D&D 5E How do you handle monster knowledges in your game?

[Reynard]

You're actually calling for double randomness here.

Yes.

Presumably it's already possible to fail the roll for information and have to proceed without it, which is already one injection of randomness, potentially followed by another if you succeed, but the information is invalid.

The best way to avoid bad information is to not roll. If a PC is supposed to be a expert in monster lore, the player needs to actively play that way: doing research in down time, taking actual real world notes, asking the GM questions, examining monsters after fights, etc...

Like I said, I would prefer to do this without rolls at all, but the question was about a random knowledge check. That should come with the chance for some shenanigans. This is a different situation than characters trying to actively research and prep in order to take down whatever it is.

But I already acknowledged that I get why people don't like anything but perfect success. I just find it boring on both sides of the screen.

 

[Charlaquin]

Rote certainly isn't.

All I am saying is that having some uncertainty in there is fun.

That’s where the check comes in. It’s uncertain if you’ll get the correct information, because the results of the check are uncertain.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes.

The best way to avoid bad information is to not roll. If a PC is supposed to be a expert in monster lore, the player needs to actively play that way: doing research in down time, taking actual real world notes, asking the GM questions, examining monsters after fights, etc...

Like I said, I would prefer to do this without rolls at all, but the question was about a random knowledge check. That should come with the chance for some shenanigans. This is a different situation than characters trying to actively research and prep in order to take down whatever it is.

But I already acknowledged that I get why people don't like anything but perfect success. I just find it boring on both sides of the screen.

It’s not that people don’t want anything but perfect success. Many of us are open to the possibility of PCs recalling incorrect information. It’s just that if that can happen on a successful check, then checks are too unreliable to ever be useful. If your goal is to insure no player ever attempts a knowledge check, this way of handling them certainly accomplishes that goal. I just don’t think that’s a good approach, when you could just say “no knowledge checks allowed” instead.

 

[Reynard]

That’s where the check comes in. It’s uncertain if you’ll get the correct information, because the results of the check are uncertain.

So, do you think the GM should ever give the PCs unreliable information if a successful roll was made?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s not that people don’t want anything but perfect success. Many of us are open to the possibility of PCs recalling incorrect information. It’s just that if that can happen on a successful check, then checks are too unreliable to ever be useful. If your goal is to insure no player ever attempts a knowledge check, this way of handling them certainly accomplishes that goal. I just don’t think that’s a good approach, when you could just say “no knowledge checks allowed” instead.

One thing to note is that is bad intel is gated behind a failed check, then checks in general need to be hidden. Otherwise it's way too easy to see your die roll and not believe anything the DM says.

 

[Reynard]

Ultimately this is a broader "what should skills be used for" question and I am generally on the side of "stuff we can model without skill rolls, we should, and even when we do we should still make players work for it." I dislike "playing the sheet."

 

[Charlaquin]

So, do you think the GM should ever give the PCs unreliable information if a successful roll was made?

Not necessarily, but there needs to be a meaningful difference between success and failure, otherwise why call for a check in the first place? You could maybe say a success is more likely to result in correct information than failure, but since the players have no way of determining whether the information they got is the more common case or the less common case, it makes no difference from their perspective. It’s the same problem as Augury - since you have a cumulative chance of a randomly determined answer every subsequent time you cast it in a day, no one ever uses it more than once a day. Because as soon as there’s any chance of it being unreliable, it’s functionally a 100% chance of being unreliable.

If you’re really committed to the idea of players being able to get unreliable information on a successful check, I would recommend taking my multiple degrees of success idea and bumping the results one step up the scale. So on a successful check you get two truths and a lie. On a near miss you get one truth and a lie. On a big miss, you get nothing. Or something like that.

 

[billd91]

But I already acknowledged that I get why people don't like anything but perfect success. I just find it boring on both sides of the screen.

I don't think it's about perfect. Making a knowledge check about a monster is an excellent case for degrees of success - cross one difficulty threshold, learn X. Cross 2, learn X and Y. Cross 3, learn X, Y, and Z. None of those have to be "perfect" as in complete. But at every level they should be correct and not misinformation.

 

[Charlaquin]

One thing to note is that is bad intel is gated behind a failed check, then checks in general need to be hidden. Otherwise it's way too easy to see your die roll and not believe anything the DM says.

Then, again, there’s no actual point in the check, since if you have no indication of if the information is reliable or not, then it isn’t reliable.

 

[Reynard]

Not necessarily, but there needs to be a meaningful difference between success and failure, otherwise why call for a check in the first place? You could maybe say a success is more likely to result in correct information than failure, but since the players have no way of determining whether the information they got is the more common case or the less common case, it makes no difference from their perspective. It’s the same problem as Augury - since you have a cumulative chance of a randomly determined answer every subsequent time you cast it in a day, no one ever uses it more than once a day. Because as soon as there’s any chance of it being unreliable, it’s functionally a 100% chance of being unreliable.

If you’re really committed to the idea of players being able to get unreliable information on a successful check, I would recommend taking my multiple degrees of success idea and bumping the results one step up the scale. So on a successful check you get two truths and a lie. On a near miss you get one truth and a lie. On a big miss, you get nothing. Or something like that.

I don't think it's about perfect. Making a knowledge check about a monster is an excellent case for degrees of success - cross one difficulty threshold, learn X. Cross 2, learn X and Y. Cross 3, learn X, Y, and Z. None of those have to be "perfect" as in complete. But at every level they should be correct and not misinformation.

I would not ask a player to make a knowledge check. That is a player side thing, and it essentially represents a failure of preparation (which of course might not be their fault). A knowledge check is essentially a player asking for a cheat code. I actively don't want it to work all the time, and I don't want it to obviate the need for engaging the fiction of the game. And, like I said, I think it is interesting and realistic for there to potentially (remember, I am not saying this should happen every time) be bad info in there because the PC has only ever read about these things, or listened to rumors, or whatever.