Game Systems that Allow Skill Resolution with No Roleplaying

[Umbran]

So, for you, the knowledge check isn't based on what knowledge he has, it is based on what he can perceive and tying it to the knowledge he has?

Come on, folks, haven't any of you used a Google search before?

I think most knowledge rolls are going to be of the form, "What do I know about {thing}?"

And the question then becomes one of how well the character can describe {thing}.

A great deal of the time, it will be, "What do I know about {thing that is in front of me}?" And that leads to the situation I described above - when the player first thinks of the question, he or she doesn't know much, so it is, "What do I know about guys in grey uniforms?" The answer is really of the form, "Your search produced too many results to be helpful - there are too many grey uniforms and nothing distinctive separating what you have here from the rest." The question, "What do I know about guys in grey uniforms with swastikas on them?" really is a different question, as far as finding clear and meaningful references is concerned.

And this, of course, is seasoned with a bit of common sense, as to how many times the character can rephrase the question and how much new information is necessary to keep the player from spamming you with questions until he or she gets an answer they like.

 

[Umbran]

That can provide a bit of internalized RPing. "Being from the city of Such-and-such, and knowing their flag has a seven-pointed star, I start looking for those in the mural of the night sky . . . or anything else I might notice."

But, to be clear, that's a perception check, not a knowledge check. The player is looking for stars, and attaching their own meaning to them, rather than the GM telling the player that the presence of such stars is meaningful.

 

[Mark CMG]

Come on, folks, haven't any of you used a Google search before?

I think most knowledge rolls are going to be of the form, "What do I know about {thing}?"

And the question then becomes one of how well the character can describe {thing}.

A great deal of the time, it will be, "What do I know about {thing that is in front of me}?" And that leads to the situation I described above - when the player first thinks of the question, he or she doesn't know much, so it is, "What do I know about guys in grey uniforms?" The answer is really of the form, "Your search produced too many results to be helpful - there are too many grey uniforms and nothing distinctive separating what you have here from the rest." The question, "What do I know about guys in grey uniforms with swastikas on them?" really is a different question, as far as finding clear and meaningful references is concerned.

And this, of course, is seasoned with a bit of common sense, as to how many times the character can rephrase the question and how much new information is necessary to keep the player from spamming you with questions until he or she gets an answer they like.

So, you're coming around on the idea that a PC can have lapses in memory as all people have, like forgetting something in a moment due to pressure (how many test takers have re-thought over a question after a test and know they missed an answer they knew or not recalling someone's name until they are moving away after you should have greeted them). I think it is fair to allow failed checks to represent forgetting in a moment and I wonder if the requirement for "new" or "substantial information" might be too restrictive.

But, to be clear, that's a perception check, not a knowledge check. The player is looking for stars, and attaching their own meaning to them, rather than the GM telling the player that the presence of such stars is meaningful.

Odd, I thought I was agreeing with your previous stance on how knowledge checks would work. So, in this case, the player looking for more information to improve his knowledge and thus gain a retry on knowledge check of what a mural might mean requires a perception check (I was going to just give the player an automatic, since he specifically asked for seven-pointed stars).

 

[GMMichael]

How do systems that encourage this type of play sit with other GMs?

Even if your system of choice theoretically allows it, do you play this way?

Do you prefer this type of gaming over something less game-driven?

How might you GM such a scenario differently, even if only a little?

Am I hearing an implicit "Do I know anything about a skeleton that hovers, but doesn't otherwise move?" from the player? Who then immediately assumes that a roll is required to know anything at all?

That could easily be either GM or player error, but going by Thread Title, I'm going to assume it's the system's fault. If that's the case, it doesn't sound much like a roleplaying game.

I play it like this:

PC: Have I seen this before? (or) Knowledge check!
GM: Does your background imply knowledge of such phenomena? How many points do you have in that knowledge skill?
PC: Shucks. I have one point in X skill. And my background is mostly politics.
GM: All you know is: it's a floating skeleton.
GM: (makes a behind-the-screen Detection roll for the character with the best chance to notice gelatinous shimmer or sloshing, considering both position and skill points.)

It's hard to say that I prefer this type of gaming over something more game-driven, because the player's side is ONLY game-driven. The GM's side, I suppose, is drama-driven, since he's basically ignoring the player's rolls in favor of making the encounter scarier. I'm sure there's a compromise in there, to the effect of narrating the character's thoughts (the checks of understanding) as more clues are revealed about what the thing is as is gets closer.

Knowledge checks are implicitly, "Given the current data, what do I know about this?" To do otherwise leads to nonsensical results. Let me give an example to illustrate....

GM: You are sneaking up the corridor, and see a man in a grey uniform in the middle of the chamber that opens ahead of you. His back is to you.
Player: Do I recognize the uniform?
GM: (rolls die) No.
Player: I continue to sneak to the end of the corridor, and then around the perimeter of the room.
GM: As you go, you see the man has a band on his left arm you could not see before - it is red, with a white circle on it, and in the circle is a swastika...

Ergo, the check must, to some degree, be based on what information the character has, and getting more information makes it a different test.

"A swastika? This man worships the Brahman?"

Sorry. I missed my knowledge check by 2. But I think your example helps to illustrate a problem with knowledge checks. A character, trying to figure out what he knows about something, is going to have a list of possibilities (if his intelligence is high enough. If it's low, he'll just feel dumb.) And as he gets more information, that list will dwindle. Whether the correct knowledge is in that list depends on exactly what the character knows. This last thing shouldn't be up to a knowledge check - it should be up to the GM and the player. The knowledge check should, in most cases, be a last-ditch roll for when the GM says to himself, "wow, I just have no clue if the character would know about this."

Should the PC get another knowledge check to, say, identify a floating skeleton, if he failed an earlier check? Well, if he made the earlier check, the GM has already said "I just have no clue, so let's make one roll to end the subject."

 

[Mark CMG]

Am I hearing an implicit "Do I know anything about a skeleton that hovers, but doesn't otherwise move?" from the player? Who then immediately assumes that a roll is required to know anything at all?

That's a good series of questions. It does seem like the player (according to the GM) went straight for the dice before asking an obvious question that the GM answers after the dice rolling reflex has calmed down.

I play it like this:

It's hard to say that I prefer this type of gaming over something more game-driven, because the player's side is ONLY game-driven. The GM's side, I suppose, is drama-driven, since he's basically ignoring the player's rolls in favor of making the encounter scarier. I'm sure there's a compromise in there, to the effect of narrating the character's thoughts (the checks of understanding) as more clues are revealed about what the thing is as is gets closer.

Thanks. Interesting take.

 

[Umbran]

So, you're coming around on the idea that a PC can have lapses in memory as all people have

Coming around on? I don't think I've ever been against that idea. I'm not sure where you got that from.

I think it is fair to allow failed checks to represent forgetting in a moment and I wonder if the requirement for "new" or "substantial information" might be too restrictive.

I think if you change the timescale, that would be sufficient. If you ask on the first combat round, and again on the second, I'm likely to give you the same answer. If, after the combat, you have an hour to rest, I might allow a recheck. If you get back to a town, and have access to a library for a day, I might allow another recheck, possibly with a bonus for equipment.

Odd, I thought I was agreeing with your previous stance on how knowledge checks would work.

My stance hasn't changed. My stance is not strict, but is guided by common sense and depends upon the situation - my stance is adjudication, not a single hard rule for all situations.

So, in this case, the player looking for more information to improve his knowledge and thus gain a retry on knowledge check of what a mural might mean requires a perception check (I was going to just give the player an automatic, since he specifically asked for seven-pointed stars).

Well, you say it there - the character is *looking* for information - looking is perception. Interpretation of information is knowledge.

Say the player asks about seven-pointed stars... but they aren't relevant? Maybe the artist painted a mural about that city, but he wasn't a government loyalist, and so didn't include stars. Or maybe the mural was painted before that symbol went on the flag. Or maybe the city isn't referenced in the mural at all. Failure to see stars doesn't necessarily mean anything.

 

[Umbran]

Whether the correct knowledge is in that list depends on exactly what the character knows. This last thing shouldn't be up to a knowledge check - it should be up to the GM and the player. The knowledge check should, in most cases, be a last-ditch roll for when the GM says to himself, "wow, I just have no clue if the character would know about this."

Only in the same way as a Strength check is the last-ditch roll when the GM says to himself, "Wow, I just have no clue if the character can lift this." Yes, if it is a really simple thing, you don't call for the check. But if it is not so simple, under duress, or the like then you call for the check.

The check is actually the way to step back from the arbitrary decision by the GM. Just like you don't generally have the GM decide if the PC hits in combat, you don't have the GM decide what the PC knows.

 

[Mark CMG]

Coming around on? I don't think I've ever been against that idea. I'm not sure where you got that from.

And this is with the caveat that substantial information be acquired later for the retry and can't be retried just based on temporary forgetfulness? (Like recalling someone's name moments after not being able to do so?) If this isn't a possible retry chance for knowledge check then I was mistaken in saying you might be coming around. To me, if a player put forth that once the pressure (mild though it is) was gone when the person turned to go and the player wanted to make another knowledge check to recall the name, I'd be inclined to call such a request as common sense since it is something that can happen every day to always anyone in reality.

 

[Riley37]

Back to the first example, here's how I roll. You might find this harsh.

***
'Err, hmm. Know: religion!' *rolls high*
"You haven't heard of whatever this is"
'Oh. Arcana?' *rolls*
***

If a player declares that their PC jumps off a cliff, then I roll damage. No discussion. They jumped off a cliff. They fall. Damage occurs when the fall ends and they hit the bottom. Whether they ever do that again is up to them.

If a player says "religion!" and then "arcana!" then the player is *immediately jumping to the conclusion that something is supernatural*, and I rule as if their PC is doing the same. When people focus their attention *within an assumption*, they're more likely to spot relevant details, and LESS likely to spot details which don't fit the assumption.

They jumped to a conclusion. Damage occurs when they hit bottom. Whether they ever do that again is up to them.

If the player had said "Hm, do I know anything which this could be?", then I would have asked for an INT check, with a good chance of then telling the player "You've heard of invisible things, and of visible things carried by invisible things."

Players choose what questions they ask. As a DM, I answer *the question they asked*.

 

[Umbran]

And this is with the caveat that substantial information be acquired later for the retry and can't be retried just based on temporary forgetfulness?

At this point, I think I've been clear - a change in timescale (rounds to minutes, minutes to hours, hours to day, and so on) or more information can probably get you a re-roll. Not just try each round until you succeed. This keeps us close to the spirit of the "no retry" rules without completely stymieing the players forever, and giving them some clear directions about what's required.

This hopefully leads to activity - taking actions that will get information, or changing the scene so events keep moving forward, rather than just, "I try again. I try again. I try again," ad nauseum.