PC knowledge of Monsters?

[redknight]

Judging a book by its color

I have kept things vague at times to keep my players guessing. For example, describing a dragon as being reddish gold. It would put them into fits trying to figure if it was red or gold. It enhansed the game because it was something that they had to deterine for themselves.

Also some dragons may be good but not value humans. Sort of like how a person who is generally regarded as good, might not have a problem eating steak or swatting a fly.

In several game I have seen, oft times dragon are above the concerns of haman morality and are more concerned with there own affairs. It is only once a human manages to gain the attention of the dragon in question can its true motives be decerned.

 

[Quickbeam]

For my part, I try to very aggressively encourage that all player knowledge is left outside the game whenever and wherever possible. If a player identifies an unusual monster or beast in character from my description of what they see, I simply ask them how/why the PC would know what a Xorn looks like. If there is a plausible rationale, I let it slide; if their argument is mediocre, I let them make an Intelligence check of DC15; if they have no good reason for their character to know what a Xorn is (aside from owing the MM), then I prohibit the group from acting on that information.

A bit heavy-handed perhaps, but our sessions tend to possess a fairly high degree of roleplaying (most of the time) and use of player knowledge like this is detrimental to the game's atmosphere.

 

[Tcheb]

I too use the Know (Monsters) skill, but as a Wizard only skill. Other classes can take more specialized Know (Undead, Natural, Dragons, etc...) as their class and background indicate. Normally they roll, and I decide what they know about the monster (that's above common knowledge). If they ever roll a natural 20, then I hand them the MM and let them read the description for a few minutes. (We joke that the wizard wrote a paper on them back while in school.) It's not so bad, because normally the roll is made in combat, and whatever the character 'remembers', he still has to take actions to communicate that to his friends instead of casting fireball or swinging their sword.

 

[Friadoc]

You know,

...I think part of my issue is that, with the Core WotC stuff, we no longer have the categories of how common, uncommon, et al, a monster is known to be within the game.

One of the perks with that mechanic was that it gave a 'written' item that players usually would not argue with, since it's always more likely for people to argue with a DM's choice and not, as much, a written rule.

At 1st level, I feel, that a PC is just starting out on their heroic road, thusly they're inexperienced rookies who, although more powerful then an NPC 'Joe Blow', is still not experienced in matters of actually adventure.

It's why I like the monster books that are now coming out with 'common' knowledge, as well as 'uncommon' listed in the book.

I do like some of the options so far, my personal favorite is the 'describe the beastie without using it's name or confirming it's name'.

What my goal with this concept, the players not knowing as much about monsters, is not to try and make things harder, but bring a better feel to the game as it goes along - lessen the apathy.

Plus, to me, it even gives other classes a bit more power, Bards with their bardic knowledge is one example.

 

[Sir Lythan]

This is a few years late because i found this thread by accident... What I do with my group is make them start from an apprenticeship or an academy (kinda like NWN). I always do forgotten realms with occasional ravenloft. In the major cities, it's a given that a pc will pick up information about monsters, sitings and the like. It's also given that they will hear information from other, more experienced adventurers. Starting from the apprenticeship/academy, they can use the monster manual to their advantage, but only at my discretion. They can't use it during a fight or a dungeon crawl. It has to be written down on someone's inventory (because a pc has a reference book, like an encyclopedia).

The bottom line is that the DM should have that control, if the player knows about it, then it should be considered common because only a rare player has memorized the book. The REALLY REALLY important thing is that the DM should be playing the monsters better. Pay attention to the intelligence ratings. Kobolds may be weak midgets, but it's a fool that rushes into one of their encampments - the first volley of 500 arrows will cut even a 40th level character to the ground before he/she can get close. Unless you like hack & slash. To me ,the knowledge check is appropriate when the monster isn't listed. I tell my players that if they forget, their player forgets.