Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7608719" data-attributes="member: 6801228">That debate seems to be the core of this, no? So, since you know my position is not the same as yours and you asked "why is there a check" did you not expect that this would be how things would go? You wanted to know which action caused the check, "thinking" was the action. Slow Clap, great sarcasm. But yeah, this stipulation causes more complications as we discussed in the last thread. As you know. And again, you knew my opinion, so what did you expect me to say here. Okay, wait. DMs decide when the dice get rolled correct? So how does any of this overstep the GM's role? One player said they were going to buy something based off a monster's weakness. When the DM asks how they know the monsters weakness, another player says their character could have told them. Neither player has established they actually know the information yet, hence the check. The barbarian is free to make the check as well, but there is an attempt to recall lore, since neither of them know the information yet. Therefore they must first either attempt to recall it or to go research it. It is almost like you forgot the premise of the example while responding to why a check was called for. Okay, two different points to address here. The entire point of the example was that the players were acting upon information their characters might not have had. The players are the ones who claimed to have this knowledge, but without a solid reason beyond "I've read the Monster Manual" then the DM could call for a Arcana check, which is how the game handles recalling knowledge about elementals. This is not trying to invalidate an action, this is establishing whether they have knowledge in-character that they possess out-of-character. This is the point of the knowledge checks. Other objection of yours, "meaningful consequences". How do we force "meaningful consequences" into checks to recall information? If I remember correctly from your position in the last thread, "meaningful consequences" cannot be simply failing the check. That isn't "meaningful" enough. But when the entire check is "do I know this" then there seems to be only three results, "Yes I do" "No I don't" "I think I do but am wrong" Now, since you are saying there are no "meaningful consequences" to the check in this example, then none of those are good enough. In that case, what happens? Do all players automatically succeed knowledge checks? Do they fail? I can guess people would like to memorize as much information as they can, since otherwise you get to decide via fiat whether or not they know something in the game. You are right. Of course, the player started by stating he was going to buy them because earth elementals are weak to thunder damage. So, let us imagine the player says this, but the DM has them roll. They fail the check and do not know the weakness of earth elementals. They then declare that they are buying the scrolls anyways because.... He likes the sound and wants the wizard to cast it more often. But only against earth elementals because... that reminds him of the thunder against the cliffs back home. They are clearing making excuses. That wasn't why they went to buy the scrolls in the first place, they just weren't happy with failing the die roll and wanted to get around that failure to continue with their plan. That isn't respectful to the DM, the game, or the other players. So... you dislike my usage of terms? Fine. Fun exercise, replace all uses of "knowledge check" in my posts with "Intelligence check, possibly using proficiency if they involve Arcana, Religion, History, or Nature, when used to recall lore about a feature of the game world including monsters and mechanical facts about said monsters" Tons of fun for the whole family I imagine. While doing that would you mind informing me why those skill proficiencies are included since there seems to be no point in them? I mean, there are no "meaningful consequences" according to you and the players could just read the MM anyways, so there doesn't seem to be a good reason to include "recall lore" about monsters anyways. Wow. I can't imagine a single table I've played at where that would fly. The player is clearly acting upon out-of-character knowledge and infringing upon the story and fun of a different player. I'm honestly shocked you would find that to be okay. Honestly, it doesn't seem like you worry about much of anything. Was talking to a friend of mine about my old 4e games and I remembered something. I bet you wouldn't worry about it because you don't worry about what characters think, but this is another example of why that could be problematic. We were playing a pirate-themed game, players started out on the largest island in an island chain. One player wants to track down the biggest shipbuilding company in the area. Seems reasonable, and one roll later to figure out who they are they show up. Player declares that his dwarf who had never been on a boat before reaching these islands, begins to describe to one of the shipwrights how to build steel cargo carriers. The multi-ton ships that we currently use for shipping. The player has the most basic knowledge of how this works, like googling how ships are made, and yet wants his character to revolutionize the entire shipping industry in the first session of the game. Just because a 21st century person knows how this thing works and his dwarf has a basic knowledge of blacksmithing. This seems to be a clear cut example of something it is perfectly reasonable not to allow, because there is no reason that the character should be able to figure this out.</blockquote>

Verification