Information is vitally important to a tabletop game (games in general, but hey –we’re talking 4e D&D here). Information drives action; Players perform the actions based on the information that they recieve. Pretty obvious, right? Then why is it still so typical for us to hide information that will create action behind dice rolls?
Yes, the infamous knowledge check. I feel that knowledge checks only exist as a legacy tradition. Knowledge checks exist because we are taught that in roleplaying games that everything a player gets must be earned in some way. You can’t just tell the character info that he would know; he needs to make a history check and not roll abysmally. I think every GM has at least one story where players were locked out of some great piece of story because of a bad knowledge roll. It’s happened to me for sure. What happens when that critical roll gets flubbed is that the players are cut off from the information that leads to interesting actions. Once dennied access to this information by a die roll, the game temporarily floundered while they tried to find something else, or you as GM broke down and gave them the information.
What I’m getting at is simple: Stop making knowledge rolls! The only time it could be appropriate is within a skill challenge. But in the course of gathering information of the game, what you need to do is determine about information is :
- How obscure is the knowledge?
- Who should “receive” the knowledge, if anyone?
If it’s incredibly rare, than you can determine that no one knows it. Not rolling for knowledge checks does prevent PCs for randomly having some obscure esoteric fact, but that wild shot of information is not worth what you gain with the use of Passive Knowledge.
That is the simple solution. With very little tweaking, we can get a feel on a character’s expertise on a subject. Just add 10 to the current knowledge skill and then compare the PCs’ scores with that rating you’ve given it. Who is going to recieve the information is usually easy; give it to whoever has the highest rating. This rewards people for putting theirr points in certain skills and letting them build their expertise.
Similar Posts:
- Skill Challenges #2: Bet your life
- How to Design a Skill Challenge #2: Branching
- From the Archives: Failure is an Option: When to use Skill Challenges.
A Jack of All Trades ,or if you prefer, an extreme example of multi-classing, Gamefiend, a.k.a Quinn Murphy has been discussing, playing and designing games straight out of the womb. He is the owner and Editor-in-Chief of this site in addition to being an aspiring game designer. As you would assume, he is a huge fan of 4e.
By day he is a technologist.
Follow gamefiend on 
This is the point of Gumshoe by Robin Laws. http://www.pelgranepress.com/site/?page_id=672
The players have knowledge that they are given. The question is what they do with it.
I really like this idea, but I would modify it just a bit for my own game. Some knowledge DCs are arbitrary such as information about a nation in Eberron. If my players are from a nation bordering on the nation they need information about I might give it to them more freely. If however they are trying to find out information about a nation far away i.e. Xend’rik I would set the DC a bit higher and if their passive does not give them any information I would allow them to roll on the off chance they had heard stories or read about it at some point in their lives. I really do think this is a great way to speed up the game. Cheers for the great post.
Gumshoe is a major inspiration for this post! The concept is super-portable so needs to be brought over to 4e. Thanks for sharing!
I always freely hand over the facts, but then I insist that the players figure out what it means.
I’ve been thinking about this ever since I read AD&D a couple of years ago. I think the proficiency system was quite elegant and 3E & 4E have too much rolling. It’s a bad habit.
I’ve also been thinking about more simplified skill system based on dice (like in Savage Worlds) for the times you need to roll. I don’t know what to do with skill advancement – give more proficiencies, make up a new skill advancement system or what? Gumshoe system isn’t bad either.
Anyway, get on the power source or the tome show and discuss this (*geas*).
I dealt with this issue by taking a few pages out of the 4e DMG2, regarding collaborative worldbuilding. Any information that the players HAVE to have, I give to them. If they want to make a knowledge check, I set the DC high, and let the players provide their own ideas or suggestions to the result of their Arcana check. Subject to DM veto, of course, but it makes an interesting use for the knowledge skills.
I tend to go with the ‘enough-more’ approach. All the PCs could fail the knowledge check and still get the information they need, but if they pass they get something extra above and beyond the basics.
@David a solid approach. “Here’s the info…what do you do with it?”
@Pekka generally, I’ve been using implicit take 10s all the time! Unless there is some clear reason why we need to stress the players, or unless they want to make an extra effort, we can compare passive to basic DC and move on. I’ll take this to Power Source or Tome Show soon!
@cynicaloctopus and @ryvencedrylle I like these approaches as well! Start at a base level and then use rolls to raise the ante. Nice.
Well,… it’s a ‘good’ idea of some playing styles, but I think passive 10 knowledge checks has some neat things it can do, but I also think that knowledge based checks are used to reward some characters who would have enough knowledge to either build on what they know or research a new subject… a knowledge check doesn’t necessarily have to be made for a fact or rumor or some idea that is imperative for the game to flow. Ideally, you think on your feet based on what structure you place in the styory narriative that you either planned out or outlined… at the very least, outlined with bulletted elements for each point in the outline… which hopefully might include the requirements implied or otherwise for each ‘point’… so, you characters need specific info to carry onward… why did you make your story narrative or the flow of info in your adventure/campaign rely on ONE or some number of knowledge checks that absolutely require a success or a certain DC… seems like thats just either not looking at the plot/story in an open RPG way OR you just didn’t spend the time to really think of better and more refined options for relaying information about something important or imperrative to the PCs.
In my way of doing things, I make information and knowledge checks based on a range of DCs and what info that gives the players, but it either leads to better answers that facilitate knowing that information OR points them in a directon by creating more, events, roleplaying dialogue and general adventure for finding better more direct answers due to a DC that scores in the low range.
It’s not black or white, it’s all shades of grey and then which leads to branching decision points…
Or, it just depends on a DM judgement call, in my mind, if you use a more passive knowledge based skill scoring DC ranging skill check… maybe its all about JUST the grade of information out there coming to the PCs instead of exactly what that information is… the check is never an answer explicitly with a long explanation, but just a step in a right direction and with good information management at the table (easier said then done sometimes) it will lead to a smoother flow… but for this or any of what I stated to happen quickly, the DM must prepare, or think on his feet really really well.
Thats my 2cents!
I try very hard to make sure that knowledge checks are never required for my game to proceed. As Chris Sims pointed out on Twitter, the core rules already prescribe passive knowledge checks. Sometimes, however, I don’t know what scraps of information PCs might have stored inside their brains, stuff that’s not common knowledge but that any individual might have picked up along the way. Trivia, so to speak. In that case, I’ll use a knowledge check. I also find that players gain a sense of power from making checks and rolling dice, so I accommodate that. If a player at my table wants to make a knowledge check of any kind, I will never refuse. If the roll is high, I might throw in some extra tidbit.
I use knowledge checks in skill challenges, but the exact nature of the check—that is, what the check represents in-game—depends on the specific challenge. I often use knowledge checks in social interactions; if you want to chat up the duke by talking about the history of his duchy, you’ll need a History check instead of Diplomacy, or maybe a History check with a +2 bonus if you’re trained in Diplomacy. In non-social situations, I might have a knowledge check serve as a kind of “fog of war” both for myself and for the players. For example, in a recent skill challenge, a History check would allow PCs to anticipate certain structural features of the building based on analogies from their own cultural pasts. The check wasn’t so much to find out what the PC knew, but to tell me how much of what the PC knew was really analogous to the building where the PC was. In other words, the knowledge check actually shaped the reality around the PC, making the world conform to the PCs knowledge (or not), rather than the other way around. Used this way, active knowledge checks become tools in cooperative world-building.
Collaborative world-building, as said above, can make all the difference in keeping your PCs involved in staying up to date on information. If they have a hand in creating it, they are more invested in keeping up to date on it. For a FANTASTIC collaborative world-building system, check out the new Dresden files RPG by Evil Hat games. It’s stupendous.