Search and taking 20: the problem

[Rozman]

.... but the key is putting traps where they are not obvious. Sure, every single chest might be trapped, but far more insidious is the trap in the middle of a long hallway that no one thinks to search.

You just have to be careful you don't train your players into searching every last thing they're about to step on.

I've always been very restrained in my use of traps because of this. The insidious trap used sparingly might work well, but liberal use of them is merely going to (and rightly so) cause the party to react by becoming ridiculously cautious.

I usually just trap logical places and let them run into problems trying to disable them. In addition, player logic does not always = DM logic, so it's not like they look for the trap every time. But, as long as they see that there is a system to it afterwards, they won't get uber-paranoid.

Although there are certainly specific cases where the "damage from God" trap works nicely, forcing them to come up with a new way to react to traps they aren't at leisure to find and/or avoid. Getting out of the dungeon (which is swiftly filling with lava) and surviving the pit traps on the way can force them to be creative instead of ploddingly methodical.

 

[Pax]

The wizard also relies on my description -- of the enemies' appearances, of the environment, and so forth. I rarely say, "Okay, the fifth-level cleric casts searing light at you"; instead, I say, "Okay, the guy on horseback raises his shield and shouts words in a language you don't recognize. The eye in the middle of the shield blinks open, and a jet of green light arcs out from the eye, burning into your skin." The wizard is then welcome to ask for a spellcraft check.

Daniel

To which the canny PC spellcaster - be he wizard, cleric, druid, sorceror, or whatever - says "oh, really? My spellcraft roll is *dice roll* 22, that'll identify anything up to 7th level, if it's a spell ... so what'd he cast?"

To which you (if you're playing within the rules as printed) respond "searing light", and the PC (looking the spell up, as that skill roll entitles him to do) now know that I am facing a divine caster with no less than 4 caster levels, probably a 5th or higher level cleric.

 

[Pax]

Balance and fairness aren't my interests. My interests are having a good time.

The absenceof balance and fairness inevitably precludes the possibility of anyoen but the advantaged person(s) havinganythign resembling "a good time".

Fun is predicated on balance and fairness very bit as much as it is predicated upon a good story and compelling setting.

You think my style is breaking rules. I disagree, and nothing in your last post remotely advances any argument that it's breaking rules.

Your "style" of play bears passing little resemblance to a game played with rules, and frankly, I wonder why you don't just give over on the rules entirely, and justplay freeform. Feh.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To which the canny PC spellcaster - be he wizard, cleric, druid, sorceror, or whatever - says "oh, really? My spellcraft roll is *dice roll* 22, that'll identify anything up to 7th level, if it's a spell ... so what'd he cast?"

Which is probably what he meant by "The wizard is then welcome to ask for a spellcraft check."

... or am I missing a point?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And I'll just slip my Moderator jacket on briefly to remind everyone to keep things civil...

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Saeviomagy]

The absenceof balance and fairness inevitably precludes the possibility of anyoen but the advantaged person(s) havinganythign resembling "a good time".

Fun is predicated on balance and fairness very bit as much as it is predicated upon a good story and compelling setting.

No - that's not true at all. Fun is fun is fun. What can be assured is that if balance is maintained, the DM needs to devote little time and effort to ensuring that everyone will have fun - he need merely produce a fun scenario and the balance will ensure everyone enjoys it equally.

It's entirely possible to throw balance out the window and still have everyone enjoy themselves - it just requires that the DM expend the effort on making sure that each character can contribute.

 

[Pax]

It's entirely possible to throw balance out the window and still have everyone enjoy themselves - it just requires that the DM expend the effort on making sure that each character can contribute.

I've played many a balanced-but-bland game, and been able to have fun just fine - even when the scenario is bland, if the players invest theirselves into the game, they (and the GM) can still have fun.

But I have never been able to have fun in an unbalanced game, no matter how "oh-my-god-amazing" good the scenario, plotline, or everything else happened to be. Not once, in over a quarter-century of gaming.

So, in regards to your statements, my experience says otherwise: the absence of fairness and balance utterly precludes ALL possibility of fun, except that had by the privileged few for whom the lack of balance directly benefits.

 

[Majere]

Im assuming the people who are running about screaming about game balance and demanding diplomacy checks to convince a fire elemental that going home is better than being kileld never played D&D before 3E.

D&D Was played for a great many years without ever being in anyway balanced, Pre 3E Mages always ended up being super dooper uber amazing at high levels and other classess were always underpowered. But somehow we got by, and had fun, even in clearly unbalanced games.

And on that point, how did you ever deal with the situations as with the elementals before the diplomacy skill even existed. I know in MY group that before any such notion of a "diplomacy skill" was written down anywhere we just ROLEPLAYED IT, and then the DM would ROLEPLAY THE NPC. And if the NPC was smart (You will notice elementals actualy have respectable intellegence scores) they would act in a reasonable way.
Now If I were asked to play those elementals, and was given the situation of an unreachable foe who can easily obliterate me, but who offers me a way home, I think I MIGHT just decide to go home. But maybe thats just me being a little insane.

Of course why bother ROLEPLAYING, I can just role a diplomacy check.
Why use my brain when I can take 20.
D&D as written is entirely autonomous, you can play the entiregame simply by rolling dice; but by god its boring if you reduce everything to rolling dice.

Majere

 

[Jhulae]

Which is probably what he meant by "The wizard is then welcome to ask for a spellcraft check."

... or am I missing a point?

-Hyp.

I think Pax was pointing to the fact that there's a description by the DM, a roll by the player, and 'instant and complete knowledge' returned based on the roll as the rules state

This is what Pielorinho doesn't do for traps and search (based on what he's said in previous posts) and what Pax wants to see is if Pielorinho does this for other skills, like spellcraft.

 

[danzig138]

But I have never been able to have fun in an unbalanced game, no matter how "oh-my-god-amazing" good the scenario, plotline, or everything else happened to be. Not once, in over a quarter-century of gaming.

And that's a shame for you, but that doesn't mean that unbalanced equals unfun. In over a decade and a half of gaming, I've played in numerous games that were not balanced and had a blast. Pretty much every time. And I frequently played the weaker parts, still had a blast.

Question: Did the other people you played with in these unbalanced games have fun? It's certainly possible that you just aren't built for unbalanced games. No big, just means you know what to avoid.

I'm designed for unbalanced games; I can enjoy myself totally and completely. I enojy the challenge inherent in such games. It also occurs to me that those involved in this might have different ideas of what qualifies as unbalanced. . .I'm speaking of disparity (I think that's the word - trying to improve my vocabulary ) in power levels between PC and PC, and between PC and NPC.