Does anyone use 3.x search this way?

[joethelawyer]

In keeping with the old school style of the game I am getting involved with, I am thinking about changing around Search. Instead of using it as a generic catch-all roll which represents a sweep of the room, I am thinking of having the players tell me exactly where and how they are searching and having individual search rolls to get the result.

In other words, instead of saying "we search the room for anything and everything" and rolling a d20, they will have to say "I lift up the chest of drawers" and then roll a d20 to see if they see the secret door concealed beneath it.

Does anyone do it that way? Do you think it will work?

 

[Crothian]

Depends on the group. I know I grew tired of the old way especially when there was nohing to be found. But the rogue still had to go item by item and space by space he was searching. It was a lot of needless rolls that took a lot more time then they really should have for very little gain. For it us it just became boring.

 

[Vorput]

I always asked for a general description of rolls. I.e. I'm going to try to convince the guard letting us through is in his best interest (diplomacy). Or for search: 'I'm going to poke around the walls.' Or 'I'm searching the furniture.'

Anything beyond that just becomes too tedious. Plus, then I have to make a list of everything in the room. If I say just a 'chest, bed, and desk'- then they're only going to search those things (knowing the treasure is to be found in one of them). To camouflage it better would require a laundry list of misc. items... which is just nauseating to think about generating for every room!

 

[billd91]

A search check isn't a sweep of the room, it's a 6 second sweep of a 5' x 5' square. So if the PCs want to spend only a short amount of time searching, I ask them where they want to search and roll accordingly. But I don't have them declare how they're doing it. I let the die roll do that for me. If they rolled high enough to find the secret door under the chest, then their search check involved enough manipulation and thoroughness to find it. This is particularly true for things hidden inside of other things like something stuffed in a mattress. A search check high enough indicates that they did run their hands along the surface of the mattress and noticed the lump.

 

[Thanael]

ars ludi: Don't Roll, Think! deals with this. He proposes:

A Spotless Game

Here’s the challenge: if it’s not a combat situation or about to become one (aka checking for surprise or attacks at unawares), don’t use Spot checks. At all. None. Zero. Let players describe what they look for or how they are behaving and just arbitrarily decide what they see or don’t see.

Once your players get the gist of it, see if they become more inquisitive, interactive and basically just play more instead of falling back on the Spot check crutch.

IMO that is taking it a bit too far, but I like the Taking 0 for a casual effort option in the comments of the article.

Also look at the “virtual roll” post:rolling-for-roleplaying-the-virtual-roll as a good “it sounds cool, but I still think it needs a roll” compromise.

(Also interesting but more general: RSDancey On The Web: Action!)

 

[Nimble Goodbarrel]

I really think it depends on the size of the room. Small rooms sure a search wont take too long, but for a huge chamber, I think you would need to specify. I have sometimes used "What are you searching for?" you know secret doors, traps, and treasure.

Just be careful that you don't slow down gameplay. If you spend 30 minutes searching a room, it might get annoying.

 

[Kask]

A search check isn't a sweep of the room, it's a 6 second sweep of a 5' x 5' square.

Correct. By RAW it already works this way, pretty much anyway.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

Correct. By RAW it already works this way, pretty much anyway.

Exactly. It's tedious, which is why many change it to a sweep of the room, but it's accurate to the RAW.

We always searched specific objects (i.e. - door, chest, cabinet, dais, throne, etc.) or 5x5 areas of a floor or wall. You also must be within 10ft. of the object or surface.

Side note: For better representation of player knowledge or awareness of a hidden item, especially traps, a GM should be making the search rolls for the players.

 

[joethelawyer]

Exactly. It's tedious, which is why many change it to a sweep of the room, but it's accurate to the RAW.

We always searched specific objects (i.e. - door, chest, cabinet, dais, throne, etc.) or 5x5 areas of a floor or wall. You also must be within 10ft. of the object or surface.

Side note: For better representation of player knowledge or awareness of a hidden item, especially traps, a GM should be making the search rolls for the players.

thanks for the ideas guys. especially the links. those are very interesting articles and sites. i am going to have to talk it over with my group and see what we can do to keep it more old school in feel.