Forums of the Megaverse®

You can limit the scope of the skill by requiring multiple selections for different regions or castes of demonkind. For example, one selection covers common North American monsters, a second selection covers Hades Demons while a third selection is exclusively limited to the Undead. I use this to an extent and have "general" knowledge of all demons and monsters (like common weaknesses, shared habits, etc), but require multiple selections if they want to specialize in one type or region of creature (obscure or more severe weaknesses, etc).

Another approach and something I will employ is a greater challenge modifier for more specific information. If a player wants to know how to kill it and makes the check, I will tell them that what the common weakness is and some other tactical bit of information. Generally, something that could be gathered by a period of observation if such an opportunity were available. If they want to know something specific like how to negate a shape changing ability, or what it's typical use of power is or what kills it the fastest, then I will modify the difficulty to reflect the value of the insight gleaned (because once they have it and take note, that skill check is no longer required).

Don't let them dictate what you reveal just because they make their roll. In my case, I don't disclose modifiers (positive or negative) because I never do black and white success/failure outcomes and I hate it when they roll a skill, see the dice result and just say nevermind. Even a failed roll will give them a result that they should follow through with, if they're mindful of their role playing.

Or at least that's my .02 credits.

IMO that skill covers whatever region the character is from, plus the the most common of the demons and infernals from Hades/Dyval. Anything outside that would have serious difficulty modifiers to the roll.

notafraid2die wrote:How do you use the Lore skills? Mainly, Demon and Monster Lore?

The last time I ran a Chaos Earth game, every time I would colorfully describe a demon that was about to do bad, nasty, horrible things to the characters, the players would interrupt me with, "Demon and monster lore!" followed by a successful skill role, "How do we kill it?" Then I'd feel obligated to (meaning, my players would assume I'd have to) reveal that the demons vulnerability was silver, or whatever.

It seriously got on my nerves since I had visions of them trying different types weapons in vain, as the demon slowly cleaved their armor away.

Should it be this simple? Should a PC intuitively know a demon or monster's weakness/vulnerabilities just because they got their "Lore" skill roll?

I pose this question because the current campaign I'm running involves the characters (same players as demi-god characters) who are exiled on Wormwood, facing demons they've presumably never heard of. Then, they'll (hopefully) be heading to Phaseworld just as the Dimensional Outbreak begins (lots of Hades and Dyval demons). I want to be ready if they devolve into simple skill rolls again.

Yes and no.
It depends on whether you want your games to be focused more on suspense, intensity, and delving into the world, or to be focused on video-game style action where you see something, kill it, loot it, and look for something else to kill.
It sounds like you're more into the first style of play, and your players are more into the second.
Which seems like the root problem.

But there are some things to keep in mind that can help keep Lore skills from getting out of hand:
First of all, Lore skills deal with lore, with "A body of traditions and knowledge on a subject or held by a particular group, typically passed from person to person by word of mouth."
If a creature is new, there will be no body of traditions or knowledge for dealing with it.
Even if a creature has been around for a while, that doesn't mean that the lore is complete. You might know that it eats people, but if nobody has ever figured out that the only way to kill one is to shoot it in the groin with a quarrel made from human bone, using a crossbow crafted from a hangman's tree, then there's no possible way for the character to figure this out using the lore skill.
In short, if the information is not IN the lore, then the lore skill won't let you figure it out.

Second, Lore skills are for a particular region (RUE, 325), such as "Europe" or "North America" or "Asia," and characters will have to take the skill multiple times to cover multiple regions.
Which means that everything they know is going to be pretty useless in Wormwood, unless they happen to meet a critter from their home turf (or take the Demon & Monster Lore: Wormwood skill).

Third, the GM determines what a successful check actually means. I'd usually give out one or two pieces of specific info on a successful check, and not always stuff that's immediately useful.
"They eat human flesh."
"They don't eat human flesh; they eat flowers. They just like ripping human flesh to pieces for fun."
"They have a matriarchal society, based on the size of the females' talons."
"This demon's blue markings indicate that it's part of the Krankova Clan, which has been in a centuries old feud with the Olganag Clan, who have green markings."
"This monster can breathe fire."
"This creature casts no shadow."
And so on.
You could, in fact, use a successful check to tell them something that you were going to tell them anyway. Or interesting trivia about the monster.
Or intimidating trivia about the monster:
"All you know is that a swarm of them can skeletonize a hatchling dragon in about 15 seconds."
or
"Legend has it that one of these things once ate an entire city."
or
"They supposedly have a penchant for sodomizing know-it-alls."
Don't be a jerk about it, keeping crucial information from them that can help save the party's lives... but you don't have to hand them an easy victory every time they roll a skill check.

Fourth, the GM determines what an unsuccessful skill check means. It might well mean that the PC doesn't know anything. But it might also mean that the PC knows something that isn't actually true.
Maybe he ends up confusing the creature with a similar creature that has completely different powers, vulnerabilities, and even power levels.
Maybe he ends up recognizing the creature, but has heard incorrect information about its weaknesses.
Maybe he gets things really wrong, as in "sharks are afraid of blood" kind of wrong. (though I would hold this out for a spectacular failure).
Of course, if the players are rolling their own skill checks, they're going to know whether they succeed or fail in their roll. But if they metagame, then they're not getting points for playing in character, points that they'd actually get if their character acts on the information that the player knows (or suspects) is false.

Edit:
Also, you don't have to be direct with the information; you can prompt them to think.
Instead of "These demons take x2 damage from fire," you can say, "These demons have a legendary hatred for Bursters" or, if you want to be more subtle, "hatred for dragons."

Well, now I know what my next Rifter article is going to be. Thank you notafraidtodie. You are right. This happens ALL the time in my own game. I am going to make more detailed rules for using the LORE skills tonight so that its easier for Game Masters (without penalizing players). I have a few ideas already. I'll try to make sure its good enough to get into the next Rifter. I'll start work on it later tonight after I finish stating out these steampunk super robots I'm currently working on.

notafraid2die wrote:Glad I could be of inspiration.

I'm always trying to find a way of rewarding good role-playing and spanking players that don't bother putting in any effort.
The whole reason I wrote my articles for how to use Trust/Intimidate and Charm/Impress was because I was sick of being in games (and running games) where one of the players would moan when it came time to talk to NPCs and then roll their percentage and say something like "I tell him to give me the pass codes. I succeed. Lets go."

I am not against them getting the pass code, but it just stinks when its reduced to that. It means NPCs are mindless drones that will throw away their lives like lemmings if a player says so. This is exactly the same sort of problem. You want them to be rewarded for a successful application of their skill and you want it to be FAIR and represent their ability/knowledge, but how often have we all used some obscure monster and then a player just happens to know everything about it... after spending one action (-34 seconds) looking at it? It blows.

If that was their O.C.C.'s whole thing (Like the Familiar Wrangler), I'd be cool with it. However, that shouldn't be how the lore skill works every single time. It doesn't make for good role-playing and isn't a realistic representation of recognition.

notafraid2die wrote:How do you use the Lore skills? Mainly, Demon and Monster Lore?

The last time I ran a Chaos Earth game, every time I would colorfully describe a demon that was about to do bad, nasty, horrible things to the characters, the players would interrupt me with, "Demon and monster lore!" followed by a successful skill role, "How do we kill it?" Then I'd feel obligated to (meaning, my players would assume I'd have to) reveal that the demons vulnerability was silver, or whatever.

It seriously got on my nerves since I had visions of them trying different types weapons in vain, as the demon slowly cleaved their armor away.

Should it be this simple? Should a PC intuitively know a demon or monster's weakness/vulnerabilities just because they got their "Lore" skill roll?

I pose this question because the current campaign I'm running involves the characters (same players as demi-god characters) who are exiled on Wormwood, facing demons they've presumably never heard of. Then, they'll (hopefully) be heading to Phaseworld just as the Dimensional Outbreak begins (lots of Hades and Dyval demons). I want to be ready if they devolve into simple skill rolls again.

That is pretty much the point of people who have the monster/knowledge skills. It allows them to know the common strengths/weaknesses/vulnerabilities. Basically somebody who has that skill has studied these monsters and it is reasonable to think that somebody who has studied something knows stuff like this. That said feel free to add some modifiers to it for really strange or uncommon demons.

kaid wrote:That is pretty much the point of people who have the monster/knowledge skills. It allows them to know the common strengths/weaknesses/vulnerabilities. Basically somebody who has that skill has studied these monsters and it is reasonable to think that somebody who has studied something knows stuff like this. That said feel free to add some modifiers to it for really strange or uncommon demons.

That is actually a really good point too.

notafraid2die wrote:The last time I ran a Chaos Earth game, every time I would colorfully describe a demon that was about to do bad, nasty, horrible things to the characters, the players would interrupt me with, "Demon and monster lore!" followed by a successful skill role, "How do we kill it?" Then I'd feel obligated to (meaning, my players would assume I'd have to) reveal that the demons vulnerability was silver, or whatever.

It seriously got on my nerves since I had visions of them trying different types weapons in vain, as the demon slowly cleaved their armor away.

hate to point it out, but that's really your fault. if you wanted to run a game where the players didn't know about the demon weakness and had to experiment firsthand in dangerous situations, then why did you let them have the skill TO know demons weakness in the first place?

as to the rest, um. KC and others already have it nailed. you can work with lore skill to keep some things a surprise, but really, the whole point of the lore skills is you KNOW about demons and how to kill them. if your just looking for twisty ways to avoid telling them useful information, then you've basically made them waste a skill selection.

either let it be useful, or let them pick another skill in it's place. Seriously, look it from anoter veiwpoint. "My character has mechanical engineer, but the GM won't tell me how anything works" "My character has medical doctor, but every disease is uncurable" "My character has computer hacking, but every computer is written in a different language"

It's one of the things that can peeve me off as a player. if my using the skill/power/spell/psionic the way it's intended ruins your plans, then why did you let me take it? few things tick me off as fast as a GM who comes up with excuses to nerf a power or ability just because they forgot I had it and therefore can "solve" their problem right away.

I'm not trying to get rid of challange, mind. but if the only way for you to give me a challange is to give me a handicapp, then let me take something else. sure, playing basketball with one hand tied behind my back is challanging, but it's frustrating, not fun.

I realize i'm coming across as aggressive, but honestly i'm just being empthatic--i'm not actually in your game, after all. but if I WERE playing in your game, and you suddenly started giving me the run-around with my lore skill, i'd be peeved and rightly so. if I can't use that skill effectively, I'd resent having taken it in the first place. why have it if I can't use it? there are other skills I COULD be using instead to more effect.

notafraid2die wrote:Like, whoa! The idea is to not change the skills effectiveness, it's to make it more interesting than, "I roll to see if I know how to kill it". Considering one of my players is playing a Demon Slayer... well, he kinda thrives on that skill, wouldn't he? And, like you, he'd never forgive me if for some reason, I said, "No, it doesn't work that way anymore." But, he's a half son of Baulder, so I would assume his demon and monster lore would cover Asguard demon and monsters, not the Wormwood demon and monsters. Though, being an OCC that specializes in slaying demons, I'm sure he would be able to surmise a weakness or two by observing them.

I know exactly what you mean man. You want it to be interesting and not just a random roll that SOME players think shouldn't even count as an action the same way SOME players think they can use a robots advanced sensor systems without it counting as one of their actions. You just want them to try.

As for the incurable disease situation Niki, well, Doctor's run into that ALL the time. That (I think) is kind of a big part of adventuring for a Body Fixer.

Body-Fixer: "It appears he has Xenosephilitis."
Patient's Spouse: "How long until he's up and about again Doc?"
Body-Fixer: "I'm sorry there is no known cure. He has six months to live."
Patient's Spouse: "No. No! I don't accept that! There has to be something!"
Body-Fixer: "No. You're right. There has to be something. I've lost too many patients to this already. I won't lose one more."

Cut-scene to the Body-Fixer packing his adventuring equipment.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

notafraid2die wrote:Like, whoa! The idea is to not change the skills effectiveness, it's to make it more interesting than, "I roll to see if I know how to kill it". Considering one of my players is playing a Demon Slayer... well, he kinda thrives on that skill, wouldn't he? And, like you, he'd never forgive me if for some reason, I said, "No, it doesn't work that way anymore." But, he's a half son of Baulder, so I would assume his demon and monster lore would cover Asguard demon and monsters, not the Wormwood demon and monsters. Though, being an OCC that specializes in slaying demons, I'm sure he would be able to surmise a weakness or two by observing them.

I know exactly what you mean man. You want it to be interesting and not just a random roll that SOME players think shouldn't even count as an action the same way SOME players think they can use a robots advanced sensor systems without it counting as one of their actions. You just want them to try.

As for the incurable disease situation Niki, well, Doctor's run into that ALL the time. That (I think) is kind of a big part of adventuring for a Body Fixer.

Body-Fixer: "It appears he has Xenosephilitis."
Patient's Spouse: "How long until he's up and about again Doc?"
Body-Fixer: "I'm sorry there is no known cure. He has six months to live."
Patient's Spouse: "No. No! I don't accept that! There has to be something!"
Body-Fixer: "No. You're right. There has to be something. I've lost too many patients to this already. I won't lose one more."

Cut-scene to the Body-Fixer packing his adventuring equipment.

See. I have no problem with that senario, the problem is when that's ALL the GM does with it. there's never anything you can fix without an arduous quest. I know the games about the journey but man, some GM's will turn a trip to the bathroom into a perilous quest.

that's fine SOMETIMES, but not ALL THE TIME. when EVERY disease you encounter requires trips to discover long-forgotton lore it stops being fun. and sort of hijacks whatever the other players plans were. cuz, like, what are they gonna do, say no, let him die? And then you spend the next 3 years wandering around getting nothing done.

Serously, I played in a game that lasted 3 years where the starting quest was "get to Lazlo'. we never GOT to lazlo because the GM litterally could not fix one incurable disease or zombie outbreak before the next town had one that required ANOTHER multi-stage quest to cure, with the GM bugging us constantly OOC for never getting to lazlo, no matter how much we tried explaining we can't just leave people to die and we'll never get anywhere if EVERY town on earth is in imminiant mortal danger.

To this day the GM's never figured out what the problem was. He made it clear often that he expected us to go on to lazlo and never figure out we never got there because he could not let anyone do anything without making it a multi-stage process and never had any town NOT be in danger of destruction as we passed and could NOT figure out why we didn't just get to lazlo already dispite NOT expecting us to leave anyone to die dispite constantly houseruling and nerfing powers to make simple solutions impossible.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

notafraid2die wrote:Like, whoa! The idea is to not change the skills effectiveness, it's to make it more interesting than, "I roll to see if I know how to kill it". Considering one of my players is playing a Demon Slayer... well, he kinda thrives on that skill, wouldn't he? And, like you, he'd never forgive me if for some reason, I said, "No, it doesn't work that way anymore." But, he's a half son of Baulder, so I would assume his demon and monster lore would cover Asguard demon and monsters, not the Wormwood demon and monsters. Though, being an OCC that specializes in slaying demons, I'm sure he would be able to surmise a weakness or two by observing them.

I know exactly what you mean man. You want it to be interesting and not just a random roll that SOME players think shouldn't even count as an action the same way SOME players think they can use a robots advanced sensor systems without it counting as one of their actions. You just want them to try.

As for the incurable disease situation Niki, well, Doctor's run into that ALL the time. That (I think) is kind of a big part of adventuring for a Body Fixer.

Body-Fixer: "It appears he has Xenosephilitis."
Patient's Spouse: "How long until he's up and about again Doc?"
Body-Fixer: "I'm sorry there is no known cure. He has six months to live."
Patient's Spouse: "No. No! I don't accept that! There has to be something!"
Body-Fixer: "No. You're right. There has to be something. I've lost too many patients to this already. I won't lose one more."

Cut-scene to the Body-Fixer packing his adventuring equipment.

See. I have no problem with that senario, the problem is when that's ALL the GM does with it. there's never anything you can fix without an arduous quest. I know the games about the journey but man, some GM's will turn a trip to the bathroom into a perilous quest.

that's fine SOMETIMES, but not ALL THE TIME. when EVERY disease you encounter requires trips to discover long-forgotton lore it stops being fun. and sort of hijacks whatever the other players plans were. cuz, like, what are they gonna do, say no, let him die? And then you spend the next 3 years wandering around getting nothing done.

Serously, I played in a game that lasted 3 years where the starting quest was "get to Lazlo'. we never GOT to lazlo because the GM litterally could not fix one incurable disease or zombie outbreak before the next town had one that required ANOTHER multi-stage quest to cure, with the GM bugging us constantly OOC for never getting to lazlo, no matter how much we tried explaining we can't just leave people to die and we'll never get anywhere if EVERY town on earth is in imminiant mortal danger.

To this day the GM's never figured out what the problem was.

I have had the same problem with my GM making EVERYTHING an adventure. Especially just shopping for new equipment. Heaven forbid we actually have to go to town to gear up. Suddenly the town has vampires, the shopkeeper is a warlock with a sinister agenda, and even the local shepherd has a rail gun. And this was in the heart of CS Iowa (I wish I was making this up. Happened exactly this way a couple of years ago).

As for the Lore: Demons & Monsters, having a demigod Demon Slayer can be a little hectic, considering the skill covers a target's skills, weaknesses, powers, etc. I would base their level of knowledge on how well they rolled (but I do that anyways).
But a demigod Demon Slayer in Chaos Earth? That invites all sorts of unpleasant things with insider meta-knowledge.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:See. I have no problem with that senario, the problem is when that's ALL the GM does with it. there's never anything you can fix without an arduous quest. I know the games about the journey but man, some GM's will turn a trip to the bathroom into a perilous quest.

It can be like that sometimes. That is why occasionally I have boring adventures on purpose (like last week -- See Rifts: Path of One). 90% of the adventure was just the players talking and chilling out with the biggest "obstetrical" being: Finding Food.

So every so often I'll have an intentionally dull adventure where players can go and stock up on equipment or "nothing is happening." However, as a GM I constantly find myself apologizing because I feel like nothing exciting is happening (which its not!). So, it might just be a problem of expecting things to be fun and exciting for the players. Like, its always more interesting to have a strange shop keeper (maybe they are a warlock!) but that doesn't mean that it has to be a dangerous or hostile encounter either.

I just like my players to play things out. Sure, I could be like "you buy 5 clips and a wilks 880 and head on to the next stop" but I'd rather my players find a shop (maybe a few) and pick the one they prefer. Heck, the only NPC to appear in all my games (I don't do pet NPCs its a big pet peeve of mine), is "Taylor, the Ley Line Walking Tailor." He is a "retired" Ley Line Walker that makes a living (or tries to) as a Tailor. He is a pessimist who hates his life and feels he is followed by certain doom everywhere he goes. This is typically because the players like him and will--for whatever sadistic reason--bring danger to him by running to hide in his stores or place of business when they're under attack. Which inevitably gets it shot to crap with mega-damage and forces him into bankruptcy or to take on so much dept that he needs to flee the dimension where he will inevitably run into the players NEXT group of characters who ALWAYS do the same thing.

Anyways, my point is... Taylor wouldn't exist if I wasn't a douche and made my players "shop" and it has greatly enriched my game.

Good ole Taylor... heh.

Taylor (banal sarcasm): "Oh good. Adventurers."

Taylor: "Alphonse, you bought me 100 miles across the country into a Vampires lair because you cannot read Dragonese? You have to be the worse wizard in the history of wizardry."

Taylor: "Well, you're doomed. I'm out." *Casts Dimensional Rift and then gives the players who had him at gun point the finger and then dives through and closes it leaving them to their demise.*

Heh. Good times.

Oh absolutely, i'm not saying the GM throwing in twists is a bad thing, i've just had too many GM's who don't provide any sense of normalcy. The unusual looses it's luster if there's nothing mundane to contrast it to.

I would also apply negatives to demon & monster lore for obscure or really rare monsters, but I'll also dole out more information depending on how the skill roll went. If a player barely passes the check, I'll give out some bare bones info; conversely, if they roll a 01%, I'll let them know extensive detail.

Count me down as someone who thinks a lore check shouldn't take an action to perform - the skill is showing what you remember about a monster type: you know or you don't.

notafraid2die wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:It depends on whether you want your games to be focused more on suspense, intensity, and delving into the world, or to be focused on video-game style action where you see something, kill it, loot it, and look for something else to kill.
It sounds like you're more into the first style of play, and your players are more into the second.
Which seems like the root problem.

Nailed it! Right on the head. I've always been the intrigue, present a mystery/problem to be solved type of GM, and my players... well, their favorite quote is "I kick down the door, kill the monsters, and loot the bodies."

Maybe try having a good chunk of the adventure getting to the bad guys, then, with door-kicking and monster-killing as the reward.

Say they're hired to kill the monster that killed the mayor's daughter.
First, they have to figure out what did it: there were no real witnesses.
So they look at the body, and use their medical skills and lore/knowledge skills to try to figure out what might do it.
After some investigative role-playing, they realize that she was killed by something humanoid, with long claws and a wicked bite.

They make some lore (or other skill) checks, and realize that there are some monsters that fit that description that pop up locally from time to time.
They're called Crolli, and they like muddy, swampy places.
So they try to figure out where this one might be hiding out.
(more skill checks and role-playing).

They check the sewer, and don't find a Crolli.
But they find a giant alligator-like creature, and have to fight it. (Wheee!)
And when they search around a bit and locate it's lair, they find some loot on the remains of its previous victims.

Then they check the Mud Pits, where clay is mined for use in ceramics by low-wage workers or slaves.
The locals (wage-slaves or overseers or whatever) take objection to the party's intrusion in that area, and pick a fight.
More combat, more loot, etc.

Then they check the swamps.
While searching the swamps (skill checks and role-playing, along with some non-combat dangers), they run into a couple dangerous creatures and/or people (more combat, more XP), and eventually find the Crolli, kill it, and collect the reward.

You'd have to balance the hoop-jumping with the rewards so that everybody's happy enough to keep playing, bit it can work out pretty well.

Thanks for that wealth of information, KC. Well written and very useful.

i would like to point out that just because they made their Lore skill roll doesn't mean they have accurate information. even well researched topics tend to have a lot of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, dissenting opinions, and downright false info in it.
especially in settings like Chaos earth, where that lore is based on a blend of actual (often conflicting) legends, popular depictions that became mainstream, and speculations by amateur and pseudo-scientific monster hunters.

even in settings like rifts where the study of demons and monsters has become a scientific field akin to anthropology and zoology, there is going to be a lot of rumors, conflicting info, differences of interpretations leading to debates/arguments between researches, etc. just look at any scholarly topic in science and history to see the amount of chaff you have to sort through.

so i'd have no problem answering a player who made his lore roll and asked "what will kill it" with "well, general consensus is silver, but there are legends suggesting that its weakness is actually salt. and some stories it doesn't have a special weakness."

While KC's post was fascinating, I don't know that it's entirely fair. If they're looking for vulnerabilities, I'd say a failed roll tells them about the clan, the social structure, or the like, but a successful roll might tell them something useful but not a gimme for the kill.

Failure: The blue feathers mark him as distant kin to the royal line.
Success: In the heat of battle, you're only remembering fragments You can't remember if they're vulnerable to anything, but you know they're not invulnerable to fire.

Also, change your monsters from time to time.

"You remember that most of them are vulnerable to fire, but at least one sub-species is healed by it."

/Sub

notafraid2die wrote:

You'd have to balance the hoop-jumping with the rewards so that everybody's happy enough to keep playing, bit it can work out pretty well.

This, KC, is what I pretty much exactly what I end up doing. I know my players look forward to the combat, so I'm forced to make getting to the combat the part that requires them to role play. I once had them do an entire campaign where they were hired as a town's police force. It required them to use investigative, medical, and research skills. Of course, any clue they found would lead to yet another innocent suspect/clue, until finally... they'd get to kick the door down and kill the monster. This ended up being one of my longest running campaigns.

Cool!

notafraid2die wrote:So here is what I've come up with...
I often (as the GM) roll my player's Detect Ambush skill. It just didn't feel like an ambush if I looked at one of my players and said, "roll for Detect Ambush". Successful or not, they knew what was coming. So I started rolling for that skill behind the GM screen. That way if none of the rolls were successful, boom! Ambush. But if at least one of the players was successful, "Hey Bob, you notice some loose bits of rock rolling down the canyon wall for no reason. Roll for your initiative."

I could do sort of the same with Demon and Monster Lore. I roll it for the players (that way they don't know if they've failed or not). If the roll is successful, then I give them a bit of lore on that particular demon... say the demon in question is a Shade, "You once heard that these demons shun the daylight." But if the roll fails... "You once heard these demons could turn you to stone with but a touch!" Completely wrong info, but the player would be none-the-wiser and forced to role play the result. (unless he owns that book, but my players are good and catching my drifts).

Sounds good.
I'd do the same thing with Detect Ambush, but I'd do it automatically, without waiting for them to say that they were even looking.
I treated it like more of trained awareness, an automatic power.

Are you thinking of treating lore that way, or are you still going to have them specify when they're trying to use the skill?

notafraid2die wrote:So here is what I've come up with...
I often (as the GM) roll my player's Detect Ambush skill. It just didn't feel like an ambush if I looked at one of my players and said, "roll for Detect Ambush". Successful or not, they knew what was coming. So I started rolling for that skill behind the GM screen. That way if none of the rolls were successful, boom! Ambush. But if at least one of the players was successful, "Hey Bob, you notice some loose bits of rock rolling down the canyon wall for no reason. Roll for your initiative."

I could do sort of the same with Demon and Monster Lore. I roll it for the players (that way they don't know if they've failed or not). If the roll is successful, then I give them a bit of lore on that particular demon... say the demon in question is a Shade, "You once heard that these demons shun the daylight." But if the roll fails... "You once heard these demons could turn you to stone with but a touch!" Completely wrong info, but the player would be none-the-wiser and forced to role play the result. (unless he owns that book, but my players are good and catching my drifts).

The problem with doing this to much or giving to erroneous information on a failed roll is eventually players stop bothering with the skill. If a skill winds up being more of a detriment due to misinformation and when you get a success you get a random snippet of semi useful information people stop bothering. It mostly just leads to players using player knowledge and never using their player skills because they simply cannot trust their characters skills to actually be a benefit to them.

The biggest example I had of this was one character I had in a different game system who for some reason started with weather sense. If other players without the skill asked what the weather was like or what it looked like it was going to do they got a pretty good estimate. If I made the mistake of asking it would be like ooo it looks like its going to be a typhooon! no no its going to be foggy, oh wait no it looks like it will be snowing. All of this while it was a nice summer day out in the game with a few clouds. Having the skill should have made me a better guage of the weather than the others in the party but because I had the skill I was basically penalized by the GM by having him do the secret rolls and the lovely amounts of totally bogus information from it.

Frankly for most normal demons a person with a reasonable level of lore demon and monsters would not even be asked to roll in my game for basic information which would include vulnerabilities. Seriously if somebody is studying demons do you think they are mostly concerned about their mating habbits? the color of their hair? no you are studying them so that you know how to fight them so vulnerabilities is the FIRST thing anybody studying demons is going to try to learn. The skill rolls are for challenging things like demons that are very rare to the area you are at or one that looks very different or possibly shape shifted to try to figure out exactly what it is.

Take another look at the detect ambush skill. the skill does NOT tell the player if there's an ambush or not, even on a successful roll. in fact it specifically says it does nothing to reveal hidden enemies. all the roll does it let you identify any good ambush spots in the area, which is just as useful for the party scouting out a place to lay their own trap.

thing is, the roll just tells you where would be a good spot for an ambush. it does NOT tell you if one is set up, at all. just that this would be a good spot for one.

accordingly, I never treated it as an "automatic activation." players have to declare when they're using it

I described how I played it, not what the rules said.
It was pretty much ruined when RUE changed it.

notafraid2die wrote:

kaid wrote:The problem with doing this to much or giving to erroneous information on a failed roll is eventually players stop bothering with the skill. If a skill winds up being more of a detriment due to misinformation and when you get a success you get a random snippet of semi useful information people stop bothering. It mostly just leads to players using player knowledge and never using their player skills because they simply cannot trust their characters skills to actually be a benefit to them.

The biggest example I had of this was one character I had in a different game system who for some reason started with weather sense. If other players without the skill asked what the weather was like or what it looked like it was going to do they got a pretty good estimate. If I made the mistake of asking it would be like ooo it looks like its going to be a typhooon! no no its going to be foggy, oh wait no it looks like it will be snowing. All of this while it was a nice summer day out in the game with a few clouds. Having the skill should have made me a better guage of the weather than the others in the party but because I had the skill I was basically penalized by the GM by having him do the secret rolls and the lovely amounts of totally bogus information from it.

Frankly for most normal demons a person with a reasonable level of lore demon and monsters would not even be asked to roll in my game for basic information which would include vulnerabilities. Seriously if somebody is studying demons do you think they are mostly concerned about their mating habbits? the color of their hair? no you are studying them so that you know how to fight them so vulnerabilities is the FIRST thing anybody studying demons is going to try to learn. The skill rolls are for challenging things like demons that are very rare to the area you are at or one that looks very different or possibly shape shifted to try to figure out exactly what it is.

That's a pretty valid concern and some sound advice. A demon slayer is going to instinctively know something about most demons, or at least be able to recognize certain traits common to most demons. So how's this: A successful role is met with strait forward valuable information ("Due to the creatures eyes, you can tell that it wouldn't be happy in sunlight") whereas a failed roll is still given valid information, just not a crucial as the demons primary weakness ("This creature seems very similar to Shadow Beast")
Now I feel like I'm going around in circles.

The rule in general for skills is that you don't have to roll them every time the skill is used, only when things are tricky/complicated/difficult/whatever.
Which, when facing off against demons and monsters, is probably going to be a lot of the time, especially if you fail your save vs Horror.

The problem with the Weather Sense example above wasn't the GM rolling the dice, and it wasn't that the GM was giving bad info when the player got the check wrong; it was that the GM was getting other stuff wrong.
As mentioned, you wouldn't normally have to roll at all for normal "Hm. I wonder if it will rain today?" kind of stuff, only for unusual or difficult situations.
For situations where a roll would be required, somebody without the skill either shouldn't be able to do it at all, or would have to default to rolling under their most appropriate attribute (IQ, in this case) using percentile dice.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I described how I played it, not what the rules said.
It was pretty much ruined when RUE changed it.

Actually, the old RMB detect ambush skill still only told you good locations to set up an ambush. RUE didn't ruin it, they just clarified it. I've never played in a game where the GM let detect ambush actually detect an ambush.

Honestly, I sort of like that it isn't just "roll % to ruin any surprise". The GM tells you where the ambush /may/ be, you have to figure out what precautions your taking, and you have to do it without knowing if there's an ambush there or not. It adds a great element to the game, having to constantly be on your guard, analyze each situation and location and figure out a plan before going in.

By enforcing detect ambush only telling you where ambush's /may/ be, it encourages players to pay closer attention to their surroundings

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Honestly, I sort of like that it isn't just "roll % to ruin any surprise". The GM tells you where the ambush /may/ be, you have to figure out what precautions your taking, and you have to do it without knowing if there's an ambush there or not. It adds a great element to the game, having to constantly be on your guard, analyze each situation and location and figure out a plan before going in.

By enforcing detect ambush only telling you where ambush's /may/ be, it encourages players to pay closer attention to their surroundings

I agree. I like that it only works when players are looking for an ambush. It makes more sense to me. I also like the fact it just gives you a +1 bonus on Perception Rolls to counteract ambush rather than just negating it. Its bad enough that nearly every single player character in existence tries to find a way to give their character Six Sense as it is without Detect Ambush automatically foiling any trap. It works both ways though.

notafraid2die wrote:Actually, Sixth Sense specifies "life threatening", so if it isn't going to immediately kill the character (like a shot to their armor), it doesn't work. However, if a Master Vampire is about to drop down and power-punch you in the face, then it would work. This is how I squashed any issues with it.

I also meant to write +1 for every 10%. Just thought I'd clear that up now before someone tries crucifying me.

Yeah, but it can go off a few minutes beforehand so if anything life threatening is going to happen the character gets a brief flash of events and can not only resist with the bonuses provided by the power but potentially change future events. Don't get me wrong, its a handy and cool power. I just wish players didn't see it as "immune to ambush" and saw it more like "psychic foresight."

Again, its just a matter of approach and execution rather than any REAL problem with the power itself.

notafraid2die wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:I agree. I like that it only works when players are looking for an ambush. It makes more sense to me. I also like the fact it just gives you a +1 bonus on Perception Rolls to counteract ambush rather than just negating it. Its bad enough that nearly every single player character in existence tries to find a way to give their character Six Sense as it is without Detect Ambush automatically foiling any trap. It works both ways though.

Actually, Sixth Sense specifies "life threatening", so if it isn't going to immediately kill the character (like a shot to their armor), it doesn't work. However, if a Master Vampire is about to drop down and power-punch you in the face, then it would work. This is how I squashed any issues with it.

Yes and someone shooting at you IS life-threatening, just because you might have some armor between you and them to start doesn't change the fact that it's life-threatening. 'Well gee until you're naked and defenseless it doesn't work' isn't something that's fly with me, that's just trying to eliminate the power being of any use at all rather than deal with the characters actually *gasp* getting some warning and inconveniencing the GM by actually getting to defend themselves from an attack.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Honestly, I sort of like that it isn't just "roll % to ruin any surprise".

How do you feel about Perception?

The GM tells you where the ambush /may/ be, you have to figure out what precautions your taking, and you have to do it without knowing if there's an ambush there or not.

It turns it into a pretty useless skill, though, where there is no real benefit in taking the skill over simply having some kind of clue about the basics of tactics.

It adds a great element to the game, having to constantly be on your guard, analyze each situation and location and figure out a plan before going in.

By enforcing detect ambush only telling you where ambush's /may/ be, it encourages players to pay closer attention to their surroundings

No, it doesn't, because it can't.
There are no surroundings.
All there is is what the GM states there is, or what's on the map.
If it's on the map, then it's not too hard to spot potential ambush points.
If it's something that the GM says, then one of several things is going on:
-the GM is constantly describing everything, and the players have to listen for hours in order to glean a few possibly important details.
-the GM is describing the important parts of the scenery, including mentioning potential ambush sights (i.e., "You're traveling down the desert road, and there's nothing but flatlands for miles around. Except for that grove of trees" or "the road starts traveling down into a valley at this point, going through a narrow pass with high cliffs on each side," or whatever. (Yes, most likely there's going to be a bit more fluff in actual game play, but the gist remains the same.)
-The GM and Players are constantly engaged in a game of Twenty Questions, with the GM providing details when asked, only it's one hell of a lot more than 20 questions.
"What's the road like further down? Are there trees? What kind of trees? How tall are they? How close to the road? Are they big enough for somebody to hide behind?" etc. etc.

In real life, you can pay attention to your surroundings, because you can see them.
In a RPG, you can't. You can only pay attention to what the GM is saying.
And since a picture is worth 1,000 words, only the most verbose GMs can come anywhere close to providing the panorama of detail that even 1 minute's worth of visual examination can provide in most settings.
And those GMs tend to be boring.

The Detect Ambush skill, when house-ruled to actually detect ambushes, provides a simulation for not just "hey, any one of these trees in this forest could have a bandit behind it" or "that flat patch of desert sand, like any other patch of desert sand, COULD have some people or creatures lying underneath, ready to spring forth and attack," or "If I'm within a mile of tall grass, I'm potential sniper-bait," and so on, and so on and so on... instead of all of THOSE situations, which is to say virtually ALL situations where nothing is actually going to happen, the house-ruled version allows the skill to represent awareness that allows for the detection of actual threats, not just the detection of scenery.
It lets you know that the animals in this part of the forest are all suddenly quiet, which probably means there's predators nearby.
It lets you spot the fake cactus that's being used as a breathing tube for the bandits under the sand.
It lets you catch a glint of light off of the sniper's weapon or scope, or to notice that one particular patch of grass isn't necessarily the right height, or isn't moving with the wind as much, etc.

I'm fine with having PCs analyze situations, be on guard, and make plans... but not one bit of that needs the Detect Ambush skill as written, nor is even encouraged by it.
All that is done simply by GMing.

Nightmask wrote:

notafraid2die wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:I agree. I like that it only works when players are looking for an ambush. It makes more sense to me. I also like the fact it just gives you a +1 bonus on Perception Rolls to counteract ambush rather than just negating it. Its bad enough that nearly every single player character in existence tries to find a way to give their character Six Sense as it is without Detect Ambush automatically foiling any trap. It works both ways though.

Actually, Sixth Sense specifies "life threatening", so if it isn't going to immediately kill the character (like a shot to their armor), it doesn't work. However, if a Master Vampire is about to drop down and power-punch you in the face, then it would work. This is how I squashed any issues with it.

Yes and someone shooting at you IS life-threatening, just because you might have some armor between you and them to start doesn't change the fact that it's life-threatening. 'Well gee until you're naked and defenseless it doesn't work' isn't something that's fly with me, that's just trying to eliminate the power being of any use at all rather than deal with the characters actually *gasp* getting some warning and inconveniencing the GM by actually getting to defend themselves from an attack.

Agreed.
Lethal force is lethal force, whether or not it kills you.

Akashic Soldier wrote: I also like the fact it just gives you a +1 bonus on Perception Rolls to counteract ambush rather than just negating it.

Hm.
Where's that rule?

notafraid2die wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

notafraid2die wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:I agree. I like that it only works when players are looking for an ambush. It makes more sense to me. I also like the fact it just gives you a +1 bonus on Perception Rolls to counteract ambush rather than just negating it. Its bad enough that nearly every single player character in existence tries to find a way to give their character Six Sense as it is without Detect Ambush automatically foiling any trap. It works both ways though.

Actually, Sixth Sense specifies "life threatening", so if it isn't going to immediately kill the character (like a shot to their armor), it doesn't work. However, if a Master Vampire is about to drop down and power-punch you in the face, then it would work. This is how I squashed any issues with it.

Yes and someone shooting at you IS life-threatening, just because you might have some armor between you and them to start doesn't change the fact that it's life-threatening. 'Well gee until you're naked and defenseless it doesn't work' isn't something that's fly with me, that's just trying to eliminate the power being of any use at all rather than deal with the characters actually *gasp* getting some warning and inconveniencing the GM by actually getting to defend themselves from an attack.

Agreed.
Lethal force is lethal force, whether or not it kills you.

That being the case, the PC would effectively have the Sixth Sense bonuses on a permanent basis, because every time he's attacked, it would be by way of lethal force. It just doesn't seem that power should be used that way. It be like saying a character with clairvoyance would always know what steps to take to avoid combat all together, through an entire campaign.

A clearly false statement given the power only activates when unexpected danger threatens and the bonuses only last for the first round, it's not going to be providing constant bonuses all the time particularly in regular combat.

notafraid2die wrote:

Nightmask wrote:that's just trying to eliminate the power being of any use at all rather than deal with the characters actually *gasp* getting some warning and inconveniencing the GM by actually getting to defend themselves from an attack.

This is just darn offensive. I didn't say the power only worked "naked and defenseless". And I always give my players an out, no matter the situation. The difference would be being shot by a Wilk's 320 laser pistol (non-life threatening, provided one is in armor) and being shot by a Starfire Pulse Canon (life threatening, even in most standard body armor). In the later case, Sixth Sense would work and the PC would get all it's bonuses. I'd probably even rule that he automatically gets initiative (So not to kill the character by accident).

Nothing offensive about it, and given you said 'well if he's got armor then he's not in danger so the power doesn't work' does carry with it the flipside that he has to be naked or otherwise defenseless by your statement before the power would be of any help. Given the power only activates from unexpected danger the guy in armor would never gain the benefit of the power without it being an attack that would be an instant-kill because by the time someone shooting him with non-curbstomp levels of damage wears the armor away he's no longer surprised and dealing with an unexpected attack meaning the power doesn't work. Considering only an obvious killer GM packs his NPC with insta-kill weapons the power of Sixth Sense becomes completely worthless.

notafraid2die wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Lethal force is lethal force, whether or not it kills you.

That being the case, the PC would effectively have the Sixth Sense bonuses on a permanent basis, because every time he's attacked, it would be by way of lethal force.

It only triggers on the first round of attacks (or the surprise round).

It just doesn't seem that power should be used that way.

The alternative would be to use it only for attacks that will actually kill the character as the trigger.
Since the power activates up to a minute in advance of the trigger... I'm kind of curious how that would play out.
Would the GM have to run the combat once, then if the psychic character took a lethal blow, reboot the combat and give the psychic 6th sense bonuses for the first melee round?

notafraid2die wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:I agree. I like that it only works when players are looking for an ambush. It makes more sense to me. I also like the fact it just gives you a +1 bonus on Perception Rolls to counteract ambush rather than just negating it. Its bad enough that nearly every single player character in existence tries to find a way to give their character Six Sense as it is without Detect Ambush automatically foiling any trap. It works both ways though.

Actually, Sixth Sense specifies "life threatening", so if it isn't going to immediately kill the character (like a shot to their armor), it doesn't work. However, if a Master Vampire is about to drop down and power-punch you in the face, then it would work. This is how I squashed any issues with it.

+1 perception from what?

notafraid2die wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The alternative would be to use it only for attacks that will actually kill the character as the trigger.
Since the power activates up to a minute in advance of the trigger... I'm kind of curious how that would play out.

Say a sniper has a laser rifle leveled at a PCs head, ready to take his shot. Provided the PC is wearing a helmet, and provided that the laser rifle has the potential damage capacity to penetrate the PCs helmet, then Sixth Sense would kick in and the PC would know, "I've got to get out of the way NOW!" The sniper may even miss his strike role, but there is still an intimidate life threatening danger to the PC.

Actually, I'm kinda with you here, but I'd include more than one shot into consideration because of the timeline.
If the weapon could potentially kill you over the next minute, that should count, because if it can, then the odds are that at least one of the attacks during the next 4 melees is going to meet your criteria of being able to take out that helmet.
Assuming that the sniper is going to take more than one shot.

If the sniper is only going to take one shot, but even with max damage and a nat 20, there's NO chance of him inflicting serious injury on you, then I can agree with your scenario.
Likewise, if it's some guy with an AK-47, loaded with standard rounds, and you're wearing full EBA with plenty of MDC, I can see 6th Sense NOT going off. I may have even ruled that way at some point.

notafraid2die wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Nothing offensive about it, and given you said 'well if he's got armor then he's not in danger so the power doesn't work' does carry with it the flipside that he has to be naked or otherwise defenseless by your statement before the power would be of any help. Given the power only activates from unexpected danger the guy in armor would never gain the benefit of the power without it being an attack that would be an instant-kill because by the time someone shooting him with non-curbstomp levels of damage wears the armor away he's no longer surprised and dealing with an unexpected attack meaning the power doesn't work. Considering only an obvious killer GM packs his NPC with insta-kill weapons the power of Sixth Sense becomes completely worthless.

As for your "killer GM" inference, in my 15+ years of role playing, I've killed off one PC. That was my wife's, and at her request.

Yeah, sorry but there is no 'killer GM' inference. You stated you think 'life-threatening' means 'will kill the target', which it does not and that you therefor wouldn't let Sixth Sense activate to warn someone of an imminent threat to their life because they had armor unless the attack could ignore the armor and kill them outright. I stated that given only a killer GM does that kind of thing the power becomes worthless because the inference would be the assumption that you AREN'T a killer GM, just one nerfing a power so as to make it pretty worthless when the power is already quite limited. Someone shooting at you is threatening your life, doesn't matter if you're in body armor, a tank, or a bunker they're trying to kill you. A psychic power that warns of a threat to your life is going to activate because your life is being threatened from the start and was threatened the entire time as they shoot away your armor. Your life was in danger long before your armor failed.

Actually, I thought the power activated when you were in immediate danger from something that was already in motion (A flood, a sniper lining up to shoot, a mine in the road) not something that is possible (a fight). IF the npc is crusing for a fight, then sixth sense might go off....or it might not, its not however a magic "I'm in danger" detecor.

eliakon wrote:Actually, I thought the power activated when you were in immediate danger from something that was already in motion (A flood, a sniper lining up to shoot, a mine in the road) not something that is possible (a fight). IF the npc is crusing for a fight, then sixth sense might go off....or it might not, its not however a magic "I'm in danger" detecor.

It all comes down to how you define "in motion."

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Actually, I thought the power activated when you were in immediate danger from something that was already in motion (A flood, a sniper lining up to shoot, a mine in the road) not something that is possible (a fight). IF the npc is crusing for a fight, then sixth sense might go off....or it might not, its not however a magic "I'm in danger" detecor.

It all comes down to how you define "in motion."

....The Sixth Sense is only triggered by an unexpected, life threatening event (a trap or ambush is within 90 feet; a flash flood is rushing his way; etc) that is arleady set into motion and will happen in a metter of seconds. The power can no be called upon at will to sense for traps or ambush.....

I would say that is pretty clear, it has to be something that will be, not something that might be. The sniper that will shoot you, the mine you will step on.....but not the drunk that might get offended by your conversation. Though I might say that the presnce of 9 cs deadboys in the bar your about to would be a clear danger if they could tell the user (or some one close to them) was a d-bee or mage or the like (like if there is a goblin in the group), if not then its not an iminant danger.

I've always run Sixth Sense as responding to the eminent use of lethal force as defined as an attack that is intended to kill (regardless of mega damage output vs. capacity). All that is needed is the intent of the attacker.

Or maybe I'm just lazy.

Question - i have seen people mentioning "regional divisions" for lore: Demons & Monsters. I find it interesting but have no actual idea of how would tihs work in a table. How does one know what's typical or not of a country or region, by worldbook? If so how does it for places covered by multiple worldbooks, like North America, South America, Russia or China, for example? Or Underseas & Lemuria?

Dividing by world book is a good way to do it, but you could also break it down by order of demon (hades, dyval, red flame, archaic, chaos, etc).

Grell wrote:Dividing by world book is a good way to do it, but you could also break it down by order of demon (hades, dyval, red flame, archaic, chaos, etc).

Yes, one could, but a geographical divide seems more intuitive system-wise, though not quite perfect. If you start dividing Monster & Demon Lore by order how do you define what monsters each version covers, etc.

I asked about the "by region/country" because it seemed from people comments that there was something along those lines in the books already, RUE i'm guessing but might be completely wrong at that.

Feel free to bring a book citation into the discussion!