05-17-2019, 03:35 PM
|
#11
|
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Naturalist vs Alertness for search rolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinanju
I understand what you're saying. My point is two-fold: first, I've seen (and played in) too many games where the game grinds to a halt while every character tries repeatedly to roll to do/spot something. Maybe they have reason to think they're missing something, maybe not. But endless die rolling to finally achieve some goal is just boring.
If a casual perception roll or two fails, and the players have reason to think there's a secret door (for instance) that they're missing, and they decide to search the area thoroughly, I'm not going to make them keep rolling--they'll find it. But repeated attempts until the law of averages gives you a successful die roll is unnecessary (and boring).
Second, I'm more interested in giving the players meaningful choices. Yes, they can painstakingly search every square inch of the labyrinth as they travel--but they're going to move at a snail's pace. That means more supplies (lamp oil, food) consumed. More chance of being discovered and attacked by the labyrinth's denizens, and so forth. If that's their choice, so be it.
If that's *not* their choice, then they don't get to make endless spot checks one after another. One, maybe two rolls, presumably by the PCs most likely to spot whatever it is, and that's it. They may miss a secret door or get ambushed by a slime they'd have spotted if they'd taken more care--but that's the price of choosing to move at a faster pace.
They can't have it both ways. They have to make a choice, and the choice has consequences.
|
This seems entirely logical to me; everything the players do should have consequences (both good and bad) attached to it, and my job as the GM is to apply those consequences and to move the game forward. Mindlessly rolling dice for two hours without something actually happening doesn't strike me as me doing my job!
|
|
|