D&D 5E Intelligence and Wisdom Checks (Skills) as GM Tool for Plot Rationing or Expository Dump

[Manbearcat]

This was said in another thread recently:

knowledge skills are a poor use of expertise.

They're mostly for uncovering plot info and, well...the DM has to get that to you somehow.

It seemed to me that the general bent of the thread's participants either actively agreed with this or didn't disagree with it enough to voice opposition.

I thought this was interesting.

Therefore, a poll.

Is this commonplace among 5e GMs on these boards?

Maybe you're one of those GMs and you'd like to post your thoughts on (a) why the output of Int/Wis Abillit/Skill action resolution is handled this way, (b) how it affects/propels play, and (c) how it intersects with the type of PC build decision-point thinking cited above?

 

[Sadras]

I'll attempt this.

Maybe you're one of those GMs and you'd like to post your thoughts on (a) why the output of Int/Wis Ability/Skill action resolution is handled this way, (b) how it affects/propels play, and (c) how it intersects with the type of PC build decision-point thinking cited above?

(a) I believe there should be a possibility for the character to make uninformed decisions. Removing that possibility would remove an aspect of the INT/WIS ability/skill.
(b) It affects play in that the character has limited information when making a decision and thus the decision taken could prove to be harmful (further consequences).
(c) I guess the benefit of having expertise on a knowledge skill would depend from DM to DM. Speaking for myself as DM, if the character has expertise in a Knowledge skill - I would try find a way to make that worthwhile.

Not sure if I have answered what you were asking.

 

[Seramus]

When I am a player, I sometimes pump knowledge skills specifically because I want my character to be a source of exposition.

Being the sage / having the answers is a classic archetype, even if you could have gotten the answer some other way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I used to lean on this pretty hard in 3E and a bit in 4E but I'm really trying to cut down on it in 5E, because it doesn't lead to great places. If the players can end up not knowing vital or really interesting stuff due to unlucky rolls, that tends to make for a worse game and make the Return On Investment of your world-building much worse. I tend to put useful but not vital information behind such rolls instead, or make a way to get vital info earlier than when you'd otherwise discover it.

My experience is that, despite leaning on it in 3E and off it in 5E it has virtually no impact on PC builds. Despite me always having been strict on what social Skills can do, I see many more PCs built for those than knowledge stuff. Usually a PC or two takes Arcana, but History, Religion, Survival etc? They only get taken if the background of the PC demands it.

 

[Umbran]

I will contrast it with another system: GUMSHOE

GUMSHOE is designed for investigative and "procedural" stories. It has at its root the assumption that the act of getting clues or information is not terribly interesting, but what you do with that information is interesting. So, in Gumshoe games, getting information is very easy. If you have the right skills in a scene, and think to use them to find information, you get the basic stuff available, no need to roll. There may be information beyond the basic clues, and there is mechanic for spending a skill-based resource to get it. It still isn't chance - if you pay a point from your skill pool, you get the extra information, too,, with no chance of failure.

D&D does not have the same assumption at its core. D&D assumes that you may well miss the information - "the DM has to get you the information somehow" is not a feature of the system.

The situation described in the OP - where the knowledge skill is being used for infodump, and the GM is not going to allow the PCs to miss anything, then you are playing in the Gumeshoe mode. Just having the skill gets you the basic information. However, I suspect often enough in D&D, the GM is not thinking about having "basic" and "extra" information, and so you lose the need for anything beyond basic competence.

So if the stated issue is actually going on in your game, there's two basic solutions. 1) Star allowing PCs to miss information, or 2) have two levels of information - that which the PCs can get with basic competence, and that which you probably need expertise to get.

There is another question - are you allowing your PCs do do things other than information gathering with knowledge skills? D&D doesn't actually have great rules for such, which is unfortunate.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This relates to whether there's such a thing as a plot. In adventure path play there is and it's a problem the GM needs to solve if the players can't find it. In sandbox play there isn't and it doesn't matter if an investigation hits a dead end.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I absolutely have players make knowledge and lore rolls and give out information based on their results. But this information is "off the top of their head" info-- something they might already know in the midst of whatever adventure they are on. These rolls do not in any way preclude them from going places to gather requisite information (libraries, sages and the like.) If they leave the current path of what they are doing to go do some research, they will get the additional information that they need.

To me, knowledge and lore checks are just to allow the players to get a better idea of just what the heck is going on around them without needing to leave their story to head to a library to find stuff out.

 

[iserith]

If I'm running a game with a plot (which is generally not my preference), then I cannot leave it to the dice to decide if the players get necessary information to follow the plot. This risks creating problems in the game where the players lack sufficient information to act.

 

[Maestrino]

Or have different ways to resolve problems.

1. Hey, you hit a good Intelligence check - you realize these funky runes on the wall are somehow powering all the golems in here. [Player tries an arcana role to deactivate the runes;.]

2. Hey, you hit a ridiculously good Intelligence check - you realize that if you alter a couple of these runes with the chalk you're carrying around, you might be able to take control of these golems. [Player tries sleight of hand to make the necessary changes accurately. Failure makes the golems MAD.]

3. There are some crazy runes on the wall - you have no idea what they do. [Players proceed to just attack and smash the golems.]

 

[Oofta]

I put information into categories.

• Information people need to know to move the story forward. They just know or will find this.
• Information that will help. They may or may not know this, often there will be other (more difficult/dangerous) ways of finding it.
• Information that's nice to know. This is fluff and just added background. Stuff I throw in because it's fun.

While a check will never be a gate keeper, I think character builds should be rewarded. Someone with a good history check should know more about history than others. At the same time, no historian knows everything and whether or not they know a particular tidbit is random [unless reasonably previously established] and will be decided by the roll of a die. Sometimes that tidbit is useful and will save significant effort or risk.

So a successful check helps overcome obstacle(s), it is never required. There will be other ways to overcome or avoid the specific obstacle.