Recall Knowledge checks encourage metagaming!

[Rysky]

Syntax

[BellyBeard]

thenobledrake wrote:

here's the helpful info from me to any fledgling GM: If you think your player is doing something they aren't supposed to, have a polite chat with them about it. If after they explain their side of things you still don't believe they were playing the game in good faith - get that player away from your game entirely, even if you're friends (do other stuff when you hang out together), because playing with people you can't trust to play the game in good faith is going to keep causing problems.

Yep, this is what I've been advocating too, I completely agree that a calm conversation is the first step. If this is an isolated incident and you still don't trust them after the discussion, I would give them the benefit of the doubt at least one time, especially if they're a friend. If it was actually unintentional its very unlikely to happen again coincidentally.

Edit: FWIW, I've been saying I'd ask why they chose to use a torch instead of a sword in the example. If your response was "it was the closest thing, my character was acting on reflex" I would've been happy with that as an answer. If instead it was something like "I don't know, I just wanted to grab a torch!" or another non-answer that's maybe different, it all depends on context. Your response would have showed that you were thinking about the role play and narrative implications rather than only the game benefit implications (if you were considering both I would be happy, but I don't like when players ignore playing a character entirely and see it as some combat game them VS me). Other DM's might respond differently of course.

[SuperBidi]

Ravingdork wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Reading the module or knowing the monsters from the monster manual is considered not acceptable.

Just wanted to say that this is not only acceptable, but also completely unenforceable (as they can simply use the internet, or walk into any bookstore).

If players couldn't read or learn the monster manuals, or look into the modules to see if they are worth runing, we wouldn't have half the GMs we do. Ergo, it must be acceptable on some level. I do agree that it is generally discouraged to look up and learn specific monsters right as you encounter them (or suspect you will encounter them soon) or to read a module that is, or will be, run FOR you.

I tell my players straight up: I can't stop them from ruining their own play experience, but that I will take steps to keep them from ruining anyone else's play experience.

Unenforceable doesn't mean acceptable.

And the process to have a GM is different from groups to groups. I don't think there's any law in there.

Also, reading a module quickly to see if you would want to DM it is very different than what I'm telling. I'm speaking of players who make sure to know the module beforehand, not someone who once looked at it in a game store and just remember the general story (because I'm not sure you'll get more than that from a quick reading, and you don't need more than a quick reading to know if you want to DM it or not).

[beowulf99]

Modules are a great tool and are overall good for the hobby, but they do present the problem of opening up campaigns to "cheating" in a way that home brewed campaigns just don't. That's one of the reasons I generally prefer home brew over AP's.

That is not to say that a good AP can't be fun, they just have issues, especially if you have a player who owns and has ran most of the AP's that have been released.

(Looking at you "Bard")

[Ravingdork]

SuperBidi wrote:

Unenforceable doesn't mean acceptable.

I never claimed that to be the case.

SuperBidi wrote:

And the process to have a GM is different from groups to groups.

No doubt.

SuperBidi wrote:

I don't think there's any law in there.

I never claimed there were any laws.

SuperBidi wrote:

Also, reading a module quickly to see if you would want to DM it is very different than what I'm telling.

I agree. I had a fair idea of your intended meaning.

SuperBidi wrote:

I'm speaking of players who make sure to know the module beforehand, not someone who once looked at it in a game store and just remember the general story (because I'm not sure you'll get more than that from a quick reading, and you don't need more than a quick reading to know if you want to DM it or not).

I would consider what you describe out and out cheating. Sadly, there's not much GMs can do about it, as it's often not obvious that someone knows the ins and outs of an adventure. That's why I tell me players they are free to ruin it for themselves (I have no power to stop them), but generally discourage such a course of action. If I found out after the fact that someone had done that, I'd probably grimace, let them know that it's not cool and, if it didn't disrupt the game in some way, keep things moving along as long as everyone is having a good time.

I'd be keeping a close eye on the cheater in the future though, and if they had a history of other shady acts, may not invite them to future games.

[Indi523]

Hi Super Bidi

I think the problem is in your approach that you are coming at it from more of a roll playing aspect as opposed to a role play playing aspect. I am not one of those artsy roleplaying is everything purists but in this case the results are subjective to begin with.

Take your example for instance. Are dragons so nonexistence that no one knows red ones breath fire and white ones breath cold. Sure your DM could give you that false information but honestly if it is that spurious then how long can he expect you to accept it bad roll or no.

Let us assume that no one knows anything about Dragons in this world and that mistake is a plausible one. This would mean every legend about Dragons would be wrong maybe because it has been a thousand years before any dragon was seen. If the DM has flights of Dragons scarring the villagers across every corner of the map then this is harder to justify but let us assume this is true.

When you get to the cave and it is freezing cold. It can be assumed that the characters might be skeptical. The party then sees the ice crystals forming from its breath if they watch the dragon from afar. Maybe the party hits the beast with a cone of cold. They then are going to realize something is up.

At every sentence I have mentioned there is an opportunity for party members to question the information. Maybe they get a negative circumstance bonus but it matters how they roleplay it out. There might be some metagaming from a certain point of view of this but so long as the character is using the mistake to get roleplaying elements out of it then that is OK. Suppose the Wizard sees the cleric as a rival and he does not like the meddling of the gods. So he spends his time arguing with the wizard because that is what he does. IF this is a running gag the player of the cleric can have his character memorize divine flame with the hope of proving the wizard wrong.

DM's are better inclined to give wrong information of a type that aids the plot happening not just be mean. Say the mistake is recalling knoweldge about a troll the party is hunting. They look to the ranger who uses nature lore because no one has monster lore at any high level. The ranger rolls bad and the DM says that Trolls skin dries out quickly and thus they spend time in rivers submerging themselves. Let us assume it is a Rock Troll that lives in the mountains. The party goes to the River Bed where a whole other set of events and adventure awaits that gets thrust on them.

The mistake hampers the party who lose the troll's trail but it offers more plot twists and maybe eventually they find out where the trolls are hiding at the end of it. This to me is what these rolls should be used for.

[SuperBidi]

Hi Indi,

It looks like most DMs tend to give slightly misleading information instead of highly misleading ones. So, I think the debate on that matter is kind of settled.

Indi523 wrote:

Let us assume that no one knows anything about Dragons in this world and that mistake is a plausible one. This would mean every legend about Dragons would be wrong maybe because it has been a thousand years before any dragon was seen. If the DM has flights of Dragons scarring the villagers across every corner of the map then this is harder to justify but let us assume this is true.

You don't need that. For example, if I ask you to tell me what this dragon is breathing in 2 seconds (the time for a Recall Knowledge check): dragon, what will be your answer?

All players have seen high quality colored images of dragons, so we know how to tell the difference. But our characters haven't. If they had a black and white image of it, they can be considered lucky.

[beowulf99]

SuperBidi wrote:

Hi Indi,

It looks like most DMs tend to give slightly misleading information instead of highly misleading ones. So, I think the debate on that matter is kind of settled.

Indi523 wrote:

Let us assume that no one knows anything about Dragons in this world and that mistake is a plausible one. This would mean every legend about Dragons would be wrong maybe because it has been a thousand years before any dragon was seen. If the DM has flights of Dragons scarring the villagers across every corner of the map then this is harder to justify but let us assume this is true.

You don't need that. For example, if I ask you to tell me what this dragon is breathing in 2 seconds (the time for a Recall Knowledge check): dragon, what will be your answer?

All players have seen high quality colored images of dragons, so we know how to tell the difference. But our characters haven't. If they had a black and white image of it, they can be considered lucky.

Don't know if anyone else is getting this, but Bitdefender blocked that page. I would recommend finding another image.

[SuperBidi]

Ok, weird...

It was a pretty good one. But I can show this one: dragon

And this one: dragon

[beowulf99]

Neat. Yeah, that was weird. I clicked it a second time, and it loaded, but then bitdefender blocked it a few seconds after. Don't know why. Didn't stay to find out. Could be bitdefender having a fit.

Image gets the point across though.

[HumbleGamer]

SuperBidi wrote:

Hi Indi,

It looks like most DMs tend to give slightly misleading information instead of highly misleading ones. So, I think the debate on that matter is kind of settled.

Indi523 wrote:

Let us assume that no one knows anything about Dragons in this world and that mistake is a plausible one. This would mean every legend about Dragons would be wrong maybe because it has been a thousand years before any dragon was seen. If the DM has flights of Dragons scarring the villagers across every corner of the map then this is harder to justify but let us assume this is true.

You don't need that. For example, if I ask you to tell me what this dragon is breathing in 2 seconds (the time for a Recall Knowledge check): dragon, what will be your answer?

All players have seen high quality colored images of dragons, so we know how to tell the difference. But our characters haven't. If they had a black and white image of it, they can be considered lucky.

About dragons it is pretty different.

You could not recall anything about an ancient dragon, but you will recall everything about an adult or young one.

So at least for what concerns

- resistances
- weaknesses
- type of breath

And so on, every player will be fine.

Ofc they could not be aware of the spellcasting ability of the ancient one, or some attacks, but that's it.

About images in black and wait, that is also no excuse.

Images are part of text which describe the creature ( imagine a tome from a library ), or in case of some folk tale describe at least the color ( and maybe an accurate breath weapon ).

But as said, that is just because dragons are creatures which a progression.

[Indi523]

beowulf99 wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Hi Indi,

All players have seen high quality colored images of dragons, so we know how to tell the difference. But our characters haven't. If they had a black and white image of it, they can be considered lucky.

Hi Superbidi,

This is the problem. Unless the DM invents new monsters for every encounter the it is safe to assume the players will have OOC knowledge. Now they are all supposed to be good little righteous LG players and never try to put one over on the DM but too manyweyof those types are the rules lawyers every one disdains.

So the question is when is using that OOC metagaming. The strict answer is the player is metagaming whether they know it or not and are always committing microaggressions based on their institutionalized metagamism but who needs that noise.

I think the good rule of thumb for is the metagaming going to far is basically the literature or film trope of "suspension of disbelief". So long as the roleplaying elements are kept by the party in a fashion that makes the action and story believable enough for all of us to sit back and enjoy our popcorn watching it then I think it is OK! This will vary form group to group!