I was wondering how you all deal with how much knowledge a PC has about certain things and in particular creatures.
3rd edtion makes things easy with specific knowledge skills but earlier than that things are a little more arbitrary.
Obviously there are the non-weapon profs that can help provide information but so far I've also gone by; would the player have ever encountered such knowledge during his training or background, and allow them to make an Intelligence check to remember it.
For example - my PCs are about to fight a clay golem. They have a scroll of move earth but as players have no idea about using the scroll on the golem. If you were in my situation would you say that the perhaps the priests may have some simple knowledge of golem creation and might remember something? Or a player with the potter NWP might remember a story his grandpa told him. These are just examples of course.
Or do you make your PCs learn everything the hard way and require them to specifically go and research topics in the library if they hope to have any knowledge of them?
If your players don't have any idea that Move Earth will affect a clay golem, don't give them that information. Let them have the opportunity to have the idea and test it out, if they are willing to use the scroll to do so.
If your players all know (via metagaming knowledge), but you are not sure if their PCs would know, then, yes, I would have them make some kind of a check before allowing them to use the scroll. Ability checks are too easy to pass, so I suggest you use a different method. For example, allow each player to give you a couple of reasons why his PC might have heard some useful information on the topic, then give them each a % roll equal to 10% + 5% per point of Intelligence over 10 (- 5% per point of Intelligence under 10) + 5-25% depending upon how good their reasoning is, in your opinion. Any PC who rolls under their percentage chance comes up with the idea to use the scroll.
If your players all know (via metagaming knowledge) . . .
I don't allow that. I care not what the players may know, only what their character might, or might not, know. This -- and this alone -- will determine what actions I will permit their character to take; seriously. "Sorry, but your character doesn't know that, even if you do."
He/she's a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level Magic User and they know the full history of the Twin Cataclysms? You're kidding, right?
The only "Core Book" they are permitted is the Player's Handbook, nothing else; no Monster Manual, nothing.
Wolfling wrote:
I was wondering how you all deal with how much knowledge a PC has about certain things and in particular creatures.
They don't know anything . . . depending upon their "level." Meaning? Meaning no 1st level character possesses a Ph.D. in anything. Where do players come up with that nonsense?
You're 1st level character is "dumber than a box of rocks!"
Wolfling wrote:
Or do you make your PCs learn everything the hard way and require them to specifically go and research topics in the library if they hope to have any knowledge of them?
That's the only way to do it, because that's the way it works. Pure and simple. The only exceptions are those found in the PCs' "background" story, which is why I make my players write one for their character.
Did they have "experiences" with Giants in their past? Then they may know something about Giants . . . but not everything there is to know.
Their village was near a swamp and they fought Bullywugs, or Liazardmen, etc.? Then they'll know something of these creatures.
I don't make them roll a knowledge check for the simple reason that I'm holding their "background" in my hand and I know they've never even seen a Golem, much less know the differences between types. So how could they possible know anything about them, much less how to defeat them?
A formally trained Magic User -- Greyhawk's Academy of Magic comes to mind -- will know what a Clay Golem looks like and will have probably been taught that the spell Move Earth can defeat them.
However . . . my Magic User's "background" tells me that he/she was trained -- as a youth -- by a Hedge Wizard and not at a proper school. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that his/her mentor taught them any of this. Learning magic in this manner is hit and miss. Since it's not formalized in anyway, much gets missed in teaching such a youth anything other than the "basics."
When you get into more powerful creatures, then your 1st level Magic User or Cleric may have heard of them, but not have seen a picture of them, much less know how to fight them.
Their School or Temple did not and could not teach them everything . . . that's why they have to do research in Libraries, or, at the least, seek out their old teacher and ask him/her questions.
That's how I play it and it is much more "true to life." You wish to be an all-knowing, all-powerful Archmage?
Work for it! Earn it!
I'm not "giving" them anything.
As an aside, I also make them draw up equipment lists. Not for "Encumbrance" -- I don't bother with that. Then why?
DM: "So, how are you going to get down there?"
PC: "I'm going to tie a 50' rope to the branch and . . . "
DM: "Stop! . . . Do you have a 50' foot rope? Hmm, not according to the Equipment list you gave me."
The only "Core Book" they are permitted is the Player's Handbook, nothing else; no Monster Manual, nothing.
All you said is okay with me except the above statement.
My players are all currently college students who are fairly new to the game. I encourage them to learn all they can about the rules so that they can eventually learn to DM their own campaigns. Some of them have even given it a try with groups they game with on campus. How could they begin to be DM's themselves without access to the rest of the rulebooks? Besides, it is a bit unreasonable to expect people to simply refuse to look up such rules online. Even when I was in High School and I was the initial DM for my group of friends, many of the others wanted to give it a try and eventually did. Some discovered they were quite good at it, too. If I'd denied them access to the other rulebooks, they couldn't have had the enjoyment of becoming DMs themselves.
I think you misunderstand my meaning . . . I'm talking about at the gaming table, where I happen to be DMing. Their "Real World" knowledge does not pertain to the game I am running.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you have no problem with them "pausing" to look up the rules so that they know how to use the Move Earth scroll to defeat the Clay Golem. Just because they looked that information up, doesn't mean that their characters can use that information, not unless it's been determined that their characters would know that information beforehand.
If it's determined that their characters do not know, they why should I let them look up the information at the gaming table? There's no reason for me to delay the game in that manner. The situation I present allows them to really "fumble around" with their PCs, trying to figure out how to defeat the Golem . . . without the help of "Real World" knowledge of the game.
That's all I meant. Am I clearing it up any?
Of course, we all DM it differently, just as we play it differently. So, by all means, let your 1st level characters know the World of Oerth better than the Gods, themselves.
...They don't know anything . . . depending upon their "level." Meaning? Meaning no 1st level character possesses a Ph.D. in anything. Where do players come up with that nonsense?
-Well, if you take the number of proficiencies they can get for their class, and add in the bonus proficiencies they can get for their intelligence, they probably could have a PhD. IRL, most PhDs don't get a whole lot of XPs while sitting in the ivory tower.
Well . . . they probably could have a PhD. IRL, most PhDs don't get a whole lot of XPs while sitting in the ivory tower.
You're missing the point too, James.
I take it all of your Player Characters are 1st level and . . . 30 years old? They're only allowed -- for example -- to spend two years in the Pyramid in Greyhawk City, then they're kicked out. Your Magic User didn't get into the Pyramid until he was, say, 28? Are you saying he obtained a Ph.D. level education in just 2 years? There are some here who would be interested in knowing how he/she did that, given they're spending 8 or more years accomplishing the same thing.
The Player Characters in my game are not so "special" that they attained this "Ph.D." -- you say they might have -- at the age of 19.
That's stretching things way too far for my game. But . . . play it as you will.
Interesting feedback! I think I've been far too lenient on my players with what knowledge they know. They are all newbie players still but after a recent visit to the Greyhawk Library they now appreciate that they can research most topics that they like.
I much prefer the trial and error or go and research it in character approach. I just hope they think to use that scroll before the clay golem turns them to pulp!
Character do not necessarily know things just because they are of a certain class. If a character has researched something similar, then I would give them a decent chance to know something about it, even if it is something general (i.e. "I seem to recall that spells that affect earth may damage clay golems...or is that help them? I guess it depends on what the spell does to the earth.") Other than that, this spell vs. clay golem info sounds like a Religion and/or Spellcraft check type of thing. If you have no cleric or mage in the party with either of these non-weapon proficiencies, well, you ought to show some kindness and take your players out back and put them down. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
...I take it all of your Player Characters are 1st level and . . . 30 years old? They're only allowed -- for example -- to spend two years in the Pyramid in Greyhawk City, then they're kicked out. Your Magic User didn't get into the Pyramid until he was, say, 28? Are you saying he obtained a Ph.D. level education in just 2 years? There are some here who would be interested in knowing how he/she did that, given they're spending 8 or more years accomplishing the same thing...
1) On the age of getting a PhD: You can get a PhD at age 25 in today's world without being some sort of Doogie Howzer. You can get a PhD and learn a skill simultaneously (people do it all the time, particularly the military).
In the Middle Ages, people did things younger than they do today. I forget how old Abelard was when he got his doctorate, but it was when he defeated his professor in a debate--he may have still been in his teens. Now, I think the Flaneass is somewhere between our world and the actual MA's. I use the following:
Flaneass 13 = Our 16;
Flaneass 16 = Our 18;
Flaneass 18 = Our 21;
I usually just add/subtract about 3 years thereafter.
2) Going back to your main point, does a certain PC remember a fact (e.g., the year of the Invoked Devastation/Rain of Colorless Fire), it doesn't necessarily take a PhD to know an obscure fact, if it's in your specialty. Staying with the example of history, I know more military history than just about any of my history professors (a claim I think any of them would cheerfully sign off on), and even the ones who are military history specialists don't know as much as I do in certain periods. They all have PhDs, I don't. A high school drop out might happen to know a fact that a PhD might not know, if they read a lot on a certain topic. Again, that's where proficiencies come in (or skills, for D&D 3X).
Adding my own ideas and how I handle such issues. Take it or leave it.
Typically I consider the following variables:
1) Age of character. Older people tend to have more life experiences than younger people. Exceptions occur, of course, but in general, youth lacks experience.
2) Character level. I think this is pretty straightforward and doesn't need any more explanation...or does it?
3) Character social class. The wealthy tend to be more educated with respect to mental learning via 'education' while middle and lower class may be more adept with crafts skills.
4) Where the character lives and grew up. As someone mentioned earlier, if you grow up near a swamp, you likely know more about that environment, its denizens, and hazards, than someone who grew up in the city or on a farmstead in the middle of a prarie.
5) Character class. Mages tend to know about spells, magic (wizardly), arcane items, etc. Priests tend to have greater knowledge about philosophy, magic (faith-based), etc. Warriors may have greater mental know-how about weaponry, heraldry, armor, etc. You get the point. However, the BIG deciding factor, to me, are...
6) PROFICIENCIES. If your character doesn't have said skill, don't allow a die roll UNLESS there is some proficiency they do have that is a 'close cousin' that may allow a potential roll (modified).
Numerous variables. Use your judgment. In the end, if there's any sort of possibility, I typically leave it to a die roll with certain modifiers for success.
Well, the battle against the clay golem was a success even without using the scroll of move earth.
They of course did ask questions, I allowed a few token spellcraft / religion checks but gave them very little and backed it up with, "of course if you research about golems you will learn more".
I also mildly enjoyed watching them try to work out why the fighter's golem wounds wouldn't respond to their cure light wound spells
I think I definitely prefer making the player's work it out and research to learn more. Also with regards to NWPs, often only 1 point in a prof seems like it would still only be knowledge akin to perhaps a an A-level (I'm not sure if you have an equivalent in the US, it's taken by high school students over two year around the ages of 16 - 18). More points in a proficiency should increase that knowledge appropriately.
I think I definitely prefer making the player's work it out and research to learn more.
I ran into similar challenges with my new group of "hairlings" as we migrated from 2e to 3.5e, They came from a game system that was heavy on combat above all else.
They vested little in researching their opponent, new and more powerful magics (or the defense against such), or the history of why Celene is isolationist for example.
This stacking of their "PROFICIENCIES" (Skills and Feats for 3.5ers) changed now after a year of gaming. Thier application of ranks in Knowlege- Local, Arcana, Divination, etc increased from minimums to some of their highest ranks. Even the 1/2 Barbarian applied ranks in his DIPLOMACY to improve his interaction with new people he met!! lol This would have been unthinkable in their old game a year ago.
Point is the DM must show the PCs that these "skill sets" (whether proficiencies / Skills / Feats) will have value in his/her world. Otherwise the PCs won't waste hard won "points" elevating them.
Now my PCs spend some time questing for information instead of GPs. It is a fine line for a DM to walk however. You can't make the doldrums of months of research take "hours" of table time. Nor can all research bear instant fruit. Some excepted "facts" may prove to be only conjecture later.
A good "hack -n- Slash" is always fun, but seldom can a campaign survive on it for long. My world is closing in on its 35th year (June1) with 25 years of gaming in it. Point is it would not have that longevity solely on killing a few orcs. The real challenge is sparking the imagination.
...Character social class. The wealthy tend to be more educated with respect to mental learning via 'education' while middle and lower class may be more adept with crafts skills...
-I figured that advantages in socio-economic background show up as a combination of a higher INT score, and from having more proficiencies, usually as a result of being in a nifty class rather than 0 level. But a 2nd FTR with 11 INT and 1 proficiency slot from a LLC background, and a 2nd with 11 INT and 1 proficeincy slot from a UUC backgound, have the same chance of knowing a fact; the former is simply more of an oddity for his socio-economic class of origin. But aren't most PCs oddities?
Lanthorn wrote:
...Age of character. Older people tend to have more life experiences than younger people. Exceptions occur, of course, but in general, youth lacks experience...
-Same deal. Older people tend to have higher INT and WIS scores, and tend to have higher levels. Obviously, there's wide divergence in "reality". Cest la Vie!
I was wondering how you all deal with how much knowledge a PC has about certain things and in particular creatures.
I'm pretty strict about PC knowledge when it comes to magic, ancient/local history, religion, heraldry, etc. Unless the character has the appropriate background or NWP, they have to go to the library or ask around.
When it comes to creatures and combat, I'm lenient. It's no fun to sit on one's thumbs and pretend to not know things while your characters are being killed, BUT I adjust encounters for player knowledge and experience just like character levels. Players need to be challenged as much as their characters. Telling them they don't know something, while not unfair, is a cheap way of doing so. 50% of players own a Monster Manual and part of DM'ing is keeping players on their toes. There's a reason why all of the classic modules have a "new monsters" section.
IF my players own a Monster Manual and IF I've designed an encounter with a clay golem and IF they know they're fighting a clay golem (more on this later) and IF I've given them a move earth scroll, then surviving the encounter probably depends on the quick and timely use of that scroll!
To compensate for player knowledge and make things more interesting, I try to ensure that my players rarely know what exactly they're fighting. I never reveal a target's AC and I never name a creature unless the species of past encounters has been verified or a PC would obviously know (e.g. gnomes can recognize kobolds). I often give creatures slight mutations or regional variations to keep old timers guessing. Villagers tend to invent proper nouns or colloquial names for rare monsters that, coupled with exaggerated descriptions, are useless to players. Finally, I use a lot of unusual creatures from the Annuals, Dragon Magazine, and unpopular campaign setting Appendixes.
Only 50%? I guess it depends on how you look at it. I'd have to say all the "gamers" I know have their own. Now, if I were to include the people who play, but really are not all that serious about it (as in, if they had ANYthing else to do that day, they'd be doing that), then yes, the 50% figure is good as any.
Too funny, more so because its true BW....
As to use, I dont care what my Players Research, it just won't be done at the Table.
As to the Monster Manual (or any other additional resource) I perceive them as templates for the average monster type. So my players have learned (sometimes the hard way) that those "pesky" 1/2 hitdie goblins can be a pain in the ****,, and Not all orcs have to be 1d8
Are there any that believe Turrosh Mak and His Generals are 1d8?
Lastly I incourage my players to actually do the reverse of Player Knowledge.. If they are debating a NPC or asking the local Barkeep for info they as players might not know to ask, doesn't mean that the CHARACTER may not have the Skill to do so. within the confines of what the Character Abilities (or if edition applies Skill). A PC with an 18 in intellegence may be smarter on some details that the player is not.
Not all orcs have to be 1d8
Are there any that believe Turrosh Mak and His Generals are 1d8?
Well, Turrosh Mak is actually a HALF orc, which is a species able to have class and levels since 1st edition, but I digress.
I still run a 2nd edition game, and actually, while the folk at TSR were working on 2nd edition, I was home working on my own ideas for letting the humanoids have classes and levels. Though I didn't get that project completed, a few years into 2nd edition, they did produce the Book of Humanoids, sparing me the trouble.
Since then, I've defaulted to all the goblinoid races having a class & a level. Sure, most of the time it's only 1st level, but that gives them the same opportunities as a PC 1st level character.
So, if a band of PCs in my game encounter an orcish war party, the bulk of them will be 1st level fighters. Furthermore, the archers may be specialized in the bow; foot soldiers may (not necessarily all of them) be specialized in a melee weapon, etc. Naturally, leaders will be of higher level.
Sadly, I have not yet had the chance to throw any higher level (like 10th level or so) humanoids at a group of PCs.
Now, going back to topic, a problem I've seen is when something becomes too commonly known to the players. Probably my best example would be trolls. Once the players get it that the characters are fighting trolls, of course they start digging out whatever fire they have available. While it is smart playing, to use the weapon you know will be effective, sometimes the characters should not have any experience with trolls, like if they came from a region where there were no trolls.
As a player, once I realized my group was up against trolls, I'd want to break out the fire ASAP too, so it's hard to justify saying "you wouldn't know that" to players when I'm the DM.
As to when character knowledge exceeds player knowledge, I've found that's easier. The players I know are just fine with being handed information they'd know in character, that they wouldn't know out of character. Often, that's just background info. "Since you grew up here, of course you'd know ____." But like you said, the character with 18 Int might be able to figure things out easier than the player who is not that bright (I'm not saying idiot, but really, people that smart are rare in reality).
I ran into similar challenges with my new group of "hairlings" as we migrated from 2e to 3.5e...
Infidel!!!
Quote:
They came from a game system that was heavy on combat above all else.
Hack and slash gaming is the norm for 'hairlings.' Even I started off thusly...
Quote:
You can't make the doldrums of months of research take "hours" of table time. Nor can all research bear instant fruit. Some excepted "facts" may prove to be only conjecture later.
Very true, DLG. I find myself trying to find that balance, too. I've often told my player that I will allow him to determine the pace of the role-play with respect to such issues. If he wants me to role-play out certain aspects of a scene, then so be it. If he prefers me to 'breeze through' and describe basically what happens (often with a few random rolls as well), then that's OK too. In fact, I am finding myself in such a scenario even now...and I intend to let him decide the pacing of session.
Quote:
A good "hack -n- Slash" is always fun, but seldom can a campaign survive on it for long. My world is closing in on its 35th year (June1) with 25 years of gaming in it. Point is it would not have that longevity solely on killing a few orcs. The real challenge is sparking the imagination.
Hack and slash gaming is the norm for 'hairlings.'
Yes, but that grows old. As an example: Baldur's Gate offers side-treks, riddles and mysteries. All of that eventually "goes away" the more you play the game and "remember" the answers, etc.
Icewind Dale, on the other hand, is simply "hack & slash;" no side-treks, no riddles, no mysteries. I grew tired of playing it much more quickly then I did with Baldur's Gate.
The same is true with table-top gaming. Most players, as they learn the game, are going to get tired of simply "swinging their swords" all the time. Hack & slash will lose its "attractiveness" in time.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
You can't make the doldrums of months of research take "hours" of table time. Nor can all research bear instant fruit.
Why the heck not?
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
Some excepted "facts" may prove to be only conjecture later.
Heresy!
Okay, so maybe that's "true."
BlueWitch wrote:
As a player, once I realized my group was up against trolls, I'd want to break out the fire ASAP too, so it's hard to justify saying "you wouldn't know that" to players when I'm the DM.
Well, that depends: Are you role playing, or are you roll playing?
I solve this two ways: Do you have a Magic User? Was he/she formally trained? Then they would undoubtedly know something about Trolls and how to fight them. Sans a Magic User and the "low level" group is pretty much not going to know anything.
Second, the all important equipment list I mentioned: Do you have oil? Did you memorize Fireball, Burning Hands, Flame Strike?
In my game, they never, automatically "have" the things they need for a specific enemy. Nor do they automatically have the necessary spells prepared.
And let them learn the hard way that oil works best after they've hacked the Troll to pieces, not before.
And let them learn the hard way that oil works best after they've hacked the Troll to pieces, not before.
What a waste of perfectly good -- and much needed -- oil.
I think I like that!!! A reduced damage to the Troll if applied before wounding it 50%? hehehe Would a save have to be applied for the Troll or just an automatic because Troll Skin is "naturally oily" and semi- fire resistant"? Hehehe
A reduced damage to the Troll if applied before wounding it 50%?
Well, that's not exactly what I meant.
A troll cannot regenerate damage done by fire. The problem occurs when the inexperienced PCs throw the oil on the troll and set it on fire. You see, the oil landed on the right side of the troll.
That's not going to stop it from regenerating its left arm!
Or any other part of the troll not affected by the fire damage.
In short . . . they didn't kill it -- they just made it mad.
I hear ya, but determining right and left side etc.. gets dangerously close to targeting... a philosophy I don't like..... the HP structure nor the AC structure support it well. I tinkered with the idea and even though converse with medical professionals (brother was field medic in Army (go Air Cav) and one of my players is a paramedic) and when they do field triage they use what they call "the rule of nines" example here and I combined that with the AC design in an old game called Gladiator (that had a system for setting AC's to various body parts) but it became very cumbersome to get through a normal combat let alone a large one. So I abandoned it.
See I was leaning in the direction of no wounds, oil is less effective. That way I don't have to get into those "pour it on his head" debates. thoughts?
And its not beyond me to have those special trolls that are immune to fire but subject to acid, holy water, bannana cream pies, etc
I hear ya, but determining right and left side etc.. gets dangerously close to targeting... a philosophy I don't like . . .
My brother and cousin are EMTs and I "hear" you.
The problem is, doing anything less is cheating in favor of your players.
Why? Do you know how large a troll is? According to the equipment "scales" set out in the DMG and the PHB, oil is carried in pints. A pint of oil isn't going to do a "standing" troll a damn thing. Personally, I wouldn't allow any significant amount of damage for that maneuver; 1d4 at best, 1d6 if I'm feeling extremely generous.
Player: "I threw my pint of oil at the troll and set it on fire with my torch!"
Action: Troll flails about for a few minutes and returns to the slaughter.
DM: "Okay, the troll's back and madder than hell! What do you do now?"
Player: "You mean it's not dead?"
DM: "From a pint of oil? Not hardly."
See what I mean? Over-all damage -- which is basically what you're suggesting -- is a waste of . . . oil. Trollsare not humans, they aren't going to "die" from "3rd degree burns" to their "chest" area.
But we each play it our own way. But hey, you've given me another Blog post topic, so who am I to complain?
Player: "I threw my pint of oil at the troll and set it on fire with my torch!"
DM: The flask hits the troll in the belly and bounces to the ground. (The player forgot to state removing the stopper.)
But, assuming the player DID remember to state removing the stopper, I'd allow that some oil would likely splash into the troll, allowing for some damage.
I don't claim to be an expert on glass, but I think it'd need to be a fairly fragile flask to shatter upon striking a relatively soft creature. And, a flask that fragile would have a hard time surviving long in a backpack.
Now, cracking the troll over the head with the flask might be a different story.
Interestingly, in last night's session the troll / fire scenario came up! The players encountered a troll and as soon as they had 'killed' it started getting out the fire. When I suggested that they were meta-gaming, the meta-gamer looked sheepish but from the rest I was met with the out-raged cry of "what so how are we supposed to know how to defeat it?". Sigh.
Unfortunately the damage had been done by the meta-gamer, the challenge of dealing with the troll was spoiled for the others and do to the lateness of the night and the fact I was knackered I let it slide putting it down to the fact that trolls and the roll of fir ein defeating them may be common knowledge in some areas - even the subject of the odd nursery rhyme or two taught to children.
It was interesting that the players almost felt that they had a right to use meta-gaming knowledge and felt cheated if they couldn't to solve a problem. I would be lying if I said that the ring of fire resistance the next troll they encountered didn't bring me some joy at the confusion it caused them all
It was interesting that the players almost felt that they had a right to use meta-gaming knowledge and felt cheated if they couldn't to solve a problem.
Sorry to hear that there's was a bit of a hic-up on that.
But stand your ground, the only things they have a "right" to know are what you, the DM, says they can know.
Wolfling wrote:
I would be lying if I said that the ring of fire resistance the next troll they encountered didn't bring me some joy at the confusion it caused them all
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
