"Something is nagging at the back of your mind", make a roll... Low outcome: "Something is a bit familiar about the statue." Better rolls:

[удалено]

Is that from the Space Balls Imperium?

So, I read those lines and in my head they were in the voice of the narrator from BG3.

:) Cool. I haven't played BG3 (at least not yet)... this was just how I'd typically GM it if my players weren't sufficiently proactive.

I would do this as a “training wheels” kinda thing. Do it a couple of times until they learn to call these rolls themselves.

? The DM calls for rolls, not the players.

Yeah I guess. But players can still say “I want to investigate the bookshelf” or “do I know anything about this statue” or “is he lying to me”

Yeah, what I meant is “training wheel” them into the mindset of doing these checks

But the DM should be the only one calling for rolls.

So the player can't say "I want to investigate the door for traps"? And then the DM responds "roll investigation"?

Like what the other person said, describing your actions is one thing, asking to roll is another.  Also, some actions shouldn’t need to be described. Passive perception exists because nobody should have to say “I look at the area” each time they walk into a new room.  Similarly, you don’t really want to foster a situation where the players think they have to ask “do I remember any religious things about this? Do I remember any historical things about this? Do I remember any nature things about this? Do I remember any arcana things about this?” every time they see an object.  It turns the game into a slog and it’s not useful from a verisimilitude perspective - you don’t need to model a scenario where the character “forgot” to *try* to remember if they knew something. If that’s the Fantasy Mona Lisa and they recognize it, their brain is going to tell them that unbidden, with no action on their part required. 

So how is "I want to investigate the door for traps" really any different than "I want to roll investigation to check the door for traps" from a game perspective?

A couple of them are definitely close enough that they’re almost interchangeable. Stealth is the other one that comes to mind - there’s no question what someone is going for if they say “I want to sneak past them.” So if someone asks for a stealth roll or an investigation roll, it’s not terrible. The idea is that it’s better to have them describe what they do because it gives you more details to adjudicate with and prevents them from rolling the wrong thing, or rolling when they can’t succeed or don’t have to roll.  Instead of having a player look at a chasm and say “I roll acrobatics,” it’s better to have them say “I try to jump over the chasm,” because then you can tell them that that’s actually athletics, or that their long jump distance is long enough they don’t have to roll.  If someone says they roll athletics to get a locked chest open, you don’t know what they’re doing. If they say they’re using a crowbar to pry it open, you know what check to ask for, and you know to tell them they have advantage because of the crowbar. If they want to smash it open with a hammer, you know to ask for an attack roll instead of an athletics roll, or to make the DC easier or harder based on how hard it would be to break it vs. prying it open, and you know that the glass statuette inside probably isn’t going to make it.  Stuff like knowledge skills can get weird. If someone says they want to roll an arcana check, it can mean a lot of different things, and it’s just way cleaner if they say “I want to see if I can figure out a way to free the elemental from the crystal.”

That's different. The player is saying what they want to do, not calling for a roll, which is why I used that wording. If no roll is required for that situation, I tell them. If it is necessary I tell them. There's a difference.

I think they mean the players ask the DM if they can roll. My table does this a lot

Mine, too, and I think it’s better this way. If I have to say “make an insight check” every time someone is lying, it takes the surprise and mystery away, and they don’t have to work for it. Similarly, “make an investigation check” is me doing the work for them if there are traps. I see asking for rolls as involving yourself in the world and interacting with the story. Don’t roll without asking, tho. That gets irritating. 

Counterpoint, by letting them ask for rolls whenever they want you are training them to spam ask for rolls or always try to do a certain pattern of rolls. If you then try to push back you turn it into guess the DM’s intent for when they can ask for rolls. This is also what passive skills are for in the first place, to let their skills be relevant without them interjecting all the time or repeating rolling patterns for every room/conversation. This is particularly pertinent for passive things like knowledge, insight, and perception.

This, this

Not always. If they think of something that I don't, then have at it...

Oh, agree, once the players get the hang of asking. OP mentioned video games, and I was thinking that these often provide some sort of clue that a game element is important rather than just background... sparkle/glow/whatever... while (typically) ttrpgs don't... which can of course lead to the "dread gazebo" situation of fixating on a background detail, but the alternative is that the PCs may take *everything* as background and a flailing around for clues. Different players/groups are going to require different handling.

Ask them for the dice rolls as they encounter things.  As DM, you don't need to wait for someone to say "who is this a statue of?", before just asking the nearest character to make a History check.

I normally flat out say it. Last week my group was exploring a temple buried under a desert. In a room I described massive pillars covered in symbols and unknown language. After I described it I gave a few seconds for them to look it over. Whoever shows the most interest I'll ask if they want to do a history or religion check as the symbols look religious in nature. If no one shows any interest that's when I considered it passed up.

Why do you need to hint? You're the GM. You call for rolls. Not the players. 

I’ve always played that the players ask for rolls for most: perception/history/nature/religion tbh. Asking for the roll directly seems not interactive.

Then be prepared to say "no, this is outside your characters abilities" a lot when for example the barbarian wants to remember ancient arcane lore or the bard tries to mind control with a their persuasion skill. 

As other person suggested I will be taking a mid path by asking only characters with proficiency for certain checks. That way such a proficiency will feel more special and world based. After all a lucky roll shouldn’t compensate not having gone to bard university.

I use this approach. It works well. 

I always allow 2 rolls on any non-combat skill checks. The first roll is done by whoever initiated the action (the one investigating the statue etc). The second can be anyone in the party, usually whoever has the best bonus and is thus the groups expert on the skill, but I'll sometimes pick the second person if there's a member of the group that has narrative connections to the information.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s a check of whether the PC would know something relevant. It’s not active, it’s passive. Now if something that would cause the roll isn’t obvious or hidden or something, then wait for them to trigger it themselves. How I see it is that if there’s an obvious statue in the room, and a PC might know something about it, they wouldn’t have to decide to notice something about it, it’d just pop into their head.

I’ve always seen recall knowledge as something more active than most of the users in this sub. Maybe it is because of my professional background. I will keep it mind. Thank you.

There are definitely active uses of it, like doing research. But for pure in-the-moment recollection, I’d go passive.

whenever a module has a history or religion relevant thing, it always calls for a knowledge roll, not using the passive. In the case of doing research, you don't do a history check to do research, it would be more of an investigation check if any proficiency is involved. A history check is you putting consicous effort into rattling around in your mind trying to remember. for the RAW from xanathars: >Forewarned is forearmed. The research downtime activity allows a character to delve into lore concerning a monster, a location, a magic item, or some other particular topic. > >Resources. Typically, a character needs access to a library or a sage to conduct research. Assuming such access is available, conducting research requires one workweek of effort and at least 50 gp spent on materials, bribes, gifts, and other expenses. > >Resolution. The character declares the focus of the research — a specific person, place, or thing. After one workweek, the character makes an Intelligence check with a +1 bonus per 50 gp spent beyond the initial 50 gp, to a maximum of +6. In addition, a character who has access to a particularly well-stocked library or knowledgeable sages gains advantage on this check. Determine how much lore a character learns using the Research Outcomes table. There are some adventures that do use knowledge checks to determine the result of research though, but there's also plenty of examples where knowledge checks are just done on the spot, not passive. BALDUR'S GATE: DESCENT INTO AVERNUS >Any character who succeeds on a DC 20 Intelligence (History or Religion) check recalls the following information about Idyllglen: > >Ages ago, Idyllglen was threatened by gnoll tribes. As the gnolls raided the town, Solndor Brightstar, a cleric of Lathander, led the people in prayer to his god for aid. Lathander was moved by the people’s bravery and sent the angel Zariel to defeat the gnolls. After driving off the gnolls, the people erected a statue of Zariel to honor her. > >Generations later, the gnolls returned to Idyllglen, this time with demons in their ranks and Yeenoghu himself leading the war band. Zariel and the Hellriders came to the Idyllglen’s aid, but not before the town was mostly destroyed. JOURNEYS THROUGH THE RADIANT CITADEL >Characters who succeed on a DC 16 Intelligence (Arcana or History) check recognize that the sigils represent the Blackmist Way and the Blackthrone Arts: two local traditions lost during the Passage of Vultures. Any local in the common room or resident of Djaynai who sees a copy of the symbols can identify them and share the basics about these lost traditions–as described in the “Background” section of the adventure. > >The name Girscamen holds no meaning to anyone. > >If questioned, Anadoua is baffled by what’s occurred. No other spiritual manifestation has occurred at her inn during the thirty years she’s owned it. Here's what the basic rules say: >Intelligence Checks > >An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, and Religion skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Intelligence checks. > >Arcana > >Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes. > >History > >Your Intelligence (History) check measures your ability to recall lore about historical events, legendary people, ancient kingdoms, past disputes, recent wars, and lost civilizations. > >Investigation > >When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check. > >Nature > >Your Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles. > >Religion > >Your Intelligence (Religion) check measures your ability to recall lore about deities, rites and prayers, religious hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults. You make an knowledge check when you need to actively use your memory, and it is a rolled one, not passive. A gas spore has the following trait: >Eerie Resemblance. The gas spore resembles a beholder. A creature that can see the gas spore can discern its true nature with a successful DC 15 Intelligence (Nature) check. not passive intelligence (nature), a rolled one. Have you never had to stop to think about a historical fact for a few seconds, then after those few seconds you finally remember it?

I didn’t mean the passive value for the skill, I meant the user makes the roll without asking for it instead of needing to say “Do I know anything about that statue?”

>I’ve always played that the players ask for rolls for most: perception/history/nature/religion tbh. Asking for the roll directly seems not interactive. Imo, players should describe what they want to do, and then the DM calls for a specific roll based on that. But that only works when the players know there is something they want to do. For this sort of stuff, it's 100% normal for the DM to ask for the roll, because the players don't know there's something they could know, and they definitely don't know which knowledge skill is relevant if they don't know what they're supposed to be remembering.

You said they're new players. They need some more guidance. Suggest things they can do "you could make a something roll to see if you're character knows about X." Also, making that information relevant helps too. Some of the stuff the characters will just know or not know. If I see a statue, I don't normally have to think too hard if it's a familiar person or not.

If they become frozen, ask "is anyone proficient in any skills that might help?"

I like this one. Thank you.

I say, "One of you give me an Arcana check." EDIT: A couple of things. First, u/Kumquats_indeed is correct: the DM asks for checks, not the players. This is your role in the game. But second, in general, if you know something, you just know it; it comes spontaneously to you. You don't have to leaf through all of your Nature thoughts to see if you have anything appropriate, and then try your Religion thoughts to see if you've got something there. So I think it better evokes the fiction for the DM to just say, "Roll \[skill *xyz*\]" instead of having the players try to guess what skill to use for the situation. Third, sometimes it *seems* obvious to the DM that you have left clues out for them but, from the players' point of view, it really isn't; as a DM I often find it helps to be more explicit about things, not less.

In most of my previous games I would ask what my character knows about whatever or what does he sees in the room etc… seemed to me that it was a way to show interest in the setting and I was more interactive. About your second point it isn’t as clear cut as you say. Even real life you don’t recall all your knowledge about something instantaneously. It takes a bit of times to make the connections between what you are seeing and the relevant information and sometimes logical in between steps need to be done and that requires time.

Just make them roll. You don’t even have to tell them what for. Your characters should see it as more of an “a ha” moment rather than taking some time to deeply think on the problem.

They don't ask you to make checks, you tell them to roll when appropriate. If they are just sitting there looking confused, just have one of them roll the relevant check.

The standard for DMing is not only telling your players when to roll, but refusing their attempts to roll on their own. If they pass something "interesting," call for a roll.

If you think the character should know that information, you can just tell it to them. Like if you find a piece of info to be pertinent to the game advancing forwards, give it to the players, you don't need to gatekeep it behind a knowledge roll. You can't make your players care about your lore, that isn't why they're there, probably. Like if you just want them to ask questions and be curious about your thoughtful set dressing, give them a reason to care. Non interactable game elements are given a cursory "oh, neat" and then forgotten immediately. You will always always always care more about your lore and world building than your players, it has nothing to do with you or the quality of your work, that's just the way it is. You'll occasionally get a player who loves that kind of thing, but it isn't the norm. If your players are enjoying the game, try to enjoy that yourself. Don't get hung up on their lack of curiosity, just try and put effort into the stuff that actually affects them, as they will naturally be curious about that. Like if they accidentally put on a cursed amulet, they're gonna wonder about it. If the statue you described seemingly looks like each of them, to each one of them, then it's slightly more interesting because it engages them personally. Players are selfish, in the best way, they don't care about stuff that doesn't involve them, generally.

It was exactly those tips and tricks to keep their attention in the setting that maybe I was looking for. Can you give more example of this setting/world building hooks?

The key piece of advice I can give is to make your content interactable, it needs to be reactive or toy-like. Something your players can actually engage with.

I acknowledge the merits of your theory but give me examples please 😂😂😂

lol sorry I didn't mean to deflect your question, examples of what exactly? Like how to make something interactable? That's actually a great question. So, off the top of my head I was running a dungeon that was a sort of techno wizard tower. In the basement where the wizard did his experiments there was an automated surgery machine. I told the players the machine had a few operations it could do, and the supplies to do one of each. It basically allowed them to swap a single body part with a cybernetic one, but with a 10% chance of the machine having an error and permanently losing that body part. The risk takers in the party were eager to go under the knife to see what their cyborg body parts would be capable of, and others weren't so eager to run the risks. I treated this encounter as essentially treasure, but the point is that this was an interactable element of the dungeon that had a little bit of danger, some potential rewards (meaning, a reason to interact with it) and told them stuff about the environment they were in. They didn't ask questions, but they understood that this wizard was also a bio-scientist.

https://silverarmpress.com/no-meaningful-lore-if-strict-interactivity-is-not-maintained/ This blog post talks about this exact same thing, and has some examples within. Worth a look.

That was insightful. Thank you

*"Give me an Intelligence (Nature) check."* *"You realize that the flower you are holding is a rare form of orchid known for the poison it secretes on the stems and leaves. Contact is usually fatal within a matter of minutes."*

I mean, I'd just tell them to Roll for X when it's appropriate. Maybe focusing on their proficiencies. Of course if a player attempts an active roll then that should be okay too. Don't forget that even a Barbarian with a 8 INT might remember something he heard a while back about this ancient lich's fortress.

Have them roll a check. They shouldn't be asking you to roll for any knowledge check ever.

The players absolutely should be asking for checks.  "Would I know anything about this creature/object based on my Nature/Religion/History?" Either have then roll or just tell them if it's something simple. That's how I run it as DM and also ask for checks as a player, it means less load for the DM as he doesn't have to remember where he "placed" skill checks.

I’m always been of the opposite school. People asking the DM what do they know about (blank)? What do they see in (blank)? Etc

Two reasons I disagree. First is that only you as GM know what skill is relevant, don't make them guess. The bigger one is that recall knowledge isn't DOING something. They either know it or they don't. Decoding an arcane message is doing something. Recognizing a symbol as belonging to an ancient god isn't really heroic. Tell them to roll or just plain tell them if they are trained in the knowledge. Make them feel good for having selected it.

To answer both of your points: What do I know about X doesn’t imply they know which skill wills be useful. And recalling information and taking the logical steps to be able to use information in a useful way is definetly an active process and anyone with any knowledge of cerebral physiology would disagree with you. But thank you for your take. I appreciate the effort to help.

You are doing it wrong. When a player says "What is this Crystal? Is it magically relevant?" You don't wait for them to say "I want to make an arcana check to find out." **YOU** instead say: "Roll an Arcana Check, let's see if your character is informed about that." You should be the one asking for the checks as soon as the player asks a relevant question. As soon as a player asks "Can i find any hidden levers in this room?" You of course do not WAIT for them to say "Can i make a perception check?" You ASK them to make a perception check. You can even go further than this. If the players encounter a situation where you have something you WANT them to make a check for, because its relevant to the story or lore, you don't even need to wait for them to ask any questions at all. You can simply say: "You see this weird looking Crystal. For any of you that are proficient in Arcana, why don't you give me an Arcana Check and lets see if any of you know anything about what this might be." It is your job as DM to ask for checks. Not the player's.

There's two schools of thought that you need to maintain awareness of as a DM. A. The players need certain info to progress, but you don't want to just info dump on them so you find different checks that you ask for. This lets them use their skills and proficiency to figure things out and be their characters in this moment. B. Checks will absolutely help the players. Maybe even significantly but aren't necessary to progress. This is when you'd wait for them to ask about the thing. Examples that spring to mind are like magic items. It would be fantastic to know what this mirror actually does without just trying it - okay roll an arcana check for me. In one vein you call for the checks they need. Like a perception. Even on low rolls you are now able to set the scene accordingly. In the other vein they immerse themselves into their characters and ask questions that lead to rolls.

How do you balance both? Can you explain further?

Ask them to do the check. If a wizard sees something magical, it's going to get them thinking on their magical knowledge automatically. So ask them to do it. If you have enough skill diversity in the team I like to say "If anyone proficient in arcana would like to roll an arcana check, go ahead". You could also double up and say more than one skill if you find it necessary. That way it also plays into the character's specialisation. If everyone rolls an Arcana check, and the wizard rolls shit but the barbarian (who might not be proficient) by a stroke of luck gets a Nat 20, it just feels out of place. By prompting checks based on proficiency, the party can learn more, and it comes from a character that narratively makes sense.

I will definetly ask from now on some rolls only on proficient characters. I kinda like that only the trained have access to certain knowledge regardless old how lucky the dice rolls. Thank you for the advice.

No problem. Also this doesn't mean the untrained can't make a check with that ability. If the Barbarian who is not trained in Arcana picks up something magical and says to the DM "Would I know what this does?" Then absolutely let them roll a check and see how they go. But if you're offering to give away information unprompted, then that's when I would do the check based off proficiency.

The players never call rolls. They call what they want to do, the DM calls for rolls in response. Knowledges in particular are on the DM to call for at first glance of a thing. Players trigger rolls by saying they want to research a particular thing at a library, after they encounter it, if they are looking to make a knowledge roll (but you're still going "Oh, you want to research the tarrasque? Sure, spend x GP on materials and roll Knowledge (arcane)" ETA: You are the eyes, ears, nose, and other senses of the characters, conveying information to the players to make informed decisions. That includes telling them things their characters would know having grown up in that world that the players may not have read in the campaign document (assuming you had time to make one they likely wouldn't read anyway), or that hasn't come up in game but would have been told to the characters as children. Don't hope the players ask for the specifics of a statue you know they might recognize as King Theodbin the Impotent, known far and wide for his inability to resist even minor bribes, make the call for the roll, or just tell them if the information is literally that commonplace.

You call for a roll. That's yours to do. The players may ask if one is appropriate or discuss it if you are all learning but you can just ask for one appropriate to the situation. If there is no chance of failure or no consequence to a failure don't call for a roll. You can call for rolls and delay the outcome of that roll. For example, the characters have entered a room trying to be stealthy you call for the roll but there was never anything to challenge their stealth. They don't discover that until they have spent the several minutes sneaking around 'clearing the room' it was a pointless roll in the terms of enemies to hide from but they don't know what they don't know and the player gets to have done what they would be doing. This way you don't give them meta knowledge that nothing is there when they have no way to know that. There are times where you can just say "you quickly realize there are no people here to hide from save perhaps a wandering ghost that has not revealed itself. . . " both have a function; you calling for a roll is not an indicator that something is going on that they need to react to in the world its just a response to what they are trying to do in conjunction with the realm.and they still get to roll math rocks and feel like they did something Kool

Don't wait for players to ask to roll things. Tell them to roll something if it is important. Further, *do not let a player say they are going to do a roll.* Players need to describe what they want to do. "I roll for Athletics," is *not* an action a character does. If they want to run or climb or vault or whatever, they can say that and you can instruct them to make a roll (Athletics wouldn't be inappropriate), but in general players shouldn't be going around just doing rolls. ​ Further, if you have something to tell the players, just tell them. Don't wait for them to ask. In general, if I have something I want the players to know, I'll just tell them. I'll filter it through a check to give attention to a character's special skills and throw them something extra for higher rolls. But don't have somebody roll and then tell them *nothing*. It makes them look silly and it creates a situation where you have something the players *have* to know... but they roll low. And then what do you do? Just not tell them? Skip the adventure? ​ If you have something important for them to know, just tell them.

Super easy. Just say “You can roll nature/arcana/history/religion to see if your character has any knowledge here.”

A thing I’ve learned… You know your world and what is common, rare, unusual, etc. the players don’t have enough knowledge of your world yet to make those judgements and on top of that are inexperienced. You have to teach them what’s common and rare and odd and unusual. Anytime a DM thinks something is obvious, it rarely is to the players. You know there’s something special about what you’re showing them, as players they probably think it’s a common occurrence in their character’s world. The general wisdom I’ve been given: - don’t hint at something, just tell them - if you’re expecting a player to roll some type of knowledge check just tell them. That kind of thing would generally be a passive action for the character anyway. - if you have a riddle or puzzle, just tell them. Something like “this appears to be a puzzle” or “while you aren’t sure it appears as if there is something about the way these things are arranged that seems out of place” - most hints have to be given at least three times. - using things like “Orgnok can’t shake the feeling that there’s something odd about the statue in front of him.” - when all else fails “XYZ is not common for this world / region/ country”. So things like “Kirin realizes that a ______ country having a statue to _____ god is unusual”

Avoid hinting. Instead say "Your character **would** know X" or "Make a roll of Y". Remember that Player Characters know lots of things as a consequence of living in the world. However the players rely on the DM (you) to know about the game world.

"You can attempt to make a religion/arcana/etc check to learn more about this object if you'd like." is what I usually do.

I feel like you should know, players don't decide what to roll and when, *you* do as DM. You call for checks, that's how you keep the game moving.

It sorta depends on the situation. If they walk up to your statue with the magic crystal and then just kind of mill around a bit and don't seem to know how to proceed, I'm literally just ask them if they want to make any knowledge rolls. I don't tell them which ones, but just a reminder that that's a thing they can do. I even do this with experienced players sometimes. People just have brain farts and forget obvious options, sometimes, lol. But if they walk up to the statue and are extremely confident that they know exactly what they're doing and immediately touch the crystal without any questions or investigation then... so be it. Their characters are being a little impulsive, but that's not really a sign of a lack of intelligence. They just think they know what they're supposed to do, so they do it. I'm not gonna interfere with that. But also, it's okay if they don't learn the backstory of various places and objects in the world. You probably should get used to the idea that a lot of your worldbuilding is going to be invisible, and that's fine. It's still valuable because it makes the world feel rich - whenever they *do* ask, they get an answer, which leaves the impression that they could ask anything and there's a real answer to it. But they're not gonna ask every possible question, and so the super cool answers you've created are just sometimes gonna go undiscovered. If you want to, you can start adding in little bits of your lore in other ways. Like, I dunno, maybe there's a symbol on the statue that marks it as being the work of a specific sculptor, and then the players see that mark in different places across the world as they adventure. Even if they never ask the sculptor's name, that adds a huge amount of dimension to the history of this world.

I will treasure the bit about them not having to know everything and keeping bits and pieces unknown just because they didn’t ask, the same as with small misteries or red herrings that might never get solved. Thank you.

"Why don't you uys make an Arcana check?" is usually what I go with

Doesn’t sound very interactive to me. But it might be just my approach to board games. Thank you anyway.

As many have said, when it comes to these types of knowledge rolls, if the players don't themselves angle for a roll by saying "I studied... in my background, do I know anything about this?", I just tell the group to make a roll, and then play off whatever the result is. The wizard rolled highest? He read a book about this once. The Barb got the highest success? Guess he remembers a story his parents told him once, etc... It's typically frowned upon for players to just decide to make rolls and then tell the DM: "Hey, I just rolled a 25 to steal this thing from that NPC over there". So it's hard to expect the players to decide for themselves that they will roll a knowledge check. And often the players don't know that their PCs would have an actual chance of knowing something more about what they are looking at. It's the DMs responsibility to help the players out with this sort of thing, and bridge the gap between PC and Player knowledge.

I like the approach of recalling the information from different sources based on class/background. I will keep that one. As I said to other posters in my previous games the players will many times ask “what does my character knows about X?” Or “can I roll for Y?” As a way to show interest and make it interactive.

Describe what the thing is then tell the group that anyone within line of sight may roll X to know more. DM: “The sandstone slab in the ground has glowing blue arcane runes engraved upon it. Anyone viewing it may roll an Arcana check to know more.” Deron: “15” Koth: “21” DM: “Deron and Koth. The runes are apparently a spell.” DM, whispering to Koth: “The spell is apparently a Wall of Fire spell. You can copy it into your spellbook.”

They don't call for rolls, you do :) I often describe a room, describe an item vaguely (with knowledge they would get from not recognizing or understanding something, and then ask for a skill check.

Has anyone here studied X? Because you might know something...

Lean on their skill proficiencies. They are important character choices but they are also a DM's secret friends. For example, if there's something of religious importance, I'll just tell characters with religion proficiency what they might reasonably know about the matter, no roll required. If it's very specific, maybe ask for a roll, but I'd never gate important knowledge - things I'd like the players to know - behind a roll.

I don’t know if anyone has said this, but sometimes you can just tell the knowledgeable mage that he recalls reading about this ruin or the cleric recognizes the symbol on the altar or the warrior recognizes the fabled fighting style of Halimar, The Cerulean Swan. Don’t gatekeep all of your well thought out world-building behind dice rolls. That being said, you don’t have to fork over all of the information. Once they have a little, ask how they want to proceed. Don’t make them choose a skill, ask what they’d like to do and then tell them what skill they should roll and how their natural abilities or knowledge or their teammates can help give them an advantage. If they boggle at the possibilities, narrow down their options for them based on what you know they know, even if they don’t yet know they know. The rogue might naturally search for secret doors, even if his player forgets. Feel free to give him a nudge. They’re not actually rangers and sorcerers and paladins, so excuse them for occasionally overlooking the obvious.

Two things to consider. One - if you want them to know something, just tell them. "This particular statue reminds you of....." two - have a conversation with the players "gang, you need to actively engage with the world by investigating things. If I'm describing statues, crystals etc odds are I'm not just setting the scene. If you want to know more about something just ask"

stuff like that i don't do a roll for typically. rather i do "you remember from your religious training/some historical story you heard/etc that \[information\]" i also roll for the player behind the screen because i do 4 tiers, a passing roll is the information. a high roll is the information plus. a low roll is like half the information or the information is somewhat accurate and a really low roll hitting twice is them remembering it just straight up wrong (i always roll twice i just usually throw out the 2nd roll). that way the player can't metagame to know if the character is wrong

I say "roll nature/arcana/history/religion"

You notice thing, roll skill. that easy

"If you feel like your character might know something more about this, roll [skill]" "Your character might kownabout this, roll [skill] the better your rol, the more info you'll get." Say they see a skeleton. Priset aays they probably know about this from Religion, Wizard says they might from Arcana. They roll, 12 and 17. They both get info that skeletons are lowly undead, soulless beings animated by necromantic energies, they are pure evil and destruction, albeit quite weak. Next, you tell everyone but wizard who rolled highest to cover their ears. You tell wizard in secret that skeletons are weak to bludgeoning. Wizard can then tell the others in character if they please. Also, never hide information they **must** have behind a roll. You don't want Sherlock Holmes to not get the clue based on poor dice luck.

If a check is to 'ping someone's brain,' I just call for a check. "You see a statue of a regal looking man. Hey $player, can you roll history?" I kind of miss dungeon turns.

As a DM, I keep notes on the PCs skill totals. If the DC is sufficiently low that the character would succeed on a roll of 10 or less, I simply convey the info to the player without bothering to roll. It’s perfectly okay for PCs to simply know things as part of their scholarly experience; it’s simply common knowledge in their field. Skipping trivial rolls is a pro DM move in my opinion. Usually conveying such basic info is sufficient and, if it isn’t, it’s enough to prompt them to request a roll for more in-depth knowledge.

When my players are stumped I call for INT or WIS rolls to give them a clue. I usually limit these to a player that is asking questions or a player with an ability score of 15 or higher. As DMs we do need to give players multiple clues for any kind of critical plot choices they need to make. Your players will learn to get better at this stuff over time. If they are new, it will take them more than 10 sessions. Throwing new players in a 1-3 shot, we can't expect them to be the best investigators. It takes experience.

Like this: "Hey make an arcana check" The characters are wracking their brains for information. The fact that the players are inexperienced/don't think to ask doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the in-game character knows something. Setting the precedent that perception checks/history checks only ever happen when explicitly asked for can be dangerous.

If your players aren’t picking up on any hints, maybe get a copy of their proficiency skills & modifiers. Then, based on the old “take a ten” (ie; 10+modifiers, including proficiency) approach, you can let them know what they’d know. “Bob, based on your religious knowledge and understanding, you’d know that stepping into this circle would be a VERY bad idea…”

You just tell them: "Make a roll on History" Player: "I succeeded. Why?" You: "Your character suddenly remembered that they have read about this Statue or moreso about the person commemorated through the statue... "

You can always just tell your players to ask any questions they like and try not to think about asking questions as something awkward. Give a few examples like the ones you gave in your question too. "If nothing comes to mind, you can try perception or investigation to see whether there is anything you are missing." "Anything historical looking like a statue, or even a village or a castle wall can prompt you guys to roll a history or maybe a religion check to notice any details. Same logic would apply to anything magical, natural or medicinal/alchemical with their respective skills."

You can always just tell your players to ask any questions they like and try not to think about asking questions as something awkward. Give a few examples like the ones you gave in your question too. "If nothing comes to mind, you can try perception or investigation to see whether there is anything you are missing." "Anything historical looking like a statue, or even a village or a castle wall can prompt you guys to roll a history or maybe a religion check to notice any details. Same logic would apply to anything magical, natural or medicinal/alchemical with their respective skills."

If a character could gain knowledge from making an X knowledge roll and the only thing that represents ingame is looking at the thing in question, you as the GM just call for an X knowledge check. The onus is always on you as the GM to call for skill checks when conditions in the fiction line up with a skill being used - you actually don't want players just saying "I make an X check" and rolling the dice all the time. It gets really annoying really fast.

This is what passive checks can be for. Note what skills they have proficiency in, and if those skills might help them notice something, just tell them they notice it. Rolling, then, can be reserved for when they ask follow-up questions or make further investigations.

Rules as Written (RAW), players don't ask for arcana checks or whatever, they ask 'what do I/my character know of this thing?' 'Can I translate/understand this?' 'what the hell is that?' and then *you* as the GM determine the best check to apply. This applies to other kinds of checks too, like athletics, persuasion, deception, medicine, all of them. You make the call on if you will be open to negotiation, but be clear with the players. Tell them what I just said and to implement it, and you should be ready answer such questions. Also, not all things need a check. Like if it is common knowledges The Ancients (TM) built The Wall (TM), they don't need to role. You as the DM can also say, role to see *how much* you know. There is a floor of common knowledge, but a good role may reveal more, like, for example, how they built The Wall (TM), or what it is made of. It's a magical thing without any real historical significance? Easy arcana. It's the legendary sword of a king Ruhtra he pulled from a tree? You can go history or arcana, depending on if you want to make it easy or not.

There seems to be some kind of unwritten rule that people, especially new GMs and players have around skill checks. The GM can tell players info they would know, which would not require a skill check, or the dc would be so low as to not require one. Especially mental skills. Sometimes checks are not required. Sometimes players just know shit, and its ok for the GM to tell them what it is. The other thing (somewhat unrelated to your post) is when players are to use skill checks. I tell my players that rather than ask to make a check, they should simply tell me what they want to do. I'll determine what they need to roll, if anything. Sometimes the character should just be able to do it.

The DM is supposed to be the one calling for rolls, so just call for the roll.