Knowledge check pile ons (d20)

[haakon1]

Knowledge checks are actually one of the few check where it doesn't bug me: They represent what people know and are generally reflexive. (You see an orc. Do you know what it is? Everybody gets a check.)

I agree -- it's what you know, so either you know it/remember it, or you don't. I don't allow "Aid Another" on Knowledge checks, because that doesn't make sense to me. If neither of us can individually remember what Fermat's Last Theorem is, how can two heads be better than one? (I'm not a big believer that committees are smarter than individuals, and I'm an Grognard DM, so I try to do what seems sensible, rather than looking up the chapter and verse of the official rules on stuff like this.)

that's the real problem: When people make decisions about what they are and aren't doing based on metagame knowledge. If it bugs you enough, the solution is simple: Remove the metagame knowledge. For any check where this bugs you, make those rolls secretly.

Nod. If I'm letting you roll your own Search-for-traps or secret doors checks, it's a good bet I don't care and there's nothing interesting there. If I'm rolling behind the shield, something might be up.

Of course, sometimes I roll dice just to add tension, when nothing is up.

 

[Quickleaf]

That is, of course, my point. If you only give the players one way to contribute, they'll only use that one way.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

A recent example from SWSE: The players were trying to break a smuggler out of a holding facility in the Coruscan Spaceport; as part of their recon one player wanted to make a Knowledge (galactic lore) check about the organization of the Coruscant Security Force (or something similar, I don't remember the specifics). They rolled moderately well. The know-it-all droid player decided to follow suit with another Knowledge (galactic lore) check. This was all tangential to their final plan, and not a chokepoint in the game - there were multiple avenues to pursue. Of course the droid rolls obscenely well. With some roleplay or something I'm sure it could have been really funny. Instead I had to say "So you're talking about this in some quiet section of the spaceport?" To which they nodded. Then I dispensed thorough information about the Coruscant Security Force. In play it was resolved quick and it turned out to be largely irrelevant for their mad plan.

What I didn't like was that there was a bit of "throwing darts at a target until something hits" feel. I guess part of me is an old school GM too - I feel like players who are paying attention, engaged, reducing clues, and thinking creatively should get the reward of their actions.

You're right of course it is the context, presentation and the ease of use that funnels it into the realm of SOP. I as a DM have failed to stop this decline, but it's a greased rope. Knowledge checks should have a warning label next to them.

That's my sentiment too, though it appears I'm not articulating well. Could you elaborate on how they're a "greased rope"?

 

[Umbran]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

It is kind of tautological. IF they have one avenue, they will take that avenue. If they have multiple avenues, they may take multiple avenues.

This was all tangential to their final plan, and not a chokepoint in the game - there were multiple avenues to pursue.

Did they have multiple avenues to get the information? Was waylaying a member of the security force and grilling him on their org chart really an option? Did they have a terminal and a slicer at hand to hack the (probably well-protected) security force systems? Did they have someone with really good deception skills who could sneak into their ready room and somehow unobtrusively ask questions while stealing a cup of their coffee?

And, moreover - was there reason to think that any of those other options was really worth the risk? If not, then they only have one reasonable avenue to get that information.

As for it not being a choke point - that the information turned out to be irrelevant... is irrelevant. They wouldn't know that until *after* the check. I have often seen the case where players thought a piece of information they sought was crucial to success, while the GM figured it was trivia. I don't know if that was what was going on in your case, of course.

What I didn't like was that there was a bit of "throwing darts at a target until something hits" feel. I guess part of me is an old school GM too - I feel like players who are paying attention, engaged, reducing clues, and thinking creatively should get the reward of their actions.

How is making sure they've got all the information at hand not part of reducing clues?

Old school is, if nothing else, unforgiving. Players are taught to "play smart", which usually amounts to "play paranoid" - old school is the play with 10' poles and having everyone search every section of wall three times over until you know it is statistically impossible that you missed the secret door. So, dogpiling low-risk opportunities for information is very old school.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

What I didn't like was that there was a bit of "throwing darts at a target until something hits" feel. I guess part of me is an old school GM too - I feel like players who are paying attention, engaged, reducing clues, and thinking creatively should get the reward of their actions.

Sometimes I get irked by this too and for the same reason. Most often it irritates me when a player is not paying attention or participating in a scene but jumps in with a skill check after an engaged player attempts it.

 

[Storminator]

Nod. If I'm letting you roll your own Search-for-traps or secret doors checks, it's a good bet I don't care and there's nothing interesting there. If I'm rolling behind the shield, something might be up.

Of course, sometimes I roll dice just to add tension, when nothing is up.

I used to do a trick in 3e - make them grab 3 dice, show them to me, (I secretly pick one that counts), then roll all 3.

PS

 

[amerigoV]

If only one should really do the check, the person that said it is the Primary and others are Aid Another. To spice it up, those that fail by "enough" provide a negative bonus (gets those that are poor at the skill out of the way as they a mucking up everyone else's efforts).

I love the roll 3 dice for things like search checks idea posted above. Of course, as a Rat Bastard DM I would not pick out a die before hand but use the lowest of the results.

 

[Janx]

I agree -- it's what you know, so either you know it/remember it, or you don't. I don't allow "Aid Another" on Knowledge checks, because that doesn't make sense to me. If neither of us can individually remember what Fermat's Last Theorem is, how can two heads be better than one? (I'm not a big believer that committees are smarter than individuals, and I'm an Grognard DM, so I try to do what seems sensible, rather than looking up the chapter and verse of the official rules on stuff like this.)

technically, my memory is more like Google.com. I might not be able to remember something on my own (just like clicking on google.com doesn't bring up an answer by itself). But somebody bringing up informational elements will jog my memory and I can then recall large amounts of detail and facts of a past event or solution.

In short, you babbling about what you DO remember about Fermat's Last Theorem, including sitting behind that blonde chick will then cause me to remember exactly where I sat in class and the session where we learn about Fermat's Last Theorem.

Additionally, in my industry of techno nerds solving problems, we do tend to one-up each other on solutions and information. So one guy saying he doesn't think you can overload a function in C#, will cause another guy to chime in that yes you can, he did it last week, and that it's VB.NET where you can't do that.

In short, the knowledge check dogpile is very akin to real life.

Now how a GM chooses to abjudicate that, whether by allowing one roll and merging it all as Aid Another, or seperate rolls is just an abstraction layer.

I think the real problem ties to ego. I'm a fairly smart guy. I do tend to think of things to ask the GM or strategies to employ that others do not. Therefore, it is a little annoying when I ask about X and fail my knowledge roll because my PC can't be good at everything, that every other player jumps in and eventually gets credit for it because everybody remembers the guy who succeeded and got the answer which required a lucky die roll, not the guy who actually had the brains to figure out what to do.

It's a disconnect of the player ability vs. character ability. Saying "here's an idea, I'll attack with my sword!" isn't particularly rocket science and isn't particularly disconnected from the PC's +5 to-hit with his sword.

Whereas, me thinking to see if I can recognize that small ash pile as to what type of cigarrette it came from so I can match it to the murderer (ala Sherlock Holmes) is fairly clever on the player's part, but not reinforced on my PC's part when he roll's a 1. It further sucks when the next PC roll a 20, and has a better modifier, and then gets all the credit for solving it, when all he really did in game terms is say "me too!"

Smart people aren't usually expecting a ticker tape parade for their ideas, but it is generally annoying to get no recognition for the idea while somebody else gets patted on the back for rolling better on a die.

 

[Wiseblood]

That's my sentiment too, though it appears I'm not articulating well. Could you elaborate on how they're a "greased rope"?

It's a slippery slope in other parlance. Because it is an easy way for players to glean more information, they will leverage it. Conversely when a DM see's players getting frustrated he will leverage the same. The problem arises because it's all up to the judgement of the DM how much information to give and how difficult a check will be. This is unlike the jump check which is quantifiable. It is also much more flexible and powerful but very messy.

The pile ons seem to represent input from PC's that has sparked the memory or insight of the "lead PC" I think that is adequately represented by the d20 roll.

 

[S'mon]

Sometimes I get irked by this too and for the same reason. Most often it irritates me when a player is not paying attention or participating in a scene but jumps in with a skill check after an engaged player attempts it.

In general, I only find it annoying when I ask Player A to make a knowledge check and B, C and D immediately roll themselves, without waiting. I would not mind the OP's situation where A rolls, fails, and asks B, C & D for advice, so B C & D then roll - that seems fine, and makes sense in-world.

At a higher level though, I'm unconvinced Knowledge skills serve any useful purpose in-game (clearly they have a simulationist in-world rationale). I think game-wise the best thing is for the GM to provide good information in response to good questions, without requiring a random dice roll. This can be partially achieved by setting low DCs if questions are asked, and allowing take-10, but that still requires asking what the PC's bonus is.

I have a similar issue with STR checks BTW!

 

[S'mon]

Smart people aren't usually expecting a ticker tape parade for their ideas, but it is generally annoying to get no recognition for the idea while somebody else gets patted on the back for rolling better on a die.

I do think this is an issue, especially in games like 3e D&D where the strongest classes tend to also be the ones with the best knowledge skills.

It came up recently in my Pathfinder game, at a blood-spattered cottage with a strange old crone who explained trolls had eaten the family.

Player A: "There's no sign of troll attack here! Clearly the old woman is lying!"

At this point a rat bastard GM would have nodded sagely. A typical 3e GM might have demanded some Sense Motive or other checks.

Me, GM: "Um, has anyone looked for sign of troll attack?"

Player B (lightbulb): "I search for troll tracks!"

I could have required a search check here, but it would have been pointless. If B failed, why should player C, D or A then get the credit?

Me, GM: "Finally! Player B, there are two clear sets of troll tracks, heading towards the marsh."