the Jester
Legend
So what you are saying is that the party can be never sure about traps?
Yes, that is exactly right.
Is the trap-finding-skill the only skill in use with which the results are alway uncertain?
Not at all. You don't know whether you have successfully used Stealth to hide until someone either reacts to you or doesn't- and even then, they might spot you and not reveal that they did so. Conversely, if you think someone's hidden, you might not know whether you failed to spot them using a Perception check or whether they really aren't there at all. There are countless examples; trying to research something using Arcana and it doesn't succeed? Maybe you failed, or maybe it's simply not possible to research.
How about crafting a weapon? Do you roll the dice for the players as well, because, you know, the swords that weaponsmithing PC made can always brake, he can never be sure?
That's entirely different. The weaponsmith can be sure, because the weaponsmith can test his work. You can see the results. You're comparing that to something where there are no results to see if A. you fail, or B. there's nothing to see.
Does a rogue in your game world never actually have a chance of being absolutely sure that there is not a trap where he or she searched? After all, the DM rolling for search traps is stadard operating procedure and whatever the DM says the result is cannot be counted on. To me, that is a really weird concept.
That's correct.
I find the concept that a rogue could be absolutely sure to be really weird, especially because, in the history of D&D, it has always been assumed that this kind of thing is kept from the pcs- at least, in my experience. And it was explicitly called out that way frequently throughout D&D's history. For example, from the closest older edition PH at hand:
2e Players Handbook said:To find the trap, the thief must be able to touch and inspect the trapped object. Normally, the DM rolls the dice to determine whether the thief finds a trap. If the DM says, "You didn't find any traps," it's up to the player to decide whether that means there are no traps or there are traps but the theif didn't see them.
Emphasis mine.
And it does not lead to a better immersion at all. All it leads to is that several members of the group look for traps. Continiously. Because if 2 or 3 people do not find a trap, chances are much higher that there actually is no trap. The game turns into a trap-finding fest.
Since you don't play like this and I do, you'll have to take my word that you're totally wrong on this one.
Fortunately the rogue can do other things but find traps. Sneak attack and scout and maybe know his or her way around a city. But the last time I checked, the class chassis of the rogue securely included finding traps and being able to deal with them. Obviously in your game this is not the case, because the rogue can never be sure that he is actually proficient with this skill. He just never knows. Neither does the player of the rogue.
That's a rather silly assertion. Of course he knows that he's proficient. He just doesn't know whether he was successful.
Do you do the same things for perception as well, finding hidden things and people in general?
It depends on the circumstances. If they are in combat and a goblin ducks and uses the Hide action, the player gets to roll, because he knows there is something there. If he's searching for secret doors, I'll usually roll.
Because that decreases the amount of stuff the rogue can securely do in the exploration pillar.
No it doesn't. It just makes the rogue stay immersed in the game world, because- just like Indiana Jones didn't know if he missed a trap when he missed a trap- the rogue is never 100% sure. I assure you, since I have a great deal (decades) of experience doing this- it doesn't ruin the rogue, the game, traps, trapfinding or anything else.
I get the feeling the basic skills of my rogue are nerfed in your game. You can play with this setup, of course. But a nerf is a nerf.
They really aren't. I'm one of those DMs who lets the BBEG die without acting to a single save-or-die effect if the BBEG fails that save.
Now, I'll agree that the ability of the rogue to be certain about whether there is a trap is nerfed compared to the playstyle you are used to, but I would say rather that your approach is very soft and makes things too easy for the rogue. It's all a matter of perspective.
Comparing the general use of the trap-finding ability to reading an entire module and then having problems not basing decisions on that knowledge is taking the whole question too far. You are comparing apples and bricks.
Not at all. The comparison is between out-of-character knowledge ("I rolled a 3, that won't detect anything") and out-of-character knowledge ("I'm searching the table leg" *thinks: because I know there's a scroll tube inside it*). It is the same thing.
Oh yes, fudging is indeed a long standing tradition for many DMs. But it is a tradition that causes all kind of problems. And I have yet to experience a DM who does not fudge against the players. And it is always to make the game "more interesting" or "fun". Of course DMs fudge in favor of the PCs. But even that still amounts to taking away agency from the players. I rolled that 1, I have to live with it. That's what rolling the dice is for. What do you tell the players if you fudge against them? "Oh, the monster should not have hit you that hard, but I thought it would be more fun if it did and that's why I turned a 2 into a 14." Oh, you defeated the monster, but I fudged in your favor. Do not feel that you haven't earned that victory. It was just a little fudge....".
To each their own but I do find the game to be much less exciting if there is fudging involved.
Here we are in (almost) complete agreement- the only difference being that I would rephrase your second sentence to "But it is a tradition that causes all kind of problems for those of a certain playstyle."
As I've said, I am not much of a fudger. I think the last thing I fudged- about last Christmas- was a wandering encounter check. It was late, we were winding down, the dice said "nasty encounter"- I said, nah, it's too late, we're too close to winding down and too many of us have work in the morning.
I don't recall fudging an attack roll or save since.... hm... probably the middle of the 4e days. Though, obviously
It is also funny that you expect the players to trust in the result of you dice rolls for the players if they know you fudge (in their favor or against them). Sorry, but to me, this whole concept stinks.
I have found that most fudge-heavy DMs are also much more story-focused than I am (I'm very much setting/sandbox focused). I think they have to work harder to earn that trust, but players who are story-focused players appreciate the fudging if it keeps the story on track. I think. I know that most players I have played with expect the DM to fudge from time to time and don't seem to mind, but I also know that once someone has played in my game for a while, they tend to really appreciate the fact that I (generally) don't. There are no free victories or gimmes, but they also don't get screwed because "it makes the game more fun" (which I agree is generally the motivation for a DM to fudge).
I want the story of the game to emerge from the game, I don't want the game to emerge from the story.