Recall Knowledge - Issue with the implementation

[N N 959]

Here is the relevant part of the Recall Knowledge skill:

p. 145 wrote:

Success You recall the knowledge accurately.

Critical Failure You recall incorrect information.

In P1, if you failed the Knowledge check, you got nothing. Then the player had to use whatever information could be gleaned from the actual encounter. With P2 mandating "incorrect information" you're arguably putting the GM in a position force the player to act on bad information. This problem is exasperated by the fact that the GM is not given guidance on the nature of the incorrect information. You're going to have situations where the GM is going to tell the player that the PC knows X and when the PC could obviously see that Not X is true.

This creates a situation where the player can be accused of metagaming because he/she disregards the RK info for whatever reason.

I ran into a similar problem in PFS with Spellcraft. Failed a Spellcraft check and the GM tried to insist I couldn't know what the spell was when it would have been obvious from other in-game clues. Had to get a Venture Captain to insist that a PC can draw whatever inferences that they want.

Personally, I think Paizo need to eliminate the "incorrect information" outcome. While I know GMs may feel this was long overdue, it's going to lead to issues where players are going to disregard the information that they know is false and then be accused of meta-gaming. I don't see how this is a net positive for the game.

[Fuzzypaws]

What I would prefer is that every instance of "incorrect information" or the like is replaced with "half truth." So the guidance would be that the GM give information that is partly true but misleading, and could cause bad outcomes if acted on directly. This drastically reduces the chances of a player just outright recognizing the information is false, and makes for more interesting situations.

[N N 959]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

What I would prefer is that every instance of "incorrect information" or the like is replaced with "half truth." So the guidance would be that the GM give information that is partly true but misleading, and could cause bad outcomes if acted on directly. This drastically reduces the chances of a player just outright recognizing the information is false, and makes for more interesting situations.

Perhaps, but it isn't really about the player recognizing the information is false, but refusing to act on it, or acting contrary to it for whatever reason and then having the GM take issue with the PC not acting on what the PC believes to be is true.

What if the GM says "You recall that any weapons used against this creature may instantly rust" and the player goes ahead and attacks? The GM, suspecting the player actually knows the truth, may accuse the player of meta-gaming. The player could insist that their character heard that rumor, but didn't believe it.

The point is it's problematic. P1 avoided this by simply giving zero information. And while that may have been less realistic, it was simpler. I thought one of the goals was to simplify P2?

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Yeah, having four degrees of success/failure is keen and all, but this is one of the places that didn't really want a crit fail outcome.