If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

[iserith]

if I telegraphed most traps, what would have been the point of hiding them in the first place?

It rewards players who pay attention to the DM's description of the environment, draw reasonable conclusions, and engage with it accordingly.

It cuts down on players searching everything methodically as they try to avoid random traps.

It avoids the perception of the trap being a "gotcha." Even if the PCs don't pick up on the clues and wander right into it (which happens sometimes no matter how obvious it is), they can at least look back and go, "Oh, right, we should have picked up on that."

Picking up on the possibility that there's a trap in the environment is just the beginning of the exploration challenge. It sets up the game, but does not give it away. The PCs still have to find it, figure out how it works, and then avoid or disarm it. Anywhere in that interaction, things can still go wrong.

 

[iserith]

Bringing my last post back around to the central topic, telegraphing performs much the same role in social interaction challenges. If you're telegraphing the NPC's truthfulness (or lack thereof), the same applies:

It rewards players who pay attention to the DM's description of the social interaction, draw reasonable conclusions, and engage with it accordingly.

It cuts down on players trying to "Insight check" every NPC they meet to suss out lies.

It avoids the perception of the untruthful statements being a "gotcha." Even if the PCs don't pick up on the clues and take the NPC at face value to their own detriment (which happens sometimes no matter how obvious it is), they can at least look back and go, "Oh, right, we should have picked up on that."

Picking up on the possibility that there's a lie in the conversation with the NPC is just the beginning of the social interaction challenge. It sets up the game, but does not give it away. The PCs still have to discover what is being lied about, why the NPC is covering up the truth, and then what to do about it. Anywhere in that interaction, things can still go wrong.

 

[billd91]

In my view, the point of hiding traps in dungeons and then telegraphing their presence is to give players something cool to interact with. To me, the primary appeal of D&D is getting to make decisions as you imagine you or a fictional character would in various fictional situations. I put traps in dungeons because some players want to live out that scenario of being Indiana Jones seeing the skeleton and realizing that he needs to stay out of the light, trying to avoid disrupting the pressure plate the idol is on by getting the sand bag to just the right weight. They don’t get to do that if I don’t describe the skeleton, or if I just have them roll Dex + Thieves Tools to disarm the rolling boulder trap.

And for some situations, the presence of the skeleton might make sense. But what about other situations as when an area gets more maintenance or nobody has gotten that far? What telegraphed the pedestal trap Indy attempted (but failed) to disarm? Nothing other than his own suspicions. A DM telegraphing that strikes me less as giving them the Indiana Jones experience than leading them around by the nose.
I'd rather players make a cogent assessment of where a trap is likely to be in those circumstances rather than telegraph it. And they can do that by saying "Oh, that pedestal is too easy. I'll bet it's trapped. I'm gonna search it," rather than saying "I search the room for traps." Then, they can take pride in making the appropriately shrewd decision of when to search rather than me leading them to it.

 

[Satyrn]

It rewards players who pay attention to the DM's description of the environment, draw reasonable conclusions, and engage with it accordingly.

It cuts down on players searching everything methodically as they try to avoid random traps.

It avoids the perception of the trap being a "gotcha." Even if the PCs don't pick up on the clues and wander right into it (which happens sometimes no matter how obvious it is), they can at least look back and go, "Oh, right, we should have picked up on that."

Picking up on the possibility that there's a trap in the environment is just the beginning of the exploration challenge. It sets up the game, but does not give it away. The PCs still have to find it, figure out how it works, and then avoid or disarm it. Anywhere in that interaction, things can still go wrong.

I've been using two distinct flavors of traps in my megadungeon.

1 Puzzle Traps. These are the traps that the players come across while exploring the dungeon, like an arch in a passageway that guillotines anyone passing through. These are always obviously a trap, but they're meant to be a puzzle. If the players want to pass safely, they have to figure out how to bypass or disarm it. I leave figuring out how to do that up to the players, but stone shape is a ready ever-useful spell in a dwarven ruin. If they can't figure it out, there's probably another way around, or they can suck up the pain or make some other choice.

2 The Gotcha. And yeah, I absolutely use these, but they're always on loot chests. And the players know that a loot chest might have a deviously hidden trap. Not every loot chest though. So failing to discover a trap doesn't mean there is no trap, and the fun (for me at least and hopefully the players too), is in the players choosing to risk opening the chest knowing there's a known unknown. Because they can always just leave the chest alone if they don't want to take the risk, they're buying into the gotcha.

 

[iserith]

I've been using two distinct flavors of traps in my megadungeon.

1 Puzzle Traps. These are the traps that the players come across while exploring the dungeon, like an arch in a passageway that guillotines anyone passing through. These are always obviously a trap, but they're meant to be a puzzle. If the players want to pass safely, they have to figure out how to bypass or disarm it. I leave figuring out how to do that up to the players, but stone shape is a ready ever-useful spell in a dwarven ruin. If they can't figure it out, there's probably another way around, or they can suck up the pain or make some other choice.

2 The Gotcha. And yeah, I absolutely use these, but they're always on loot chests. And the players know that a loot chest might have a deviously hidden trap. Not every loot chest though. So failing to discover a trap doesn't mean there is no trap, and the fun (for me at least and hopefully the players too), is in the players choosing to risk opening the chest knowing there's a known unknown. Because they can always just leave the chest alone if they don't want to take the risk, they're buying into the gotcha.

For #2, I would not really call it a gotcha if there has been an expectation set that loot chests commonly have traps on them.

 

[Satyrn]

For #2, I would not really call it a gotcha if there has been an expectation set that loot chests commonly have traps on them.

Well, I'm kinda calling it that ironically, but they definitely - intentionally - can resemble what gets derided as a gotcha in every way except for that.

 

[Charlaquin]

And for some situations, the presence of the skeleton might make sense. But what about other situations as when an area gets more maintenance or nobody has gotten that far? What telegraphed the pedestal trap Indy attempted (but failed) to disarm? Nothing other than his own suspicions. A DM telegraphing that strikes me less as giving them the Indiana Jones experience than leading them around by the nose.

I agree! That’s why not all telegraphing is skeletons. Something like that is a great tool to introduce the players to a certain type of trap for the first time. Now you know to be on the lookout for shafts of light. After that, I can start using more subtle context cues. Maybe the next trap of the same kind doesn’t have a skeleton, but the shafts of light are still clearly visible. Maybe the next one doesn’t have visible shafts, but it’s in the same kind of hallway as the previous two (and with high enough passive Perception you might spot the seams in the walls that the blades swing out from). Etc.

I'd rather players make a cogent assessment of where a trap is likely to be in those circumstances rather than telegraph it. And they can do that by saying "Oh, that pedestal is too easy. I'll bet it's trapped. I'm gonna search it," rather than saying "I search the room for traps." Then, they can take pride in making the appropriately shrewd decision of when to search rather than me leading them to it.

I absolutely agree! The idol on the prominent pedestal is a pretty decent telegraph on its own, especially if there have already been pressure plate traps earlier in the dungeon. I might leave open the possibility of noticing the unmortared scene between the base of the pedestal and the ground as well with a high enough passive Perception. If the players suspect a trap and decide to try searching it, I’ll need to ask how they intend I search, because the result is going to be very different if they, say, slide a dagger into the seam vs. if they start visually checking the walls for any suspicious features, or if they press down on the pedestal to see if it gives.

 

[billd91]

I absolutely agree! The idol on the prominent pedestal is a pretty decent telegraph on its own, especially if there have already been pressure plate traps earlier in the dungeon. I might leave open the possibility of noticing the unmortared scene between the base of the pedestal and the ground as well with a high enough passive Perception. If the players suspect a trap and decide to try searching it, I’ll need to ask how they intend I search, because the result is going to be very different if they, say, slide a dagger into the seam vs. if they start visually checking the walls for any suspicious features, or if they press down on the pedestal to see if it gives.

I'm not going to push them on that - figuring out that the pedestal is the focus is enough for me. Anything more than that gets into the technical element of the trap that neither of us is qualified to deal with and I'm not going to require them to try. That's where the PC's expertise takes over.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

It's 15.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not going to push them on that - figuring out that the pedestal is the focus is enough for me. Anything more than that gets into the technical element of the trap that neither of us is qualified to deal with and I'm not going to require them to try. That's where the PC's expertise takes over.

That’s cool! We just prefer different levels of detail in those situations. I should also clarify that I am taking into account the fact that neither I nor the players really have been he necessary techno expertise here. I have no idea how a trap like that would actually work, beyond the basics that if there isn’t enough weight on the pedestal it sinks in and the boulder drops. It might as well work by magic for all I know. As such, I’m going to be generous with my adjudication. Does pushing on the pedestal work? Hell if I know, but my limited understanding is that the pedestal can sink in and the trap is sprung when there isn’t enough weight on the pedestal, so that seems like a reasonable approach to me. I’d probably say that the player can make a DC... 10 Dex check to find out if the pedestal can depress, without setting off the trap. On a failure, any pressure-sensitive trap will be triggered. If the player wants to suggest a skill or proficiency that might apply, I’m open to that. And the player is under no obligation to follow through with that action if they decide the risk is too great.