FA+
Shop
Pathfinder Shenanigans: Knowledge, NPCs, and Metagaming
12 years ago
General
In my other recent journal, I mentioned that I'm now DMing a Pathfinder game. I now realize just how much work that entails. Of course there's the given work, like designing maps, encounters, NPCs...all the number crunching and reasoning that goes into that. There's also the story element, writing a compelling narrative and giving characters backgrounds and ambitions that make sense. I didn't realize that I would also have to be doing my best to reign in my players. This isn't so much a story as it is a rant, but I'd also like to ask for input to see how others would have responded.
Knowledge Skills
The party encounters three oozes. The appropriate knowledge skill to find out more about these things would be dungeoneering. Only one party member has that skill, the cleric, so he makes his roll, but fails. I tell them a few snippets about oozes, but they don't get the creature's entire template. Hence, the psionic character (a wilder, specifically) would not know that oozes are immune to mind-affecting abilities. Two rounds into the fight, the wilder decides to use Mind Thrust, a completely mind-affecting ability. As soon as he finishes saying that, the cleric interrupts and tells him not to use Mind Thrust because oozes are immune to mind-affecting abilities. What ensues is a short debate about how the wilder would know if an ooze has intelligence or if a brain is visible.
In the end, I determine that this is metagaming. There was no way for the wilder to know that oozes are immune to mind-affecting abilities, the character has no prior experience with them, and the knowledge roll to find out about them failed. I let it slide this time since it was their first offense, but next time, the penalty will be severe.
NPC Characters
Traveling with the party is an NPC wizard. In most fights, he can do a decent spell or two, but he is not at all the blasty type. He does mediocre damage at best and spends most rounds using his wand of magic missiles to do 1d4+1 damage. Now and then, he does come up with a battlefield control spell that is very useful. In addition to his spells, he has a number of knowledge skills and other non-combat skills with very high bonuses to each. However, he rarely uses any of these. Why not? The party never asks him to use them.
I've always been taught that an NPC party member should -never- take the spotlight away from the PCs except for a really good reason. Therefore, he'll always let the party do their skill checks before he steps in. Sometimes he won't step in at all unless asked (he has a good reason for being inconspicuous anyway). In combat, he'll do enough damage to help out, but not nearly enough to compare to a party member.
I've already decided that next session, he's going to start having some fluff actions in every room the party enters. This is to try and get him noticed by the other characters, and hopefully to clue them in that he's actually very useful if you ask him to be. What do you guys think? Should I try and inch him closer to the spotlight or keep him purely as a "last resort" for when the players are out of ideas?
Other Metagaming
Another thing that troubled me last session was several instances of "I roll x skill....oh, that's my result? Screw it, I take 20." No. Once you roll dice for something, you are committed to their result, for good or ill. And your character? They have to live by that too, except for one thing: YOUR CHARACTER DOES NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ROLLED. Your character only knows the EFFECTS of that roll. They would know that a lock didn't open, that a wand didn't activate, or that they tumbled right into the guard they are trying to sneak past because those are obvious, readily apparent results of a failed roll. They would NOT know that they missed a trap, that they told a very poor lie, that they're actually quite visible while trying to be stealthy, or that their appraisal of an item is off by 1000g because there's no way for the character to know how their roll turned out.
For example, the party finds a box of siege weapon parts and schematics worth about 500g. Obviously these aren't things that they'd find in a store very often, so they don't know how much the box and its contents are worth. They need to make an appraise roll for that. The rogue makes his appraise roll and gets a 9, so he thinks the stuff is worth about 800g. The character doesn't know he rolled a 9, he just knows that in his opinion, it's worth 800g. Even if the skill allowed a reroll, there is no reason for the rogue to believe that his estimate is off by 300g. Therefore, there is no reason for the rogue to make another attempt to appraise the box.
Once you roll for something, that is your character's best effort on it. Unless the effects show the character that they messed up, they think their attempt was good enough. Any further attempts to re-roll when your character otherwise would have no reason to is metagaming, and in my opinion should be punished accordingly.
What do you all think?
Knowledge Skills
The party encounters three oozes. The appropriate knowledge skill to find out more about these things would be dungeoneering. Only one party member has that skill, the cleric, so he makes his roll, but fails. I tell them a few snippets about oozes, but they don't get the creature's entire template. Hence, the psionic character (a wilder, specifically) would not know that oozes are immune to mind-affecting abilities. Two rounds into the fight, the wilder decides to use Mind Thrust, a completely mind-affecting ability. As soon as he finishes saying that, the cleric interrupts and tells him not to use Mind Thrust because oozes are immune to mind-affecting abilities. What ensues is a short debate about how the wilder would know if an ooze has intelligence or if a brain is visible.
In the end, I determine that this is metagaming. There was no way for the wilder to know that oozes are immune to mind-affecting abilities, the character has no prior experience with them, and the knowledge roll to find out about them failed. I let it slide this time since it was their first offense, but next time, the penalty will be severe.
NPC Characters
Traveling with the party is an NPC wizard. In most fights, he can do a decent spell or two, but he is not at all the blasty type. He does mediocre damage at best and spends most rounds using his wand of magic missiles to do 1d4+1 damage. Now and then, he does come up with a battlefield control spell that is very useful. In addition to his spells, he has a number of knowledge skills and other non-combat skills with very high bonuses to each. However, he rarely uses any of these. Why not? The party never asks him to use them.
I've always been taught that an NPC party member should -never- take the spotlight away from the PCs except for a really good reason. Therefore, he'll always let the party do their skill checks before he steps in. Sometimes he won't step in at all unless asked (he has a good reason for being inconspicuous anyway). In combat, he'll do enough damage to help out, but not nearly enough to compare to a party member.
I've already decided that next session, he's going to start having some fluff actions in every room the party enters. This is to try and get him noticed by the other characters, and hopefully to clue them in that he's actually very useful if you ask him to be. What do you guys think? Should I try and inch him closer to the spotlight or keep him purely as a "last resort" for when the players are out of ideas?
Other Metagaming
Another thing that troubled me last session was several instances of "I roll x skill....oh, that's my result? Screw it, I take 20." No. Once you roll dice for something, you are committed to their result, for good or ill. And your character? They have to live by that too, except for one thing: YOUR CHARACTER DOES NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ROLLED. Your character only knows the EFFECTS of that roll. They would know that a lock didn't open, that a wand didn't activate, or that they tumbled right into the guard they are trying to sneak past because those are obvious, readily apparent results of a failed roll. They would NOT know that they missed a trap, that they told a very poor lie, that they're actually quite visible while trying to be stealthy, or that their appraisal of an item is off by 1000g because there's no way for the character to know how their roll turned out.
For example, the party finds a box of siege weapon parts and schematics worth about 500g. Obviously these aren't things that they'd find in a store very often, so they don't know how much the box and its contents are worth. They need to make an appraise roll for that. The rogue makes his appraise roll and gets a 9, so he thinks the stuff is worth about 800g. The character doesn't know he rolled a 9, he just knows that in his opinion, it's worth 800g. Even if the skill allowed a reroll, there is no reason for the rogue to believe that his estimate is off by 300g. Therefore, there is no reason for the rogue to make another attempt to appraise the box.
Once you roll for something, that is your character's best effort on it. Unless the effects show the character that they messed up, they think their attempt was good enough. Any further attempts to re-roll when your character otherwise would have no reason to is metagaming, and in my opinion should be punished accordingly.
What do you all think?
Allow players to roll to see what damage they do or if they make a very basic pass/fail, and not an outcome influenced by rolling total.
Trying to jump a gap has very clear lines for passing and failing- they can roll that all they want. Trying to persuade someone of something? Never, EVER let them see the roll. Just let them know what the reaction is. For all they know, he didn't believe a word and is lying because they rolled a 1. But the outcome looks like a good one.
I can't really do that for things like perception, appraise, or knowledge unless I make all the rolls for the players. Technically possible, but way more than I'm willing to undertake at the moment. For things like damage, I never tell them how much damage they did or how much HP the monster has remaining. The most I tell them is whether something is "bloodied" or not (4th edition term to describe when something is half dead), but if they want specific details they have to roll a heal check.
For example, the party had their first encounter with skeletons last night too, as well as their first encounter with damage reduction. Every time the archer or rogue attacked, I'd say something like "Your arrow/blade chips a bit off of the skeleton's ribcage, but you notice that most of the weapon passes right between the gaps," to reflect that the skeleton's damage reduction is negating most/all of their damage.
When I play or gm for World of Darkness games, for example, players will hardly ever see a roll. GM has to do a fair amount of work clattering dice, but at least it's not too taxing.
I think that you've got a pretty good system with your NPC. I have definitely been in games before where an NPC traveling with the party has outshined the PC's in most ways (often times as a GMPC), and it often ruins the fun for a lot of the party. Having the NPC there as a 'tool' - if you'll pardon the wording - instead of someone who is actively contributing to puzzle-solving/ researching promotes player roleplay. If the players forget to use the knowledge or benefits that the NPC provides them, that's their own fault. Occasional prods with the NPC to keep them moving the story forward, or to remind them that they actually have a job to do, is often necessary, but mostly it should be left to that.