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.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

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.

Totally. Also, the speed at which a session where the party stops to check every corridor for traps progresses would grind any dungeon crawl to a snail's pace.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I agree. In a sense, a treasure chest, the door to something secure, an altar, an idol, or a tomb are all themselves tells.

This makes me think that there are really two kinds of tells:

• Something that makes players think that this is a likely place for a trap, but without any hint of what to look for. (E.g., a treasure chest.)
• Something that hints at the presence of the trap itself. (E.g., a skeleton with a punctured hole in its skull.)

The first kind helps alleviate the problem of players thinking they have to search every 5' square, which is good, but if the players search for traps, how is that resolved?

Let's say it's a skill check, and the check is successful, and the GM describes a pattern of small holes in the wall.

Does the successful check only reveal the holes, or does it also reveal what the holes do? E.g., do bolts/darts shoot out? Do the whole emit some kind of gas? Is it still functional? Or maybe it's one end of a listening tube/device? Or purely decorative?

Let's say those questions are resolved, how do the characters handle it? Let's say they (somehow) know for certain it's a trap. Do they make a skill check to disable/bypass it. Do they have to describe how they disable/bypass it? If the latter, do they also have to make a skill check, or does the GM adjudicate that, possibly granting automatic success or failure?

FWIW, here's how I would approach this:

1. Finding: I would just tell them about the holes, for free.
2. Interpreting: Inspecting the wall across from the holes, or somehow investigating into the holes, would suggest that darts shoot out. (A Dwarf in particular would be able to interpret the scratches/indentations on the opposite wall.)
3. Resolving:
   1. Jamming objects into the holes would disable the trap.
   2. Finding the release device (pressure plate? opening a door?) and triggering remotely would also work.
   3. It's possible they might come up with something complicated enough that it would require a skill/ability check, but only if there is a consequence for failure. For example they might have an idea of how to get past it without triggering it, and that might require an attribute/skill roll. But not if it's "we all step over the pressure plate that we have found" which I think competent adventures should be able to do.

Note that I avoid games where there are specific skills for "finding" and "disarming" traps. So the argument that by making this mostly roll-less I am penalizing players who have invested in those skills doesn't hold any water for me.

 

[Celebrim]

...but if the players search for traps, how is that resolved?

I have long held that the simple "search" check is the most complex thing in all of D&D and this doesn't really matter whether you are talking about "I check for traps' in 1e AD&D or "I search the 5x5 grid" in 3e D&D.

The problem is we are trying to take something that is concrete and abstract it. The character did a series of progressively more intrusive things in some area that is not really specified by the mechanical declaration by the player to avail themselves of the rules. This puts an enormous burden of interpretation on the GM. Did they look or did they touch? What things did they look at or touch? In general, I tend to require the declaring character to make some sort of declaration of intent and method when "searching" in order to answer the questions you are answering. For example, a visual inspection only tends to give a penalty on the search check while being generally safer than tactile inspection.

In general, a search for traps is intended primarily as a search for a trigger mechanism, and not the trap itself. In the case of the two being close together, the searcher may find both, but if the trigger mechanism triggers something remotely they tend to find the trigger mechanism but not an explanation of what it does. In the case of the pattern of small holes in the wall, a search of the wall my find that relatively easily (DC under 20) but barring ability to gather more information (like microscopic vision or x-ray vision) what is down them small holes might not be obvious. That it's a trap could be inferred but wouldn't be something I'd tell them. They are gathering information they can find.

Finding the trigger mechanism however might be more difficult (DC over 20) and might require searching a different area. This might discover a pressure plate or an additional lever in the chest latch or the lock mechanism, or whatever. This is a "trap" in the sense the Rogue recognizes this as a trigger mechanism but doesn't tell the rogue what it does necessarily unless the trigger is closely related to the trap.

Let's say those questions are resolved, how do the characters handle it? Let's say they (somehow) know for certain it's a trap. Do they make a skill check to disable/bypass it. Do they have to describe how they disable/bypass it? If the latter, do they also have to make a skill check, or does the GM adjudicate that, possibly granting automatic success or failure?

If disabling device, they don't have to describe how they disable the trigger. Note however in many cases they can describe how they evade the trap without disabling the trigger. For example, having found a pressure plate, they might describe how they outline it in chalk and then say, "No one step here, there is some sort of pressure plate.", in which case in normal circumstances everyone will carefully step around the trap and not set it off. However, forced movement from panic, bullrushes, or moving into that square while in combat might result in a percentage chance of accidentally setting it off.

A lot of the time if the player can identify the trap and the trigger, the trap can be "disarmed" by having it go off in a controlled manner. This is what Indiana is basically doing when he first finds the pressure plate for the dart trap. This doesn't require a disable device roll. If the PC's can identify a trip wire and observe from the walls it's probably some sort of scythe trap, they might cut or pull the trip wire with a 10' pole or a polearm from a relatively safe distance and hope for the best. If they suspect a door is trapped, they can always try to open it in a way that evades the trap, such as tying a rope to the handle or opening it from the side. Of course, the trap might always turn out to be different than what they expected if they can't identify what it is only the mechanism.