It's a TRAP!

[Lalato]

Playing in a new game, with a new group and a situation came up that I thought might be an interesting jumping off point for discussion.

The group walks into a room with a huge statue in the center. There are a few other statues on one end of the room. Blood splatters are on the floor near the huge statue. A passage leads out of the other side of the room which also has a few more statues. I smell a trap so I look at the room layout and figure out the best way to get through the room. Obviously, I'm using player knowledge of the exact layout of the room from the map. As I suspected, nothing happens taking the "safe" path I plotted. A detect magic revealed that all of the statues had some kind of Enchantment magic going on. Despite telling the rest of the party to stay back and not do anything stupid, two people decide to move into the corridor lined with statues.

At this point, we've avoided the main room trap (using metagame knowledge as noted above). This corridor trap is a different story. We try to figure out a way to turn it off in order to save our allies, but the DM does not give us any skillcheck rolls because we apparently didn't say the right trigger words to allow for those skillchecks.

We eventually figure out a way to destroy the trap, but only after one of the PCs died... and after several rounds of player inaction. Apparently an arcane knowledge check would have been useful here to learn more about how to disable the trap. As I noted above, the DM wouldn't allow the skillcheck because we didn't say, in character, something that triggered the skillcheck.

I'll add that everyone said they were studying the trap to find out what they could learn... so it's not like the PCs shouldn't have triggered a check. However, the DM is somewhat of a stickler on some things... and since this is a new group with a bunch of new players we're still not used to his style of DMing.

This whole episode touched off an interesting discussion after the session ended. But it wasn't until this morning that I realized what I found odd about player in-character description triggering skillchecks thing. The character knows more than the player does about certain topics. Beyond that, the character is the one that is actually experiencing the game world.

At what point are skillchecks just automatic? I'm not sure if they should always be automatic, but should some checks just always happen? For example, if you're a Wizard, wouldn't you automatically think through the prism of your arcane knowledge and therefore get an automatic check against related skills in a lot of situations? If not, why not?

Anyway, this whole episode got me thinking about knowledge that I have as a player vs knowledge my character has that I don't personally know anything about.

 

[pemerton]

When you told the GM that you were studying the trap to find out what you could learn, what did he tell you? What skill checks did he call for?

When I GM, I tend to be fairly liberal in translating actions that the players describe their PCs as taking into skill checks. But still, I wouldn't normally grant an Arcana check unless the player said that his/her PC was trying to sense magic - unless the trap was of a particularly well-known magical variety, in which case I might call for an Arcana check to see whether or not the PC wizard recalls anything about it.

If my players said that they were studying a trap, I'd ask them to tell me in a bit more detail how they were going about doing so. At that point, I'd expect those players with decent Arcana skills to say things like "I'm trying to sense if it's magic" or "I've studied a lot about magical traps - does this one resemble anything I've learned about?" On the other hand, if they only said something like "I'm looking hard to see whether there are any hidden tripwires" I'd give a thievery check but not an Arcana check (unless, as per my previous paragraph, there was something obvious about it that any student of the arcane might recognise).

 

[Lalato]

No skill checks were called for. A character had cast Detect Magic... so it was already known that the trap was magical in nature.

I think the descriptions could have been better from the players. Either the description was possibly to specific... or too vague in some cases. In a couple of cases a player referenced a specific skill (that wasn't Arcana, but related to it like Spell Craft or Use Magic Device). However, some player actions should probably have triggered something.

One character attempted to make an arcane attack through the magical barrier that had the PCs trapped. The description noted that the attack went through the magical barrier, but had no effect on the statue. One would think at that point that some kind of skill check might have been given in order for the character to understand what happened. Instead no further information was given... so it was up to the player to try something else.

But I don't want to dwell on the specifics of this particular encounter too much. I'm a bit more interested in hearing about how other folks deal with skill checks in their games. Do they ever just ask for appropriate skill checks as a matter of course. Or is it a bit more triggered by roleplay and player description of actions.

For what it's worth... in most games I've played there is a combination of the two. So maybe there is a continuum of playstyles where on one end you have the DM call for appropriate checks automatically and on the other end you have almost no skill checks called at all and it's all reliant on player knowledge and roleplay. I think my preferred style is somewhere in the middle of that.

 

[MinistryOfGame]

My players are asked to roll a d20 at various times for all sorts of reasons. I often tell them nothing before and, if they roll badly, nothing after. That can arouse their suspicions, but they rarely try and stumble on what I was doing, because I can look at things from a very strange angle sometimes, and hence tend to give the party the most plot-driven chance to discover something, rather than their best chance.

Edit: A quick example. The other day in my game, one of the players had to roll while they were in the middle of a pub. Failed his roll, and had no idea that he had failed to recognise a goblin cleric in the pub that he had, months before, publically insulted and humiliated. The goblin recognised him, though, and hired some mercenaries to teach him and his friends a lesson.

 

[Mark CMG]

At what point are skillchecks just automatic?

I try to DM Knowledge checks as automatic but secretly rolled. In this way a player doesn't play that he knows something that his character might not recognize that he does or doesn't. There are exceptions to this, such as a DM explaining that some sort of writing is prima facie magical. But in cases where, say, there's some sort of powder and some fur on the floor that are magical ingredients, I might roll an Knowledge Arcana check secretly to see if it dawns on the Wizard that those could be components for, let's also say, the magical fire trap that has been hastily set up a little further down the corridor.

 

[amnuxoll]

I've come to the conclusion that knowledge shouldn't be a skill in the traditional "roll d20+X vs. a DC" sense. Instead, I think a mechanic is needed that just defines what a PC knows. The DM can key off of that to drop appropriate information but, just as often, the players can extract knowledge on their own initiative.

The approach I use is to have PCs select "specialties" of knowledge, which can be as general or specific as you like. A general specialty, might give you general info but is rarely enough info in a specific situation. More specific specialties apply less often but give more useful information.

Here's an example using your statue room: After the DM describes the room he might turn to the wizard's player and say: "Since Melf has knowledge(arcana) he knows that statues are often animated but you're fairly certain that these have a different enchantment. However, you don't know what it might be. "

Then, the cleric's player might say. "I have knowledge(battlefield medicine). Can I tell anything about the injury that created the blood stains?" The DM reveals that the blood is recent (less than 4 hours) and came from a piercing would, like that from a spear.

The rogue's player says. "I have knowledge(dwarven tomb construction). Does that help?" The DM says, "This type of floor is ill-suited for pressure-plates. If there's a trap here, it's got a different type of trigger."

etc...

Things to note here:

1. A lot less dice rolling. Dice are fun, but there are times when they can disrupt the scene that the players are creating together. I think your trap room is a good example of this.
2. Every party that sees that trap room is going to get different information. It's organic rather than formulaic.
3. The players feel a lot more like their character is getting a chance to shine. The knowledge specialties they have chosen are making a difference.
4. No metagaming. Take the scenario where you make a Knowledge skill check and roll a natural 1. What happens next? Immediately, two other players suddenly want to make knowledge checks...

:AMN:

 

[Lalato]

How frustrating would it be to tell a story in which the hero always had to use the golf club method? Meaning... I pull out a nine iron to see if that hits the golf ball far enough. Not the right distance? OK... I'll try a wedge. In game terms, I try X to see what happens. When the right result doesn't materialize the player then goes with I try Y to see what happens.

Sounds like you guys, for the most part, fall towards the automatic side of the spectrum. I think this side makes a lot of sense when you're trying to advance the story/adventure. And I feel that it should probably be the default mode for most situations. What about the times when it's a puzzle that the players need to figure out?

By the way, excellent examples from all of you. Much appreciated. I like reading about how others play the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am curious about something. Assuming your PCs were able to actually see their surroundings why was seeing the map of the room considered metagame knowledge? (unless it was full of DM notes like "trap here" )

Unless the map showed something that couldn't be included on a player made map this seems like actual character knowledge to me.

 

[Stormonu]

I am curious about something. Assuming your PCs were able to actually see their surroundings why was seeing the map of the room considered metagame knowledge? (unless it was full of DM notes like "trap here" )

Unless the map showed something that couldn't be included on a player made map this seems like actual character knowledge to me.

I'm pretty sure this is the statue trap from KotS if you want to look it up in detail. Having DMed it, I remember it as a pretty lame/poorly designed trap - too easy/obvious to avoid the first part, too difficult to detect/avoid the second part. As I recall, pretty much without metagaming its impossible to avoid the 2nd half of the trap (though I am surprised it killed someone -I don't recall it being very difficult to dismantle/destroy it in time to save trapped characters).

 

[onedtwelve]

I've come to the conclusion that knowledge shouldn't be a skill in the traditional "roll d20+X vs. a DC" sense. Instead, I think a mechanic is needed that just defines what a PC knows. The DM can key off of that to drop appropriate information but, just as often, the players can extract knowledge on their own initiative.

The approach I use is to have PCs select "specialties" of knowledge, which can be as general or specific as you like. A general specialty, might give you general info but is rarely enough info in a specific situation. More specific specialties apply less often but give more useful information.

Here's an example using your statue room: After the DM describes the room he might turn to the wizard's player and say: "Since Melf has knowledge(arcana) he knows that statues are often animated but you're fairly certain that these have a different enchantment. However, you don't know what it might be. "

Then, the cleric's player might say. "I have knowledge(battlefield medicine). Can I tell anything about the injury that created the blood stains?" The DM reveals that the blood is recent (less than 4 hours) and came from a piercing would, like that from a spear.

The rogue's player says. "I have knowledge(dwarven tomb construction). Does that help?" The DM says, "This type of floor is ill-suited for pressure-plates. If there's a trap here, it's got a different type of trigger."

etc...

Things to note here:

1. A lot less dice rolling. Dice are fun, but there are times when they can disrupt the scene that the players are creating together. I think your trap room is a good example of this.
2. Every party that sees that trap room is going to get different information. It's organic rather than formulaic.
3. The players feel a lot more like their character is getting a chance to shine. The knowledge specialties they have chosen are making a difference.
4. No metagaming. Take the scenario where you make a Knowledge skill check and roll a natural 1. What happens next? Immediately, two other players suddenly want to make knowledge checks...

:AMN:

This is very insightful. I know that whenever I play there is a lot of the last example going on, especially when there are multiple players trained in the same skill. They usually come up with a reason their characters would all check, though, so it doesn't really bother me.

"Do I sense magic?"
"Roll Arcana."
"13"
"You don't sense anything."
*looks to other player* "I've got nothing. Do you sense anything?"
*rolls Arcana* "21"
"You sense [insert whatever they sense here]."