D&D 5E "OK, I try Skill A. Now Skill B. Well, in that case, how about Skill C?"

[the Jester]

"Make an Intelligence (History) or (Religion) check, whichever is better."

Once you make the check, you have made your best effort at recalling the information, and you have either failed or succeeded.

 

[overgeeked]

This is them asking for rolls, seeking more details for the adventure. I'm not locking content behind "do you recognize who this dude in the fressco is?"

Instead, this is them trying to figure out as much as possible about who the dude is, what's the name of his weapon, what military tactics did he use, what monsters were part of his army, etc.

Right. And here you are asking for advice on how to not let you giving them a dozen rolls from slowing down the game. As you said in the OP, you hate this kind of thing.

There's lots of solutions. The one I offered up is simple. You don't give them a dozen rolls. You decide one skill that covers the whole thing and have them roll that. Another option is to offer two skills and have them pick. But, either way, once that roll is done, that's it. They have to actively change the circumstances to get another bite at the apple, like actively going to investigate something, performing research on the topic, etc. You don't have to use this solution if you don't like it. I won't be offended. But it is a solution.

All them trying to slurp up whatever potential clues there are for what's coming up later.

As someone who runs a lot of mystery games, do not gate important clues behind rolls. Ever. If there's a clue you want your players to have, simply give it to them.

One thing that's helped a lot of people is how Call of Cthulhu 7E splits clues into two categories. Obvious clues and obscure clues. Obvious clues you automatically get; obscure clues you have to roll for. But, importantly, anything necessary to continue or complete the scenario is always an obvious clue. It's the extra stuff, the easter eggs, the callbacks, the deeper but non-essential lore that is the obscure clues.

 

[Reynard]

This is them asking for rolls, seeking more details for the adventure. I'm not locking content behind "do you recognize who this dude in the fressco is?"

Instead, this is them trying to figure out as much as possible about who the dude is, what's the name of his weapon, what military tactics did he use, what monsters were part of his army, etc. All them trying to slurp up whatever potential clues there are for what's coming up later.

Assuming this is information I had not developed prior, I would either use some random tables to determine such details, and/or ask the players to tell ME. In any case, if the player just wants a Lore Dump, I would give it to them based on how well they rolled (still one roll tho) and give them a level of detail based on the results (as opposed to setting a DC ahead of time).

Just for clarity: is that what we are talking about here, players just wanting to know more about the world?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Just for clarity: is that what we are talking about here, players just wanting to know more about the world?

Yes, typically with an eye for how it might serve as a (bonus) advantage in some fashion.

"Oh ho, if Fleebox the Great famously drowned, maybe we should summon water to flood his tomb and freak out his ghost!"

Although I appreciate everyone telling me not to gate information or adventure progress behind a roll, I promise that's not what I'm doing. (Figuring out how to fix that in pre-written adventures -- extremely good locks in the tombs in Empire of the Ghouls, I'm looking at you -- is one of my recurrent headaches.)

 

[TheAlkaizer]

As others have mentioned, asking players to clarify what they want to achieve will drastically reduce this problem.

I also would bring it a health dose of "Let it Ride", a rule from Burning Wheel (also present in other games, but named in BW!).

It goes as follow: "A player shall test once against an obstacle and shall not roll again until conditions legitimately and drastically change. Neither GM nor player can call for a retest unless those conditions change. Successes from the initial roll count for all applicable situations in play."

This mostly takes care of the issue when a player is trying to achieve the same intent in a different way. The goal is to force the player to change the conditions, or to move on to something else. It isn't always applicable, sometimes it will make a ton of sense for the player to try to solve the problem in a different way. But it's a rule I bring in all my RPGs nowadays.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, typically with an eye for how it might serve as a (bonus) advantage in some fashion.

"Oh ho, if Fleebox the Great famously drowned, maybe we should summon water to flood his tomb and freak out his ghost!"

That's great. I love it. Maybe let the players "create an advantage" (to use Fate parlance) with a good roll. Make them tell you about the drowning and roll with it.

Although I appreciate everyone telling me not to gate information or adventure progress behind a roll, I promise that's not what I'm doing. (Figuring out how to fix that in pre-written adventures -- extremely good locks in the tombs in Empire of the Ghouls, I'm looking at you -- is one of my recurrent headaches.)

I think we thought that was the problem because it is so common. Might I suggest editing the OP with a quick not at the top? Otherwise all you will see are those kinds of suggestions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

1) If they NEED to pass the check to progress or want it so bad they keep trying and hold up the game, that's something that shouldn't be a check and they just get the info or whatever as part of the story.

2) Like many things, this is the fault of Bounded Accuracy. When your success is basically restricted to just a die roll with minimal control, it's gambling and they're going t keep gambling. Let everyone have Expertise on their thing and watch the need to gamble fall away.

3) Don't be tempted to take away their agency by making them depend on you for what checks they get to make.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes, typically with an eye for how it might serve as a (bonus) advantage in some fashion.

That's always going to be context heavy. They learn that so-and-so is a secret changeling, they can blackmail that person. They learn that some monster is vulnerable to fire, they can stock up on fire damage. Etc.

The social interaction rules in the DMG offer some advice. Like players learning of an NPCs belief, traits, etc can give them advantage on a check. You could do similar. PbtA games have a similar notion of "take +X forward" where the +X is a static mod instead of advantage. The trouble with either is remembering it's there later when and if it comes up. Tokens and notes can help a lot with this.

 

[Reynard]

You know what: never mind. We have threads for this already.

 

[CleverNickName]

The players describe what they are going to try. Even if they describe ten things they are going to try, you as DM decides which one is most likely to succeed, then you tell them the one skill roll they get to make. One roll, not a series of them.

If they are proficient with multiple skills that apply, give them advantage.

And don't make the results binary. Use degrees of success and failure. Sure, they've heard the name before, and maybe it was related to Y, but they aren't sure. (and sometimes give them wrong info!)

This is the way I do it. It keeps the game from bogging down, and gives the player(s) a chance to drive the narrative for a little while.

And that last part is key: don't make the results a binary Pass/Fail. Leave room in there for "almost succeeding," "nearly failing," "success but with added cost," "failure but discovered something new," and so on.