Introductory note: This post was originally uploaded about three weeks ago. I just noticed that the formatting on the web page was all screwed up, so I deleted the post, and reformatted it today. Just in case you thought that you read this already. You probably did.
I apologize. I seem to have fallen down a rabbit
hole. This series of articles is supposed to be talking about how to add
tension to your d20 game. I intended to start from the micro and build
outward to the macro, but somehow I ended up doing the opposite. The
following article should probably have been my first in the series. But it’s part 4, so we’ll just have to deal
with it. Again, my apologies. I’m new at this blogging thing, and
planning articles now is on my radar for “important things to consider when
writing a blog.”
The dreaded skill gangbang
GM’s, how many times in your games does this happen?
GM: “You’ve defeated the grumkins, what do you do
next?”
Player 1: “I search the room for hidden treasure.”
GM: “Please give me a Perception check.”
Player 1: “I get a 16”
Player 2: “I get a 12”
Player 3: “I get a 7”
Player 4: “I get a 19”
Player 5: “I get a 22.”
GM: “Okay, Player 5 beats the DC of 20, and finds
the hidden stash.”
The first thing to notice is that the GM asked Player 1
for a Perception check, but every player at the table jumped in and provided
the results of their check as well. As a GM, I don’t want to deny players
the chance to use their character’s skills, so I shrug and give the characters
the loot they earned.
The second thing to notice is that the risk involved is
fairly small. I don’t want to get all mathy in this post, so let’s just
say that the probability of at least one character getting 20 or higher is more
than 80%. Lots of variables affect this, but it’s a pretty good number to
base the rest of our discussion upon.
Deciding to have each character search the room is a solid bet.
Most of the time, it will result in success.
The chances of failure, therefore, are less than 20%. What game-player wouldn’t take those odds?
Here’s the thing: If the results of a roll are a
nigh-foregone conclusion, why are we rolling? As long as at least one
character says they’re searching the room, just assume that everyone else helps
out, and the loot gets found. Why roll if the outcome is
predetermined? Why not just give ‘em the
treasure and move on?
Here’s why: By allowing every character to make
Perception checks, we remove any risk from the decision, rendering it
meaningless. And that’s boring.
There’s very little risk to this tactic, and no risk means no tension,
which means no drama. No drama equals
boring story. And who wants to listen to (no less play in) a boring
story? Not I, rabbi!
We can fix the Perception issue with the resource of
time.
Changing our perception of Perception
The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook states that a Perception
check, “when intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.” So,
to search a 10’ x 10’ room takes a move action.
Searching a 200’ x 150’ cavern takes, umm, a move action? WTF?
Nowhere in the 1st
edition Core Rulebook does it state how much area can be searched during a
measured unit of time. And that sucks, because this means that anyone can
search any size area with nary a glance, and anyone and everyone can make
Perception checks. There’s no cost of time, and therefore no risk. We gotta change that if we want risk and
reward to be considered.
Looking at some later iterations of D20 systems does
provide a little insight. Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition has this to say about searching
using the Perception Skill “Searching: When actively searching
an area or looking for something specific, assume you’re searching each
adjacent square. The DM might allow you to do this as a standard action, but
usually searching requires at least 1 minute.”
So, “each adjacent square” is either 8 or 9 five ft. squares, depending
on if you count the square your character currently stands in. And
searching these 8 or 9 squares requires a minimum 1 minute of searching.
Moving to 5th
Edition D&D, there isn’t anything that specifically governs how much area
can be searched in how much time, but this clue is offered: “Finding a
hidden object: In most cases, you need to describe where you are
looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a
key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If
you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and
furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your
Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were
opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of
success.” While we aren’t given any specific measurement, we do know
that an area about the size of a bureau is an example of an area. That
helps a little, but requires interpretation, which can differ from GM to
player.
Pathfinder 2nd
Edition replaces the Perception skill with the Seek action, and describes the
action as follows: “If you’re using Seek to search for objects (including
secret doors and hazards), you search up to a 10-foot square adjacent to you.
The GM might determine you need to Seek as an activity, taking more actions or
even minutes or hours if you’re searching a particularly cluttered area.”
A 10-foot square is 4 squares, and as far as I can tell, this is defined as a
Basic action, and therefore consumes 1 of your 3 actions in the standard game
economy. If the GM decides, it could be classified as an Activity, taking
2 or 3 actions, or even more if searching a cluttered area. In a single round, you can potentially search
4, 8 or 12 squares. Not super helpful, but at least gives us a range to
work with.
The times they are a’changin’
In a previous post, I calculated that it would take about
two and a half minutes to search a 50 ft. by 50 ft. room. But my previous
calculation of the area to be searched only accounted for the square footage of
the floor. For a thorough search, the
characters would probably also search the walls. If the height of the
room is 10 ft., this would add another 200 square feet of area to search. Again, assuming that it takes one character six
seconds to search a 5-ft. square, the floor and walls could be searched in four
and a half minutes if all characters searched concurrently. Add another
two minutes if the ceiling is to be included in the search.
So what? We searched, we found, we moved on. Vidimus,
invenimus, exivimus. What is missing from this equation is the cost
of the time spent performing the search. If the entire group makes
perception rolls, that means that everyone’s attention is focused on the
search, and not on anything else. No one is standing guard. No one is listening for wandering
monsters. And with good reason! Wandering monsters are stupid, right? We all agree on that, right?
Maybe the designers of the game had a reason for
including wandering monsters since the first incarnation of fantasy roleplaying
games. For every X units of time, there exists the chance to encounter a
wandering monster. That entire game
element becomes irrelevant if the time spent performing any activity is
ignored. Time spent performing activities such as searching for treasure
becomes the risk involved in the decision.
In order for the decision to be meaningful, each time a group commits to
searching a room, there should be a significant increase in the chances of a
random encounter.
How can we codify this in a simple but impactful set of
rules? One approach would be to take a measurement of how much time it
costs to search a room, based on its approximate surface area (but excluding
the ceiling).
|
Size of room
|
Equivalent
number of 5’ x 5’ squares
|
Time
required (rounds)
|
Time
required (minutes)
|
|
10’ x 10’
|
12
|
12
|
1.2
|
|
15’ x 10’
|
16
|
16
|
1.6
|
|
15’ x 15’
|
21
|
21
|
2.1
|
|
20’ x 20’
|
32
|
32
|
3.2
|
|
30’ x 30’
|
60
|
60
|
6
|
|
50’ x 50’
|
140
|
140
|
14
|
|
100’ x 100’
|
480
|
480
|
48
|
A group of 6 characters searching a 100’ x 100’ room
would need 8 minutes (48/6) to complete a thorough search. This would
enable each of the characters to make a Perception check against the stated DC,
and will probably result in a roughly 80% chance of success. For me, that
solution would be fine. I would studiously measure each room, and make a
note of how long it would take 1 character to thoroughly search it. But I
like complexity. Not everyone does. How about we try to make this a little
simpler, hmm?
First, we should clarify some definitions. Most
hidden things have a listed Perception DC to find them. This DC requires
a thorough search. Going with a conservative choice, a character
can thoroughly search a 10 ft. x 10 ft. area in a round (this seems to be the
Pathfinder 2 default). It seems reasonable to me, but let me know if you
disagree.
Next, we should identify a different kind of search, one
that aligns with PF1. I dub this the cursory search. A
cursory search takes a single round to perform, but increases the DC of the
Perception check based on how large the room is. We could use the size
categories from Pathfinder to classify various room size ranges. Try this out for a first pass:
|
Dimensions
|
Room
size
|
Cursory
search DC modifier
|
Time
required in rounds for 1 character
|
|
5 x 5
|
Tiny
|
+0
|
1
|
|
Up to 10 x 10
|
Small
|
+5
|
5
|
|
Up to 20 x 20
|
Medium
|
+10
|
10
|
|
Up to 50 x 50
|
Large
|
+15
|
20
|
|
Up to 100 x 100
|
Huge
|
+20
|
100
|
|
Up to 200 x 200
|
Gargantuan
|
+25
|
300
|
|
>200 x 200
|
Colossal
|
+30 or more
|
600 or more
|
The GM can be as accurate or as approximate as they
wish. You can measure the square footage of every room in your dungeon,
and note the equivalent room sizes, or you can just eyeball it and say “that
looks like a Large room.” I put a spreadsheet together that has more detail
on how I arrived at the numbers above, but I’ll put that in the footnotes so I
don’t bore everyone to tears.
An example from our hypothetical group that just killed
ogres, and wants to search the room for hidden treasure: the group consists of
4 characters, and the ogre’s lair is 200 x 150 feet. Using the chart
above, we can reasonably conclude that this room is a Gargantuan room. The group can choose to make a cursory
search, but doing so increases the Perception DC of any hidden objects by
25! They’re not likely to find anything that way!
If they choose to make a thorough search of the lair, it
will take one character 300 rounds (30 minutes) to complete. The group
could decide to have three characters search while one stands guard at the
entrance to the lair, reducing the time required to only 10 minutes.
If only one character is searching the lair, that player
rolls their Perception check against the stated DC. However, it becomes a
little more complicated if two or more characters are splitting up the search
area. It becomes important to know where
each character is searching. If there is hidden loot, or a secret door or
a trap, only the character that is searching the square where it is located
makes a Perception roll that matters. Sure, everyone else gets to make
Perception rolls as well, but if they’re searching an area that contains no
hidden treasure or hazards, the results of their rolls don’t matter. The
only Perception roll that matters is the one made by the character who is searching
the area where the hidden thingy is.
Why does this matter?
Adding these layers of complexity may seem like a lot of
extra work for little payoff, but give some thought to the choices that they
create for the characters:
·
Make a cursory search of the room to save time,
or a thorough search to allow best chance to find hidden stuff.
·
Allow your best searcher to thoroughly search
the entire room by themselves, or split it up to save time.
Each of these decisions involve risk (increased chance of
random encounter, miss out on hidden loot) and reward (avoid random encounter,
find the hidden stuff). What this also does is fill in the last blank to
determine how much time is spent in an encounter area. At the very least, it gives us a way to
approximate it.
Next time, we’ll add up all of the times we’ve
identified, reference the random encounter percentage and see if it provides an
adequate risk (spoiler alert: it doesn’t).
Footnote: The full spreadsheet was too big to fit in the
blog without messing up the formatting. If you REALLY want to see it,
leave a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment