DMs Advice - Player's bad assumptions

[MarkB]

Again, that's not how it works. You're welcome to run it that way, but by the 3.5e rules, Knowledge checks are simply a way of checking whether a character knows something without having to pre-determine everything he may once have studied.

If a player is wondering whether his character knows about something within a specific field of study, he may choose to make the check himself - but if he's studying something he's found and wants to see what he knows about it, the DM should be the one determining which Knowledge skills are most appropriate and calling for checks on those skills.

Look at it this way: If a character has excellent Knowledge Arcana skill such that he's likely to have studied all sorts of arcane runes, and he's looking right at a set of arcane runes, is he really likely to completely fail to recognise them just because he was expecting dwarven runes?

 

[Viking Bastard]

If the party has an arcane caster, I would point towards his player and say: "Your team mates are barking up the wrong tree; you see that this doohicky is blatantly arcane."

If the party has a dwarf, I'd do the same, only reversed.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Consider it this way...

When you see a sign that says, "Danger: High Voltage Fence!" do you have to stop and think about whether the sign is in english, or do you simply read the sign? Someone versed in Arcane knowledge probably has the same reaction to arcane runes that are part of a security system...

 

[Omegaxicor]

[MENTION=40176]MarkB[/MENTION] your posts seems contradictory. Knowledge checks are for remembering information that is common knowledge but if you want to look at something and think do I know anything about it then you have to roll another Knowledge check...it seems I have house ruled the first check is meaningless subconsciously and I only roll Knowledge checks for stuff that takes training in a particular field.

to me it seems stupid, but maybe that's the point, for the party to say "I want to check if I recognise these Dwarven symbols and try to find a way to deactivate them without being a dwarf" and I reply "OK, well all things Dwarven require Knowledge (Dungeoneering) checks so perform a Knowledge (Arcana) check for them".

Given what everyone has said it seems I was wrong you are supposed to guide the players toward the answer, finding out what others do is the reason I made this thread but I expected a wide variety of answers.

Thanks all

 

[MarkB]

I never mentioned common knowledge.

Basically, the Knowledge skill isn't a conventional skill or aptitude, it's simply a measure of how probable it is that a character knows about something. It's a game-mechanical shortcut that means you don't need to write down every single thing the character has ever learned or studied before playing him.

When you roll a Knowledge check, you're simply resolving that probability - finding out whether or not that character actually knows about a specific subject that's within his field of study. A success means that it's something he knows about, and a failure means that it isn't.

The point is that the check doesn't represent anything that's happening there and then in the game-world - it simply determines whether, at some point in the past, the character learned a particular set of facts or didn't.

 

[Gilladian]

Now firstly I know that 99% of bad player assumptions are down to poor DM planning (maybe not 99% but a portion, to be determined later) but there are times where players see something and latch on to it and go in the wrong direction. An example of this is:

"You enter a Dwarven Stronghold that has been taken over by a Human Archmage a century or so ago. You reach a large door, immediately the whole room glows red and Earth Elementals begin to appear (in rising numbers and in power)"

now you have two options:

1) Fight 10 waves of enemies
OR
2) Use Knowledge (Arcana) to try to unlock the door
and the player's choice
3) Try Knowledge (Dungeoneering) (best I could think of off the top of my head) to try to see how the Dwarves would unlock the door. (and then I roll them a 1 openly or anything secretly)

Now the bad assumption is ASSUMING one way or the other but in this case assuming the trap is a security feature of the Dwarves and not the Archmage.

Note: I've not read the entire thread; someone else may have made this point - this strikes me as bad DMing for one major reason. You, as the DM, have decided that there is ONE solution that is "the right one" in this situation. The players are supposed to know what you're thinking, and respond to it with the proper move. Anything else is a "bad assumption" on their part. Players are NOT mind-readers. They take choice three (or four or five or anything else you never thought of) because choice 2 is NOT obvious.

As the DM, you NEVER decide what the best option is. You present a situation; a room full of summoned elementals that are too strong to be defeated in combat. Provide at LEAST 3 clues that reveal a)who created the trap b) how the trap works and c) what the most obvious action will provoke as a response.

Then you sit back and have fun watching your pcs do all the funny, crazy and hopefully successful things they will try. And you, as DM, respond with what you know is the "real" situation; you don't have to worry about what they don't figure out - you don't CARE if they never realize who set the trap, if only they figure out that scraping the runes off the wall will disable it (or whatever they try - again, you're not set on "one solution" as the right one).

 

[Hussar]

My solution would be to have the lock be of Dwarven design once the players had latched onto that. Why not roll with it?

 

[delericho]

Likewise, I haven't read the whole thread.

My position on faulty player assumptions is this:

If I hear the players making a bad assumption, I first ask myself if this is a conclusion they've come to because I've miscommunicated something (or, indeed, failed to communicate something), or if it's something they've come to themselves. If in doubt, I assume the former, knowing how error-prone communications can be!

If I decide that it's potentially my screw-up, then I'll make sure to correct the bad data. So, if they're building a strategy that the bridge ahead is guarded by 10 orcs when it's actually 1,000 orcs, and the PCs would know this, then you can be sure I'll correct them!

If I determine that it's an assumption they've leapt to based on... well, whatever really - but where they've got all the information they should have and it has been communicated clearly - well, that's their problem. If they're about to run into trouble, well, hopefully they'll figure out a way out of it.

If they're discussing what to do and they're running out of ideas, or running in circles, I'll make sure to periodically reiterate the known information (or, better still, write it down and give it to them). It's not my job to nudge them in a particular direction or to emphasise certain information, but it is my job to make sure they have the appropriate facts available with which to make their decision.

And, with respect to Knowledge checks, I err on the side of being lenient. If they look at an Arcane rune, I'll flat out ask for a Knowledge(Arcana) check. I'm happy to trust my players not to metagame too much based on "it must be something arcane!"

(Finally, although it tends to apply more to mystery scenarios rather than issues of interpreting dungeon dressing, but I tend not to include deliberately misleading information. That is, if the Grand Vizier is secretly the murderer, I don't include a bunch of clues that point to the King being behind it all. IMX, players are very adept at generating their own false leads; I don't need to do it for them!)

 

[N'raac]

Now firstly I know that 99% of bad player assumptions are down to poor DM planning (maybe not 99% but a portion, to be determined later) but there are times where players see something and latch on to it and go in the wrong direction. An example of this is:

"You enter a Dwarven Stronghold that has been taken over by a Human Archmage a century or so ago. You reach a large door, immediately the whole room glows red and Earth Elementals begin to appear (in rising numbers and in power)"

now you have two options:

1) Fight 10 waves of enemies
OR
2) Use Knowledge (Arcana) to try to unlock the door
and the player's choice
3) Try Knowledge (Dungeoneering) (best I could think of off the top of my head) to try to see how the Dwarves would unlock the door. (and then I roll them a 1 openly or anything secretly)

Now the bad assumption is ASSUMING one way or the other but in this case assuming the trap is a security feature of the Dwarves and not the Archmage.

Now this is only an example but do I tell the players "No it's not a dwarven security system" flatly and without the usual DM's "you don't really know" edge OR do I just let them die in Earth Elementals? (or if there is a Player's Method (you know how they ALWAYS pick option 3) then I would still like to know what you would do to deal with this)

The players suffered through several pointless fights before expending a lot of resources and losing a party member before killing all the enemies, this meant that the Archmage was too strong for them and killed all but one party member (I fudged the second-to-last guys death because I didn't expect anyone to live and then the last guy rolls a 20 )

First, I'm assuming 10 waves is not a winnable situation for the PC's. My first bias would be to put a time limit on the wave of enemies. The runes begin to glow (Round 1), glow brighter (rounds 2 - 4), mounds of earth rise up (Round 5), gradually forming into vaguely humanoid shapes (Rounds 6 - 8), pull themselves loose from the floor/walls (Round 9) and move to the attack (Round 10). Then the trap shuts off until the next wave is to be released. If the players are hurting, and have no idea how to get past the door, then they should back off. The system shuts down (why waste its resources?), and either the existing elementals chase the PC's, or perhaps they return to the stone (again, to maintain materials). If they show no sign of retreating, there's no harm suggesting to a character that they are reminded of an ol mentor, a History check recollection, or some other suggestion of retreating and regrouping rather than grinding their blood and bones against the rocks.

they are there as a distraction to the players while they make Arcana checks to dispel the magic to open the door.

That's exactly my point is that there are runes that the players don't understand, they roll a Knowledge (Dungeoneering) check to decipher the Dwarven runes (except they aren't Dwarven they are Arcane) and never think to check if the runes are Arcane.but the example may be a bad one, the party make an assumption and try to save themselves but the assumption is wrong and they continue to try ideas that aren't what they need to do to conquer the simple lock, how do you deal with this? (I'm guessing from your answer it hasn't come up)

I agree with those noting knowledge is passive. The runes ARE arcane, and a wizard should not need to carefully consider whether these runes might, or might not, be arcane to get a roll. Anyone who speaks Dwarven should be able to see that these are no Dwarven runes he recognizes. Did you have to stop and carefully consider whether Knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft would open the door, or did you *know* which was appropriate? The PLAYER should not be demonstrating knowledge that these may be arcane, the PC should be - he gets a Knowledge skill roll.

Finally, let's not forget a Lock can be opened with Open Locks - or, at least, the attempt should stand a chance of revealing this is no ordinary lock. Dispel Magic might shut the mechanism (and/or trap) down long enough for the heroes to get past (but now it's back when they want to leave), and Rogues can disarm magical traps. Spellcraft can ID a spell (like Wizard Lock) that is already in place, or an unusual effect with a very high roll. There's not just "one, true way" to address the challenge.

Try telling the players "You're proceeding under a false assumption. I know it was a few sessions ago, but do you remember that scene where <insert assumption-busting information>..."

If you feel that that's too metagamey, ask them all to make Intelligence checks first, then tell the above to whoever rolled highest.

Doesn't have to be that obvious - it could even be giving that high INT check the nudge "what makes you so sure the Dwarves built this?"

interesting, I read that to mean that Knowledge checks don't mean looking through a book for something, just look and think, but you have to think about it.

I can't imagine that surface thoughts are enough to remember that 3000 year old Dwarven King's grand-nephew's name, you have to think "What did I learn in *here* (for example, "What did the old dwarven caretaker say about the family killed during the Great War" but it isn't something you learned an hour ago, it is for things months or years ago, or else you would have to roll a Knowledge check for "What did the old lady send us down here for?" so it won't be stuff you just know, you have to think about it...actually the more I think about it, it should take time

Like most of the other posters, I disagree. Knowledge is "what you know". There is no ability to "consider again" (like the real life racking of one's brain to recall), and there is similarly no need to focus on it. If I ask you the name of the Queen of England, or the first President of the US (pick based on your nationality), do you stop and carefully consider, or do you know the answer?

I would give a character a re-roll with a bonus if he had the opportunity to consult a generic research source. I'd also consider the possibility that, with this research source, it's a matter of time, as the answer is in there (but "he has to roll to pick up the significance" is a valid approach as well).

Or you can dig in your heels, require the players to demonstrate their in-character knowledge before permitting a roll to use that knowledge (which, IME, will eventually result in every issue being greeted with each player listing each of his skills in turn to see if one of them holds an answer), grind them against the elementals and then wonder why they arent happy with your game.

 

[Omegaxicor]

@delericho Thank you for answering the question, I kinda think that might have been the issue maybe the misunderstood something I said

@Gilladian I wonder if either you have misunderstood something in my post or I am misunderstanding you, it is my fault because I have decided that the runes MUST be Arcane (@Hussar mentioned that and I think that having such a complex security feature inside their own house seems peculiar at best, bizarre at most) rather than decide there are runes and let the party "secretly" decide what type of runes they are? (I am sure I am misunderstanding that but I don't understand what you mean by "I have decided what the best option is")

@N'raac First, yes the idea would be something along that, but the players just fought and fought and fought and eventually killed the monsters. (remember this was just an example of the issue I was talking about, I haven't actually played this scene with players)

second, ignoring the Knowledge check which seems to have become a large portion of the thread and I accept that I was unaware of that, the party could Open Lock on the door once the security system had been disarmed (or do it before but with an increased DC and without being able to Take 10/20) or Dispel the security system (assuming they chose to do that, but again I am not going to tell them "you can dispel this trap to disable it temporarily" and maybe the Wizard doesn't have the spell prepared)

Thirdly, The "What makes you think the Dwarves built this" seems good but I am not good at coming up with subtle nudges, I would quite like to be able to do that but either the players ignore what I tell them or it is the same as saying "yea the runes are Arcane and you need Spellcraft checks to disarm them" which may be fine for some groups, in fact that seems to be how everyone plays and that might be the problem.

Finally, if the player could go away and look for the information in a book then s/he just learns the information, if s/he goes to a random library then I would ask for a Gather Information check or some such to determine if s/he can find the correct book (not every library has every book in existence).

Though I never said the players weren't happy with the game (obviously getting TPKd or just standing in a room for hours won't be fun for anyone)

EDIT: [MENTION=40176]MarkB[/MENTION] sorry I forgot to respond to that post, I can see how that works but mechanically the difference lies in what the players say "I try to think if I know anything about the Dwarves that built this place that would help in the situation" would be different than the player saying "What can I determine about these runes".

I wonder if as you are describing the system (which I clearly have House Ruled), as the party walk into a big room and I begin explaining what is in the room, do I have to roll everyone's Knowledge checks (in each relevant fields) before explaining what they know and that would be all they know, meaning no more Knowledge checks regardless of if the player examines something specific?