Searching...

[Mr. Analog]

Searching for stuff has been somewhat ambigious in the past, so I'm going to tighten it up a bit. We'll go back to the book and say that you search one 5x5' square per round (6 seconds), so a room that's 15' x 25' will take a minute and a half to check (in game time).

Additionally, if you check one area you must have a good reason for checking it again (i.e. hunch, clue, etc) otherwise your character is just getting neurotic and you will get involved in a cornered battle if you loiter too long in one area (j/k, OR AM I?)

[Mr. Analog]

So, no comments on this? Seems like it would be an important change to how we game?

[Thorin]

If I understand correctly, the idea of not checking an area again if you've checked it once already, that's to keep us from metagaming?

So for example:

The characters encounter a stuck door.  We as the players decide the characters will try to bash it down.  The characters try to bash it down but don't succeed (Strength check DC unknown to players - roll 1d20+2, rolled 4, get 6).  It's obvious to the characters that the door didn't come down.  We as the players decide that the characters will try again, because obviously the characters can sense they failed (door's still up).

The characters enter a room.  We as the players decide the characters will search the room but aren't expecting a trap.  The characters search the room one 5'x5' square at a time.  On the first square the character searching doesn't find anything (Search check DC unknown to players - roll 1d20+11, rolled 4, get 15).  The character did not find anything.  The player decides that the character will not try again, because the character was not overly suspicious of this room being trapped and nothing was found.  If the player decides to have the character search a few more times until a good roll is made (say 15 or higher on the d20), that'd be metagaming.  If we as the players had said our characters are very suspicious of this room and therefore are going to double-check all searched areas, it'd make sense to make a second roll if nothing was found the first time.

Is that what you meant?  The separation of us as players knowing we rolled a crappy number on the dice versus decisions our characters would make based on their sensory input?

[Lazybones]

Is that what you meant?  The separation of us as players knowing we rolled a crappy number on the dice versus decisions our characters would make based on their sensory input?

I think he is going more for something like, instead of the characters assuming they are trapped in a mine field and entering a room 5x5 at a time searching all the way. Players will not be allowed to search for traps unless they spot some form of indicator in the room, ie the room has an odd feature, the dwarf spots odd stone work, or the elf/half elves think they see a hidden door.

Other wise the characters must proceed under the assumption it is just a room. This should increase risk to characters greatly (well those without Evasion or Lightning Reflexes) as there is greater chance for taking damage from traps.

[Ustauk]

Is that what you meant?  The separation of us as players knowing we rolled a crappy number on the dice versus decisions our characters would make based on their sensory input?

I think he is going more for something like, instead of the characters assuming they are trapped in a mine field and entering a room 5x5 at a time searching all the way. Players will not be allowed to search for traps unless they spot some form of indicator in the room, ie the room has an odd feature, the dwarf spots odd stone work, or the elf/half elves think they see a hidden door.

Other wise the characters must proceed under the assumption it is just a room. This should increase risk to characters greatly (well those without Evasion or Lightning Reflexes) as there is greater chance for taking damage from traps.

I think in an ordinary dungeon, the above is true.  However we're in a dungeon that we were told specifically had a large number of traps, so a higher then normal amount of paranoia for the characters is appropriate

[Mr. Analog]

Well, I see it this way, if you are opposed by something (stuck door) I think it's logical for the characters to try to unstick it (to a point), but something that is less tangible (like hearing something or looking for the unexpected) should only be done once or twice.

Again, this is a metagaming thing.

[Tom]

Like Stephen Colbert, Eriol will always be on the look out

[Mr. Analog]

Like Stephen Colbert, Eriol will always be on the look out

Ok, but, if you roll a 2 for your search skill would your character search again?

[Tom]

Depends on his level of paranoia and suspicion, and how much hes had to drink

[Thorin]

Lets ask a different way.  If you roll a natural 20 for your Search and find nothing, would you have your character search again?  Lots of gamers would say no because they know they can't roll any better, but that's metagaming.  In that same vein, having the character search again because the player rolled low is metagaming.

We should have our characters act consistently - if they're paranoid about a room and we as players have indicated such, sure, they'll search each small area thoroughly (perhaps by double-, triple-, or quadruple-checking the area, thus allowing two, three, four rolls), but that's a lot different than deciding as a player that the character will search again simply because the player rolled a 5 or 6 on the d20.

[Mr. Analog]

I'll also do a better job describing rooms so that you can get a hunch if something good or bad is about...

[Tom]

And of course I need to be a little better with the character/player separation thing.

[Thorin]

To loot and booty!  Y'arr!!

[Mr. Analog]

To loot and booty!  Y'arr!!

Y'ARR! Oh my poor monsters... *sniff*