D&D 5E Turning a boring trap into an exciting encounter.

[DMSage]

No, I think the ideal trap is one that creates suspense, and a fun story, while also providing the players with important choices. Resources are irrelevant in my opinion.

If the players run into a trap, and there's a tense scene where they try to disable it and yet they come out completely unscathed, then that is fine. There was excitement, and their clever thinking prevailed.

But what does matter, is how they can interact with the trap. If it simply requires one dice roll, then that is not very engaging. Take Iserith's trap for example: There's a hint of a trap, in the form of an arrow, but the players must figure out where the arrow came from to find the trap. Once they find the trap, what happens next?

Often a player will say "I disable the trap!", but most DM's then simply ask for a roll, instead of asking "How do you disable the trap?". It all comes down to storytelling in my opinion. If the player just rolls to disable the trap, then all suspense is gone. The success relies on a random outcome, rather than an important informed choice.

But if the DM asks the player how he will attempt to disable the trap, the outcome is now uncertain, and there for there is suspense. Depending on how the player chooses to go about disabling the trap, it may still require a dice roll, if the DM feels the outcome is uncertain. But the key to designing a good trap, is making it exciting, and providing options.

THIS^

Good points.

I'd just like to link here the angry DMs article Adjudicating actions like a mother F$%ing Boss

Many DMs, especially with traps, just do the disable traps or thieves tools check. But checks are only for things that have a chance of failure. If there is a chest on a pressure plate, and I decide to use the reverse gravity spell on the area. There is no chance of failure. I dont have to roll to see if the trap triggers. The chest is flying off the plate and the trap is either triggering or breaking. NO other options. You just say. Ok you do that and here is what happens. Same with the barbarian kicking the chest off the pressure plate. No need to roll to see if it works. Chest is kicked and the only thing you might have to roll is the con save when the poison arrow hits him in the stomach.

Point, Dont roll anything if the action they are doing cant fail.
Dont roll anything if the action they are doing cant succeed.

 

[DMSage]

Another clever use of traps, is allowing the players to use them against your monsters. I often place traps in places where they could possibly also be useful to the players, so that "not disarming the traps" is a viable option. This is assuming the monsters don't know about the traps of course.

I once gave my players a map of the dungeon, that had all the traps clearly marked on them. It was then up to the players to take out a group of monsters that clearly outnumbered them. The players went about luring their enemies into the traps on purpose, which was a lot of fun for them.

So good.

My favorite use of the Hoard of dragon queen traps was when the party rested in the hatchery in the room with the chest on a pressure plate.
A group of 2 brave kobolds ran in, kicked the chest off the trap, and ran away as the room filled with poison gas. Having traps get triggered after the party knows of them, whether they are using it against enemies, or enemies against them, makes them far more fun.

Your Idea of giving them a map with all the traps on them is genius. I'm thinking of a sort of reverse scenario. Instead of the party dungeon diving, the party is held up in an abandon dungeon and monsters are diving after them. They have the chance to set up traps and plot.

 

[DMSage]

Let me give a solid example of this.

I was playing a game at my local D&D store. We encountered an arrow slit that was clearly a trap. I searched around for a trigger, like a trip wire, and couldn't find one. (i found out later I couldn't find it because the book didn't describe exactly how the trap was triggered, just where the trap was triggered. So the DM didn't add a trigger in).
So I decided to take a shield and hold it up against the arrow slit to block the arrow from coming out. The DM said, "you will still need to make a thieves tools check to disarm it."

This is the kind of thinking that makes no sense. And far to many DMs and modules follow this line of thinking. Why the hell am a making a thieves tools check? Im using a shield to disable this trap. Im trying to set it off. Why would I have to roll to do this?

And the answer is, because once the trap is found, most DMs and modules haven't made them interesting enough to do anything with. So if they allow clever use of tactics that don't require rolls, then their precious traps will never get triggered. So they force rolls on the players and dont reward creative thinking.

If you don't do this, then that is the point. No need to post saying you don't do this. If you do this, go read the article above to figure out why it sucks and how to stop.

 

[DMSage]

The trouble here is two-fold: First, the purpose of the die rolls is to obviate a requirement for narrative detail. Second, the descriptive method works for some die rolls and not for others, making it inherently unfair. Third, rewarding some players for narrative unfairly penalizes other players.

First, as I recall - and I'm operating on decades of memory here, informed by GGG, countless Sage Advice columns and other sources - the die rolls are supposed to be a shorthand. "I check for traps" and rolling dice is supposed to represent detail which the player - not necessarily the character, but the player - probably doesn't know. "I check for traps" and rolling dice is shorthand for stuff the player's rogue knows to do, like "I run my fingers gently along the base of the monkey statue, attempting to determine if the platform has a specific kind of trap." The player is not a skilled thief. How the heck should she know what to do?

In just the same way, "I attack with my bastard sword" and rolling dice represents "As I transition my longsword through mezza volta from porta di ferro mezana to posta frontale ditta corona, I seek an opportunity to bind under the orc's guard and offer a sottano to his midriff." Here you're rewarding a player for knowing the Fior di Battaglia of Fiore dei Liberi. Even if she just says, "I feint to the orc's face before dropping the point to his midriff," you're still rewarding the player. How many players do you think know how to use medieval weapons? I mean for real? I know maybe a dozen gamers who are proficient enough in WMA to offer a plausible detailed narrative of a fight.

As a final example, "I cast fireball" and rolling dice represents "As I mash together the guano and sulfur in my left hand, I form the Sigil of Hendricks with my right, drawing it over and across the third chakram, as my master taught, before flinging the raw magic at my foe." While, unlike the combat sequence, there's nothing which can be called realistic or not in this, it still unfairly rewards the player who is good at inventing plausible explanations of the V,S,M requirements of the spell.

This is to illustrate that you are rewarding the player for out-of-game mastery of knowledge or creative talent, not the PC for in-game actions. On the one hand, I like that, because it rewards players who dig further in to that of which their characters are capable, and it adds to the narrative of the table. On the other, I loathe it, because it unfairly penalizes those who don't want to do that, or can't for some reason, or are new to the game.



Oh, me too. It's a bit of a poser, this. I don't think there's a good answer, other than discussing the possibility of check die-mechanic modification based on player knowledge and narrative addition when expectations are under discussion before character generation. If everyone agrees that it's okay for only a few players to receive in-game benefit from out-of-game creativity and/or knowledge, I think it's fine to do that.

To opine that simple checks are less than worthy, as the OP did, reeks rather strongly of BadWrongFun.

People are confused. Saying that you need to describe how you dissarm a trap is not equivalant to saying how you swing the sword.
To make a better comparison.
TRAP= I roll a dissarm trap or thieves tools check
COMBAT= I roll an end combat check.

In a combat, the player does describe what they do. "i swing my sword at him", "i cast a specific spell", " i Move here, actions surge, then jump on the dragons back".

In traps, we should expect the same. "I kick the chest off the pressure plate and run", "I cut the rope that triggers the trap", "I block the arrow slit".


Second, no one is suggesting you give bonuses for describing the terms of swordplay correctly. But if a player chooses to spend a turn climbing a giants back and trying to stab it in the neck. You might give him a bonus for that.
I have the rule that I only provide bonuses if it also has a consequence AND isn't an ability that another player has in their kit.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The trouble here is two-fold: First, the purpose of the die rolls is to obviate a requirement for narrative detail. Second, the descriptive method works for some die rolls and not for others, making it inherently unfair. Third, rewarding some players for narrative unfairly penalizes other players.

The main issue as I see it, is classifying specific approaches to situations as "narrative detail". Narrative detail suggests that the description of what is being done is purely fluff and has no bearing on the outcome of things. For pure ACTUAL narrative detail I agree. No one needs a long winded telling of how X was accomplished if it is simply color commentary.

How one goes about doing something IF the consequences for doing it vary by approach, is NOT merely narrative detail.

First, as I recall - and I'm operating on decades of memory here, informed by GGG, countless Sage Advice columns and other sources - the die rolls are supposed to be a shorthand. "I check for traps" and rolling dice is supposed to represent detail which the player - not necessarily the character, but the player - probably doesn't know. "I check for traps" and rolling dice is shorthand for stuff the player's rogue knows to do, like "I run my fingers gently along the base of the monkey statue, attempting to determine if the platform has a specific kind of trap." The player is not a skilled thief. How the heck should she know what to do?

Of course players don't need to posses the expertise of their characters but that doesn't mean that they cannot interact directly with the environment instead of game rules. When entering a room with many described elements and potentially trapped objects or areas just saying " I check for traps" isn't very useful in describing what your character is doing exactly or where they are walking/moving while they do so. Perhaps where they search first isn't important, or it might be.

So while a simple " I check for traps" wouldn't be helpful, saying " I glance around the room briefly, then move over to the cabinet checking the floor for traps as I go" gives enough scope of activity to work with. Stating where you are searching for traps is not just narrative detail, but describing exactly how you conduct the search might be.

In just the same way, "I attack with my bastard sword" and rolling dice represents "As I transition my longsword through mezza volta from porta di ferro mezana to posta frontale ditta corona, I seek an opportunity to bind under the orc's guard and offer a sottano to his midriff." Here you're rewarding a player for knowing the Fior di Battaglia of Fiore dei Liberi. Even if she just says, "I feint to the orc's face before dropping the point to his midriff," you're still rewarding the player. How many players do you think know how to use medieval weapons? I mean for real? I know maybe a dozen gamers who are proficient enough in WMA to offer a plausible detailed narrative of a fight.

As a final example, "I cast fireball" and rolling dice represents "As I mash together the guano and sulfur in my left hand, I form the Sigil of Hendricks with my right, drawing it over and across the third chakram, as my master taught, before flinging the raw magic at my foe." While, unlike the combat sequence, there's nothing which can be called realistic or not in this, it still unfairly rewards the player who is good at inventing plausible explanations of the V,S,M requirements of the spell.

These are great examples of purely narrative detail. Nothing is wrong with adding these descriptive flairs as long as the group enjoys them.

This is to illustrate that you are rewarding the player for out-of-game mastery of knowledge or creative talent, not the PC for in-game actions. On the one hand, I like that, because it rewards players who dig further in to that of which their characters are capable, and it adds to the narrative of the table. On the other, I loathe it, because it unfairly penalizes those who don't want to do that, or can't for some reason, or are new to the game.

Everything rewarding in the game is for the player. A character is a fictional construct. As such it cannot appreciate rewards for success, or feel disappointment for failures. Players who pick up on clues and use the described environment and situation to their advantage should be rewarded. I disagree with new players being at a disadvantage. Newer players can be more creative in approaching situations because they aren't automatically looking for some rule element to fling at a problem. Instead they react to the setting and situation.

I want to encourage players to do more than pick a skill/ability and throw a die roll at every problem.

 

[iserith]

The trouble here is two-fold: First, the purpose of the die rolls is to obviate a requirement for narrative detail. Second, the descriptive method works for some die rolls and not for others, making it inherently unfair. Third, rewarding some players for narrative unfairly penalizes other players.

@ExploderWizard covered much of what I would say in his or her response to you, but I thought the time you put into your response to me deserved a reply out of respect for your contribution.

First, I would say that the purpose of die rolls and mechanics that call for them is to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of the fictional action undertaken (if the DM establishes uncertainty at all), not to obviate a requirement for narrative detail.

Second, the "descriptive method" works for everything the character does in the context of the setting. At the very least, a player must describe a goal and approach to dealing with a particular challenge. This is how the DM determines whether or not there is uncertainty and thus a roll. Flowery language is nice, but not required to communicate a goal and approach. The DM is well-advised to adjudicate based on the goal and approach only, regardless of the kind of language used. (Though a DM might award such interaction with Inspiration when it exemplifies an established personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw of the character.)

Finally, some players will simply be better at the game than others. I think that is perfectly okay in a game and, given effort and time, I would expect a player's skills to improve. I don't see any value in handicapping a skilled player or requiring less clarity and specificity from a new one. And again, the bare minimum a player must do in my view is clearly articulate a goal and approach with reasonable specificity so that the DM does not have to assume the kinds of actions the character is taking and can determine there is uncertainty or not. In my experience, new players have no issue with this at all. The only thing they may lack is knowledge specific to D&D (tropes, monsters, etc.) and that is learned over time.

 

[Kabouter Games]

People are confused. Saying that you need to describe how you disarm a trap is not equivalent to saying how you swing the sword.

In a combat, the player does describe what they do. "i swing my sword at him", "i cast a specific spell", " i Move here, actions surge, then jump on the dragons back".

In traps, we should expect the same. "I kick the chest off the pressure plate and run", "I cut the rope that triggers the trap", "I block the arrow slit".

You're right. That's not equivalent. But I still disagree: It's not the same. It's more. It's an expectation of more detail, specifically - and only - in this one type of interaction with the game world. Why? Why reward one and not the other?

Second, no one is suggesting you give bonuses for describing the terms of swordplay correctly. But if a player chooses to spend a turn climbing a giants back and trying to stab it in the neck. You might give him a bonus for that.

That's not generally what happens. Generally what happens is the DM says, "Okay, give me an Acrobatics or Athletics check to see if you climb." That's actually a penalty.

The main issue as I see it, is classifying specific approaches to situations as "narrative detail". Narrative detail suggests that the description of what is being done is purely fluff and has no bearing on the outcome of things. For pure ACTUAL narrative detail I agree. No one needs a long winded telling of how X was accomplished if it is simply color commentary.

How one goes about doing something IF the consequences for doing it vary by approach, is NOT merely narrative detail.

That's what I was getting into with the longsword play. There are consequences for that; each longsword (or indeed rapier or sword-and-shield or axe or dagger) play has a distinct advantage against presented defenses. It has a definite bearing on the outcome of things. Yet to you it's fluff.

To speak to a different part of the counterpoint I was making, it still has a chance of failure. Just as carefully describing how your character is searching for and disarming the trap has a chance of failure. The claim was made that description can bring automatic success, and I'm trying to show how that's something with which I disagree.

So while a simple "I check for traps" wouldn't be helpful, saying "I glance around the room briefly, then move over to the cabinet checking the floor for traps as I go" gives enough scope of activity to work with. Stating where you are searching for traps is not just narrative detail, but describing exactly how you conduct the search might be.

With this I have no problem. I have a problem with granting bonuses - or, heaven forbid, automatic success - to players who do that. That should be automatic description. It should be the rogue's equivalent of "I attack with my axe."

I want to encourage players to do more than pick a skill/ability and throw a die roll at every problem.

All I'm saying is there's a large difference between throwing a die roll at every problem and front-loading an approach with description to gain a benefit.

I'm also pointing out the inconsistency of how what you're advocating is very, very specific to traps. Yes, I'm aware that's the nature of the thread, but if you're going to give a benefit to one manifestation of player skill, you have to give it to all. Or, if you prefer to think of it that way, punish all instances where the player can't use textual approach and description to gain the benefit.

It comes down to this: Veteran players and war movie watchers know how to approach possible traps. But what about picking pockets? Jane has no idea how to pick a pocket, even though her Rogue is pretty good at it. Why should she be penalized (let's face it, being unable to gain a benefit amounts to a penalty) for not being able to describe the circumstances of her PC's action? Or, put another way, why should she be rewarded in one narrow set of circumstances and not others?

@ExploderWizard covered much of what I would say in his or her response to you, but I thought the time you put into your response to me deserved a reply out of respect for your contribution.

Thank you!

First, I would say that the purpose of die rolls and mechanics that call for them is to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of the fictional action undertaken (if the DM establishes uncertainty at all), not to obviate a requirement for narrative detail.

If I implied that die rolls were to replace detail, I apologize. I have no intention of doing so. In the circumstance of the player having no idea how to go about describing some action at which her character is very, very good, whether it's picking pockets, attacking with a melee weapon, or casting a spell, I see it as unavoidable, as described in the picking pockets example above. As a player, if there is a mechanic where I gain benefit by reducing uncertainty, I'm certainly going to take advantage of it. The trouble is nobody is showing how to do that across the board, for all actions. They're just saying it's okay for traps. I find that inconsistent.

It's inconsistent because "I attack with my sword" is exactly equivalent to "I search for traps." Once the warrior closes with the enemy, she attacks. Once the rogue narrows down the search parameters, she searches. There are opportunities for clever play in both scenarios. Why not award both? Why not award the warrior automatic success on an attack? But nobody's saying that. I can't see why; I can't see a difference.

Second, the "descriptive method" works for everything the character does in the context of the setting. At the very least, a player must describe a goal and approach to dealing with a particular challenge. This is how the DM determines whether or not there is uncertainty and thus a roll. Flowery language is nice, but not required to communicate a goal and approach. The DM is well-advised to adjudicate based on the goal and approach only, regardless of the kind of language used. (Though a DM might award such interaction with Inspiration when it exemplifies an established personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw of the character.)

This is an excellent approach.

Finally, some players will simply be better at the game than others. I think that is perfectly okay in a game and, given effort and time, I would expect a player's skills to improve. I don't see any value in handicapping a skilled player or requiring less clarity and specificity from a new one. And again, the bare minimum a player must do in my view is clearly articulate a goal and approach with reasonable specificity so that the DM does not have to assume the kinds of actions the character is taking and can determine there is uncertainty or not. In my experience, new players have no issue with this at all. The only thing they may lack is knowledge specific to D&D (tropes, monsters, etc.) and that is learned over time.

Good point. Thank you for addressing it. NB: My bringing that up was a bit of devil's advocacy on a slow afternoon.

 

[iserith]

If I implied that die rolls were to replace detail, I apologize. I have no intention of doing so. In the circumstance of the player having no idea how to go about describing some action at which her character is very, very good, whether it's picking pockets, attacking with a melee weapon, or casting a spell, I see it as unavoidable, as described in the picking pockets example above. As a player, if there is a mechanic where I gain benefit by reducing uncertainty, I'm certainly going to take advantage of it. The trouble is nobody is showing how to do that across the board, for all actions. They're just saying it's okay for traps. I find that inconsistent.

It's inconsistent because "I attack with my sword" is exactly equivalent to "I search for traps." Once the warrior closes with the enemy, she attacks. Once the rogue narrows down the search parameters, she searches. There are opportunities for clever play in both scenarios. Why not award both? Why not award the warrior automatic success on an attack? But nobody's saying that. I can't see why; I can't see a difference.

I'm saying that it does apply to everything, not just traps. If you somehow get yourself into the position of automatically hitting or even automatically killing an enemy - I'm giving you that success you earned. Same for avoiding or disabling traps, convincing the king to help, or whatever.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

It's inconsistent because "I attack with my sword" is exactly equivalent to "I search for traps." Once the warrior closes with the enemy, she attacks. Once the rogue narrows down the search parameters, she searches.

The way I think about it, "attack with sword" and "search for trap" are not the beginning of the player's action - they are the end of the action.

Before I give the player the chance to roll their attack, I want them to tell me where they are moving to, what weapon they are using, how they are attacking (maneuver, extra attack, smite), and so on. All of those things affect their chance of success (as well as whether or not they even need to roll) and the consequences of success and failure.

Same with traps. Before I give the player the chance to roll their find traps skill, I want to know how and where they are searching, what tools (if any) they are using, what help they are getting from other people, and so on.

I see my job is to give good clues to influence their decisions. Describing a creature as "walking through the bonfire with impunity" hopefully leads the player to use their magical cold sword. Describing a trap as "the flagstones in the middle are much less worn than the others" hopefully leads the player to search for pressure traps.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Unfortunately it is not an assumption about traps. This is from Hoard of the Dragon Queen module.
Trap #1, collapsing stairs= perceive it, avoid it.
Trap #2, Barbed curtain =perceive it, avoid it.
Trap #3, collapsing ceiling = perceive it, avoid it.

and so on.

My point was more that failing to perceive those traps, and therefore triggering them, does not mean 'failing' the trap encounter, any more than being hit by a monster is 'failing' the combat. Specifically, you as a DM have not failed to create a good trap merely by not telegraphing it's existence. Similarly the players who search every square inch of everything in case it is trapped are working from the assumption that they've failed if they don't find the trap before it hurts them.

And both of those things, unfortunately, are fuelled by bad traps which do their thing and then cease to exist, instead of being real encounters.