So, one issue that I am noticing becomes an issue is player knowledge VS character knowledge. To eliminate player knowledge I offer the following:
So the average DC to identify a monster is
Common monsters: 05+CR
Normal monsters: 10+CR
Rare monsters : 15+CR
So, in lieu of names we might be able to get by with not naming monsters. A successful knowledge check tells you the monster's type, and the most important need to know information about it, such as "It deals energy drain on hit!" If you exceed the DC by 5 you know the monster's sub-type as well as one of its relevant resistances. If you have a fire-mage on your team and the monster is immune or vulnerable to fire then you know that.
So, how I would plan to do this is to, right before a dungeon, have my players roll a knowledge check for every single enemy they are going to run into ahead of time, but if the DC of these things are higher than 10 then untrained skills are not allowed.
In the encounter sheet there would be the DC to identify, with two other columns labeled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree of success.
So an encounter would go like this:
The players open the door to room and see 5 monsters.
From previous rolls the PCs know that
Monster 1 is an undead that is immune to cold, has damage reduction defeated by bludgeoning, and retains the class skills it had in life.
Monster 2 is an outsider with a sub-type of Demon, and is immune to fire, while also being able to steal the health of others it touches.
Monster 3 is an outsider with a sub-type of native, and is resistant to fire, while also being able to cast darkness.
Monster 4 has the type of Dragon, and is able to breathe fire.
This leaves players with bits and pieces to fit what exactly the monsters are, while not informing the experienced ones as to what a monster is just by key quips of information.
If you are wondering
Monster 1 would be a skeletal champion, monster 2 is a succubus, monster 3 is a tiefling, and monster 4, the easiest, is a red dragon.
Will you give physical descriptions? Experienced players can probably identify most monsters from that.
Will you give physical descriptions? Experienced players can probably identify most monsters from that.
I've been known to visually reskin monsters from time to time. Freaked my PCs out pretty badly when the purple catlike monsters started rubbing their whiskers on the Dwarf's armor and it began to rust... =)
Will you give physical descriptions? Experienced players can probably identify most monsters from that.
Exactly why I do not intend to give physical descriptions. The Players are understanding what the monsters are through the character's understanding thereof. The Player doesn't need description of what the monster is, he just needs to know what the character knows in his studies.
I think this method makes each monster in the game a little more obscure. A little more eldritch in its own way.
If you say green skin and short, people know goblin.
If you say it is a zombie that has a long purple tongue then some people will instantly know Void Zombie--Strength drain!
To keep it short and sweet, the monster description would probably be best left as cryptic as best, and as general as possible. If you don't know what a dragon is, and you don't know what a T-Rex is, then you might think they are the same thing with one being more scary than the other.
I am trying to eliminate the meta-game as much as possible with descriptions. I think it might prove effective.
|
Instead of trying to fight against players being invested in the game by knowing what monsters are which, why not change the monsters to something the players have never seen before? Either replace the monsters with rarer ones, or, better, use something like the The Random Esoteric Creature Generator For Classic Fantasy Role Playing Games And Their Modern Simulacra, and re-skin the monsters you were going to use anyway? Same stats, but the players don't know what to expect, and the CHARACTERS can my their roles to know.
Instead of trying to fight against players being invested in the game by knowing what monsters are which, why not change the monsters to something the players have never seen before? Either replace the monsters with rarer ones, or, better, use something like the Random Esoteric Creature Generator, and re-skin the monsters you were going to use anyway?
I am not "fighting" my players, but instead denying them information that may or may not be useful for them. We can sit here and talk about how we never intend to meta-game or never want to meta-game, but when you know what a monster is and how bad it can be if it touches your character you tend to not want to go near it.
This removes that.
Also, why do I get the idea that if I click on your link I am going to run into an eventual "GIVE US YOUR MONEY" sign? XD
Once the PCs defeat a monster they are able to learn its name if they take 20 studying it. Taking 20 requires roughly 2 minutes for a skill taking less than 1 round to complete, and since knowledge is a free action it would just take 2 minutes of study.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a struggle that will not pay you the dividends you hope it will. Obscuring information makes everything clunky and unintuitive. You are far better off sticking with normal descriptions for the most part, because it feels rewarding to the players and invests them in the setting, and using reskinned monsters to invoke a sense of wonder every now and then.
I usually read the flavor text at the top of most monster's stat blocks out loud when the monster appears, which is what I assume it's there for. I used pawns so they also often have a visual to use too. If thye want to know particular habits or weaknesses, someone needs to roll a knowledge check.
This is a struggle that will not pay you the dividends you hope it will. Obscuring information makes everything clunky and unintuitive. You are far better off sticking with normal descriptions for the most part, because it feels rewarding to the players and invests them in the setting, and using reskinned monsters to invoke a sense of wonder every now and then.
The PCs having knowledge isn't a big deal, I am more curious as to the effect it will have on the game. You suggest that it will make it unintuitive.
Thinking about it from the player perspective I am thinking that it will make the the PCs extremely hesitant to approach anything, and that creatures will seem to randomly be powerful or weak with no real indication beyond eating a few hits or instantly dying to them.Of course the better way to do this, I think, would be to use different names for monsters.
Then again, I tend to send hordes at the PCs, so it will likely not be worth the effort to set it all up unless I am going for extreme tension in my players, but even that is done more effectively with other sources so I am thinking you are right.
Your idea is mechanically sound to me. But isn't describing... fun? It's somewhat of a trope to mentioned the stale air, muck covered walls, and grotesque detail of the witch's moles (when appropriate). I'd vote for the reskinning, simply so I don't lose cool descriptions.
It's hard to be terrified of an undead that is immune to cold, has damage reduction defeated by bludgeoning, and retains the class skills it had in life, as opposed to the decaying skeletal champion of a former friend.
(was I right?)
Do you also expect players to just give you a perception roll if they're searching a room or do you expect them to give some indication of what they're doing?
What about expecting them to actually tell you what they're saying or do they just make a diplomacy/bluff/intimidate roll?
Do you have them solve any puzzle they come across just by rolling int checks or do you expect them to actually try to solve it themselves?
Do you have them roll knowledge checks to know that the forest is full of trees? Don't forget the perception to make sure they actually see the trees.
While you're at it they may as well make wisdom rolls any time they need to make a decision and you'll just let them know what decision they're making, wouldn't want them metagaming, right?
Obviously I'm being facetious, but I don't understand why some GMs feel that giving players information is such a terrible thing.
It isn't an attempt to be a nazi, it is an attempt to bring back that aspect of gaming we all experienced the first time we played and didn't know anything about what we faced.
You can take it to the retarded logical extreme if you like, but that wont give you anything. The point is: Based on their knowledge checks they are entitled to certain information that their characters are aware of. They might end up going in blind against something, but that is all part of the (no so) fun that is battle.
And--yes, you DO need to make a perception check against the trees. You find out that the trees are actually illusory! Holy crap, illusory trees! Whatever can we find! Hey, why did this rock go down a little when I stepped on it? Why are there arrows flying out of all of the trees now? CURSES!
You are not going to be able to channel the virgin shot. Particularly not by having the characters fight native outsiders that have a fly speed and are immune to cold damage.
|
|
I'd work with your players and ask them to stop metagaming if that's what the real issue is, but if that's not possible...
It seems fine, though a bit of extra work. There are rules for disclosing information under the knowledges already, if you're curious.
Personally I make up a lot of unique monsters based on other creatures, and have descriptions of them ready for when they see it. My descriptions will usually hint at 1 or 2 abilities it may have, but they can be misleading. If someone gives me a knowledge check though, I'll give them more information about it if that's what they roll.
Just avoid giving the wrong descriptions, I've had a GM that made a balrog out of an imp, which led to the party trying to find another way around, which led the GM to penalizing us for going off-course, which led to total party kill by falling.
False descriptions that aren't illusions can kill. Don't go down that slippery slope.
You don't seem to be asking any direct questions, more like providing advice? So I'll add my experience into the mix.
I have tried something like this before, when I ran Rise of the Runelords (my one and only experience GMing this game*). It's a tough balance act just how much information to reveal, but it certainly works.
In some cases, I read the line that the bestiary has that describes the creature. This is sometimes a giveaway, but on more mundane creatures, I liked describing the monsters, since otherwise there's a highly detailed description of the room, including how apparent the age is, where the sunlight comes in, the fierceness of the roaring fire, and what have you, and oh yeah, there's some guys in here, by the way.
Other times, I'd just describe the creature in a very basic way (light/dark, skin/fur, weapon/claws, wings/no wings), and it will remain a mystery until it uses an iconic ability, and it all snaps into place. If it's obviously a <creature type> then they'd get that. If they know to expect ogres in a region, I'll just say, "ogre."
They seemed to enjoy realizing what it was they fought after the fact. (Edit: it was often of no concern of ultimate difficulty, just a neat little surprise, since their fighting skills basically allowed brute-force to work, regardless of resistances and such. Then, at a certain level, knowledge checks just become automatic successes.)
* I used this approach in another game, however. I ran a Paranoia game once where the troubleshooters went outside. I described it as cold, with a very high gray ceiling. They proceeded, and found a hairy thing, approximately knee height, with arms and legs, and discernible facial features, but very odd ones. Perhaps some kind of mutant? And, look, now here's a much larger one, taller than them. Good times.