Stopping take 20 Searching.

[mark_j]

Let's please not be so harsh towards one another. I agree that it's not plausible, to me, but I'm not calling anyone a fool over it.

The "take 20" is the problem, not the searching itself. D&D was founded on probability and randomness. Taking that aspect away and making it possible for player's to completely eliminate the randomness inherent in everything we do (human error for example, or demi-human error if you prefer) is counter to D&D and its foundation.

The character's skill at searching is reflected in the skill bonuses they have on their character sheet. The D20 roll is the introduction of random forces outside the character's skills. Not even an expert performs at the same level all the time.

Again, my opinion only.

-Mark

 

[apesamongus]

I think it is more of a tedium thing... If there are things to find, then that is ok... But to do it ALL THE TIME would only lead to DM's killing themselves.

Taking 20 should remove the tedium. It's the sitting there and rolling again and again, because they might have missed something that's tedious. If they're taking 20, then you just describe what they find and keep moving.

 

[Zappo]

Not a problem here. If the characters have the time to search the place thoroughly, why shouldn't they do it? It's only logical.

BTW -

You can't take 20 when there is a danger associated with failure. Such as traps. This means that you can't take 20 when there are traps. Which is a cath-22, because the character can't know that there are traps until he searches for them, right?

This either means that you can never take 20 when searching (because there might be traps anywhere), which is pretty stupid, or it means that if you take 20 when searching you will spring any and all traps.

 

[mark_j]

it means that if you take 20 when searching you will spring any and all traps.

There's a solution for you!!

 

[GlassJaw]

I am quite lame, it appears

Well maybe you are and maybe you aren't, I have no idea since I've never met you.

Actually, what I said was simply no longer allowing the players to take 20 while searching was a lame solution. It's the easy way out.

You can't take 20 when there is a danger associated with failure. Such as traps. This means that you can't take 20 when there are traps. Which is a cath-22, because the character can't know that there are traps until he searches for them, right?

Using the RAW, there is no penalty for searching, so you can take 20 while searching for traps. You can't, however, take 20 while using disable device, because if you fail by 5 or more, the trap goes off. Merely searching for a trap doesn't set it off.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Even with an average room size of 30x40 (only 6x8 squares) and 10 rooms, that's 480 squares. At 2 minutes per square that's 960 minutes searching. Which is 16 hours! And, my dungeon rooms can often be larger so I can utilize more "stuff" in rooms to make it more interesting, long tunnels, high celings (do you search all 5' squares on the celing 15' up too?), and narrow ledges over precipices (do you climb down every hole you find and search those too??). Hehehe

Okay I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh. I feel sorry for everyone who has players who feel the need to search all these squares or actually feels the need themselves. I find that quite absurd, but maybe it goes along with the accounting many players feel the need for, since if they don't they might miss some loot. My group roleplays even in dungeons, they arn't going to search every crack in the wall for treasure, and if someone wanted to, the others will roll their eyes and just move on toward the actual adventure. Even if the players arn't bored, then their characters would be, and the characters don't want to be bored, they want to adventure!

Thirty seconds to kill the monsters in the room, then another hour and half to see if there are some gold pieces in a crack in the wall, makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Trickstergod]

The Problem:

Sometimes you don't want the PC's to find everything in a room. If you're running a game set in a castle, involving courtly intrigue and a number of assassinations that begin occuring as the game progresses, then the fact that there are a number of secret passages riddling the castle walls could very well be a big deal. One that, while they should be found eventually, shouldn't necessarily be found right away. I've had at least one situation similar to this occur.

Search can really be a big deal in a Purloined Letter or, well, Clue-esque game. Sometimes, Search shouldn't be a guaranteed or zero percent chance of success thing.

Now, while you might just say that in instances like that, involve some kind of roll, but that doesn't work so well. If you do that, things look suspicious.

For some games, that might not matter. Then again, it very well might come up at a later date. At which point, you're essentially screwed. Sure, you can add in random hazards or what have you but, at least in the examples I provided, that doesn't necessarily make any sense.

I don't have situations like that always crop up, but because I want to have situations like that, and have had situations like that, I've altered the taking 20 roll; not just for Search, mind you, but all skills. Even when taking 20, a roll has to be made. On a 1, taking 20 only equates to taking 15. Rolls need to be made until no more 1's come up - so potentially, that 20 could turn into a 15, or a 10 or even into the negatives on a really bad night.

All around, I don't like the "automatic success" or "automatic failure" of the taking 20 rule.

On top of that, I also occasionally like for the PC's to enlist the help of outside parties; not not necessarily because the PC's can't do something, just because that trying so should be exceedingly difficult for their skill level (but doesn't necessarily entail any risks for trying).

 

[ST]

You could stop hiding things for them to find. That might stop them from searching every square.

Heh, that's exactly what I've done. I just don't find this particular aspect of the game interesting. Most players end up doing this because they've been burned in the past, so I tell them, "Hey, I don't hide things in obscure locations."

 

[Ravellion]

Sometimes you don't want the PC's to find everything in a room.

So make the DC impossible.

One that, while they should be found eventually, shouldn't necessarily be found right away. I've had at least one situation similar to this occur.

Me too. Situational modifiers helped find the door that was there but they couldn't find earlier. Someone in the castle might not be in on the plot and give the PCs a hint where to look.

Search can really be a big deal in a Purloined Letter or, well, Clue-esque game. Sometimes, Search shouldn't be a guaranteed or zero percent chance of success thing.

I really don't understand why not. Those kind of games require a lot of plot-control. Nothing makes you lose plot control as quickly as a lucky 20 on a random search roll, which immediatly reveals the Phantom's hideout tucked away in the corner of the operahouse. If you want such a game randomness is your enemy.

All around, I don't like the "automatic success" or "automatic failure" of the taking 20 rule.

Apparently not. I don't think the reasons you gave are arguments in favour of random rolling though. Situational modifiers seem to be far more in line with what you want to do. Perhaps after solving a riddle or puzzle, clues, keys or codes of sorts could help the players find and open the secret door that for plot reasons needed to remain hidden up to that point.

On top of that, I also occasionally like for the PC's to enlist the help of outside parties; not not necessarily because the PC's can't do something, just because that trying so should be exceedingly difficult for their skill level (but doesn't necessarily entail any risks for trying).

Finding the Master Builder who designed the castle if they can't find the doors would help. Of course, they would only do that if they have absolutely no chance to just randomly stumble upon the door.

The impossible DC is your friend (though slightly railroadish).

Rav

 

[Ravellion]

You could stop hiding things for them to find. That might stop them from searching every square.

Heh. Just "Pavlov" them out of that kind of behaviour. Probably the best advice so far.

Rav