Search and taking 20: the problem

[DarkMaster]

Yes, could be a way, but what if there was a part of the trap at the left hand, where he is cutting the hole, I'll be sure you would give him a hint again, but that all makes it more and more complicated, your rogue can struggle for a really long time with the trap because of your decision to handle search a bit different.
All these scenarios are just imagined but might happen and in that case the rogue in your group would be struggling how to get past that trap and my rogue would already loot the treasure inside.

again I see that Pielorinho don't understand the difference between spot and search (please don't take it personal, but from your example it is clear).

You still didn't answer me why search use INT and spot use WIS. Still didn't comment how certain people have skills you can't even imagine having.

These scenario can be fun for one trap (even if I don't support it) but imagine having 24 items in a room only one is trapped, you have your player spending an entire session in the room, the other player will just lose interest and go watch TV or whatever.

The other thing is that you rely too much on your player knowledge and not on the PC knowledge, see my example of "role playing" the dragon.

BTW I really like beer and preztel during the game

 

[Nifelhein]

Yes, could be a way, but what if there was a part of the trap at the left hand, where he is cutting the hole, I'll be sure you would give him a hint again, but that all makes it more and more complicated, your rogue can struggle for a really long time with the trap because of your decision to handle search a bit different.
All these scenarios are just imagined but might happen and in that case the rogue in your group would be struggling how to get past that trap and my rogue would already loot the treasure inside.

And that is no problem at all, my game is handled pretty much the same way Pielorinho's and we seem to enjoy it fairly well. The reason I do things that way is that a trap is meant to be an encounter much like a group of orcs, a fountain with a demonic face engulfing an angel and so on, I think that the game is better when we have different focuses for and the rogues in my game have always liked to have the traps they encounter be designed much like the fighting encounters are, they could all be done with after some die rolls, but I prefer to make the roleplaying and keep the die rolls for what I think they are intended, to deal with how one would do things.

Anyway, this has come too close to the difference between how we play the game instead of how the rules work... if we go on debnating this we may well set flames on things.

Cheers,

Nif.

 

[DarkMaster]

Exactly -- what presents a challenge to my group is a single non-dice-roll to your group. And that's fine, but that's not what I'm interested it. I'm not going to put a trap in the game unless I think interacting with the trap is going to be fun and interesting for the group.

Note that with this trap, if the PCs successfully disarm it, they end up with an additional 1,500 gp worth of treasure -- a vial full of insanity mist that they could chuck grenadelike at an enemy.

Furthermore, as a player of a rogue, I'd feel a lot more smug about disarming a trap through quick thinking on my part than I'd feel if I just took 20 on a search check to find one. Just as fighter characters get off on doing cinematic stuff in combat ("I run down the hallway, leap from the top of the stairs, and slash my dagger at the barbarian's head on the way down!" shouted a player of a halfling swashbuckler in a game on Monday), rogues oughtta get off on doing cinematic stuff with their skills.

Daniel

Explain me how rolling the dice prevents you from doing cinematic stuff. The rogue in my group came with the idea of jumping to a rope far away attach herself to it and shoot arrow from there. What did I do, 1 roll for jump, rope use and shooting. The three were succesfull and she did her cinematic stuff using clear rule to see if she succeded. Dice are just backing what the player wants to do.

In my ruling the group would end with the exact same thing so this is not a valid point. Dice roll are there to assess the results of the action.

You could replay the whole scenario you just described with one roll

Player I search the coffer for a trap.
roll success
Put your entire story there
End result : the group has 1500gp plus the flask.

This allow the game to flow smoothly.

 

[Nail]

Ah, yes! I see how this could be a problem if the DM says, "You find no traps." Remember, I've said I run a description-rich campaign, however. Here's how the conversation would work:

DM: ...And against one wall, there's an oak cabinet with a brass handle on it; it looks big enough to hold a small child.

Sounds fun!

.....as long as your players understand how you interpret the rules. I'm guessing they do.

BTW: You could be just as description-rich (especially given your writing talent) and allow the rogue to use the search skill as written - to detect the trap on the cabinet door - without having to interact with ("touch") the cabinet, or set off any trap within by doing so.

As usual: YMMV

 

[Nifelhein]

From what i can tell search is based on rationalizing what one sees, you not just pass eyes on it, your actvely identifies it, spot is based on Wis, on the other hand, because it represents the character attunement to his surroudning, that is, it represents how much the character actually notices when he merely looks at the palce/ person or whatever.

That means that when you have a dagger on your arm, hidden underneath the cloak and robe the passerby woudl have to roll a spot check to realize a strange volume in your arm, on the other hand a guard that will search you for weapons and the like need to roll a very low search to not find it...

A rogue can find a pannel or a strange/ odd/ misplaced thing by a spot check but realizing it is actually a trap is something to be left for a search check, he must get the clues together and make it coherent.

A spot could make them see the ashes on the base of a wall, one that is dark and damaged, but only a search would add this to the smell and the almost undetectable swirling patterns in that door knob, revealing a magical fire trap in it. If the trap is foudn this way or by a mere sixth sense of the rogue is not really a problem, it is just that, diveregence, and that is something I not just like but will fight for.

 

[DarkMaster]

And that is no problem at all, my game is handled pretty much the same way Pielorinho's and we seem to enjoy it fairly well. The reason I do things that way is that a trap is meant to be an encounter much like a group of orcs, a fountain with a demonic face engulfing an angel and so on, I think that the game is better when we have different focuses for and the rogues in my game have always liked to have the traps they encounter be designed much like the fighting encounters are, they could all be done with after some die rolls, but I prefer to make the roleplaying and keep the die rolls for what I think they are intended, to deal with how one would do things.

Anyway, this has come too close to the difference between how we play the game instead of how the rules work... if we go on debnating this we may well set flames on things.

Cheers,

Nif.

Nif,
I don't know what is your definition of roleplaying: Playing the role of somebody else in the fantasy environement, not me in the fantasy environement. Do you realise that as a DM, if I wanted to roleplay like you say I would have to be god. know everything about everything, Impossible that is why skill are there. Also your way of playing is very unfair, I am good bluffing why would I put skills point in bluff when I can "roleplay" it. this would completly make the sorcerer in the group useless for bluff (but the guy maximised his bluff skill). Basically I would play a sorcerer/wizard (because nobody can roleplay that then we have to get back to the rule) and learn personnaly everything I want my character to be. Then when the dragon pop out I would use my karate skill to kick your but, and my first level sorcerer would have killed the great wyrm throught "roleplay"

 

[Pielorinho]

again I see that Pielorinho don't understand the difference between spot and search (please don't take it personal, but from your example it is clear).

You still didn't answer me why search use INT and spot use WIS. Still didn't comment how certain people have skills you can't even imagine having.

Forgive me for not answering these specific questions. First, you'll note that I'm trying to juggle several conversations here at once. Second, I don't understand what your question is. Where, specifically, in my scenarios do you think I demonstrate a failure to understand the difference between spot and search? Where do you think I suggest that search should use WIS?

I do wonder whether English is not your native tongue, being Quebecois; if so, it's far better than my French is, but de temps en temps, je ne peux pas te comprendre.

These scenario can be fun for one trap (even if I don't support it) but imagine having 24 items in a room only one is trapped, you have your player spending an entire session in the room, the other player will just lose interest and go watch TV or whatever.

Not at all: players may use a little bit of psychology to figure out what's likely to be trapped, and furthermore may use some basic spatial knowledge to figure out whre traps could be completely hidden.

Explain me how rolling the dice prevents you from doing cinematic stuff. The rogue in my group came with the idea of jumping to a rope far away attach herself to it and shoot arrow from there. What did I do, 1 roll for jump, rope use and shooting. The three were succesfull and she did her cinematic stuff using clear rule to see if she succeded. Dice are just backing what the player wants to do.

I'm not sure I understand your objection to my method of doing it. If I roll the dice and then tell the player what they do based on the dice's results, I remove the chance for the player to feel smug about figuring out a way around the trap. Sure, I could do that, but that's not very interactive.

My job as a DM is to set up the world in an interesting fashion -- to lay out a bunch of toys for the players to play with. The players get to play with them, but I always put descriptions ahead of the dice rolls. Tell me what you try to do, and then we'll figure out what, if any, roll is appropriate.

I recognize that that play style isn't for everyone, but it's what works for us.

Daniel

 

[Nifelhein]

Darkmaster,

In fact it does not require you to be good at everything, it just requires that you try, once a friend told me that when we like the game in a way we must teach otehrs to like it that way.

You don't need to be a bluff god to use the bluff skill, you would try and use your arguments, then we roll, if you suceeded, great, if not, bad. You could be the best bluffer in real world, if you don't have a good bluff skill the die roll will show that the thing did not come quite as you like, you were not so eloquent and so on, it is something much more on your character than on you, but I have found out that what we like more is to actually have things that way.

I still use the die rolls at the same things you do, the only difference is that I still want a description, much like this:

Player: Yohr charges to the cockatrice, hurling his body into a single blow, she aims for the head of the creature and screams like mad.

Me: Okay, roll your attack <sums up, he missed> you charge to the cockatrice, giving all your power into the blow, teh cockatrice fits you and stares youre way, you feel uneasy with is eyes fiting you, when you arive the beast moves his head quickly and you try and regain your balance. You will be at -2 AC until your next turn due to the charge.

this is how things work and yes, if overused traps can get rpetty boring for the other players that are not the rogue, but that is something that i actively search to avoid, a trap is there but also there is something for the others to investigate, they can roleplay with their own and so on.

when I say that I ask for the players to roleplay things I don't meant to have them do just that, we have the roleplaying and then the die tell how well it comes, usually before the results of the action,a s shown in my example.

Your concern, darkmaster, is well presented, but I have been able to avoid it until now, i am pretty good at speeches myself and had a characetr that ahd absolutely no diplomacy at all, we were in need of help from a small troop of elves from another region, I made my speech and my companions, the players themselves, were quite amazed and got pretty inspired, the DM rolled for diplomacy and the result came out at a good but not quite enough die rolls, it turned out that my speech was not quite what i liked and that the troop, as a whole, was divided...

From what I have read you seem to do things the same way I do, or so I believe, you may have misinterpreted me now and then though. I don't want anyone to hit the people around the table and that they be experts at the area of their characters, but trying and acting like the character is something I try to make happen, just that, our games are pretty much like a scene made by some bad/ not so good actor and actress... and we enjoy it!

Cheers,

Nif.

 

[DarkMaster]

You know what, I am fed up of this discussion I think everybody made their point hundreds of time and nobody seems to change so why don't we call it quit and continue to play our way. Because in the end the goal of the game is to have everybody around the table happy and wanting more.

Cheers

 

[DarkMaster]

Forgive me for not answering these specific questions. First, you'll note that I'm trying to juggle several conversations here at once. Second, I don't understand what your question is. Where, specifically, in my scenarios do you think I demonstrate a failure to understand the difference between spot and search? Where do you think I suggest that search should use WIS?

I do wonder whether English is not your native tongue, being Quebecois; if so, it's far better than my French is, but de temps en temps, je ne peux pas te comprendre.

Partially true I am a french (or liberty for you americans ) living in quebec. I must admit that I never review my post and since english is not my native tongue it comes out Frenglish.

No hard feeling, I will call it quit this conversation was interesting, but I feel like we're going in circle.