D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

[cbwjm]

My own feeling is that both are, effectively, "information spontaneously appearing in your head" if you did not already know the character knew this information previously for some reason, so it strikes me as this just being different people being irritable about different, but still flawed, processes.

Yeah, but you have to differentiate information appearing in your head and information appearing in you character's head. The character sheet can't model everything the character can know and I rather think that either way, the info isn't spontaneously appearing in your character's head, it's being remembered through a trigger, such as seeing some ancient script on a wall, or seeing a triple headed hydra and recalling something about fire.

I should note that I have often said to my players, because you're (character) is from this region, you know XYZ. It works well.

 

[soviet]

players just being able to decide if their character knows a thing is IMO more closer to 'information spontaneously appearing in your head' than a neutral dice check influenced by your skill bonuses to decide if you know it.

'I would know about that because of my time at the academy studying evocations' and 'I wouldn't know anything about elf-magic'

vs.

'Oh I guess I don't know as much about my masters subject as I thought, wtf' and '"Hurr, I guess I must have overheard some wizards talking about evocations at the bar last night, durr'

 

[CreamCloud0]

'I would know about that because of my time at the academy studying evocations' and 'I wouldn't know anything about elf-magic'
vs.
'Oh I guess I don't know as much about my masters subject as I thought, wtf' and '"Hurr, I guess I must have overheard some wizards talking about evocations at the bar last night, durr'

you realize the second half of my post that you conspicuously didn't quote was acknowledging that the skill system isn't perfect but suggesting methods to try increase the chances the wizard is going to be the one to know the magicy thing rather than the barbarian.

however just in general i'm against the principle of players getting to fiat declare their characters know anything about the setting and world because players tend to not know half as much about the setting as they like to think they do, or think just because they the player know then their character should too, they can make their case the GM who can make that call but just being able to say 'yeah so i think my guy would know that' is a no go in my books

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, but you have to differentiate information appearing in your head and information appearing in you character's head. The character sheet can't model everything the character can know and I rather think that either way, the info isn't spontaneously appearing in your character's head, it's being remembered through a trigger, such as seeing some ancient script on a wall, or seeing a triple headed hydra and recalling something about fire.

I should note that I have often said to my players, because you're (character) is from this region, you know XYZ. It works well.

I still stand by the opinion nothing about either process makes it more one or the other though; prior to that moment there was no indication the character knew this particular piece of information, so the only question is the source of and process of deciding if the information was there. The rest is largely a matter of taste in many if not most cases.

(I'm also still of the opinion that in most cases it shouldn't even be a roll, just gated by the presence and level of a skill, if its gated at all (noting your last sentence is not skill but background gated)).

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah. Ultimately, I suppose it doesn't make a lot of difference, but I'd prefer that the dice or the GM make the final call on stuff like this rather than the player.

The other element that hasn't really been touched on is the accuracy or truthfulness of said knowledge.

Rare indeed (but, thankfully, not unheard of) would be the player who had their character intentionally give wrong or faulty information*, in situations like this.

If the DM is providing the info, however, it can be accurate/truthful or not, depending on whatever's going on at the time.

* - sometimes, if time allows, I'll write the info on a note and pass it to the player, thus allowing said player a chance to put it in the character's own words - and maybe edit or augment it a little in the process.

 

[Lanefan]

you realize the second half of my post that you conspicuously didn't quote was acknowledging that the skill system isn't perfect but suggesting methods to try increase the chances the wizard is going to be the one to know the magicy thing rather than the barbarian.

however just in general i'm against the principle of players getting to fiat declare their characters know anything about the setting and world because players tend to not know half as much about the setting as they like to think they do, or think just because they the player know then their character should too, they can make their case the GM who can make that call but just being able to say 'yeah so i think my guy would know that' is a no go in my books

I'm not quite as hard-line as that. If it makes sense that a character's background or upbringing would give knowledge of something then the character is very likely to have said knowledge.

Example from right now in my game: the party have encountered a sentient, but dying, Mallorn tree (check yer LotR for what this is, if unfamiliar). Non-Elf characters wouldn't know a Mallorn from a motorboat, so they're useless for any insight as to what makes one tick. There's three Elves in the party. One of them, as determined through long-established RP, spent her younger pre-adventuring days worrying about fashion and flirting with the cute guys; she's not much for nature knowledge and needs a roll every time. The other two Elves, however, are both Nature Clerics: they know this shizz as well as anyone can, so no rolls required for them unless the desired Mallorn-related info is extremely obscure.

 

[Tesral]

Yeah. Ultimately, I suppose it doesn't make a lot of difference, but I'd prefer that the dice or the GM make the final call on stuff like this rather than the player.

Is the knowledge dramatically critical? If so a roll if not I don't care.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is the knowledge dramatically critical? If so a roll if not I don't care.

Dramatically critical isn't a criterion I follow. Setting logic is my compass.

 

[James Gasik]

Does having the knowledge make the game more fun and interesting? Does it offer the players a chance to learn more of the lore of the setting and become immersed with it?

I remember a published adventure once that asked the players to make a difficult roll, and it was attached to a lengthy bit of exposition about the origin of strange ruins, speaking of an ancient, but now lost civilization of magically advanced people who traveled between the planes of existence, spreading their culture, before mysteriously disappearing. It was only tangentially connected to the adventure, but quite fascinating. And it was entirely possible for this knowledge to never have been learned by the PC's at all!

I didn't even have them roll, why would I? When I play, stuff like this is what I live for.

Last night (Sunday), in a Tales of the Valiant game, we were searching for a rare herb to cure lycanthropy (our Barbarian had gotten bit by a werewolf). While there, we encountered an ancient construct trapped beneath rock, and a strange orb wrapped in some kind of living cable that attacked us while the orb attempted to control our minds. We couldn't destroy it, so we eventually figured out how to bury it and cause it to go dormant.

We were very confused by what it was, and why it was there. The GM told us to make a check, we all failed. "It's very interesting", he said, "I wish you would have made the check." Internally I was screaming at him. WHY DID YOU MAKE US ROLL, THEN?!

You could argue that lore is a reward that has to be earned, but so many moments like this being gated by random chance feels wrong to me. What if it could have led to more interesting further adventures?

Sure, the old school approach is to seek out sages and ask questions, but I've seen this play out many times- the party will get distracted by other things and likely forget about it, unless it somehow becomes relevant again.

Also, not to disrupt the conversation, but what does this have to do with the Fighter, specifically?