The Gaming Den

I roll my eyes every time I hear some grognard moaning "In the old days, we didn't just roll dice to find traps, dadgummit!!", considering that the Find Traps skill dates back to 1E, at least.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:I don't know how to check a statue for hidden doors because I don't encounter hidden doors in real life.

You don't? I thought that kind of stuff was obvious. Kids today, they just don't know anything important these days.

(You first check for moving items, like a bronze bust that opens revealing a switch that opens a panel in the bookcase revealing two poles and three signs. The one in the middle says "TO THE BATCAVE." Each pole has a name on it.)

Then, of course there is the hollow section check (knocking on it) the sincere check (checking for portions of the status made from wax which might hide triggering mechanisms) and so on and so forth.

hogarth wrote:I roll my eyes every time I hear some grognard moaning "In the old days, we didn't just roll dice to find traps, dadgummit!!", considering that the Find Traps skill dates back to 1E, at least.

And we had to do that for every major dungeon square that we feared, not to count the additional checks that the DM was making because the non humans had the ability to instinctively find hidden and secret doors without a deliberate effort on their part.

We didn't just roll dice ... we rolled a plethora of dice and don't you forget it!

Josh_Kablack wrote:So unless someone wants to present a convincing argument that such increases come at a greater than acceptable cost to Speed of Resolution, Verisimilitude, Clarity or something that actually matters - because "immersion" has nothing to do with the ruleset - then the old style system is flat out inferior.

3.x style search mechanics are a pointless exercise in dice rolling that reduces player agency.

"Finding something", in the real world, is either "you'll find it if you look for long enough" or "you cannot find it, because you lack the ability (e.g. microscopic, or wouldn't recognize it even if you saw it). In the first case, the only thing that really varies is the time it takes to find it.

In 3.x., this is, more or less, accomplished: you roll. Repeated rolls until you find, representing more search time, add up to what you would expect to happen. In practice, people usually take 20, so this point is moot.

There are 3 problems with this system:

1, Reduced player agency. "If you didn't put points in to search, you are not allowed to interact with the game world". In order to justify the system, some need for the game to be limited this way needs to be discovered.

2. The die rolls are superfluous. A better system would be "Searching a 10x10 area takes full-round action. You find anything in it. Rogues (an some other character with the ability) find any hidden traps in the area as well).

In fact, you could take it a step further, and say that rogues have no special ability to find traps, they instead receive a bonus to saves and AC against them (making them still the go-to trapfinder). If you really want to know exactly how long it took to search a room (I don't), roll 1d6 and multiply the rounds.

3. Inflexibility. If you, as MC, don't want searching to be based on rolls, you're out of luck since you would be rendering the points any PCs have in Search wasted. Certainly you could do the +20 DC thing, but that requires you to both guess/know the search bonus of whoever is going to be looking (e.g. only the rogue can do it, still) and invent modifiers for them to gain. If you remove the numbers, you can just say "It's hollow" and be done with it.

Hieronymous Rex wrote: 2. The die rolls are superfluous. A better system would be "Searching a 10x10 area takes full-round action. You find anything in it. [..]

From your lips to God's ear! It would make looking for my car keys or credit card so much easier...

Hieronymous Rex wrote:3.x style search mechanics are a pointless exercise in dice rolling that reduces player agency.

"Finding something", in the real world, is either "you'll find it if you look for long enough" or "you cannot find it, because you lack the ability (e.g. microscopic, or wouldn't recognize it even if you saw it). In the first case, the only thing that really varies is the time it takes to find it.

Having spent like 3 hours looking for Darcy's keys yesterday, I'm gonna disagree with you on that. I totally have the ability to find them in other circumstances and I certainly spent enough time looking within the 5' square where they were located - but my efforts were focused on the incorrect pile of laundry to locate them.

There are 3 problems with this system:

1, Reduced player agency. "If you didn't put points in to search, you are not allowed to interact with the game world". .

I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.

Decisions made at chargen are not a reduction in player agency.

Apply a dab of reductio ad absurdium here:

• "If you don't have at least X HP, you cannot survive a Power Word"
• "If you don't have an attack bonus of at least +Y, you cannot hit the orc warriors"
• "If you don't have a search bonus of at least +Z, you cannot find the trap"

There's no fundamental difference between those three statements, so you can plug any of them into your claim about reducing player agency and limiting ways characters can interact with the game world.

So, it becomes apparent that what you are arguing is "mechanically differentiating characters reduces player agency". And that's utter nonsense within the context of roleplaying games - all of which mechanically differentiate characters. You're effectively spouting the argument that "any ruleset reduces player agency" - which while trivially true, is utterly meaningless in a discussion of RPG rules.

Your answer to "How do I write a better ruleset?" is "Don't, rules suck."

So excuse me if I don't take the rest of what you have to say about RPG design decisions terribly seriously.

2. The die rolls are superfluous. A better system would be "Searching a 10x10 area takes full-round action. You find anything in it. Rogues (an some other character with the ability) find any hidden traps in the area as well).

Now you have gone beyond absurdity into actual incomprehensibility. Please tell me this is some sort of typo - because that's the only way to parse this part of your argument.

If this is actually what you meant to say, then you are not considering "hidden traps" to be included in the set of "anything" - and I simply cannot comprehend how that works at all.

3. Inflexibility. If you, as MC, don't want searching to be based on rolls, you're out of luck since you would be rendering the points any PCs have in Search wasted.

Again, if you are the sort of DM who doesn't believe in using character abilities, why are you even pretending to care about your PCs? So they wasted some points - it's not like you're the sort of DM who needs to use those lame numbers anyway, they should grow a pair and suck it up - you don't need to coddle the widdle babies.

If you are seriously caring about PC's not having wasted abilities, you could do something radical like telling your players "I'm houseruling Search, don't put points into it"

Certainly you could do the +20 DC thing, but that requires you to both guess/know the search bonus of whoever is going to be looking (e.g. only the rogue can do it, still) and invent modifiers for them to gain. If you remove the numbers, you can just say "It's hollow" and be done with it.

So you are saying that it places too large of a burden on the DM to have to actually look at a character sheet ? Or are you saying it's too large of a burden for a DM to decide numeric modifiers in advance ? Or are you going full Mearls and claiming that adding 20 is the too burdensome part ?

Whichever, it sure seems to me like what you are saying here is "following the rules is so hard as to be troublesome - therefore it's easier to get rid of them" Which, is once again a profoundly disturbing argument to be making within the context of RPG design.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Having spent like 3 hours looking for Darcy's keys yesterday, I'm gonna disagree with you on that. I totally have the ability to find them in other circumstances and I certainly spent enough time looking within the 5' square where they were located - but my efforts were focused on the incorrect pile of laundry to locate them.

But that situation is so random and boring that I have no desire to inflict in on characters in a game.

Decisions made at chargen are not a reduction in player agency.

They are, in the sense that the options a system gives tend to limit what other characters can do. Case in point: The only reason anyone can't search for most traps is because the game designers decided "Hey! Lets give Rogues the Trapfinding ability so that we can force the trapfinder role into the game".. In this way, the designers choices about what chargen decisions are available reduced the player agency of all other classes.

Now, sometimes this is acceptable for a larger goal. But what goal does limiting trapfinding to rogues satisfy?

Please tell me this is some sort of typo...

I'll rephrase it (note that things in brackets are fill in the blanks):

Anyone can search a 10x10 area in [amount of time. 1 minute, whatever]. You find anything of note in it.

OPTIONAL RULE: The amount of time is [some dice] minutes.

The rogue's Trapsense should probably be buffed somewhat to accommodate this change.

If you are seriously caring about PC's not having wasted abilities, you could do something radical like telling your players "I'm houseruling Search, don't put points into it"

Conceded.

So you are saying that it places too large of a burden on the DM to have to actually look at a character sheet ?

Yes. You shouldn't have to check people's character sheets when writing an adventure; all you should need to know is their level.

Or are you saying it's too large of a burden for a DM to decide numeric modifiers in advance ?

I'm saying that is unnecessary. It's not hard, but why not just remove the problem in the first place?

Or are you going full Mearls and claiming that adding 20 is the too burdensome part ?

No; I only skimmed the Mearls article. I'm not so much arguing his for opinions as much as against your criticism's of them.

Whichever, it sure seems to me like what you are saying here is "following the rules is so hard as to be troublesome - therefore it's easier to get rid of them"

When a rule is more work than it needs to be, you simplify it. This is about the most basic thing a game needs.

But that situation is so random and boring that I have no desire to inflict in on characters in a game.

But it happens and occasionally a 3 hour delay looking for some clue becomes important to the game due to some time constraint. This is also something that can probably be handled by a single di roll so it's not like it's even time consuming on the player side.
Assuming that by making a search check, you are performing an exhaustive search in the area and that you will eventually find what you're looking for (if it is there), you designate a length of time that you'll spend looking for something and the check result dictates how long it takes for you to find it.
Meeting the Search DC means that you find it in 15 minutes. Beating the Search DC reduces that amount of time by a half per point (to where you spot what you're looking for instantly) while "failing" the check means that it simply TOOK you 15 more minutes per point to achieve your goal (so if an item's search DC is 15 and you get a 12, then it would take you an hour to find it).
Of course, if you say that you're only going to look for something for 15 minutes, then failure is failure and you can move on to do something else. If your characters aren't doing anything time sensitive then you don't even care about making rolls because you'll eventually win (yay!)

Also, every character in D&D can find traps.
Most of them can even do it safely.

-e-
Swapped some numbers around.
Then played around with them.
And then some more.

players have to bring something to the game, it shouldnt be force fed to them with dice. you have to be able to think for yourself, AND your character.

nothing is automatic and the player deserves it, ergo.. if the player dont remember this, then its their fault...

shadzar wrote:players have to bring something to the game, it shouldnt be force fed to them with dice. you have to be able to think for yourself, AND your character.

nothing is automatic and the player deserves it, ergo.. if the player dont remember this, then its their fault...

So, somehow I should be able to think through my knowledge of the God You Made Up This Instant For A Puzzle?

CapnTthePirateG wrote:

shadzar wrote:players have to bring something to the game, it shouldnt be force fed to them with dice. you have to be able to think for yourself, AND your character.

nothing is automatic and the player deserves it, ergo.. if the player dont remember this, then its their fault...

So, somehow I should be able to think through my knowledge of the God You Made Up This Instant For A Puzzle?

I was was at an RPGA event and I saw a man almost cry because the DM was trying to get him to figure out how to make an antidote.

Making grown men cry out of frustration is not a winner for a design goal.

shadzar wrote:players have to bring something to the game, it shouldnt be force fed to them with dice. you have to be able to think for yourself, AND your character.

nothing is automatic and the player deserves it, ergo.. if the player dont remember this, then its their fault...

So in your games, you removed Find Traps and Find Secret Door rolls, I take it?

And they have to hit the GM to hit a monster...

K wrote: I was was at an RPGA event and I saw a man almost cry because the DM was trying to get him to figure out how to make an antidote.

Making grown men cry out of frustration is not a winner for a design goal.

Depends on your generation. Older gamers, the kind that grew up playing hard NES games, are generally okay with a challenge. It's mostly the younger generation who want everything to be easy and spoon fed to them, because that's just the style of games they were raised on.

Some people want victories that are hard fought and earned, other people just want something relaxing where they beat up monsters without any contest.

K wrote: I was was at an RPGA event and I saw a man almost cry because the DM was trying to get him to figure out how to make an antidote.

Making grown men cry out of frustration is not a winner for a design goal.

I think you've mentioned this incident before. The first time I thought nothing of it, but now I am suspicious: What was the context of this, and why did an adult cry over a game?.

Design goals shouldn't have to account for "extreme immaturity".

To adapt the favorite quote of the grognards: "It's roleplaying, not riddle solving".

Hieronymous Rex wrote:

K wrote: I was was at an RPGA event and I saw a man almost cry because the DM was trying to get him to figure out how to make an antidote.

Making grown men cry out of frustration is not a winner for a design goal.

I think you've mentioned this incident before. The first time I thought nothing of it, but now I am suspicious: What was the context of this, and why did an adult cry over a game?.

Design goals shouldn't have to account for "extreme immaturity".

Regardless of if the story is true or not, the fact is that your character is going to know things you don't, and it makes no sense to ask the player to know these things in real life to play his character effectively. You don't ask the Fighter to try to actually hit you in the face with a sword to deal damage. You don't ask the Mage to explain to you how to break the laws of physics. So why does the Rogue have to explain himself every excruciating step of how to find the trap. Why should the character with a skill in alchemy or chemistry or medicine or whatever the relevant skill is need its player to know how to make the antidote too? It's a double standard that has no fucking reason to exist.

If the DM wants to say "Sorry your character's skill isn't high enough to know how to make the antidote for that poison. You need to find a recipe for the antidote" that's fine, and a legitimate plot hook. But don't expect the player to know what that recipe is, have the character go out looking for it.

The blend of IC and OOC knowledge that anything else encourages is the sort of bullshit that leads to people making computers out of skeletons, and inventing cars, lightbulbs, and other such setting inappropriate things that players can conceivably know how to do, that their characters don't.

Seerow wrote: Regardless of if the story is true or not, the fact is that your character is going to know things you don't, and it makes no sense to ask the player to know these things in real life to play his character effectively.

It's the player's choice to pick what spells to prepare for the following day, or if he wants to follow the trail or stick to the forest. If you couldn't make decisions for your character, it wouldn't be a game at all.

The only real requirement is that the information to solve game puzzles should either be common knowledge or something that was introduced in the game itself.

If you're required to research something on wikipedia, that's going too far, because it breaks the immersion.

The idea is to get people into character, so the stress of having to solve a given puzzle or riddle is on the player as well as the character. And solving it becomes an accomplishment for both, as opposed to just a boring skill check at the mercy of the dice gods. One creatures Player agency, the other creates player helplessness as you can only wait to see if your character succeeds or fails.

The primary reason 4E skill challenges bombed was because they lacked any player input or tactics beyond just picking your best skill and praying.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:

shadzar wrote:players have to bring something to the game, it shouldnt be force fed to them with dice. you have to be able to think for yourself, AND your character.

nothing is automatic and the player deserves it, ergo.. if the player dont remember this, then its their fault...

So, somehow I should be able to think through my knowledge of the God You Made Up This Instant For A Puzzle?

obscure extremes are getting pretty silly on ALL these types of debates. how often does THIS situation really happen?

where is the work of ALL the players to make the game work?

this goes again with the fire-building NWP. If there is a reason the character should know how to do something it isnt needed for some dice roll. if it is an ancient an obscure God withint he game world itself, then it SHOULD take some effort on the players parts, and as people playing a game about explorationa nd research and devising plans to overcome obstacles, then they SHOULD be expected to expand personal effort to do so, then the knowledge should be gained within the game.

again it boils down to bad DMs. really i never saw many bad DMs and it is probably because they were working WITH the players rather than against them.

as these articles deal with the past and the present, then maybe looking at the facts should highlight a problem or two:

1. there are always bad DMs, just dont play with them, or help them get better IF you can.

2. 3rd edition brought in MANY people that had no idea how to play, and used the dice rolling as a crutch for learning how to play, and work WITH the players.

using extreme examples or examples of bad DMs, doesnt prove that it is a widespread problem, only that some people jsut shouldnt be playing.

in a game where you are playing in a shared imagination, you have to work together, and if you arent able to, then you just maybe shouldnt be playing.

that article is really ROLLplayers v ROLEplayers, not players v characters, since it mentions dice mechanics to resolve the problem.

dice shouldnt even be involved in YOUR example. take some time to research it from the gameworld, or use arcane means to get it, and the DM should allow success of gaining the knowledge. then you still ahve to do what is right with it.

i am also hearing the stench of James Wyatt's comment about "talking to the 2 guard at the city gates isnt fun so just skip it" in regards to 4th edition, because "D&D isnt about traipsing through fairy rings and talking to the little people, it is about killing things and taking their stuff."

if YOU personally arent bringing something imaginative, intuitive, or industrious tot he game, then your character is just a collection of numbers on a sheet, and ANYONE else can play it, YOU arent needed for it.

You have to bring something to the game.

Bad DM is no excuse for blaming the game for a problem that is of the DM.

older editions DID have instructions for the DM to guide them. though some were still bad, newer editions just expect the DM to know what they are doing. Many things were left out for both player and DM alike to learn HOW to WORK TOGETHER to make the game work.

having so many people cut their gaming teeth on 3rd edition and up has caused a GREAT problem in the game and gaming where people forgot or never learned how to do certain things, and the books failed to tell them, but it isnt systemic only relative to the newest cases.

for the bad DM, there is again a choice to be made, fix them or dont play with them.

you can throw a temper tantrum all day long because you have a bad DM, but it doesnt change the DM. you have to be mature enough to decide to stop playing with them. when they no longer have anyone to play with, they will either stop playing, and the number of bad DMs will slowly decrease, or the bad DM will learn from their mistakes and become a better DM as time passes.

a good DM in that situation would realize a puzzle to hard, and adapt to make the game playable. To err is human, and DMs are still human....at least sorta in regards to 4th edition and the direction D&D is going they may not be human much longer....

hogarth wrote:

shadzar wrote:players have to bring something to the game, it shouldnt be force fed to them with dice. you have to be able to think for yourself, AND your character.

nothing is automatic and the player deserves it, ergo.. if the player dont remember this, then its their fault...

So in your games, you removed Find Traps and Find Secret Door rolls, I take it?

no, but the concept of 4th edition with its "passive" checks that autosucceed if something and so and so, dont exist.

a player must CHOOSE to find traps or search for secret doors, unless it is so important that they need to find it. remember that some of these things were NOT done by the PLAYERS in the past, but the info was given to them, and the DM rolled for these things like secret doors.

Dwarf: I walk down this corridor talking point in the formation so that others can shoot over me if something happens.

DM: As you progress down the corridor, you feel as though you are actually progressing DOWN the corridor as you get a sense you are going slightly farther underground with each step rather than walking on a level floor.

so passive WAS there in the past, but the innate senses and information of importance the DM doesnt jsut withhold for no reason.

secret door to the treasure cache...you got to find it.

secret door to escape otherwise inescapable death....the elf accidentally finds it.

Regardless of if the story is true or not, the fact is that your character is going to know things you don't, and it makes no sense to ask the player to know these things in real life to play his character effectively.

However, you cannot completely divorce player skill from character skill; otherwise you wouldn't have a game. If "it makes no sense to ask the player to know" is applied across the board, it results in a "game" where players watch characters go on adventures based only on the character's abilities and knowledge, and the players contribute nothing. PCs should be the medium through which players interact with the game world.

Now, if your character should know something (e.g. your cleric should know the tenets of your faith, the church hierarchy, etc.), you should be able to request that information of the GM. What I'm questioning in K's story is whether the PC actually knew what the player needed, or if teh story is an exaggeration.

Also, making Skeleton Computers is a good, creative idea and you should feel bad for calling it "bullshit".

no, but the concept of 4th edition with its "passive" checks that autosucceed if something and so and so, dont exist.

a player must CHOOSE to find traps or search for secret doors, unless it is so important that they need to find it. remember that some of these things were NOT done by the PLAYERS in the past, but the info was given to them, and the DM rolled for these things like secret doors.

I'm a pro-passive searching. All you really need to do is say "I am moving at a rate slow enough to search the area I walk through". As long as you aren't required to roll for every 10x10 square individually, this works well (this is my problem with 1e-2e Find Traps; you have to declare each search instead of just assuming that you're doing it).

Hieronymous Rex wrote:I'm a pro-passive searching. All you really need to do is say "I am moving at a rate slow enough to search the area I walk through". As long as you aren't required to roll for every 10x10 square individually, this works well (this is my problem with 1e-2e Find Traps; you have to declare each search instead of just assuming that you're doing it).

Have you read and critiqued my search changes in Comprehensive Tome errata?

Hieronymous Rex wrote:

no, but the concept of 4th edition with its "passive" checks that autosucceed if something and so and so, dont exist.

a player must CHOOSE to find traps or search for secret doors, unless it is so important that they need to find it. remember that some of these things were NOT done by the PLAYERS in the past, but the info was given to them, and the DM rolled for these things like secret doors.

I'm a pro-passive searching. All you really need to do is say "I am moving at a rate slow enough to search the area I walk through". As long as you aren't required to roll for every 10x10 square individually, this works well (this is my problem with 1e-2e Find Traps; you have to declare each search instead of just assuming that you're doing it).

this isnt the passing searching, passive means no action done by player or character, it just happens. like the aforementioned elf finding the exit door in a deadly situation, or the dwarf noticing the grade of the corridor was changing.

what you are doing is what was suggested about the player actively doing something. the smallest form of mentioning "i am searching for traps as i walk" is NOT passive, and SHOULD be what people do.

now it can get silly if people do this ever corner they turn, and every bush they pass, but that is where you have to not overthink the problem, which led us to skills/NWPs to begin with. people going to the extremes.

the purpose of that in AD&D IIRC was not to say you couldnt canvas a larger area for traps, but that you were searching for the tiny things that wouldnt be noticed. a glint of reflection in a hallway signifies something metal along the way, so you would search THAT are for the 1d10 rounds.

like the statue mentioned in the article, you would check IT for traps.

but having some sort of "trap sense" with an on and off mode, is a bit silly to think you would just see them, you have to declare your intentions to be searching, as you stated.

a rule of DMing, never assume the players are doing anything, unless they explicitly tell you they are do something.

If you're in a dangerous situation you're obviously paying attention.

Why do you punish characters for not having their players announce "While in the crypt of the Necromancer King I am searching for traps."

What do you think the characters are doing? Whistling and discussing the fucking weather? It's retarded to think they are anything but entirely focused on the task at hand when that task is life threatening. Passive checks make all sorts of sense in a dangerous situation.

If you're having a picnic then no, you don't get passive perception to notice an ambush because you're too busy trying to get laid. If you're walking down a dangerous corridor you'd best believe my character, who has spent the better part of his life learning how to disable traps and notice danger, is looking for goddamn traps.

Edit: Unless you really like slow gameplay. Once a trap is set off the group WILL come to a crawl if they care about their characters at all. Searching every square is boring.

Hieronymous Rex wrote:I'm a pro-passive searching. All you really need to do is say "I am moving at a rate slow enough to search the area I walk through". As long as you aren't required to roll for every 10x10 square individually, this works well (this is my problem with 1e-2e Find Traps; you have to declare each search instead of just assuming that you're doing it).

I remember in my 1e / 2e games we used to establish the various SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) that would include mappiong/searching functions in dungeons, or standard camp setups for outdoors.

Then again my 1e days were mostly among a group of Navy ROTC students. It was back in the days when the joke was the walls were paper / pencil thin and you had to measure each room down to the nearest foot to find the secret room.