He's Stable!

[Jack Simth]

Now....go back and re-read my post....then tell me why you think you're getting different throws that what RAW allows.

The dice might be the same, but you're effectively changing the action type, which makes it vastly different. Sure, you're making the check in that first standard action, but you're adding the requirement that the character remain there, doing nothing of particular use to the survival of the party as a whole, for the remainder of the combat. Additionally, you're putting additional requirements on things: you need to specify materials used, and fetch them, at the cost of additional actions (shirt for bandages type thing that you mentioned). Further, you're adding long-term consequences to the almost-deceased.

With current rules, it's sometimes worth the standard action to prevent a comrade from fully dying.

With this proposed change, nobody will do so, unless they're doing it magically and bypassing the altered mechanics. For a couple of reasons:
1) You're requiring that the helper stay there. Which means he's no longer actively hurting the opponent (who is still up and about). If you attempt to save him, with the altered rules, the loss of one member effectively causes the loss of another for the duration of the combat as well. Two for one deal on PC's losing.
2) You're potentially losing equipment - after a point, almost everything an adventurer carries is enchanted for some other purpose. If binding him up requires ripping the shirt off his back, that may very well be a +3 Vest of Resistance down the drain.
3) Even if you do go through the price of getting him to survive this battle... he's going to be at some severe penalties for the next several. Meanwhile, if you let him die, the player can roll up a new character, get integrated into the game, and be a level (or two, or three, depending on the game setup) behind, rather than being faced with a fairly arbitrary penalty. D&D 3.5 XP tables will catch him up fairly quickly.

And yes, the penalty is arbitrary. You're using a fluff description of an event, and extrapolating to a few game mechanical penalties... and the same person that's doing the fluff description is deciding the game mechanical penalties on the fly. That becomes very, very arbitrary.

Meanwhile, this has essentially no impact on the opposition - seriously, when was the last time you had a goblin, orc, or other baddie stop to tend to a wounded comrade? They won't be invoking your altered rules, so it doesn't affect them.

Depending on the nature of your players and the availability of other DM's, you'll have a hefty number of people vote with their feet, or you'll have a lot more PC's bleeding out rather than being rescued.

You keep emphasizing that you're not changing the mechanics... but you are, you really are. Consider, say, sword swings. They take an attack action. If they took an attack action, then the warrior couldn't do anything else for the rest of the combat, sword swings would be much, much less attractive, to the point where basically nobody would swing a sword in combat. This proposed change is similar - you're taking an existing mechanic that's usable, and turning it into something that is, for most intents and purposes, no longer viable. You'll upset a lot of people, and others will shrug and stop using the mechanic completely.

Those are the only two likely outcomes.

The only think I'm not doing is allowing a care giver to stay just one round with the patient. The rules remain the same, and I haven't changed them. The dice rolls, that is. I'm just not allowing the care giver to stick out his finger, touch the patient, and say, "Prang! You're stable! See ya! Gotta get back in the fight now!"

If you don't let him get back to the fight, you've changed the action type, which is a fairly major change indeed.

Here's how I will play it out.

Taurl goes down. He's at -4 HP.

I figure I'll gauge wounds in three stages. HP -1 to -3 is a killing wound, but not as bad as a HP -4 to -6 wound. And, HP -7 to -9 wounds are the worst. My description of the wound will get worse, depending on which "category" the character's wound falls.

I may get creative with wound effects, too, after a character is healed. Have an eye swollen shut for a while. Give the character a limp for a bit, halving his Speed. Put his arm in a sling. Stuff like that.

In which case, saving him is mostly pointless if you permit rolling up a new character mid-game. It'll be fairly rare for the penalties for a recovered character to be less than the penalties for a replacement character.

Taurl, who went down at -4 HP, has a serious wound that I describe as a sword stroke entirely through his gut. He's probably got internal bleeding, but there's not much these cats can do about that.

What they see is a slice in his gut and an exit wound in his back. They can put a bandage on this, and then put pressure on the bandage to keep it from bleeding so much.

If they've got a healing kit (or if a player has gotten creative with herbalism), maybe there's some concoction made of Wnaa-Wnaa leaves that can be sprinkled on the wound.





Mechanics-wise, I'll roll the Heal check as soon as a care giver arrives to help (and I'll do Taurl's self-stabilization per the rules, too). But, I won't allow the players to know the result, and I may even throw in some fake rolls to keep them guessing.

Then, we'll roleplay the saving of the character's life.

I think that will add a lot to the game and be much more interesting than....Hey, I rolled an 18 on my Heal check! Let's move on!

The first time, sure. The second time, maybe. After that? Not so much. Because nobody's going to bother putting in the effort in the middle of battle after the first time dealing with it caused a TPK. You'll have all this dramatic dialog saved up, and nothing to do with it.

But, note, I'm not changing the rules at all. I'm just not allowing the players to know the result of the Heal checks immediately.

You've also mentioned that you're not allowing the healer to get back into the thick of things. That changes the effective action type rather significantly, and makes saving the guy much more hazardous than it is now.

And, I'm making them roleplay the care taking of a downed comrade instead of skipping over it with a simple dice throw.

Do you also make them describe how they swing their sword, how they block with their shield, and how they dodge blows? What standard of realism do you use for that?

Simply rolling a die check isn't "fun" in my book. It's not even rollplaying. It's more akin to rollplaying.

I'm assuming that's a typo...

Like when the PCs enconter a trap. I don't say, "I rolled a Spot check for you, and you found a trap. Go ahead and roll your Disable Device skill."

No...that's awful gaming, in my book.

I want my players to be THERE. I want them to live, breathe, smell, touch the world.

In my game, if I roll a Spot check that indicates one of the PCs spots a trap, I'll say, "Taurl, there's a small, then, straight line shadow you see running across the floor."

This will be the "line" that activates the trap, and I'll sit back and see what the player will do about it.

If he says, "I'll pull out my dagger and carefully cut the line," at that point, I'll roll, or I'll have him roll, his Disable Device skill, to see how well that cut disables the trap. The roll will tell me if he sets it off or not.

With that description, you're going to get a lot more questions. See, your description wasn't clear enough for me to distinguish little important things... like whether it's a line in the sidewalk, or an apparent tripwire. Nor the height of the tripwire. Nor the materials of the tripwire. After all, if I do something other than your pre-conceived answer for disabling the thing, I don't even get a roll.

If I want to have my character survive, I'm going to stop and ask you to describe every single thing. If it happens repeatedly, I'm probably going to start asking you about every single detail of everything in the room, ever. Why? I'm not trying to be passive-aggressive... but you've made my character's survival dependent on my observational skills about what you've said, so I'm going to make him start observing everything... and the only way to do that is to ask you about every little nit-picking detail. It's not malicious, it's a consequence of the way you're running the game. I'm going to be asking you about the flooring in every room. The ceiling height. The ceiling material. The wall material. The wall texture. I'm going to be asking you about how the goblins are dressed (as the clothing of a fallen goblin might be used as a bandage). I'm going to be asking you what the lighting is like. Whether there's any air currents here.

Because you've made it potentially relevant.

So if you want it to take eight hours of real-time to walk across a room, go for it.

 

[Water Bob]

So this doesn't mean that stabilizing another player takes a second player out of the fight for the duration?

It does. Sorry. I should have read YOUR post better. I apologize.

The dice might be the same, but you're effectively changing the action type, which makes it vastly different.

It's crazy to think that all it takes to stop a character from dying--one that has a wound so bad that he will day in less than a minute--is 3-4 seconds. A person can't even fully examine a wound in 3-4 seconds.

It's a bad rule. Doesn't make sense at all.

This is my attempt to fix it.

People bitch about 4E being a "board game" instead of a role playing game. This First Aid rule is a "board game" type rule. There's nothing "roleplaying-esque" about it.

It's a rule that you'd see in a computer game. Or a board war game. Not in a role playing game.

RPG rules typically have some sense or reality to them. This one has none.

With current rules, it's sometimes worth the standard action to prevent a comrade from fully dying.

Wow. No roleplaying in your group?

I don't mean that to be snarky. It's just that, I can't fathom leaving my brother to die if I can do something about it. I'd try to find a way to save him, if at all possible.

It seems that at least some of the adventurers in your party might feel the same about each other?

If not, then it's as your footer says. Such is life.

And yes, the penalty is arbitrary. You're using a fluff description of an event, and extrapolating to a few game mechanical penalties... and the same person that's doing the fluff description is deciding the game mechanical penalties on the fly. That becomes very, very arbitrary.

I am the GM. I am the rulebook. I control the world, the environment, everything except the PCs.

When a player asks, "I look at the chest, what do I see?" What I tell him is...arbitrary.

The GM having aribrary calls is not a bad thing. In fact, it happens all the time.

Meanwhile, this has essentially no impact on the opposition - seriously, when was the last time you had a goblin, orc, or other baddie stop to tend to a wounded comrade?

I actually do stuff like that in my game.

For example, I know that people do not wear armor all the time. So, if the PCs are smart, they can catch bad guys out of their armor. At night, for instance. Guards will be wearing armor, but most other people will not--especially if its close to bed-time.

If you don't let him get back to the fight, you've changed the action type, which is a fairly major change indeed.

I have....and I haven't.

I'm keeping the RAW mechanics and action types. It's just that the player doesn't know the outcome.

Let's say a Taurl goes down, and his buddy Fronn comes to help him. When Fronn arrives, I secretly throw the First Aid check and know that Taurl is stablized. I'll keep that result no matter what Fronn does.

But, Fronn doesn't know the result.

So, we start to roleplay the situation...then Fronn decides that he has no choice but to go help his comrades in the battle. Fronn leaves Taurl, not knowing if he'll live or die.

There's a lot of drama there.

After the battle, the PCs come back to check on Taurl....and find him....alive! Stable.

Of course, Taurl might be dead, too. Depends on how the roll turned out.

The first time, sure. The second time, maybe. After that? Not so much. Because nobody's going to bother putting in the effort in the middle of battle after the first time dealing with it caused a TPK. You'll have all this dramatic dialog saved up, and nothing to do with it.

It's the GM's job to keep the game interesting. I'll adjust if it gets boring.

Do you also make them describe how they swing their sword, how they block with their shield, and how they dodge blows? What standard of realism do you use for that?

Actually.... ....I do!

I really do.

We roleplay combat. It's not about I-roll-you-roll. It's more, "I duck under that swing and come up into your armpit with the tip of my sword."

It's really fun. You should try it.

With that description, you're going to get a lot more questions. See, your description wasn't clear enough for me to distinguish little important things... like whether it's a line in the sidewalk, or an apparent tripwire.

It was a shadow across the stone floor from the torchlight. But, it's the player's job to ask questions.

This is the give-n-take of roleplaying.

Nor the height of the tripwire. Nor the materials of the tripwire. After all, if I do something other than your pre-conceived answer for disabling the thing, I don't even get a roll.

These would be some good questions to ask.

And, if you come up with another idea to disable the trap that might work, I'll give you a roll. But, you're right. If you can't figure out how to disable the trap, then no, you don't get a roll "just because".





There are two basic styles of gaming. There's this type....

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]The Pit Trap (Modern Style)[/FONT]
GM: “A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness.”​

John the Rogue: “I check for traps.”​

GM: “What’s your target number for checking?”​

John the Rogue: “15.”​

GM: Decides that the pit trap in front of the party is “standard,” so all John has to do is roll a 15 or better. “Roll a d20.”​

John the Rogue: “16.”​

GM: “Probing ahead of you, you find a thin crack in the floor – it looks like there’s a pit trap.”​

John the Rogue: “Can I disarm it?”​

GM: “What’s your target number for that?”​

John the Rogue: “12. I rolled a 14.”​

GM: “Okay, moving carefully, you’re able to jam the mechanism so the trap won’t open.”​

John the Rogue: “We walk across. I go first.”​

That's pretty "blah" and unexciting in my book, and that's how the First Aid rule seems to be played by many.​

Not in my game.​

I prefer this style, below. It's much more interesting and leads to extremely memorable game sessions.​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]The Pit Trap (Old Style)[/FONT]
GM: “A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness.”​

John the Roguish: “We move forward, poking the floor ahead with our ten foot pole.”​

GM: Is about to say that the pole pushes open a pit trap, when he remembers something. "Wait, you don’t have the ten foot pole any more. You fed it to the stone idol.” [if the party still had the pole, John would have detected the trap automatically]​

John the Roguish: “I didn’t feed it to the idol, the idol ate it when I poked its head.”​

GM: “That doesn’t mean you have the pole back. Do you go into the corridor?”​

John the Roguish: “No. I’m suspicious. Can I see any cracks in the floor, maybe shaped in a square?”​

GM: Mulls this over, because there’s a pit trap right where John is looking. But it’s dark, so “No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn’t see a pit trap that easily, anyway.” [A different referee might absolutely decide that John sees the trap, since he’s looking in the right place for the right thing].​

John the Roguish: “Okay. I take out my waterskin from my backpack. And I’m going to pour some water onto the floor. Does it trickle through the floor anywhere, or reveal some kind of pattern?”​

GM: “Yeah, the water seems to be puddling a little bit around a square shape in the floor where the square is a little higher than the rest of the floor.”​

John the Roguish: “Like there’s a covered pit trap?”​

GM: “Could be.”​

John the Roguish: “Can I disarm it?”​

GM: “How?”​

John the Roguish: “I don’t know, maybe make a die roll to jam the mechanism?”​

GM: “You can’t see a mechanism. You step on it, there’s a hinge, you fall. What are you going to jam?”​

John the Roguish: “I don’t know. Okay, let’s just walk around it.”​

GM: “You walk around it, then. There’s about a two-foot clearance on each side.”

If I want to have my character survive, I'm going to stop and ask you to describe every single thing. If it happens repeatedly, I'm probably going to start asking you about every single detail of everything in the room, ever. Why? I'm not trying to be passive-aggressive... but you've made my character's survival dependent on my observational skills about what you've said, so I'm going to make him start observing everything... and the only way to do that is to ask you about every little nit-picking detail. It's not malicious, it's a consequence of the way you're running the game. I'm going to be asking you about the flooring in every room. The ceiling height. The ceiling material. The wall material. The wall texture. I'm going to be asking you about how the goblins are dressed (as the clothing of a fallen goblin might be used as a bandage). I'm going to be asking you what the lighting is like. Whether there's any air currents here.

Because you've made it potentially relevant.

So if you want it to take eight hours of real-time to walk across a room, go for it.

I do run my game in the "Old Style", but I haven't had any bad consequences show up that you seem postive will show up in the game.

And, I typically do make notes on the enemy NPCs and monsters--just for player questions, as you suggest above.

I've got something at hand: I've got a session coming up, and here's a sheet for a bad-guy NPC.

First off, I name all my NPCs, if the players can speak the language. In this case, they can, so I named the bad guy NPC. His name is Gerald.

He's human. A 2nd level Barbarian warrior of the Grath clan. 16 years old. I've written down his stats, HP, nish, BAB, and a couple relevant skills. I wrote down his weapons (a club, a stiletto, and three primitive wood javelins) with their relevant stats.

Then, I have a section where I jot down other things he has on him:

- Sm belt pouch with 18 teeth in it, some human, some not.
- Cloth leine, V-neck, billowy. (This is a type of shirt.)
- Shiny black and grey kilt, to the knees, made of some sort of reptile skin.
- Javelin quiver. Thick belt crosses chest. Holds 3-4 javelins (holds 3 if you want to get them out easily).
- Bone necklace.
- Leather bracers that have thumb holes.
- Leather belt.
- Water costrel that criss-crosses his chest with the javelin quiver.
- He's bare-footed. No shoes or boots.

And, I have another little section on the sheet where I write these notes:

- He has no ears. Both have been cut off with a blade.
- He has a small, dime-sized tatoo of a five leaf clover at his left temple.
- His teeth are all sharpened to points.




Doing this requires a little extra time during prep, sure. But, I think the benefits are worth it. The notes help me create vivid, bigger-than-life characters for the players to interact with. They'll remember this guy. He won't be just another moog to cut down.

And, I find, as I give the NPCs little notes like this, that I "discover" their personalty. This stuff realy lends itself to roleplaying.

 

[domino]

So I'm confused. On the one hand, you say that the healing player must remain with the injured player for the duration, because it takes a while to provide medical care.

On the other hand, you say that he can choose to leave sometime later, after making the check, and help his team, not knowing how the person is doing (not even some descriptive text to say the bleeding has stopped?) and take their chances that the guy will make it.

Which is it?

 

[Water Bob]

So I'm confused. On the one hand, you say that the healing player must remain with the injured player for the duration, because it takes a while to provide medical care.

On the other hand, you say that he can choose to leave sometime later, after making the check, and help his team, not knowing how the person is doing (and yet, you're all about descriptive text, but you won't even say the bleeding has stopped?) and take their chances that the guy will make it.

Which is it?

Both.

I'm using the RAW rules for mechanics, but the players won't know the outcome until they've spent some time examining the hurt character.

Example.

Tarl goes down to -4 HP during combat. This happened on Round 3.

That next round, nobody has made it to him to help. They're fighting. I'll roll, secretly, the 10% chance that Tarl has stablized naturally, by himself.

Let's say that first throw is a success. As GM, I know that Tarl is stable. Nobody else knows this. They can't. It would be meta-gaming if they did. All they know is that Tarl went down and is lying in a heap on the battlefield.

Frenn kills his opponent that round, then moves to engage the enemy that Tarl was fighting.

On Round 5. Frenn kills the second opponent.

Round 6 (which is 3 rounds after Tarl fell), Frenn reaches Tarl. If Tarl wasn't already stabilized, I'd roll Frenn's First Aid check now. Again, this would be a secret roll, behind the screen. And, since I don't want Frenn's player to meta-game and figure out that Tarl is stable, I'll go ahead and throw that First Aid check anyway, even though it's moot.

At this point, Frenn's player will start asking questions and doing things to help his friend. If we're still in rounds (as we are in this example), I'll keep Frenn's actions to what he can do in a normal combat round. If this were out of combat, it would become a more free-play, roleplaying type situation.

Frenn will need to examine the wound then tell me how he's going to help his friend. Most likely, he'll need supplies. If a Healing Kit isn't close at-hand, then Frenn will have to improvise using what ever materials he does have within immediate reach.

This scenario is played out much like the Old School Trap example I posted above. It's up to the player to get creative and bandage his friend, use a tourniquet, or whatever he thinks of.

But, let's say that, just after one round, Frenn sees that his other comrades still need his help. Frenn has barely looked at the wound, so he has no idea if Tarl is stable or not.

Round 6, Frenn leaves to help his comrades. The combat goes on for 3 more rounds.

Round 10, The combat is over.

Frenn returns to Tarl. Now, we're out of combat and can move the examination and healing faster. Frenn first checks for a pulse. There is one. Then, Frenn gets one of his comrades to help him turn Tarl over. They check his body, make some make-shift bandages. And, then one of them has an idea to create a chest-protector of wood so that Tarl keeps his chest straight. This can be a Craft check, and the PCs will need to find the resources to make this item.

By this point, the player has figured out that Tarl is stable, and we proceed with the game. I never tell the player outright, "Tarl is stable." The player figures this out on his own, based on what he's discovered about Tarl. That he has a pulse after nobody looking after him will probably be a shining beacon that Tarl is stable.

I'll follow the healing rules with Tarl. And, as he comes around, I may limit his Speed for a bit, keeping him in the Disabled state until he makes a check.

And the game continues.

 

[domino]

Let's say Tarl doesn't make his stabilization check. But Frenn makes his healing check. So Frenn has stabilized Tarl. And then Frenn leaves.

Does Tarl stay stabilized, or does he get worse when Frenn leaves?

And what if someone has no clue about how to do medical stuff? If they don't know what to do, ranks in heal be damned, do they just watch their comrade die while they frantically try plugging his nose with mud or something?

 

[Water Bob]

Let's say Tarl doesn't make his stabilization check. But Frenn makes his healing check. So Frenn has stabilized Tarl. And then Frenn leaves.

Does Tarl stay stabilized, or does he get worse when Frenn leaves?

Yes, I follow the RAW mechanics. So, it would go like this:

Round 3, Tarl collapses from the wound.

Round 4. Tarl gets his 10% stabilization check. Fails. Tarl at -5 HP.

Round 5. Tarl gets his 10% check. Fails. Tarl at -6 HP.

Round 6. Tarl gets his 10% check. Fails. Frenn appears, and the GM secretly rolls Frenn's First Aid check. It is a success. Frenn doesn't know this. Tarl stable at -6 HP.

Round 7. Frenn leaves to fight in the combat. Tarl remains stable, but, again, Frenn has no way of knowing this.

Round 10. The combat is over.

Free-form play: Frenn returns and goes through all the motions I describe in the example. At somepoint, the player figures out that Tarl is stable.

And what if someone has no clue about how to do medical stuff? If they don't know what to do, ranks in heal be damned, do they just watch their comrade die while they frantically try plugging his nose with mud or something?

This is the old question about a character knowing more than the player. Well, I don't think we're talking about brain surgery here. I think most people can figure out the basics--which is about all the characters are going to do--of mending a wound.

People know to stop the wound from bleeding. To clean it out with water. To stitch it up to help it close. To put pressure on it to help the bleeding stop. At least, I'm sure that my players do.

But, not to avoid your question, let's say that I do have a clueless player when it comes to stuff like this. As GM, I would help him the first couple of times until he gets the hang of it. I'll probably suggest the basics, and say things like, "You know you're going to have to stitch up that wound in order to get it to close. What are you going to use to do that with? What are you going to use for a needle? What are you going to stitch the wound with?"

 

[domino]

Ok, that makes a lot more sense. You're basically doing things by RAW, but not telling them what the situation with the dying guy is. I don't like it, but I can understand it.

That is NOT what you were suggesting in the first post though.

 

[Water Bob]

That is NOT what you were suggesting in the first post though.

I didn't suggest anything in the first post. I just asked questions.

And, it was through the discussion on this thread that I arrived at how I am going to handle First Aid and Dying when it comes up in my game.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense. You're basically doing things by RAW, but not telling them what the situation with the dying guy is. I don't like it, but I can understand it.

When a character goes down in the negative HP zone, he's dying. He's got a wound so severe that he will likely be dead in less than one minute.

How can you invest in a rule that allow this character to be changed from a state of quickly dying to not-dying in the span of 3-4 seconds?

Because that's what happens when a character spends a Standard Action to perform a First Aid check. If you think about it, that's the same amount of time it takes a character to look around room with a Spot Check.

A character can be stabilized from dying in that length of time (and we're not talking about a care giver standing by, ready, with tools and medical supplies at hand).

How is that even the tinyiest bit believeable?

 

[anest1s]

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]The Pit Trap (Old Style)[/FONT]
GM: “A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness.”​

John the Roguish: “We move forward, poking the floor ahead with our ten foot pole.”​

GM: Is about to say that the pole pushes open a pit trap, when he remembers something. "Wait, you don’t have the ten foot pole any more. You fed it to the stone idol.” [if the party still had the pole, John would have detected the trap automatically]​

John the Roguish: “I didn’t feed it to the idol, the idol ate it when I poked its head.”​

GM: “That doesn’t mean you have the pole back. Do you go into the corridor?”​

John the Roguish: “No. I’m suspicious. Can I see any cracks in the floor, maybe shaped in a square?”​

GM: Mulls this over, because there’s a pit trap right where John is looking. But it’s dark, so “No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn’t see a pit trap that easily, anyway.” [A different referee might absolutely decide that John sees the trap, since he’s looking in the right place for the right thing].​

John the Roguish: “Okay. I take out my waterskin from my backpack. And I’m going to pour some water onto the floor. Does it trickle through the floor anywhere, or reveal some kind of pattern?”​

GM: “Yeah, the water seems to be puddling a little bit around a square shape in the floor where the square is a little higher than the rest of the floor.”​

John the Roguish: “Like there’s a covered pit trap?”​

GM: “Could be.”​

John the Roguish: “Can I disarm it?”​

GM: “How?”​

John the Roguish: “I don’t know, maybe make a die roll to jam the mechanism?”​

GM: “You can’t see a mechanism. You step on it, there’s a hinge, you fall. What are you going to jam?”​

John the Roguish: “I don’t know. Okay, let’s just walk around it.”​

GM: “You walk around it, then. There’s about a two-foot clearance on each side.”

This is SO bad.

They thought of using a 10 ft pole.
You say they can't because all 10 ft of it got eaten in an instant by a random statue.
Then they start asking
''Do I see dart holes on the sides of the wall?''
''Do I see cracks on the floor?''
''Do I see any thing strange on the ceiling?''
''Any hidden arcane runes?''
You say they aren't able to find anything. Even if they have like +100 spot/search.
And then the party starts.
''I start opening waterskins on the floor''
''I start putting blankets over the floor''
''I start building a wooden construction to support the ceiling of the building''
''I flood the dungeon with chickens''
You tell them that they found a pit with the waterskin. Then they have to have the out of game knowledge to disable it.
They are lucky it was a pit. They would never be able to disable a fireball trap (except if they are into occult or something), or a rolling boulder trap etc etc. But that wouldn't be a problem because they wouldn't find them anyway.

Then on the next turn of the dungeon, they won't have a waterskin to check for traps. They will have to throw marbles on the floor, cover the walls with syrup and who-knows-what-else.

 

[delericho]

Let's talk a moment about stablizing a character when that character is near death, in the -1 to -9 hit point range.

Okay, cool.

QUESTON 1: Does a dying character get the self stabilization check AND the First Aid check in the same round?

Yes. Also, multiple characters can attempt First Aid all at once (or they can use Aid Another - their choice). Once a character is down and dying, you're usually looking for ways to keep them alive, not hasten their demise. (IME, at least.)

QUESTION 2: I'm wondering how long it should take for a person to stabilize a patient.

Per RAW, it takes a standard action. As above, I wouldn't house rule this to make it any more lethal.

Now, if I was of a mind to house rule death and dying:

Once a character drops below 0 hit points, he is dead. Well, he's quite dead, but not completely dead. If the character receives magical healing within one round, he recovers hit points, counting from 0 (so, it doesn't matter how far below 0 the character dropped). If the character receives First Aid within 1 round, he is stable. The character also gets one 10% self-stabilisation roll.

If the character does not receive aid within the alloted time, he slips to the state of mostly dead. He's worse than quite dead, but not yet completely dead. At this point, he cannot be revived without heroic means.

A character who is mostly dead can be revived with the application of a revivify spell within 5 minutes, or the use of Emergency Aid (Heal check DC 25, takes 5 minutes). However, each of these can be attempted only once.

If the character does not receive aid within the alloted time, he is completely dead. At this point, only raise dead or the like can help him.