D&D 5E Why traps in D&D usually suck

[DMSage]

Man, I can't even tell you how often i had to sit down and shut up in the Tiamat campaign. I'm a bit of a military history buff, especially the anti-insurgency conflicts of the late 20th century, so there were a few places where my INT 9 Paladin had to be clueless while I was all but vibrating in place at the gaming table.

Why does your paladin have to be clueless. Is this taking place in battle? because even a dumb paladin can be an extremely tactical fighter.
How many jocks fail school then memorize 200 plays as a starting QB? People are still intelligent in the areas they study. While it's awesome to RP, Dont let it ruin your tactical fun. Play the game.
Just my opinion.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why not use both? Allow your players to solve the puzzle themselves. Allow the characters to make checks to put the information together or to preform the tasks that require in game actions like cutting a rope while holding the trigger to keep it from going.

Using player ability, which the character does not possess, is not very satisfying for that player or anyone else at the table. It is cheating, and any accomplishments achieved by doing so are rendered meaningless.

That's to say nothing of fairness or balance, where the knowledgeable player has significantly more agency and commands significantly more of the spotlight than anyone who lacks the ability to supersede the character sheet. Ability scores and proficiencies are supposed to mean something.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

D&d is a game, with winners and losers, (kind of, if you consider accomplishing your goals wining and failing your goals/dying losing)
It is a game for the players not just a story telling session. Players dont spend hours outfitting their characters with the perfect tactics so that they can not use them. They do it because THEY themselves, the players, want to overcome the challenge.

You are confused. Maybe you're thinking of something else, but D&D clearly states right up-front that there is no winning or losing; if you have fun, then you have won, and sometimes it's more fun if you fail to complete the quest. Seriously, this is like Chapter 1 stuff.

And if you just wanted to tell a story, then that wouldn't require dice.

No one says, I sure hope my character can beat the dragon we are going to fight next week in D&D. They say, I sure hope we employ proper tactics and kill the dragon next week.

Your declaration does not hold. My anecdotal evidence says that players will frequently express concern over the possibilities of their characters to overcome various challenges, and it only takes one counter-example to disprove a blanket statement.

Frequently, this comes in the form of "There's no way we can beat that Adult Red Dragon". Clever tactics will only get you so far, and both the players and the characters should be aware of this.

 

[Celtavian]

I think different tables (and different players) have different allowances for metagaming. Some tables have ZERO issues with testing the player. That's cool, as long as everyone at the table is on board.

Personally, I'll let the players talk it out, even out of character, but regardless of which player had the idea, in the game, it is the high INT character who came up with it. In this way, we get a player who can play a high INT character, but players who have good ideas don't get shut down, either. It also can help model "superhuman" INT - four or five people hashing it out over ten minutes is the equivalent of the high-INT character just having a eureka moment in the game world.

This is definitely true. I allow some metagaming. Sometimes I do try to stop metagaming. Metagaming can often ruin character development and immersion if allowed to go on too long. At the same time, I want to allow some metagaming to allow players to figure out how to use their abilities. If the player has questions or wants to talk mechanics with the other players to figure things out, I allow it. I think an allowance for some metagaming makes for a healthier table. Part of the fun of games like D&D is the tactical application of their abilities, which translates in game as their characters being highly competent and extraordinary combatants.

 

[Celtavian]

I miss interesting traps. Not much thought is put into traps by today's module writers, at least in my experience. It's been a long time since I found a module with traps that required thought or had a deadly effect if the party failed to disarm or bypass them.

 

[Leatherhead]

Traps in D&D usually suck because people tend to design them as binary checks.

 

[wedgeski]

In this thread, [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] has informed me that the player doesn't exist, and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has informed me that the character isn't real.

Should I now panic, existentially speaking?

 

[wedgeski]

Using player ability, which the character does not possess, is not very satisfying for that player or anyone else at the table. It is cheating, and any accomplishments achieved by doing so are rendered meaningless.

Everyone I've played with, and I mean everyone, would disagree with this statement.

 

[Uchawi]

The trap is turning this thread into another meta-gaming discussion. It is probably best to disarm that discussion and get back to the why the trap is there which leads to how to discover or disable it.

 

[psychophipps]

Why does your paladin have to be clueless. Is this taking place in battle? because even a dumb paladin can be an extremely tactical fighter.
How many jocks fail school then memorize 200 plays as a starting QB? People are still intelligent in the areas they study. While it's awesome to RP, Dont let it ruin your tactical fun. Play the game.
Just my opinion.

Oh, it was strategic thinking, not tactical.