I was GMing a session last night, and I realized I may be running recall knowledge checks incorrectly. Specifically, the Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion checks associated with Recall Knowledge. When my players have wondered if their characters might know something about an event/creature/whatever, I often prompt them to roll a Recall Knowledge check, specifying the skill that would yield the best results. This, naturally, gives its own indications to the players what the thing might be tied to when rolling, such as Demons for Religion. While I trust them not to metagame, it does give away a bit more than I intend.
I am wondering if the intended way is to have players prompt the associated rolls themselves and if the skill they rolled doesn't apply, they get nothing regardless of the result. I do try to have them roll secretly in all cases such as these. Apologies is this is a fairly basic concept, I just wanted to double check that this was the ideal approach before committing to it, or if people run things differently.
There is a certain amount of metagaming that is actually required in order to make the game run smoothly. Mostly as it regards the plot of the campaign. But even things like action usage and game mechanics are things that the players need to know in order to play their characters successfully.
I think the most obvious one is that the players have to know when an enemy does something that would trigger one of their character's reactions.
And yes, I think that Recall Knowledge is another place where a certain level of metagaming is necessary. Different groups are going to be comfortable with different levels of metagaming in the Recall Knowledge process. So there isn't a 'one right answer' type of thing here.
But the way that you are currently doing it is definitely not wrong. There are plenty of creatures that are identified using Religion - not just Demons. And even Demons are a varied enough group of enemies that knowing that Religion is the correct skill to roll doesn't leak very much information on its own.
I do think that making the players guess what skill to use and giving them no information if they guess wrong is a metagaming problem in the opposite direction. You aren't giving the players enough information about the game mechanics to let them successfully play their characters and make informed decisions.
If you do want to avoid telling the players which skill to roll for Recall Knowledge, have them just roll a d20 and give you the roll value as well as all of their Recall Knowledge roll modifiers. Then you can give them the results of their Recall Knowledge action for whichever of the skills was appropriate.
Another alternative is to let them use Recall Knowledge using any skill and only give basic information (including the correct skill to use) for the result. But that is still something that you would want collaboration approval from the rest of the players at the table to implement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're doing it right. RK says: "You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. Suggest which skill you'd like to use and ask the GM one question. The GM determines the DC. You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you can't don't like your options."
So it's expected for the player to know what to roll before rolling it. You're a bit more upfront than the rules but overall the information you're giving is supposed to be given.
The GM should not be telling their players what to do with their character's actions. However, Recall Knowledge often straddles the border of the GM allowing them to do something rather than telling them to do something.
For example, suppose the party is traveling and they spot a herd of creatures in the distance. I would tell them, "You may make Recall Knowledge checks to identify these creatures." They are in Exploration Mode, so are typically using activities rather than actions. I am reminding them of their actions. Actually, I bend the rules, too, because I don't bother with secret rolls, so I would say, "It is a Nature check," and let the players roll for themselves.
In Encounter Mode, if a player asks me, "You said two green humanoids in studded leather armor. Do I recognize their species?" then I would reply, "That would be a Recall Knowledge Society check." It would be up to the player whether they spend an action to make that check. Their character might instead ask the humanoids themselves.
Recall Knowledge is a Secret check, so one way it's intended is "the GM rolls for the player, and thus the player doesn't knwo what they're using." However, the GM is empowered to not do that (even in PFS!) and let players roll. If the player is rolling, they need some indication of what to roll so they can give you a result.
I run it much like you do when using physical dice for a couple of reasons:
1. Players like rolling dice! It's more fun for them to let the players roll than it is to have me roll behind the GM screen for every player that wants to do it.
2. Although a player can use Recall Knowledge untrained, it's not going to work very often and past a certain level is almost always a critical failure. Telling them "it's Nature" tells someone without that skill to just not bother attempting it. Is that metagaming? A little bit. But it's done in the name of making the game a fun experience, and not knowing if you have any chance on a skill or not isn't fun.
IMO if you make people roll it totally blind and they are guaranteed a critical failure, it discourages people from using RK at all because they get too much false info. I want players that invest in these skills to feel good about using them, so I'd rather they know not to use it at all.
Sometimes a bit of metagaming just makes for a better game, and I'm okay with that. YMMV.
In Foundry there's a macro you can get that rolls every relevant recall knowledge skill simultaneously and gives them all to the GM, which alleviates some of this. But in general what you're doing is totally fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am wondering if the intended way is to have players prompt the associated rolls themselves and if the skill they rolled doesn't apply, they get nothing regardless of the result.
I don't think that's what's intended, and I doubt I'd run it that way even if that were how it worked. I like that my players make a lot of Recall Knowledge checks, so I don't want them to feel that it's likely to be a wasted action.
If you have them roll of their own choice and it ends up being wrong, I think saying "this thing doesn't seem related to anything regarding your topic of choice." Instead of just saying nothing or giving wrong info for crit fail.
If they get a success or crit with the wrong skill you could mention some small details and that they conclude the proper skill to use.
Sometimes it might be good to ask yourself what you want the players to know, and just run the game in a way that makes that happen. Either just giving it for free, saying what skill or specific lore to use or just having them choose one and roll all depending on how important or interesting the info is for the players to have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That reads as the player doesn't know what skill to use and just picks one that may or may not be relevant.You're doing it right. RK says: "You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. Suggest which skill you'd like to use and ask the GM one question. The GM determines the DC. You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you can't don't like your options."
So it's expected for the player to know what to roll before rolling it. You're a bit more upfront than the rules but overall the information you're giving is supposed to be given.
The GM and the player are supposed to collaborate on the question and skills (with an s, so the skills that the player could use as you can only roll one). Also, "collaborating" strongly suggest that a gotcha moment is not supposed to be common. So, yes, the player is supposed to know what they roll (in nominal situations, I don't speak of the rare cases where reasons push the GM to obfuscate the actual skill used).
|
That reads as the player doesn't know what skill to use and just picks one that may or may not be relevant.You're doing it right. RK says: "You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. Suggest which skill you'd like to use and ask the GM one question. The GM determines the DC. You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you can't don't like your options."
So it's expected for the player to know what to roll before rolling it. You're a bit more upfront than the rules but overall the information you're giving is supposed to be given.
This is exactly how one GM I play with does it -- it leads to lots of useless knowledge checks. He makes up for that by making it a Free action that can only be used once per turn.
I prefer to let the players roll and prompt them with the appropriate skill, though whenever we are on Foundry where you can prompt a blind roll, that is best.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If GM wants to avoid "info leak" while also rewarding investment in skills, they can do this:
0) Collect everyone RK skills on notepad / spreadsheet
1) When it comes up, explain to a player that they are Trained (or better) to RK in a new situation
2) Ask them if they would like to RK
3) Roll secretly for them, using their best skill
4) Inform of result
Outside of combat, I tend to let them roll whatever skill they want, even if on a success they wouldn't get anything. (They also don't tend to get critical fail information either, its just a result of its outside their expertise, so an auto fail). I wouldn't consider this a gotacha since there's typically no action/time/resource cost.
In combat, I often let them suggest a skill first, (most of my players are experienced and will tend to get it down to 2-3 skills before more is said) -- most often when its wrong its because it is one of the hard to tell apart things (bone devil, skeleton, or bone construct). A non-relevant skill might give something like "while it looks a lot like a bone devil, you're pretty sure this a crafted construct and you know this typically means it doesn't have a spirit/soul" on a success, (while giving you an easy thing to use on a crit-fail). So still trying to give something useful, but its not going to be directly on point, and I might replace the usual Q&A formulation when its an off-topic skill.
If GM wants to avoid "info leak" while also rewarding investment in skills
The rule says that both GM and player have to collaborate. For me, it goes both ways: The player should have a good idea of what they are rolling with respect for the GM desire to not deliver information before the roll is made. Any way to handle RK checks that satisfies both parties should be fine, whatever the way it's done.
As I play PFS a lot, I don't have any idea of PC's skills prior to the roll. So I tend to be rather overt about what can be used. But what's fine for me doesn't have to be fine for others. The only thing that I really dislike and see rather often is VTT macros to roll RK checks, rolling everything and letting the GM decide what to use without the prior talk with the player.
|
This is one reason that I hate the current Recall Knowledge rules. Depending on how the GM does things recall knowledge can be an absolute trap for most characters ( unless you've really focused on it almost every character is crit failing lots of knowledge rolls).
It also combines with the issue of how much information the GM gives out for free. Some GMs tell you when you encounter resistances, some don't.
The game assumes that the characters have some significant amount of information available to them in order to make decisions. There has to be some reasonable way for the characters to realize that cold is good and fire is bad for fighting some monster. Making the characters spend actions with a good chance of getting the wrong answer is not a reasonable way.
Even in PFS the ways that the GM imparts a reasonable amount of information varies widely. Some GMs are very stingy and it makes scenarios harder (sometimes much harder) and, to me at least, it can turn games into a fairly frustrating experience.
Pick whatever method you like as long as the result is that the players have a reason to invest in knowledge skills and have a more or less reliable way to get the information they need to play the game if they wish to invest in it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one reason that I hate the current Recall Knowledge rules. Depending on how the GM does things recall knowledge can be an absolute trap for most characters ( unless you've really focused on it almost every character is crit failing lots of knowledge rolls).
I really think you're describing a GM issue, not a rules one. Before the remaster, there was some leeway leading to very different experience between table. But since the remaster, it's clear that the GM and player have to collaborate and that the player can always give up on their action if they don't feel it. So it entirely prevents GMs from using skills you are not good at without telling you. And the ability to ask specific questions instead of letting the GM choose also sidesteps the GMs who give useless information to successful RK checks.
With the remaster, the only way for RK checks to be useless is for the GM to cheat or be very actively antagonistic. So it's very much a GM issue, not a rules one.
Just to clarify, with PFS, as you change GM rather often, you can end up with a bad experience when you don't know the GM and trust them in the first place. But it is always a risk with an unknown GM.
You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills,
This is key to me.
A GM should never base your success on you picking the right skill. They should get the roll for the skill that applies.
In Person: just have them roll a d20 and look at their sheet for the math yourself.
In Foundry: just use the recall knowledge button of PF2E HUD or the recall knowledge macro of... I think PF2E Workbench (?). It will show that roll compared against every possible skill - and if the player had targeted an NPC who's sheet had a recall knowledge entry, shows any relevant matches with a green check or red x. Plus showing the totals in case you as a GM see a more fitting match.
When I try to remember the answer to 2+2...
I don't first try to think of whether I learned that in Kindergarten, Calculus for STEM majors, Life Drawing, or Military Engineering Lore.
I just know the answer.
I have a GM right now who's always asking us 'which lore skill do you use' and we auto-fail if we don't pick right. It drives me nuts. Especially as I'm a Thaumaturge with Diverse Lore, but it's a question I feel shouldn't be getting asked for any of us.
|
|
This is one reason that I hate the current Recall Knowledge rules. Depending on how the GM does things recall knowledge can be an absolute trap for most characters ( unless you've really focused on it almost every character is crit failing lots of knowledge rolls).I really think you're describing a GM issue, not a rules one.
Its a bit of both. Even post remaster the rules are spread out all over the place and somewhat contradictory in different places. It is very easy for a GM to get it wrong (where I define wrong as "not what I think the rules say" :-) :-)).
And a great many of the issues I have ARE rules issues. This probably isn't the right place to go into it but I think the "Lie on a crit fail with a secret check" rule is just bad game design and leads to many issues. And the many "Assuredly fail" options don't help.
And there is the related issue where, AFAIK the rules are still silent. How much information should the GM give for free? It really affects things a lot to what extent the GM tells the players when they encounter weaknesses, resistances, etc by actually hitting the monster.
But I certainly agree that the remaster made things a lot better.
Its a bit of both. Even post remaster the rules are spread out all over the place and somewhat contradictory in different places. It is very easy for a GM to get it wrong (where I define wrong as "not what I think the rules say" :-) :-)).
And a great many of the issues I have ARE rules issues. This probably isn't the right place to go into it but I think the "Lie on a crit fail with a secret check" rule is just bad game design and leads to many issues. And the many "Assuredly fail" options don't help.
And there is the related issue where, AFAIK the rules are still silent. How much information should the GM give for free? It really affects things a lot to what extent the GM tells the players when they encounter weaknesses, resistances, etc by actually hitting the monster.
But I certainly agree that the remaster made things a lot better.
I definitely agree that the way the GM handles it can make RK checks more or less interesting. What I'm happy with is that the GM can no more make them useless or even harmful. The floor is higher, even if there's still some space under the ceiling.
Piggybacking on this discussion: say we're in combat, so we have 3 actions. I'd like to Recall Knowledge. The GM says it would be Arcana to identify. I don't have Arcana (or any other skill to substitute). Should the roll automatically fail (or crit fail)? Am I allowed to say, "okay, then I won't do that"?
As a GM, I like my players to have (almost) full information before they opt in, to avoid gotcha situations. But I can certainly understand the interpretation that if you say, "I wanna know more about this," and you lack the skill to do so, the action goes to waste.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Piggybacking on this discussion: say we're in combat, so we have 3 actions. I'd like to Recall Knowledge. The GM says it would be Arcana to identify. I don't have Arcana (or any other skill to substitute). Should the roll automatically fail (or crit fail)? Am I allowed to say, "okay, then I won't do that"?
Yes, you can. You take the decision to commit to the action after having spoken with the GM about your options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Piggybacking on this discussion: say we're in combat, so we have 3 actions. I'd like to Recall Knowledge. The GM says it would be Arcana to identify. I don't have Arcana (or any other skill to substitute). Should the roll automatically fail (or crit fail)? Am I allowed to say, "okay, then I won't do that"?
As a GM, I like my players to have (almost) full information before they opt in, to avoid gotcha situations. But I can certainly understand the interpretation that if you say, "I wanna know more about this," and you lack the skill to do so, the action goes to waste.
As others said, yes. The relevant rule is in the Recall Knowledge action:
You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you can't don't like your options.
This shouldn't be an adversarial situation where the GM is trying to trick you into wasting actions. The wording around this was changed in the remaster to help avoid that kind of thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I call for recall knowledge checks in exploration mode, if nothing else to signpost "there is something about this thing that I, as the GM, consider to be relevant information" which if the PCs don't get by rolling well enough is at least something the players are going to want to find out eventually. "I am taking context clues as to what things I should be interested in" is just the unavoidable kind of metagaming, it's related to the "my character take the job because I, the player, am here to have an adventure" thing.
I would never do this in combat though. If a thing happened in a combat scene that requires the PCs to recognize something that only became apparent during combat, I would let them RK as a reaction/free action.
|
|
This is one reason that I hate the current Recall Knowledge rules. Depending on how the GM does things recall knowledge can be an absolute trap for most characters ( unless you've really focused on it almost every character is crit failing lots of knowledge rolls).I really think you're describing a GM issue, not a rules one.
I think several posts above this in this very thread prove my point.
Recall knowledge can be an absolute trap for characters. It may be a GM issue but this thread shows that it is a common GM issue
I run it as my players ask to recall knowledge and generally have no idea what skills will be rolled (secret check). Quite often they can infer and I encourage my players to ask "do I think I would know much about this topic" if they aren't feeling confident.
It plays smoothly at my table and since embracing secret checks meta gaming is extremely low and the group just roleplays whatever they get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Pick a skill and hope you guessed right" was part of the premaster ruleset and so bad hardly anyone ran it that way, including the developers themselves.
FWIW, APs tend to be written in such a way as to present specific RK types for different checks. Sometimes players will even have the option for multiple types of checks with different DCs and results based on which they use to approach the topic.
I think a degree of openness like that is necessary to make RK feel good. You're already burning investment and time into information gathering, you shouldn't have to also play around with guessing what the GM is thinking just to make your abilities work.
The more you make a player guess how to use their own skills the more frustrating I think it ends up being. Plus not only is it anti-player, it's not really realistic or logical imo either. Rules don't necessarily need to be realistic or have high verisimilitude but there should be some justification for their existence.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite often when using RK in combat, it's because you want to know something about the boss monster. The boss monster is scary and you want to find out something that makes it easier.
But the boss monster is probably 1-3 levels higher than you, so the RK check DC is going to be kinda hard.
With that in mind, I think the GM should really not pile on extra artificial difficulty like making you guess which skill to use.
---
I also think as GMs you really don't need to worry so much about the players knowing a lot about the enemy. Even if you know good stuff about the monster, you still need to actually hit DCs / make your saves and all that.
I'd worry much more if players start saying like "well gosh, the thing that really works against this monster is rolling high" or "don't bother using RK, it doesn't work, just hit it harder".
If simple brute violence is the only thing you know works against a monster, all fights become very samey. If players actually know stuff about enemies, it makes it possible to use more varied tactics per fight.
|
What I do in my games:
I ask: What do you think is the skill you should use.
Then I roll the most appropriate skill in secret. If it's the same as they said, I give them a circumstance bonus. I usually give +2, sometimes more if it was a skill they are less good at, but they confidently said they believed it would be that one, even if they had skills that were way better, to basically reward not arguing to use their "better" skills... xD I have found that even when it's not even close to bridge the gap, it still helps to reduce arguing and speeding up the game. xD