Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 1831461" data-attributes="member: 6939">And I agree. The players *should* have uncertainty, it is more realistic. So lets try a scenario...searching a room.Player searches, and the DM rolls behind a screenFind nothingtry again...roll...find nothingtry again...nothingagain...nothingagain...nothingetcetcetcNow, the player hasn't found anything, but doesn't know if that is because there is nothing there, or just because he couldn't find it there. Uncertainty exists.A new roomplayer searches again, DM rolls behind a screenPlayer finds nothing.PLayer says "I take 20"DM says 'you find nothing'Again the player *doesn't know* if nothing is there, or if he just didn't find anything.Lets assume a search skill of +8. It could be that there is nothing there, or it could be that an item was there with a DC of 30. The player wouldn't know what the DC was, so the player doesn't know if anything is still hidden or not. Uncertainty exists.Now, there *is* one problem with the take 20 IMO. The players do know that they have done the best they could. The do know that there is nothing there that they can find. Picture playing a video game, and it is a tough level. You may try it over and over and over. But what if someone told you that it was unwinnable with the powers you had. You would stop trying.... because you would *know* it was beyond you. Which is why I kinda like the method put forth earlier, by making a percentile roll based on the time spent. Unfortunately, that would entail a *lot* more math, or a lot more rolling. Take 20 may be a decent trade off..</blockquote>

Verification