| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 00:31:05
|
However,
On the other hand about those knowlege checks, I've had some DM's that went, "Tough, you failed the roll and your char has NEVER heard a thing about trolls even though she is a 18 int and 12+ wis character. So no, she doesn't know that trolls are harmed by fire or acid, she's stupid."
Great, that's lame because trolls have existed for decades to centuries and people have spread tales about trolls by now.
So when I do have PC's roll for checks, it's over things that are rare. But most people know things about skeletons, zombies, goblins, orcs, trolls, etc. It's the really rare beasties that I might have someone roll a check for. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
 |
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 01:11:32
|
Your best bet as others have stated is to use the various knowledge skill checks to see if they know anything about what theyve run into the DC for the skill check should vary depending on how well known a creature is (Goblins would have a low D, Shades on the other hand would have a much higher DC)
If your players insist on using knowledge their characters dont have then might want consider using following each time they do it.
1) Party gets no XP from encounters where they use info they shouldnt have
2) When you determine the parties XP award for the encounter artificially raise the Partiess average level by 2 which will give them a smaller XP reward |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
Edited by - Dargoth on 29 Aug 2006 01:12:31 |
|
|
|
Conlon
Learned Scribe
Canada
132 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 02:15:15
|
I believe that if you are the DM, then you must make the decision that if the character would not have the knowledge necessary to perform the action that the player is planning, then they just can't do it. Simple. "Although you have read the Monster Manual and know that this is a troll, your sea-elven character has never heard of a troll, and does not realize that fire is required to defeat it." It is that simple.
If your players haven't encountered the creature previously, I would advise a knowledge roll with a difficulty based on the monster's population in the geographical location that the players are familiar with. If they are from the Silver Marches and haven't seen an orc, it is quite likely that they'll know a thing or two about them anyway, and when seeing one for the first time, will probably know what it is. However, they most likely will not know a phaerimm from an alhoon.
As a DM, if you want to keep things fairly realistic, you just have to be firm at times. It will end up being more fun in the long run. Of course, that is just my opinion. |
My hopes are ashes, my dreams are dust. All my intentions mean nothing unless they are followed by action. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 03:32:05
|
A traditional Realms method is to use normal monsters but change their appearance so they aren't recognizable. And as Conlon says, if a character doesn't have the knowledge, you shouldn't let them act on it.
But I have never once heard of serious metagaming or a comparable problem being fixed by in-game means. The problem isn't in the game, it's in the attitudes and relationships of people. The only thing that might work is to talk to these players, find out why they do it. explain to them why they shouldn't, and stop allowing them to waste your time DMing for them if they don't stop.
If as DM you ask someone not to buy a book, and they buy it, they are betraying your trust. Don't put up with that naed.
In particular, why do you keep playing with the particularly bad player? I would get rid of them first and see if things improve. |
Edited by - Faraer on 29 Aug 2006 04:02:21 |
|
|
|
Conlon
Learned Scribe
Canada
132 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 05:40:50
|
This is a bit of a touchy subject because it can require a confrontation with a player, who is probably also a friend. There are some interpersonal dynamics there that you don't want to mess with over a recreational game. However, the player should be made aware that as the DM, you spend several of your own hours away from the gaming table trying to come up with ideas and situations which will bring some excitement and laughs to your friends. Perhaps you should tell them that you feel they are sabotaging your attempts and making the game less fun for you. That sucks considering you are trying to make things fun for them, and making a sacrifice of your own to do it.
Since there is no one, easy answer for this, how about printing off this thread for your friends and have them read it. That way they'll see that you are seeking advice from strangers regarding something that you feel is important and is affecting your enjoyment of this GAME. Perhaps this will be the eye-opener that they need.
Good luck |
My hopes are ashes, my dreams are dust. All my intentions mean nothing unless they are followed by action. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 10:07:31
|
Someone who knowingly betrays your trust and regularly spoils your fun isn't your friend. The fact that it happens in the context of a game is not particularly relevant: it's still people doing things to each other.
If they aren't doing it knowingly, the friendship will deteriorate unless you either tackle the problem directly or just decide that this person, who may be great company at other times, doesn't fit your roleplaying group. Ignoring the problem, or trying to bandage its symptoms with in-game tricks, won't help anyone.
The exception is someone so unstable that removal from the game would be very painful, in which case you obviously need to tread carefully.
There isn't an easy solution, but there is a solution: talk. Down a Scooby Snack/glass of meths for courage. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 10:20:13
|
| One time I gave a player the RoF sourcebook to read up on svirfneblins. When she was done reading that she flipped through the book until she reached the monsters-section, (and no one knows my temper here) so I verbally ripped off her head in front of the entire group. It was a cure... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Kalin Agrivar
Senior Scribe
Canada
956 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 15:47:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
However,
On the other hand about those knowlege checks, I've had some DM's that went, "Tough, you failed the roll and your char has NEVER heard a thing about trolls even though she is a 18 int and 12+ wis character. So no, she doesn't know that trolls are harmed by fire or acid, she's stupid."
Great, that's lame because trolls have existed for decades to centuries and people have spread tales about trolls by now.
So when I do have PC's roll for checks, it's over things that are rare. But most people know things about skeletons, zombies, goblins, orcs, trolls, etc. It's the really rare beasties that I might have someone roll a check for.
doesn't the DC of a knowledge check refer to the difficulty, rarity and/or availability of that knowledge?
using the (average MM I) troll for instance, identifying a troll for someone in troll coutry may be a DC 0 while someone that lives in a troll-less region it may be 5-10 (as there are alot of tales of trolls)...knowing their regenerative powers and how to foil it would be about the same...but their great climbing ability maybe less known (DC 10-15) and the "drop food when you run away" trick to escape even less known (DC 15-20)
I think if it is something every one would know then the DC would be low, even to 0 (automatic knowledge) and the less likely the player would know that fact, the higher the DC of the skill check...
and Any DM that would do
quote:
"Tough, you failed the roll and your char has NEVER heard a thing about trolls even though she is a 18 int and 12+ wis character. So no, she doesn't know that trolls are harmed by fire or acid, she's stupid"
is being a poor DM... |
Kalin Xorell El'Agrivar
- High Mage of the Arcane Assembly
- Lore Keeper of the Vault of Ancestors
- 3rd Son of the Lord of the Stand |
|
|
|
stormcrow1618
Acolyte
12 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2006 : 18:32:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by kalin agrivar
quote:
Originally posted by Wandering_mage
Always consider rolling for knowledge. Its a fun way to resolve the problem quickly. 
I totally agree with that...but to use that option I had to (as a house rule) create a sub-skill for knowledge, knowledge: creatures and monsters, as it made no sense to me that you need the 8+ knowledge skills to have knowledge on each monster type...
quote from a player (who was playing an escaped gladiatoral slave) about a year ago:
quote:
I need (knowledge) religion to know we need to find the lich's phylactory to permanently defeat it???
I've always used Knowledge: Monster Lore, but I would consider even taking it a step further, by requiring characters to buy ranks in specific monster types, such as Knowledge: Aberrations, Knowledge: Giants, or Knowledge: Undead.
If meta-gaming gets bad, I'm big on passing notes between players and the DM describing character actions so that the players realistically don't always know what the others are doing. In this case, one player would pass me a note saying that he's casting fireball, and the others would say that they're running up to attack. Then, I describe the actions each character is taking: "The warriors run up and attack, and just as they're swinging their swords, the wizard begins chanting from behind you. Suddenly your world erupts in flames." The biggest problem with this is that it slows combat to a crawl, but the players tend to learn rather quickly. I don't use it often for combat actions, but it's always great for rogues who want to loot without the other players knowing, etc.
Also, if I suspect that players are using OOC knowledge, I ask them to justify how their character would know such-and-such. If they can't come up with a reason that I find satisfactory, they don't know, and I ask them to revise their actions accordingly.
I frown on meta-gaming, but I do so from the perspective of a veteran gamer with eidetic memory, which means that I sympathize with other experienced players who simply know a lot of details about monster stats and other rules, and I understand that sometimes players unintentionally act as if their characters know what they know. However, players who intentionally buy source material and memorize it to give their characters an edge are another matter entirely, and such actions are a good way to get ejected from one of my games. |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 12 Sep 2006 : 15:52:51
|
| I have players blatantly ask me what bypasses a new creature's Damage Reduction. WTF |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
A question about gamers who......
