Should traps have tells?

[Gorgon Zee]

I also allow/encourage players to propose different skills, in any game with skills, but by itself that is not (in my opinion) meaningful decision-making or agency unless they also are freely choosing the action that triggers the roll. TOR 1e journeys did not provide that, and neither do typical “Perception checks” in 5e and other games.

Does that make sense?

Yep — I would paraphrase your thought by saying that you consider only the ability to change the fiction a meaningful decision, not the mechanics by which that is achieved. Trying to tie this sidebar back to the main thread, it would be good design then to allow a trap to be overcome by multiple approaches that are narratively different rather than just a choice of skills, which argues strongly in favor of tells?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yep — I would paraphrase your thought by saying that you consider only the ability to change the fiction a meaningful decision, not the mechanics by which that is achieved. Trying to tie this sidebar back to the main thread, it would be good design then to allow a trap to be overcome by multiple approaches that are narratively different rather than just a choice of skills, which argues strongly in favor of tells?

Mostly correct, except in that first sentence: not change the fiction...which sounds like it's after-the-fact...but drive the fiction. I believe the general play loop for RPGs is, or should be:

1. The GM describes the environment/situation
2. Players declare actions for their characters in response to that environment
3. The GM adjudicates the results, which might include a call for dice rolls

TOR (1e) journeys are a mini-game within the game that skips step #2, which is where those "meaningful decisions" take place. When a swollen, frigid river blocks their path, the GM should be asking, "What do you do?" Instead it's "Give me a roll to see if you successfully pass it." There's no point to asking about alternative solutions; the rules of the game do not support that. Not only does this remove player agency, but it makes the description of the river itself irrelevant to the game. The GM could narrate an entirely different obstacle, or skip the narration completely, and nothing else would change.*

All of which parallels the way traps and secret doors are typically handled in D&D and other RPGs. Both are agency-less resource drains on the way to the actual RPGing.


*Maybe that's the litmus test for whether something is an RPG: if stripping away the description, or changing it to neutral terms (e.g., a "pit trap with spikes" becomes just "a trap") has no effect on resolution mechanics, it's not an RPG. Might need a new thread to discuss that....

 

[Celebrim]

But they also seem to be a fan of un-telegraphed traps (and secret doors) that will only get spotted if somebody happens to search in the right place and rolls well. That's pretty much the suckiest kind of all.

I disagree, and notably so does The Angry GM.

While the Angry GM doesn't well define what a good trap is and conversely what does make a trap sucky, he does admit that all of this discussion applies only to certain types of traps like "arrow traps" or "lightning bolt traps". He does admit that with some traps it's perfectly fine to not have tells and thus by implication traps that only get spotted if someone searches the right place and rolls well. He admits this because he admits certain types of traps are fun.

And I've discussed this at length at EnWorld for decades now, that the suckiest and most pointless trap of all is one that is randomly in the middle of nowhere and just deducts some one time hit points while nothing else is going on, and it's those traps (which make up the majority of published examples even to this day) that you want to minimize the use of, give tells for, and ideally just not use. There is no such thing as a top tier trap that doesn't create a predicament for the party. Traps that don't create predicaments, that don't result in an interesting encounter or interesting choices and problems to solve are the suckiest kind of all.

An acid trap that does 1d8 damage for 4 rounds is all by itself vastly better designed than a lightning trap that does 4d8 damage, because now at the least there is an opportunity for the party to do something to mitigate the damage and work together as a team. It's not a great trap, but it's at least not entirely sucky. That's one tiny little twist that creates a predicament.

And when Lanefan is discussing traps he likes, he discusses things like chute traps which are the epitome of not just deducting hit points in a random tax while creating a predicament. So, frankly, I think Lanefan understands traps better than The Angry GM.

 

[Celebrim]

TOR (1e) journeys are a mini-game within the game that skips step #2, which is where those "meaningful decisions" take place. When a swollen, frigid river blocks their path, the GM should be asking, "What do you do?" Instead it's "Give me a roll to see if you successfully pass it." There's no point to asking about alternative solutions; the rules of the game do not support that. Not only does this remove player agency, but it makes the description of the river itself irrelevant to the game. The GM could narrate an entirely different obstacle, or skip the narration completely, and nothing else would change.*

I'd been thinking of buying TOR, and wow did you just completely kill my enthusiasm for doing so.

All of which parallels the way traps and secret doors are typically handled in D&D and other RPGs. Both are agency-less resource drains on the way to the actual RPGing.

Well, it's not the way they should be.

*Maybe that's the litmus test for whether something is an RPG: if stripping away the description, or changing it to neutral terms (e.g., a "pit trap with spikes" becomes just "a trap") has no effect on resolution mechanics, it's not an RPG. Might need a new thread to discuss that....

I'm not sure I'd go that far but, it's very much not an RPG I want to play at that point.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I disagree, and notably so does The Angry GM.

While the Angry GM doesn't well define what a good trap is and conversely what does make a trap sucky, he does admit that all of this discussion applies only to certain types of traps like "arrow traps" or "lightning bolt traps". He does admit that with some traps it's perfectly fine to not have tells and thus by implication traps that only get spotted if someone searches the right place and rolls well. He admits this because he admits certain types of traps are fun.

And I've discussed this at length at EnWorld for decades now, that the suckiest and most pointless trap of all is one that is randomly in the middle of nowhere and just deducts some one time hit points while nothing else is going on, and it's those traps (which make up the majority of published examples even to this day) that you want to minimize the use of, give tells for, and ideally just not use. There is no such thing as a top tier trap that doesn't create a predicament for the party. Traps that don't create predicaments, that don't result in an interesting encounter or interesting choices and problems to solve are the suckiest kind of all.

An acid trap that does 1d8 damage for 4 rounds is all by itself vastly better designed than a lightning trap that does 4d8 damage, because now at the least there is an opportunity for the party to do something to mitigate the damage and work together as a team. It's not a great trap, but it's at least not entirely sucky. That's one tiny little twist that creates a predicament.

And when Lanefan is discussing traps he likes, he discusses things like chute traps which are the epitome of not just deducting hit points in a random tax while creating a predicament. So, frankly, I think Lanefan understands traps better than The Angry GM.

Agree. And to clarify, by "happen to search in the right place" I meant...but could have been more clear..."either by blind luck or because they literally search everywhere." I think Angry DM would agree with that. If they happen to search in the right place because there is a reason to, then it's totally different. (I typically don't also require a roll, but that's less important than knowing where to look.)

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It depends. I think there's a place for trapped locks and treasure chests without tells. Stuff you'd expect to have traps on it. A hallway with a random trap and no tells, not so much. I don't think gotcha traps are that fun.

Now, what is fun is a jewel on a pedestal with an enormous scythe above it, maybe with electrified tiles around it as the actual trap. Something telegraphed, yet still so tempting, that it presents a puzzle.

 

[Celebrim]

It depends. I think there's a place for trapped locks and treasure chests without tells. Stuff you'd expect to have traps on it. A hallway with a random trap and no tells, not so much. I don't think gotcha traps are that fun.

I agree. In a sense, a treasure chest, the door to something secure, an altar, an idol, or a tomb are all themselves tells. They are just places where you should think, "There is probably a trap here." Whereas, you are doing it wrong if the players think they need to search for traps in well-travelled corridors, and questions like, "Are their patterns in the dust or traffic?" should be pertinent in the case that they are doing so.