GM creates Artificial DCs on the spot.

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

Agreed, but even without that, there is nothing wrong with throwing an alchemist fire on a troll even if you failed the roll. Trial and error.

If you want to do this, as a GM I would probably make you list off ALL of the weird items you are carrying in your backpack that could possibly be a unique form of attack, and then if you have, say, 8 of them, you roll a 8-sided-die to determine which one your character tries.

And this is only after seeing a normal sword not work, as you seem to be agreeing.

I'd call shenanigans. Not least because odds are good that a character only has one or two types of damaging alchemical items anyway. Both of the most common ones just happen to bypass troll regeneration. So, you want me to throw my acid flask, or my alchemist's fire?

[Crimeo]

Quote:

Not least because odds are good that a character only has one or two types of damaging alchemical items anyway.

If you just pierced with a mundane arrow, and you only have one kind of non-piercing attack, and it is alchemical fire, then you're in luck! You get to use alchemical fire immediately.

If you have an acid flask and alchemical fire, flip a coin.

Acid, fire, and a silver arrow, roll 1d3.

Acid, fire, a silver arrow, and a ray of frost spell, roll 1d4.

Depending on the manner in which you observed it not to work, your character may also consider other means of brute force like bludgeoning and slashing.

I'm not seeing the shenanigans. Your character has no idea what will work, he has a random chance of guessing correctly amongst however many other options he has and his observations.

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

Not least because odds are good that a character only has one or two types of damaging alchemical items anyway.

If you just pierced with a mundane arrow, and you only have one kind of non-piercing attack, and it is alchemical fire, then you're in luck! You get to use alchemical fire immediately.

If you have an acid flask and alchemical fire, flip a coin.

Acid, fire, and a silver arrow, roll 1d3.

Acid, fire, a silver arrow, and a ray of frost spell, roll 1d4.

Depending on the manner in which you observed it not to work, your character may also consider other means of brute force like bludgeoning and slashing.

I'm not seeing the shenanigans. Your character has no idea what will work, he has a random chance of guessing correctly amongst however many other options he has and his observations.

So, forcing player choice isn't shenanigans now? I have to try all of my items at absolute random to comply with your idea of how things should work? Piss on that. If my sword doesn't work, and I want to use fire next, I'm using fire next. Not making stupid random decisions for no apparent reason. I don't need a dice to decide which of my options I use next, and I'll call shenanigans on anyone who says I do.

[Snowblind]

I could argue about this character knowledge nonsense, but this explains it so much better than I would.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I definitely think it's harder to avoid metagaming than a lot of people say, but you shouldn't rob players of any agency. If you really think they're abusing player knowledge too much—sing it with me, ladies and gentlemen!—

TALK

TO

THEM.

...

DUMB BUTT.

Don't instate stupid illogical rules to "control" metagaming. That's just treating a symptom.

(By the way, "dumb butt" is a general term to be applied to all the hypothetical GMs and players who need to follow this advice, and not a personal attack against anyone. Additionally, I apologize if I have offended any butts in the forum with my callous slur. It was not intended.)

[AntiDjinn]

That is a point -- if you feel like players are circumventing the game rules by metagaming, then making additional rules for them to ignore is unlikely to solve the problem. Problems arising from out of game knowledge require an out of game conversation.

I consider it metagaming if my party is fighting 2 trolls, but the players note I have set aside figures for 4 more and adjust their strategy, like the wizard holding back that fireball until the remaining trolls move into view, but I am not going to force the wizard to cast now rather than hold back to counter this annoyance, nor am I going to randomize PC actions to prevent them from using this OoGK.

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

AntiDjinn wrote:

That is a point -- if you feel like players are circumventing the game rules by metagaming, then making additional rules for them to ignore is unlikely to solve the problem. Problems arising from out of game knowledge require an out of game conversation.

I consider it metagaming if my party is fighting 2 trolls, but the players note I have set aside figures for 4 more and adjust their strategy, like the wizard holding back that fireball until the remaining trolls move into view, but I am not going to force the wizard to cast now rather than hold back to counter this annoyance, nor am I going to randomize PC actions to prevent them from using this OoGK.

Even without the extra trolls, I'd probably not waste my fireball on just two of them. Four, that's reasonable. Six? Hell yes. But not two.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

...making stupid random decisions for no apparent reason.

The reason is apparent, because I told you the reason: your character doesn't have any basis on which to make a less-stupid decision than random choice. He has not cast any divination, he has no direct experience, he failed his roll for knowledge. So he simply can't do better than stupid.

Yes this reduces player agency, in the same fashion that making you roll for acrobatics reduces your agency to jump over 20 foot wide pits at will, or failing to know how to cast fireball reduces your agency for casting fireball at will.

"Well my character chooses to use fire anyway" no chance of failure is the same as "Well my character jumps the pit anyway."

Quote:

So, forcing player choice isn't shenanigans now?

More succinctly: When there exists a skill roll that specifically exists to affect certain choices of your player, then no, affecting those choices based on the roll of that skill is not shenanigans.

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

...making stupid random decisions for no apparent reason.

The reason is apparent, because I told you the reason: your character doesn't have any basis on which to make a less-stupid decision than random choice. He has not cast any divination, he has no direct experience, he hasn't rolled knowledge for whether his character knew this from downtime/the past. So he simply can't do better than stupid.

Yes this reduces player agency, in the same fashion that making you roll for acrobatics reduces your agency to jump over 20 foot wide pits at will, or failing to know how to cast fireball reduces your agency for casting fireball at will.

Rolling knowledge for knowing trolls are weak to fire and then just saying "well my character chooses to use fire" no chance of failure, is no different than saying "I failed my acrobatics check. Whatever, he jumps it anyway."

Clearly he can, because he just did. He picked the fire. Not the frost, or the acid, or the silver arrow, or punching it. Because that's what I picked. That is remarkably different from failing an acrobatics check, since acrobatics checks have penalties for failure. Like falling in a pit and taking falling damage.

Intentionally playing your character as an idiot with no knowledge of the world around him is utterly asinine, and in defiance of all logic. I may not know that it's a troll, but I can guess that my sword isn't doing the best job. When my sword stops working, default to fire next. Why? Because that's what my character would do, whether he knew it was a troll and took extra damage from fire or not. Fire doesn't work? Try acid. Then silver, cold iron, and adamantine. Maybe try magic. But don't just randomly choose crap because "my character doesn't know." Just cause I don't know doesn't mean I'm going to randomly pick things till something sticks. I have a method, and I'm going to use it, even if you try and enforce terminal stupidity by DM fiat.

[HWalsh]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

Agreed, but even without that, there is nothing wrong with throwing an alchemist fire on a troll even if you failed the roll. Trial and error.

If you want to do this, as a GM I would probably make you list off ALL of the weird items you are carrying in your backpack that could possibly be a unique form of attack, and then if you have, say, 8 of them, you roll a 8-sided-die to determine which one your character tries.

And this is only after seeing a normal sword not work, as you seem to be agreeing.

And thus we have the problem with the RAW vs Narrative.

The people who insist on RAW only, no fudges, etc, have no problem using narratives when it helps them.

If you fail the knowledge roll, then you don't know about Trolls and fire. If your justification is, "Well if our normal attacks don't work, then we might as well throw alchemist fire." Then that needs to be your go-to for whenever your normal attacks don't work.

So... You run into a Golem. Your normal attack aren't working. If you fail that roll then your character better try the alchemist fire.

If you normally tried Holy Water, then try holy water on the Troll.

That is, if you are more of the RAW type.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Crimeo wrote:

"Well my character chooses to use fire anyway" no chance of failure is the same as "Well my character jumps the pit anyway."

Except it's not. Jumping the pit is a physical capability, while acid vs. fire is a matter of personal choice. Maybe I want to burn the trolls because I hate ugliness and want to, as the meme goes, kill it with fire. Maybe I want to use my mithral arrow against the werewolf because it's higher-quality than my normal arrows. Maybe I refrain from mentioning our wizardry around the (arcane magic-hating) hobgoblins because I don't want to give away all our capabilities. Maybe I don't jump into the dark portal in the statue's mouth because I'm afraid of the dark. That's not a matter of physical or mental capability—it's a decision, enforced by my personality.

HWalsh wrote:

If you normally tried Holy Water, then try holy water on the Troll.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Trolls aren't very "magical" creatures—they're clearly of this world—and I wouldn't expect someone to use blessed anti-supernatural evil water on them.

And if I don't even have the vaguest notion of the abilities of my holy water, the priest who sold it to me is going to be facing a lawsuit.

[Crimeo]

There are skills and rules on your character's mind and choices. When/if they apply, you are restricted by those rules. Why is this controversial?

If your character could just do whatever YOU know or feel like as a player at any time, there would be absolutely no point to any int or most wis skills.

"Roll appraise"
"Natural 1. But I just looked up its price in ultimate equipment on page 157, and my character spontaneously chooses to say that he thinks it is worth precisely 2,200 gold pieces"
"He doesn't know that."
"HOW DARE YOU interfere with my player agency!"

"Roll spellcraft"
"Natural 1. But you said this spell strikes unerringly. My character randomly guesses it was probably magic missile because that's the only spell that uses that wording, and yells out this information to his teammates"
"No."
"HOW DARE YOU!!!!!"

You're just deciding to ignore like 1/4 of the game, invoking some concept you made up about always getting to choose whatever you want no matter what. That's not a thing.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Crimeo wrote:

There are skills and rules on your character's mind and choices

No, there aren't. Your two mocking scripts both pertain to the character's knowledge. There are no skills and rules dictating a PC's autonomous decisions, because that's the player's purview and not the rulebook's.

[HWalsh]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I definitely think it's harder to avoid metagaming than a lot of people say, but you shouldn't rob players of any agency. If you really think they're abusing player knowledge too much—sing it with me, ladies and gentlemen!—

TALK

TO

THEM.

...

DUMB BUTT.

Don't instate stupid illogical rules to "control" metagaming. That's just treating a symptom.

(By the way, "dumb butt" is a general term to be applied to all the hypothetical GMs and players who need to follow this advice, and not a personal attack against anyone. Additionally, I apologize if I have offended any butts in the forum with my callous slur. It was not intended.)

Another solution, one I use as a GM, are home-brew variants. If I think my PCs are metagaming, for example, using the troll and fire theory that is when I introduce a new type of troll.

Lets call it the Smoldering Troll, it looks like a normal troll, but it has odd rock like crags in its skin and from these crags steam occasionally pours out.

These guys aren't affected by fire. Alchemist's fire doesn't work. Acid isn't as effective. Ice and water (even Holy Water) works quite well.

You can get a lot of amusement as the PCs fail monster knowledge checks then whip out (without hesitation) the fire and acid only to be blinking in confusion when it doesn't work.

[Kobold Catgirl]

HWalsh: That's the fun solution, for sure. :D

[Crimeo]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Crimeo wrote:

There are skills and rules on your character's mind and choices

No, there aren't. Your two mocking scripts both pertain to the character's knowledge. There are no skills and rules dictating a PC's autonomous decisions, because that's the player's purview and not the rulebook's.

The character is making the "autonomous decision" to yell out "this is worth 2,200gp" despite failing his appraise check.

I see no difference from "autonomously deciding" to use exactly the right weapon after failing a knowledge nature check.

Nobody would ever put ranks in half the skills in the game if this were how the game worked.

[HWalsh]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

HWalsh: That's the fun solution, for sure. :D

I love using variant monsters in my games. Makes things a little more challenging when the PC's literally can't look up what they are facing. I'm not saying I don't trust my Players... Well... Okay no I don't. I know a few of them will look up things without even a second thought.

This doesn't always mean they will use that knowledge, and also some of them GM other games so they may simply know anyway, so one of my solutions is to often throw in totally non-RAW stuff.

That is where one of my most beloved non-magical items came from...

Fine Longsword - Damage 1d6 - Critical 19-20 - Weight 2 lbs - Cost 15 GP - Counts as a light weapon when wielded in the primary hand.

What is it?

A short sword, more or less, at least stat-wise. It counts as a longsword however for the purposes of feats etc.

Why? Originally it was there because a player was bummed because they couldn't use a long sword in Pathfinder with Weapon Finesse... So... Viola. Now they can.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Crimeo wrote:

The character is making the "autonomous decision" to yell out "this is worth 2,200gp" despite failing his appraise check.

That is acting with OOC knowledge, and only an extremely narrow-minded GM wouldn't be able to see that.

Gosh. When you take a point and stretch it to mean the most ridiculous thing you can think of, you're right, it does look pretty crazy!

Crimeo wrote:

Nobody would ever put ranks in half the skills in the game if this were how the game worked.

Yeah, in a game where the GM was a complete moron (or asleep) and couldn't just tell the player to stop being an ass, it would make Knowledge skills pretty worthless, wouldn't it?

Guys. There's a difference between "Yeah, your character can use holy water against the Scary Demon" and "Yeah, your character can spontaneously decide what an item costs based on obvious player knowledge".

Get better examples and stop taking people's suggestions to ludicrous extremes. It will make this conversation much more productive.

EDIT: Wait, actually, I wanna do this too! Let's run a script.

"Okay, so I don't know what hurts the Origami Golem, but my weapon's having no effect? Maybe I should get out my alchemist's fire—"
"NOT SO FAST. You have to roll the d69 and determine what you decide to use! Stop cheating."
1d69 ⇒ 58
"...I draw my toothbrush and charge."
"Isn't not-metagaming fun? Oh, you provoke an AoO. It catches you and eats you."
"..."
"Rory, you're up."
"I full attack it again with my backpack!"

[Crimeo]

Giving other reasons is fine, too, nobody said anything about that earlier. My response was to exactly what was described, simply choosing the right answer mutely. But note that giving roudnabout reasoning, though fun, is generally weaker than knowledge rolls, because it will restrict you in other ways.

Quote:

Except it's not. Jumping the pit is a physical capability, while acid vs. fire is a matter of personal choice. Maybe I want to burn the trolls because I hate ugliness and want to, as the meme goes, kill it with fire.

If your character has a predilection to kill ugly things with fire, and that's your reasoning, then sure, use the fire.

I expect him to then also use fire to kill the ugly imp in the next dungeon, though (if he fails his check again), especially since it worked out perfectly the first time.

Quote:

Maybe I want to use my mithral arrow against the werewolf because it's higher-quality than my normal arrows.

Okay, you can narrow your roll down to a random choice of any of your weapons/ammo you have on you that are of a higher quality than whatever you used before (probably just the one).

And since that worked well for you, when you face a troll in the next dungeon and your crappy iron throwing dagger doesn't work, you should use the expensive mithril sword next, if that's how your character reasons, not the cheap dime store fire flask.

Quote:

Maybe I don't jump into the dark portal in the statue's mouth because I'm afraid of the dark.

If your character has not yet in this campaign walked headlong into any dark places without hesitation contradicting this, then sure. Fine reason. And that's now part of your character's personality for later, good or bad, until you have a good reason to get over it or change it.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Keeping a rigid list of rules for each PC's combat contingencies seems rather inconvenient compared to simply talking to my players and asking them to dial it back. It also shows I have no faith in my players, which is likely to reduce the number of players I have in the long term.

Surely it is easier to handle these OOC problems in an OOC manner. Surely it is more open and friendly. Surely such a strategy closer matches the basic point of playing a game with friends.

One more question before I go to bed: Crimeo, have you ever asked your players what they think of the "random item rule"? Do they agree that it is necessary? Do they like it better than the alternatives? This is a serious question.

[Crimeo]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that anything here is happening outside of the context of explaining rules or asking things OOC.

Yes of course, I think that is implicit at all times in all things. This is how I would handle it if they failed the roll, they said "okay well I guess fire." nothing else, I explained to them "that's metagaming," they say "okay" and think about it and then they came back at me with another answer:

If their other answer is "Okay well I just try something then! I randomly choose fire!" Okay great, random choice is a logical solution. But if that's your reasoning, then you actually have to randomly choose, play it out and roll.

If their answer is "Okay well he thinks about it, and decides ugly things stop being ugly when they burn, so he tries fire" Okay great, that's a reason, thank you. You are developing your character's tendencies and personality, and avoiding metagaming (sort of, it's a start).

If you have some other response, by all means let me know. But just saying "No. I choose fire. Player autonomy" doesn't cut it. And other ideas will likely have whatever logical consequences they actually would have too.

But stubborn was the only response I was given earlier in the thread.If you just sit there and refuse to roleplay like that, then I will choose something for you like the random thing to move the game along and let other players play. Or we can just skip your turn if you like, fine by me.

[Kobold Catgirl]

By "handling problems in an OOC manner", I mean taking them aside and telling them that their metagaming is making the game less fun for others. Not immediately trying to enforce your will through GM power.

That said, I see what you're saying, and I may have misread you on this. I apologize.

[ErichAD]

I also throw in modified monsters. I make sure their weakness fit in with the creature type, since the player should have some clue based on that; then make sure there's enough other hints that they aren't flying blind if they happen to not already know the monsters weakness through a knowledge check at the scene or a gather information check before heading out.

I personally consider it a failure if the players get to a new monster with no knowledge of how to defeat it, I screwed up at that point.

[Crimeo]

Okay I agree we just had different assumptions, then. Sorry about that as well.

[alexd1976]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Crimeo wrote:

The character is making the "autonomous decision" to yell out "this is worth 2,200gp" despite failing his appraise check.

That is acting with OOC knowledge, and only an extremely narrow-minded GM wouldn't be able to see that.

Gosh. When you take a point and stretch it to mean the most ridiculous thing you can think of, you're right, it does look pretty crazy!

Crimeo wrote:

Nobody would ever put ranks in half the skills in the game if this were how the game worked.

Yeah, in a game where the GM was a complete moron (or asleep) and couldn't just tell the player to stop being an ass, it would make Knowledge skills pretty worthless, wouldn't it?

Guys. There's a difference between "Yeah, your character can use holy water against the Scary Demon" and "Yeah, your character can spontaneously decide what an item costs based on obvious player knowledge".

Get better examples and stop taking people's suggestions to ludicrous extremes. It will make this conversation much more productive.

EDIT: Wait, actually, I wanna do this too! Let's run a script.

"Okay, so I don't know what hurts the Origami Golem, but my weapon's having no effect? Maybe I should get out my alchemist's fire—"
"NOT SO FAST. You have to roll the d69 and determine what you decide to use! Stop cheating."
1d69
"...I draw my toothbrush and charge."
"Isn't not-metagaming fun? Oh, you provoke an AoO. It catches you and eats you."
"..."
"Rory, you're up."
"I full attack it again with my backpack!"

Your example is silly.

No one records toothbrushes on their characters.

[alexd1976]

My group assumes a certain level of 'common knowledge' for adventurers, there are a few things we just have all characters know:

Undead are generally harmed by holy water (but who cares, your weapons do more damage anyway)

Trolls are usually affected by acid and fire

Red dragons are fire based

White dragons are ice based

Run away from golems

That pretty much sums it up. If they roll high enough on the appropriate knowledge check, I let them open the book to the appropriate page and just read the damn monster.

Especially as they level.

The idea of having them use random gear or telling them they can't use their characters how they want is beyond insulting.

If I tried that crap at my table, I would EXPECT someone to stand up and hand me their character sheet, or punch me.

I use a fairly high percentage of unique content, which is why people take the knowledge skills. Metagaming isn't hard to defeat.

An earlier poster talked about having several troll miniatures off to the side of the table... I do the same thing, and then go into my case and pull out a dozen orcs.

If people are gonna be idiots with metagaming, take advantage of their idiocy, what are the players going to do, complain that you tricked them?

If someone tried to tell me I wasn't allowed to use alchemists fire on something because I didn't have the knowledge check to back it up, I would force feed him his dice.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

My group assumes a certain level of 'common knowledge' for adventurers

Well so does Paizo actually. As long as you're out of combat, you can take 10 on knowledge checks, and you can take any knowledge check up to DC 10 without a rank in it. So basically, all commoners know all DC 10 things about everything. Which includes all "really easy questions" in every subject.

But you can't take 10 in combat, so it is a bit tangential to some of the above issues.

I do make it a house rule though to be nice to players that "anything you would have gotten in knowledge if you HAD taken 10 is something you do truly know." If you miss the check it simply means you were flustered under pressure, and once safe, I will have your character go "OH!" and remember the correct info.

Quote:

If someone tried to tell me I wasn't allowed to use alchemists fire on something because I didn't have the knowledge check to back it up, I would force feed him his dice.

Quote:

I would EXPECT someone to stand up and hand me their character sheet, or punch me.

Okay well I guess I'm glad I'm not GMing around a flaming oil can under a viaduct somewhere, where there are violent assaults any time somebody tells you to stop metagaming and enforces roleplay.

[alexd1976]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

My group assumes a certain level of 'common knowledge' for adventurers

Well so does Paizo actually. As long as you're out of combat, you can take 10 on knowledge checks, and you can take any knowledge check up to DC 10 without a rank in it. So basically, all commoners know all DC 10 things about everything. Which includes all "really easy questions" in every subject.

But you can't take 10 in combat, so it is a bit tangential to some of the above issues.

I do make it a house rule though to be nice to players that "anything you would have gotten in knowledge if you HAD taken 10 is something you do truly know." If you miss the check it simply means you were flustered under pressure, and once safe, I will have your character go "OH!" and remember the correct info.

I keep getting into arguments about two points you just made, and I wouldn't mind a bit of clarification (from you, or others, whoever wants to contribute):

1-CAN you take 10 on knowledge checks? I thought they were trained only.

2-Are you sure you can't take 10 during combat?

I respect that people have opinions, but I'm only interested in actual quotes from the books on this, so if anyone has anything to contribute on that front, please, I've been stuck trying to adjudicate this more than once.

In any case, be warned GMs, if you try to tell me what my character is allowed to do (i.e. take control of MY character away from ME without an in-game effect like Dominate Person) you will be choking to death on your dice.

[Stereofm]

Crimeo wrote:

If you have some other response, by all means let me know. But just saying "No. I choose fire. Player autonomy" doesn't cut it. And other ideas will likely have whatever logical consequences they actually would have too.

Fire hurts things more reliably than, say, holy water in the real world. It stands within reason someone would try with fire, before trying anything else.

Also, you don't have that many options in the core rulebook, without digging up weird manuals.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

1-CAN you take 10 on knowledge checks? I thought they were trained only.

Yes, relevant text (knowledge skill page):

Quote:

Modifiers

Training You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.

Quote:

2-Are you sure you can't take 10 during combat?

Yes, relevant rules text (skills general rules):

Quote:

When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.

Several skills make specific exceptions to this, such as climbing checks for creatures with natural climb speeds, but knowledge does not make an exception, so the general rules applies.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

if you try to tell me what my character is allowed to do (i.e. take control of MY character away from ME without an in-game effect like Dominate Person) you will be choking to death on your dice.

So if you fail an acrobatics check and I tell you you fall, you will murder me for telling you what your character is allowed to do. Cool. Sounds like a fun, healthy table!

Quote:

Fire hurts things more reliably than, say, holy water in the real world. It stands within reason someone would try with fire, before trying anything else.

Reason accepted! But I also now expect you to apply that reasoning in future scenarios when you have fire available and fail your knowledge check. Even if you as a player secretly know the creature is fire immune. If not, you'd better have a damn good roleplaying explanation for why the same logic you used before--THAT WORKED--wouldn't immediatly be your choice again, even stronger than before.

I mean if the thing is shooting flames out of its eyes later, okay.

[alexd1976]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

if you try to tell me what my character is allowed to do (i.e. take control of MY character away from ME without an in-game effect like Dominate Person) you will be choking to death on your dice.

So if you fail an acrobatics check and I tell you you fall, you will murder me for telling you what your character is allowed to do. Cool. Sounds like a fun, healthy table!

No, if you tell me my character isn't allowed to pull his dagger, and must instead use a morningstar, your dice and your mouth will become better acquainted.

My character is the only thing I get to control in the game. I know the difference between failing a skill check and having the GM just arbitrarily taking control of my character.

And actually, yes, I would be upset with your Acrobatics example. If I fail by less than five, I get a reflex save, and you shouldn't just say I fall, you should inform me that I failed the check/save...

What if I have gear or a spell that can help me? It is the GMs job to adjudicate and enforce rules, not to attempt to 'win' at the game.

Combative GMs are the absolute WORST. I'm lucky enough to have a group where the person in charge is basically just placing the toys in the sandbox for us, we get to choose what we do with them. No railroading, and we are allowed to attempt anything we like...

Burning down local orphanages results in alignment changes (if not already evil, that is) and reward posters going up with our faces on them. Other GMs would ragequit and end the campaign...

So yeah, it is a fun, healthy table. If you are on the other side of the equation (going out of your way to prevent players from controlling their own characters) then you are doing it 'wrong' from our perspective.

If you want to force characters to roll randomly for what weapon they are allowed to use, fine, but don't expect other groups to think that is cool.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

No, if you tell me my character isn't allowed to pull his dagger, and must instead use a morningstar, your dice and your mouth will become better acquainted.

If there is a metagaming likelihood, such as you randomly decided to do that out of nowhere and the creature happens to have DR10/morningstars and your character has no way to know that, then I will tell you verbally I suspect you're metagaming.

I will then ask you to explain a roleplay reason why your character would do that. "He had a freak miniature aneurysm that made his arm twitch the weapon switch" will simply not be accepted, sorry.

If you shove my dice in your mouth I will then call the police and file assault and battery charges against you.

If you give me any other actual logical explanation why that choice of weapon, I will proceed logically in game from what your explanation is.

This is absolutely in no way different than the acrobatics check. Brain synapses have rules just like muscles do. People do things for reasons, and those reasons have implications, etc.

[alexd1976]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

1-CAN you take 10 on knowledge checks? I thought they were trained only.

Yes, relevant text (knowledge skill page):

Quote:

Modifiers

Training You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.

Quote:

2-Are you sure you can't take 10 during combat?

Yes, relevant rules text (skills general rules):

Quote:

When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.

Several skills make specific exceptions to this, such as climbing checks for creatures with natural climb speeds, but knowledge does not make an exception, so the general rules applies.

Regarding the take 10 thing. Basically, the argument I have had presented (which I agree with) is that when you first see a monster (say, a dragon), you should be allowed to make a knowledge check.

Do you let the players know that combat is about to ensue by telling them they can't take 10?

I have always allowed taking ten as a more permissive thing than most, it seems.

Situations where I DON'T allow it (examples only, NOT an exhaustive list):

Climbing/Acrobatics checks that could result in harm (falling, failing to tumble through threatened squares etc)

Perception checks against stealthy/invisible opponents

Stealth checks against opponents

Situations where I DO allow it:

Knowledge checks before combat (because combat hasn't started!)

Acrobatics checks made while roleplaying (i.e. in town, trying to earn extra coppers by putting on a show etc)

Perception checks against friends playing pranks

Stealth checks against friends to play pranks

In any case, you quoted the basic rules, and that's fine, but as I mentioned before, there is a lot of debate over this, so I'm wondering if other sources clarify a bit more on top of that.

Crimeo, I appreciate your efforts, and am not dismissing them, I simply wonder if there is something a bit more clear (as the phrase 'when your character is not in immediate danger' is subjective).

Like I said, you aren't in immediate danger before a fight starts... so I allow taking 10 on initial Knowledge checks...

[Crimeo]

If the player asks to take 10 before he knows a dragon is there, then lucky him, he can take 10.

If he asks after he sees the dragon, then no, because at my table, recognition of enemies IS the beginning of combat. Note that it does not say anywhere in the rules what the definition of combat is, and I find this interpretation makes infinitely more intuitive sense for a couple dozen reasons than the interpretation of basing it on attacks. One of those reasons for choosing this way IS actually that taking 10 is supposed to be when you feel safe and unrushed, and after spotting a dragon is not that time.

But for sure, the beginning of combat is completely ambiguous and GM fiat, and that could certainly alter the consequences of taking 10 when and where.

Edit: and actually, "immediate danger" isn't "combat" anyway, really, so... pretty much in all cases after seeing a dragon in front of you you shouldn't take 10, even if you haven't rolled init yet. Because you're obviously in danger.

[alexd1976]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

No, if you tell me my character isn't allowed to pull his dagger, and must instead use a morningstar, your dice and your mouth will become better acquainted.

If there is a metagaming likelihood, such as you randomly decided to do that out of nowhere and the creature happens to have DR10/morningstars and your character has no way to know that, then I will tell you verbally I suspect you're metagaming.

I will then ask you to explain a roleplay reason why your character would do that. "He had a freak miniature aneurysm that made his arm twitch the weapon switch" will simply not be accepted, sorry.

If you shove my dice in your mouth I will then call the police and file assault and battery charges against you.

If you give me any other actual logical explanation why that choice of weapon, I will proceed logically in game from what your explanation is.

This is absolutely in no way different than the acrobatics check. Brain synapses have rules just like muscles do. People do things for reasons, and those reasons have implications, etc.

Hrm.

I haven't been clear. I would not actually force feed dice to anyone (I was using sarcasm and hyperbole), but I would for sure hand over my character sheet and/or leave the game.

My logical choice for weapons is this: I control my character. If I want to pull my dagger, and you tell me no, you are removing my control from the ONE thing I get to control in the game.

I get that you are against metagaming, but it sounds to me like you are too restrictive, I don't think we would get along in a gaming group.

I too, do not like metagaming, but arbitrarily removing free will is no solution, it's a cheap cop-out and frankly sucks the fun right out of the whole experience. Players might as well just hand over their character sheets at that point.

I would. Right before leaving.

[alexd1976]

Crimeo wrote:

If the player asks to take 10 before he knows a dragon is there, then lucky him, he can take 10.

If he asks after he sees the dragon, then no, because at my table, recognition of enemies IS the beginning of combat. Note that it does not say anywhere in the rules what the definition of combat is, and I find this interpretation makes infinitely more intuitive sense for a couple dozen reasons than the interpretation of basing it on attacks. One of those reasons for choosing this way IS actually that taking 10 is supposed to be when you feel safe and unrushed, and after spotting a dragon is not that time.

But for sure, the beginning of combat is completely ambiguous and GM fiat, and that could certainly alter the consequences of taking 10 when and where.

Edit: and actually, "immediate danger" isn't "combat" anyway, really, so... pretty much in all cases after seeing a dragon in front of you you shouldn't take 10, even if you haven't rolled init yet. Because you're obviously in danger.

We play very different games. Dragons aren't mindless brutes, conversations occur with virtually every encounter involving a dragon, in my games...

Sometimes they want to give the PCs the option to surrender.

Sometimes they are just curious.

Sometimes they want to see if the PC party will work FOR them (Greens and Blues are lawful, I've always played them as manipulative and conniving buggers who want other people to do their dirty work for them).

They rarely just fly in and start attacking. Even white dragons have INT scores WELL above that of animals.

So that's all fine and good that you treat them like owlbears that fly and breath fire, enjoy that.

I'll keep doing it my way, where diplomacy counts for something, and millennia-old creatures of nearly immeasurable power don't just randomly fly around attacking people for no reason.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

If I want to pull my dagger, and you tell me no, you are removing my control from the ONE thing I get to control in the game.

Erm, I didn't even say no. I said "No, if you can't give me even ONE reasonable role playing explanation after being explicitly asked to AND if the situation implies metagaming on top of that and you've just been told that."

That's a pretty massive difference from "No."

If you cannot abide those terms, then okay, leave the table. I don't think roleplaying games are for you if you ragequit over needing to roleplay...

Also, there are literally millions of other choices you can make that aren't remotely related to knowledge checks etc. Like "You have 1,000,000 lbs of iron here in a dungeon 200 miles from civilization. It's yours if you can move it" [insert gaping maw of creative possibility] Even in combat, checks have nothing to do 98% of the time with which square you choose to move into to / what path, or which target you want to attack, or when you roll stealth and move half speed or not, blah blah. So I have no ide what you're talking about with a dagger being your one shot at choice.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

We play very different games. Dragons aren't mindless brutes, conversations occur with virtually every encounter involving a dragon, in my games...

Sometimes they want to give the PCs the option to surrender.

I just said that I roll initiative and begin "combat" (I mean the technical term as in combat rules now apply) upon recognition of likely enemies.

You can still choose to talk and not attack during a "combat" round, and so can mr. dragon. You can do whatever you want. But it being combat helps sort out lots of weird issues like this. It also avoids "how do you handle sneak attacks during monologues?" quite neatly. Etc.

I mean, diplomacy is great, but you're still scared out of your wits and not feeling safe. Unless this dragon is your best friend from high school, he's a very likely potential enemy, so i classify you as in turn order.

[alexd1976]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

If I want to pull my dagger, and you tell me no, you are removing my control from the ONE thing I get to control in the game.

Erm, I didn't even say no. I said "No, if you can't give me even ONE reasonable role playing explanation after being explicitly asked to AND if the situation implies metagaming on top of that and you've just been told that."

That's a pretty massive difference from "No."

If you cannot abide those terms, then okay, leave the table. I don't think roleplaying games are for you if you ragequit over needing to roleplay...

Also, there are literally millions of other choices you can make that aren't remotely related to knowledge checks etc. Like "You have 1,000,000 lbs of iron here in a dungeon 200 miles from civilization. It's yours if you can move it" [insert gaping maw of creative possibility] Even in combat, checks have nothing to do 98% of the time with which square you choose to move into to / what path, or which target you want to attack, or when you roll stealth and move half speed or not, blah blah. So I have no ide what you're talking about with a dagger being your one shot at choice.

You said people would have to explain WHY they chose that weapon... honestly, if you play at a table where you have to JUSTIFY pulling one weapon over another, the issues are far more serious than metagaming.

The GM who plays this way is clearly a control freak interested only in asserting dominance, not in fostering a fun game.

[Crimeo]

Okay well. I simply don't agree that direct solutions to metagaming that are ONLY applied in cases OF metagaming are somehow inherently "far more serious" than... metagaming.

I guess we should just not GM for one another. *shrug*

[Otherwhere]

Crimeo wrote:

I don't think roleplaying games are for you if you ragequit over needing to roleplay...

Sorry - I really don't understand this statement. "I do not thin' it means what you thin' it means..." It sounds like you're saying: "I don't think chess is for you if you ragequit over the need to play chess..." - which, I don't think, is what you mean.

[Crimeo]

Otherwhere wrote:

Crimeo wrote:

I don't think roleplaying games are for you if you ragequit over needing to roleplay...

Sorry - I really don't understand this statement. "I do not thin' it means what you thin' it means..." It sounds like you're saying: "I don't think chess is for you if you ragequit over the need to play chess..." - which, I don't think, is what you mean.

Metagaming is pretty much by definition not roleplaying.

I tell you to stop metagaming when you seem to obviously be doing so, and to please offer a roleplaying explanation if I am wrong and/or you want to do X thing anyway.

Ragequitting over even the notion of such a request being made is basically equal to saying "This game isn't worth playing if I am EVER expected to roleplay on request."

Except the game you are playing IS a "roleplaying game" I mean... that's it's exact genre. Not even that, it's the exemplar of that genre. So why on earth would you not expect to be requested to roleplay during the game? And if you find that notion appalling, then maybe another game is for you... I don't know.

Or whatever, certainly another table, at least is in both our best interests. Tired of discussing this particular point... sleep.

[alexd1976]

Crimeo wrote:

Okay well. I simply don't agree that direct solutions to metagaming that are ONLY applied in cases OF metagaming are somehow inherently "far more serious" than... metagaming.

I guess we should just not GM for one another. *shrug*

True enough.

I don't disagree with you that metagaming should be discouraged, I just have adopted methods that involve simply accepting that it happens.

I don't even see stuff like weapon choices/fire against trolls etc as metagaming anymore. You play so long it just becomes second nature to stock up on fire and acid, silver weapons etc.

In any case, I appreciate your input, it's nice to see a viewpoint other than my own.

[Crimeo]

alexd1976 wrote:

In any case, I appreciate your input, it's nice to see a viewpoint other than my own.

Cool, likewise! Gotta go to bed >.>

[Otherwhere]

Crimeo wrote:

Otherwhere wrote:

Crimeo wrote:

I don't think roleplaying games are for you if you ragequit over needing to roleplay...

Sorry - I really don't understand this statement. "I do not thin' it means what you thin' it means..." It sounds like you're saying: "I don't think chess is for you if you ragequit over the need to play chess..." - which, I don't think, is what you mean.

Metagaming is pretty much by definition not roleplaying.

I tell you to stop metagaming when you seem to obviously be doing so, and to please offer a roleplaying explanation if I am wrong and/or you want to do X thing anyway.

Ragequitting over even the notion of such a request being made is basically equal to saying "This game isn't worth playing if I am EVER expected to roleplay on request."

Except the game you are playing IS a "roleplaying game" I mean... that's it's exact genre. Not even that, it's the exemplar of that genre. So why on earth would you not expect to be requested to roleplay during the game? And if you find that notion appalling, then maybe another game is for you... I don't know.

Great - thanks!

I didn't think it meant what it came across as. I just wanted to be sure I was understanding you.

[memorax]

Again I think it depends on the situation. If Trolls are rare in the world than I can see a adventurer using other type of substances besides fire to attack them. The first time and only then. No way is a adventurer who is familiar with Trolls weaknesses going to rummage through his backpack and use fire. Especially if Trolls are common in the background. If mothers sing lullabies about Trolls coming to attack children and to have fire ready. No one in their right mind is going to not go for fire first.

I get the point some are trying to make. The problem is it becomes unrealistic after a certain while. If my character has fought undead more than once and knows holy water works on them. He suddenly is not going to become brain dead and decide that no he is going to waste time looking through his backpack. Ignoring holy water because the DM thinks it's metgaming. I don't play stupid characters at the table for no DM. Same thing with weapons. If my character favors using a long sword I'm not going to draw a dagger. It makes no sense. Not unless I'm mind controlled. Or the DM is s extreme control freak.

If one insists I tear up my character and leave the game. If it's at my place I ask her DM to leave. If I can't play in the game I sure as hell am not going to sit by and let everyone else.

[alexd1976]

memorax wrote:

Again I think it depends on the situation. If Trolls are rare in the world than I can see a adventurer using other type of substances besides fire to attack them. The first time and only then. No way is a adventurer who is familiar with Trolls weaknesses going to rummage through his backpack and use fire. Especially if Trolls are common in the background. If mothers sing lullabies about Trolls coming to attack children and to have fire ready. No one in their right mind is going to not go for fire first.

I get the point some are trying to make. The problem is it becomes unrealistic after a certain while. If my character has fought undead more than once and knows holy water works on them. He suddenly is not going to become brain dead and decide that no he is going to waste time looking through his backpack. Ignoring holy water because the DM thinks it's metgaming. I don't play stupid characters at the table for no DM. Same thing with weapons. If my character favors using a long sword I'm not going to draw a dagger. It makes no sense. Not unless I'm mind controlled. Or the DM is s extreme control freak.

If one insists I tear up my character and leave the game. If it's at my place I ask her DM to leave. If I can't play in the game I sure as hell am not going to sit by and let everyone else.

A guideline we use is this:

The playable races are Humanoids. So are Trolls. And giants.

A certain level of common knowledge is just... assumed.

Basically, your example of mothers telling stories... yup. We do that.

Dragons? Yeah people know about dragons. KNOWING doesn't make them any easier to kill. Sure, Red Dragons are immune to fire, but they can also cast spells!

I understand how people want to limit metagaming, but like you said, if someone told me which weapon I was allowed to use... wow...

I would wonder if they were compensating for some kind of personal issue, because that goes WAY beyond what I consider acceptable.

[KenderKin]

Same with weapon types if my hand axe is not working I grab my trusty morningstar, just knowing something is not working then it is better to go with the next reasonable assertion (not something random)...

My hand axe is failing to show any harm, I trade out for my
Random roll
1d2 ⇒ 2
1= dagger
2=morningstar

Only an idiot of the highest order would put away a large blade to then try and use a small blade.

Every adventurer knows what holy water is for if not in their training then at least when the guy at the store is trying to sell it to them, or the first time they see it work.

[alexd1976]

Actually, morningstar is my go-to secondary weapon if the character can carry it.

I mean, seriously, Piercing AND Bludgeoning? YES PLEASE! It's kinda the perfect weapon for someone who uses Slashing as a primary.

I love morningstars. :D

I only give all my characters daggers because, well, it just sorta makes sense to have a knife on you other than a freaking sword. :D

*sitting down for dinner, cutting his steak with a two handed sword, which is still covered in gore from the dragon he killed earlier that day*