information gathering.
Really, Gather Information is to alleviate the need for extended and uneccessary roleplaying with unimportant people you might never see again or have anything else to do with. Its different from Knowledge (local) because that skill is more about what the player already knows about an area without having to ask anyone (the player's personal knowledge of local celebrities, locations, rumors, etc.).
It seems to me that people are confusing what the skills are meant to represent. As the description of Gather Information states, the skill is used for finding out general gossip and tracking down a specific person to talk to.
Actually, from the online SRD:
"An evening’s time, a few gold pieces for buying drinks and making friends, and a DC 10 Gather Information check get you a general idea of a city’s major news items, assuming there are no obvious reasons why the information would be withheld. The higher your check result, the better the information.
If you want to find out about a specific rumor, or a specific item, or obtain a map, or do something else along those lines, the DC for the check is 15 to 25, or even higher."
Its actually separate to roleplaying.
Actually, one can argue from the above description that it can take the place of roleplaying, it just requires a higher DC.
How is a player supposed to find out all the rumors going around a large city from asking a single person or three? It would take up "valuable" roleplaying time with important, unusual, etc. NPCs. Sure, talking to a local farmer can be entertaining, but most people are just ordinary folks and when you ask them a question you get a response and that's about it. In essence the Gather Information skill is used to track down the person you want to talk to and then the roleplaying starts (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc).
Fair enough. I can see how one can use it that way. In fact, I'm starting to lean toward using GI (or Knowledge(local)) as a way to find out where to start looking.
Here's another thing, if the first person you talk to has all the information you want every time that's just unrealistic. You might need to speak to dozens of people to find out where Blasko the Fence is located. Otherwise, it can border on the ridiculous:
But as far as "the first person that comes along", I quite frequently roleplay a few dead ends so that the PCs don't think that the first one who comes along has all the answers. However, sometimes to speed up play a bit, that first one or two person they talk to may know who might be able to help.
PC: "Funny - every person we talk too seems to know exactly want we need to know."
You can see from this response how stupid it sounds, but its obvious that's what's happening in some people's campaigns.
Well, no, I don't think its actually as obvious as you think it is. (Like I said, I sometimes roleplay dead ends so that the PCs don't think its all simple that way.) Maybe some people do it that way, but I didn't get the impression it was obvious from this discussion.
Information gathering skills are based on Charisma because the person has to like you to tell you anything. Unless they are a Vulcan or formian they wont respond to logical information gathering.
Really, Gather Information is to alleviate the need for extended and uneccessary roleplaying with unimportant people you might never see again or have anything else to do with.
And that's where I think we differ. What is necessary and what isn't? And I think that's why some people prefer the Gather Information check and others don't. If you want to always "cut to the chase" then you will probably use the GI skill. If you like to sometimes play it out a bit, you may not use it as much. I think I'm in the latter camp. I try not to drag it out too much, but that is the job of the DM, after all, to make it fun and know when enough is enough.
Its different from Knowledge (local) because that skill is more about what the player already knows about an area without having to ask anyone (the player's personal knowledge of local celebrities, locations, rumors, etc.).
That I can agree with you on.
Greg
Speaking of Knowledge (local), it really rubs me wrong that the skill handles the knowledge of the local area for ALL areas. If that were its use, it seems like you would be somehow in the possession of small-town news that wasn't made overly public EVERYWHERE you went, instantly.Actually, Knowledge (Local) is SUPPOSED to be sub-divided. In Forgotten Realms, for example, you might have 5 ranks of Knowledge (Local - Waterdeep) but only 2 ranks of Knowledge (Local - Silver Marches) and no Knowledge (Local - Thay) at all! We've always run it this way, but I'm not sure if it states it in any books or not. I think I've seen it in the FRCS somewhere...
Anyway, this makes such knowledges much less broad but, as a result, allows more detailed information when you have appropriate ranks. In my IK game, for example, the party is VERY happy to have a rogue with Knowledge (Local - Five Fingers) with them. Otherwise, they might never realize where they should and should not go.
This is a good point Fatey and exactly why I try to tone down the usage of knowledge local in my games. I think I'll try these subdivision in my next game.
Nice responses Greg. I actually agree with most of your comments. I often try to play devils advocate on these boards if I see a discussion going in favor of a particular direction. I usually try to combine roleplaying with the skill checks rather that put them in opposition to one another. Why are any of these skill checks really necessary in a non-combat situation when good roleplaying serves just as well? I think the skills are useful because sometimes people's characters are just more charismatic or intelligent that the people who play them. How do you roleplay having a 15 Charisma when you have a 10 Charisma in real life? Some people can do it, but then some people can't. The skills allow them to get a bit closer to what their character is really like.
Nice responses Greg. I actually agree with most of your comments. I often try to play devils advocate on these boards if I see a discussion going in favor of a particular direction. I usually try to combine roleplaying with the skill checks rather that put them in opposition to one another. Why are any of these skill checks really necessary in a non-combat situation when good roleplaying serves just as well? I think the skills are useful because sometimes people's characters are just more charismatic or intelligent that the people who play them. How do you roleplay having a 15 Charisma when you have a 10 Charisma in real life? Some people can do it, but then some people can't. The skills allow them to get a bit closer to what their character is really like.
Thanks for responding, Phil. I agree with you, just like sometimes one needs a Knowledge roll because the wizard PC has a 20 Int, but the actual player might actually be less intelligent.
So I see the point of diplomacy, intimidate and bluff. In fact, I think one of the main reasons for those skills is that it takes the power out of the hands of the DM, somewhat, and gives them back to the player. In the older versions of D&D, the DM decided whether a particular intimidation move by the PC worked or not. Now, all things being equal, that probably worked for most people. But with 3.x, the player now has some control. Sure the dice play a part. But the player can play a sly character, even if he isn't particularly sly. Make the player say the words, but let the decide decide how well he said it.
And, again, that's where I think Gather Information breaks down. (I know, I'm sounding like a broken record.) What purpose does it serve other than to speed up play? If that's what you want, great. But for my game, I'm still not sure I see it as much more than a method of expediting the game, rather than enhancing it.
Oh well. To each his/her own, I'm sure.
Greg
I'm thinking of completely doing away with the gather information skill, and saying to my players that if they wanted to put ranks into GI, they should instead put them into diplomacy
As the DM you get to do what you want to. Though I'm not a 3X fan, the idea sounds interesting. My knee-jerk reaction is that it would have your folks getting their info the way Wheel of Time's Tom Merrilon does it. Come to think of it, you could split the two skills into distinct groups and reserve the GI skill only for rogues (like Wheel's Thief Catchers/Takers such as Juilin Sandar) and require everyone else use Diplomacy.
Just a thought.
As the DM you get to do what you want to.
Yep, its one of the things I like about DMing! :-) (Actually, that's pretty tongue-in-cheek. We are remarkably democratic in my group. I tend to be the one that comes up with ideas like this, but I tend to float it around the room to get reaction before instituting it.)
Though I'm not a 3X fan, the idea sounds interesting. My knee-jerk reaction is that it would have your folks getting their info the way Wheel of Time's Tom Merrilon does it. Come to think of it, you could split the two skills into distinct groups and reserve the GI skill only for rogues (like Wheel's Thief Catchers/Takers such as Juilin Sandar) and require everyone else use Diplomacy.
In truth, GI is only a class skill for rogues and bards, and while I haven't checked lately, I don't think many of my players spend a lot of points on cross-class skills (except for spot and listen). So, in effect, it pretty much is restricted to rogues in my game (have yet to DM a player with a bard).
I've heard a lot of good ideas on this discussion that have got me thinking. I don't think I'll rule out GI completely, but I will probably end up using it sparingly. I'm going to encourage my players to go for the more interactive skills, but won't tell them outright to avoid GI.
Greg
Subdivding Knowledge (local) is all well and good in FR (although I agree somewhat with Vegepygmy that it can be onerous to require such an expenditure of skill points), but I run into a personal problem. I run a homebrew, as many know, and the map is never complete enough to my liking to decide where, exactly, the boundaries should be drawn. Considering that I also agree that Knowledge (local) should be like something you learn in a book (i.e., "The Red Spear gnolls live in the hills north of Cresol, west of the Wyvern Hills, and are identifiable by the red feathers they tie on their spears), which leads me to deciding not to subdivide it. If you want to learn that the mayor has quietly been paying the Red Spear gnolls to avoid the village and surrounding roads, use Gather Information (which I also use as a device to point characters in the right direction).
I think that's why some people prefer the Gather Information check and others don't. If you want to always "cut to the chase" then you will probably use the GI skill. If you like to sometimes play it out a bit, you may not use it as much.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as "always want to 'cut to the chase' = like to use GI / like to sometimes play it out a bit = don't like to use GI."
As I see it, having ranks in GI indicates that the character is skilled at finding the right person to talk to, or at pumping strangers for information without them realizing it. So when I am playing a character who should be good at that kind of thing, I put some skill points in GI, and I then expect that when I want to go do that kind of thing, the payoff is going to be that I don't have to play out the dead ends; I get to "cut to the chase" much quicker, because my character is skilled at finding out information.
On the other hand, if my character is not particularly good at this sort of thing (i.e., has no ranks in GI), I expect the DM to make me role-play a few dead ends (because I am probably going to fail my GI check a few times before succeeding) before I find the right person to talk to.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that objecting to the GI skill because it allows you to bypass "dead end encounters" seems to me like objecting to the Search skill because it allows you to bypass traps. Yeah, it can be fun to resolve a trap encounter with saving throws, damage rolls, and cure spells, but sometimes you want to play a character who is good at just getting past them with as little fuss as possible.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that objecting to the GI skill because it allows you to bypass "dead end encounters" seems to me like objecting to the Search skill because it allows you to bypass traps. Yeah, it can be fun to resolve a trap encounter with saving throws, damage rolls, and cure spells, but sometimes you want to play a character who is good at just getting past them with as little fuss as possible.
Fair enough. I was being a bit cut-and-dried, when it never really is that way. I quoted the SRD a few posts above and it's with that definition that I have a problem. On the plus side, I think a lot of people, including you, have taken the GI skill and have worked it into a more usable skill. By the SRD, though, one can use GI to completely bypass roleplaying, just by upping the DC. It was with that definition that I was having a problem with.
My initial question was very much "keep or remove" but there have been responses that show me there is a place for a gather information roll, but as a means to an end, not as a method in and of itself. And with regards to your example, I, personally, can see a situation where that same situation is done with a bluff ("pumping strangers for information without them realising it"). But it probably is just a matter of personal preferences.
I really think it comes down to a style of play, and I don't have the audacity to say that my way is the "right way" by any stretch. Hell, we're a hack-n-slash/dungeon crawl group of players. But I have seen my players trying to head for the d20 instead of roleplaying (specifically with a GI check - which is where this all started) and I'm looking for ways to steer them in a more interactive direction. Because, for me, the game is more fun that way. But again, that's all IMHO.
Thanks for the input.
Greg
I kind of got impatient half way through this since I wanted to add my own 2 cents. Sorry if this has already been said. Or let it just back up that opinion, if so.
There is a big difference between Diplomacy and Gather Information and I think it would be a mistake to just lump the latter in with the former.
Gather Information is the skill of taking a whole lot of information you've gleaned from innocuous conversations with strangers or even associates and "reading between the lines" to get the information you're seeking. It really has nothing to do with changing someone's attitude toward you.
Example:
A player tells the DM that his character is going to use Gather Information on the street he last saw an enemy he lost in a busy city street. PC makes a roll and matches the DC the DM sets.
PC (addressing a fruit vendor):[b] Excuse me, sir. Did you see a halfling wearing an extremely ugly hat pass this way?
[b]Fruit Vendor: Oh, aye! Can't forget a hat like that. Now, are you fixing to buy something?
PC (pulling some coins out): Sure, sure. Umm, you didn't happen to see which street he turned on to, did you?
Fruit Vendor: Mayhaps... Not a whole lot of customers buyin' me apples today. 'Tis a shame as sweet and crisp as they be this time 'o year.
::DM rolls to determine how much gold the info is going to cost and the PCs says his character pays the requisite amount of gold::
PC: Now which direction, did you say?
Fruit Vendor: Oh, he didn't go down any street. He went inside that tavern across the way. Enjoy your apples! ::Gestures to several bushels full of apples::
Now taking this same example a bit further, let's use Diplomacy.
Example:
The PC walks into the bar and finds a smoke filled haven of the city's worst scum. The bartender seems to be keeping an eye on everything going on around him, but there's no sign of the halfling. The PCs says he is going over to the bartender to ask him about the halfling and the DM tells the PC that the man doesn't look any friendlier than his clientelle (Unfriendly attitude).
PC:Good day, sir! This is quite a fine establishment you've got here. I love the authentic chipped tables and chairs. That's a great look. Adds a lot of personality to the place!
::Player tells the DM he is attempting a Diplomacy check and rolls dice. The result changes the bartender's attitude to friendly, but not Helpful::
Bartender: Heh. Yeah, thanks. 'Authentic' I like that. ::chuckles:: What can I get you today, sir? I'd recommend avoiding the dark ale. ::whispers:: It ain't actually supposed to be dark, if ya know what I mean.
PC:Well, sir. I have a halfling friend that I'm supposed to meet here. He swears by the... ::looking at the casks and bottles on the shelf::
Bartender:Oh, he usually has a pint 'o the Golden Mead. You're a friend of his, you say? ::looks the PCs up and down uncertainly:: He's gone to the privy. He's got room 2 to himself ::pointing at a curtained off room:: You can go on in and wait for him.
Anyway, there definitely is a difference. IMO, it's a mistake to lump them together.
On the plus side, I think a lot of people, including you, have taken the GI skill and have worked it into a more usable skill. By the SRD, though, one can use GI to completely bypass roleplaying, just by upping the DC.
Yep. That's what I was hinting at with my first response: it's all in how you use it.
I mean, you can use Diplomacy to completely bypass roleplaying, too, if the DM allows it. Hopefully, the responses here have given you some good ideas on how to use GI to enhance your roleplaying rather than bypass it.
There is a big difference between Diplomacy and Gather Information and I think it would be a mistake to just lump the latter in with the former.
Gather Information is the skill of taking a whole lot of information you've gleaned from innocuous conversations with strangers or even associates and "reading between the lines" to get the information you're seeking. It really has nothing to do with changing someone's attitude toward you.
Fair enough. That seems like a reasonable interpretation of the SRD. (Sorry if I quote the SRD too much, but I don't have my PHB here at work!) The problem is, GI is a charisma roll. If it were about reading between the lines, shouldn't it be a wisdom roll? (Or Int?) I don't see how personality would be required for deducing information.
Example:
A player tells the DM that his character is going to use Gather Information on the street he last saw an enemy he lost in a busy city street. PC makes a roll and matches the DC the DM sets.
Ok, the thing about your example is that (and maybe I'm just a little thick here) what did the GI roll accomplish? Did it mean he found the vendor to talk to? Or did it determine the outcome of the conversation (i.e. the successful GI roll means the player was going to get the info as long as he fed the vendor the money)? If the former, then he would also need the GI roll in the second example in order to find the vendor. If not, then was the roll really necessary? The vendor would give up the info to anybody (regardless of their Charisma) just as long as they paid the right amount of gold? Or did the GI determine how much gold was needed?
This is where my brain sorta loses it on the GI.
BTW, I definitely see the differences in the two examples, I'm just not sure what the GI roll accomplished in the first one.
Greg
Yep. That's what I was hinting at with my first response: it's all in how you use it.
I mean, you can use Diplomacy to completely bypass roleplaying, too, if the DM allows it. Hopefully, the responses here have given you some good ideas on how to use GI to enhance your roleplaying rather than bypass it.
And I did have that revelation responding to Steve's last post. I've always used diplomacy/bluff/intimidate with roleplaying but, theoretically, one could use it instead of roleplaying.
I'm going to have to sit on this for a while (trying to process this all while reading technical documents at work means that something is suffering!), but I think I have a better feel for it now than I did when I started this thread.
Greg
One of the ways I try to combine roleplaying with skill checks is to ask the PCs how they go about finding out the information they want and who they approach. I'll then roleplay a couple of encounters and see how the players act. At the end of this time I'll then call for a skill check, giving the PCs a modifier based on their performance if they roleplayed the encounter well.
Remember that a GI check takes 1d4+1 hours for a simple DC 10 check. As a DM you could give the PCs the option of spending 20 minutes of game time talking to two people to find out where Erythnul's Temple is or 3d4+3 hours of game time (minimum of 6 hours using a GI check) to find out the same thing. I don't see why a DM would, but they could.
Also, what sort of roleplaying are we talking about? Is it simply a conversation between an NPC and a PC to find out info, or does the PC actively have to bully the person for information, canoodle them, flatter them, etc. What is more important? What if they suck at it? GI allows players to get specific info that other skills don't because the players themselves may completely stuff up the chance to do so every time they have a roleplaying encounter. Where does one draw the line between moving the game forward and realistically roleplaying every encounter without the DM sometimes having to fudge it on the players behalf? None of this has happened in my game, but its an interesting thought.
Also, what sort of roleplaying are we talking about? Is it simply a conversation between an NPC and a PC to find out info, or does the PC actively have to bully the person for information, canoodle them, flatter them, etc. What is more important? What if they suck at it?
IMC, if the PC is trying to bluff, for example, the player has to at least attempt a reasonable lie that could pass for a bluff. Since bluff is all charisma, and not necessarily what is actually said, the bluff roll covers the how, while the player covers the what. But its all about having fun. If the player sucks at it, that's not a problem. Hell, as DM, I usually suck at it, but I've got to put on a show. If I don't the players get bored. If an NPC is bluffing, I have to make it seem like he's not - but if a PC wants to make a sense motive roll, I let him and tell him if he suspects something or not. But the interesting thing is, I'll have players think the NPC is full of it just on their interpretation of the conversation - not based on any die rolls.
Where does one draw the line between moving the game forward and realistically roleplaying every encounter without the DM sometimes having to fudge it on the players behalf? None of this has happened in my game, but its an interesting thought.
I guess I draw the line at "what's fun for us". If I think the story is helped by drawing things out a bit, then I draw things out a bit. If its helped by cutting to the chase, I cut to the chase. It's DM's call. Now we don't roleplay every encounter by a long shot. (If they want to buy a longsword in a big town, then they deduct the gp and add it to the list. I don't make up a persona for every single shopkeeper.) But I try to mix it up a bit so they don't think that everytime the DM opens his mouth there's noteworthy info coming. Sometimes its just a conversation.
Greg
No, I don't want a lucky roll revealing a connection between Kyuss and the Ebon Triad in the first adventure. The whole plot becomes way too obvious.
Yea it would be a shame if the players in an Age of Worms campaign weren't totally surprised when they learned they were trying to stop the worm god and his worm based minions.
No, I don't want a lucky roll revealing a connection between Kyuss and the Ebon Triad in the first adventure. The whole plot becomes way too obvious.Yea it would be a shame if the players in an Age of Worms campaign weren't totally surprised when they learned they were trying to stop the worm god and his worm based minions.
It's a little late, but there should probably be a spoiler alert on this. Although, the essence of the above statements were complaints that this information really isn't a spoiler at all.
----SPOILERS----
The only reason it's so obvious is because they let you know that Kyuss is the Wormgod and prophesied to bring around the Age of Worms and is in league with the Ebon Triad all in the first adventure. In my re-write that I'll be completing this summer, the name Kyuss doesn't come up until much later in the game, and then it appears as if it's completely unrelated to the Ebon Triad until about 75% of the way through. That way, there's actually some detective work going on.
I'm very pleased that the Savage Tide isn't following that formula, and it seems to be keeping its mysteries fairly well.
Sorry, that has nothing to do with Gather Information at all. Please return to your regularly scheduled thread.
Ok, the thing about your example is that (and maybe I'm just a little thick here) what did the GI roll accomplish?
The check was to see if the PC would succeed at getting the information he needed. Now, you as the DM, could simply say it took X hours and about Y gp to learn what you wanted to know and simply gave a synopsis of the whole episode. I got from this that you prefer the role-play aspect of it. I, too, like that part of it.
Did it mean he found the vendor to talk to? Or did it determine the outcome of the conversation (i.e. the successful GI roll means the player was going to get the info as long as he fed the vendor the money)?
Both. The randomly determined amount of time and money that you as the DM would have rolled would have been inserted here. There most likely would have been numerous conversations before talking to the street vendor. You could have role-played a couple of them that basically resulted in "I may have seen a halfling come by here, but I've seen plenty of 'em today. Dunno. Maybe ask the feather peddler over there. He has a pretty sharp eye." You might then tell the PC that after a good hour, maybe 2, he is finally directed to the fruit vendor. The total amount of gold would have been kind of split up among several NPCs that were both willing to take the coins and willing to provide the information. The fruit vendor was just the source of the most helpful information and probably where the biggest chunk of the total gold divvied out was spent. Just the way I would have done it in this example.
If the former, then he would also need the GI roll in the second example in order to find the vendor. If not, then was the roll really necessary?
See the previous answer. GI rolls assume conversations with a lot of people. You could just as easily role-play several small encounters with NPCs that each give a snippet of information that when pieced together provide the information they PC was seeking. This also assumes a lot of fruitless interactions that you would describe to the player as exactly that instead of wasting time role-playing them all.
The vendor would give up the info to anybody (regardless of their Charisma) just as long as they paid the right amount of gold?
Yes and no. It seems to be a bit of both. While you don't need to ingratiate yourself with the NPCs to the extent of making Diplomacy checks to improve their opinion of you, it still takes a minor amount of social skills and pleasantries and the added incentive of gold to get people to give you straight answers. Thus, the time, the gold, and the Charisma-based check.
Or did the GI determine how much gold was needed?
There's nothing, IIRC, in the skill description in the PHB that says if successful you pay X amount of gold. I would have my players pay the gold even if they weren't successful. Sometimes, people just don't know the information. They could have been asking the wrong crowd or it could be a pretty high DC and thus something not well known. Note: basic stuff has a DC of 10. More detailed info has a range of 15 - 25.
This is where my brain sorta loses it on the GI. BTW, I definitely see the differences in the two examples, I'm just not sure what the GI roll accomplished in the first one.
I hope my explanation clears things up a bit.
Here's one more thing to consider, Greg. How many movies, books, comics, etc. do you recall with a character that couldn't work up the nerve to say hello to a pretty girl, yet they could comb the street, listening on conversations, schmoozing a few associates on the street, etc. and could tell you so and so was at the corner market at 5:03 PM and bought a gallon of milk and a roll of toilet paper? Oh, and it was Charmin. And the clerk overcharged him.
Then there's the guy that had the social charm to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge. Yet, he didn't know the first thing about finding out current rumors and stuff.
This is the heart of the difference between these two skills. And they kind of define the personality of the character.
If you still want to ditch one for the other, I would recommend simply doing away with both and rolling them up in one skill... maybe call it the Social Interaction skill.
It's worth stating again, though, having both help to define seperate personality types and can only improve the gaming experience if used correctly. Good luck with everything whichever way you decide to go with it.
Gather Information is the skill of taking a whole lot of information you've gleaned from innocuous conversations with strangers or even associates and "reading between the lines" to get the information you're seeking. It really has nothing to do with changing someone's attitude toward you.
I agree.
In fact I run most Gather Information checks as montages. A snippet of an interrogation of a homless peeping tom, a piece of overheard conversation between two lumberjacks in a lord's employ, and a blushing scullery maid's meaningful glances tells the PC Lord Such-His-Nut is a bit of a rake who carries on several affairs behind his ignorant wife's back.
I love montages and use em all the time when I DM...makes for fun cinematic effects to the game, and Gather Info checks are a great way to introduce a quick cast of interesting NPCs who may or may not reappear later in the adventure.
"Light goes on in brain."
Ok, I think I got it now. (Don't know why I was having such a hard time with it.) I do like the idea of montages and coalescing a large series of encounters with Gather Information. (I realise a lot of people said similar things before Nicolas and Steve stated it, but for some reason my brain wasn't processing it until now.)
I still like the idea of doing a lot of the in-depth interaction one-on-one with the other skills. But I can see the place of Gather Information. I still think this is taking GI a little off from what the SRD intimates it can be used for, but it is more useful this way.
Thanks a lot everyone. It makes more sense now.
Greg
Thanks a lot everyone. It makes more sense now.
Greg
Not a problem, Greg. Happy to have helped out. :)