Actually, it's to provide a template for the players to tell a story, within the confines of what's provided. A story teller tells the story. In DnD, the players create the story. This is done through choices they make, dice rolls they make, or fail, and how they choose to go about combat. As a DM, you should have an outline, not a play by play, of what's expected to happen. There are around 50 years of lore to this setting, how much are you going to explain, for how long, before other players in your session get frustrated because resources are available. To your "Shar is...", there are books that cover that in game already. At some point, it's up to a player to find/read them. How many dialog wheel style choices do you provide for your players, instead of them organically asking questions? How are you going to code every possible outcome into a cRPG?
Are you seriously arguing that players should have to read D&D lore books if they want to know things in-game? Players are essential parts to a D&D story, yes, but they don't create the world in most cases. The DM does (either making it up himself or using others' worlds) and it's the DM's responsibility to give out that information to the players when appropriate. There are some cooperative game styles where players can make up information/lore/mechanics to incorporate into the world (obviously I'm not talking about backstories here), but that's certainly not BG3.
As has been said, there is a reason that Religion skill checks exist in D&D. It's so that players can make those checks to gain character&player knowledge about the world.
Yes, I am. That's why the resources exist. The resources would be limited to GMs only otherwise. Some of them actually are, the rest are intended for the players to use to facilitate gameplay.
Religion skill checks exist to test character knowledge. A player that knows everything they need to know about a deity can still fail that roll.
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Yes, because no TT session ever had players with a Player Handbook, or any of the other myriad of books aimed specifically at the players, right? You must have to spend a few sessions in a row, just explaining things, since you don't require your players to have resources created specifically to prevent that. You see, the problem with trying to translate your TT experience into a video game is that someone around the table is going to have these reference books. That is specifically what they are for. I wonder, how many interruptions of gameplay does it take before your players are suggesting the new player get X, Y and/or Z books? I've played at tables where you weren't allowed to sit down if you didn't have at least a Player's Handbook.
For rules and rulings, yes, players often have books. For lore and history, no, not so much... in fact, never in the years I've been playing have I ever sat at a table where players have cracked lore books mid session, or paused to read up about a fact of the world they're in that they didn't know - not once.
Do you suppose that some of those players have read the resources outside of the game, especially the ones that want to be up on the lore? Time is a finite resource, every TT game I've ever sat at wanted to spend as much time as possible actually advancing the story, instead of sitting in a class room, getting lore that maybe we already know, but Joe doesn't. The DM probably isn't leaving books laying around for the players to actually read either, you know, those books that "break immersion" because a player actually has to read them to gain knowledge that their character may glean from just picking it up. I know I have enough basic lore knowledge that I don't actually read a lot of them, but there are some that I do.
Then there's the irony of the Religion roll, where if a player fails it, they'll be left in the exact same boat as the OP here, totally in the dark about who a deity is, or what having a worshipper in the party might/could mean.
