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

[5ekyu]

One relies on PC skill, the other on player skill and a DM giving out hints. I don't see the confusion.

I believe to some that might be defined as gatekeeping important info behind character stats and seen as not the (insert non-judgemental jargon for as goid as my way) method.



But, yeah, me too.

 

[Guest 6801328]

@Elfcrusher, I'm with @5ekyu on this. I don't place traps randomly. I don't use them very often and when I do it's in fairly obvious locations an situations. As I've stated before, when I do I rely heavily on passive checks.

"Obvious locations" is a form of telegraph. If a player is thinking, "This door to the treasure room is probably trapped" then we are talking about player skill, right? That's why the only way to not telegraph, at all, is to place them randomly.

Or maybe you had a different idea in mind when @iserith and others started talking about 'telegraphing'? Maybe you thought, oh, I don't know...how about: signs that say "trap here". If so, I'm glad we had this little chat and cleared that up.

Now, I think 'obvious locations' is a particularly uninteresting form of telegraphing. Sure, it still relies on player skill, but not a very engaging or rewarding form of player skill. Or really very much skill. I never get that little rush of satisfaction, the one that I get when overcome something novel and interesting, just because I remembered to check for traps in an obvious place. But, hey, it's telegraphing.

I've never had a 5E game devolve into checking for traps every 5 ft. Has anyone on this thread ever claimed they were in a game where that happened? Because it seems to be a strawman.

"Devolve"? No.

Play that way in the early 1980's because that was what the adventures required, and even because it seemed fun at the time? Sure.

And, anyway, I was pretty clear that I was just trying to enumerate the number of ways that one could play with zero telegraphing (not even "obvious locations") of traps. Checking every 5' is one of those ways.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If some of us are questioning un-telegraphed traps, the question we are asking is "what is the point?" Your answer to that question seems to be "because in a real world traps would NOT be telegraphed, so it feels more realistic to have them be a total surprise."

Ok, fair enough. I (and I assume others) believe there are all sorts of 'realistic' things that don't actually add to the fun of a game. It would be realistic for sword wounds to leave a lot of adventurers crippled, for example, but I don't find that sort of realism to be a particularly fun way to play RPGs. Some do.

So maybe the question is why does this particular form of realism make the game more fun?

How many times have people decried the villain leaving the hero in an "unescapable death trap" then walking away after monologuing their entire plan. There are times it makes me nearly scream in frustration, "just put a bullet between his eyes", Hero is dead, plan can't be ruined.

Some fictional set-ups can get around this, for example, in most modern superhero novels I've read there is reference to "the unspoken rules" Supervillains don't generally kill heroes because doing so brings more heat than it is worth. They don't kidnap the heroes children as hostages, because it isn't worth the massive amount of heroes destroying them in retaliation.

That doesn't exist in DnD though. Most of our villains aren't playing by those rules, they are going to do anything to win, they are not going to play fair, they are not constrained by Saturday Morning Morality.

Now, I don't often use traps. They aren't worth the headache, and they generally don't make enough of a difference to be worth while, especially since I generally have at least one player with an 18 or higher passive perception by mid-game. But, if I am using them, and the villain falls into the right mindset, they aren't going to be telegraphed. That doesn't mean they aren't noticeable, but they will be quite hard to notice, because that is the point of a trap.

 

[5ekyu]

"Obvious locations" is a form of telegraph. If a player is thinking, "This door to the treasure room is probably trapped" then we are talking about player skill, right? That's why the only way to not telegraph, at all, is to place them randomly.

Or maybe you had a different idea in mind when @iserith and others started talking about 'telegraphing'? Maybe you thought, oh, I don't know...how about: signs that say "trap here". If so, I'm glad we had this little chat and cleared that up.

Now, I think 'obvious locations' is a particularly uninteresting form of telegraphing. Sure, it still relies on player skill, but not a very engaging or rewarding form of player skill. Or really very much skill. I never get that little rush of satisfaction, the one that I get when overcome something novel and interesting, just because I remembered to check for traps in an obvious place. But, hey, it's telegraphing.



"Devolve"? No.

Play that way in the early 1980's because that was what the adventures required, and even because it seemed fun at the time? Sure.

And, anyway, I was pretty clear that I was just trying to enumerate the number of ways that one could play with zero telegraphing (not even "obvious locations") of traps. Checking every 5' is one of those ways.

So, yay, we have characters or players realizing "maybe vault doors are trapoed or alarmed" as telegraphing and challeges that check against PC stats as "challenges to players".

If we keep this up, we will soon have no non-re-definable differences at all.

 

[Oofta]

"Obvious locations" is a form of telegraph. If a player is thinking, "This door to the treasure room is probably trapped" then we are talking about player skill, right? That's why the only way to not telegraph, at all, is to place them randomly.

Or maybe you had a different idea in mind when @iserith and others started talking about 'telegraphing'? Maybe you thought, oh, I don't know...how about: signs that say "trap here". If so, I'm glad we had this little chat and cleared that up.

Now, I think 'obvious locations' is a particularly uninteresting form of telegraphing. Sure, it still relies on player skill, but not a very engaging or rewarding form of player skill. Or really very much skill. I never get that little rush of satisfaction, the one that I get when overcome something novel and interesting, just because I remembered to check for traps in an obvious place. But, hey, it's telegraphing.



"Devolve"? No.

Play that way in the early 1980's because that was what the adventures required, and even because it seemed fun at the time? Sure.

And, anyway, I was pretty clear that I was just trying to enumerate the number of ways that one could play with zero telegraphing (not even "obvious locations") of traps. Checking every 5' is one of those ways.

Well if you consider it telegraphing that I don't add dangerous traps to random objects in random locations, then yes I guess.

If you really have to have a "win" there you go. You got me. I guess.

I'm just being clear that no one has to my knowledge stated that they have to check for traps every 5 ft in any game recently played in this thread. So to the best of my knowledge you are arguing that traps should be telegraphed based on a non-existent issue. AKA a strawman argument.

 

[iserith]

Now, I don't often use traps. They aren't worth the headache, and they generally don't make enough of a difference to be worth while, especially since I generally have at least one player with an 18 or higher passive perception by mid-game. .

I think the finding of the trap is the least interesting part about them. It's figuring out how to bypass or disable them that is the real challenge.

 

[5ekyu]

Well if you consider it telegraphing that I don't add dangerous traps to random objects in random locations, then yes I guess.

If you really have to have a "win" there you go. You got me. I guess.

I'm just being clear that no one has to my knowledge stated that they have to check for traps every 5 ft in any game recently played in this thread. So to the best of my knowledge you are arguing that traps should be telegraphed based on a non-existent issue. AKA a strawman argument.

But to be fair, if the pre-telegraph pre G-A-P standard being used as the baseline is thst assumed play with checks every 5 ft (with apparently lotsa confused take-backs over mis-understanding on skill checks) it does certainly make the claims in various discussions about speeding up play more plausible.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm just being clear that no one has to my knowledge stated that they have to check for traps every 5 ft in any game recently played in this thread. So to the best of my knowledge you are arguing that traps should be telegraphed based on a non-existent issue. AKA a strawman argument.

Yeah, I was both clear in my first post, and then re-explained in my next post, why I included that as a possible outcome (because it is). But if it makes you feel better to get a "win" by continuing to misinterpret this point so that you can dismiss it as a strawman, then you got me, too. I guess.

But as long as we're on the topic, has anybody here (besides me) ever been in a game where the randomness of traps and secret doors led to essentially constant checks for traps (or secret doors), literally in every square along every wall and floor in an entire dungeon? Oofta apparently doesn't take my word for it, but maybe if somebody else raises their hand he'll publicly retract his 'strawman' assertion and apologize.

Hmm? Hmm?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think the finding of the trap is the least interesting part about them. It's figuring out how to bypass or disable them that is the real challenge.

That's the thing, right? There's basically nothing interesting or exciting or suspenseful about the occasional trap going off because nobody's passive Perception was high enough. What's interesting is knowing the trap is there, coming up with a plan to avoid/disarm it, and then crossing your fingers that it works. And the problem with just "rolling to disarm" is that you know you're doing the correct thing. The optimal strategy, for the "use a skill" crowd, is to pick the guy with the highest bonus and have him roll. You aren't left wondering, "Is this the right way to do it? Should we have tried something different? Wait...maybe I'm not ready yet." And it's that wondering while you wait for resolution, whether or not there's a die roll, that adds to the suspense. A.k.a. "immersion".

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah, I was both clear in my first post, and then re-explained in my next post, why I included that as a possible outcome (because it is). But if it makes you feel better to get a "win" by continuing to misinterpret this point so that you can dismiss it as a strawman, then you got me, too. I guess.

But as long as we're on the topic, has anybody here (besides me) ever been in a game where the randomness of traps and secret doors led to essentially constant checks for traps (or secret doors), literally in every square along every wall and floor in an entire dungeon? Oofta apparently doesn't take my word for it, but maybe if somebody else raises their hand he'll publicly retract his 'strawman' assertion and apologize.

Hmm? Hmm?

The closest we ever csme was when, under "that GM" where we would get hung out to dry on casual statements by the players, we would develop written "standard procedures" - as in "door procedure" and "enter room procedures".

This had nothing to do with traps per se, but it was about surviving the numerous cases of "you did not say you looked up" and so on.

It was much more about the preponderance of "player didnt say" stupidities that ignored completeky reasonable character capabilities in the scene.

But, traps every 5 ft would only ever occur for something like Tomb of Horrors where it **was** in context a reasonable idea. It was never a routine "thru every dungeom crawl"

But for decades now, a simple presumption of competent characters is enough to avoid that.