Dudes,

I'm running a group of 4 PCs. We have been playing written scenarios and often they reference "a difficult search test reveals..." or something like that.

I'd love some advice on how to handle these situations when a group of PCs is in the room. It seems that they ALWAYS end up finding all the hidden stuff because they all get to search for it. Or, in other cases, one player searches and if he fails, the other players gladly step in to give it a shot (which seems to break the flow of the game).

Is this how most GMs handle Observation, Search, Trap skill checks? Let everyone in the group give it a shot and and only hold back the information if none of the PCs succeed?

I appriciate the feedback.

Game on!

-Gitzman

For this reason, I like to handle "casual observation" (meaning the PCs aren't "actively" searching but are simply testing to see if they notice something upon entering a room) as a secret check. I will make the check for the PC (during session-prep time if possible) and record the results, only revealing details to PCs that succeeded. Thus they never know that their PC is "attempting to observe" something, only whether or not someone does notice something.

For "active" searches, I tend to ask for everyone to tell me who is going to search before the rolls are made. This way, you tend discourage the "Oops! Bob failed his check! Let me try!" approach. I also tend to avoid multiple checks for the same "search". Instead, I ask my players how quickly or how cautiously they are performing the search (which works beautifully with 3E's Stance mechanic) and have them make a single roll to represent the entirety of that activity. Then I will tell them how much time it took for each PC to accomplish and reveal any appropriate results.

"Hold on, guys! I think I just failed a Spot check!" - Belkar ; Order of the Stick

If the item, secret door, etc. is well hidden, the search takes time or demands great deal of consentration and skill. To reflect this, I cap the search attemps using following rule: During a session/day/act (depends on scenario) a character may freely attemp search test a number of times equal to his Int score. Extra attemps cause him stress. So if castle has something like 50 rooms/locations it is impossiple to search everywhere. A character must pick his choices using careful hints placed by GM or by using his Intuition skill. I hope this helps.

Bloody Sun...

I like that idea of handling it as an 'active' and 'passive' observation. I also particularly like the idea of rolling up the passive ones ahead of time. Out of curiosity, do you roll the passive ones for each player or do you do 'group' observations?

I can see already how awkwardly i've been handling searching and observing till now. I think this will streamline it quite a bit.

We are about to do the "Lure of the Liche Lord" from 2nd edition (converted to 3rd) and really want to wrap my head around trap and hidden door searching before we begin.

-Gitzman

Designating one of the players as the 'searcher' (ooh good movie) and the rest as backup is a smooth way to go. One states "I'm searching the X" and rolls, anyone who chimes in with an "I'll help" adds a Fortune die to that player's roll (adjust if they're ransacking or taking their time by throwing in misfortunes/stances/whatever) instead of rolling their own dice. If someone states they're specifically searching a spot or for something they get their own roll.

To keep them guessing rather than having them build the challenge/misfortune pool and rolling it I'll roll the purple and black behind the screen so they don't know if their successes were or weren't enough to find something assuming there was anything to find in the first place.

Its the deciding how much 'area' a search should cover that always hangs me up. I don't want them metagaming searching for stuff with the pile on rolling or a player stopping every 10 feet to search for traps (or listening at EVERY door or checking EACH door/lock/whatever for traps - I've had that player before). Would rather set an area for searching and simply pile on difficulties as that area gets larger.

regarding the searchable areas...

I have had some success in the past letting players attempt one of two types of searches:

General Search - they players explore the room, cavern or location they are in (usually whatever is the location in the scenario description, i.e. bedroom, grove, cavern etc.) This search turns up general results, treasures or traps depending on the difficulty of whats hidden. It is harder to find very specific things in this mode.

Specific Search - The player says "i'm searching the chest for traps before opening it". This search turns up information only pertaining to what they have searched but on the plus side they have a much greater chance of success

So in rule-terms, a Specific Search may get a fortune die or two added to the pool in addition to whatever other modifiers are applicable while a Generic Search would probably be a normal roll.

-Gitzman

Great suggestions. I'm going to use these on Saturday's game.

I especially like the part of assigning a Search Leader and having any other people helping provide Fortune dice.

Gitzman said:

It ultimately depends upon the situation. For most "passive" searches, I roll a check for each PC as it is simply a "did your character notice this?" scenario and doesn't have anything to do with the activities of the other PCs.

For most "active" searches where efforts are coordinated, I prefer to have the "lead" PC make the roll, adding bonuses for each other character assisting in the effort.

Good topic! It's neat to read all the different perspectives and ideas on this.

My approach here is a bit different from what's been suggested, but I thought I'd share since I've been using it for the last few years in a couple different systems, and it's worked well for me. I too divide searches into two categories, but not based on whether it's passive or active. Instead, my division has to do with the importance of the clue to the plot.

Vital search: If the search is for something without which the plot cannot advance, then I don't even roll. To find this clue, all the players have to do is indicate they're searching the place. It's amazing how often published adventures have the entire narrative hanging on one critical die roll, that if the players miss this roll, they'll end up spinning their wheels for hours. So, before the session, I ask myself "What happens if the players flub this roll horribly?" If the answer to that question is "they get frustrated because there's no leads to follow" then I consider that a Vital clue and rule that it can't be missed - automatic success if the players choose to search for it. If the answer is "they follow a red herring that's really not very entertaining" then again it's a vital clue that can't be missed. But if the answer is "they have a lot of fun chasing the wrong thing" or "they miss a bit of treasure but the plot continues unhindered" then it's not a vital clue.

Trivial search: If failing this search roll doesn't shut down the plotline or the enjoyment, then I make the players roll for it. The party as a whole gets 1 roll, generally by the person with the best stats, and with a bonus for each other person helping. I take this approach with a lot of other things than searching as well. Like if there's a massive obstacle blocking a passage and the PCs want to move it, the whole group gets one roll, rather each person rolling and the 2-die scribe succeeding where the 5-die Thug or Dockhand failed, since that just wouldn't make any sense. Given the high rate of success in WFRP 3rd, I think letting all the players roll could be problematic. If 3 PCs each make observation checks in sequence, it's certainly better than 90% that one of them will get at least one success. At which point, why take the time for duplicate efforts / rolls? As you mentioned, it would only disrupt the flow of the scene.

Since I usually only allow one roll for the whole party on this sort of thing, to compensate I generally always look at the mechanics for assistance/aid/support within a game, and house-rule it to be a little better than the main rules suggest. For WHRP, I'd probably let assistance give an Expertise die instead of Fortune die if the assisting character has a relevant skill. (I'm tempted to say Expertise dice equal to their skill level, but I haven't crunched the numbers to see if that could get broken.) You should also put some thought to whether or not the assisting characters can use their talents, etc, on the roll. Keen Eyes, Aethryric Attunement, Warning Bark can all give bonuses to Observation checks, as can the special abilities of Hunter, Bounty Hunter and Scout, and the Wood Elf racial ability. My inclination would be to let all those bonuses apply to the groups' roll, regardless of which character is actually rolling for the group.

In addition to what I just posted, I should mention that in WFRP there's another option for handling "vital" clues. You could assume the search always succeeds (even if no successes are rolled), but still have them roll. Just come up with some likely effects of boons/banes/comets/chaos stars, or a really beneficial "triple hammer" line. That way the plot never grinds to a halt, but there's still some benefit for characters with really good dice pools, and a chance of some negative side-effect if the dice hate them.

Boons and Banes seem to lend themselves well to the search for traps mechanic.

Boons add one or more fortune when you try and unlock/disarm the item in question, while banes could add misfortune dice.

On a disarm check, boons might count as being able to reset the trap once you're done with it, where a star with no successes means you set it off.

Just thinking out loud about this.