I presume that with "trap-associated tedium" you mean the trap detection on the green band. I do acknowledge that a system like the one you proposed gets rid of such tedium without sacrificing traps. I just don't believe in the necessity to give up search. And I understood that you and other posters on the forum did. Based on what experience? Your search for hidden doors? For at least since vanilla 3.0, I don't believe I ever searched for traps (other than on chests). Very now and then in the early game perhaps. But in my recollection, that was hardly gamewrecking.
Because of my dislike of the green-band routine, I have been pondering about detectionless perception+searching for traps for my own (future) variant. And I think that what I have in mind (basically probabilistic short-range perception depending on distance plus search that is simply boosted perception) has a good chance of being workable, IF the location of traps can be made so that players gradually learn where to expect them. Which is yet to be seen of course; the proof is in the pudding. But that is what I had in mind.
And then I come across the new trap spotting system in V 4.1.0, from which search is completely removed. Without much explanation. At least not in the changes.txt file. And up to this point, all I have seen in the forum discussion are arguments that lay down a conviction that search is bad. Without proof or reference to concrete experiences. Moreover, without any hint that a system based on perception+search has ever been tried out. And the phrasing of the "problem with search" refers to classic gametheoretic optimaility. Which, in my conviction (and that of many others) only applies to very constrained games, which angband is clearly not.
Besides, the players that supposedly went haywire with good ol' search are the neurotic type. When the dm would tell them that they searched and found nothing, they will not step forward and receive the second charge in their face with a shrug, like Estie. Oh no. They 'll drop a scroll on the tile, and as they see it float sideways to a neighboring one, they will retreat in the hope that they find a wand of stone-to-mud to bypass the trap that is apparently there. And that is the best-case scenario. The worst-case is that they stop playing because they can't stand the stress. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about...

All in all, I got - and still have - the impression that there is ample reason to try out the less radical route that I had in mind.
Nevertheless, you may well come out triumphant in the end. Maybe I underestimate the difficulty of tuning the probabilities of spontaneous perception for different traps, and of finding a ruleset for trap placement that makes their location sufficiently predictable, yet not too trivial.
But we should not simply assume that it can't be done. And if it is feasible, a system with perception AND search is better than one with perception alone. If only because it is more natural for humans.
Heck, even deterministic perception as it is now employed in vanilla would be significantly better with search than without , if you define search as slightly boosted perception (which seems realistic). Because that brings player savviness back into the equation. In such a system, searching twice is still pointless, but searching once, at the right spot, may pay off. That does mean that it should also cost something., so let it slow you down for 1+d2 turns.
Provided that you make trap locations yet more predictable, this could be a real improvement. Make it an option, and see what people think!
----------------------
Melee is for warriors.
We paladins prefer mêlée.
Leave a comment: