Unfair Character Death?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Patryn of Elvenshae is a putz!

Still true, but still irrelevant to the subject at hand!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The player would also know whether or not he was inhaling/exhaling when the trap went off. He would know that moved his right arm at that moment. He would know what time of day it was. Etc. Really - there's a difference between knowing where you are, and knowing what it was that activated a spell effect. The DM is giving away too much information by explictly connecting the dots without reason.

Thanks for agreeing with me! Of course, when you say "player," you really mean "PC," but apart from that that's what I'm saying.

The problem is that the DM didn't connect the dots at all - and neither did the player. Generally, to me, that means someone didn't get enough info.

Did the player enjoy running his PC into trap after trap?
Did the GM enjoy running the PC into trap after trap?

If the answers are "no," then just stop and think about it for a bit.

The problem is that no one - not even the other veteran players - knew what activated the spell effect. Was it a particular gesture or word?* Was it a hidden caster? Was it a trap?

From the details presented in this thread, there wasn't enough information present to conclusively decide which, if any, of the above was the culprit.

* - And, yes, I've seen this used before: anyone uttering a particular phrase in a particular building causes a Summon Monster I spell to be cast, targeted to appear right next to him. It's not a magical trap that you can find and disable, like most wards, so a Search check wouldn't have helped at all.

There's nothing in the rules, or even what you can infer from the "reality" behind the rules, that makes it obvious that a PC should be able to detect the presence of a trap WITHOUT MAKING A SEARCH CHECK (and taking the time to do so!)

Before it goes off? Sure.

After it goes off? Not so much.

Really!! I'm going to make a Will save and avoid saying anything else on this post until SOMEBODY uses the word "Search Check" in their post. The rest of this is just baseless speculation since none of you has actually ever seen a Black Tentacles trap discharged (and clearly it was a situation not too familiar to the players either, or else they wouldn't have waited until now to start complaining about it).

Search check to find a trap before it goes off. Maybe a search check and disable device *after* it's gone off to make sure it doesn't do it again.

But absolutely required before you can tell a player "You sprang a trap!"? Absolutely not.

 

[reveal]

Still true, but still irrelevant to the subject at hand!

I just like saying it. It just rolls off the tongue.

 

[jgsugden]

This is rather a silly debate.

The proper actions, in my mind, from this point on would be for the DM to say, "I'm sorry that you didn't feel I gave you enough information. Here is why I handled it the way I did: XXXXXXXXXX. In the future, because of your input, I'll handle it this way: XXXXXXXXXXX."

End of subject. If the player can't get past it, that may be a sign of a more serious problem that won't be solved here.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Endings

The proper actions, in my mind, from this point on would be for the DM to say, "I'm sorry that you didn't feel I gave you enough information. Here is why I handled it the way I did: XXXXXXXXXX. In the future, because of your input, I'll handle it this way: XXXXXXXXXXX."

That's exactly what I ended up doing.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Judgment Calls

There's nothing in the rules, or even what you can infer from the "reality" behind the rules, that makes it obvious that a PC should be able to detect the presence of a trap WITHOUT MAKING A SEARCH CHECK (and taking the time to do so!) All the rules suggest is that the PCs probably observe a spell effect within the given target area. Really, all of statements to the contrary are completely speculative and IMO is the judgement call of the DM.

Agreed.

 

[gizmo33]

Thanks for agreeing with me! Of course, when you say "player," you really mean "PC," but apart from that that's what I'm saying.

The problem is that the DM didn't connect the dots at all - and neither did the player. Generally, to me, that means someone didn't get enough info.

Now I'm the one confused about who's the player, and who's the PC Why does the DM have to connect the dots? All the DM has to say is "a bunch of tentacles appear at point X". Since there was no clear connection between the cause and effect, why should the DM provide one?

Did the player enjoy running his PC into trap after trap?
Did the GM enjoy running the PC into trap after trap?

If the answers are "no," then just stop and think about it for a bit.

I don't see why the answers to either question have a bearing on how the session is run. If the PC doesn't search the area, then on what basis would the DM have for giving out the information? Probably none. In other words, if I don't look down the hallway, then how can I see what's down there? And why should my DM tell me what's down there?

The problem is that no one - not even the other veteran players - knew what activated the spell effect. Was it a particular gesture or word?* Was it a hidden caster? Was it a trap?

From the details presented in this thread, there wasn't enough information present to conclusively decide which, if any, of the above was the culprit.

And there probably was not an observable cause for the spell effect - so what are you saying? There's no reason that a veteran player sees something that's not there any easier than a novice one. What a veteran player DOES know is that they have to Search in order to use a Search check.

* - And, yes, I've seen this used before: anyone uttering a particular phrase in a particular building causes a Summon Monster I spell to be cast, targeted to appear right next to him. It's not a magical trap that you can find and disable, like most wards, so a Search check wouldn't have helped at all.

IMO your reasoning is circular, which is probably the fault of the vagueness in the rules. You're essentially defining a magical trap as something that you can find and disable. What is the mechanics behind setting up something like "summon a monster when someone uses a particular phrase in this spot" ? While Search check finds magical traps, it also finds spell effects (where noted in the rules) and there's no reason, IMO, that it can't be used to find other spell triggers and such, per DM judgement. Given that the PC in question did not Search at all, this is somewhat beside the point though.

Before it goes off? Sure.

After it goes off? Not so much.

Either of us has very little basis in the rules for having an opinion on this outside of our own games. What I will say is that the detection of magical traps is a non-magical activity on the part of the rogue AFAIK. It really depends on whether or not the presumed material presence of the magical trap can be detected after it's set off. Regardless of our answers on this, a more important point IMO is that it requires a Search check. Without a Search check the DM has no reason to tell the player anything.

Search check to find a trap before it goes off. Maybe a search check and disable device *after* it's gone off to make sure it doesn't do it again.

But absolutely required before you can tell a player "You sprang a trap!"? Absolutely not.

Sure! But the important point from the perspective of this thread is that you're really not required, according to the rules, to tell the player anything! It's your call as to whether or not a Search check would reveal the residue of a magical trap after it's been sprung. But there's no reason to assume that normal senses (Spot, Listen) would allow any player to make any distinction between a trap and an invisible caster. There's nothing in the rules AFAIK that says that a magic trap creates some sort of "popping" sound or anything different from a normal spell effect. So bottom line is that the DM is not compelled to provide the player with any more information than he did in this situation, and it's really up to him whether or not he wants to provide any additional descriptions beyond the scope of the rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Since there was no clear connection between the cause and effect, why should the DM provide one?

...

But the important point from the perspective of this thread is that you're really not required, according to the rules, to tell the player anything!

The problem is that the DM is complaining that the player did not discover the "obvious" - to him - connection between cause and effect.

And that's really the end of the story.

 

[gizmo33]

The problem is that the DM is complaining that the player did not discover the "obvious" - to him - connection between cause and effect.

And that's really the end of the story.

You wish

I see what you mean now. I started earlier in this thread and sort of ignored what the Thayan Menace was saying about how the "player should have known" this and that as just him being defensive.

So no - by logical extension (I hope) of my argument - there's no reason that the player should have known this was a trap. It could have been a whole bunch of other things, even if you just confine things to the core rules (which hardly makes any sense anyway because one the core rules is that you don't have to follow the core rules!) The DM is unfair in blaming the player for the character's death - I agree with the earlier post that said (to paraphrase) "sometimes PCs just die".

 

[Falanor]

It just boils down to a faliure in communication, and that is a mistake on all parties involved. You admit the player should have known what was going on, that the character would have known; yet it is solely the players fault that he didn't. I'm just not buying that. You describe him as a veteran player and this is a very rookie mistake.

Too true...sort of like forgetting what a flail is. Everyone can make mistakes, horrible mistakes (even those 20 year veterans), so does this make it the DMs fault that a mistake was made? Was it your DMs fault that you forgot what a flail was?