From where I'm sitting, nobody is really talking much about the root problem.
This player doesn't seem to want to play this D&D game.
He may want to play another RPG, or he might want to play D&D but with a different scenario/campaign, or he may want to play Portal or something. But he seems to be doing whatever he can, consciously or not, to throw a wrench into Soccer Zone's game.
This is a very difficult problem for Soccer Zone, to be honest. It's easy for me to sit here and say "you shouldn't game with him", but the guy isn't my friend, isn't someone I deal with on an ongoing basis. I'm blessed with a group that I get along with, and that shares my overall goals for gaming. (It's also part of the reason I don't game all that much: I'm very picky about who I game with. Personally, I'd rather not game than have a game that's not lots of fun; there are plenty of other things I could be doing instead.)
I honestly don't know what the real solution is. It might be to sit down with the guy and have a conversation along the lines of "Look what you're doing. Is this intentional? Can you stop?". Soccer Zone will need to figure out (in advance!) what to do if he essentially says "I won't stop; I'll stop MacGuyvering, but I'll just figure out some other way to be disruptive". Maybe he is honestly unaware that he's causing problems, in which case talking to him will smooth the path for future gaming. I don't know that; Soccer Zone, you're the only one (on this board) who might.
Best of luck.
I don't really agree that the player does not want to play D&D necessarily. Thinking up innovative solutions to problems is part of D&D its really just a matter of where one draws the line and that can vary heavily from game to game. In the current edition we kind of have rules that are supposed to cover a lot of this creativity aspect with dice rolls and skill points but in older editions, particularly, thinking outside of the box to overcome problems was not only called for - it was practically mandatory. You'd have no chance of getting through something like Tomb of Horrors based purely on your characters abilities. You had to use your own intelligence to get past the various obstacles.
Players that are good at this sort of thing gravitate toward it (often they also play wizards and try and come up with interesting spell combo's or use spells in ways that the spell was not really intended - ice storm to create a sleet filled area in order to more easily drag a heavy load a short distance for example. The problem, as I see it, is not that the player is intentionally trying to be disruptive but that the player and the DM have different levels of tolerance for the innovation and a different base line for how much innovation is reasonable.
I think its more of a style mismatch, sort of like what one gets when the DM wants to play some intrigue heavy role playing intensive game and the players seem more keen to kick in doors, fight cool monsters, take their stuff and get all that wonderful XP. Both groups want to play D&D but they don't really want to play the same kind of D&D.
This player doesn't seem to want to play this D&D game.I don't really agree that the player does not want to play D&D necessarily. Thinking up innovative solutions to problems is part of D&D its really just a matter of where one draws the line and that can vary heavily from game to game. ...
I totally agree; I was kind of trying to get that across when I said "doesn't seem to want to play this game" (emphasis added after the fact), but didn't do a good job of that.
Actually his intelligence is an 8 but he tries to say that his plans are wisdom based cause he has a 16 wisdomThe wise man knows to stay out of the rain. The intelligent man knows how to buid and umbrella. Intelliegence and Wisdon can't used interchangably to fit the players' need at the moment.
Skelds on a roll on this thread. I agree and call shenanigans on this player. If he wants to be MacGuvyer he needs to at least pony up the points and get a really good intelligence. This character is Forrest Gump. He's actually stupid - but has a gut instinct for whats right and whats wrong when given a choice. He can't think up a plan - though he might get a bad feeling if something was actually wrong with someone else's plan. If he's a good roleplayer then make him roleplay his character and that means make him play the character as dumb.
You ought to be able to shut this problem down considering the players stats. Though you'll likely be back to square one when the player makes a new character ('cause he'll put the points into intelligence next time - this is how this player likes to play).
I'd use the grace period between the player not being able to do crazy stuff due to low character intelligence and the point when he brings in a character that has a high intelligence score to make some house rules on where your going to draw the line in this sort of thing and then communicate that to the group.
|
Skelds on a roll on this thread.
Even a blind squirrel will occasionally find a coconut or something.
This character is Forrest Gump. He's actually stupid - but has a gut instinct for whats right and whats wrong when given a choice.
I hadn't thought of this, but it's a dead-on description of this character.
-Skeld
|
I'm still not willing to condemn this player until I hear what specifically he is doing...
In an old campaign of mine the party had fled with the refugees from an attacked city into an ancient keep while an invading army chased after them. Holed up in the keep they had to come up with a way of defending these innocent people from the inevitable attack. They had a small number of soldiers under their own command and I had planned for them to engage in a pitched mass battle where they would determine the outcome. The night of the attack the wizard PC came up with a very good, very simple plan that required no outside knowledge that way beyound his character's knowledge. Using this plan they easily defeated the enemy army with no risk to their own people with the creative use of silence and invisibility sphere. There was very little rolling on their part, and almost no chance for the plan to fail (it did hit hiccup when dogs with the army smelled them coming and started barking), but I accepted the plan because it was fun for everyone and got the job done.
My point is that a creative player is not a bad thing and I really would just LOVE to know what he did before I change that opinion.
Speaking as a player, nothing kills a player's enthusiasm for a game faster than coming up with a clever solution to a problem and being told "No, you can't do that because I won't let you."
*hands Greg a towel*
.... I like how we haven't yet learned exactly what the problem player is doing to cause Soccer Zone grief.
Seriously. I'm dying to know.
Without any knowledge of what the OP's tormentor is actually doing/planning, this thread reminds me of the time two of my players tried to tell me their characters were going to build a Faraday cage to get past some shocker lizards. Needless to say, I stopped that as soon as possible. Alas, it took a bit of convincing to get them to realize that a rogue and a scout (or whatever two classes they were playing) would have no knowledge of something that was invented on a different material plane at a time most likely in the future.
he heh--trial and error is your friend.
you: two sheets of copper lattice and a bucket of water are all you can find.
pc1: this should work.
pc2: I put the copper mesh over the doorwa...*ZZZZZZZTTTTTTT*
pc1: hmm how close can I get the bucket of wat... *ZZZZZTTT*
Again, what does the rest of the party do while ninja is deviously creating plans? If he is taking 20 then they will have hours to do something complicated. Perhaps the characters get bored. More likely the players will get bored and decide to open the chest just to see what happens. Worse (for you--not the game) is they are not bored, and they too appreciate the game as it is happening. In this case they are having fun, so leave it as is.
simpler steps requiring rolls is how you should probably do it. (the game is called d20 after all, not second person narrative)
I would play the hours thing myself. At the least I would get to ignore player A while he is off being devious in his own narration. Wandering monsters, failed move (stand-and-watch-the-ninja-tinker) silently checks. Have the rest of the party fill up their time making checks, rolls, gambling, cooking, study, pray etc..
Maybe you should give out complicated xp for the complicated plans as well. You: the party has successfully bypassed the red dragon encounter everyone gets 1/3 of quantum jello slaad game theory prince waves do re mi. If they are not clever enough to figure it out, they will never advance in levels. OK that was just a spite answer *grin*
just noting - isn't that the same group consisting of three evil characters who don't actually want to play the STAP, but are engaged more in a struggle of strutting and self-aggrandizing ?
if beyond the problems described in uncaring players , these folks intend to meta-game their way out of stuff, with neither the skills nor abilities to back up their plans - just as a hint, does this character even work with knowledge is character in game would even have, such as the exact composition and layout of stuff etc. - do you enjoy GMing for them ? I mean, from what you describe, they sound like they would actually do to great lengths to win by any means possible. Including thinking up "complex" plans in advance because they have a precise knowledge what they are facing and are incapable to resolve that situation by other means
Besides, I mean, just asking... these guy(s) seem prone to push their buttons, loath to take risks, in the habit of trying to meta-reason their way out of tight spots and above all, being able to talk "bull" without even blinking and enjoying themselves while doing so....
Frankly - if you cannot understand the plan,and nobody else but the guy "explaining it" can either, chances are that
a) this plan doesn't actually work despite his claims because it is totally wacked , especially since he doesn't seem able to explain it in layman's terms (this is not an advanced astrophysics lecture after all, but a game ) or/and
b) that he simply wants to argue you into submission, either because he knows its the only chance to get out of the jam without much risk, or in order to dominate you to make the camapaign run HIS way....
So he is either a snakesoil salesman or someone with a superiority complex. Nice, personally I really wouldn't care to have him at my table. Do you ?
Besides is this camapaign actually more fun than not gaming with this/these guy(s) ?
|
This kind of move to a room take 20, move to the hall take 20 could slow the party to an absolute crawl in game. Ecspecially if the party is under a time crunch, or being herassed by enemies.
It does take a very long time to take 20 on a large area (IIRC it's 2 mins for a 10'x10' area). Many limited duration buffs will expire and the element of surprise may be lost. Consider rolling random encounters or allowing bad guys to prepare for the PC's more readily.
X
|
This kind of move to a room take 20, move to the hall take 20 could slow the party to an absolute crawl in game. Ecspecially if the party is under a time crunch, or being herassed by enemies.It does take a very long time to take 20 on a large area (IIRC it's 2 mins for a 10'x10' area). Many limited duration buffs will expire and the element of surprise may be lost. Consider rolling random encounters or allowing bad guys to prepare for the PC's more readily.
X
Taking 20 is taking 2 minutes to search a 5'square, not a 10'square.
I don't see the issue as long as your players are having fun.
... Consider rolling random encounters or allowing bad guys to prepare for the PC's more readily.
X
or start tracking rations and exhaustion and boredom.
You: "Its been six hours are you going to eat?Player 1: we ate in the next to the altar of the last room.
you: Indeed, Cleric it is time for you to pray for spells.
Player 2: but I have not cast any spells.
I would like to point out that taking 20 is only an option for those skill checks were failure does not result in a harmful outcome to the character doing so.
perhaps you would like to compare Rules Compendium page 31 : "When.... you're faced with no threats or distractions and the skill being attempted carries no penalty for failure, you can take 20."
+
"You can't take 20 on any skill that has consequences on failure"
I would assume that searching for potentially lethal traps (existant or not) constitutes a threat from the characters PoV (consider it disarming a dud bomb....), whether he/she is actually in harm's way or not. Looking for and missing a hidden trap certainly counts as "has consequences on failure". -----> instead of discovering the pressure pad through painstaking search, you discover it by stepping on it, triggering the effect..... for a painful discovery.
taking 20 also implies _knowing_ that a skill check actually failed, another mandatory requirement. Now, if searching for traps, does not finding any constitute a success (because there actually aren't any) or failure (because you actually missed it ) ? As that answer is not answerable from the character's position (say opposed to the question of whether you succeeded on opening the lock ), I would deny the player the option to "take 20" for that reason alone.
Now, if he was searching for a secret door (which does not strike back ), that is something else entirely....
Oh, and perhaps have their loitering have some consequences ... say, like having local monsters actually take an interest ? perhaps heaving a spell (fireball jumps to mind) at the encamped and engrossed group ?
Did I actually point out as how odd a Rogue/swashbuckler/fighter with such a deliberate sense of extrem caution and paranoia strikes me ?
KILL HIM! KILL HIM NOW!!!!
OK. Now I'm going to go back and read the whole thread and see what this was all about. ;)
Dammit! Post got eaten.
In summary, I think the OP is just frustrated because his player is waaaaaay smarter than he is and he can't figure out how to deal with it. Since Soccer Zone has failed to provide some examples of his problem which everyone has asked repeatedly for, I'll reserve any useful advice until then.
I would like to point out that taking 20 is only an option for those skill checks were failure does not result in a harmful outcome to the character doing so.
perhaps you would like to compare Rules Compendium page 31 : "When.... you're faced with no threats or distractions and the skill being attempted carries no penalty for failure, you can take 20."
+
"You can't take 20 on any skill that has consequences on failure"I would assume that searching for potentially lethal traps (existant or not) constitutes a threat from the characters PoV (consider it disarming a dud bomb....), whether he/she is actually in harm's way or not. Looking for and missing a hidden trap certainly counts as "has consequences on failure". -----> instead of discovering the pressure pad through painstaking search, you discover it by stepping on it, triggering the effect..... for a painful discovery.
taking 20 also implies _knowing_ that a skill check actually failed, another mandatory requirement. Now, if searching for traps, does not finding any constitute a success (because there actually aren't any) or failure (because you actually missed it ) ? As that answer is not answerable from the character's position (say opposed to the question of whether you succeeded on opening the lock ), I would deny the player the option to "take 20" for that reason alone.
Now, if he was searching for a secret door (which does not strike back ), that is something else entirely....
Oh, and perhaps have their loitering have some consequences ... say, like having local monsters actually take an interest ? perhaps heaving a spell (fireball jumps to mind) at the encamped and engrossed group ?
Did I actually point out as how odd a Rogue/swashbuckler/fighter with such a deliberate sense of extrem caution and paranoia strikes me ?
In nearly all cases, there is no threat involved in using the Search skill, the threat only arises when trying to Disable said trap. Take this simple scenario: A trapped chest DC 30 is before the party, the rogues total skill bonus is +9, so lets examine your two criteria.
1) "When.... you're faced with no threats or distractions and the skill being attempted carries no penalty for failure, you can take 20."
Ok, no external threats or distractions, check. Penalty for failure? None, so check.
2) "You can't take 20 on any skill that has consequences on failure" The only consequence of failure here is not finding the trap, but not finding the trap has no effect, it doesn't fire the trap unless you try to Disarm it, a separate skill.
So by the criteria you cite, 'Taking 20' is correct by the rules. This, to me, strips the fun out of being and DMing a rogue and this aspect of the game is mildly broken (Search is equally broken for Secret doors for similar reasons) since it removes random chance from the equation.
Either you Fail or you Succeed. Always. All the time.
What this does is forces the DM to increase the Search DCs for traps he wants to threaten the entire party, or else only the trapfinder will be endangered by the traps as, once detected, everyone else leaves the room/area for a safer one.
The real issue I think is that if I want some randomness in searching, I am going to have to House rule this so that search for traps has to be random.
Cheers!
I would like to point out that taking 20 is only an option for those skill checks were failure does not result in a harmful outcome to the character doing so.
perhaps you would like to compare Rules Compendium page 31 : "When.... you're faced with no threats or distractions and the skill being attempted carries no penalty for failure, you can take 20."
+
"You can't take 20 on any skill that has consequences on failure"I would assume that searching for potentially lethal traps (existant or not) constitutes a threat from the characters PoV (consider it disarming a dud bomb....), whether he/she is actually in harm's way or not. Looking for and missing a hidden trap certainly counts as "has consequences on failure". -----> instead of discovering the pressure pad through painstaking search, you discover it by stepping on it, triggering the effect..... for a painful discovery.
taking 20 also implies _knowing_ that a skill check actually failed, another mandatory requirement. Now, if searching for traps, does not finding any constitute a success (because there actually aren't any) or failure (because you actually missed it ) ? As that answer is not answerable from the character's position (say opposed to the question of whether you succeeded on opening the lock ), I would deny the player the option to "take 20" for that reason alone.
I think your missing the point of why there is a 'take 20' rule in the game. Fundamentally there are no harmful results for making search checks. Sure there is the danger that you might miss something but nothing is going to happen to you if your careful and spend lots of time checking.
If you, as a DM say that I can't 'take 20' then we go back to the original way this was done. I search every 5' square 40 times, my search skill is 13 - start rolling.
As a DM are you really going to sit there and roll what might be something close to a thousand times (eating up probably 20 minutes of game time) in order to avoid having the players 'take 20' on a moderate sized room? Seems like a serous waste of game time to me - especially considering that as the DM you know perfectly well that you can be rolling 500 or a thousand times when there simply is no trap in this room. The rolling is an absolute waste of time - and yet you can't just skip this stage because the next time they do this they'll know their really is a trap if you actually go through the act of rolling 40 times for every 5' space.
'take 20' is a good short hand way of getting around any situation where the players would otherwise check many, many, times just to be sure. So unless your planning on house ruling some kind of upper limit to how often a 5' square can be searched its better to just allow players to 'take 20'.
Sorry, kinda threadjacking, but...
Taking 20 is great because it speeds through mundane activities in a game, and lets you zip to the action, or even just the next area. However, taking a 20 should--by definition--soak up 20x the time to make the check. That means that taking a 20 to search even a small room could take several minutes. Considering some of the better spells/abilities in 3.5 have rounds or minutes long duration, this could result in those resources being more swiftly depleted. So, there is a cost to the whole "taking 20" action, in that respect.
Just me two coppers...
Sorry, kinda threadjacking, but...
Taking 20 is great because it speeds through mundane activities in a game, and lets you zip to the action, or even just the next area. However, taking a 20 should--by definition--soak up 20x the time to make the check.
I make them take up the time for 40 checks when taking 20. Actually rolling a d20 20 times only gives you about a 75% chance that a 20 would come up, do it 40 times and the chances that there was a 20 in there goes up something like 90% and counts as 'good enough' for me.
That means that taking a 20 to search even a small room could take several minutes. Considering some of the better spells/abilities in 3.5 have rounds or minutes long duration, this could result in those resources being more swiftly depleted. So, there is a cost to the whole "taking 20" action, in that respect.Just me two coppers...
Minutes is probably low balling this. Often this will take upwards of a half hour. However this is a really good point and one of the reasons that 'taking 20' does not really bother me. Buff spells are very powerful in this game from about the mid levels on. Its pretty easy for the players to have a bunch of them up and running for multiple encounters - but not if they 'take 20'. Hence, at my table anyway, my players can 'take 20' but only at the price of having all of their buffs run out. Thus they are constantly faced with a tough choice - 'take 20' and loose their buff spells or risk the traps by just checking once or twice (if they check at all) before moving on.
Since this is leading to interesting choices and debates between the players at my table I figure the mechanic works fine - better then fine in some ways. If traps where just random bad things that happened to them they would not really think about it - obvously they can't do much about them and therefore would just move along and try and cope with the effects when they blind sided them. As it stands instead they can deal with the traps but only at the price of moving around the dungeon without their precious buffs all running in tandem - thus making them weaker for any encounter that might occur. Its their choice on how to handle this and making interesting choices are at the heart of why my players play my game.
I think your missing the point of why there is a 'take 20' rule in the game. Fundamentally there are no harmful results for making search checks. Sure there is the danger that you might miss something but nothing is going to happen to you if your careful and spend lots of time checking.If you, as a DM say that I can't 'take 20' then we go back to the original way this was done. I search every 5' square 40 times, my search skill is 13 - start rolling.
As a DM are you really going to sit there and roll what might be something close to a thousand times (eating up probably 20 minutes of game time) in order to avoid having...
actually, methinks you are missing the point (but that may be a matter of perspective).
Let me explain - taking "20" on a search check is perfectly feasible should there be no discernible threat, and the characters actually not expecting any - say, looking for the Royal Seal dropped into the sewage-basin. Disgusting, time-consuming but essentialy without a threat.....
...but not so, if there are other objects in the basin that cause detriminal effects.... then you have a threat, and he chance that it strikes before a success through time-consuming labour is achieved is
significant
And looking for traps in rooms and along walls and ceilings (as stated by the OP) requires traipsing around in their trigger/effect zones, usually without a clue what actually causes them to activate and to what effect is risky and theratening. Unless of course the character is of the opinion that the trap looked for cannot affect him (say, a warforged looking for a poison gas trap )...
Taking "10" and "20" is a rules short-cut to save on time - say between adventures, picking flowers, writing on an epic balld, sure - BUT NOT a rule that allows characters to breeze through potentially deadly situations and avoid any danger inherent in encounters with unknown variables.
AND it is defjnitely NOT a "get-out-of-tight-spots-free" card. Sometimes, even in RPGs, one must take risks ! actually, that is part of the fun in my mind, but your milage may vary.
This might not be to the liking of some players, but I for one haven't met one happy with taking criticals either , but nor do I introduce rules to circumvent these because they are unpopular..
Here's another approach to the original poster's problem (i.e., how to deal with a McGiver type player). Id say you should assign a probability of success for each idea - no matter how outlandish, then make him roll a D20 to see how it works. SO, rigging a bucket of water to fall when someone opens a door: DC 10 (50% chance of success, and the victim gets a reflex save to avoid it, as well). But a real Rube-Goldberg style "dragon-mousetrap" - DC20 (that is, he has to roll a natural 20 for success, which is like 5% chance of success). If he fails, you simply say, "something about your complex plan failed to go as expected". If he attempts to argue physics, you say, "look, its a GAME, everything you do has a finite probability of success or failure, as determined by ME, the DM. If he baulks at rulings that seem to defy real world physics, chemistry, etc. just shrug and say, "it must be some kind of magical effect you've never experienced before" - and note that many common in-game effects like invisibility, flying, levitation, etc. fall into this category. So if you're going to play DnD, you have to be willing to accept this, else you might as well stick to checkers.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Just had a similar McGyver situation with the poisoning on the Wyvern. The player was also the wizard with maxed out Alchemy, unfortunately.
"Arsenic, you say? Didn't I notice the taste?"
Somehow saying the poisoner had obviously masked the taste with magic or used something similar to arsenic seemed like a copout. But yeah, he went with it, luckily :)
Actually, I thought that arsenic was relatively tasteless and that's one of the reasons it was popular with poisoners.
Just had a similar McGyver situation with the poisoning on the Wyvern. The player was also the wizard with maxed out Alchemy, unfortunately.
"Arsenic, you say? Didn't I notice the taste?"
Somehow saying the poisoner had obviously masked the taste with magic or used something similar to arsenic seemed like a copout. But yeah, he went with it, luckily :)
actually, methinks you are missing the point (but that may be a matter of perspective).Let me explain - taking "20" on a search check is perfectly feasible should there be no discernible threat, and the characters actually not expecting any - say, looking for the Royal Seal dropped into the sewage-basin. Disgusting, time-consuming but essentialy without a threat.....
...but not so, if there are other objects in the basin that cause detriminal effects.... then you have a threat, and he chance that it strikes before a success through time-consuming labour is achieved is
significant
And looking for traps in rooms and along walls and ceilings (as stated by the OP) requires traipsing around in their trigger/effect zones, usually without a clue what actually causes them to activate and to what effect is risky and theratening. Unless of course the character is of the opinion that the trap looked for cannot affect him (say, a warforged looking for a poison gas trap )...Taking "10" and "20" is a rules short-cut to save on time - say between adventures, picking flowers, writing on an epic balld, sure - BUT NOT a rule that allows characters to breeze through potentially deadly situations and avoid any danger inherent in encounters with unknown variables.
AND it is defjnitely NOT a "get-out-of-tight-spots-free" card. Sometimes, even in...
I'm not following how mechanically you do this without bumping into issues that are very time consuming and therefore detrimental to game game play. Under the current rules system your not punished for caution when making search checks. Nothing bad can happen with a failed search check.
If that is house ruled out of existance then we end up with two possibilities. In one case searching is still worth it. Its usually a better option then blindly going forward or blindly reaching into a sack or whatever. In this circumstance if I can't take 20 then I have the DM roll 40 times for each 5' space. If the spaces I'm stepping in appear to be important (that is the DM is punishing me for traipsing around the room) then obvously I ask the DM to put the room on a grid or show me the room and I point to a specific 5' space and tell the DM to roll 40 times while I search that space for traps. When the DM is finished rolling 40 times I step on that space and indicate the next space I'm going to search 40 times for traps, we continue like this until all spaces have been searched. Clearly this form of methodical room searching involving me indicating each individual space and the DM actually rolling 40 times takes a great deal of time. This is especially true since most rooms would not contain traps and the DM secretly knows that all of this is totally irrelevant. The DM can't cut to the chase and skip this because I'll quickly realize that whenever he does not cut to the chase and skip this long arduous process there is a high probability that there is really a trap in the room and will take increased precautions such as having magic using characters cast detect magic and detect evil to see if this is either a magical or evil trap.
Alternatively the DM can make it clear that the act of searching is itself so fraught with danger that any kind of rigorous regime of searching for traps is just going to get my character punished by having a trap jump out at me. Obviously in this case I have to rethink my class choice. Under this circumstance being a rogue is not actually a good 'trap finder'. Better probably to see if you can get something like a Barbarian with a really good search either through a feat or through multi-classing since I'm not going to be able to get around the traps I might as well have lots of hps and a good fort save (as well as the trap sense ability) so that when I spring the DM trap I have more chance of surviving.
I'm not a big fan of either of these options. The first is mind numbingly tedious and not worth any small gain the DM might get from saying 'Gotcha' with his trap. The second option makes the rogue the wrong class for doing searches.
In the end the current system of 'take 20' while not perfect does at least keep things moving and its not really a bad system as the players soon get to a point where they must choose between doing rigourious searches and loosing their buffs or doing much quicker much less through searches that might well get them in trouble with traps but they get to keep their buffs.
I disagree with a number of points here...
I would assume that searching for potentially lethal traps (existant or not) constitutes a threat from the characters PoV (consider it disarming a dud bomb....), whether he/she is actually in harm's way or not. Looking for and missing a hidden trap certainly counts as "has consequences on failure". -----> instead of discovering the pressure pad through painstaking search, you discover it by stepping on it, triggering the effect..... for a painful discovery.
Technically, triggering the trap is the consequence not of failing to find it, but of taking the action that actually triggers the trap. Failing to find the trap has no consequence if you still don't take the action that triggers the trap.
taking 20 also implies _knowing_ that a skill check actually failed, another mandatory requirement. Now, if searching for traps, does not finding any constitute a success (because there actually aren't any) or failure (because you actually missed it ) ? As that answer is not answerable from the character's position (say opposed to the question of whether you succeeded on opening the lock ), I would deny the player the option to "take 20" for that reason alone.
I don't think taking 20 implies knowing you've failed some of the attempts. Rather, it's making as thorough a search as the character possibly can, probably double and maybe even triple-checking a couple of things as he's doing so.
Oh, and perhaps have their loitering have some consequences ... say, like having local monsters actually take an interest ? perhaps heaving a spell (fireball jumps to mind) at the encamped and engrossed group ?
Now, this I do agree with. Anyone taking 20 constantly runs the risk of being discovered by things ambling through the environment.
As far as the topic of having a player come up with plans that are too smart, I have one thing to say: Scooby Doo.
Maybe I had better elaborate on that. Freddy always came up with elaborate plans to capture the villain of the show. And they pretty much all fell apart with the antics of Scooby and Shaggy. Surely, there's either a Scooby or Shaggy in the party who will mess up the plans... perhaps for a few Scooby snacks from the DM?
The issue of what a character knows and can know vs metagame knowledge can be pretty interesting but thorny to deal with. How much should a character with Know (engineering) actually know? Call of Cthulhu had something to say about things like that - it depends not only on how much the PC has invested, but on what was knowable with that skill. A character playing 1890s CoC with a 90 in Physics understands 90% of the body of science that is physics... IN 1890. By comparison, a character with modern CoC with a 50% in Physics probably knows about as much (and maybe even a bit more). A modern character with a 90 in Physics knows LOTS more than one in 1890. That's the nature of the field.
So, a character could have +20 or +400 for all I care in Know (engineering) in D&D, but that won't get them knowing a lot about the modern uses of the skill, such as steel and glass construction. They'd understand some pretty complex things about building cathedrals, bridges, and aquaducts but would have very little to say about large steam engines, internal combustion, and shaped charge weapons. They might know and understand quite a bit about levers, though.
Call of Cthulhu had something to say about things like that - it depends not only on how much the PC has invested, but on what was knowable with that skill. A character playing 1890s CoC with a 90 in Physics understands 90% of the body of science that is physics... IN 1890. By comparison, a character with modern CoC with a 50% in Physics probably knows about as much (and maybe even a bit more). A modern character with a 90 in Physics knows LOTS more than one in 1890. That's the nature of the field.
This makes some sense (just barely) in 1890. At that point it was still somewhat possible to be a renaissance man and know pretty much everything there is to know about a subject or even a few. You could have read all the books etc. In the modern period I just can't believe that anyone could know 90% of everything there is to know in most fields. Certainly not physics. I bet if I guess at 20,000 books currently in print on the topic I'm guessing too low. Its impossible - currently the problem with knowledge on a topic like this simply comes down to a function of time. There is not enough time in a human lifetime to learn all there is to know on a major topic.
Of course if one got really rigorous and broke things up into smaller sub fields then I suppose one could actually learn most of everything there was to know on a topic. One can be a stunning expert on say astrophysics its just hard to believe that one can be an expert on astrophysics and aerodynamics and the nano physics and geophysics and...; and....