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

[GrimCo]

In my games, there isn't object called "monster manual" with stat blocks. There is accounts written about some of the more common monsters. Some of it it's true, some is false, some is incomplete. More rare the creature is, less written lore is about it and it's more myths and legends than tech manuals.

It treat knowledge checks as ability to recollect things you know. And i warn players in advance that not all information they find is correct. If they succeed on check they get what is considered truthful in setting.

 

[Reynard]

Agreed.

@Reynard I think you're leaving people flabbergasted that a successful check can basically fail, and, can in fact be detrimental. I can see how you might not want to give out monster knowledge willy-nilly, but the better way to do that would just announce that monster knowledge checks will have higher (even significantly higher) DCs rather than basically undermining one of the base assumptions of the game, that a successful check is... well... successful.

That's because people are too used to the idea of binary results and using skills as win buttons.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But what about "interesting"?

If players get wrong information on a success, they are unlikely to use the feature. A feature that isn’t used is pretty uninteresting.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So characters forget common information if they want something harder? Seem contrary to the narrative.

Not sure I understand. Presumably, the characters don’t know anything about the creature, which is why they ask for the check. If they roll high, they get more information. That seems a pretty standard way of operating. The only difference is the players choose what kind of information their characters know.

 

[FrozenNorth]

As an action during combat they can try to recall what they know DC depends on the monster. If it is a unique never before seen monster it is impossible. Common monster probably 12, something very rare that they probably never herd of 20 or 25.

Some things are common knowledge - trolls and fire, Vampires and sunlight etc, PCs can also ask based on their character - "Does my Dragonborn know anything about this kind of Dragon, what does my Tiefling who grew up on Avernus know about Chain Devils?

As a sidenote, even if it a unique monster no one has ever seen before, sometimes a character can gain information just by observation.

 

[billd91]

That's because people are too used to the idea of binary results and using skills as win buttons.

That may be because... they generally ARE about binary results. Did the PC successfully climb the obstacle? Athlethics check says Yes/No. Did the PC sneak past the potential observer? Stealth check says Yes/No. And in both cases, the results are a "win" against that particular obstacle/question for now. But whether they're "wins" in the longer run of fulfilling a PC's goals - that's variable. Knowing a bit about a monster isn't exactly a win button if you still have to actually confront or evade it. It may help, but it's hardly a win in and of itself.
There may be some argument that systematic ways to handle degrees of success (or failure) would benefit the system, but you're taking one of the cases where degrees of success has been a historical use - doping out monster information - and disrupting it by success leading randomly to failure.
I mean, this conversation is getting more and more bizarre.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

You keep asking as if I am coming from this with a fundamental misunderstanding of what "success" is. I'm not. What I know is what makes the game more fun for my players, and what makes for a more interesting world.

It seems you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a successful die roll means. When the fighter rolls to hit the monster and his to hit roll beats the target number, do you make a 2nd roll with a random chance that the fighter didn't hit, but actually missed or hurt themself? That's what you're doing here with the knowledge skill.

 

[GrimCo]

What @Reynard is talking about is players getting information that are considered "true in game world" which may or may not be factually true in regards with monster stat block.

Lets use example. Vampires. In game, it might be common knowledge that vampires are rebuked by holly objects. That knowledge stems from writings of Personius Primus who recorded story told to him by Pieter who was with John when John brandished symbol of his faith and vampire run away. What Pieter didn't mention is that John was decently powerfull cleric who used his Rebuke undead ability. And so, give it couple translations and retelling of the story trough time and now, you have common knowledge about holly symbols rebuking vampires. So your PC encounters vampire, rolls knowledge, succeeds and gets that information. Uses holly symbol and nothing happens. PC did get information that most people in game consider to be true. Too bad that knowledge is based on falsehood.

 

[billd91]

What @Reynard is talking about is players getting information that are considered "true in game world" which may or may not be factually true in regards with monster stat block.

Lets use example. Vampires. In game, it might be common knowledge that vampires are rebuked by holly objects. That knowledge stems from writings of Personius Primus who recorded story told to him by Pieter who was with John when John brandished symbol of his faith and vampire run away. What Pieter didn't mention is that John was decently powerfull cleric who used his Rebuke undead ability. And so, give it couple translations and retelling of the story trough time and now, you have common knowledge about holly symbols rebuking vampires. So your PC encounters vampire, rolls knowledge, succeeds and gets that information. Uses holly symbol and nothing happens. PC did get information that most people in game consider to be true. Too bad that knowledge is based on falsehood.

We know. But if that's the result, then what's the difference between a successful lore check and an unsuccessful one if both give you no useful information?

 

[GrimCo]

Depends how you like to run game world and how you approach what knowledge skill does. Personally, i run games where knowledge skill is your ability to recall pieces of knowledge about certain topics. If you fail - you can't recall anything. It's like blanking out on exam. You know that you studied about topic, but you just can't remember anything about it under stress. On success, you remember, but how true that info is, for that, use Investigation skill. For example, back in elementary school we learned that Pluto is a planet. If you asked me what is Pluto, i would probably tell you- it's a planet (that's sucess on knowledge check). But in the meantime, Pluto was reclassified. Failed check would be - don't know.