Specificicity of the Search skill?

[billd91]

One thing I find strange is, if someone were to "hide" an item under a bed mattress (for example), all you have to do is lift up the matress and there is the item. But in D&D, the PCs have to do a Search check, and if they roll low, there is a chance they could miss something that is in plain view or right in front of their face...

Ever look for something, unable to find it for the longest time, and it was actually in plain sight? There should be chances of failure. But if the object is right out and easy to see just under the bed, the Search DC can be very low. Someone hiding under the bed - DC 5. Maybe 10 if they are hiding behind the under-bed cabinets under the waterbed platform.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

The problem is 3E simplifies the game, in most cases for the better. If you want players to specify where they search, then you need to specify everything that's in the room. That can become a chore (and bore). It's much easier to say it's a kitchen and then allow the player's imaginations to come up with what's there. There's something to be said for allowing your players to determine what furnishings there are, simply b/c it saves time and they may come up with more interesting ideas than you did.

So yeah, you can have your players specify specific search areas. But it will require a lot more work for you in the longrun.

The other thing is, if someone specifically states they are searching inside the fireplace then it becomes rather disappointing when they then fail the Search check even though they were searching the right place. It makes it more difficult to require both a Search check AND the specification of the correct area.

I think this issue boils down to game style. If you want that level of detail, then go for it. But if you want to keep things moving along, then don't.

My 2 cents.

 

[andargor]

That's exactly what I'm talking about, and probably how I'll handle this in the future.

But is it supported anywhere in the rules? A modification to Search like this won't be a problem for my home players, if I explain it ahead of time, but I also DM a lot at cons. Those of you who DM at cons know that at least one player out of every table or two is a rules-putz, who gets pissed off if he thinks his maxed-out Search isn't doing what the rules say it should do.

For a con, you could ask the tournament module writer to include a specification: "All items hidden within the locations of this module are well hidden, and as such require that the players specify exactly where they are using their Search checks to find these items." Not uncommon to have modules add "circumstance modifiers" to their locations.

If all the groups playing the module have this mention, then it's a level playing field for everyone, and even rule-putzes such as myself would be satisfied with it. If there's an elf in the group, his automatic Search check might simply reveal that "there's something odd" about a particular location/furniture/fireplace...

Andargor

 

[Plane Sailing]

Under 3E, that's all changed. Not only does searching seem to fall solely upon one or two people in the group -- the ones with maxed-out Search, but players don't seem willing to specify how or what they're searching like they used to. Nowadays it's just, "Okay, Harry the Rogue Takes Ten searching the room. That's a 22. What do we find?"

I posed this very question deep in some other thread recently, I'm very glad to see you bring it up in a thread of its very own.

I see exactly this problem.

I think that the way I'll handle in future is that if anyone looks in the right place, they automatically find it ("I look on top of the door frame for the key" "You find it"), if they rely on a skill check they have to see what the skill check reveals.

Different checking for traps, where I'll give a bonus to the search check if they are looking in the right area or for the right thing.

Cheers

 

[Hypersmurf]

But in D&D, the PCs have to do a Search check, and if they roll low, there is a chance they could miss something that is in plain view or right in front of their face...

Gah. Worst PbEM DM I ever came across...

I was playing a Bard, with a +12 or so Spot modifier. We strolled into a village around noon, brilliant sunshine.

The main street was deserted.

DM asked me to roll a Spot check. I rolled badly. (But still... +12!)

She told me I'd just walked smack into a burly man sweeping the porch of a shop, because I "hadn't noticed him".

!?

(Of course, this was the same DM who put up a combat map of a shop, and required us to detail how we followed the shopkeeper through to the back room in 30' moves and grid coordinates. It took two rounds - so, with three PCs, about a dozen emails all up - and then we were in the back room having a conversation.

... !? )

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with Aaron2 and Plane Sailing. Upping DCs will do nothing for you, eventually the Search Monkey will find everything not hidden by magic by Taking 10, even if you throw a -10 mod at him.

If you want to encourage searching in specific locations and for specific kinds of things, make the DC 5 or 10 for any PC who guesses right.

 

[DemonAtheist]

So you've never searched for 15 minutes for your car keys to discover they were lying in plain side on the hallway table, exactly where you left them? (Or worse -- and I have done this -- in your hand?)

Ever done that while driving? That sudden, inexplicable need to know you have EVERYTHING, so you check your pocket for your wallet, then realize that your keys aren't in your pocket? So you go on driving, your mind desperately trying to think of everywhere you've put your keys, hopeing to realize before you get where you're going. Only to realize (minutes later in some cases) that yes, YOU"RE DRIVING. WITH THE KEYS.

yeah. that happens to me

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

It's not precisely that I want searching to be a challenge ... it's just that I'd like it to be something that requires a little bit of thought on behalf of the players.

But the real question is, is that what your PLAYERS would like it to be? Is that something that they would find rewarding to do, or are they happier with searches being abstract and quickly resolved and using the time they save to concentrate on parts of your game that are more fun for them?

It's at this point that you should probably think "Hey, the people on ENWorld are cool and all, but they aren't actually playing in our game, so how much help can they be in the end? I'm going to bring this question up with my gaming group and see what they think."

Present your case to them: tell them you're getting upset because searching for hidden items is so abstract, allowing highly skilled characters to do all the searching and always find things, without ever having to get down into specifics. Apparently you like specifics, and you have fun adding them into the game. In contrast, I'm guessing that your players are at the very least comfortable with keeping searching abstract (they aren't the ones complaining about it here, after all), so you should probably expect that you will have to meet them halfway.

Turning searching into the old-school, pre-skill-system game of Twenty Questions ("Is it under the bed? Is it under the table? Is it ON the table? Is it behind the paintings? Is it under the rug?") probably won't fly, because it makes having the skill basically useless. Raising the DC for nonspecific searches only postpones the problem, as has already been pointed out.

The suggestion to lower the Search DC for characters who specify where they're searching is fairly elegant, though, and seems like a viable compromise; it encourages the behavior you want from your players (they tell you where they're searching instead of leaving it entirely abstract), it opens searching up to more characters than just the rogue and the bard, and if you have a player who really does prefer a high level of abstraction he can always just keep pumping skill points into Search. So if I were you, that'd be what I would suggest to my players.

But for god's sake, whatever it is you think you want to try, talk with them about it first. Especially if you've been going by the book and handling Search as an abstract process, because no one likes a bait-and-switch.

Besides, they might be able to come up with another alternative method that you all would like better than anything that this thread has suggested.

--
personally, if our gm tried de-abstracting searches, i'd tell him to cut it out
ryan

 

[Roman]

Ever done that while driving? That sudden, inexplicable need to know you have EVERYTHING, so you check your pocket for your wallet, then realize that your keys aren't in your pocket? So you go on driving, your mind desperately trying to think of everywhere you've put your keys, hopeing to realize before you get where you're going. Only to realize (minutes later in some cases) that yes, YOU"RE DRIVING. WITH THE KEYS.

yeah. that happens to me

Heh, I once searched for my glasses for about 30 minutes even though I was wearing them...

 

[The Souljourner]

Whenever I leave the house, work, my car, a store... I always check my pockets for my keys, my wallet, and my cellphone. Twice now, I've been walking around, check my pockets, and realize with a start that my cellphone isn't in my pocket. Sometimes I'll even look around for it for a little bit... before realizing that I'm TALKING on the damn thing. Wicked funny.

As for the game - talk about it with your players. If it's unimportant stuff, just picking up random treasure, let them search.... but make sure that they use up the right amount of time for it - 6 seconds per 5' square, or 2 minutes for take 20. I'm with those who said you shouldn't be able to take 10. Sometimes you really do miss your keys sitting right in the middle of the table.

Now, for important searches, I say, make them actually say "I search the inside of the brick oven". If it's a plot item, and finding it is actually worth spending game time, then by all means, stretch it out. But having to specify every little thing you search in each of dozens of rooms can really kill a gaming session.

-The Souljourner