D&D 5E Where does optimizing end and min-maxing begin? And is min-maxing a bad thing?

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't bar anyone from having knowledge. I can only describe the environment and narrate the results of adventurers' actions as DM. They're taking the fictional action to recall lore and in the doing they declare a goal (what they want to recall) and approach (what they draw upon to recall it). Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail, sometimes they roll. The context will tell.

Yeah, I...dude I get all of that. I'm not sure if you're nit picking over wording or if it was actually unclear, so I'll assume lack of clarity and act accordingly.

To clarify, by "know stuff/have knowledge", I mean "recall lore". I'm not sure why there is a misunderstanding there, so let me know if I haven't clarified enough, bc I'm not sure what the source of the misunderstanding actually is.

What I was asking was if you require that the character's chosen mechanical options, ie background, class, race, etc, be relevant to a knowledge type in order to allow them to try to "recall lore" (ie, know stuff) about a thing?

Because it seems like that was what you were saying, and I was taken aback by that idea. Before it seemed that way, it seemed like you were saying that a player would have to have specifically established some element of backstory, be it Background, or just something in their description of their past, that was relevant in some way to the specific thing they were trying to recall lore about. This also surprised me, albeit a little less.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, I...dude I get all of that. I'm not sure if you're nit picking over wording or if it was actually unclear, so I'll assume lack of clarity and act accordingly.

To clarify, by "know stuff/have knowledge", I mean "recall lore". I'm not sure why there is a misunderstanding there, so let me know if I haven't clarified enough, bc I'm not sure what the source of the misunderstanding actually is.

What I was asking was if you require that the character's chosen mechanical options, ie background, class, race, etc, be relevant to a knowledge type in order to allow them to try to "recall lore" (ie, know stuff) about a thing?

Because it seems like that was what you were saying, and I was taken aback by that idea. Before it seemed that way, it seemed like you were saying that a player would have to have specifically established some element of backstory, be it Background, or just something in their description of their past, that was relevant in some way to the specific thing they were trying to recall lore about. This also surprised me, albeit a little less.

As I said above, I need a goal and an approach. The approach must include something from which the character is drawing the lore just like I need to know the approach the character is taking to search for traps or negotiate with the duke. The confusion seems to be that you appeared to ask me about or rather assumed an "extensive" pre-written backstory was required else the DM would tell you that you don't know squat. My response was that we don't pre-write backstories in my games - not longer than a tweet anyway. So they usually need something else like Background to justify how they might recall something. Then you seemed to assume I meant ONLY Background. So I think you can see where the source of the confusion is here - assumptions. Not uncommon for the forums. I'm guilty of that myself from time to time. And perhaps my writing wasn't clear enough.

If I wasn't clear before, I hope I am now.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the character background doesn't suggest having specific knowledge of a monster, the DM is well within his or her rights to say "No roll, you just fail to recall anything."
....
When I say "background," I quite literally mean the Background that is provided by the game, not to be confused with "backstory" that the player may have written. (Though I require backstories to be no longer than a tweet in my game.) So a player might say, "Drawing upon my time as a Sailor, I try to recall what weaknesses this kraken might have..." or "As a Sage who studied at some of the greatest libraries of the world, I must have read something about flumphs and I try to remember what their goals are." This is part of describing a goal and an approach which are required in my view for the DM to adjudicate properly. Based on what they say, they may automatically succeed, automatically fail, or we'll go to the dice. "I try to recall lore on X..." is insufficient. I need to know what experiences you're drawing upon and what you hope to recall before I can decide how to narrate the result.

The first statement, I simply stated that I don't like that approach. Didn't assume anything about your game. Just the approach of requiring a specific background element to have been established in order to even make a roll. Since you weren't clear about whether you meant Background or background, I expressed that I wasn't sure.

In the second statement, you literally said that you specifically mean Background, so it was hardly an assumption on my part to carry on as though you were talking about requiring a mechanical choice to establish the opportunity to make a roll to know something. Then you seemed to me to misunderstand what information I was unsure of and curious about, so I tried to clarify, and it just kept getting worse.



All of which is tangential of course, as you said in that first post I quoted from.

The upshot is, I don't think it is a good DM approach to require something like a Background (ie, one of the PCs mechanical options) to establish the opportunity to know some lore. (Obv you can't recall what you don't know)

I also don't like the approach of requiring a previously established background element, whether it is mechanical or purely story.

I've no issue with requiring an explanation of how the character might have come to know the thing, as I already explained in the lich phylactery example I used a handful of posts ago.

I do think that it is perfectly sensible to allow rolls for knowledge without even that requirement if it is something that could reasonably have been in a bard's tale, if the character is reasonably bookish/well read, or has traveled a lot and presumably spent a lot of time in taverns and such, where stories are shared, etc. and just as reasonable to require special circumstances to allow a roll for secret knowledge, like phylactories in a world where a lich is beyond rare, and only ppl with specialized knowledge would even know what a lich is.

 

[iserith]

I've no issue with requiring an explanation of how the character might have come to know the thing, as I already explained in the lich phylactery example I used a handful of posts ago.

Good. We agree then. Mystery solved.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Good. We agree then. Mystery solved.

Was there really a mystery?

Or perhaps you're still misunderstanding me, by thinking there was a mystery at all?

I literally just expressed that I didn't like an approach you mentioned as totally legit, and then asked if you meant that you require a specific game element, rather than just generally expecting an explanation of why the character might know a thing, because your wording suggested that you did, but reason suggested that such a requirement would be absurd. If there was a "mystery" it was solved when you clarified that you don't actually require the PCs specific Background to be sailor in order for them to have a chance to know anything about kraken, just that they have some manner of reasonable explanation for potentially having the knowledge.

We also don't really agree *that* much, because while I have no real issue with the requirement, I don't really see the point of it, or think it adds to the game at all.

 

[smbakeresq]

In the context of what [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] and I were talking about, where it could go awry has to do with gating plot-necessary information behind an ability check, then everyone failing said ability check. So much for the plot. Not a problem when your game isn't set on a storyline, but many are.

As for "monster knowledge checks," I only call for an ability check when a player describes an action with an uncertain outcome that would call for an Intelligence check. And I don't have simple communication cost an action. In my view, that's a tax that discourages character interaction and I want more of that back and forth (within reason), not less.

Its impossible to gate plot necessary information behind an ability check because you as DM control whether players pass or fail. The idea is to allow PC to use their skills liberally to get knowledge that helps them, then they have to get the knowledge out to the others (or keep it themselves...) Having the PC make monster knowledge checks to determine strengths and vulnerabilities is part of the game, especially with "named" monsters. Its why knowledge clerics double bonus on certain skills is important and useful, and makes the person behind the PC fee useful.

 

[iserith]

Was there really a mystery?

Or perhaps you're still misunderstanding me, by thinking there was a mystery at all?

I literally just expressed that I didn't like an approach you mentioned as totally legit, and then asked if you meant that you require a specific game element, rather than just generally expecting an explanation of why the character might know a thing, because your wording suggested that you did, but reason suggested that such a requirement would be absurd. If there was a "mystery" it was solved when you clarified that you don't actually require the PCs specific Background to be sailor in order for them to have a chance to know anything about kraken, just that they have some manner of reasonable explanation for potentially having the knowledge.

We also don't really agree *that* much, because while I have no real issue with the requirement, I don't really see the point of it, or think it adds to the game at all.

This conversation is getting increasingly tedious, so I'd like to bow out at this time. Thanks.

 

[iserith]

Its impossible to gate plot necessary information behind an ability check because you as DM control whether players pass or fail.

It's very possible to do that and some people do. It leads to results that [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] and I agreed were bad. I'm not saying you do it, just that it's a thing.

 

[ScaleyBob]

Not just swingy ... but unbelievable. As in ... literally unbelievable.

But to recap one of my favorite 1e rules!

1. Under a 3d6 system, you had a .5% (actually, .46%) chance of rolling an 18. So, um, one out of every 200 characters that you rolled strength for would get an 18.

2. Based on that, the odds of getting the mystical 18/00 were one out of every 20,000 characters. ZOUNDS! (Note- odds are different with different dice gen methods, of course).

3. ...but, Gygax was human-centric. And had that M/F dichotomy. And the non-fighter issue. So most demi-humans (female or male halfling) tapped out between 14-17. Only fighters (incl. rangers and paladins) got to roll percentiles. And only male humans could get to 18/00.

So this wasn't just an example of swingy abilities (although it was), it was also an example of a fighter-specific ability.

Bonus fun fact!

Half-Orcs are the only race to get a bonus to strength in 1e, yet they have a LOWER maximum strength than humans, and they can only advance to fighter level 10. BECAUSE REASONS!

I remember those days. I also seem to remember an awful lot of fighters with 18/00 Str. Not that anyone would cheat rolling their Attributes in those days.

The main reason I prefer Point Buy to rolling is it avoids having player luck completely mess up Character balance. After several groups where one player couldn't roll over a 13 on any stat, and another who couldn't roll under a 13 on any stat, the Point Buy system was a sweet, sweet change.

As for the multiple checks Monster Knowledge checks to penalize PCs with an INT dump stat, the easiest solution is to make it a Passive Skill. Either you know it or you don't -no need to roll, and you as the GM simply tell the Player what they should know. (Oddly enough, the latest Angry GM article suggests much the same thing, far better explained than I had scribbled in my notes.)

 

[ScaleyBob]

The number of PCs who had 18/00 STR in our old games clearly proves this math wrong!!

They were all legit! Legit, I tell you!!!

Ninja'd!

I should finish reading the thread before responding to it.