Odd thought:
Someone has the Instinct to ALWAYS search for traps. Could you require them roll early on, and then you use that roll if they come across a reason to use it. Fail or succeed, afterward they make another roll and you hold onto that for later on as well.
This way, a group could move into a room, and you could hit the search roll. They may find the trap, and you would let them know. Then they roll another one to save. If they fail, they get hit with the outcome but never know a trap was in the room when they moved in. Afterward they make another roll, and you store it away for later.
I wouldn’t. Physically rolling the dice at the table is tied up into things like the turn counter and advancement, so the system really doesn’t work when you start making rolls you may or may not use later.
Keep in mind that you don’t have to trigger the instinct, it’s up to the player to say that their instinct applies. Also keep in mind that this if at it’s core a description game, with players describing their actions and the GM describing what happens or asking them to clarify. You don’t actually roll dice until the players do something that puts them at risk in some way. So the players always have to describe where and how they are searching for traps. If you happen upon a trap, then you roll to see if you found it or set it off. If you have an instinct to always look for traps, then it just doesn’t cost a turn to make that test.
With all that in mind it doesn’t seem necessary or pertinent to have them roll in advance.
You trigger the instinct when the trigger conditions happen, and that determines when you roll. If you say “when we enter a room, I search about for traps”, you’re entitled to describe initial searching as you go into the room, and probably with some searching of the place. This isn’t about pixel-nudging, after all. The room itself is an area.
Right, until you get to the point where you describe searching that chest over there. And if there wasn’t anything to find at the entrance to the room it should go pretty quick since there were no tests, twists, or conditions to sort out. Either way, when you do get to test for a trap, having the always search for traps instinct means it doesn’t cost a turn.
Generally speaking, I think that’s the sort of thing they were hoping to avoid, unless you specifically only search the entrance. I think jovialbard has the right of it here.
It sounds like you’re suggesting that Instinct could be problematic, but I don’t think I see it. “What trap are you preparing? How?” A tripwire? OK, you put down a tripwire. That’s cool. A pit trap? How are you going to dig a pit trap in the middle of a stone cave? The Instinct just gives the action primacy, sort of, and obviates a game-mechanical cost (i.e., a turn). The action you want to attempt still has to be one you could accomplish if it wasn’t an Instinct.
So - thinking out loud - why doesn’t this lead to the players ‘verbally’ Greyhawking the room, and the ref only requesting a test when they narrow down to the specific location where is something to find, if there is such at all?
Or maybe that’s the way searching is supposed to work, and we are all okay with that?
Exactly, it’s ok! The game has two major components, dungeon exploration and resource management. The beauty of the test/turn/camp system is that it feeds into both purposes simultaneously. The way tests and turns work frees you up to really explore and describe the environments thoroughly because you don’t have to worry about the mechanics getting in the way or substituting for content. You only roll when it’s relevant and it’s only relevant if the narrative is well-explored by both the players and the GM.
I’ve played a lot of D&D, and the “Greyhawking” almost always gets messed up really quickly. Even the players who claim they always check the ceiling before entering a room are ambushed by rock spiders on the ceiling. Constantly. You dangle something shiny in front of them, they’re tired and frustrated from a lack of success, a room contains some curious pools and they drop everything and rush over to them because this is what they’re here for… the list is long.
It’s part of a form of player skill to do this efficiently and keep your wits about you, and it’s part of the fun that you constantly mess up.
You know how police procedure is to read Miranda rights off a card (not by memory, your TV lies!)? That. Then, to shorten that up and dodge laryngitis “‘I Greyhawk the room’ means follow the procedure on this card. Now, I Greyhawk the room.” The counter to trip players up is typically an arms race with more empty, meaningless space to increase frustration/boredom to force an error. Although potentially Reverse Rules Lawyering to try expose flaws in the procedure followed by dueling interpretations and re-ordering of the procedure list.
Yes. I have been witness to all this. Yes, really.
I haven’t seen reading off of cards, but I have seen the tedium caused by turtling. It was balanced in the old days by the turn-based wandering monster chance.
Instead, my OD&D groups would Nodwick the room. (Send in an expendable to draw out the traps and ambushes, grab everything obvious, and flee before reinforcements can respond.) Expendables came from the ranks of the charmed, fools desperate for money, or occasionally the low man on the level totem pole, who got a double share.
I think the trick is that a card is too generic. Once you get past “look around and up and then tap the floor with a pole as I go”, it’s all relative to the dungeon’s actual features, which will usually be distinctive and few in number, allowing for meaningful interaction. I suppose this is a social contract thing. The GM is supposed to give you interesting things to explore, not an empty room with a treasure under a tile 6 feet from the north-east corner.
