New DM Frustrations (long)

[Volomon]

Ok I'm having issues here, and want perspective from new DMs or even old DMs who can actually still remember their first attempts at DMing. I can't really remember because that was like almost 20 years ago now.

Just recently this very night I had two different DMs at the same session. Now the problem is I got an old time player turned DM. With little in the way of taking criticism and I personally am trying to not delve into the whole issue with the guy, because as a DM personally doing the middle of the adventure discussion on schematics is not only mood ruining but impractical and borderline immature. However clearly they haven't learned this due diligent mannerism yet because no matter what it seems to happen.

So let me break down what DM1 session is like, and keep in mind this guy says he has three campaigns going (ours being the third):

This is one of those campaigns where Draw Weapon, is never used as an action it just happens (so no point in Quick Draw feat). This is the beginning of many iffy rules.
Healing is whatever they feel like it, so no point in healing skills. For instance resting at third level for 8 hours nets 16 hp. (Ok whatever, I'm not the DM)
Diplomacy is not used properly because apparently only rules he knows actually apply, god forbid he would have to think outside the box. (Ok, seriously at this point?) A check isn't even made when I role 26 on a skill check, just nope doesn't work.
In Sunless Citadel through the whole adventure the most reward money that was award was a total sum of 200 odd gold coins a piece per player yes for a 1-3 adventure. (No magic items nothing)

A typical DM1 moment will be:
Me: Are these goblins (who are ridiculously lined up in a two column row four man deep, who never move, in fact all the creatures in the whole dungeon minus two skeletons NEVER move one square) at the south wall?
DM: Yes they are at the south all in between a column and the door.
Me: So they are all the way against the wall though?
DM: Yes.
Me: Ok I move along the northern wall (which gives me a 5 foot space between me and the goblins and leave my 10' reach to actually hit one).

A few moments later were discussing how I can't flank something that is against a wall (yes he doesn't really know what flanking is), as I'm not directly on the opposite side of a creature that a party member is.

For Instance it's (top dot is rogue, and bottom dot is me). In other words we were not on opposite sides. In fancy pictures in the PHB you can find this situation with a (/).
--.
..
-.

Well as this is all worked out, suddenly there is an issue with where the goblins are because no longer are they at the south wall in which from each side there is no more than 20 feet. So now suddenly these goblins are directly next to me without having moved. Not only is it not explained how I walked pasted two threatened squares without triggering AoO, but it's MY fault that I can't keep track of this stuff in my head. At this point I'm fairly pissed, and this guy is leaning over my shoulder using markers on a battle mat to show me where everything is, because it's MY fault I can't keep track of crap. I point out the fact that I asked if these creatures were at the SOUTH WALL. Anyway I drop it because at this point it's ridiculous.

This is one of many moments. I'll explain one more moment just to show this isn't an isolated incident. This is the Sunless Citadel, we get to the point where there is a Kobold Queen, she gives us a quest. We agree to carry out this quest but as we go back toward the beginning toward the entrance, there is but one door that has NOT been explored there are NO other routes in this dungeon according to a map. So we spend a good 30mins to 60 mins walking around trying to find another door. No, there is only one stone door that requires a key. The Kobold Queen has a key, there is no other way to further the adventure. We end up deciding to kill the Queen to get the key. Now at this point we're all discussing the whole issue at the table, that this appears to be the only way. We get the key open the door and theres a freaking water nymph. We defeat this thing, and suddenly theres another door we have never seen before (just magically pops up on the map that a player was sketching, MIND YOU with DM HELP). Often the whole idea is placed off on me, and not the DM for practically locking us into a situation where we can't escape.

Anyway the whole DM1 moment is filled with these things. To much fumbling with pages as he attempts to figure out himself what is going on.

DM2 totally new DM first time:

I give him a far larger berth because it's actually his first time and at least he's trying to get better at though he has moments where he's lost. For instance he describes a hall way as having a torch at 30' intervals. So I tell him that means we can see at minimum 60' ahead. No he says, well if there are intervalS <- meaning more than one and the torches are at 30' then the minimum amount of intervals is 2 which equals 60'. At least he's aware he wasn't prepared, and so I suggest that he draw what is going on then. He ends up drawing a hallway 15 feet with a south turn (a corner) and a torch on the far side of the wall so we can see it just around the corner. I chalk this up to just plain poor description.

Now this hall way has a freaking turn almost every 15-50' basically its turning in on itself (but not always). Now these guys don't use SPOT as an automatic check, I consider spot as sight you either see it or you do not, and the DM calls when to roll a spot. No this rogue turns every corner and rolls d20 to make a spot check plus a freaking search check for traps and it really slows the game down to the point where it's now at a snails pace (the relative speed of DM2s whole adventure because of so many random encounters rolled on a sheet) and theres at least 10+ turns.

At one point the rogue almost drowns and I really didn't care...I was at the point where I was bored out of my mind and keep in mind I just put up with 5+ hours of this stuff already.

Now keep in mind this group is composed of adults and the constant adult humor is almost too much at times, from me using Enlarge and DM1 references to how my tackle tools (in a less clean manner) is in danger by the Dwarf attacking from in between my legs with his battle axe to a door with a dildo as a door handle and (guess how you open it as a female character?).

On one hand without this bizarre banter which at times it was genuinely funny, and I know how to pull my weight in this area to the point of where everyone in the group thinking my character is a certain way for instance my Paladin constantly looked into his mirror (I can't help it I got crazy Charisma), my previous Wizard was played cowardly (I can't help it I have 4 life).

So without the conversation the whole game would basically fall flat, now my question is, all though it is all for fun, the whole situation just seems to be a running shtick on the gameplay and the speed at which it runs. Personally I don't think I can run a group with this level of adult humor especially when its the DM commenting about (gay) sexual acts my character is committing, or sexual acts with a female player (without there consent), even if it's just jokingly. Personally my pacing I could have done what these two DMs did in 9 hours in probably 3-4 in a normal regular group.

Should I continue with this group? Have you had a group like this? Seriously are you recruiting (an actual mature group)? What do you do with a DM who takes all criticism badly and makes what appears to be NO effort to learn the rules, and whenever something new pops up blames 3.5 (there playing 3.0, things like trip are NEW to DM1)? Should I perhaps make the point to allow DM2 to from now on run the group? Even though he is doing fairly poorly to bad?

[BobVosh]

I would probably move on, but then again I'm biased where I'm mainly playing with friends from high school or at least the last 4 years.

That level of immaturity combined with poor gaming just wouldn't be worth it after a few sessions.

[Savannah]

Should I continue with this group?

If it's not fun, no. I stuck with a bad group for a while, simply because I had nowhere else to play D&D, and it was just too stressful for the entertainment that I got. Is there any way for you to get a group together with the good players from that group?

Have you had a group like this?

Never that bad, and my conflicts were always with other players, never the DM.

Seriously are you recruiting (an actual mature group)?

Player Recruitment subforum.

What do you do with a DM who takes all criticism badly and makes what appears to be NO effort to learn the rules, and whenever something new pops up blames 3.5 (there playing 3.0, things like trip are NEW to DM1)?

Beyond not playing with him/her, I don't know. The combination of taking criticism badly and being incompetent is just nasty.

Should I perhaps make the point to allow DM2 to from now on run the group? Even though he is doing fairly poorly to bad?

Does s/he take advice? Would you be able to help him/her do better? (And maybe I missed it, but why are you in charge of who DMs?) If it's fun or could be fun with a few changes, probably. If it's just less un-fun than DM1, probably not.

Hopefully someone else will have some better advice than I can give.

[Volomon]

Does s/he take advice? Would you be able to help him/her do better? (And maybe I missed it, but why are you in charge of who DMs?) If it's fun or could be fun with a few changes, probably. If it's just less un-fun than DM1, probably not.

Hopefully someone else will have some better advice than I can give.

I'm not in charge of said DMs, but I think if I point out that I would stop playing (along with the female player I bring with me) all together they might at least stick with DM2. I think DM2 can learn, but can he every become good? I'm not sure, really he's been playing with DM1 for a while and I'm quite frankly at the point of think he's picked up to many bad habits.

Oh I just want to point out DM1 began flicking this knife, a retractable knife constantly at one point. This DM doesn't know I hold a CCW and am armed 24/7, but this is the ridiculous nature of the whole situation. The most intimidating thing I said the whole night, is "You don't seem to like the rules" (referring to the trip mechanic which is the most fancy rule I used aside from point out their flawed use of near everything, including doing a sneak ranged attack from the front of an enemy, they did but eventually after a few hours I literally gave up). To which I'm sure he took offense and blamed 3.5 for being so different than 3.0.

I think because of that I will ultimately just drop out, if not for my sake, at least his.

[Caphi]

I'm filled with a dull, all-encompassing "wow that sucks man" kind of sympathy after reading that, but I just have to say, if you're sick of the rogue slowing down the game, and if you think you can take it, just go past him. Several of my characters would do such a thing from an in-character perspective. "You're taking too long, let me go." Push past him and carry on. Maybe be airborne if you're a mage (no pressure plates) or tap ahead with a sword or a ten-foot pole if you have one or something like that.

Obviously if your character can't actually take the traps if one happens to be there, this is a bad idea, but it sounds the problem is that the rogue slowing down the game unnecessarily because of paranoia that never gives returns.

[Volomon]

I'm filled with a dull, all-encompassing "wow that sucks man" kind of sympathy after reading that, but I just have to say, if you're sick of the rogue slowing down the game, and if you think you can take it, just go past him. Several of my characters would do such a thing from an in-character perspective. "You're taking too long, let me go." Push past him and carry on. Maybe be airborne if you're a mage (no pressure plates) or tap ahead with a sword or a ten-foot pole if you have one or something like that.

Obviously if your character can't actually take the traps if one happens to be there, this is a bad idea, but it sounds the problem is that the rogue slowing down the game unnecessarily because of paranoia that never gives returns.

Well, she in her own right had reason to be slow, the first 25 feet of this long tunnel had a pit fall trap with a CL of 8 in a party of 4, 3rd level players. Further up she gets trapped in what is a water trap, two walls go up and the room starts filling with water.

It would simply have been sped up if she the DMs knew that they are the ones who are suppose to tell her to roll for SPOT instead of her rolling for SPOT 20 times +Search 20 times.

Not to mention we had two really new players the Rogue and a Druid (though the Druid is under my direct tutelage so she's probably at a level higher than these two DMs at this point in how the game works).

I don't like the idea of shoving the Rogue aside especially when this is her moment to shine and take lead. Besides this was just an EXAMPLE of how the entire DM2's campaign went, if you want another example:

DM2 also had these awesome random and sometimes POINTLESS encounters say two bears who talk to the Druid to tell her about how there are predators out in the woods (really, thanks for the obvious). A druid who told us about this grand evil plot which sounded decent, even though he's a mighty level X enough to use portal (yes that spell that doesn't exist), and is able to singularity guard mighty artifact but can't go get a dagger and key from a level 4 spider, or tell us whats around a ruin that surround by forest even though he commands all the creatures in the forest, he tells us to go get more info from town. Ok, rolling with it. We get to town I throw a 22 to gather info get nothing more enlightening than what the druid told us. I throw up a info sign saying we pay for info on X ruins 20gp. Get more info nothing of worth pretty much the same thing said twice now. We're enlighten by a patron of an inn that there is a Druid (a different druid) in town that know all this information. We go to the Druid to ask questions we hear what takes 15-20 minutes of what turns out to be a really elaborate way of repeating exactly what 1,2,and 3 have already said, so yes we have heard this same crap now 4 times. WHY?!? Also no one has yet added on tidbit more info to the situation than the original druid did. I'm in my freaking mind at this point crawling around.

Oh did I mention this adventure has THREE Dragons attached right at the start for four 3rd level adventurers, clearly they are just plot devices but I'm not sure I quite grasp the need to use Dragons at every corner, we literally walk past a dragon getting to these ruins and he want us to retrieve a dagger for 250gp (at this point I'm so suspicious of the dragon I detect evil against it).

[Caphi]

Not to mention we had two really new players the Rogue and a Druid (though the Druid is under my direct tutelage so she's probably at a level higher than these two DMs at this point in how the game works).

I don't like the idea of shoving the Rogue aside especially when this is her moment to shine and take lead. Besides this was just an EXAMPLE of how the entire DM2's campaign went, if you want another example:

Ah, I think that is a different story then.

Although you are normally supposed to make Search checks for each tile passed, every rogue I've ever played with has simply declared that they are taking either 10s or 20s. Does she know about that rule?

[Volomon]

Ah, I think that is a different story then.

Although you are normally supposed to make Search checks for each tile passed, every rogue I've ever played with has simply declared that they are taking either 10s or 20s. Does she know about that rule?

I don't think you can Take 20 in a situation where there can be a negative effect, yes, they know the rule but man I gave up a long time ago on coaching them with rules as DM1 put me out of that mood.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

From what I've heard, I'd give up on DM1, but probably give DM2 some advice on running in general, as it sounds like he just honestly didn't think everything through with both the dungeon crawl and the druids. That and it sounds like he has no idea how the (admittedly poor) CR system works.

If you have the time and patience, I'd talk with most everyone (sans DM1) and try to do a quick "rules training" session to get them up to speed, but you'll probably have to do this on an individual basis first.

Having personally dealt with legal adults acting like snickering 13-year olds before, there's little I could do but grin and bear it. Although, to be fair, you may want to chat with each of them out of game and mention that you find such comments tiring after a while and would just prefer to game. If you ever run a game and such happens, let them go on for a little bit before quietly and calmly asking them to return to game so you can get things on the road.

That last bit with derailing game, albeit not sexually, I've personally been guilty of before. Our GM generally lets us ramble for about, maybe 3 minutes before calling us back to attention. Hopefully, it will work for you.


If all of the above fails, and you absolutely must play in person, I'd check out any and all local hobby shops in your area as well as any possible student organization gaming groups at local colleges. All else fails, try to get a game going on Skype/maptools through these very forums.


EDIT: Just saw the intimidation bit from DM1. In that case, I'd keep a phone handy in case he gets physical. If it honestly bothers you, I would also try to ask him to please put it away, because, well, it's a freaking knife. Bringing your own weapon out is probably not going to help any unless he's already holding someone at knife point. Check out That Lanky Bugger's similar experiences, documented on these very forums (somewhere).

Also, as annoying as it may be, I'd recommend keeping some key pages bookmarked so you can just say "That doesn't work" before flipping to the page and showing them or just reading it. It might not work, but it's worth a shot. If DM1 continues to go "buh buh 3.0..." you could also cite either the 3.0 SRD (which should still exist) or flip through your own PHB 3.0, if you still have one.

Again, I would try to take DM2 under your wing, if at all possible. Bad habits can be broken, and good ones can be formed, but whether or not he'll ultimately be a good DM in general is hard to say. I would at least give the effort. I do not mean that to be insulting, it's just how I tend to view the world, is all.

[DracoDei]

The way I would play it is: basically a rogue should tell the GM "I search these squares for traps", then the GM should roll probably behind the screen (ALWAYS). Then one of several things happen:
-A trap gets set off (since closer squares often have to be entered to get to further squares... in fact I would say that searching a square requires entering it eventually... searching for mechanical traps is something that happens at a range of INCHES.... or would that be taking 20 even though that isn't technically allowed?)
-The FIRST notable think that the search comes to is discovered. Many squares may remain unsearched depending on the geometry.
-"You find nothing of interest." (Failed roll and no traps triggered, or nothing to find).
-The search is interrupted (because it takes a while to search properly).

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't think you can Take 20 in a situation where there can be a negative effect, yes, they know the rule but man I gave up a long time ago on coaching them with rules as DM1 put me out of that mood.

There's no negative effect to failing a search check besides not finding what you're looking for. Failing a disable device check, on the other hand....

[Volomon]

There's no negative effect to failing a search check besides not finding what you're looking for. Failing a disable device check, on the other hand....

I'm going to have to say yes, and no? If your searching one square at a time and eventually moving into the square a proximity and take 20 is based off of multiple failures if your moving from one square to the next with failures to find a trap, I would have to say it's triggered.

So I personally wouldn't allow it, as it's done within the notion that there are multiple failures and search is an active skill which means your using your hands to locate something. I can't see someone pressing around on what is possibly a trigger of immediate death and turn around and going "I pressed this thing 5 times but I took 20, is that ok?". I personally haven't played with very many rogues, but if the above issue happened I would probably allow them to continue to search/take 10 but also allow a SPOT check if something would otherwise be missed without searching. Take 20 pretty much takes all the feeling of dread of whats around the next corner in this Uber dungeon.

Not to mention it really puts the hurt on all low level casters.

[KillianHawkeye]

That's your prerogative, but according to the rules failed Search checks don't trigger traps.

[Volomon]

That's your prerogative, but according to the rules failed Search checks don't trigger traps.

Ya I know but I just can't see taking 20 through a whole dungeon, hopefully there is not 100 million traps, usually the adventures I run I don't put traps as a major imposing force and can be bypassed with intelligence. Say for instance your givin' a key and you fail to use the key and you open the door anyway (keys to disable trap), you just triggered a trap. Though there are definitely moments that would be nice to have one I ultimately don't think it's a hindrance without one. Hence just to add a rogue to take 20 all over the place I don't know it just doesn't seem right, 2 minutes per tile through a dungeon. Just doesn't sound right at all.

[Aroka]

I'm going to have to say yes, and no? If your searching one square at a time and eventually moving into the square a proximity and take 20 is based off of multiple failures if your moving from one square to the next with failures to find a trap, I would have to say it's triggered.

Eh?

Take 20 means, in effect, that you try over and over and over until you get 20. It's abstracted to 20 times the time for an automatic 20. If you're Searching for traps, there's no way to trigger them by failing at the Search check.

Look at it this way: I search a square for a trap, and roll 12. I find nothing. I don't trust that result, so I try again, searching the same square, rolling 9. That's worse, so I do it again, and this time I get 18. I'm still not satisfied, and I keep this up until I roll 20, and discover that there was, indeed, a trap in that square.

If you are taking 20, you're not moving anywhere until you've gotten the 20 for that square. (Search checks are made for one 5-by-5 foot square at a time: "Action: It takes a full-round action to search a 5-foot-by-5-foot area or a volume of goods 5 feet on a side.")

At what point am I triggering the trap, and by what mechanism?

(Traps that can be triggered simply be searching for them are, obviously, a different matter, but if a DM is using those the DM is probably a jerk.)

[Volomon]

Eh?

Take 20 means, in effect, that you try over and over and over until you get 20. It's abstracted to 20 times the time for an automatic 20. If you're Searching for traps, there's no way to trigger them by failing at the Search check.

Look at it this way: I search a square for a trap, and roll 12. I find nothing. I don't trust that result, so I try again, searching the same square, rolling 9. That's worse, so I do it again, and this time I get 18. I'm still not satisfied, and I keep this up until I roll 20, and discover that there was, indeed, a trap in that square.

If you are taking 20, you're not moving anywhere until you've gotten the 20 for that square. (Search checks are made for one 5-by-5 foot square at a time: "Action: It takes a full-round action to search a 5-foot-by-5-foot area or a volume of goods 5 feet on a side.")

At what point am I triggering the trap, and by what mechanism?

(Traps that can be triggered simply be searching for them are, obviously, a different matter, but if a DM is using those the DM is probably a jerk.)

Thats why you don't let players make search checks, the DM rolls. Ok I agree maybe not trigger them, but I'm just not keen in taking all the wonder and tension out of a situation by A: Allowing the player such as described above to roll even for search or any situation that can be retried. Because they automatically know anything around 10 and below is a automatic try again. B: Take 20 and remove all tension because at that point you're doing the best you can and if the trap still can't be found then it never would have been found. Once you do this you automatically inject real world issues into what is suppose to be a roleplaying game, the REAL life player knows he just rolled a 1 on a search check, so what does he do he rerolls. I personally don't like that idea, and that's what I'm ultimately getting at.

If I'm not mistaken DMs also tend to hide other rolls such as SPOT/LISTEN so you can't automatically assume you either missed something or not.

I don't like running it as what is a meta game, and that might be just me I like to keep a certain immersion.

This is all about the atmosphere, and I don't like the idea of killing it before it's used. It's ultimately the DM's job to provide this sense of danger, it's not really there when your staring at numbers or figuring out the math. If you remove the numbers from the players there is nothing to crunch.

You know some DMs will ask whats your AC rolls right in front of you and says "ooohh hit". Well I'm the DM that already has your AC, so I can describe how a spider just crawled over your head and is heading down the back of your shirt.

I also want to point out that it doesn't turn into a DM rolls everything they do roll, like for instance I'll have them roll search for a room, I'll sometimes have them make spot checks, sometimes I have them roll for no reason so they THINK they are rolling for something. I mix it up so they don't automatically assume DM is rolling something is happening.

I'm sure there are other "styles" out there, this is just the one that I have adopted over the years.

[Aroka]

Thats why you don't let players make search checks, the DM rolls.

That's just silly, and doesn't change anything. The two alternative scenarios now become:

Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find a trap."

Or:
Player: "I search and take 20."
DM: "You spend two minutes examining the section of floor and find a trap."

Which one makes more sense? Yeah, the second one. (And most players still won't trust their result even when they do take 20, if they really think there's a trap, because they know there's always a chance they're just not good enough to find it. Unless their characters are idiots, they are capable of this same consideration.)

If there's no specific reason a trap would be triggered by LOOKING for it, it's not triggered by failed Search checks. And how does failing to find it trigger a trap if succeeding doesn't? Wouldn't any physical actions taken be the same?

When there's no time constraint or other special reason (like mechanisms that go off when tampered with), Search, Open Locks, and Disable Device are pretty much Take 20 skills by default. That's why the DCs are so high even early on. (A non-optimized 1st-level rogue will be rolling bonuses around +4 to +8 for these skills, against DCs regularly over 20. Indeed, locks that aren't rusting and falling, and most traps, will pretty much require rolling or taking 20 with those skill bonuses.)

What Take 20 does is precisely what you say should be done: it removes the consideration of what the result of the die roll was; the character is spending all that extra time (two minutes instead of six seconds) inspecting the single door, chest, or 5-by-5-foot section of floor to be sure, which is translated into game terms by giving the best result (roll) possible.

If you want an atmosphere where the PCs have to proceed despite uncertainty, you need to create it rather than demand it by fiat: give them a time constraint. Why wouldn't a bunch of adventurers spend hours examining a hallway to make sure it's not trapped if that can save their lives (raising the dead isn't cheap)? Give them a reason - maybe they're being chased by monsters, they've got to reach the McGuffin first, they've got to stop a ritual underway, they've only got a day before the princess dies, or whatever else.

[Volomon]

That's just silly, and doesn't change anything. The two alternative scenarios now become:

Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find nothing."
Player: "I search."
DM: *rolls in secret* "You find a trap."

Or:
Player: "I search and take 20."
DM: "You spend two minutes examining the section of floor and find a trap."

Which one makes more sense? Yeah, the second one. (And most players still won't trust their result even when they do take 20, if they really think there's a trap, because they know there's always a chance they're just not good enough to find it. Unless their characters are idiots, they are capable of this same consideration.)

If there's no specific reason a trap would be triggered by LOOKING for it, it's not triggered by failed Search checks. And how does failing to find it trigger a trap if succeeding doesn't? Wouldn't any physical actions taken be the same?

When there's no time constraint or other special reason (like mechanisms that go off when tampered with), Search, Open Locks, and Disable Device are pretty much Take 20 skills by default. That's why the DCs are so high even early on. (A non-optimized 1st-level rogue will be rolling bonuses around +4 to +8 for these skills, against DCs regularly over 20. Indeed, locks that aren't rusting and falling, and most traps, will pretty much require rolling or taking 20 with those skill bonuses.)

What Take 20 does is precisely what you say should be done: it removes the consideration of what the result of the die roll was; the character is spending all that extra time (two minutes instead of six seconds) inspecting the single door, chest, or 5-by-5-foot section of floor to be sure, which is translated into game terms by giving the best result (roll) possible.

If you want an atmosphere where the PCs have to proceed despite uncertainty, you need to create it rather than demand it by fiat: give them a time constraint. Why wouldn't a bunch of adventurers spend hours examining a hallway to make sure it's not trapped if that can save their lives (raising the dead isn't cheap)? Give them a reason - maybe they're being chased by monsters, they've got to reach the McGuffin first, they've got to stop a ritual underway, they've only got a day before the princess dies, or whatever else.

Technically search is an ACTIVE skill, this means using your hands and/or getting close to the object/tile. This is why it's called SEARCH and not SPOT. Again your pointing out the META-GAME aspect, and my entire post was about in game immersion. Your playing from the perspective "my character", I'm playing from the perspective "I". Also to point out DISABLE DEVICE is not a take 20 skill. At this point I think your just abusing take 20, and personally there is a limit to it for me, it should not be the be all, end all solution to everything. What's the point? You might as well just not have traps at all from the sound of it. Ya to you it's a split second but in game terms spending 1.2 hours to search a 50 by 40 room does not make sense in the least bit. I mean as a DM it would be my responsibility to repopulate that dungeon, reset the traps, and add fatigue modifiers to every player at which point when fatigue set in they would have to rest and take 20 would no longer be allowed.

You've just been playing the game the entire time as an abstract thing, and are probably use to that. The DM book however, point out exactly everything I have said here -take 20 for search, as a technique. So if your going to tell me what I am doing wrong, then I'm assuming you also disagree with DMG and other DM sources.

So your sitting here arguing with me about what is already suggested advice in printed material such as the DMG. Over what is essentially an opinion or play style.

Also it's on page 18 of DMG under Rolling Dice, I've also read many of the older magazines of the day with much the same general advice.

[Watchers]

Taking 20 is taking the time to ensure that you have done everything you possibly can to make sure their is no trap in that area.

In-game enough for you?

EDIT: Also, your edit appears to be berating the quoted poster about exactly what they suggested.

[Volomon]

Taking 20 is taking the time to ensure that you have done everything you possibly can to make sure their is no trap in that area.

In-game enough for you?

EDIT: Also, your edit appears to be berating the quoted poster about exactly what they suggested.

Again as posted above, no 1.20 hours to search a room is not in game enough for me. It sounds like it's being played from the outside in to me.

What character in their right mind would spend that amount of time in what is essentially a barren room? I honestly don't understand why it sounds ok to you.

[Watchers]

One who doesn't want to die because they missed a trap?

Players tend to only take 20 somewhere if they suspect a trap is likely. It also coincides exactly with where someone might take every precaution to make sure there is no trap, i.e. taking 20.

Also, let's assume you have a problem with taking 20. Would you rather the players just keep searching until they roll a 20 (or, if you're rolling in secret, until they feel you've probably rolled one)?

[Volomon]

One who doesn't want to die because they missed a trap?

Players tend to only take 20 somewhere if they suspect a trap is likely. It also coincides exactly with where someone might take every precaution to make sure there is no trap, i.e. taking 20.

Ok let me make this clear, Take 20 on a door, or sign that says Big Freaking Trap here, ok. Search with take 20. If you start from square freaking one 5 by 5, and to square 1 million try to use take 20. No. Simple as that. That was my original point from ground zero, I don't agree with using Take 20 through the ENTIRE dungeon as a search measure.

Also RULE 0 just deal with it. God forbid a DM do something because it doesn't work with a calculator.

[Watchers]

Oh, we've devolved to sarcastic responses implying we might as well play a computer game, eh?

[Lord Loss]

At this point I would leave the group. However, if other players feel the same way, you can perhaps get the DM(s) to step down and be replaced by more competent players.

[Yuki Akuma]

On whether you should leave the group:

No gaming is better than bad gaming.

If you're not having fun, quit. Take refuge on the Internet. I'm sure there's a VoIP game going on you can play in.

[Watchers]

Well no offense but the moment you started bypassing the previous posts and I have to begin repeating myself. It's already devolved. Cause it's already clear it's not about the content of the posts but some other goal in mind, such as pressing your opinion on me no matter what.

When you ask for advice, help and opinions (or even just post a thread in general) you are inviting people to post, well, opinions. The fact that I responded to things you posted makes me question what you mean by the first part of your edit.

[Volomon]

At this point I would leave the group. However, if other players feel the same way, you can perhaps get the DM(s) to step down and be replaced by more competent players.

Well see the problem with the group is I'm the only one there with any actual experience, hence the only one pointing out rule flaws: aka sneak attacking with a bow from the front with no flat-foot/flanking, ect,.

The rest, the girl I brought luckily brought herself some beers (a good idea considering the event), are so relatively new they just assume this is how it is. Not to mention one player was DM1's wife. Between the other four players combined I don't think they have the full working knowledge of the rules, two players have only played 3 times total, the other two I'm starting to believe are not investing the time in memorizing the rules.

Edit: Another thing that might clue you in to the whole ordeal, a brand new player never played D&D before was at the session before (the one I missed). She was wife of DM2, since that one session she didn't return for another round. I imagine the taste in the mouth was fairly bad. I would rate the event as so bad as to almost turn a hardcore D&D fan away from D&D. However at the same time I want to salvage something I'm not sure what or how, but something.

[Watchers]

{Scrubbed}

[ex cathedra]

Personally, I feel like a few of your comments came off as needlessly offensive, regardless of whether or not you meant them that way. I don't really see why you felt like derailing the thread, but it seems to me that you've already made a decision for yourself, regarding the actual topic at hand. You mentioned, in the separate and fairly unrelated conversation, that you prefer a certain level of immersion in your games, and it seems obvious that you won't find anything like that in this group, if your description is accurate. I mean, you repeatedly pointed out that you didn't enjoy yourself.
At least, it seemed that way to me.

[Aroka]

Technically search is an ACTIVE skill, this means using your hands and/or getting close to the object/tile. This is why it's called SEARCH and not SPOT. Again your pointing out the META-GAME aspect, and my entire post was about in game immersion. Your playing from the perspective "my character", I'm playing from the perspective "I". Also to point out DISABLE DEVICE is not a take 20 skill. At this point I think your just abusing take 20, and personally there is a limit to it for me, it should not be the be all, end all solution to everything. What's the point? You might as well just not have traps at all from the sound of it. Ya to you it's a split second but in game terms spending 1.2 hours to search a 50 by 40 room does not make sense in the least bit. I mean as a DM it would be my responsibility to repopulate that dungeon, reset the traps, and add fatigue modifiers to every player at which point when fatigue set in they would have to rest and take 20 would no longer be allowed.

You've just been playing the game the entire time as an abstract thing, and are probably use to that. The DM book however, point out exactly everything I have said here -take 20 for search, as a technique. So if your going to tell me what I am doing wrong, then I'm assuming you also disagree with DMG and other DM sources.

So your sitting here arguing with me about what is already suggested advice in printed material such as the DMG. Over what is essentially an opinion or play style.

Also it's on page 18 of DMG under Rolling Dice, I've also read many of the older magazines of the day with much the same general advice.

I don't know who you're arguing with, exactly - a straw man, it seems - but good luck with that.

What character in their right mind would spend that amount of time in what is essentially a barren room? I honestly don't understand why it sounds ok to you.

It sounds perfectly okay. A group of forensic experts going over every inch of a room would probably take many hours. A bunch of fantasy heroes not interested in hairs, only in hair-thin lines and other minute clues, do it in a mere hour.

But your claim is nonsense anyway - why would they spend that time in a barren room?

The real scenario is usually going to be that PCs will spend two minutes, rather than 6 seconds, inspecting a door they suspect to be trapped. That's unreasonable? It seems to me that only spending 6 seconds is the more ridiculous option. "I looked at it for 6 seconds, no way did I miss anything, let's go in!" - yeah, that's realism and immersion there.

Or a room the PCs know must contain a vital secret of some sort - a secret door, a hidden treasure, a deadly trap - an hour or two to find it sounds fine, if they're not in a hurry. And fatigue? What are they doing, jogging in place while the rogue searches?