Just had an idea about this ... what if a failed roll yields misinformation to the players? Anyone tried this?
Failing a Knowledge check means that you don't know something. If you were to start giving misinformation, then you set yourself up for a situation where no one takes Knowledge skills. But to be open to the idea, the possibility of misinformation on a natural 1 is appealing as a sort of critical failure, or maybe if the roll is blown by say 10 or more. But if your players use those skills a lot, making any failed roll give them misinformation will lead to some fun and also some dead PCs.
"Look guys, the dragon's blue, that means it breathes acid!"
One lightning bolt later and the mage is a twitching cinder on the ground because he used protection from elements (acid).
"Look guys, the dragon's blue, that means it breathes acid!"
One lightning bolt later and the mage is a twitching cinder on the ground because he used protection from elements (acid).
Exactly! So, the failed roll was due to a bad source of information or a faulty memory.
You've got a point about screwing with the incentives for investing in knowledge skills. On the other hand, the possibility of mis-information injects a bit more realism into this skill use (and a little more complexity as well!).
Another potential downer ... if you do provide misinformation, then the players can't see their actual rolls. Otherwise, when they roll a 1, and you relay a bit of info, the player will know right off the bat that it's likely false data.
Which of course raises the issue of player vs character knowledge. It can always be amusing to have your character go along with what they know, even if you know that it's wrong information. Not all players will go for that, though. Do whatever works with your players.
|
Failing a Knowledge check means that you don't know something. If you were to start giving misinformation, then you set yourself up for a situation where no one takes Knowledge skills. But to be open to the idea, the possibility of misinformation on a natural 1 is appealing as a sort of critical failure, or maybe if the roll is blown by say 10 or more. But if your players use those skills a lot, making any failed roll give them misinformation will lead to some fun and also some dead PCs.
"Look guys, the dragon's blue, that means it breathes acid!"
One lightning bolt later and the mage is a twitching cinder on the ground because he used protection from elements (acid).
I use something like that...but it has to be a rolled 1 that failed by 5 or more...so it happens rarely...hilarious when it does.
Giving out misinformation just because the roll was too low doesn't seem right.
"You have no idea what this creature can be, but you think it's vulnerable to fire" ???
I'd only do this if the roll came up negative.
Giving out misinformation just because the roll was too low doesn't seem right.
"You have no idea what this creature can be, but you think it's vulnerable to fire" ???
I'd only do this if the roll came up negative.
|
|
Giving out misinformation just because the roll was too low doesn't seem right.
"You have no idea what this creature can be, but you think it's vulnerable to fire" ???
I'd only do this if the roll came up negative.
That's an idea too...yes I have had somebody roll a negative on a knoweldge check....
Giving out misinformation just because the roll was too low doesn't seem right.There are many other skills for this a miss by 1-4 is nothing but 5+ or 10+ is catastrophic failure.
And for many other skills, it makes sense. Not here, though.
Especially since only scholars could ever screw up like that! After all, you cannot make these rolls untrained. All you can do is a general knowledge check who may be DC 10 and no more. So if the DC is high enough to make catastrophic failures possible, the untrained cannot roll them.
No, you need an education to mess things up.
And one other thing: This would require people to regularly screw themselves up just to avoid metagaming, because they'll often know that the golem is healed by fire, but because the GM has his "I hate players" day, they'll have to make an already fight harder (and maybe get someone in the party killed) because not using fire would mean you metagame against the misinformation that "fire totally destroys the tin can".
Count me as against it.
I'm fond of "spreading skill points around" especially with the new +3 system. 1 point gets me 4? Yes please.
Under your system, I'd have 0 incentive to do anything of the kind.
-S
A roll of a 1 on a knowledge check on a monster is usually followed by "you think its chicken", or similar lunacy statement :P.
I play in 2 games, one i GM, one i play. Myself and the other DM just today decided we would sit down and decide what the DC was to identify a monster and how to adjust (based on rarity in area), and what information you could obtain with a successful roll based on how much the DC was exceeded.
Does anyone have set formula they use?
Does anyone have set formula they use?
Pi * Thumb.