"Standard Thief S***"

EricNoah · Mar 28, 2007

Rogue PCs in many of my own campaigns, and in campaigns where I was a player, have announced that the are performing "Standard Thief S***". I generally take this to mean...

... they are ahead of the party by at least 30 ft.
... they are attempting to move silently.
... they are searching for traps.
... when encountering a door, they do a search for traps on the floor in front of a door and then search the door for traps.
... they listen at doors.
... they attempt to unlock locked doors.

I occasionally find this irritating -- not the procedure, but the fact that the player feels they can summarize all of this as standard operating procedure and hand it off to the DM and not worry about it.

On the other hand ... I have played rogues before ... I know the tedium of repeating all of that stuff. It only makes sense. Unless speed is an issue, if I'm scouting ahead I'd do all that stuff all the time. If I don't establish a SOP, then it becomes a game of "can the DM catch me forgetting one of my standard steps".

Finally, does a procedure like this essentially nullify the fun of traps in a dungeon? Frankly, unless I'm running published adventures, traps are the least likely thing PCs will encounter. Maybe it's because I don't find them fun, and maybe it's because any reasonably cautious rogue is going to find them?

Thoughs?

MrFilthyIke · Mar 28, 2007

In certain situations I think it's OK. In my 8 person Eberron game, anything that speeds things up is good for everyone. But that's not a dungeon delving game.

If it were a dungeon crawl in the standard sense, I'd be on the a@# for everything, waiting for my traps to blow up in their faces.

satori01 · Mar 28, 2007

The summation does not bother me....I find it can expedite play.
I do rule the player has to tell me they are going into "stealth" mode. Luckily since all of my players have seen the Gamers, my group has not had that argument.

Traps as written are really nothing more than a set of skill checks and saving throws, with the more complex traps having more checks to allow for a failure. I frankly do not think traps are fun.

I ran the free updated version to Tomb of Horrors and through the secret door/Trap corridor section of the Tomb, I as a DM was bored, I can only imagine what the other players beside the Rogue felt. Even the Trap and Treachery books do not have traps that are interactive. The trap mechanisms are fun in that book to describe, but ultimately even they come down to some skill checks/Reflex saves if you fail.

For the most part I use physical manipulation puzzle traps that the whole group can participate on, and give those with Trap Sense and Disable Device a chance to make a 'knowledge check' for advice if they get stuck.

The solitary and perfunctory nature of traps, is just not entertaining for the most part.

schporto · Mar 28, 2007

The SOP stuff makes some sense. And yeah any reasonable rogue type is going to be doing those things when they have the time and ability. So set up a trap not to prevent access, but to trap and kill the PCs. The idea is that you suddenly change the situation so the PCs must run away (illusions of lava?). When they run they aren't checking for traps.
One other thing is the Book of Challenges from WotC while 3.0 had some ideas for traps and puzzles that were a bit more then just skill checks. Some of them even made sense!

-cpd

CharlesRyan · Mar 28, 2007

SOPs are routine reactions to routine threats. The SOP Eric describes is an efficient way of being prepared for the most basic encounter openings and the most likely place to run in to a trap. Having an SOP can make the game move faster and avoid the unfun problem of suffering a trap or ambush simply because you forgot to completely spell out what your character would naturally be doing.

That said, any player who routinely reduces his character's actions down to "that rogue s***" (as a player of rogues, I hate it when people call me a thief) is begging to be taken by an encounter or trap that unfolds in an unexpected manner. Adventures are adventurous because they aren't routine; when players slip into that sort of routine behaviour, I think it's time to shake things up a bit.

At the end of the day, a standard operating procedure should only be the rule in a relatively "standard" situation--and when the situation is standard, an SOP is a fine shorthand for player actions. The fewer standard situations there are, the fewer times the player will (or should) wrap up his actions in an SOP.

Henry · Mar 28, 2007

Effective mercenaries know their drills inside and out -- if they don't secure a perimeter before going off guard, keep their weapons clean, have routines for searches and infiltrations, etc. then they get hurt or killed quickly. An adventurer would not behave any differently, in my mind. If someone wrote that down and gave it to me, or established this as their SOP, I wouldn't mind.

Morrus · Mar 28, 2007

EricNoah said:
I occasionally find this irritating -- not the procedure, but the fact that the player feels they can summarize all of this as standard operating procedure and hand it off to the DM and not worry about it.

I agree. When I'm running a game and someone says that, they're essentially saying: "here you go, DM, here's a whole load of work for you and stuff for you to remember. You need to make dozens of rolls every couple of minutes for the entire evening for me. I'll just sit back and put my feet up - let me know when I'm needed for anything."

lukelightning · Mar 28, 2007

"Did I say walking? I meant I was crawling down the tunnel, inch by inch, searching for traps..."

Morrus said:
I agree. When I'm running a game and someone says that, they're essentially saying: "here you go, DM, here's a whole load of work for you and stuff for you to remember. You need to make dozens of rolls every couple of minutes for the entire evening for me. I'll just sit back and put my feet up - let me know when I'm needed for anything."

Really? You prefer that the player repeatedly say "I move silently..I hide in shadows...I search the door...I search the floor... move silently..I hide in shadows...I search the door...I search the floor..."?

Of course, this is where taking 10 and 20 comes in; virtually no rolls needed! If I had a rogue I'd say his "general" scouting is taking 10 on searches/hiding, but he'd take 20 on searching doors or anything unusual.

Of course, I, too, think traps are dumb. I hate the fact that you have to actively search for them. I think rogues should be able to automatically search for traps the same way elves can automatically search for secret doors. Otherwise it is entirely a judgment call of the player whether or not to search for a trap; but wouldn't an experienced rogue know far more about when and where to expect traps than any of us?

Kestrel · Mar 28, 2007

Sounds like that stuff is boring to the player. (I know from my own perspective, its tedious on both sides of the screen)

Unless it matters, I just handwave it...then there's no work on either side.

Interactive traps I generally notify the player. "Something seems odd about this door" then we go into the description.

Unless the traps add something fun to the game, then why bother with them in the first place?

hong · Mar 28, 2007

Morrus said:
I agree. When I'm running a game and someone says that, they're essentially saying: "here you go, DM, here's a whole load of work for you and stuff for you to remember. You need to make dozens of rolls every couple of minutes for the entire evening for me. I'll just sit back and put my feet up - let me know when I'm needed for anything."

Well, you could do like me and just not bother with traps....

"Standard Thief S***"

EricNoah

Adventurer

MrFilthyIke

First Post

satori01

First Post

schporto

First Post

CharlesRyan

Adventurer

Henry

Autoexreginated

Morrus

Well, that was fun

lukelightning

First Post

Kestrel

Explorer

hong

WotC's bitch

Similar Threads