Is this Metagaming? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Is this Metagaming? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Chaotis
11-25-05, 08:21 AM Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats? Just wanted to know just in case. I like all my bases covered.
Novacat
11-25-05, 08:41 AM Just make sure your character can make the appropriate Knowledge checks.
wolfram_stout
11-25-05, 08:45 AM If you say. Ah the Troll, we best prepare fire.....All is good

if you say Ah the Ogre Magi, it has XX hit points on average and XX armor class......then that is bad.

It is not in knowing stuff that makes it metagaming it is how you use it.

No kidding, a friend in a game years and years back actually said "I pretend I know that" after hearing another player and the DM discussing something the PC saw when on their own.

If you are concerned, then you are probably fine.
Chaotis
11-25-05, 09:01 AM If you are concerned, then you are probably fine.
Man, that applies to just about everything doesn't it?
Millennium
11-25-05, 09:03 AM Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats? Just wanted to know just in case. I like all my bases covered.
It would be metagaming to know their stats, because D&D characters have no concept of statistics. You might know how strong they are in relative terms ("This thing would give a grizzly bear a hard time" or "Even a kobold could beat that thing with no trouble"), but characters don't know what stats are, not even their own.
Chaotis
11-25-05, 09:07 AM That works for me, so I just stick to things like "it's too strong for us to defeat" and "watch out for that dragon's breath! it'll freeze you!" and I'm fine, right?
Julia of Hillsdown
11-25-05, 09:56 AM That is more in line with how characters view the world, yes.
Phrennzy
11-25-05, 10:02 AM Keeping in mind that the DM will and should call for knowledge checks for you to know these things.

It would be difficult to have prior knowledge of some of the lesser known creatures (like extra-planar creatures) or creatures with bizarre abilities (drowned ones drowning aura).

Don't let your monster knowledge ruin the sense of mystery for other players. Especially if you have new players at the table. If that's the case, drop the monster knowledge altogether.
wolfram_stout
11-25-05, 11:51 AM Keeping in mind that the DM will and should call for knowledge checks for you to know these things.

This would be a good jumping off point for a role vs. roll playing discussion. If a person is playing in character with appropriate phrased talk (no stat talk, all in character) does a good dm, make him make the rolls thus slowing the gaming and possibly breaking the mood, or let the character have some lee-way on maybe know a bit too much for the sake of roleplaying.

wolfram
Thorak
11-25-05, 01:00 PM Like others have said, there are Knowledge checks for this stuff. The mechanics are right there in the PHB, IIRC the DC to know a useful bit of information is 10 + the creature's HD. The exact Knowledge skill that's relevant varies; Monstrous Humanoids and Animals, for instance, are Knowledge: Nature, but undead and extraplanar creatures, obviously, aren't.

And there's also something about how far you beat the DC, something like for every 5 points you beat it by, you know another useful tidbit.

And yes, this means that for your characters to know that trolls regenerate, or fear fire, you need to make a knowledge check. Or learn the hard way.
Chaotis
11-25-05, 01:12 PM So, what should I put in the (________) for knowledge? Monsters would go there right?
thought_riot
11-25-05, 01:40 PM So, what should I put in the (________) for knowledge? Monsters would go there right?

From the SRD, the listed possible fields of study are:

Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)
Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities)
Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)
Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities)
Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead)
The planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, elementals, magic related to the planes)

I personally wouldn't allow "Monsters" because that term is way to broad. For troll's for example, they are giants, therefore, Knowledge (Nature) would tell you what you wanna know about them (after you make a check of course).
Bloodtide_the_Red
11-25-05, 01:44 PM As A DM, I don't realy care much if players know about the common monsters...everyone knows about the common monster. Even thier 'stats'. In the end, it does not matter too much because in my game you will simply be wrong. Sure, it looks like a Troll...but it's not...it's a Half-giant, Chaotic, Troll-kin who is fighter6/cleric3 and has a ring of fire protection......

BT
Chaotis
11-25-05, 01:53 PM Then it would be Knowledge(Nature). Maybe with a Knowledge(Arcana) after that.
Malruhn
11-25-05, 01:58 PM I have a similar character... and when I see a monster, I roll a Knowledge "Nature" check.

When I make it, I just say, "Nasty trolls! Somebody get the torches lit!"

When I blow the roll, "Oh no!! A Drow Spider Centaur thingy! Our weapons can't hit it, we need SILVER!!! They are created by the Drow goddess that lives in a spiders' web in the Tree of Life!! RUNNNNN!!!!!!"

It can be a heck of a lot of fun!! Oh, especially when it is something that we all know about (what do you mean we need Cold Iron to hit a gnoll?!?!)
Thorak
11-25-05, 03:51 PM So, what should I put in the (________) for knowledge? Monsters would go there right?
You'll need multiple skills.

Specifically, Knowledge: Arcana for constructs, dragons, and magical beasts.
Knowledge: Dungeoneering for aberrations and oozes
Knowledge: Nature for animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, and vermin.
Knowledge: Religion for undead
Knowledge: The Planes for outsiders and elementals.

Feel free to mix and match to reflect the kind of knowledge you want. It wouldn't be odd at all to have a monster-lore guy not know a sweet thing about the undead or extraplanar creatures; maybe he's focused on things (relatively) natural to his own world.
Chaotis
11-25-05, 04:07 PM There are 5 knowledge skills, and the character only needs those 5, so that works.
thought_riot
11-25-05, 05:30 PM Also, as a house rule, I use this:

If your character does not have any knowledge skills, he can identify monster characteristics the same way he could with the appropriate knowledge skill, by using an Intelligence check. However, the DC is increased by 5 for every step above CR 3.

So, for CR 3 and below, the DC is 10 + Monster's HD. For CR 4, it's 15 + Monster's HD. For CR 5, it's 20 + Monster's HD, and so on.
The 8th Samurai
11-25-05, 06:34 PM You might want to check out the Archivist class from Heroes of Horror. It may somewhat be in line with what you are trying to do. Interesting class imho.

Hope this helps. Happy gaming.
BadCatMan
11-25-05, 08:46 PM I think its fair that if you're for example playing a Dwarf, and have your +4 Dodge AC vs Giants, and your +1 attack vs Goblinoids and Orcs, then you ought to get away with knowing a fair bit about common Giants (including Trolls), Orcs and Goblinoids. These things are common in your character's world, and he's grown up fighting and learning about them.

Common creatures, such as the above, should have most of their abilities be common knowledge. And everyone knows that Vampires suck blood. Some things are immediately obvious even if they are rare, such as a fire elemental being immune to fire. Rare and unusual creatures ought to require a check.

After each session, I'd go and read up about new monsters we'd faced, partly for curiousity, partly to check that the DM hadn't fudged things against us, and partly because my character had fought those creatures, thus he would remember them and not make the same mistakes again.

And partly for metagaming. :D
Callista
11-25-05, 09:29 PM Best work out a system with your DM, as to how much info you get for knowledge checks. Otherwise he might be too easy or hard on you, and your character's purpose will be worthless.
thought_riot
11-25-05, 10:55 PM After each session, I'd go and read up about new monsters we'd faced, partly for curiousity, partly to check that the DM hadn't fudged things against us, and partly because my character had fought those creatures, thus he would remember them and not make the same mistakes again.

The curiosity, and the character fighting them, are valid reasons. But, it's not your job to check if the DM fudged things. If the DM fudged things, there's nothing wrong with it. It is the DM's job to put a challenge in front of you and if that requires changing things in the core books, it's 100% fair, and also common. (Well, it wouldn't be fair if he gave stuff like a kobold an instant kill attack, but you know what I mean)
BadCatMan
11-26-05, 01:46 AM The curiosity, and the character fighting them, are valid reasons. But, it's not your job to check if the DM fudged things. If the DM fudged things, there's nothing wrong with it. It is the DM's job to put a challenge in front of you and if that requires changing things in the core books, it's 100% fair, and also common.

Monsters like Gibbering Mouthers (which gave my character his first death) seemed inherently unfair to me, so I really just wanted to work out what the hell had happened.

(Well, it wouldn't be fair if he gave stuff like a kobold an instant kill attack, but you know what I mean)

Actually, it was a goblin with an instant kill attack.

Loooong story.
syntaxerror37
11-26-05, 02:13 AM You could always play a bard and rely on your bardic knowledge feature to help you out, not to mention you can take any and all of the knowledge skills as class skills.
Stuu
11-26-05, 02:20 AM Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats? Just wanted to know just in case. I like all my bases covered.
I’m not sure if you are asking because you already know the stats, or if you are looking for an excuse to look them up. My short answer if you are looking for an excuse to look them up; don’t.

The more you know about the monsters you come up against the less exciting the game. I think all DMs who are also players can relate. I know all the monsters in the monster manual, when I met up with a troll or a minotaur, unless the DM leveled it I know exactly how afraid I should be. Believe me when I say it is not as fun as not really knowing.

My advice would be to get the list of knowledges mentioned above, then when you roll your checks get the pieces of info from the DM on the monster for every 5 over the DC like mentioned above as well. If you really want to enjoy the game as a player, keep your nose out of the monster manual, you will kill some of the magic that is dnd.

If you already know the stats, just try to play off of what your character gets from a knowledge check or ask the dm, “What does my character know about this kind of creature?” when you are faced with something you as a player recognize.
Mr. Wilson
11-26-05, 05:29 AM In 3.0 I actually created a Knowledge: Monster skill that was a class skill for all classes.

Imagine my surprise (and my player's despair) when WoTC actually broke down Monsters by type in 3.5.

That said, most of my player's are also DM's, so we're very self conscious about this issue:

Our general rule is you stick to descriptions. Any time you delve into stats, that's real bad.
Ivar the terrible
11-26-05, 05:37 AM Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats?

Characters would not be aware of numerical stats, more like capabilities is what a character could know.
Chaotis
11-26-05, 10:16 AM I'm only getting Basic Game, Monster Manual, PHB, and DMG, all 3.5. Any suggestions away from these books will result in good advice from an inaccessable source. I'm getting these for christmas. My problem was solved with this post:

You'll need multiple skills.

Specifically, Knowledge: Arcana for constructs, dragons, and magical beasts.
Knowledge: Dungeoneering for aberrations and oozes
Knowledge: Nature for animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, and vermin.
Knowledge: Religion for undead
Knowledge: The Planes for outsiders and elementals.

Feel free to mix and match to reflect the kind of knowledge you want. It wouldn't be odd at all to have a monster-lore guy not know a sweet thing about the undead or extraplanar creatures; maybe he's focused on things (relatively) natural to his own world.
Kursk
11-26-05, 01:47 PM Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats? Just wanted to know just in case. I like all my bases covered.

It depends. If you ask your DM (make knowledge check) and he says that you don't know about that monster and then you use what you know as a player and not what the charactrer knows, then that's metagaming.
Chaotis
11-26-05, 02:10 PM PROBLEM SOLVED

In other words, no more posts needed.
Talonz
11-27-05, 11:51 PM This would be a good jumping off point for a role vs. roll playing discussion. If a person is playing in character with appropriate phrased talk (no stat talk, all in character) does a good dm, make him make the rolls thus slowing the gaming and possibly breaking the mood, or let the character have some lee-way on maybe know a bit too much for the sake of roleplaying.

This is a good point for using the 'take 10' rule. Simply allow a character with the appropriate skills to make generic common statements based on his characters knowledge. So long as the odd informative comment doesn't exceed his take 10 skill result, I see no reason to slow the game down with dice rolls for such simple game effects.

If the player wants more detailed information, then yeah, start rolling against increased dcs.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chaotis 11-25-05, 08:21 AM	Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats? Just wanted to know just in case. I like all my bases covered.
Novacat 11-25-05, 08:41 AM	Just make sure your character can make the appropriate Knowledge checks.
wolfram_stout 11-25-05, 08:45 AM	If you say. Ah the Troll, we best prepare fire.....All is good if you say Ah the Ogre Magi, it has XX hit points on average and XX armor class......then that is bad. It is not in knowing stuff that makes it metagaming it is how you use it. No kidding, a friend in a game years and years back actually said "I pretend I know that" after hearing another player and the DM discussing something the PC saw when on their own. If you are concerned, then you are probably fine.
Chaotis 11-25-05, 09:01 AM	If you are concerned, then you are probably fine. Man, that applies to just about everything doesn't it?
Millennium 11-25-05, 09:03 AM	Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats? Just wanted to know just in case. I like all my bases covered. It would be metagaming to know their stats, because D&D characters have no concept of statistics. You might know how strong they are in relative terms ("This thing would give a grizzly bear a hard time" or "Even a kobold could beat that thing with no trouble"), but characters don't know what stats are, not even their own.
Chaotis 11-25-05, 09:07 AM	That works for me, so I just stick to things like "it's too strong for us to defeat" and "watch out for that dragon's breath! it'll freeze you!" and I'm fine, right?
Julia of Hillsdown 11-25-05, 09:56 AM	That is more in line with how characters view the world, yes.
Phrennzy 11-25-05, 10:02 AM	Keeping in mind that the DM will and should call for knowledge checks for you to know these things. It would be difficult to have prior knowledge of some of the lesser known creatures (like extra-planar creatures) or creatures with bizarre abilities (drowned ones drowning aura). Don't let your monster knowledge ruin the sense of mystery for other players. Especially if you have new players at the table. If that's the case, drop the monster knowledge altogether.
wolfram_stout 11-25-05, 11:51 AM	Keeping in mind that the DM will and should call for knowledge checks for you to know these things. This would be a good jumping off point for a role vs. roll playing discussion. If a person is playing in character with appropriate phrased talk (no stat talk, all in character) does a good dm, make him make the rolls thus slowing the gaming and possibly breaking the mood, or let the character have some lee-way on maybe know a bit too much for the sake of roleplaying. wolfram
Thorak 11-25-05, 01:00 PM	Like others have said, there are Knowledge checks for this stuff. The mechanics are right there in the PHB, IIRC the DC to know a useful bit of information is 10 + the creature's HD. The exact Knowledge skill that's relevant varies; Monstrous Humanoids and Animals, for instance, are Knowledge: Nature, but undead and extraplanar creatures, obviously, aren't. And there's also something about how far you beat the DC, something like for every 5 points you beat it by, you know another useful tidbit. And yes, this means that for your characters to know that trolls regenerate, or fear fire, you need to make a knowledge check. Or learn the hard way.
Chaotis 11-25-05, 01:12 PM	So, what should I put in the (________) for knowledge? Monsters would go there right?
thought_riot 11-25-05, 01:40 PM	So, what should I put in the (________) for knowledge? Monsters would go there right? From the SRD, the listed possible fields of study are: Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts) Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications) Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking) Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people) History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities) Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids) Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin) Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities) Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead) The planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, elementals, magic related to the planes) I personally wouldn't allow "Monsters" because that term is way to broad. For troll's for example, they are giants, therefore, Knowledge (Nature) would tell you what you wanna know about them (after you make a check of course).
Bloodtide_the_Red 11-25-05, 01:44 PM	As A DM, I don't realy care much if players know about the common monsters...everyone knows about the common monster. Even thier 'stats'. In the end, it does not matter too much because in my game you will simply be wrong. Sure, it looks like a Troll...but it's not...it's a Half-giant, Chaotic, Troll-kin who is fighter6/cleric3 and has a ring of fire protection...... BT
Chaotis 11-25-05, 01:53 PM	Then it would be Knowledge(Nature). Maybe with a Knowledge(Arcana) after that.
Malruhn 11-25-05, 01:58 PM	I have a similar character... and when I see a monster, I roll a Knowledge "Nature" check. When I make it, I just say, "Nasty trolls! Somebody get the torches lit!" When I blow the roll, "Oh no!! A Drow Spider Centaur thingy! Our weapons can't hit it, we need SILVER!!! They are created by the Drow goddess that lives in a spiders' web in the Tree of Life!! RUNNNNN!!!!!!" It can be a heck of a lot of fun!! Oh, especially when it is something that we all know about (what do you mean we need Cold Iron to hit a gnoll?!?!)
Thorak 11-25-05, 03:51 PM	So, what should I put in the (________) for knowledge? Monsters would go there right? You'll need multiple skills. Specifically, Knowledge: Arcana for constructs, dragons, and magical beasts. Knowledge: Dungeoneering for aberrations and oozes Knowledge: Nature for animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, and vermin. Knowledge: Religion for undead Knowledge: The Planes for outsiders and elementals. Feel free to mix and match to reflect the kind of knowledge you want. It wouldn't be odd at all to have a monster-lore guy not know a sweet thing about the undead or extraplanar creatures; maybe he's focused on things (relatively) natural to his own world.
Chaotis 11-25-05, 04:07 PM	There are 5 knowledge skills, and the character only needs those 5, so that works.
thought_riot 11-25-05, 05:30 PM	Also, as a house rule, I use this: If your character does not have any knowledge skills, he can identify monster characteristics the same way he could with the appropriate knowledge skill, by using an Intelligence check. However, the DC is increased by 5 for every step above CR 3. So, for CR 3 and below, the DC is 10 + Monster's HD. For CR 4, it's 15 + Monster's HD. For CR 5, it's 20 + Monster's HD, and so on.
The 8th Samurai 11-25-05, 06:34 PM	You might want to check out the Archivist class from Heroes of Horror. It may somewhat be in line with what you are trying to do. Interesting class imho. Hope this helps. Happy gaming.
BadCatMan 11-25-05, 08:46 PM	I think its fair that if you're for example playing a Dwarf, and have your +4 Dodge AC vs Giants, and your +1 attack vs Goblinoids and Orcs, then you ought to get away with knowing a fair bit about common Giants (including Trolls), Orcs and Goblinoids. These things are common in your character's world, and he's grown up fighting and learning about them. Common creatures, such as the above, should have most of their abilities be common knowledge. And everyone knows that Vampires suck blood. Some things are immediately obvious even if they are rare, such as a fire elemental being immune to fire. Rare and unusual creatures ought to require a check. After each session, I'd go and read up about new monsters we'd faced, partly for curiousity, partly to check that the DM hadn't fudged things against us, and partly because my character had fought those creatures, thus he would remember them and not make the same mistakes again. And partly for metagaming. :D
Callista 11-25-05, 09:29 PM	Best work out a system with your DM, as to how much info you get for knowledge checks. Otherwise he might be too easy or hard on you, and your character's purpose will be worthless.
thought_riot 11-25-05, 10:55 PM	After each session, I'd go and read up about new monsters we'd faced, partly for curiousity, partly to check that the DM hadn't fudged things against us, and partly because my character had fought those creatures, thus he would remember them and not make the same mistakes again. The curiosity, and the character fighting them, are valid reasons. But, it's not your job to check if the DM fudged things. If the DM fudged things, there's nothing wrong with it. It is the DM's job to put a challenge in front of you and if that requires changing things in the core books, it's 100% fair, and also common. (Well, it wouldn't be fair if he gave stuff like a kobold an instant kill attack, but you know what I mean)
BadCatMan 11-26-05, 01:46 AM	The curiosity, and the character fighting them, are valid reasons. But, it's not your job to check if the DM fudged things. If the DM fudged things, there's nothing wrong with it. It is the DM's job to put a challenge in front of you and if that requires changing things in the core books, it's 100% fair, and also common. Monsters like Gibbering Mouthers (which gave my character his first death) seemed inherently unfair to me, so I really just wanted to work out what the hell had happened. (Well, it wouldn't be fair if he gave stuff like a kobold an instant kill attack, but you know what I mean) Actually, it was a goblin with an instant kill attack. Loooong story.
syntaxerror37 11-26-05, 02:13 AM	You could always play a bard and rely on your bardic knowledge feature to help you out, not to mention you can take any and all of the knowledge skills as class skills.
Stuu 11-26-05, 02:20 AM	Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats? Just wanted to know just in case. I like all my bases covered. I’m not sure if you are asking because you already know the stats, or if you are looking for an excuse to look them up. My short answer if you are looking for an excuse to look them up; don’t. The more you know about the monsters you come up against the less exciting the game. I think all DMs who are also players can relate. I know all the monsters in the monster manual, when I met up with a troll or a minotaur, unless the DM leveled it I know exactly how afraid I should be. Believe me when I say it is not as fun as not really knowing. My advice would be to get the list of knowledges mentioned above, then when you roll your checks get the pieces of info from the DM on the monster for every 5 over the DC like mentioned above as well. If you really want to enjoy the game as a player, keep your nose out of the monster manual, you will kill some of the magic that is dnd. If you already know the stats, just try to play off of what your character gets from a knowledge check or ask the dm, “What does my character know about this kind of creature?” when you are faced with something you as a player recognize.
Mr. Wilson 11-26-05, 05:29 AM	In 3.0 I actually created a Knowledge: Monster skill that was a class skill for all classes. Imagine my surprise (and my player's despair) when WoTC actually broke down Monsters by type in 3.5. That said, most of my player's are also DM's, so we're very self conscious about this issue: Our general rule is you stick to descriptions. Any time you delve into stats, that's real bad.
Ivar the terrible 11-26-05, 05:37 AM	Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats? Characters would not be aware of numerical stats, more like capabilities is what a character could know.
Chaotis 11-26-05, 10:16 AM	I'm only getting Basic Game, Monster Manual, PHB, and DMG, all 3.5. Any suggestions away from these books will result in good advice from an inaccessable source. I'm getting these for christmas. My problem was solved with this post: You'll need multiple skills. Specifically, Knowledge: Arcana for constructs, dragons, and magical beasts. Knowledge: Dungeoneering for aberrations and oozes Knowledge: Nature for animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, and vermin. Knowledge: Religion for undead Knowledge: The Planes for outsiders and elementals. Feel free to mix and match to reflect the kind of knowledge you want. It wouldn't be odd at all to have a monster-lore guy not know a sweet thing about the undead or extraplanar creatures; maybe he's focused on things (relatively) natural to his own world.
Kursk 11-26-05, 01:47 PM	Let's say I made a character that studies monsters, would it be metagaming to know their stats? Just wanted to know just in case. I like all my bases covered. It depends. If you ask your DM (make knowledge check) and he says that you don't know about that monster and then you use what you know as a player and not what the charactrer knows, then that's metagaming.
Chaotis 11-26-05, 02:10 PM	PROBLEM SOLVED In other words, no more posts needed.
Talonz 11-27-05, 11:51 PM	This would be a good jumping off point for a role vs. roll playing discussion. If a person is playing in character with appropriate phrased talk (no stat talk, all in character) does a good dm, make him make the rolls thus slowing the gaming and possibly breaking the mood, or let the character have some lee-way on maybe know a bit too much for the sake of roleplaying. This is a good point for using the 'take 10' rule. Simply allow a character with the appropriate skills to make generic common statements based on his characters knowledge. So long as the odd informative comment doesn't exceed his take 10 skill result, I see no reason to slow the game down with dice rolls for such simple game effects. If the player wants more detailed information, then yeah, start rolling against increased dcs.