I think a problem may be viewing the knowledge check DC as an element in challenge design. Personally, I'm not fond of basing the knowledge DC on the CR of the creature. It would mean nobody knows anything useful about powerful entities that might be notorious. What can the tarrasque do? No normal people know, the DC is too high based on his CR. This despite his legendary status...
I think you've picked a poor example here. I think the Tarraesque is exactly the kind of creature that no one knows much about, because it's so rare. There is only one of them in existance, period. It shows up rarely. When it does, it wipes out everything in its path.
In this case, the CR of the creature jives exactly with how difficult it should be to identify "special powers and vulnerabilities" of the Tarraesque. It all adds up to a base Knowledge: Arcana check of DC40. The creature is legendary, sure. Tales of it are used to frighten children (and some adults, no doubt) all across the land. But when you're face to face with a Colossal monstrosity, that doesn't exist in any photographs or video, that no one has seen in generations... It really shouldn't be easy to say "Oh, that's a Tarraesque. It can do this, this and this, and it's vulnerable to... uhm... "
I think you've picked a poor example here. I think the Tarraesque is exactly the kind of creature that no one knows much about, because it's so rare. There is only one of them in existance, period. It shows up rarely. When it does, it wipes out everything in its path.In this case, the CR of the creature jives exactly with how difficult it should be to identify "special powers and vulnerabilities" of the Tarraesque. It all adds up to a base Knowledge: Arcana check of DC40. The creature is legendary, sure. Tales of it are used to frighten children (and some adults, no doubt) all across the land. But when you're face to face with a Colossal monstrosity, that doesn't exist in any photographs or video, that no one has seen in generations... It really shouldn't be easy to say "Oh, that's a Tarraesque. It can do this, this and this, and it's vulnerable to... uhm... "
Clearly, we totally disagree here. I'd have people hear the legends of the tarrasque. "Spells bounce off his thick hide! [Carapace] His bite can tear a man in half. [Critical feats] The spines rain off like cast spears with a snap of his tail! [Spines] Though many have tried, there's no way to kill him. He keeps coming back! [Regeneration]"
And when encountered, it should be pretty unmistakable what it is. "Gods above! It's the tarrasque! We are doomed, I tell you! Doomed!"
Unfortunately, by the rules, virtually nobody knows any of that stuff nor can identify him. If you don't really know anything about what it does, how can tales about it terrify children? It would be indistinguishable from a fairy tale or anything else completely made up. Including real information makes it scarier, if you ask me, because then despair really sets in.
|
Clearly, we totally disagree here. I'd have people hear the legends of the tarrasque. "Spells bounce off his thick hide! [Carapace] His bite can tear a man in half. [Critical feats] The spines rain off like cast spears with a snap of his tail! [Spines] Though many have tried, there's no way to kill him. He keeps coming back! [Regeneration]"
And when encountered, it should be pretty unmistakable what it is. "Gods above! It's the tarrasque! We are doomed, I tell you! Doomed!"
Unfortunately, by the rules, virtually nobody knows any of that stuff nor can identify him. If you don't really know anything about what it does, how can tales about it terrify children? It would be indistinguishable from a fairy tale or anything else completely made up. Including real information makes it scarier, if you ask me, because then despair really sets in.
Why not Rarity + CR (or 1/2 CR) - notoriety?
So the first two variables produce truth/pure info - the reduction for notoriety would add in some extra details plus some falsehoods.
Again, I think this only comes into play with powerful unique beings. A Very Rare CR 14 Red Dragon who lives in the remote mountains may have a Know:DC 25 (VR) +7 (1/2 CR) - 10 (notoriety) =22. Notoriety for this dragon would be 10 (like a negative status determined by the DM). So a result for the PC of 22-32 reveals the common things know about dragons/this dragon, plus plenty of half-truths and lies. From 33 on the results become more filtered and distilled - possibly some truth or reason behind some of the lower check lies and speculation.
So a notoriety rating for some of the more specific creatures could bring the DC down, but the zone it creates sort of acts as a "shadow" DC -as in the above example- where yeah, you know more stuff and the check is easier, but how much of that is true, false or somewhere in- between? The more notorious - the greater the shadow DC range - again some truths (with possible false reasoning), mixed in with lies and other garbage.
Just some ideas here guys, I don't think anything presented here is right or wrong - we could find a better variant than the current system where CR is more important than rarity.
"It breathes fire and acid! [lie] If anything can pierce its carapace it explodes only to reform again! [also lie]" etc.
I would suggest that you allow knowledge: local to substitute for monster identification for 'legendary creatures' but allow for 'old wives tales' and the like.
I loved it in "Keep on the Borderlands" that Gygax provided both true and false rumors in the table.
|
|
I loved it in "Keep on the Borderlands" that Gygax provided both true and false rumors in the table."It breathes fire and acid! [lie] If anything can pierce its carapace it explodes only to reform again! [also lie]" etc.
I would suggest that you allow knowledge: local to substitute for monster identification for 'legendary creatures' but allow for 'old wives tales' and the like.
That was part of my inspiration for the shadow/notoriety DC - even some of the lies have some truth or value to them.
Wait ... what!?!?! Are they making modules now w/NO false information ... like at all!??!??!
8-O
Man ... glad I don't run modules straight anymore.
*shakes head in disbelief*
...Is this an example of me being screwed out of a knowledge check? Or am I just overreacting? I was hoping to get an outsider's objective opinion on the matter.
If you made the perception check you did not overreacting.
Your DM is a Jerk.
No, while the point is valid, it's not the one I'm making. The point I'm making is that while the differences between 45 and 46 degrees may seem inconsequential, that's only because I've simplified everything down. When you consider the entire field the cow is wandering in, the differences can be and often are quite consequential - and that's only one possible point of variation.
And every piece of bubble gum is slightly different from every other piece -- even not including different brands and flavors and bubbles! But when the players ask for a burger, or peas and carrots, you hand them a different piece of gum and tell them to suck it up, because You're The Boss? Is that where this is going?
Like I said elsewhere, if your players are the type who need to be kept like cattle, then fine, they're welcome to you. Your style, however, isn't the only possibility, and just understand that unless it's the only game in town, a number of players will go elsewhere with great relief. As players have left my game, when they wanted a linear obstacle course to play on instead of an entire world.
What I've told you repeatedly (ad nauseum actually) is that the player is free to not play.
And as I've replied equally often, thank God for that.
If you've got no sense of entitlement, then we've got no disagreement.
And if the DM has no delusions of grandeur and isn't a pathological control freak, I have no disagreement with him or her.
|
What the hell does "no delusions of grandeur and isn't a pathological control freak" mean - that the GM doesn't let the player do whatever they want?And if the DM has no delusions of grandeur and isn't a pathological control freak, I have no disagreement with him or her.If you've got no sense of entitlement, then we've got no disagreement.
No, that he thinks the players should follow his script perfectly instead of adlibbing their own lines.
|
Wow, this thread has more turns than a really turny thing.
I'd like to say I think LillithsThrall has something in what he/she is trying to say here.
Imagine you create a game world where a particular band of Knights exist that can only be entered by noble birth traced through a lineage of 3 or more generations verified by an historian and vouched by another member of the family already in the order. Now these Knights only come into play later in the campaign, in a part of the world the players have only just encountered (this is an organic campaign, grown both by players and DM's so it is evolving new content all the time.) The players have no way of entering this particular sect of Knights no matter how much they wish.
This is not unheard of surely. There are plenty of things in the world that people wish they could be but just have no chance of becoming or attaining.
The joy of that situation is that the players might try some kind of subterfuge etc to join, so it makes the game more interesting, but it is a limitation placed on a world by the GM that also makes perfect sense to their particular world.
Limitations can make a game as interesting to play in as a game where the players have complete freedom. Indeed, for many people, this provides far more enjoyment than what is being suggested by Kirth and TOZ, as it the is the struggle for something that gives far more satisfaction than the goal itself.
Don't get me wrong, I think there needs to be a healthy balance between the two styles of play. DM limitations and player driven world development. If you swing too much in either direction, then people feel disapointed.
Cheers
|
|
Limitations can make a game as interesting to play in as a game where the players have complete freedom. Indeed, for many people, this provides far more enjoyment than what is being suggested by Kirth and TOZ, as it the is the struggle for something that gives far more satisfaction than the goal itself.
I'd like to know when I ever said a DM should never put restrictions on his players.
|
|
I'd like to know when I ever said a DM should never put restrictions on his players.
Limitations can make a game as interesting to play in as a game where the players have complete freedom. Indeed, for many people, this provides far more enjoyment than what is being suggested by Kirth and TOZ, as it the is the struggle for something that gives far more satisfaction than the goal itself.
Bah! This is the interwbs, I don't need a quote. Just say it, then someone will believe it and it becomes a truth (twisted as that logic is)
Kir[th]'s attack was rather pointed.
It was a direct reply to your "sense of entitlement" quip (which you did direct at me by pronoun, rather than "he or she" as I replied).