How detailed should player descriptions be?

[Anymage]

I was thinking about times when a player wanted to do something that was mechanically possible but that might be physically implausible. And whether the better response in those cases is "yup, you can do it" vs. "I want to say yes, but tell me how you're doing it". And that got me to thinking about a DM who openly asked for players to give more detail about their actions so that he could give more flavor to their discoveries; instead of just searching a desk, explain how you're doing something like searching for secret catches or false bottoms.

Which got me to thinking. Obviously the DM should come in with an attitude of wanting to say yes. But how often and how much should the players be asked to provide explanations and descriptions to cover just how their character manages to pull off the cool thing they just did.

(Yes, I know that stunting systems exist. I was thinking in the context of games like D&D that don't have one and where one would be tricky to port in.)

[Jason]

Published adventures often have something along the lines of "if a PC searches the bottom of the chest they find a false bottom." Obviously it's important in that case for the player to describe how or where specifically their character is searching, rather than just say "I rolled a 25."

[Lemmy]

At very least, players should make clear whether they are just observing something or actively interacting with it. And probably from what distance as well.

In the vast majority of cases, just observing something is much safer, but yields less information. You can't know an object's weight, temperature or texture (although you can make an educated guess, of course). And it's doesn't allow you to move the object around to look at it from different angles and/or check if it makes any sound.

From there, if no more details are given, the GM should assume the simplest, most obvious interaction that makes sense for the intelligence and caution of the PCs (generally speaking, this should be close to what a somewhat careful adult of average intelligence would do)

e.g.: There's a chest at the center of the room.

If they say "I search the chest" I'll assume they give a quick look around said chest before trying to open it in simplest, most obvious way possible (i.e.: just lifting its lid), unless there's something stopping their progress (e.g.: a lock).
Once that's over, the interaction with the chest is over... Now they will probably try to interact with either the lock or the contents of the chest.

In the example given by Jason, I'd say they stop probing the chest once they open it and see its contents, unless they specifically say they keep searching the chest for hidden features... In that case, a Perception/Investigation check would suffice to find, say, a false bottom... No need to describe exactly what parts of the chest they are checking.

If they just say "I look around for anything suspicious/dangerous/noteworthy" I just give them a description of what they can perceive from their current position (how detailed/accurate is this description is based on what senses the character has and on their Perception check). Some information can't be obtained this way, no matter how keen their senses of sight, hearing and smell are... (e.g.: if you're standing at the door, 20 ft away from the chest, you can't see/hear/smell a object that produces no sound or smell and is outside your line of sight).

If the players want to interact with something in a more specific, less intuitive way... They better describe it.

[Darth Credence]

I think this is going to vary greatly by what the individual table wants - one table might just want dice rolls to get information, while another is acting out every detail, so the answer here would be different.

That said, I'll go by what I think for my table. If the players are doing something basic, like attacking, they make the roll, I describe the basics of what happens. Nothing really to talk about there. If they want to do something unusual, I ask them to describe what they want, and I'll tell them how difficult it would be if there is any reason to make a roll. For example, I recently had an encounter where the player was at the top of a hill, below them was a flaming sphere, and below that was an ogre. He wanted to jump on the ogre and grapple it. I asked him for a description, and he wanted to run 10', leap over the flaming sphere, and land on the ogre. He had the room to do it, and the slope was enough that he could clear the sphere, but he'd be close enough to take damage. I asked if he was OK with that, or if he would prefer to go around it to avoid the heat. He wanted to go over, so I had him attempt to grapple. He succeeded, so we played it out that way, and it was glorious.

For something like searching, I generally ask for a time frame of how long they are going to search, then have them roll. If the time is long enough that they will find anything hidden in the room, the roll is just to see how long it takes. If not, then it is to see if they looked in the right place in time. I do not ask them to specify how and where they look, but if they do, I will take that into account. Like if the only hidden thing in the room is a trap door under a rug, and they say they are going to look under the rug, they found it, no roll. But if they say they want to check every book on the bookcase to see if a secret door is opened, then they won't find that. It's a trade off - saying exactly what they are doing can lead to quickly finding something or never finding something. In the case Jason brings up above of the false bottom in the chest, if they said they thoroughly search the chest for as long as it takes, they will find it, although maybe not immediately. If the players instead say they are searching for a false bottom, they find it in seconds. But if there was something hidden in the lining of the lid and they looked for a false bottom, they would not find it.

TL/DR: they should describe what they want to do any time they want unusual results, or if they want to constrain the time they take to use a skill.

[MoiMagnus]

When you ask for description (or the players give them without being asked to), you are trading pacing of the game in favour of an improved moment. As a consequence, you really want them to be contained to moments that are "worth it" and work the atmosphere around them. The players carefully explaining on which part of the floor they walk or not can be an exiting and stressful moment in the middle of a tomb full of traps and treasures, or can be boring and a waste of time during which the players are thinking "When do we get to the interesting gameplay?".

So as a general advice: the description should be as detailed as the action looks important.

Then, there is the question of "should the player describe or should the DM describe?". And both are fine, and give a different atmosphere around the table. Player describing makes it easier to engage them, but can also block them if they lack inspiration.

As an adjacent issue, there is two kind of descriptions that a player can give:

(1) Realistic description, where the player use its real life insight to guide the choices of the character. For example, "I search behind the painting".

(2) Creative description, where the player come up with a description that only make sense because the skill check associated was a success, and is nonsense otherwise. For example "I use the spring-like transdimensionnal method that my dead master researched about, hopefully there is enough aberrant energy remaining around to power the catalyse, but I'd guess it might work. [In a situation where the spring-like transdimensionnal method was never talked about earlier, the DM never intended any use for aberrant energy to be usable in some way, and the dead master was barely mentioned in the background of the character.]"

The first one works very well in exploration/puzzle-solving driven adventures, where you want the players to be immersed in the universe and to "think for their character", discovering the world as they do, and making mistakes or having ideas as their character would.
However, it can leads to frustration when players are trying to play a character that has much more common sense / intelligence / etc that what they have IRL. It's much easier to write in your background that you are able to make Sherlock-Holmes-like deductions than to actually do them during gameplay. Those players would prerfer that the DM give to them the solution after a successful check, and then RP a posteriori having a Sherlock-Holmes-like idea that leads to it.

The seconds one works very well for magic (or high technology) scenarios, though it require the players to be used to coming up with BS explanations.
Some frustration can also come out of this one if a player is "too good" at it and use their IRL skills to get a free pass at everything just because they are too good at convincing the DM.

[Tanarii]

They should be as detailed as they need to be to communicate INTENT and APPROACH to the DM, and for the DM to determine OUTCOMES and CONSEQUENCES.

[JNAProductions]

They should be as detailed as they need to be to communicate INTENT and APPROACH to the DM, and for the DM to determine OUTCOMES and CONSEQUENCES.

I like this answer.

[Jay R]

It depends a lot on how the game is written, and what the players (and GM) expect.

In original D&D, most actions weren't covered by the rules. Players were expected to describe something so the DM could decide what might happen. There was no Search skill, for instance. If the item you're looking for is under the pile of broken wood in the corner, you find it only if your description of the search includes going through the pile of broken wood in the corner. Your description was necessary for the DM to decide what the probability was, so he could decide whether you needed to roll a die, and if so, what the probability should be.

From 3.0e onward, the skill descriptions have attempted to replace that decision by the DM, and therefore reduces the need for a detailed player description.

Even in a modern style game, I often ask for more details, for similar reasons. The DC of a diplomacy check is based in large part on what you tell the person and what you keep secret. You can ask the king for help against a band of orcs. But until I know what you will tell him, I can't establish a DC. If you give him no details, it's DC 40. If you tell him they are allied with his rival, it's DC 30. If you tell him they are besieging his village of Seaside, it's DC 20. But if you also tell him that his daughter is in Seaside, you don't need to roll, and he will give you magic items to help.

But these are GM decisions, and different GMs will handle it differently.

[False God]

They should be as detailed as they need to be to communicate INTENT and APPROACH to the DM, and for the DM to determine OUTCOMES and CONSEQUENCES.

Yeah basically this.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

They should be as detailed as they need to be to communicate INTENT and APPROACH to the DM, and for the DM to determine OUTCOMES and CONSEQUENCES.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Mastikator]

You'd never demand a player describe how some bat guano turns into a fireball. This isn't different.

[Satinavian]

I never let players fail, because their despriptions ae not detailed enough. However i decide when they get to roll and for what kind of action so if i want them to do it step by step, then i just have them do it this way. Granularity can and should vary on how interesting things are.

In the case of a secret bottom on a chest, i would usually let them find it with a high DC without explicitely looking for it and automatically, when they explicitely look for it without any prompt. Because it is very much possible to miss a secret bottom when looking for orher stuff, but basically impossible to miss it when you check whether it is there or not.

[hifidelity2]

My take as a DM on this is to give a bonus to any die roll based on the description

In one of the above examples if the trap door is under a rug if the party say "searching the room" then I would make then roll
If they say Searching the room and looking under the rugs then I would add a bonus to the roll (in secret)

They could still fail (natural 1) but its less likely

[Faily]

If a player says they search the room and rolling the appropriate dice/skill, I will assume that they do so to the best of their abilities + looking for things of interest, without them having to specifically say "I search for traps/secret doors/treasure".

I don't think a player needs to try to guess my mind of what they need to try to look for. If there's something in that room that I want them to find or that is findable with a search, then they have a chance of finding it if they search for it.


I've heard one story of where the players didn't specify exactly what they were looking for resulted in a TPK, and I very much do not want to be that kind of GM. (BBEG had activated a trap upon his death that closed off the room and began filling it with acid. Players said they searched the room, the BBEG and his throne for a way to deactivate it. They didn't specify exactly what they were looking for, and the switch was hidden in the throne. Terrible GMing.)

[Willie the Duck]

And that got me to thinking about a DM who openly asked for players to give more detail about their actions so that he could give more flavor to their discoveries; instead of just searching a desk, explain how you're doing something like searching for secret catches or false bottoms.

It depends a lot on how the game is written, and what the plays (and GM) expect.
In original D&D, most actions weren't covered by the rules. Players were expected to describe something so the DM could decide what might happen. There was no Search skill, for instance. If the item you're looking for is under the pile of broken wood in the corner, you find it only if your description of the search includes going through the pile of broken wood in the corner. Your description was necessary for the DM to decide what the probability was, so he could decide whether you needed to roll a die, and if so, what the probability should be.
From 3.0e onward, the skill descriptions have attempted to replace that decision by the DM, and therefore reduces the need for a detailed player description.

I never let players fail, because their despriptions ae not detailed enough. However i decide when they get to roll and for what kind of action so if i want them to do it step by step, then i just have them do it this way. Granularity can and should vary on how interesting things are.

Shared expectation is the 0th step to this. If I want them to describe their actions rather than make a mechanistic check, that's made clear ahead of time as the campaign develops.

Overall, I prefer the 'tell me what you are doing' system that oD&D had over the mechanistic version (honestly, the change started in supplement I with the introduction of the thief class, well before 3.0), but there were faults with that too. I remember note cards with all the different steps the characters always did when they came to a new door or new room (based on what 'didn't mention' got them surprise attacked/trap-sprung previously), and how that just became another rote mechanism.

One of the biggest issues is what I will call minimum-necessary detail issues. Using Jay R's example, for the item to be under the pile of broken wood in the corner, and searching for that to be both 1) something the players could figure out to do, and 2) something that the players might not figure out to do, the DM has to regularly supply a lot of information. Enough that room descriptions will include the broken pile of wood, but also other items, only one of which is the thing that needs to be searched (and only sometimes will searching all the listed things in a room result in a find).

I've heard one story of where the players didn't specify exactly what they were looking for resulted in a TPK, and I very much do not want to be that kind of GM. (BBEG had activated a trap upon his death that closed off the room and began filling it with acid. Players said they searched the room, the BBEG and his throne for a way to deactivate it. They didn't specify exactly what they were looking for, and the switch was hidden in the throne. Terrible GMing.)

I definitely feel that that is a bad-dm situation rather than bad method. Saying you search the throne should imply searching for switches (did the PCs even know that 'switches' were a thing in this medieval fantasy? For what exactly were they searching the throne if not for mechanisms, compartments, etc.?).

[Batcathat]

I don't think a player needs to try to guess my mind of what they need to try to look for. If there's something in that room that I want them to find or that is findable with a search, then they have a chance of finding it if they search for it.

I mostly agree, though I would still say it's reasonable to make the search easier or harder depending on what the player says. It feels rather realistic that someone looking specifically for a hidden door would have a better chance of finding one than someone who is just searching in general.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm generally in the "enough to figure out method, and intent" camp. But I try to err on the side of asking for clarification if it's even slightly unclear.

For searches, I'll ask "how thorough are you going to be?" And note that more thorough takes longer. If time is no concern, I'll just default to very thorough.

Cursory searches get the surface results, thorough searches find what can be reasonably found (barring things not physically findable with their highest investigation, assuming they rolled a 20). But they take 10x as long and leave traces. And run the risk of setting off any hidden traps unless they're being careful. Hard to toss a room and take apart furniture without leaving evidence.

[anthon]

I was thinking about times when a player wanted to do something that was mechanically possible but that might be physically implausible. And whether the better response in those cases is "yup, you can do it" vs. "I want to say yes, but tell me how you're doing it". And that got me to thinking about a DM who openly asked for players to give more detail about their actions so that he could give more flavor to their discoveries; instead of just searching a desk, explain how you're doing something like searching for secret catches or false bottoms.

Which got me to thinking. Obviously the DM should come in with an attitude of wanting to say yes. But how often and how much should the players be asked to provide explanations and descriptions to cover just how their character manages to pull off the cool thing they just did.

(Yes, I know that stunting systems exist. I was thinking in the context of games like D&D that don't have one and where one would be tricky to port in.)

middling competence rule:

if the character is super brilliant/skilled the area, the character can just roll to skip descriptive opportunity or
succeed with minimal practical description and no die roll.

if the player is exceptionally elaborate and its obvious such an action would succeed, then a roll can be skipped


but if the competence of the player is much higher than the character, you would roll to see if the character fails, where the player would succeed.

For example, if your character is a moron, and you are not.

Now, what if you are a not the sharpest tool in the shed, and your character is a genius?
Well, a die roll might allow you to do something, and those high stats might allow you to pass, with the DM assuming the role of explaining how brilliant your idea was, much like one of those manipulative yes men who let the emperor think all the best Vizier ideas are their own.


Thus how much you need to describe is based on how much common sense is involved vs. how much that common sense applies to your character.

if your character is Average, and the Task is simple or Average, an average description might work, an elaborate description might skip the task entirely.

if your character is a titan of industry at the task at hand, then an average description should suffice to skip the roll.

If your character is a genius and you provide an elaborate description, honestly, you are working too hard, and if the DM requires a die roll for a simple mundane task? Find another DM.

[Quertus]

This - or, rather, a disconnect here between different people's expectations - is one of the top sources of pants-on-head horror stories.

So, my answer is, "it depends".

The primary question is, does the system have mechanics for this?

If the system has mechanics for how to swing your sword, then you follow those mechanics. You get no penalty for a bad description of your actions, and no bonuses for a good description. Unless you do (higher ground, "stunting" rules, etc) - which is also covered by the rules.

If the system has no mechanics for an action, then obviously you need to make something up. Outside of horrific (IMO) Narrative retcon systems, "what precautions you took" is *not* something covered by the rules. So, for example, when I'm opening a chest, I'll inform the GM where I'm standing, that I'm holding my breath, and who's going to get hit by the arterial spray when I make the incision.

Then there's issues where something could be handled either way - like searching. To put it in 3e parlance, if a group of amateur gamers from an e7 world can be expected to come up with the answer, it's probably not above DC 20, and the (likely much more skilled) characters could easily handle it by rolling dice. The details make it slower at the table than, "I search the room… 25", but faster for the characters if their initial search idea (like, "let's check the refrigerator for milk") is valid.

-----

Now let's add some more wrinkles.

Suppose you're not searching for "milk", but for "something to eat". You check the refrigerator, but it's empty. You look under the bed, and find a decaying elf corpse. Well, one "Purify Food and Drink" later, and you've got yourselves a meal.

Now, if all you care about is "food", you're done. If you want something more satisfying than just one scrawny elf, you might keep searching. However, in most games, those finds might just make you think that something's up.

But where do you draw the line? What if the details were more subtle (like most of the food seems newly purchased, consists of items like milk, eggs, flour, sugar, wheat pasta, wheat bread, cheese, butter, apples, and grapes), and that the oven and microwave are clean, or if the search criteria were different than "food"?

Personally, I try to give the players everything that they couldn't possibly miss, plus things related to their interests and stated focus.

-----

One game I was in, I was highly annoyed that, by the time I could concentrate on Detect Magic for 3 rounds, the rest of the party had already "searched" the large room with junk covering the floor, and found and identified as magical all of the magical items hidden therein. Because the GM allowed each character to "search" a 10' square every round, with omniscient level of "this is what's important in this square" skill, rather than the RAW 10 minutes and Search check. So there's my GM horror story of "doing it wrong" for this thread.

[Morgaln]

If the system has no mechanics for an action, then obviously you need to make something up. Outside of horrific (IMO) Narrative retcon systems, "what precautions you took" is *not* something covered by the rules. So, for example, when I'm opening a chest, I'll inform the GM where I'm standing, that I'm holding my breath, and who's going to get hit by the arterial spray when I make the incision.

This paragraph caught my attention; I always felt that any DM that requires that kind of description is just waiting for the one thing the player forgets, to get a "gotcha" on him. I'm always assuming my players take basic precautions, because their characters are not morons. I don't want this to be an arms race between the players trying to think of every possible precaution while I try to find the one mistake they made so I can make the character suffer. But players are certainly welcome to elaborate on specific precautions they feel are important.

[Pelle]

This paragraph caught my attention; I always felt that any DM that requires that kind of description is just waiting for the one thing the player forgets, to get a "gotcha" on him. I'm always assuming my players take basic precautions, because their characters are not morons. I don't want this to be an arms race between the players trying to think of every possible precaution while I try to find the one mistake they made so I can make the character suffer. But players are certainly welcome to elaborate on specific precautions they feel are important.

What you are missing is that this type of playstyle is really fun for a lot of players. This is a GM that facilitates players being clever, which is empowering for those who like that.

[Jay R]

This paragraph caught my attention; I always felt that any DM that requires that kind of description is just waiting for the one thing the player forgets, to get a "gotcha" on him. I'm always assuming my players take basic precautions, because their characters are not morons. I don't want this to be an arms race between the players trying to think of every possible precaution while I try to find the one mistake they made so I can make the character suffer. But players are certainly welcome to elaborate on specific precautions they feel are important.

I agree that bad "gotcha" DMs would use it for "gotchas". But if it doesn't exist, bad "gotcha" DMs will find something else to use. They are going to find "gotchas". and no rule will prevent it.

Good DMs will use this to pull players into the world, away from merely rolling dice. They will set up problems to think about and solve.

Since I don't play with bad "gotcha" DMs, and because I'd rather become immersed in the world than merely roll dice, and because I enjoy thinking through situations, the positives outweigh the negatives for me.

[Quertus]

This paragraph caught my attention; I always felt that any DM that requires that kind of description is just waiting for the one thing the player forgets, to get a "gotcha" on him. I'm always assuming my players take basic precautions, because their characters are not morons. I don't want this to be an arms race between the players trying to think of every possible precaution while I try to find the one mistake they made so I can make the character suffer. But players are certainly welcome to elaborate on specific precautions they feel are important.

What you are missing is that this type of playstyle is really fun for a lot of players. This is a GM that facilitates players being clever, which is empowering for those who like that.

I agree that bad "gotcha" DMs would use it for "gotchas". But if it doesn't exist, bad "gotcha" DMs will find something else to use. They are going to find "gotchas". and no rule will prevent it.

Good DMs will use this to pull players into the world, away from merely rolling dice. They will set up problems to think about and solve.

Since I don't play with bad "gotcha" DMs, and because I'd rather become immersed in the world than merely roll dice, and because I enjoy thinking through situations, the positives outweigh the negatives for me.

@Morgaln - it caught your attention, but not for the pun / Dr. Strange reference?

So, as I *intended* to describe it, it's *the opposite* of gotcha GMing - especially if the GM *asks* you to explain / step them through things.

For example, over 30 years ago, I had a character look at / examine some statues. Over 30 years ago, so I don't remember my exact wording. But I intended that to mean "with my eyes" (and "from different angles and heights", for those of you who somehow believe that you cannot get different angles on a thing simply by walking around it). Their response started with the phrase, "as soon as you touch the statues…".

Clarifying details - and asking for clarification on details helps to prevent bad gotcha GMing.

Holding your breath, for example, is rarely assumed when opening a chest (no matter what kind).

Nor do *most* people open a treasure chest from 15' behind said chest with specialized tools & a mirror.

Most of my characters are dead. For the most part, only the paranoid, cowardly, well-optimized ones "not burdened with excessive morals" survived. And that holds true, even playing with "modern" gamers.

Also, yes, I can enjoy puzzles. Very much. So long as the GM plays it honest, my undead will carry the trapped chest under the enemy castle, and let it open a portal to the warp there, and we'll all have a good time.

Well, those of us not in the castle will, at any rate.

[Quertus]

Published adventures often have something along the lines of "if a PC searches the bottom of the chest they find a false bottom." Obviously it's important in that case for the player to describe how or where specifically their character is searching, rather than just say "I rolled a 25."

Perhaps the author thought so; if so, they were wrong. Again,

Then there's issues where something could be handled either way - like searching. To put it in 3e parlance, if a group of amateur gamers from an e7 world can be expected to come up with the answer, it's probably not above DC 20, and the (likely much more skilled) characters could easily handle it by rolling dice. The details make it slower at the table than, "I search the room… 25", but faster for the characters if their initial search idea (like, "let's check the refrigerator for milk") is valid.

So that declaration of "I rolled a 25." should result in a "success" state, not a failure.

[Tanarii]

Perhaps the author thought so; if so, they were wrong. Again,


So that declaration of "I rolled a 25." should result in a "success" state, not a failure.

No amount of rolling a 25 is going to help if you're searching the wrong place.

[Mastikator]

No amount of rolling a 25 is going to help if you're searching the wrong place.

I think that's totally wrong and endemic of a "got'cha" DM style that plagues the roleplaying world. You're punishing a PC because the player is not genre savvy enough. If you say "I want to search the building" and you were supposed to say "I want to search the building for hidden passages" then it's the player's fault that the player character failed. At a task that the PC is good at even. Why even have a search roll and DC if the player is supposed to know the secret pass word of searching the right place. Otherwise we just start going over every little detail in whereever we're searching until the DM either gives up or decides to punish the player for not guessing correctly.

We don't apply this standard in combat (usually), you never have to say HOW you attack an enemy when you do it, the dice roll tells us the result. It doesn't matter if the players has ZERO knowledge or is a master at arms.

[Tanarii]

I think that's totally wrong and endemic of a "got'cha" DM style that plagues the roleplaying world. You're punishing a PC because the player is not genre savvy enough. If you say "I want to search the building" and you were supposed to say "I want to search the building for hidden passages" then it's the player's fault that. Why even have a search roll and DC if the player is supposed to know the secret pass word of searching the right place. Otherwise we just start going over every little detail in whereever we're searching until the DM either gives up or decides to punish the player for not guessing correctly.

No, you're wrong. Because I'm talking about saying "I search the room" when it's actually in a totally different room.

If someone searches the building a 25 can work, it just takes many times longer than searching the bookcase the hidden passage is actually behind,

Approach and intent matters, even if it's just the amount of time it takes as a consequence.

Now failing to say you're searching for hidden passages is a failure to declare intent. If a player says "I search the building" the DM is fully justified in asking what kind of things the player is looking for. If the declared intent is "anything hidden", again, that's going to have a totally different consequence from "oh, I'm looking for hidden passages specifically". To whit, it'll be much faster to declare the latter to be your intent.

It's not about gotcha DMing, it's about the player not giving sufficient information to properly resolve the consequences and outcomes,

[Mastikator]

No, you're wrong. Because I'm talking about saying "I search the room" when it's actually in a totally different room.

If someone searches the building a 25 can work, it just takes many times longer than searching the bookcase the hidden passage is actually behind,

Approach matters, even if it's just the amount of time it takes.

Now failing to say you're searching for hidden passages is a failure to declare intent. If a player says "I search the building" the DM is fully justified in asking what kind of things the player is looking for. If the declared intent is "anything hidden", again, that's going to have a totally different consequence from "oh, I'm looking for hidden passages specifically". To whit, it'll be much faster.

Is the chest not in the room? Is the false bottom not in the chest?

I so much disagree with this failure of intent line. How is the player supposed to know that they're supposed to look for a secret passage, or a false bottom, or an illusory wall, or whatever the thing is? This is so banal, requiring the player is just supposed to read the DMs mind to find out what hidden thing they've put there. Why? Is it the player who is supposed to be good at searching things or the character? If we're requiring the player to know what to look for why even bother with a search roll?

I mean what's even the outcome of demanding this of the players? "Okay DM you've officially won at DMing, we the players lose, let's all go home". Don't punish the characters for the players not being savvy enough. You don't do it in so many other situations, combat for one!

[Tanarii]

Is the chest not in the room? Is the false bottom not in the chest?

I so much disagree with this failure of intent line. How is the player supposed to know that they're supposed to look for a secret passage, or a false bottom, or an illusory wall, or whatever the thing is? This is so banal, requiring the player is just supposed to read the DMs mind to find out what hidden thing they've put there. Why? Is it the player who is supposed to be good at searching things or the character? If we're requiring the player to know what to look for why even bother with a search roll?

The player is supposed to declare what they're doing. "I search" is a partial description. "I search the building" is a partial description. If the player wants a broad search, they need to provide that information. It's absolutely fine to want that, with an understanding it affects the consequences. But the player is not being clear, and failing to give a proper description of their approach and intent,

I mean what's even the outcome of demanding this of the players? "Okay DM you've officially won at DMing, we the players lose, let's all go home". Don't punish the characters for the players not being savvy enough. You don't do it in so many other situations, combat for one!

There is no punishment. There is just a failure in the part of the player to provide the DM with a clear description of their actual approach and intent.

Edit: It's like saying "I attack in the room" in combat. That's fine, but it's not very clear intent.

[Mastikator]

The player is supposed to declare what they're doing. "I search" is a partial description. "I search the building" is a partial description. If the player wants a broad search, they need to provide that information. It's absolutely fine to want that, with an understanding it affects the consequences. But the player is not being clear, and failing to give a proper description of their approach and intent,

There is no punishment. There is just a failure in the part of the player to provide the DM with a clear description of their actual approach and intent.

Edit: It's like saying "I attack in the room" in combat. That's fine, but it's not very clear intent.

In combat there is clear information about who is on the battlefield. When searching a room it's basically never clear that you were supposed to search the bottom of the chest, or the cupboard, or behind the bookshelf, or under the rug, or under the table, or inside the left chair leg. If the player actually wants to go by these rules then you have two options

1) just accept that you're not going to find the thing the DM wants to you find
2) literally go through every single object in every single setting because you don't know when there's going to be something important to find. This bogs the game down and is totally unfun for everyone.

Edit- in most scenarios I've been in there isn't even clear information about what exactly IS in every room, you just get "you see a big mess hall, it has typical mess hall stuff in it". Okay but what exactly is "mess hall stuff"? Do I look under every chair, every table, behind every shelf, under every rug, inside every vase, every pot? Do I pull every lantern and wall light and candle to see if there's a secret room? Do I push every brick to open the secret passage, do I have to name them specifically? Do I check for false bottoms in every container, do I look for poisons in every food? Do I need to open the cake to find the hidden item inside the cake? Do I look inside the ventilation, how far do I have to say I look, do I have to specify that I use the torch to light it up? Do I open all the lamps to find hidden things inside them? Maybe there's something in one of the trays, I go through all the trays.

There might not even be anything in this room, but I don't know until you either let me roll for search or go through a huge laundry list of crap. It's not fun for the DM either. When I DM I just make sure that if they can beat a weak DC against a vague "I search the building" they can find the important item, and with a high roll they can find the extra clue. It goes from there. If they don't the plot moves on and the BBEG has an advantage against the PCs, otherwise they have the advantage.