Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pint_Glass_Crusader 08-11-07, 02:01 AM	So I was running a small home game last night for a few new players and one quite experienced player (who should know better!). The game was good and was flowing quite smoothly, but a couple of times I had to deal with a bit of (quite blatant) meta-gaming from our experienced bod (who was playing a typical BDF)... evenutally this happened... DM: "A trio of skeletal humanoid rise before you. Each is clutching a pitted and filthy short sword, which, despite their poor state of repair, still look capable of causing a serious wound." Anyone have any knowledge skills they want to use before Initiative rolls? (DM looks at the newbie Cleric, and tries some, not so siruptitious, nodding) Fighter Bob: Right guys, these are skeletons, we need bashing weapons to do the best damage. Time to use those [free] clubs I had you all get at character generation. DM: Whoa! Were is this coming from? Fighter Bob: Erm... Shuffles through his character sheet. Fighter Bob: My "Uncle Dave" was a famous adventurer and he told me how to deal with skeletons such as these. Fighter Bobs player gives a smug little grin... DM: This isn't the first time this evening that [8 INT] Fighter Bob has remembered a salient piece of information that "Uncle Dave" taught him. Fighter Bob: [[out of character]] Hey whay can I say "Uncle Dave" was a great guy! DM: Well maybe a small XP penalty (say -5!) is in order... Fighter Bob: [[out of character]] NO WAY MAN!!! That's not fair! DM: Well put it this way, Fighter Bob already knows the information that the other guys are just finding out on their own. That is demonstrated by the small XP penalty... Unless of course, "Uncle Dave" wants to give us another piece of advice on the subject? Fighter Bob: [[Out of Character]] I think that's about all the advice he has for this session. DM: Very good... If that's it we'll roll initiative. Cleric Jim: (the penny suddenly dropping!) Wait I have Knowledge - Religion, does that do anything. DM: It might do, give me a D20 roll plus your skill total. Cleric Jim: [[[rattle of dice]]] Oh! thats a 2... is six any good? DM: Not really you know they are skeletons, and that they are resistant to some types of damage, but you don't know which. Intitative rolls... Fighter Frank: Me First... I charge with my clu... [[[DM gives a hard stare!]]] readied longsword! DM: Good idea! Anyone else got any good stories about meta-gaming, how to deal with it fairly, or general "watch outs" for the fellow DMs out there?
Hariman 08-11-07, 08:16 AM	After I'd failed a number of will and fortitude save, each time immediately asking what new horror was visited upon my character: DM: Make a will save. Me: OK, 11, great, what now? DM: You failed your will save VS DM, stop metagaming.
control freak 08-11-07, 10:18 AM	i have no problem with "uncle bob" telling them what each monster does, as long as those monsters are some what common (common now zombies and skellys are so common every adventurer sees them sooner or later and learns what hurts them the most) now if uncle bob told him about say, a beholder fight and he knew each eye ray.... then i might get mad (but then again i have a knowlage monkey that with a decent roll can know any relivant information about monsters) in any event i have no problem in home games with minor metagaming, which is why i make up some of my own templates to fight the PCs the best anti metagaming thing i have ever used is telling them to draw area B when there was no combat but to not draw area C and then they decided to say we move on (ambushed PCs go WTF!)
MatteBlack 08-11-07, 12:08 PM	The "Uncle Dave" routine is pretty bogus. If these are brand new first level characters they probably wouldn't know about a skeleton's DR unless their character background listed some sort of incident with them. That being said, using bludgeoning on skeletons would be a pretty common thing to know. A fighter without knowlege: religion would probably know it after minimal experience with skeletons no matter their intelligence. To head off the issue, it is probably best to remind an experienced player who is slamming his character's mental stats how you tend to apply intelligence, skills and such during character gen. You seem to have it the right way but, alot of players come from games where player knowlege is allowed to supplant character knowlege and limitations.
control freak 08-11-07, 12:14 PM	i dont mind it if its for SIMPLE things, skelys, zombies, and basic undead and basic creatures (common goblins/orks...) i wouldnt mind practicaly giving them the stat block
DroidTrooper 08-11-07, 04:40 PM	Honestly, if you don't want meta-gaming like that, you need to hold back some information. Give them humanoid sized creatures in tattered, but yet hooded robes, or perhaps there armor is still reasoanbly intact covering obvious traits. Either the party can recognize them is undead or skeletons or they cannot. As you tell them its a skeleton or skeletal, well you are the one who gave the information out. If this seems to be more of home game, or at least you regularly game with the same players, its not to difficult to collect a list of what knowledge skills they have and the relevent modifiers. Then whenever they encounter a new creature, you can have them all make rolls and give out the amount of information you think is appropriate based on those rolls. But my opinion is, as soon as you say what it is they are fighting they are going to know something. If you tell me something has tenticals, I will assume it has reach. If you say something is huge, I will assume it is strong. If it has a large mouth I will fear it has swallow whole. If it waves its arms around with no apparent purpose, while muttering or holding a symbol aloft I will assume its a caster. How obvious they are with that information is of course a matter of debate, but the players give the orders still know it, and at least in some degree are going to use that information. That said, if there is discresionary role playing experience. You are every bit in your right to deduct it, with whatever reasoning you deem fit. It is to be dispensed at your discression, not a god given right of the players to have irregardless of their actions.
jstorrie 08-11-07, 04:51 PM	I would definitely let this slide for skeletons. It's not a big deal. The knowledge-roll business is more important for when your PCs are fighting rare creatures with abilties that don't immediately follow from the visible qualities of the creature. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at someone attacking a red dragon with cold, if the red dragon just breathed fire on them, but knowing the specific DR of older dragons or of strange planar creatures is a knowledge-roll thing for sure. Skeletons? Not so much.
Banor 08-11-07, 07:03 PM	You don't need a university degree to understand that chopping bones with a blade is harder than with a stick... hell butchers understood that long ago... For more exotic monster or non obvious bonus a Knowledge check is ok but otherwise its overkill
Samwise 08-11-07, 08:05 PM	You don't need a university degree to understand that chopping bones with a blade is harder than with a stick... hell butchers understood that long ago... For more exotic monster or non obvious bonus a Knowledge check is ok but otherwise its overkill You don't chop bones with a stick either. You tenderize meat with a bludgeon, you slice meat with a blade, you separate meat with a cleaver which combines a slicing edge with weight to power through a bone. Which overall means that a battle axe or two-handed sword should tear up a skeleton, while a scimitar or long sword should get stuck in the bones. As D&D is not a simulation and just a general fantasy game, such detail can be passed on, and we can just use general categories for weapon effects.
magebeast 08-11-07, 11:42 PM	If he was a REAL meta-game monkey, he'd have eaten the XP hit.
jstorrie 08-12-07, 12:51 AM	Eaten it with a grin on his face, totally.
clannagh 08-13-07, 03:03 AM	I have noticed that it is common to give out the name as the very first piece of information about a creature ... which unfairly disadvantages newer players who havent studied the spots off the monster manual and advantages metagamers. As far as I can tell the first piece of information given out after a knowledge check does NOT have to be a creatures name and hence I never do so , instead giving out salient information about one of its features. I usually still give the name, but as the third or fourth bit of information if they roll high enough.
Samwise 08-13-07, 03:13 AM	A good metagamer will be able to identify a creature solely by its standardized description. What would control that is if LG used the new WotC format for knowledge skill checks which gives the name and all creature type information for making the base roll, and general, often useless, flavor text for exceeding it. That would be fair to all players.
Frumpkis 08-13-07, 04:11 AM	I have noticed that it is common to give out the name as the very first piece of information about a creature ... which unfairly disadvantages newer players who havent studied the spots off the monster manual and advantages metagamers. As far as I can tell the first piece of information given out after a knowledge check does NOT have to be a creatures name and hence I never do so , instead giving out salient information about one of its features. I usually still give the name, but as the third or fourth bit of information if they roll high enough. Y'know, I've never even thought of that. I like your idea of holding back on giving out the name of the creature though, I'll have to try that out.
Frumpkis 08-13-07, 04:22 AM	A good metagamer will be able to identify a creature solely by its standardized description. What would control that is if LG used the new WotC format for knowledge skill checks which gives the name and all creature type information for making the base roll, and general, often useless, flavor text for exceeding it. That would be fair to all players. No, that wouldn't be fair. You would be penalizing people who invest heavily in knowledge skill ranks. If 2 players both roll 20 on their dice, but one guy has 1 rank in Know religion while the other has 15 ranks, and they both get the same 'crunch' information, how is that fair?
Madfox11 08-13-07, 04:30 AM	Samwise is exaggerating a bit... those tables DO include cruch information, but they hide it in fluff text and interpreting it does take some thinking. It would be like saying that the osyluth induces fear in those attacking it, but not mentioning it is an aura with a x feet reach.
Samwise 08-13-07, 04:58 AM	Samwise is exaggerating a bit... those tables DO include cruch information, but they hide it in fluff text and interpreting it does take some thinking. It would be like saying that the osyluth induces fear in those attacking it, but not mentioning it is an aura with a x feet reach. Heh. A bit. ;) But some entries are distinctly more useful than others. Also, they appear to use base rolls of 10 + CR, which is different from the core rule of 10 + HD. And they aren't 100% consistent with that, so I wonder if there is some issue with changing it officially.
Lupo 08-13-07, 08:11 AM	If he was a REAL meta-game monkey, he'd have eaten the XP hit. therefore give him an GP hit: hey, so you sent an immediate telegram to your "uncle dave" so that costs you . . . . where does your uncle live at the moment by the way?? hm, an additional "speak with dead", sums up to a total of 200 gp - that should stop him at once ;) the problem is that sometimes metagaming is used as a plot device or for solving in-game riddles - infamous "isle of woe" anyone???? ciao martin m.
Rerednaw 08-13-07, 02:03 PM	I have noticed that it is common to give out the name as the very first piece of information about a creature ... which unfairly disadvantages newer players who havent studied the spots off the monster manual and advantages metagamers. As far as I can tell the first piece of information given out after a knowledge check does NOT have to be a creatures name and hence I never do so , instead giving out salient information about one of its features. I usually still give the name, but as the third or fourth bit of information if they roll high enough. "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster." DM: Okay you know that you are facing the dreaded Buhweaselfleezhmuffin. Player: "Huh?" I do not consider the 'name' of a creature useful information...unless it is the True Name we are talking about. I've run into meta-gaming quite a bit. I was playing a mod and someone meta-gamed our party into a direction I would not have chosen. Actually it happened twice. As a result? We failed the mod. I do my best to avoid meta-gaming, but sometimes I forget I'm not playing my wizard or bard with knowledge(everything). As a DM I warn the group if I see it happening. If it continues then I warn I'll start docking the discretionary roleplaying xp. It has never gone past that. For 'monster experience' my characters write down what monsters they face on each AR. Makes it easier to say 'hey I know that's a ghast, stay back and don't let it claw ya.' when I have "AR7 - fought ghasts, got sickened by stink, got paralyzed, and chewed on." As for monster-typing, if the party is facing dragon #7, I don't mind if the wizard in the group, sighs and says "okay knowledge(arcana) 37 - what is the dragon's energy affinity? I'll assume he has DR/magic and SR."
dkay807 08-13-07, 04:54 PM	I think you're overreacting quite a bit here. This is a game of tactics as much as it is a game of role-playing and having the right tool for the job is very important. While I respect that some players like to follow strict role-playing rules where they will not "pull out the right tool for the job" unless someone at the table has made a knowledge check yeilding the necessary information and relayed it to the table, I respect other players that use their knowledge and experience as a player to make the right decisions. However, as a DM, I give only enough information to the players upon immediately seeing a monster as is necessary. For obvious creatures such as skeletons and werewolves, most experienced players can glean what type of tool is optimal without even making knowledge checks. For creatures that may or may not be obvious, such as Slaadi and Liches, the players may or may not recall the necessary tool depending on their level of experience and for far less obvious creatures such as some obscure outsiders or oozes, experienced players can make educated guesses but they'll probably need to make the knowledge check or use trial and error to figure it out. D&D is a role-playing game but again, it is also a strategy game played by a TEAM. Therefore, I encourage players to use their experience to contribute to their team. If I spring an encounter on the players and describe their opponents as "large, blue-skinned, bipedal toads" and one player figures out that the creatures are blue slaadi and that the party will need to cast align weapon (law) on the fighter's greatsword in order to crack its damage reduction, then I applaud them for using their experience to their advantage. If they want more information that they don't already know, well then they'll have to make appropriate knowledge checks. The new players can learn a lot from Bob the Fighter in the OP's example and will hopefully be able to contribute to teams that they are members of in the future in a similar fashion. However, every DM has his or her own style and it is important for DMs to set clear expectations with their players prior to starting a game so that this type of frustration does not occur. Just my two cents.
AOSOL 08-13-07, 08:18 PM	I run a bunch of incredibly experienced friends and we all try to gain the upper hand on one another constantly. It's on going joke and well the combat went like this; the power cleric went up and attempted to turn and surprizing missed his turn check even though he roled max. The sorcerer gnome came up next and shot off an illusion spell which created glowing signs above the undead's heads. When I asked what the signs said he tore up little pieces up paper, made little tents and wrote numbers on them and placed them on each miniature undead I had out. Imediately I noticed that he had done the math for the undead creatures HP total and weaknesses and placed them in game combat just based off the clerics missed turn check. He though it was pretty clever and I asked him, "Did you take into account this encounter might be 4 above APL?" and procided the deal his off with a death gaint. :D
trollbill 08-13-07, 08:27 PM	Normally, don't think that level of metagaming is all that big of a deal. And trying to stomp it out at that level can cause over-reactions on the anti-metagaming level. Some of the anti-metagaming technics I have seen from DMs that hate metagaming are far mor abusive than the actual metagamers. I particulary love (sarcasm) DMs who insist you can only say no more than 6 words as a free action (the rules say no more than a few sentances) and then, only on your turn. Not only is it hard to keep your mouth shut 5/6th of the time, but this is truly detrimental to party cooperation. What's even worse is that same DM will then go on to chastise you for lack of teamwork after he pretty much made it impossible to do. Now on the other end I do have one metagaming pet peave. I have an extensive collection of D&D Miniatures minis and will use the exact correct mini for an encounter if I have it, which is often. When the players ask me what the creature looks like (which is already mildly annoying because I just gave them the encounter description) I point to the mini and say, "It looks exactly like that." Now if they happen to be knowledgable enough to recognize the mini, fine. But on more than one occasion I have had people then simply pick up the mini, look at the bottom of the base to read its name and go, "Oh. It's a XXX." If I wasn't slackjawed at them doing this every time, I'd slap them. It's one thing if you already know...but picking the mini up to further metagame without a thought just blows my mind. I am fairly generous when it comes to metagaming. But that's too much even for me.
Jay_Ibero_911 08-13-07, 08:38 PM	Normally, don't think that level of metagaming is all that big of a deal. And trying to stomp it out at that level can cause over-reactions on the anti-metagaming level. Some of the anti-metagaming technics I have seen from DMs that hate metagaming are far mor abusive than the actual metagamers. I particulary love (sarcasm) DMs who insist you can only say no more than 6 words as a free action (the rules say no more than a few sentances) and then, only on your turn. Not only is it hard to keep your mouth shut 5/6th of the time, but this is truly detrimental to party cooperation. What's even worse is that same DM will then go on to chastise you for lack of teamwork after he pretty much made it impossible to do. Now on the other end I do have one metagaming pet peave. I have an extensive collection of D&D Miniatures minis and will use the exact correct mini for an encounter if I have it, which is often. When the players ask me what the creature looks like (which is already mildly annoying because I just gave them the encounter description) I point to the mini and say, "It looks exactly like that." Now if they happen to be knowledgable enough to recognize the mini, fine. But on more than one occasion I have had people then simply pick up the mini, look at the bottom of the base to read its name and go, "Oh. It's a XXX." If I wasn't slackjawed at them doing this every time, I'd slap them. It's one thing if you already know...but picking the mini up to further metagame without a thought just blows my mind. I am fairly generous when it comes to metagaming. But that's too much even for me. Wow...picking up the mini...that's terrible...though personally I do like knowing what to call whatever it is that we are attacking/being attacked by...
ShinAkuma2 08-13-07, 08:47 PM	Now on the other end I do have one metagaming pet peave. I have an extensive collection of D&D Miniatures minis and will use the exact correct mini for an encounter if I have it, which is often. When the players ask me what the creature looks like (which is already mildly annoying because I just gave them the encounter description) I point to the mini and say, "It looks exactly like that." Now if they happen to be knowledgable enough to recognize the mini, fine. But on more than one occasion I have had people then simply pick up the mini, look at the bottom of the base to read its name and go, "Oh. It's a XXX." If I wasn't slackjawed at them doing this every time, I'd slap them. It's one thing if you already know...but picking the mini up to further metagame without a thought just blows my mind. I am fairly generous when it comes to metagaming. But that's too much even for me. Hm, I never even thought of that. Typically, if I know its name, I know what it looks like, so if I'm looking at the bottom, it's because I have no clue at all what it is and am interested in the mini. I never considered using it as a method of cheating.
Timlagor 08-14-07, 08:00 AM	A creatures Natural Weapons and their Reach are generally obvious at a glance without any sort of check ...not sure where to find a rules reference for that but I'm pretty certain there is one ..anyone? (some things have a disguised reach to catch you by surprise) Someother things you can guess.. and I always assume that the salesman at the magic weapon emporium (whatever!) will have made some effort to sell the various weapons by explaining the various creatures they will be good against: not a lot but "blunt if it's nothing but bones" is pretty easily remembered. You should not deny your players a proper description though certainly important features may not be obvious (hit that BDF with a spot check :P) but everyone should know what weapons and armour are being used and how many huge spiky tentacles and heads it has.
Lupo 08-14-07, 08:54 AM	A creatures Natural Weapons and their Reach are generally obvious at a glance without any sort of check ...not sure where to find a rules reference for that but I'm pretty certain there is one ..anyone? (some things have a disguised reach to catch you by surprise) Someother things you can guess.. and I always assume that the salesman at the magic weapon emporium (whatever!) will have made some effort to sell the various weapons by explaining the various creatures they will be good against: not a lot but "blunt if it's nothing but bones" is pretty easily remembered. You should not deny your players a proper description though certainly important features may not be obvious (hit that BDF with a spot check :P) but everyone should know what weapons and armour are being used and how many huge spiky tentacles and heads it has. but with this attitude one can substitute any skill ranks in knowledge skills with metagame knowledge. the costs for a min-maxed BDF with an INT of 6 is to NOT know all the DRs of all templates out there :rolleyes: a BDF should ALWAYS attack with his most loved weapon until he is either aware that he does not as much damage as he normally would or a party member informs him about a needed material :cool: a caster who doesn't make the knowledge check normally should NOT cast "assay spell resistance" until his "magic missiles" fizzle :) and if players overdo these thingies, i as a DM should and have to step in and stop them. i have nothing against DC 10 or even no checks for: red dragons: hey the breathe fire skeletons: hey one can crush the bones with bludgeoning weapons ghuls: damn, they are drooling for some reason enemy casters: hey he is mumbling for some time now, i don't know what he is doing, but disrupting him is a good idea and the like :) For 'monster experience' my characters write down what monsters they face on each AR. Makes it easier to say 'hey I know that's a ghast, stay back and don't let it claw ya.' when I have "AR7 - fought ghasts, got sickened by stink, got paralyzed, and chewed on." claiming "i have encountered these DR 50/candystick critters already" with DM notes on an AR is WRONG and i wouldn't allow it unless one can support this with an appropriate knowledge check but i would grant a bonus for this check . ciao martin m.
Pint_Glass_Crusader 08-14-07, 01:54 PM	A hearty discussion so far... good, good! I am of the opinion that there is always some meta-gaming and this can be discounted, provided it doesn't harm the game or reduce anyones enjoyment. My point in my original post was that "Fighter Bob" was bypassing Knowledge skill checks which could have been made by the Wizard or Cleric, thereby allowing them to participate in the way they are supposed to. As this was the character's (and all but one of the player's) first encounter with a skeleton and DR, it made for a better feel to allow the players to discover the details of the encounter on their own, thereby getting the feel of the game, rather than just being spoon-fed the information they needed. Incidentally... the next couple of interactions went something like this... Fighter Frank: I've rolled a 16 with my longsword! DM: Great that's a solid hit, how much damage? [[clatter of dice]] Fighter Frank: A 6, plus my strength bonus gives 9. DM: That's a really strong blow, it could easily have beheaded one of the goblins you fought earlier. Your blow shatters through the skeleton's ribs, but the thing keeps coming! Give me an INT check... Fighter Frank: My INT is 11, I rolled a 2! DM: That's great... you decide that you could eventually smash this thing with your longsword, but a blunt weapon or hammer would probably be better. Fighter Frank: [[in character]] Guys... I think if you got clubs, now's the time to use 'em! This is [roughly] how the next bit went down... no need to give a [meta-game] spoiler first and even the Cleric's fluffed knowledge check was quickly forgotten in the scramble to get the clubs outs... and another new player got to see the system works and got to see they could contribute to more than just swinging a longsword. I later told them that now they have experience of skeletons, they are safe to hand that information to other players. I even heard that one of the young guys was playing last night in an APL2, with some other experienced players. When the [inevitable] skeletons turned up, he shouted "don't worry guys, I've beaten these before! WE NEED CLUBS!"...*bless* he's only 11!
Timlagor 08-14-07, 09:31 PM	Lupo: you can guess that a skeleton needs a club or an incoporeal needs a magic weapon but knowing that Silver is good against Vampires won't help you identify one. [I take the point about new players and the skeletons though] I agree that Metagame knowledge should not besubstituted for skill checks but there are limits. I entirely disagree with the position that a Fighter will forget all about monsters he's actually fought before just because he doesn't have ranks. That sort of thing is hard to track across the multiple GMs in LG but having the fighter use the wrong weapon against the same thing in 6 successive modules breaks immersion much worse than the reverse imo. It sounds like the OP handled the situation well.
solbergb 08-14-07, 10:29 PM	claiming "i have encountered these DR 50/candystick critters already" with DM notes on an AR is WRONG and i wouldn't allow it unless one can support this with an appropriate knowledge check but i would grant a bonus for this check . Uh....why is this wrong? Seems to me that even the dumbest fighter would remember what finally worked on the monster last time, especially if his usual weapon was ineffective. Failures are what you remember most. Of course you do have to recognize the monster and that isn't always easy. A hydra sure, but a ghoul, ghast and wight look pretty similar until you get close enough to smell, and some vampires may also look kinda like them. The best part about recording stuff you fought is when you get misinformation. My barb/druid thinks that piercing is good on oozes because every time somebody used it, the monster didn't split, but just died. (in each case the split bit had been reduced to the level of hp where it just died before anybody used piercing). Or the guy who thinks Mummies have weak will saves because somebody tried a command undead scroll on it and it rolled a nat 1. My experienced Monk Burke once mistook an innocent NPC for a ghoul, because he was in tattered clothing, smelled bad, was emaciated, didn't seem to notice the cold and had long fingernails....the party clerics who ran over were quite snide with him after they rolled their Kn religion. Regarding DR, as a GM I always report it (you don't need an int check, characters by the rules automatically know when they hit it). DR/5 is "like hitting wood", DR/10 is "like hitting steel" although I modify this a bit for things like lycanthropes whose DR is "flavored" more like really fast healing. When asking about "how much went through" as a player I try to remember to use terms like that instead of metagame terms, but don't always in heat of the moment.
Lupo 08-14-07, 11:03 PM	Lupo: you can guess that a skeleton needs a club or an incoporeal needs a magic weapon but knowing that Silver is good against Vampires won't help you identify one. [I take the point about new players and the skeletons though] I agree that Metagame knowledge should not besubstituted for skill checks but there are limits. I entirely disagree with the position that a Fighter will forget all about monsters he's actually fought before just because he doesn't have ranks. That sort of thing is hard to track across the multiple GMs in LG but having the fighter use the wrong weapon against the same thing in 6 successive modules breaks immersion much worse than the reverse imo. It sounds like the OP handled the situation well. Uh....why is this wrong? Seems to me that even the dumbest fighter would remember what finally worked on the monster last time, especially if his usual weapon was ineffective. Failures are what you remember most. Of course you do have to recognize the monster and that isn't always easy. A hydra sure, but a ghoul, ghast and wight look pretty similar until you get close enough to smell, and some vampires may also look kinda like them. The best part about recording stuff you fought is when you get misinformation. My barb/druid thinks that piercing is good on oozes because every time somebody used it, the monster didn't split, but just died. (in each case the split bit had been reduced to the level of hp where it just died before anybody used piercing). Or the guy who thinks Mummies have weak will saves because somebody tried a command undead scroll on it and it rolled a nat 1. My experienced Monk Burke once mistook an innocent NPC for a ghoul, because he was in tattered clothing, smelled bad, was emaciated, didn't seem to notice the cold and had long fingernails....the party clerics who ran over were quite snide with him after they rolled their Kn religion. Regarding DR, as a GM I always report it (you don't need an int check, characters by the rules automatically know when they hit it). DR/5 is "like hitting wood", DR/10 is "like hitting steel" although I modify this a bit for things like lycanthropes whose DR is "flavored" more like really fast healing. When asking about "how much went through" as a player I try to remember to use terms like that instead of metagame terms, but don't always in heat of the moment. but that IS the concept of knowledge, the accumulation of ones experiences. and a BDF without any ranks in "knowledge (the planes)" will just not have the KNOWLEDGE to distinct between devils and demons, period. i will grant him to know that they are not from the "neighborhood", but nothing more. if your character is so eager about encountered monsters, just put some ranks in the appropriate fields, your character gets some skill points every level - at least one. your system would substitute an infinite amount of skillpoints put in "knowledge" fields with a short note "encountered demons X in mod Y". ciao martin m.
Fsi-Dib 08-15-07, 04:47 AM	This might go to the house rule area, but should the monsters then be categorized into basic/generic monsters, uncommon monsters, and exotic monsters (terms stink, I know)? I would allow even a first level fighter to know what kobolds are good at and what are their normal tricks (trapmaking, spontanous magics, running away cowardly). D&D lacks good rules on how to stop meta-gaming. This is obviously because there's no method from stopping a player know something that exists on Monster Manual IV page 79. One way to make the meta-gaming players confused are templated monsters, or monsters with odd class levels (ever seen a Troll Monk?). Personally I like it that players help each other out with tactics, basic knowledges, and tricks. This is because a new player might not know the option of tripping, disarming, or bullrushing; or that Hold Person does not work on non-humanoids. Of course, I don't like advices during the game such as... Player #1, to Cleric: Don't try to turn it. It has turn resistance +4, and at least 12 hit dice. Instead I would like a simple advice... Player #1, to Cleric: It looks too tough to obey your whimpy little badge. XP penalties are the worst thing ever. Never, I say again, NEVER give XP penalty for meta-gaming. It decreases the moral of the group severely and makes the game less enjoyable. Instead alter the creature's abilities a little.
Timlagor 08-15-07, 06:32 AM	but that IS the concept of knowledge, the accumulation of ones experiences. and a BDF without any ranks in "knowledge (the planes)" will just not have the KNOWLEDGE to distinct between devils and demons, period. Most people look at KNowledge skills as book learning. Given that they are just as likely to yield useful information about creatures you have never fought before that makes a lot more sense. I never said anything about distinguishing between Demons and Devils nor anything that could lead you to think that. What the fighter might recognise would be "a chain devil" -they're pretty distinctive- or "a Vrock". Misinformation is great too :) i will grant him to know that they are not from the "neighborhood", but nothing more. if your character is so eager about encountered monsters, just put some ranks in the appropriate fields, your character gets some skill points every level - at least one. your system would substitute an infinite amount of skillpoints put in "knowledge" fields with a short note "encountered demons X in mod Y". No. It still wouldn't give him anything he didn't learn from his previous fights and it also wouldn't give him anything on any new creatures. Your system by contrast would refuse the 28 Int wizard (or similar for wisdom if you think that's more relevant) information on creatures he's defeated, made successful knowledge checks on before, and studied extensively when the dice where against hi: your solution doesn't work unless you are arbitrarily using completely different rules for people who are trained in the relevant knowledge. People do forget things but lots of people think your position is ridiculous so trying to enforce it on us is going to be rather frustrating for you. [no one should object to you not using the information from previous combats ...except IC of course] Fsi-Dib: you aren't allowed to alter monsters in LG
Pint_Glass_Crusader 08-15-07, 08:40 AM	I would allow even a first level fighter to know what kobolds are good at and what are their normal tricks (trapmaking, spontanous magics, running away cowardly). A first level fighter with ranks "Knowledge - Dungeoneering"... yes. But the only knowledge I would allow any charaters without knowledge ranks, is with the basic [PC] races (and before you start, not the ones with the new character cards, like Snow Ef or Kobold!) and character classes (not PrC that they have not encountered). Half the fun of the game is discovering these things for yourself. Now granted, if this is your 70th Fighter in D&D/LG you may be tempted to meta-game... if that's the case, keep it to yourself. For example: Fighter Bill is a new character played by an experienced player. The party have just had their first encounter, it was kobolds. Rather than spoiling the aptmosphere with a sudden "those were kobolds, bet there are loads of traps and watch out for sorcerers they're the leaders of these cowardly dragon-rats!" Why not try... 1) Suggesting the Rogue go first to check for traps. You can never be too careful. 2) Advise the Wizard/Sorcerer that they can delay an action to counterspell, or you heard they could anyway! 3) Run screaming at every Kobold you see, using your [Fighter's] intimidate skill, to make them shaken or panicked. It's much better, keeps the game balanced and shows your player experience, rather than simply spoiling it for potenital newbies. D&D lacks good rules on how to stop meta-gaming. This is obviously because there's no method from stopping a player know something that exists on Monster Manual IV page 79. One way to make the meta-gaming players confused are templated monsters, or monsters with odd class levels (ever seen a Troll Monk?). Does the game need to write down rules about this? It's only a game, a gentle reminder [to wise up!] to those who are spoiling it for others, is usually enough. Personally I like it that players help each other out with tactics, basic knowledges, and tricks. This is because a new player might not know the option of tripping, disarming, or bullrushing; or that Hold Person does not work on non-humanoids. And so do I... but, experienced players should lead by example. If a player's "Spiked Chain Expert" demonstrates trip attacks, a new player is more likely to say "I want that" rather than if you tell them to take it... this makes new players feel bullied. The same with spells, let them find out the hard way that some spells don't work. Usually your/my [perfectly balanced] Fighter/Barbarian can pick up the slack if need be. Even failures can be fun if played the right way! But, I too draw the line when it comes to life or TPK situations... the "These Myconids are murdering us, should I use 'hold person'?" situation... then you are allowed to scream "NO! FIREBALL!!!" at the top of your lungs. XP penalties are the worst thing ever. Never, I say again, NEVER give XP penalty for meta-gaming. It decreases the moral of the group severely and makes the game less enjoyable. Instead alter the creature's abilities a little. I agree in so much as they should be avoided, as we all know that XP penalties without GP penalties are actually an advantage overall. However I have found that a small (-5 XP) penalty, at low level, is enough to punish persistent offenders. It will knock character progression off-kilter enough to annoy them, but not give an advantage at higher levels. That is the day they will curse their meta-gaming ways... and the punishing GM of course! ;)
solbergb 08-15-07, 10:03 AM	your system would substitute an infinite amount of skillpoints put in "knowledge" fields with a short note "encountered demons X in mod Y". ciao martin m. Knowledge skills are for something the character has never encountered. Anything in the prehistory of the character can fall into this bucket, as characters start with zero xp, they are unlikely to recognize much that is greater than CR 1. I'm sorry, even the dumbest fighter doesn't need to roll knowledge nature to recognize a bear when he's fought 16 of them before. Or even one, if it gave him trouble. If gaining knowledge skills was automatic with BAB increase or something, your position might have merit. As it is not, slavish adherance to the knowledge skill mechanics is patently silly. He might not notice the fiendish template, but if he's seen a lot of half-fiends he might recognize from the bat-wings that somethign is amiss... He won't know whether the dangerous-looking fiends that just teleported in need cold iron, silver or "good" but if he's fought a chain devil before and silver worked, he'll reach for silver....they really don't look like anything else. Even if you HAVE knowledge skills, you get situations like this. "Roll Kn Planes" "I roll a 14." "You recognize that the cute female over there with the bat wings is a demon type, not just a half-fiend" Player: "Probably a succubus. I cast prot evil 10' radius. I say "Use cold iron and it has SR!"" GM: "You bad metagamer!" Player: "The last three cute women with bat-wings I encountered were succubi. One charmed half the party, one suggested somebody into an embrace and drained all his levels and the third hovered above us and laughed until the archer cycled through to cold iron and the sorcerer switched from magic missile to sonic orbs" Or alternately: Player: "Last time I rolled kn planes vs a succubus I got a rolled a 30, and learned that it has DR/cold iron. SR and primary offense is charm type spells." Player: "I'm sorry, I'm not going to play like my character undergoes a modify memory spell at the end of every adventure or because I rolled a 3 this time instead of a 19. My character is guessing about this bad guy. If it is some other kind of demon disguised to look like a succubus, most of what I just did/called out is wrong"
magebeast 08-15-07, 10:17 AM	but that IS the concept of knowledge, the accumulation of ones experiences. and a BDF without any ranks in "knowledge (the planes)" will just not have the KNOWLEDGE to distinct between devils and demons, period. i will grant him to know that they are not from the "neighborhood", but nothing more. if your character is so eager about encountered monsters, just put some ranks in the appropriate fields, your character gets some skill points every level - at least one. your system would substitute an infinite amount of skillpoints put in "knowledge" fields with a short note "encountered demons X in mod Y". ciao martin m. Knowledge skills represent a study of the subject outside your practical experience. How else would a first level cleric be able to recognize those Zombies? Expecting a character to forget all their hard-won tactical knowledge is silly.
KShaver 08-15-07, 10:50 AM	A first level fighter with ranks "Knowledge - Dungeoneering"... yes. Actually, knowledge dungeoneering has nothing to do with kobolds. Requiring a knowledge is denying a character from acting on any outside information on a creature. Thats like saying a smart character could be told how to defeat an opponent by an NPC earlier in the mod, but he couldn't use that advice in the encounter because he can't remember it without the knowledge skill. Whats the cutoff point between being able to remember what someone told you or what you experienced and when you absolutely have to have the knowledge skill to know anything? Take the previous example a step further and the smart characters own companions can't give him advice in the middle of an an encounter, because he doesn't have the appropriate knowledge skill and thus can't remember what they just said.
Lupo 08-15-07, 02:36 PM	Knowledge skills represent a study of the subject outside your practical experience. How else would a first level cleric be able to recognize those Zombies? Expecting a character to forget all their hard-won tactical knowledge is silly. being a int 6 BDF might qualify a character as a bad learner ;) i do teach, i have some students who can't keep a simple algorithm in their memory for five minutes not to mention entire days :P never mind, i will stop to participate in this topic here, but don't expect me to follow this home brewed system of "GM notes for encountered critters" that substitute "knowledge [you name it]" and skill checks. ciao martin m. <edit> as i stated before, i have nothing against DC 10, DC 5 or even DC 0 knowledge checks for common, very common or all to common critters and most characters will make them automatic or very likely so no problem there.
magebeast 08-15-07, 05:05 PM	being a int 6 BDF might qualify a character as a bad learner ;) i do teach, i have some students who can't keep a simple algorithm in their memory for five minutes not to mention entire days :P never mind, i will stop to participate in this topic here, but don't expect me to follow this home brewed system of "GM notes for encountered critters" that substitute "knowledge [you name it]" and skill checks. ciao martin m. <edit> as i stated before, i have nothing against DC 10, DC 5 or even DC 0 knowledge checks for common, very common or all to common critters and most characters will make them automatic or very likely so no problem there. So if this 6 int BDF, who also happens to be level 12 and has probably fought skeletons oodles of times rolls a 1, thus netting him a -1 on his roll, he doesn't know that he needs a bashing weapon for the skeletons?
solbergb 08-15-07, 06:55 PM	being a int 6 BDF might qualify a character as a bad learner ;) i do teach, i have some students who can't keep a simple algorithm in their memory for five minutes not to mention entire days :P . Do you teach when their lives depend on knowing the answer? Perhaps they don't really care about the algorithm you're trying to teach. It kind of makes a difference. I can't remember much of that calculus I used to use every day in engineering, but I can remember very clearly EXACTLY what I did wrong each time I broke a bone in my body, had a near miss (or fender bender) in an automobile etc. Or to put it another way - I am not a doctor, nor have I ever studied any medicine beyond first aid stuff taught in high school. But I can quote chapter and verse on every single medical condition that has affected me or my wife, and many that have affected loved ones. I can talk about proper treatments, medicines, the whole nine yards. I wouldn't have any ranks in "profession medicine" or "Knowledge diseases" or "Healing". But I remember very clearly anything I've bumped into in my life that affects whether or not I'll have a loved one around (or I'll be around). This is true of anybody, regardless of education or native intelligence. All they need to understand is (in 6 int ork speech) "Doctor say smoking kill me, but I like how smoking make me feel, so I try not to smoke but do anyway". and when they're short on breath they'll think "Maybe me shouldn't smoke so much" but when they're irriitable or tired or etc will think/say "If me just smoke, me feel better. Gimme cigs now!" This really isn't different from "big brains are always yelling to use blunt on bony things, but I like axe better so I just swing harder, cause it not so hard to kill them, but that time when a skeleton cast spells on me, I really had to change weapons, cause axe did nothing, and club did nothing till I put magic oil on it"
Pint_Glass_Crusader 08-16-07, 01:59 AM	This really isn't different from "big brains are always yelling to use blunt on bony things, but I like axe better so I just swing harder, cause it not so hard to kill them, but that time when a skeleton cast spells on me, I really had to change weapons, cause axe did nothing, and club did nothing till I put magic oil on it" This of ocurse being my point, after their first adventure, I normally let the lesser meta-game stuff slide (e.g. blunt for skeletons, slashing for zombies) this demonstrates some experience. It is especially relevent in LG where I may not always be DM, so if a level 2 fighter comes to the table and they are fighting an ooze, I don't mind if they blurt out "I was in a group with Zim the Wizard and he told me some oozes don't like fire!" I do mind if they don't let the party wizard or anyone else with a relative knowledge skill have a go first. I generally use the following routine: 1) Encounter "new" monster 2) Ask those with relevent knowledge skills to make a check 3) Ask for any other input before initiative rolls 4) Initiative rolls Once the initiative roll is made, any further "meta-game" type discussion (i.e. use fire/clubs/slashing/lightining) is much more in keeping with the flow of combat, as allies shout advice or support to other members during a frantic melee. It's the use of this "player/meta-game knowledge" before the established "knowledge check" mechanic that annoys me and excludes those players who have dilligently put ranks in these skills (i.e. when [INT 8] "Fighter Bob" blows all the info before they get their chance to shine.)