Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7868962" data-attributes="member: 20323">Sure. I apologize in advance for the long reply. There's some nuance here that's easily lost in writing, so I wanted to be exhaustively clear about how I do it. Also, bear in mind that my DMing style in this regard may not translate well to your table; for instance I love Matt Mercer's games, but his frequent calling for "throw away" checks would not work for me as a DM. The specifics matter. For the example of "what do I know about Red Wizards?", the PCs had just found a <a href="https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Red_Wizards_of_Thay" target="_blank">Red Wizards</a> symbol on a corpse, and the wizard player was asking. I also didn't have anything prepared written down. You may recall in some adventures – or in the 3e/4e monster manuals – there were lore sections gradated according to check DC? On rare occasions for plot critical stuff, I do that, and then it's simply a matter of cross-checking the DC table and regurgitating information. But IME most lore checks require a lot more hands-on adjudication. This was the case with "what do I know about Red Wizards?"There's a bunch of lore in my head about Red Wizards. I'm aware of the general 5e DC guidelines (5 very easy, 10 easy, 15 medium, 20 hard, 25 very hard, 30 nearly impossible). And I know these PCs pretty well in terms of backstory, background, race, class, areas of specialty, etc. And I just winged it from there. I did not define a DC – either in my mind or spoken to the players – because any number I came up with would be disingenuous. This is where having a DM shines. I can make a judgment call based on a multiplicity of factors that an algorithm can't reasonably be expected to handle.I don't make "information about Red Wizards" a DC 10 check or a DC 20 check. There's a wealth of information about Red Wizards that might be pertinent to the player asking and the current situation the PCs face, and this information is spread across a range of DCs.If I had to define how I adjudicated this, something roughly like this might be accurate (but also bear in mind all the posts I've made in this thread about pile-on checks!)...the player got cumulatively more info the higher the check...Intelligence check regarding faction knowledge (Red Wizards)DC 5 – faction's name, symbol, base of operations, rumors which may or may not be true (because the wizard player couldn't possibly roll lower than about 9, I gave this info automatically)DC 10 – general purpose/intent/mission (e.g. magic item traders seeking political influence)DC 15 – leader, specific purpose/intent/mission at local level (e.g. Szass Tam)DC 20 – major redefining historical moments for the faction, faction ranks/titles, and possibly capacity to sift through false rumors (e.g. loss of zulkirs and transformation of Red Wizards & Valindra Shadowmantle as major ranking member)DC 25 – a possible minor secret (e.g. Valindra Shadowmantle is leading Red Wizards in Chult)DC 30 – a possible major secret (e.g. existence of Doomvaults & Valindra Shadowmantle is a lich)I agree – more specific questions are better. However, there are many situations where a player won't drill down to specifics: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The player is tired, rushing to attend to an off-table matter, and/or trying to move a scene along. All legitimate reasons.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The player genuinely doesn't know what to ask because they don't know anything about the subject (faction, in this case). They don't know what to ask...yet. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The player is a veteran with lots of lore in their head, but they don't want to metagame, and they're using the check as narrative justification for how much lore they can dispense. This was definitely in play in my example.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The player doesn't want to "tip their hand" to the DM. I view this as problematic, since it derives from a players vs. DM mentality that I don't fully subscribe to, but I treat this compassionately. Usually, like you say, follow up questions will help drill down to what they actually want to know.</li> </ul>Because the player was running a fairly experienced wizard from Waterdeep, it seemed entirely reasonable he'd know at least something about Red Wizards. However, there are plenty of other examples where I'd flat out tell the player their PC didn't ever cross paths with the subject before...generally, instead of dismissively saying "you know nothing", I try to seed some rumors (with plenty of falsehoods or superstitions). This requires me being familiar with the player characters, so it often is harder at the beginning of a campaign (when the players are still feeling out their PCs and I'm not 100% recalling their race/class/background/bond/flaw/ideal choices yet), but gets easier the deeper in we get.Obviously, play with good players. But even good players can succumb to this sort of negative metagaming on rare occasion. What I like to do is use "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." in situations like that. This dovetails back to my earlier comment about making Flashback Facts a potential stake attached to knowledge checks. The more negative metagaming a player might slip into, the more license I allow myself to creatively twist what they come up with.Yeah, that's something to watch out for, but I don't see that happen very often. Usually, if a DM is glossing over information, it's happening at the specific detail level of room description (or something similar), which doesn't impact major plot points. This is a pretty natural consequence of a DM being a person with limited ability to recall minutiae or glossing over poorly written boxed text.More often, when I see my players asking generic questions it's either (a) their effort to curtail their own metagaming around D&D lore, or (b) them jumping the gun on me, whereas if they'd been patient enough to give me another minute or two, I was about to get there.</blockquote>

Verification