So, let’s say the PCs come up to a ruin, and outside are some dwarven statues of a religious nature.
The Cleric asks, “Hey, who are these statues supposed to be?”
So, that’s maybe Theologian, Ob3 (for an Immortal Lord).
But should it even be a roll? This Cleric isn’t a dwarf and wasn’t raised in a dwarven hall, so there’s not an impetus to just say he knows it, but on the other hand, is it worth rolling for? The only “obstacle” here is the Cleric’s potential ignorance.
But then again, information is information. It might be useful to know about this chaotic dwarven Forge Lord, perhaps a fuel for a Good Idea or the use of a Wise later on.
Any thoughts on this?
A check and a full turn for that sounds really harsh. If the information behind the statues and the identity of the Immortal Lord is important for the adventure, then sure, but maybe then give out a bit more info than just the name?
I think I’d give the name and suggest that the PC might remember more about the particular deity if willing to spend some time thinking about it…
Another sort of out-of-the box thing to consider is to give them an extremely brief summary of the info without a turn as a good idea, but then later if they try to use that information for something to advance the plot (with some risk) then you could have them test Theologian using up a turn to apply the knowledge more concretely and in more detail.
It’s a fair test. You could add Evil GM Factors (page 132) because it’s a foreign Lord.
Thanks! I feel better now.
I suppose I’d ask how the character would know, or how he was trying to figure it out, in order to get the right Skill/Obstacle.
Plus, it would let the player say, “Nevermind, maybe I don’t really want to know.” He shouldn’t be able to back out of a test, but there’s a fine line between asking the GM questions and fishing for a knowledge-based test.