Search Skill and Taking 20:House Rule, no taking 20 on search checks

[Belzbet]

Hmmm, okay. Why not just pick 1 out of 100 traps and set the DC of that trap above the maximum your players can succeed at finding? You'll get the same result, which is they'll find 99% of the traps and get "surprised" by 1%.

Or do you as the DM want to be surprised when a trap goes off? Because it seems to me that from the players' perspective, there's no difference in "surprise factor" between failing to find a trap because its DC is too high for them to beat and failing to find a trap because it was the 1 in 100. In both cases, they're doing their best to search for it, and in both cases, their best wasn't good enough. The only difference is that with the high-DC trap, the DM knew from the get-go that they weren't going to find it.

Yeah like you said from the players perspective its the same, so I ask you: why do it your way????? Why set DC's to high?

 

[Dandu]

It seems his way is simpler.

 

[Belzbet]

As much as I hate take 20 mechanics, I'd have to allow that with no drawbacks because it makes perfect sense. It literally COULD search to the best of its mechanical ability, given enough time. Any character immune to fatigue effects would be similarly affected.

I am all for realism in the game but I just dont like the mechanics and just because someone can come up with a reason why his warforged SHOULDNT get the penalty to take 20 doesnt mean I should let it in the campaign. I would implement the take 20 penalty rule without needing to justify it using "realism." So the "immune to fatigue" bit would make no difference to me.

If you use realism to justify house rules then your players are going to turn around and find holes in your reasons (and then abuse your house rules). Since in real life exceptions come a dime a dozen.

I know many of you disagree but I dont think every house rule (or any house rule for that matter) needs to be justified using realism. I dare say that most house rules are not justifed using "real world logic" but "game world logic & a DM's intuition/decision/thought on the matter." Now, if I come to find out that my PC's hate the house rule THAT is important not a nod to realism.

Quite frankly I dont see what you guys are trying to say with the realism bit anyway. If you search over and over then you still may not find what you are looking for, that happens all the time in the 'real' world. And skill and ability isnt really the issue either. In the REAL WORLD you dont need much skill to search for things so saying "well a PC should be able to find everything that their skill and ability allows" is actually NOT a nod to realism but a nod to the games mechanics that govern skills and abilities of PC's, (which is what I am upset with; just because the mechanics are emant to SIMULATE the real world to an extent doesnt mean they should be checked against the real world).

But, alas, I think we are just arguing about different play/Dming styles.

 

[Belzbet]

[HTML]

[/HTML]

It seems his way is simpler.

Thats not necessarily a reason to do it (i am the DM after all, so I will be keeping track), also, it is actually much simpler to ban the take 20 rule than to plant high DC items.

 

[Dandu]

Are you actually interested in input, or are you trying to win an argument?

 

[Belzbet]

Are you actually interested in input, or are you trying to win an argument?

I take this as a rhetorical question. In light of that I have heard plenty of input and I will most likely implement some of what has been said (so I AM listening to input and I dont know why you think I am not). I do understand that some like the take 20 rule, but as my opening paragraph has made clear I dont like the idea of setting the DC of items too high to find. So, telling me I should just set the DC too high isnt the input I was looking for, and I am not trying to argue anything in that respect
I said to you that "being simpler" isnt a reason to consider setting the DC of items too high to find as opposed to altering the take 20 rule. I wasnt arguing anything in the casual sense, I was telling you thats not much of a factor TO ME I am sorry if I offended you somehow. Well i guess my parenthetical remark does contain an argument, in the technical sense, as follows: My REASON: "Since I am the one doing the recording I can bring as much complexity as I want, and I do not mind the complexity brought about by altering the take 20 rule" SO simpler isnt a reason for me. I am arguing in that respect. Also I dont want to win anything, and an argument isnt something you win anyway.

In regards of the disagreement between realism in the game then YES I was arguing (in the technical sense at least). I was trying to give reasons for the claim that "house rules dont need to be checked against the real world." Anbd I am only trying to exaplin why I think so, if others want to nod to realism then fine, I just disagree for the above stated reasons. Again if this offends you then sorry.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Yeah like you said from the players perspective its the same, so I ask you: why do it your way????? Why set DC's to high?

I'd do it my way because I'm not trying to surprise myself.

I just wanted to point out that we're not really discussing whether there's "always a chance of failure" or not. We're just talking about how you determine what that chance is, and at what point the DM finds out if the players can/do find the thing.

(Actually, that's not quite true. At first, I just wanted to understand Jon_Dahl's point of view. Now that I (think I) do, I think it's worth pointing out something he may not have realized.)

 

[Dandu]

I present for the amusement and edification of all Google the Search Engine

 

[Vegepygmy]

I dont like the idea of setting the DC of items too high to find.

Well, unless the chance of finding a thing is 100%, you are "setting the DC too high to find," you're just randomizing when it's too high to find.

And that's fine, if that's what you prefer, but it's fundamentally no different than just setting a DC.

You see, if you decide there's a 70% chance a searcher will find an item, you're saying there's a 30% chance they can't. Also, unless you're adjusting the chance based on the searcher's skill, you're taking control of the player characters away from the players. (That is, I can't make a character who is better at searching than other characters if all characters have the same chance of finding things.) If you do adjust the chance based on the searcher's skill, you're doing exactly the same thing as when you set a DC.

If you set the DC to find an item at 25, for example, you're really saying "only X% of searchers will find this item." Or at least, "only X% of searchers who spend Y amount of time searching will find this item." The only difference is that players who have chosen to make their characters be good at searching will more often fall within the X% than those who haven't. (And there's no difference at all if you're adjusting the chance of finding the item based on the searcher's skill.)

As I've already pointed out, the only real difference is that when you set a % chance instead of a DC, not even the DM knows until the roll is made if the searcher will find the item.

If that makes the game more enjoyable for you as a DM, go for it! More power to you. Just be aware that depending upon how you go about it, you may be taking away your players' ability to play a particular type of character (the highly observant detective/trapfinder/whatever), and that if you're not, it probably doesn't make any difference at all to your players that you're not setting DCs.

 

[Dandu]

The thought occurs that if you change the d20 rule, you have to institute a mechanic to prevent people from searching over and over, like fatigue. Which makes things less simple than changing the DC.