How do you feel about allowing actual knowledge to circumvent check rolls, provided that the character has the same knowledge and is capable of performing whatever action is being attempted?
For instance, if a party member is wounded in combat and receives a deep gash on their leg, would you allow a player to automatically pass first aid checks if they explained, in detail, how to properly treat such a wound?
Context is key. What's important is what the character /could/ know. In your example, if you were playing a barbarian as an EMT, yeah, you need to roll to see if your barbarian had that knowledge and skill. If you're a wizard who 'knows' moss grows to the north or whatever, I'd make a check to make sure that was true in this setting, but otherwise let it fly because it's relatively common knowledge. And yeah, a ranger knows what wolves eat, even if a player does it.
>>44376127
Only if such knowledge wouldn't be totally unreasonable for their character to of learnt.
>>44376183
*doesn't
No. Just because I am a paramedic in real life doesn't mean that my Wizard will have read about how contralateral movement is an indication for a limb fracture. Now, if my wizard also has 5 ranks in heal and has a back story of being a healer part time, then maybe.
>>44376213
To clarify, the character would definitely need to have something to justify them knowing what you know. So for the example I gave, ranks in heal would still be needed.
The question then is, would you require the player to roll a check or allow them to actually "do" the action by explaining what they do, consistent with actual practices, instead?
>>44376127
No.
/thread
>>44376435
Threading your own post, even if the answer wasn't the worst in the thread ( which it was), is pretty awful. Like being at a party and congratulating yourself aloud for how great the story you just told was.
>>44376127
Used sparingly and in a setting-compatible way, it's fine. It adds depth and gets the players involved.
The problem comes up when that word "circumvent" is used. Whatever your own knowledge base, if your CHARACTER doesn't have first aid, then how is it fair that they get first aid back-doored in via the player's personal knowledge base? Or at least, what he can convince the GM he's competent in.
At that point, you're on a road that leads to a place where the players who are best at railroading the GM, or who happen to have the most /tg/-friendly occupations in real life, have an advantage over players who aren't or don't. And where roleplaying the character takes a back seat to flaunting your RW knowledge.
It also penalizes physical skills like stealth, where even if the player is excellent at it, he can't use that expertise because of the tabletop format of the game.
This also applies to cases where your character is significantly different from the player in charisma or intellect.
So I'm against it. As a GM, I'll endure a little of it where it appears to be harmless, but I try to ensure that players play their characters, not themselves. If they want a character who's smarter, more charismatic, or better at first aid (and when do they want someone worse?), then they should have created that character.
The moment a player says "I'm not going to take points in First Aid because I personally know it" that's a major red flag.
I wouldn't allow it, if your character has no way to know about it.
>>44376479
Thanks for the elaborate answer. I'm also definitely of the mind that characters are separate from the players, but I do think that if you create your character in such a way that your real life knowledge can be harnessed through their actions, it can be a boon to the atmosphere of the game and I would even encourage it.
>>44376529
It is metagaming of the worst sort because the entirety of it's purpose is to circumvent challenges and "win" at the game.
I've had to deal with it before, and no, it did not make the game any better.
Yes.
I also make my players perform feats of strength whenever their characters attempt to lift heavy objects.
The way my group has always done it is through bonuses. You're still going to roll, because everyone fucks up occasionally, but if you can come up with a good explanation/convincing bullshit, you'll get a bonus to the roll. In the case of charismatic rolls, a good enough discussion can circumvent rolls completely.
>>44376590
Is it any worse than minmaxing and having such ability bonuses that rolls are just a formality?
>>44376619
>/fit/ DM's a D&D campaign
If the character has a good reason why they know that specific piece of knowledge then I'll allow it. Otherwise I won't.
Take knowing which side of the tree moss grows on for example. If their backstory or in-game actions include a time where they had to navigate without a compass then I'd allow it. Otherwise they have to roll.
If they have a lot of ranks in survival, then they probably know it. Which is why those ranks make the roll easier for them.
>>44376127
Fuck no. Just because you can explain in detail how to make nitroglycerin and your party would be able to acquire the materials doesn't mean you get to do it if your characters would have no way to figure it out.
>>44376866
Did you miss "provided that the character has the same knowledge and is capable of performing whatever action is being attempted"?
>>44376479
>The moment a player says "I'm not going to take points in First Aid because I personally know it" that's a major red flag.
That does sound terrible, but I don't think it's less a problem with a player utilizing real-world knowledge, and more the player entirely missing the point of the game. Assuming the game IS about role-playing, and not getting the highest numbers and killing all the enemies.
It might hurt the balance some, but in a more improv-oriented game, describing how exactly you're treating the wounds is usually more interesting than just stating what you want to do and rolling dice.
>>44377213
That's absolutely never how it happens.
>>44377952
That was not being argued. OP asked how people feel about such a system, not if such a system wouldn't be exploited by bad players.
if the character knows it, they do it even if the player doesn't know what or how to do it.
If it's not clear if the PC have the knowledge or how accurate it is then and only then is when you make a roll.
The knowledge of the player is irrelevant.
If the answer to the question "Does the character know X? or how to do Y?" is yes, then he knows X or how to do Y.
>>44376127
Just because you know how to set a broken limb doesn't mean you're good at doing it while people swing swords at you. At least that's what I assume the "first aid" skill entails IE skill beyond basic knowledge of first aid existing.
If it's the kind of system that lets you stunt then I'll give them that bonus but otherwise no. The character is probably a much better medic than the player but that doesn't mean both of them couldn't fail for all kinds of reasons.
>>44376127
No. Failure is still possible in first aid, and complications can result.
The only time I'd say you wouldn't have to make a check is if failure is so remote a possibility that it would be considered a freak accident. You would have to justify how your character knows this to make it so unlikely. Doing so would likely take time (unless it was immediately apparent), and if you couldn't justify it in 20 seconds, I'd make you roll just to be expedient. The other players didn't come to listen to you try and weasel out of playing the game.
>>44376127
No, skill rolls exists for a reason and a player shouldn't get an advantage because their knowledgeable about a skill their character has.
>>44376127
No because a players knowledge is not a characters k ow ledge and some theoretical explenation does not take into account the minutia of variables that affect real situations. Hence why you have to roll dice.
>>44376127
Just because the player knows it doesn't mean his/her character automatically does or should.
/thread
