|
players: "we search the room"
me: "ok 16 hours later you guys are hungry and fatigued from..."
players: "no no no we meant a quick search, i got a 20"
me: a quick search around the room gives you nothing, but you get the sensation that if you looked in a particular spot you may find something of value"
players: "fine then i move stuff around"
me: "what stuff?"
after a few session of this game, i finally got them to say "i search the pile of rags" type statements. mind you the entire time i was asking them what they were doing i was smiling to get the point across that i was just messing with them.
Honestly? I think it's a hard sell if your group isn't already filled with the explorer types. I think the closest you can get is by describing the room in pretty good detail, and then, on occasion, designing dungeons in such a way that makes being a curious kitten advantageous. An example would be a ledge/tunnel/hallway/etc. at the top of a tall room that can't be reached by normal means (assume low level for instance)but a dungeon that has some wooden furniture in one room, a broken hack saw in another, and some nails and a hammer in a third. Individually, none of these items are all that significant, but when combined, you suddenly have the means of creating a makeshift ladder to get to that hidden area.
Higher levels of course make that obsolete, but its just an idea. The goal here is that when the PCs see that hard to reach area, they start asking about the furniture. What's it made of? What's it look like? How sturdy is it?
But, as you say, if you are simply wanting them to say "I look under the bed" in order to allow them to find the ring that's there, you are most likely going to simply get "Ok, we search the room, including looking under A, inside of B, on top of C and behind D" In other words, they need to be given a reason to ask more detailed questions.
Years ago in another game system (% based), we used a "focus of perception" mechanism....the player would define what their perception was focused on (ie; the pile of rags). They got a plus for that, and a minus for everything else. The degree of focus mattered; focusing on "the room" got a minus (too vague) - the "standard" was a man sized object...smaller got better bonuses, so "focusing on the lock" got a larger bonus than "focusing on the door". Further, one could decide if they were REALLY focusing (double bonus and minus) or just SORT OF FOCUSING....each attempt took something like 1 minute.
When time was short, we would "search the room" (at a minus), or if time was really short we would "look for 1 turn" (at a huge minus)
Made for some interesting combats as the party focused on the wrong stuff...
|
I'd agree with giving more details about the rooms because even if there's nothing in the room, if you give details it makes people pay attention and wonder why you are giving them details.
For example:
"This room looks like a dusty library with books askew on the shelves and paper scattered on the desk."
Naturally we want to know why the books are askew and what those papers might be. Draw their attention. :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that kind off search requirement, I find, is that very often the GM has a much better mental image of the room than the players do, so we expect the players to "see" the obvious places to look (i.e., a pile of rags) but the players' mental image of the room may not have the same obvious places. Maybe they missed it when you mentioned there was a pile of rags. Maybe they assume it's a very small pile that is easily searched in the process of searching the room. The point is, getting PCs to search specific things works best when you have a really well-drawn map and a strong narrative description of what's represented there.
I think like many things that the various d20 systems, including Pathfinder, have done is to take role-playing and smart playing down to a die roll. I like the idea of giving the character a bonus if they say I check under the bed or maybe just rewarding them with finding the item, trap, secret door, etc. if they call it out directly.
I also find that sometimes my higher level parties do not stop and search because invariably someone yells, "I have spell durations burning!" That puts everyone in hurry up mode and searching is given up.
I to have had problems with players and searching rooms. They basically just take 20 and keep searching until they're certain they've found nothing.
Now that I'm more experienced I think the best way to handle it is to say, you can't take 20 when searching a room, and to have their perception scores all written down in front of you. Normally use a take 10 unless they ask for the roll. No matter what though, the rolls should be made behind the DM screen so they don't metagame and think "Oh, with that poor roll I should look again."
The problem with that kind off search requirement, I find, is that very often the GM has a much better mental image of the room than the players do, so we expect the players to "see" the obvious places to look (i.e., a pile of rags) but the players' mental image of the room may not have the same obvious places. Maybe they missed it when you mentioned there was a pile of rags. Maybe they assume it's a very small pile that is easily searched in the process of searching the room. The point is, getting PCs to search specific things works best when you have a really well-drawn map and a strong narrative description of what's represented there.
I really agree with this, unless you have a strong visual representation of all the details in the room that might be searched, or you have a really special group of players that can keep all that stuff visualized after you finish describing a room, its really hard to expect players to call out specific locations.
That and remember that the PCs are often going to be better at things then the players. A rogue with a high perception is likely dramatically more observent then the player who is controlling him. Requiring the player to think of likely places to look for things is like requiring the fighter to be capable with a sword in order to make his attack roll. I am personally not an overly observant person, and my attention span probably isnt all that great most of the time. Should I be barred from playing a character with a high perception as a result?
|
|
Player- We search the room. perception roll 15
Me- (no matter what they roll) You find a desk, a chair, some clothes in the corner, a table with a bottle of wine and some cups on it. a pair of boots under the bed.
Players- I rolled a 26. did I find anything else?
Me- no. to find anything ese you have to be specific about where you are looking.
players- Ill search the desk. I rolled an 18
me- describes whats in the desk.
I find if you prompt players they will fall in line. They are just trying to take the quick path to fame and fortune...nothing wrong with that
another way of getting them to tell you what they are searching is after the game tell them, 'too bad you didn't search the desk, there was a magic ring in a false drawer...'
amazing how then they will start searching everything ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another option, is to require multiple rolls. The first roll gives you clues of where to look.
For instance: Here is an example of something my dm did this past weekend:
I enter a room I am looking for evidence of a criminal organization in.
Me: I look around the room for anything that seems like its important.
DM: Roll Perception.
Me: 18
DM: You see there are some papers askew on the desk, and you notice some scuff marks on the floor near the bed partially covered by some boxes.
Note: The papers were nothing, the scuff marks were not.
Me: I move the bed slightly and look under it near the scuff marks.
DM: Give me another perception
Me: 22
DM: You find a false floor board with a small metal locked box under neath.
Basically, have them make that first roll. If they roll well, offer good clues. If they roll poorly, offer bad or misleading clues, but always make sure to offer more clues then are actual things to find and let them choose how to interact with it.
Very good points; I should clarify my idea. I totally love the idea of rolling for Perception, I think it's a great way to reflect the strengths of different PC's and I certainly don't want to eliminate that completely. I just find that every room my PC's go into it's "We search the room." There's not much thought behind it, it just becomes
Walk into room
Kill/talk to inhabitants
Search room; roll PerceptionRepeat.
I had a campaign where I spelled out a list of house rules prior to the first adventure. This was one of my house rules:
When you say you are "searching the room," this means that you are searching the walls and floor, looking behind objects (such as a couch, a painting, or such), and other obvious places. It does NOT mean you are searching every nook and cranny possible. In a kitchen, for instance...searching the room means you are examining the walls for secret doors, the floor for traps or trapdoors, opening cupboards, looking in the sink, etc. It does NOT mean you are banging on the ceiling with a 10' pole, searching inside the oven/stove, dismantling the pump to see if something is inside, opening every sack of grain or box of goods...and it certainly doesn't mean you open the can of salt and sift the salt through a strainer to see if there's anything there! In some cases, simply saying "searching the room" will not get you anything, even if something is there...you'll need to be more specific.
As an addendum, I think I would add that "searching the room" does not include searching any bodies of creatures you killed in that room. (Yes, I can be nasty.)
If you have a problem with players taking 20 all the time on their searches, well, that's what wandering monsters are for. Treasure-less wandering monsters. (Yes, I can be nasty.)
To make it annoying, you can have the wandering monsters be low-level, easily-defeatable monsters. Or something hard to defeat that eats up resources (spells, healing, one-shot magic items...).
If you want to be particularly nasty, tell them that any search where they were taking 20 that was interrupted by combat must be started over. Because when the baddies come into the room, who takes the time to mark off (mentally or otherwise) where they've searched and where they haven't?
===
Taffer
There lots of interesting ideas here. Here's my two p:
If you make an effort of describing a room more or less with the interesting features, you are already giving them clues as where to find details of interest (along with red herings but that's the point of investigation). So a "generic" search the room roll in this case should have an increase in difficulty. Even if the players choose to do so and take 20 by doing it they mightnot meet the difficulty requirement. In this case I find a very nice option to tell the players after the gaming session where they missed something. This is good for two reasons:
a) As somebody else posted before, you'll get feedback and the players generally turn more proactive by the next session.
b) You might notice where your descriptions might not have been fair enough in order for the players to notice the specific detail.
Player characters get double advantage (after all they are the heroes). You can describe the thing to them, the might notice your pont and try for a "specific" bonified perception roll or they may miss the point and have the generic one. This gives not-so-attentive players the chance that their characters do notice something. Of course on such a person can play an observant character, that's what dice are for. But this system (as every statistical one) is adjusted by chance, so the possibility of failure is always there. In fact, we are all accustomed to reading episodes of unforgivable distractions by heroes in fantasy literature. This is often used by authors to introduce a dramatic (or violent) scene. It's not bad at all.
My final point is random encounters. Right now we are playing Rappan Athuk and I must say I do love the temporalized encounter tables for the different areas. If players want to be hypersure they miss the least amount of details or "over-rest" they risk the chance of being interrupted by hostile visitors. It's a matter of risk/benefit. I suggest you adapt the Adventure Path encounter table from the end of the chapter and consider applying it (you might complement it with GMG's ones for instance).
Enjoy the game
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look up the term "pixel b!@*$ing", then get back to me on this.
Seriously, as a player, one of the most boring and frustrating things is when the DM insists we look in exactly the right spot to continue the game. In cases like that, I'll play along for exactly five minutes before walking; life's too short for that sort of crap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aww that's adorable. He still uses memes from three years ago.
PCs aren't dogs you can train by shoving their nose in dung when they don't search the way you want. If you want to get PCs to be more active with searches, the onus is on us, the GMs, to make it happen. Personally, I learned to get more descriptive with rooms. The more descriptive you as a GM get, the more people will attach to that description and search for it. Forcing people to constantly reroll when they aren't exact with where they are searching is lazy GMing and time consuming at the table and you will lose your PCs' focus.
And really, there isn't anything wrong with taking 20 to search a room, especially if there isn't anything story related in it. Just remember that there are penalties to distance (-1 per 10 feet) and you're still golden.
|
|
As you can see from some of the posts here, balance is key. Don't make it into a power trip, just try putting out a carrot or two. Like the advice about the magic ring in the table. That's pretty good. Works a bit better if you can demonstrate it IC, though. Like when your major villian gets away, and the PCs are following, they find the wall safe left open in a room they had already passed through.
I will warn you, though, this can be taken too far. I still remember that one time in X1 when someone found a magic item in the stomach of a dinosaur. Every single thing they killed from that point forward had its stomach opened and checked for treasure. Every. Single. Thing.
So be cautious.
For groups that really like getting into the details, I'll start asking them what they're doing to search. Looking for a "loose flagstone" is a lot different than "Checking for hidden latches on the wall", and requires different investigation techniques. As the GM, it's not just my job to provide players with challenges, it's to provide them, more often than not, with the kind of challenges I know they want/like. Rogue players feel like a lot of their class' abilities (and that ridiculous number of skill points they get) get wasted if they don't have the chance to check for (and disable) traps, and Wizards and Bards want the chance to use their Knowledge skills.
If a player says, "I check the floor for hidden pressure plates" they should probably find any that are there, irrespective of whether they have rogue skills.
Rolling perception to search a room instead of detailing each individual area you're searching is a way of (a) speeding up play, and (b) making it about what the character is good at, not the player. It's a lot like rolling Diplomacy instead of having the player speak the character's dialogue.Ultimately it comes down to how you want to spend your table time.
The problem with that kind off search requirement, I find, is that very often the GM has a much better mental image of the room than the players do, so we expect the players to "see" the obvious places to look (i.e., a pile of rags) but the players' mental image of the room may not have the same obvious places. Maybe they missed it when you mentioned there was a pile of rags. Maybe they assume it's a very small pile that is easily searched in the process of searching the room. The point is, getting PCs to search specific things works best when you have a really well-drawn map and a strong narrative description of what's represented there.I really agree with this, unless you have a strong visual representation of all the details in the room that might be searched, or you have a really special group of players that can keep all that stuff visualized after you finish describing a room, its really hard to expect players to call out specific locations.
That and remember that the PCs are often going to be better at things then the players. A rogue with a high perception is likely dramatically more observent then the player who is controlling him. Requiring the player to think of likely places to look for things is like requiring the fighter to be capable with a sword in order to make his attack roll. I am personally not an overly observant person, and my attention span probably isnt all that great most of the time. Should I be barred from playing a character with a high perception as a result?
All true. =P
Another option, is to require multiple rolls. The first roll gives you clues of where to look.
For instance: Here is an example of something my dm did this past weekend:
I enter a room I am looking for evidence of a criminal organization in.
Me: I look around the room for anything that seems like its important.
DM: Roll Perception.
Me: 18
DM: You see there are some papers askew on the desk, and you notice some scuff marks on the floor near the bed partially covered by some boxes.
Note: The papers were nothing, the scuff marks were not.
Me: I move the bed slightly and look under it near the scuff marks.
DM: Give me another perception
Me: 22
DM: You find a false floor board with a small metal locked box under neath.Basically, have them make that first roll. If they roll well, offer good clues. If they roll poorly, offer bad or misleading clues, but always make sure to offer more clues then are actual things to find and let them choose how to interact with it.
Especially fun to see the players arguing over the useless bits.
I'd point out that it's worth not putting TOO much stuff for players to sift through...unless you want to spend an hour watching them make mountain ranges out of mole hills.
My opionion is that if there are time constraints or if the player has an idea of where they want to look than saying "I search the pile of rags" is fine. But there's nothing wrong with walking into a room and declaring that you're gonna look around. "I search the room" "You find a pile of rags concealing a bloody knife. The rags seem out of place here as if they were thrown down in haste"
If you want to engage a player it isn't the act of searching that's going to get them invested. It isnt the loot they find either. They find loot all the time and while its awesome it's something they're gonna get regardless and they know it. It's the mystery that gets a player involved in the plot and actively participating. Finding a bloody knife, for example, might get the player asking him or herself why its there and what happened. The hard part is crafting the right mystery that players are going to care about and not taking it personally when they don't.
|
|
DMs who freak out about search/perception checks irritate the crap out of me. Your secret drawer, hidden message under the flower pot, and slightly-less-dusty book that opens the rotating wall are NOT creative or interesting. They are seriously tired memes and we should just get them out of the way.
I second the suggestion to look up pixel-jamming.
Did you seriously just label 'people hiding things' as a meme?
As I understand it, adventure locations are supposed to be analogues to 'real places'. As in if that tribe of goblins actually lived here, what would they do? And if you don't expect that the goblin chief would hide his most prized possessions away from his CHAOTIC EVIL cohorts, then I suggest you maybe haven't thought this through.
My problem is, I want some more interaction. I want the players themselves to think of where to search.
This is a bad idea. You have to remember that the characters can SEE the room, the players can't. That kind of interaction is fine on say a point and click video game, but it makes the characters seem like utter idiots when they forget about the Tiki doll with glowing red eyes thats 6 inches in front of their face.
What I think the issue is is you and your players have a different definition of "searching". Sit them down and ask them what they mean by searching, asking if it means searching every inch of walls for secret doors and every thing for traps, or if it means more along the lines of checking out what sticks out.
Perception isn't all finding what is hidden, but it is also noticing the clues that something may be hidden in the first place.
Personally, I think 2 minutes to take 2 and search a room is a little quick. Especially considering you can do that with a 5' x 5' room and a 100' x 100' room. Same time and you can search the entire place. Thoroughly. Unfortunately there are no giodelines, so you as the GM will need to determine the length of time in a specific situation. 20 minutes to search a completely bare 10' x10' room for secret doors? Sure. 20 minutes to search a 10' x 10' room with 8 pieces of furiniture, a full bookkase, 2 chests, wall hangings, carpets....might not be enough time. Up to you to decide what amount of time a "thorough" search of any given room will take.
Well, when they say 'search the room', they find anything that isn't actually HIDDEN. In a desk drawer is not hidden. In a false back or bottom in a desk drawer is hidden. Under a bed is not hidden. Sewn into the mattress is hidden.
If the PC decides to expressly look for something in such a way that would reveal it ('I pull out the desk drawers and rip them apart with a crowbar'), then again, no roll. If they just say 'I'm searching the desk drawers for hidden compartments', then give them a bonus on their check. I'd go with +2, for simplicity and the fact that hidden compartments are designed to be easily overlooked when searched-for.
Oh ... and unless something is going on that puts the PCs under some kind of time constraints, I wouldn't worry about how long it takes, or is supposed to take.
|
I know that searching a room takes longer than normal...but I wasn't able to find any guidelines on it. Also, although sometimes the PCs are pressed for time, that's not always the situation.
The general trend I am seeing these day is...however long it takes for the parties buffs to wear off. And no, you cannot clear the area then come back and search at a more leisurely pace.
Are there actually any rules for what it takes to search a room beyond flat perception roll and maybe -1/10'?
Not really, though some scenarios do list a set amount of time for specific areas.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hm, just skimming this thread it looks like a GM wants to modify a mechanic in order to produce a specific feel in the gameplay. Perhaps the OP would get more helpful traffic in the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forum?Are there actually any rules for what it takes to search a room beyond flat perception roll and maybe -1/10'?
Well, the Perception skill states it's a move action to search, and unlike 3.5 doesn't confine said search to a small area. Obviously, you auto-fail any check to detect something you couldn't detect from where you are. For instance, no matter how high you roll while standing in the doorway, you don't see the contents of a closed drawer (and in most cases you won't hear/smell them either).
Then there's the situational modifiers (like the distance modifier you mentioned), plus the T10/T20 rules... And that's about it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm considering doing the following when someone says they're searching:
First, ask if they're touching as part of the check or not. Let it be their choice. If they're not touching, then they won't find things in closed drawers and so forth, but if their search involves touching/opening things, they run the risk of triggering a touch-based trap prior to noticing it. Of course, they could instead choose to start with a no-touch search, then afterwards to a touch-search.
If their position in the room matters, I'll ask them where they're standing during the search. In the case of T20, they can choose to stand in one spot or to walk around. If they stay in one spot, then it takes 1 minute (two move actions per round) and they get everything observable from that spot. Alternatively, if they choose to move around (and if it's not a HUGE area), they might step on a trap before getting that 20, but if nothing goes wrong then I'll apply their final result (20+skillbonus) from every direction instead of one spot. Also, moving around would take 2 minutes (one check per round) instead of one minute.
I think this seems reasonable, stays within the Perception rules, and also solves the various line of sight issues that can pop up with searching. Haven't actually tried this exact method, but I'm considering it.