iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Sorry, I don't buy this - assuming the players are paying attention and know your 'tells' (which inevitably becomes the case after playing with a given DM for any length of time) you're outright telling them "here's where the interesting stuff is".
I've noticed that people who say this don't use telegraphing as a technique. But people who do use telegraphing as a technique have a very different experience that refutes this assertion.
So I'm just going to have to say that's not a likely outcome based on my experience.
Here's a huge preference divide between us, I think, in that I don't see "gotchas" as unfair in the least. Sometimes you'll see it coming, sometimes you won't, and most of the time there's a chance of one or the other depending on some dice rolling and greatly influenced by stated approach.
Yes, many DMs don't find "gotchas" to be unfair. I wonder how those numbers line up with players' perception of them particularly when the consequences are not trivial.
Encouraging players to pay attention and DMs to be more dexscriptive - always a good thing! Nothing wrong with SOPs, though - far better than having to go through the whole process every time, and it's only realistic that adventurers, having once been exposed to hidden dangers, are always going to be on the lookout for such.
An SOP is by definition "going through the whole process every time." It's a procedure for dealing with routine situations. The issue is: Do I want my game to be seen as requiring a routine for dealing with exploration challenges? I don't. It gets too stale in my experience.
There are many things that are by default not obvious. Secret doors are one. Motivations and rationales behind NPC (or even PC) actions can be another. Hidden traps are another. Need I go on?
And while those telegraphing clues you give do invite further investigation of those particular areas, the flip side is that the areas without those clues aren't getting the same attention - which realistically they should be.
Stating that there's a secret door on the north wall - obvious. Saying that the NPC wants to kill the king - obvious. Embedding a clue in the environment that may indicate the presence of a secret door, trap, lurking creature, or hidden object - not obvious. Additional exploration is required to see what the clue is telegraphing and the players may or may not engage with it at all.
True, and sometimes this is great! But not every time.
Sometimes there's going to be the deadly trap that has no clue provided as to its existence. Sometimes there's going to be the NPC who lies through his teeth and give the PCs no reason to suspect anything. Sometimes there's going to be the secret door that if left unfound means the whole mission is a failure, and they don't find it. These things would happen now and then in reality, so why not in the game?
Because I'm not engaging in a simulation of unfair reality. I'm presenting a fair game.