2nd editon AD&D secret doors

[2E Phoinex]

what do you roll when checking for secret doors in AD&D 2nd edition? I've read core rules many times over the last five years and never found a straight forward answer to this, nor have my players.

The DMG description of doors (pg. 130) details how long it will take to search, and notes that once found generally the character has discovered how to open it thus no roll to open is required; however, it doesn't discuss how to roll for finding the door to begin with.
Under concealed doors section it says that "Any search for concealed doors will reveal them" but that's an entirely different thing. Finding the secret door wouldn't be automatically successful correct? especially since:

The PH says under the race description for elves (pg. 22) that they have a "1 in three chance to find a secret door" while actively searching for one.

Am I over looking something? Or is the only difference between searching for concealed and secret doors the time expended? This has been a source of frustration for a long time now and at this point I would just be happy to have an answer, even if it makes me look stupid.

Thanks.

[Rhynn]

I could swear it was a 1/6 chance (i.e. 1 on 1d6), all the way back to OD&D, but I'm away from books.

[2E Phoinex]

Well I suppose that seems fair. Thanks

[Jay R]

Roll up an elf for the party.

Edit: Oh, all right. I'll be serious. You're right. The three references to secret doors in the index don't give a clear answer, except for elves (1 in 6 if they walk past it; 2 in 6 if they are actively searching).

We always assumed that it was 1 in 6 for others if they actively search, like in original D&D.

But we also always had an elf.

[Alejandro]

When searching, I believe it is 1 in 6 (a 1 on a d6) for everyone except elves, that find them on 1 in 2 (1 to 3 on a d6.)

[skyth]

1 in 6 for most people. Elves are 2 in 6.

Also, you can only search once, ever. If you fail to find it the first time, you never will.

[hamlet]

1 in 6 for most people. Elves are 2 in 6.

Also, you can only search once, ever. If you fail to find it the first time, you never will.

Until you level up.

[nyjastul69]

I always used the 1 in 6 chance for characters that weren't elves. I also house ruled that Thieves/Rogues also had the same chance to spot secret doors as elves.

[Rhynn]

1 in 6 for most people. Elves are 2 in 6.

Also, you can only search once, ever. If you fail to find it the first time, you never will.

I run ACKS and I permit multiple searches (not sure if that's by the book or not). It takes one turn (10 minutes) to search a 10'x10' area (one "map square" in dungeons), so unless the PCs know/guess exactly where the door is (which they may, if they did a good job mapping!), every going-over they give a room or passage means several 1/6 chance wandering monster checks, as well as burning through several torches/flasks of lamp oil... which creates a nice time pressure.

[2E Phoinex]

I always used the 1 in 6 chance for characters that weren't elves. I also house ruled that Thieves/Rogues also had the same chance to spot secret doors as elves.

I like this, I believe I'll handle my future secret door checks the same way.

[Hawriel]

Roll up an elf for the party.

Edit: Oh, all right. I'll be serious. You're right. The three references to secret doors in the index don't give a clear answer, except for elves (1 in 6 if they walk past it; 2 in 6 if they are actively searching).

We always assumed that it was 1 in 6 for others if they actively search, like in original D&D.

But we also always had an elf.

My group does the same thing. However the elf never found them, it was usually the human.

I never did like the rule. It just did not fit in a game that expected players to think through problems. If players were properly searching a room, they should have been asking questions, and had their characters examine their environment.

[Ravens_cry]

I admit I've never seen how it goes down in play, but looking through some old AD&D books I was gifted, I never liked the 'Only try once' rules a lot of checks had. Sure, it stops people from spamming checks, but it also means that it can easily stop the adventure dead in its tracks if the 18-00 Strength Fighter suddenly finds they didn't make sufficient sacrifices to the Dice Gods.
Has this being anyone else's experience or am I just a spoiled d20 player?

[Vertharrad]

Smart playing can help more than spamming dice in 2e...

[Ravens_cry]

Smart playing can help more than spamming dice in 2e...
True, but it still strikes me as bad design.

[Premier]

I admit I've never seen how it goes down in play, but looking through some old AD&D books I was gifted, I never liked the 'Only try once' rules a lot of checks had. Sure, it stops people from spamming checks, but it also means that it can easily stop the adventure dead in its tracks if the 18-00 Strength Fighter suddenly finds they didn't make sufficient sacrifices to the Dice Gods.
Has this being anyone else's experience or am I just a spoiled d20 player?

You might be a spoiled d20 player for all I know (:P), but the real point here is different:

If the adventure grinds to a halt because of a single failed roll - be that for detecting secret doors, convincing the chancellor to give you access to the treasury, calculating the exact time of the Grand Conjunction, or anything else - then that is a horribly badly designed adventure (regardless of edition or game system). In our hypothetical case of a secret room in a dungeon, either the contents should not be vital to "victory" (killing the villain, getting the McGuffin, etc.), or there should be at least one other way of getting there.

[Rhynn]

I admit I've never seen how it goes down in play, but looking through some old AD&D books I was gifted, I never liked the 'Only try once' rules a lot of checks had. Sure, it stops people from spamming checks, but it also means that it can easily stop the adventure dead in its tracks if the 18-00 Strength Fighter suddenly finds they didn't make sufficient sacrifices to the Dice Gods.
Has this being anyone else's experience or am I just a spoiled d20 player?

I don't care about spamming dice. If my players want to spend all day searching the same dungeon room over and over for secret doors or hidden treasure, they can. There's a natural limiter: wandering monster checks. If the reward they're looking for is even significant to them, then the danger is going to be proportionate, and the longer they spend in one place, the more they'll run into monsters (if any intelligent enemies with a lair on that or adjacent levels escape, there'll be a non-random encounter coming up, too!).

I can think of very few physical actions I'd limit to "one try only ever"; rather, I use the time pressure. Every attempt to bash down a door takes a round (and causes noise that warns or attracts enemies), every attempt to pick the lock takes a turn (no noise, but every two turns is a random encounter check), etc.

And, of course, unless the adventurers are quite high-level (especially in ACKS), they're going to be running low on all sorts of supplies. And if they're spending so much time as to look completely incompetent, their followers and henchmen might even start making Loyalty Rolls...

This all also accounts for the fact that spending more time at a task should increase your chances.

Some tests could specifically be given a "number of attempts" limiter, preferrably organically; for instance, rolling a natural 1 on ACKS tests could mean a colossal screw-up (like jamming a lock, or triggering a trap you're trying to find or remove).

[ken-do-nim]

I admit I've never seen how it goes down in play, but looking through some old AD&D books I was gifted, I never liked the 'Only try once' rules a lot of checks had. Sure, it stops people from spamming checks, but it also means that it can easily stop the adventure dead in its tracks if the 18-00 Strength Fighter suddenly finds they didn't make sufficient sacrifices to the Dice Gods.
Has this being anyone else's experience or am I just a spoiled d20 player?

I play 1st edition and I do not recall this 'only try once' stuff. Makes no sense in a game which has a wandering monster rule.

[Ravens_cry]

I play 1st edition and I do not recall this 'only try once' stuff. Makes no sense in a game which has a wandering monster rule.
Page 9 of AD&D 1st edition PHB in the Notes Regarding Strength Table II.


Bend Bars/Lift Gates states the percentage chance the character has of bending normal soft iron bars or of lifting a vertically moving gate (such as a small portcullis baring a passage). The attempt may be made but once, and if the score required is not made, the character will never succeed in the task.

All italics original to the text.

[MeeposFire]

As I recall you see it with some thief skill checks as well. Often though it says you can try again if your percentage chance changes (it almost always or always says for the better).

[hamlet]

True, but it still strikes me as bad design.

Only if you don't know why it's there. It's designed specifically to encourage other thinking than "how much do I have to roll to get through the door?" playing.

There are lots and lots and LOTS of ways through a door other than just bashing it with your shoulder and not being able to think of any of them strikes me as bad players.

[Matthew]

We fielded this question to Steve Winter or David Cook a while ago, especially in light of the First Quest rules including a set probability. Basically they wanted every door to have its own probability of detection, but it was an oversight not to have a default the same as first edition.

[ken-do-nim]

Page 9 of AD&D 1st edition PHB in the Notes Regarding Strength Table II.

All italics original to the text.

Ah, I was looking at thief skills, not bend bars.

[Lurkmoar]

If a thief fails an attempt at opening locks, he does have to level up to try that particular lock again. That's the only one I'm aware of that has that bit though. With climb walls a failed check meant you had to move a significant distance or circumstances changed (someone lowers a rope).

As for secret doors, I took the meaning that you could spend more time searching for doors. Locate Object was usually handy if dice didn't work. Sometimes.

[SiuiS]

I always used the 1 in 6 chance for characters that weren't elves. I also house ruled that Thieves/Rogues also had the same chance to spot secret doors as elves.

Thieves should actually get both their normal thief skill chance and also still the regular chance everyone else gets if the thief skill fails, so that should cover it.


Page 9 of AD&D 1st edition PHB in the Notes Regarding Strength Table II.

All italics original to the text.

That seems like a native exception to the rules for strength though.

[Rhynn]

Thieves should actually get both their normal thief skill chance and also still the regular chance everyone else gets if the thief skill fails, so that should cover it.

There's no thief skill for detecting secret doors, though; nyjastul69 is basically giving them a (sensible) extra bennie.

My immediate experience with ACKS was that every party needs either a dwarf (detecting secret doors & traps in dungeons only), or an elf AND a thief (detecting secret doors and detecting traps). Basically, in traditional/old-school D&D, a party is crazy if they don't have those abilities covered, preferrably with redundancies.

[MeeposFire]

My experience has been that thieves are very dependent on the DM for how necessary they are. They could be near useless or the MVP of the party. For most DMs they will be somewhere in the middle closer to MVP status if you use a decent amount of traps, locks, and ambush situations.

As a case in point if you were to play "Warriors of the Eternal Sun", which is a D&D game on the Sega Genesis thieves are near worthless. The reason being is that their are few precious times that the thief skills are needed and back stabbing is just not that useful in that game.

On the other hand we have Baldur's Gate 2 for the computer. In that game the strategy guide actually goes out on a limb and declares the thief as the official MVP of the game and for good reason. There are a lot of traps in the game which can be deadly. It also sports a lot of locks with good treasure. Combine that with the XP gains for defeating those two things and you would lose a lot without a thief. They are also great to have for combat because you get lots of chances to back stab (especially if you invest in invisibility potions and rings) and actually allow you to use the optional rule to allow thieves to set traps (though they make it a per day ability with its own thief progression rather than just being part of the remove traps ability but that is probably fair due to its power). They can also auto detect secret doors while searching for traps and can put points into detect illusion (which is one of the only ways to detect invisible enemies that are using the protection from divination spell).

While these are video games and thus more limited than table top it goes to show how different the usefulness of the thief is depending on your game table. If you have a DM like Warriors of the eternal sun then the thief will suck. If your DM is more like BG2 they will rock.

Even though you can sort of replace the thief with clever tactics and spells (summon monster, knock, find traps, true sight, etc) it is usually very expensive (in money, actions, time, and other resources) and so a thief retains their value in the party in AD&D.

[Hawriel]

You might be a spoiled d20 player for all I know (:P), but the real point here is different:

If the adventure grinds to a halt because of a single failed roll - be that for detecting secret doors, convincing the chancellor to give you access to the treasury, calculating the exact time of the Grand Conjunction, or anything else - then that is a horribly badly designed adventure (regardless of edition or game system). In our hypothetical case of a secret room in a dungeon, either the contents should not be vital to "victory" (killing the villain, getting the McGuffin, etc.), or there should be at least one other way of getting there.

I'm sorry, if your adventure fails on one failed dice roll then you either had a horrible GM, horrible players, or both. If the players failed at some thing that would have helped them a lot. Then it changes the direction of the story. A good RPG campaign has a lose structure but grows organically.

[SiuiS]

There's no thief skill for detecting secret doors, though; nyjastul69 is basically giving them a (sensible) extra bennie.

My immediate experience with ACKS was that every party needs either a dwarf (detecting secret doors & traps in dungeons only), or an elf AND a thief (detecting secret doors and detecting traps). Basically, in traditional/old-school D&D, a party is crazy if they don't have those abilities covered, preferrably with redundancies.

I'll admit to not playing without an elven thief in twenty five years. So I was just sort of going by recollection >_<


I'm sorry, if your adventure fails on one failed dice roll then you either had a horrible GM, horrible players, or both. If the players failed at some thing that would have helped them a lot. Then it changes the direction of the story. A good RPG campaign has a lose structure but grows organically.

This is mostly good advice, but needs to be given context. No single roll should lead to failure; you shouldn't lose the game forever because you flub attack roll 3, jump check 17 or miss secret door 12.

But... If the entire campaign moves everything to a head, and the resolution of the entire game comes down at the end to a single roll? I know too many DMs who let "don't let the game hinge on a single roll" rob their game of gravitas. If all of existence boils down to whether you or Asmodeus makes this next dexterity check, for the love of Frigga don't dilute it.

[Rhynn]

But... If the entire campaign moves everything to a head, and the resolution of the entire game comes down at the end to a single roll? I know too many DMs who let "don't let the game hinge on a single roll" rob their game of gravitas. If all of existence boils down to whether you or Asmodeus makes this next dexterity check, for the love of Frigga don't dilute it.

There's a significant difference between "fail" and "grind to a halt."

The PCs absolutely should be able to fail as a consequence of a roll: the dragon makes its save against that last powerful spell and roasts them, or whatever.

But if a single failed roll of causes the game to come to a halt, there's bad design or bad gamemastering afoot. Call of Cthulhu adventures are often at least theoretically guilty of this: a failed skill test can mean a critical clue is missed and the PCs are stuck milling around aimlessly. There's plenty of ways to mitigate that, if one has the experience and/or foresight, but not all GMs are experienced (or possessed of foresight; or even hindsight).

[SiuiS]

There's a significant difference between "fail" and "grind to a halt."

The PCs absolutely should be able to fail as a consequence of a roll: the dragon makes its save against that last powerful spell and roasts them, or whatever.

But if a single failed roll of causes the game to come to a halt, there's bad design or bad gamemastering afoot. Call of Cthulhu adventures are often at least theoretically guilty of this: a failed skill test can mean a critical clue is missed and the PCs are stuck milling around aimlessly. There's plenty of ways to mitigate that, if one has the experience and/or foresight, but not all GMs are experienced (or possessed of foresight; or even hindsight).

And again, you're missing the point of that. If the last roll of the game would grind the good guys to a halt on failure? That's not bad game mastering. That's actually good game mastering! It has built in closure. You know, either way, the results are irrevocable.

Changing that, is basically lengthening the game to give the PCs time to win. As ever, the situation should be evaluated for context and weighed on it's own merits.

[Alejandro]

It would be like if the entire Fellowship had failed to find the secret door into Moria, or if the dwarves and Bilbo failed to find the secret door into the Lonely Mountain. Sure, there were conceivable alternate paths they could have taken, but they were ridiculously dangerous (like going in Smaug's front door?)

Story always trumps rules. If the DM wants (or needs) the party to find a secret door, then they find it.

[Premier]

It would be like if the entire Fellowship had failed to find the secret door into Moria, or if the dwarves and Bilbo failed to find the secret door into the Lonely Mountain. Sure, there were conceivable alternate paths they could have taken, but they were ridiculously dangerous (like going in Smaug's front door?)

Story always trumps rules. If the DM wants (or needs) the party to find a secret door, then they find it.

No offense intended, but that's just plain terrible DMing, the sort that originally appeared and gained unfortunate "legitimacy" with certain parts of 2nd ed. AD&D', specifically the ultra-railroady Dragonlance adventure modules; and the RPG world at large would be better off if this sort of mentality were purged.

RPG: Roleplaying Game. First and foremost an RPG is a game - like Chess, Settlers of Catan or marbles, and unlike novels, short stories, films or opera. It is first and foremost a GAME, and thus shares its fundamental notions with other games and NOT with storyteling.

A game should not have a predetermined outcome, because by definition, it's not a game then. The DM does not "need" the party to find the secret door in the same way the referee does not "need" Manchester United to beat Ajax Grasshoppers, or the organiser of a chess tournament doesn't "need" Karpov to beat Kasparov.

The only sort of "story" that an RPG should have is the one that's constructed in retrospect: the one which is simply the roster of events and accomplishments tallied AFTER the fact where the "story" is what emerges in hindsight. Sure, PCs and parties will have goals and quests and the like; but those should never ever have a foregone conclusion, because that changes them from a game to the DM's clumsy attempt at fantasy literature with a captive audience forced to go through the motions.

"Story trumps the rules" as advice is the single most antithetical notion to the fundamental ideas and assumptions of traditional RPGs that there can be.

[Jay R]

I think you're applying reasonable ideas to situations where they don't apply.


It would be like if the entire Fellowship had failed to find the secret door into Moria, or if the dwarves and Bilbo failed to find the secret door into the Lonely Mountain.

That aren't games; they are stories in which all actions of every character are decided by a single person.

Besides, the dwarves didn't find the door into the goblin caves, so they were captured. Frodo didn't find a way through the Black Gate, so he had to follow Gollum to Cirith Ungol. And the party only looked for the entrance to Mordor because they couldn't make it through Caradhras. There are plenty of times where the party's life would have been more convenient if they'd found the secret way.


Sure, there were conceivable alternate paths they could have taken, but they were ridiculously dangerous (like going in Smaug's front door?)

Like going into Moria instead of Caradhras, or talking Cirith Ungol, which was Shelob's lair. Sometimes you have to take the bad way because you missed the other way.


Story always trumps rules. If the DM wants (or needs) the party to find a secret door, then they find it.

The problem with this argument is that there is no reason to apply it only to secret doors. It applies equally well to every surprise roll, attack roll, skill check, saving throw, or any other time you roll a die. The rerason we use dice at all is that we have decided to let player actions have consequences instead of having the DM just tell us a story.

And any argument you use to defend random rolls for attack rolls or skill checks apply equally well to detecting secret doors.

If it is necessary for the secret door to be found, then the DM should take care of that in advance, by providing a secret map (the Lonely Mountain) or having a character know about the door already (Moria).

I agree that having a random roll prevent a necessary action is bad DMing, but the problem isn't the roll; the problem is bad scenario design.

[Vertharrad]

So let me get this right...there should never be a chance at failure. Except when you think there should. WRONG. There should always be a chance at failure unless the situation doesn't naturally/reasonably have one. If I could climb a high cliff without the chance of falling off to my injury/death...then whats the point? I wouldn't try because I'd eventually succeed. The game grinding to a halt because of an action or dice roll is that chance of failure. And arguing just because it's a fantasy game doesn't validate your want to get rid of it. Even monumental failures can be corrected in the future given enough time and effort. Don't cheat yourself by forgetting that.

[Alejandro]

Holy crap, I didn't expect so much venom. It's just my opinion. When I GM, I err on the side of the players having fun, so if I'm running an old Dungeon magazine module, and it features a secret door that is the only way forward (regretably often) and none of the PCs finds it, I still have them find it, because it's less fun for everyone if the PCs just turn around and go home because there is no way forward. That's all. Geez.

[Vertharrad]

This is one of the reasons 4e bombed so horribly...there wasn't a chance for failure. It pandered too much to the PC's...I've heard too many times how 4e was super easy mode from experienced gamers. One of which knows how to game a system should he feel like it. And I didn't intend for my other post to sound so antagonistic

[MeeposFire]

This is one of the reasons 4e bombed so horribly...there wasn't a chance for failure. It pandered too much to the PC's...I've heard too many times how 4e was super easy mode from experienced gamers. One of which knows how to game a system should he feel like it. And I didn't intend for my other post to sound so antagonistic

I do not know what you are talking about failure was an option in 4e. Failng a skill challenge meant some sort of consequence would happen to the party. Sometimes it is simple such as a loss of healing surges (meaning your party was less able to cope with the dangers ahead) or perhaps it meant that the king is made more vulnerable since he did not believe you making his demise a near sure thing.

If there was no failure option and that is desirable then that was the fault of the DM not the system.

Now if you want to criticize the actual mechanics of said challenges that part can be true as they never did quite get a one rule to set up all skill challenges like they hoped. It would work well with some but others could not make the system work for them.

[Jay R]

Holy crap, I didn't expect so much venom.

There has been no venom at all. We disagree with your position, but nobody has said anything against you.


When I GM, I err on the side of the players having fun, ...

We do not disagree with wanting the players to have fun. We disagree that sometimes failing subtracts from the fun.


... so if I'm running an old Dungeon magazine module, and it features a secret door that is the only way forward (regretably often) and none of the PCs finds it, I still have them find it, because it's less fun for everyone if the PCs just turn around and go home because there is no way forward. That's all. Geez.

I have no idea how a secret door could be "the only way forward", unless
1. the entire rest of the adventures in the world are behind that door, or
2. The DM insists that the only path they are allowed to take is through that door at this exact moment.

If there is any other place in the world in which they could adventure, then the secret door is not "the only way forward", and if they run out of dungeon, then they do not "just turn around and go home because there is no way forward."

Sometimes they only explore part of the dungeon, and that's all right.

[Alejandro]

I was running a Dungeon module in which the PCs are hired to retrieve a specific item from a tomb. It turned out that access to the tomb itself was through a secret door, and there wasn't any other way to get in (especially since the module is for level 1 PCs.) So, if no one in the group happens to find that one secret door, they can't complete the module, get stiffed on their pay, and that just sucks for everyone around the table. So I simply said they found it. The author should have provided a different way in, or just made it a regular door.

Premier said I was a terrible DM for wanting to do this, and I disagree. :)

[Telok]

I was running a Dungeon module in which the PCs are hired to retrieve a specific item from a tomb. It turned out that access to the tomb itself was through a secret door, and there wasn't any other way to get in (especially since the module is for level 1 PCs.) So, if no one in the group happens to find that one secret door, they can't complete the module, get stiffed on their pay, and that just sucks for everyone around the table. So I simply said they found it. The author should have provided a different way in, or just made it a regular door.

Premier said I was a terrible DM for wanting to do this, and I disagree. :)
Ah, yeah. That's bad module design, part of the DM's job is to moderate that sort of thing. I might have done something like put a ghoul behind the secret door and had it attack the party from behind while leaving the door open.


I do not know what you are talking about failure was an option in 4e. Failng a skill challenge meant some sort of consequence would happen to the party.
Generally failing a 4e skill challenge meant an encounter (which either replaced or bettered the xp from the skill challenge), loss of a healing surge (minor time delay), or a "story effect" which didn't actually threaten the characters. Never in 4e was a failed skill challenge meant to actually lead to any sort of failure, it was meant to increase the difficulty by one step. Since 4e's difficulty was pretty low if you could play the character building game well then failing skill challenges became something you might actually want to do.

My group played 4e for a year, by the end we did intentionally fail skill challenges to make the game more exciting.

[MeeposFire]

Ah, yeah. That's bad module design, part of the DM's job is to moderate that sort of thing. I might have done something like put a ghoul behind the secret door and had it attack the party from behind while leaving the door open.


Generally failing a 4e skill challenge meant an encounter (which either replaced or bettered the xp from the skill challenge), loss of a healing surge (minor time delay), or a "story effect" which didn't actually threaten the characters. Never in 4e was a failed skill challenge meant to actually lead to any sort of failure, it was meant to increase the difficulty by one step. Since 4e's difficulty was pretty low if you could play the character building game well then failing skill challenges became something you might actually want to do.

My group played 4e for a year, by the end we did intentionally fail skill challenges to make the game more exciting.


And yet everything you just said was a failure. You already said you purposely failed the skill challenge. Now if you think the results from said skill challenge should be more intrusive why didn't you make them so? Those options you mentioned are suggestions which happen to be common and tend to be more popular with most players and DMs, but if your group wanted the results of a failure to be more onerous then do so. Those ideas you find in the books are just examples and they are not all the available options though I find a lot of people treat them like they are.

Most of the things they talk about in the 4e DM's guide is to reflect what they think most groups will want and that requires more rules for arbitration. This is also why they give you so much information on making encounters even though you can choose to go old school 1e D&D and just do straight world building and have things come up organically with no concept of an encounter. Most groups are not really interested in that so they gave out what most groups tend to need which are encounter rules but you don't have to make encounters if you don't enjoy those.

[Rhynn]

No offense intended, but that's just plain terrible DMing, the sort that originally appeared and gained unfortunate "legitimacy" with certain parts of 2nd ed. AD&D', specifically the ultra-railroady Dragonlance adventure modules; and the RPG world at large would be better off if this sort of mentality were purged.

[...]

"Story trumps the rules" as advice is the single most antithetical notion to the fundamental ideas and assumptions of traditional RPGs that there can be.

I basically agree with everything Premier and Jay R wrote (they're like grognardy sages), and particularly the parts above.

"Story" is what you all have after the gaming session, not something I as a DM go into the session with.

Obviously, as DM, it's my job to throw elements (wrenches, mostly) into the game, and often I will do things like reveal a secret door by having the wandering monsters use it, have NPCs dump info on the PCs, etc., but I don't direct the players or "let the story decide" - those things are exceptions, and generally, the players have to work for their achievements.


I was running a Dungeon module in which the PCs are hired to retrieve a specific item from a tomb. It turned out that access to the tomb itself was through a secret door, and there wasn't any other way to get in (especially since the module is for level 1 PCs.) So, if no one in the group happens to find that one secret door, they can't complete the module, get stiffed on their pay, and that just sucks for everyone around the table. So I simply said they found it. The author should have provided a different way in, or just made it a regular door.

Premier said I was a terrible DM for wanting to do this, and I disagree. :)

I'd say that's a DM struggling to mitigate a horribly-written module. That's exactly the sort of thing I referred to earlier, which is common in Call of Cthulhu, where play grinds to a halt because of a single die roll. "Failure" and "grind to a halt" are very different, and the second should basically never happen.

[Jay R]

I was running a Dungeon module in which the PCs are hired to retrieve a specific item from a tomb. It turned out that access to the tomb itself was through a secret door, and there wasn't any other way to get in (especially since the module is for level 1 PCs.) So, if no one in the group happens to find that one secret door, they can't complete the module, get stiffed on their pay, and that just sucks for everyone around the table. So I simply said they found it. The author should have provided a different way in, or just made it a regular door.

Premier said I was a terrible DM for wanting to do this, and I disagree. :)

This description of a specific issue of overcoming bad design is very different from your initial statement that read like a general rule. ("Story always trumps rules. If the DM wants (or needs) the party to find a secret door, then they find it.") I suspect the word "always" led us astray. Also, I would restrict the to situations in which the DM needs the party to find it. The DM shouldn't "want" a particular course of action.

I agree that you did the correct thing in correcting this design flaw, but I still disagree with your proposed rule with the words "wants" and "always" in it.

[Alejandro]

Well, I have to be honest, in this case I did want something. It was the first time some people were ever playing AD&D, hence the level 1 module, and I did not want their first experience to be a failure, as they'd be less likely to want to play again.

[Thrudd]

Well, I have to be honest, in this case I did want something. It was the first time some people were ever playing AD&D, hence the level 1 module, and I did not want their first experience to be a failure, as they'd be less likely to want to play again.

So, in other words, you didn't have anything else planned and nowhere for them to go, so if they didn't find the door the session would be over early? There wasn't a town to go to, or any other low level dungeons or random encounter tables you could bust out? Sounds like lack of DM prep... :smallbiggrin: Just ribbin' you. I get where you're coming from. However, it can be a learning experience. For this type of game, the module is not the story, it is only a part of a bigger world. You always need to have somewhere else the players can go or a way to come up with something for them to do on-the-fly, so that one door or one decision by the players doesn't end your game. Then you can allow the dice to fall where they may regarding secret doors and other situations, and allow the players total freedom to make decisions without worrying that they are ruining the "story".

[Rhynn]

For this type of game, the module is not the story, it is only a part of a bigger world. You always need to have somewhere else the players can go or a way to come up with something for them to do on-the-fly, so that one door or one decision by the players doesn't end your game.

This also gets around the problem of "We don't want to do this dungeon."

Present your players with a whole region of adventure hooks, and let them pick. Then, if they change their mind, they can go back (or fleeeee!) and pick another one.

[Thrudd]

There is a caveat, however. As the DM, of course, the world is yours. If you think a dungeon module would be better with a normal door in place of a secret door in one area, by all means make that choice. Once you have laid out the rules and placed the dungeons and lairs, the rules need to be consistent and allow player choice to have consequence. If you don't like the idea of secret doors that might never be found, don't use them in your world. In AD&D, it should be ok if the players don't find absolutely every room and piece of treasure in the world. I think they are included in the rules to allow for a little more randomness in the outcome of a dungeon-delve. Sometimes you get lucky and find the easy way to some treasure, or a hidden room with some extra XP. Other times, you come away with little to show for your efforts. That's the breaks of an adventurer's life.

[Rhynn]

I think they are included in the rules to allow for a little more randomness in the outcome of a dungeon-delve. Sometimes you get lucky and find the easy way to some treasure, or a hidden room with some extra XP. Other times, you come away with little to show for your efforts. That's the breaks of an adventurer's life.

I think this is absolutely true.

I'm still in the middle of running The Lost City. In the first session, the PCs lost 2 PCs and 2 henchmen, and found hardly any treasure; in the second session, they lost a few henchmen (no PCs) and found about as much treasure. In the third session, they lost no one (some henchmen were maimed, this being ACKS) and found more treasure than both previous sessions combined, and leveled up twice as a consequence.

The vagaries of fortune are, IMO, a big part of the game in the old-school tradition.

[Alejandro]

So, in other words, you didn't have anything else planned and nowhere for them to go, so if they didn't find the door the session would be over early? There wasn't a town to go to, or any other low level dungeons or random encounter tables you could bust out? Sounds like lack of DM prep... :smallbiggrin: Just ribbin' you. I get where you're coming from. However, it can be a learning experience. For this type of game, the module is not the story, it is only a part of a bigger world. You always need to have somewhere else the players can go or a way to come up with something for them to do on-the-fly, so that one door or one decision by the players doesn't end your game. Then you can allow the dice to fall where they may regarding secret doors and other situations, and allow the players total freedom to make decisions without worrying that they are ruining the "story".

No, I didn't have anything else planned at all. There was no prep time available, no campaign prepared ahead of time, nothing. In such a case, I'd rather the players have fun finding the final room where they get to roleplay with a crypt thing, than just leave. Judging from how much fun the players had doing so, it was the right choice.

I ran a different dungeon for them yesterday that was of my own design, with secret doors in it, but none of them was necessary to find in order to complete their goals. They were bonuses or short cuts. They found them or did not as they rolled.

[Jarawara]

I'm with Alejandro on this: Story always trumps rules. If the DM wants (or needs) the party to find a secret door, then they find it.

Of course, you should always know what you want (or need) to happen before you're to the point of rolling dice. For example, if there is a secret door you want the party to find, don't have the players roll to find it and then allow it anyway when they all failed their roll. Just say they found it without ever rolling.

Or provide a reason they would have found it - say... someone else found the door, was unwilling to enter, but sold the information to the party. Or perhaps a recent collapse reveals the door, explaining why it was a secret door all these years, but now is easily found, no die roll required.

Just saying it's a normal door doesn't always work. If it were a normal door, someone else would have found and entered it by now. A secret door can remain hidden until the party finds it. Why does the party find it? Because they're the focus of the story, and the game is beyond the secret door, so of course the party finds it.

[ken-do-nim]

DM's gotta enjoy running the game. Most of the time, railroading means the DM knows what's going to happen, which means he isn't surprised by anything and ends up getting bored. However, if revealing that one secret door means now the DM gets to see what the party will do in his favorite area, then go for it.

[Thrudd]

No, I didn't have anything else planned at all. There was no prep time available, no campaign prepared ahead of time, nothing. In such a case, I'd rather the players have fun finding the final room where they get to roleplay with a crypt thing, than just leave. Judging from how much fun the players had doing so, it was the right choice.

I ran a different dungeon for them yesterday that was of my own design, with secret doors in it, but none of them was necessary to find in order to complete their goals. They were bonuses or short cuts. They found them or did not as they rolled.

Sounds good! Yeah, it would have been a shame to miss out on the crypt thing.
I know it is a significant shift to go from story teller games where nothing exists in the game except to serve the purpose of the plot and the party to a sandbox game where the players are essentially competing against the game world to survive and gain power/wealth/whatever their goals are.

[Jay R]

I'm with Alejandro on this: Story always trumps rules.

The problem with saying "story always trumps rules" is that it applies equally to all rolls, not just finding secret doors. The "story" could just as easily decide which attacks should hit, or which PCs should get injured, etc.

Note that saying "the story" made this happen really means the DM chose to make it happen.

Yes, I will occasionally make modifications during a session. But if it happens more than once in a single session, then I need to ask myself why. Is the scenario that badly written, or have I decided that my personal idea of the story is more important than letting the players play the actual game?

Applying the rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Ignoring the rules are like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong.

Taking medicine is essential when you're sick, but don't get addicted to it.

[MeeposFire]

I usually go with "Fun trumps all" which group dynamics count as part of "fun". In most cases this means following the rules and then not using certain types of rules if it leads to the group having less fun. However this rule is flexible because if I was in a group that really wants to hold to rules, all the rules, and that is what makes the game fun well then we follow all the rules and like it then. Most groups I have played with over the years seem to fall more into the story camp but I can be very flexible. I choose "fun" as my goal since with my groups that is the overall intention of the game as a whole. For us the rules and story are to enable fun.

[Jay R]

I usually go with "Fun trumps all" which group dynamics count as part of "fun".

The problem with "Fun trumps all" is what the definition of "fun" is.

Yes, when confronted with a puzzle, a quick answer is more fun than no answer. But having solved a hard puzzle is more satisfying than being handed a quick solution by the DM.

Similarly, what the players want during the melee is a quick, easy victory. But what they will want tomorrow is to have faced insurmountable odds, finally defeating an enemy who they thought was about to kill them.

It doesn't matter what the general rule is, there are always innumerable exceptions. Therefore, the DM needs to make individual judgment calls based on the situation of the moment more than he needs any general rule, including "Fun trumps all", and including whatever general rule I would come up with.

[MeeposFire]

The problem with "Fun trumps all" is what the definition of "fun" is.

Yes, when confronted with a puzzle, a quick answer is more fun than no answer. But having solved a hard puzzle is more satisfying than being handed a quick solution by the DM.

Similarly, what the players want during the melee is a quick, easy victory. But what they will want tomorrow is to have faced insurmountable odds, finally defeating an enemy who they thought was about to kill them.

It doesn't matter what the general rule is, there are always innumerable exceptions. Therefore, the DM needs to make individual judgment calls based on the situation of the moment more than he needs any general rule, including "Fun trumps all", and including whatever general rule I would come up with.

I actually said that in my statement. I made sure to include that I tailor what I do to what works best for that group. I even listed that in some I would follow rules closely and others I would not. That is why it is great. The only way it does not work is if I don't follow my own advice (which is not the advice's fault) or if the group literally does not want to play for fun which is exceedingly rare and not a group I would likely try to play with.

Versatility is key which is what I said. The only way I end up wrong is if somebody decides they are not going to play D&D for fun in any way. IF you are one of those people I guess my methods would not work.

[RCBates666]

recently, my group decided to return to 2e after several years playing other systems, and as part of refreshing myself with the system, I found my way to this thread. Yes, I realize this thread is now quite old, however, I wanted to point out something that is missing in this thread I feel is rather pertinent... especially to newer players who have more likely then not never experienced it... :

for those of us old fogeys who were playing thanks to the wayback machine, when we all used to meet up RL at someone's kitchen table with pen, paper, and RL dice to play, the DM had this wonderful tool... the DM screen. Now, what precisely the DM screen provided the DM isn't pertinent here (enjoy googling it if your interested :D ), but what it ~allows~ for the DM is... hidden rolls. many younger/newer DMs/GMs don't know, or forget about this feature, due to playing on these brower-based or app tabletops, but hidden rolls are a POWERFUL tool for a DM!

Making ALL your rolls open is easier, sure. it helps to keep the party running with the concept of 'the universe is cruel, enjoy your fate as RNG hath delivered it!'... but there are times when the DM needs to intervene for MANY reasons and the dice would, or do, deliver a bad result. so, rolling your DM dice 'behind the screen' lets you see the result before the players, and then decide whether it should stand as rolled, or to make a ruling as the DM to alter it (and this goes BOTH ways! sometimes, a 'bad' result is preferred! (I am NOT advocating screwing the players over, I am simply advocating to think about the results that will be the most interesting for the players))

Just my 2 cents, and I hope it helps current and future DMs to grow into excellence!

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre. Ancient Necromancy. Closed and banned the bot.