Knowledge check pile ons (d20)

[S'mon]

I think the real problem ties to ego. I'm a fairly smart guy. I do tend to think of things to ask the GM or strategies to employ that others do not. Therefore, it is a little annoying when I ask about X and fail my knowledge roll because my PC can't be good at everything, that every other player jumps in and eventually gets credit for it because everybody remembers the guy who succeeded and got the answer which required a lucky die roll, not the guy who actually had the brains to figure out what to do.

It's a disconnect of the player ability vs. character ability. Saying "here's an idea, I'll attack with my sword!" isn't particularly rocket science and isn't particularly disconnected from the PC's +5 to-hit with his sword.

Whereas, me thinking to see if I can recognize that small ash pile as to what type of cigarrette it came from so I can match it to the murderer (ala Sherlock Holmes) is fairly clever on the player's part, but not reinforced on my PC's part when he roll's a 1. It further sucks when the next PC roll a 20, and has a better modifier, and then gets all the credit for solving it, when all he really did in game terms is say "me too!"

My preferred approach is to either give the information automatically in response to a request, or else use low DCs, but only give a roll in response to relevant action - so if you are playing Sherlock Holmes, put a few points into relevant skills, and if you ask the right questions you will likely auto-succeed.

I don't like players expecting to auto-pilot through an adventure, merely rolling dice on request. I once had a situation in 4e where the PCs had captured an obviously evil dwarf slaver. He offered to help them vs his bandit allies, if they returned his crossbow. I used an "I am an obviously lying sonofabitch" evil dwarf slaver voice. The PCs happily returned his crossbow, no one requested an Insight check - and when they encountered the bandits, they were very surprised when the evil dwarf started shooting at the PCs!

Some players complained - they said I should have had him make a Bluff check, and have them make Insight rolls, then when one of them succeeded I should have told the players he was lying - without any PC even having raised that as a possibility! Well, screw that.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

In general, I only find it annoying when I ask Player A to make a knowledge check and B, C and D immediately roll themselves, without waiting. I would not mind the OP's situation where A rolls, fails, and asks B, C & D for advice, so B C & D then roll - that seems fine, and makes sense in-world.

Yeah, that's exactly the situation that bothers me. If there was some in-character discussion it wouldn't bother me but to go straight to rolling just because someone else did is annoying. (In fact, I get annoyed when a player makes any skill roll without the GM asking for it.)

My preferred approach is to either give the information automatically in response to a request, or else use low DCs, but only give a roll in response to relevant action - so if you are playing Sherlock Holmes, put a few points into relevant skills, and if you ask the right questions you will likely auto-succeed.

Maybe passive knowledge checks would work well. It'd require the GM to know each PC's skill modifier but it'd let the GM tell the smart PCs just what they know without waiting for the player to ask the right question.

 

[Viking Bastard]

My preferred approach is to either give the information automatically in response to a request, or else use low DCs, but only give a roll in response to relevant action - so if you are playing Sherlock Holmes, put a few points into relevant skills, and if you ask the right questions you will likely auto-succeed.

I do the same, or have started doing so in 4e. I don't call for knowledge checks. I don't really see the benefit of "If you roll DC Medium, you get information X; if you roll DC Hard, you get X and Y!"

If a character has training and inquires, I just tell them.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] Well, to correctly judge your scenario, we'll need to hear a recording of your evil dwarf slaver lord voice to determine just how evil it is

I do the same, or have started doing so in 4e. I don't call for knowledge checks. I don't really see the benefit of "If you roll DC Medium, you get information X; if you roll DC Hard, you get X and Y!"

If a character has training and inquires, I just tell them.

Yeah, that's exactly the situation that bothers me. If there was some in-character discussion it wouldn't bother me but to go straight to rolling just because someone else did is annoying. (In fact, I get annoyed when a player makes any skill roll without the GM asking for it.)

Maybe passive knowledge checks would work well. It'd require the GM to know each PC's skill modifier but it'd let the GM tell the smart PCs just what they know without waiting for the player to ask the right question.

Yeah, I'm thinking this sort of passive approach is the way to go with knowledge skills.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

To the OP: Bring a water pistol to your next session. Next time this happens, bust out the water pistol and squirt the offending player(s) in the face. After an indeterminate period of awkward and stunned silence, carry on as if nothing had happened. Repeat as needed until the offending behavior ceases.