D&D 5E Combining player-directed search with skill-based searching

[redrick]

I want my players to interact with the game world. It can happen in whichever way they prefer, but whenever a player goes beyond, "I perform this D&D action to this D&D object," I want that player to be rewarded in some small way. So, when it comes to searching a room, my approach has been, if a player asks the right questions, they will always get the right answer, regardless of any skill check. On the other hand, since I appreciate that not all players always want to "ask the right questions", I also set DCs for characters to find everything in the room by just "searching the room." A 12 will find that giant golden chalice under the bed, a 15 will find that wand mixed in with the pile of firewood and a 20 will find that secret compartment in the bookshelf. On the other hand, if a player says, "let me see what's in that bookshelf", I'll start telling her about it I say, "It's a deep shelf with thick, sturdy shelves and rows upon rows of books that are so covered in dust that you can't even make out the spines." (At this point, she might say, "ok, I'm going to spend 10 minutes searching this bookshelf," and now I'll basically give her advantage and a DC of 15. Or something.) And then she might ask to clean off the dust on some of those books and then I might tell her how one looks different from the others and then she's basically found the secret compartment.

That's my theory, anyhow.

In practice, the only time a player has ever interacted with any of my scenery was when an NPC said, "there is a secret door in that room" and then the PC walked into the room to find a head hanging from a hook in an alcove. He pulled on it. Most of the time, my players just "search the room" and sometimes they find everything and sometimes they don't. Less good stuff for them. Less fun for me.

Should I just take another opportunity to encourage my players to look more interactively? Should I remove the cop-out skill-based search, forcing myself to do a good job at setting the scene well enough for the players to be able to succeed? Should I just accept that my players want to roll dice at monsters and stop thinking of every investigation-searched room as a missed opportunity?

 

[Thaumaturge]

I'm having to retrain some players on this behavior, too.

What works best for me is to say "where are you looking" in response to "I search the room". When the player tells me, I ask more questions to get the players to describe their interaction.

I think it'll really click when someone feels like he figured something out himself.

But some of it is about the kind of experience the players want. Some of my players are Explorers, so they want to be pushed in these ways. Some of my players are Tacticians or Actors, and they have less interest in poking around an imaginary dungeon cell in their heads.

I'm still working on finding a balance.

Thaumaturge.

 

[mips42]

I want my players to interact with the game world. It can happen in whichever way they prefer, but whenever a player goes beyond, "I perform this D&D action to this D&D object," I want that player to be rewarded in some small way. So, when it comes to searching a room, my approach has been, if a player asks the right questions, they will always get the right answer, regardless of any skill check. On the other hand, since I appreciate that not all players always want to "ask the right questions", I also set DCs for characters to find everything in the room by just "searching the room." A 12 will find that giant golden chalice under the bed, a 15 will find that wand mixed in with the pile of firewood and a 20 will find that secret compartment in the bookshelf. On the other hand, if a player says, "let me see what's in that bookshelf", I'll start telling her about it I say, "It's a deep shelf with thick, sturdy shelves and rows upon rows of books that are so covered in dust that you can't even make out the spines." (At this point, she might say, "ok, I'm going to spend 10 minutes searching this bookshelf," and now I'll basically give her advantage and a DC of 15. Or something.) And then she might ask to clean off the dust on some of those books and then I might tell her how one looks different from the others and then she's basically found the secret compartment.

That's my theory, anyhow.

In practice, the only time a player has ever interacted with any of my scenery was when an NPC said, "there is a secret door in that room" and then the PC walked into the room to find a head hanging from a hook in an alcove. He pulled on it. Most of the time, my players just "search the room" and sometimes they find everything and sometimes they don't. Less good stuff for them. Less fun for me.

Should I just take another opportunity to encourage my players to look more interactively? Should I remove the cop-out skill-based search, forcing myself to do a good job at setting the scene well enough for the players to be able to succeed? Should I just accept that my players want to roll dice at monsters and stop thinking of every investigation-searched room as a missed opportunity?

I don't know how much this will help but it has been my approach so far. I will describe the scene, telling the players anything is reasonable to know, see, hear, smell or intuit without requiring rolls. Directed attention would be the same for wherever they're looking or whatever they're looking at.
So, using your examples I would say that if the players say they check under the bed, they find the chalice. If they try to light the fire they find a strange looking piece of wood that looks different than the others. If they want to search the bookcase, they notice that the shelves seem to be shallower than they thought when looking at the case or that one particular book appears to be heavier/lighter than they would have thought.
Work on better, more thorough descriptions AND in directing them to the significant features of the room.
If you're of an age, think about the old text adventures like Zork. They had no rolls, it was ALL about description, telling you what you could see and hear and getting the player (you) to ask the right thing.

EG: As you pass through the cracked wooden door, the old hinges give a squeal of protest. You enter into a largish space, twenty feet square or more. The cold stone floor is covered with a mouldering woolen rug. The north wall reluctantly bears the weight of an enormous stone fireplace that is long cold, and a large, dusty bookshelf. Against the east wall is a worn looking bed covered in threadbare quilts and natty woolens. There is another, heavy door on the west wall. The ceiling sports a ridiculously large and ornate candle wheel, for which the rope runs across the ceiling and down next to the door that you entered from. As you are looking around the room, you think you see a glint of light from under the bed.
From there, it's up to the players. If they find stuff, great. If not, move on and possibly move that thing they didn't find somewhere else that they might find it (if you *really* want them to have it).

Good luck and play on.

 

[redrick]

If you're of an age, think about the old text adventures like Zork. They had no rolls, it was ALL about description, telling you what you could see and hear and getting the player (you) to ask the right thing.
Good luck and play on.

Ha, yes, I try to think of it very much like I am describing a room in Zork or an old Infocom adventure. I actually find it a helpful discipline to imagine that everything I say to the players should carry an implied ">" prompt. As in, "I just told you something, now tell me what you do." My early DM'ing experience involved a lot of me talking and then players looking at me blankly with a sort of, "ok, now what?" expression.

There's definitely a challenge in finding just the right amount to set the scene. Too much and you lose the focus of your players (or yourself). Too little and you either leave out important details (like there is a giant treasure chest in the center of the room) or you make it too obvious. ("There's a lot of stuff in this room. Including a big iron treasure chest.")

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Ahhh...the good old "0e" method ( see "A Quick Primer for Old School Games" at Frog God Games; http://www.froggodgames.com/free-downloads ).

I do this too, pretty much always have. I have played with DM's who do the exact opposite; even if I looked in the right area, if I failed my Search check, I didn't find it. Very frustrating....it's like I'm not even playing the game, my character is there and I'm just seeing what he does.

Anyway, sounds like you are on the right track. Keep it up. My suggestion would be to actually mention the 'game stuff' for a few sessions. Reinforce in their minds that if they "do it themselves", they have a MUCH greater chance of success...if they just say "I Search"....not so much. The key thing to do is to get them thinking in terms of "If I was there..." (so in their minds they are picturing a dark dungeon room), and out of thinking in terms of "What bonuses do I have...." (which, in their minds, they are picturing books, page numbers, key-word game mechanics, etc...). IMHO, this is the most worstest of the worstyest things that 3e "taught" a whole generation of RPG'ers; that stats and game mechanics trumped imagination and thought. But that's a whole other thread!

So...keep it up. Keep it up. Keep it up. (rinse, repeat). Eventually, if you reward thinking "in game" more than you reward thinking "in mechanics", they'll eventually get there.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[TarionzCousin]

So...keep it up. Keep it up. Keep it up. (rinse, repeat). Eventually, if you reward thinking "in game" more than you reward thinking "in mechanics", they'll eventually get there.

I agree.

However, not all players want to actually search "old school style." Some will be happier failing their search roll than roleplaying out finding the hidden item. Be prepared to reward the players who go the extra mile, but don't require it.

Players: DM'ing would be much easier without their interference.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

FWIW, some Actor-type players might be "interested" in the search but still have their characters suck at it. For example, my barbarian "searching" for something would probably mostly reveal stuff hidden in the furniture he's smashing, and not so much the envelope glued to the bottom of the desk.

 

[redrick]

FWIW, some Actor-type players might be "interested" in the search but still have their characters suck at it. For example, my barbarian "searching" for something would probably mostly reveal stuff hidden in the furniture he's smashing, and not so much the envelope glued to the bottom of the desk.

Ha, I'd say that counts as interacting with the game world. So long as wizard doesn't have to burn all his hold person spell slots keeping you from destroying all the loot.

 

[mips42]

Hiya.

Ahhh...the good old "0e" method ( see "A Quick Primer for Old School Games" at Frog God Games; http://www.froggodgames.com/free-downloads ).

I do this too, pretty much always have. I have played with DM's who do the exact opposite; even if I looked in the right area, if I failed my Search check, I didn't find it. Very frustrating....it's like I'm not even playing the game, my character is there and I'm just seeing what he does.

Anyway, sounds like you are on the right track. Keep it up. My suggestion would be to actually mention the 'game stuff' for a few sessions. Reinforce in their minds that if they "do it themselves", they have a MUCH greater chance of success...if they just say "I Search"....not so much. The key thing to do is to get them thinking in terms of "If I was there..." (so in their minds they are picturing a dark dungeon room), and out of thinking in terms of "What bonuses do I have...." (which, in their minds, they are picturing books, page numbers, key-word game mechanics, etc...). IMHO, this is the most worstest of the worstyest things that 3e "taught" a whole generation of RPG'ers; that stats and game mechanics trumped imagination and thought. But that's a whole other thread!

So...keep it up. Keep it up. Keep it up. (rinse, repeat). Eventually, if you reward thinking "in game" more than you reward thinking "in mechanics", they'll eventually get there.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

The Frog God thing definitely has the right flavor and the right direction but, at some point, the player needs to have the option to say "*I* don't know what to do but my character would so let's figure out a reasonable ability or skill that would cover what I want to accomplish."
Having said that, the Frog God PDF would be a decent start to a How to DM document so that new DM's don't get locked into TEH RULEZ.

 

[Quickleaf]

Should I just take another opportunity to encourage my players to look more interactively? Should I remove the cop-out skill-based search, forcing myself to do a good job at setting the scene well enough for the players to be able to succeed? Should I just accept that my players want to roll dice at monsters and stop thinking of every investigation-searched room as a missed opportunity?

Well, you know your players best, maybe they are content rolling dice at monsters?

I like old school play. However, the problem I have with old school "say to search" in this regard is that it rewards player skill with the game & familiarity with their particular DM's tricks. Worse, it has the tendency to train players to become painstakingly detailed in their search methodology, wasting valuable game time.*

* Note that if your group is hardcore into the old school mega-dungeon crawl vibe, you might not consider it wasted time. YMMV.

As with a lot of my gaming philosophy, I like an "old school meets new school" approach here.

The basic idea is, yes, keep encouraging the players to describe what they're doing. At the same time, as DM meet them in the middle. Only conceal stuff when there's coherent logic, and most of the time telegraph or foreshadow it (even if only subtly). Make searching have meaningful choices in one of 4 ways:

1. Opportunity costs: What could I be doing instead of searching? time spent searching could be spend investigating those magic pools, resting from injuries and repairing equipment, tracking the princess kidnapped by gargoyles, etc.
2. Dangerous search: Is searching here worth the risk? sticking your hand in the green mouth might get it severed, the sage's notes indicate one of the dozen doors may be trapped, the flagstones are cracking revealing a chams below, gas is filling the room, etc.
3. Moral dilemma: Can we live with the moral consequences of this search? unearthing the remains of a saint to find a clue, a black book with blackmail secrets that if revealed would condemn an allied NPC, a father swearing vengeance on the PCs if they search his daughter's room for the murder weapon, etc.
4. Mutually exclusive options: Do we search X or Y? Situations where searching one area precludes searching another, such as a vast chamber split by a chasm/barrier bridged by a long circuitous route, monsters are coming and there's only time for rogue to pick lock on one chest, angel's test means searching one chalice causes others to vanish, flames are consuming evidence and there's not enough time to search all scroll cases, etc.

This makes searching less about "aha! the DM doesn't get to screw us with traps and hide our treasure today!" and more about the WHY and HOW of searching. If you get the players to pause and ask a question amongst themselves then you're doing it right.