Secret Doors are too secret. Thoughts?

[Samuel Leming]

That would be flawed adventure design. If you need the PCs to find something (or solve a particular riddle, or to succeed at some task, or whatever), don't put them in a position where they might fail.

It's not a flaw if you're using the traditional D&D sandbox.

Sam

 

[delericho]

It's not a flaw if you're using the traditional D&D sandbox.

If the DM needs the PCs to find a particular clue, placing it somewhere they might not find it definately is a flaw.

In the traditional D&D sandbox, the plot of the campaign was "that which the PCs do", meaning that it couldn't be derailed in this manner - if they failed to find the clue then the game proceeded in a different but equally valid direction. But then, under this paradigm, there was no such thing as a clue that the DM needs the PCs to find.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hiding clues behind secret doors is okay, but you should ensure that the PCs are actually compelled to search for additional clues.

But never put a vital clue somewhere the PCs just can't find them unless they accidentally search for it. There should always be something leading them to it. If they then don't follow the lead, it's their fault. It's still not necessarily satisfying.

One way to ensure the PCs actively search for secret doors might be to highlight that they can exist and might be important - maybe an NPC or monster uses a Secret Door to escape or ambush them. Or an allied creature finds a Secret Door for them, and there is some treasure or an important piece of information found there.

In the end, the players should not feel like the secrets are just given o them, but they must feel rewarded for seeking them out.

Clues and treasure that will help them on their mission, but don't make it impossible to go on, are usually a good way to achieve this.

 

[Fenes]

The guy building the secret door wanting to hide something sounds like a logical reason to me.

Sam

Yes, but there should be something hidden that makes sense to be hidden. For example, something that's used daily by the guy - like his sword that he uses to defend himself - doesn't make sense to be hidden in a rather hard to get spot.

Basically, I think the presence of secret doors should have some way to be noticed outside perception or search checks. Odd spacing of regular rooms, a paranoid BBEG (which makes concealed rooms, and hiddne escape tunnels likely), regular presence of the city watch (which makes it necessary to hide things better than just keeping them in a chest) etc. Something that makes characters consider the possibility of there being a secret door, not just the "oh, it would be cool to have a secret door with a hidden sword" thought.

 

[Treebore]

If the DM needs the PCs to find a particular clue, placing it somewhere they might not find it definately is a flaw.

In the traditional D&D sandbox, the plot of the campaign was "that which the PCs do", meaning that it couldn't be derailed in this manner - if they failed to find the clue then the game proceeded in a different but equally valid direction. But then, under this paradigm, there was no such thing as a clue that the DM needs the PCs to find.

I agree. Only hide a clue if you have an NPC tell the group, "Object "X" is in there somewhere, don't give up searching until you find it." Then, at the very least the group knows they need to be searching for hidden rooms. Even if they don't realize it until after clearing out all the obvious rooms/areas.

Plus an adventure should never have rooms hidden so well that they can't find them, even with spells.

The only time I ever found acceptable was the HUMONGOUS hidden treasure room in "Sabre River". That room was practically impossible to find. The only time it ever was found was a Druid taking Earth Elemental form. Going in the right direction, finding a square room of worked stone they couldn't pass through.

 

[delericho]

I agree. Only hide a clue if you have an NPC tell the group, "Object "X" is in there somewhere, don't give up searching until you find it." Then, at the very least the group knows they need to be searching for hidden rooms. Even if they don't realize it until after clearing out all the obvious rooms/areas.

Plus an adventure should never have rooms hidden so well that they can't find them, even with spells.

There's something to be said for rooms that are 'found' by spotting the big empty space on the map. But should be an exception, rather than the rule, I think.

 

[Rechan]

Among other things, I think secret doors are best when they're just passageways that connect point A to point C, or hiding places for something to pounce out of. (Or a villain to escape).

 

[vagabundo]

Finding secret doors is like finding treasure. Not necessary, but can make your life easier.

So while you can get to the end of the adventure without finding a secret door, finding it unlocks something good: quickest route to the BBEG-avoiding some minions, some magic weapon that NPC/Monsters are esp' vulnerable to, a clue to solving the mystery in the plot (but not the only clue or the climax will tell all anyway, just leave the PCs in an arkward position)...

That's my take on secret doors anyway.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

A secret door is not there for the pcs to find. It's a bonus if they do find it, but should not be necessary for the adventure to continue.

 

[Simm]

If you want to encourage them to search I would suggest making it worth their while. Write up an extra secret room in the dungeon which contains nothing but a locked treasure chest. The first time the party searches a room have them find it. The opertunity for extra wealth will probably aid more thourough searching in future.