Should traps have tells?

[pemerton]

if the hostile neighbors/invaders are kobolds, my traps need to be low, and "lethal" enough to inflict about 7 damage... which isn't a threat to most adventurers after 1st level, but in this case, I wasn't trying to kill adventurers!

I'm not sure what this looks like in the fiction, that is, what is the nature of a trap that is lethal enough to deal 7 hp damage but not more.

 

[Lanefan]

Realistic in the sense that traps are built to harm, maim, and kill rather than be easily-spotted gameplay elements.

Or delay, divert, distract, and disperse. Not all traps need to be damaging but IMO they all need a good in-fiction reason to be there. That they then become gameplay elements is merely a side effect.

 

[overgeeked]

Or delay, divert, distract, and disperse. Not all traps need to be damaging but IMO they all need a good in-fiction reason to be there. That they then become gameplay elements is merely a side effect.

For me it’ll always come back to Vietnam. That’s how traps work.

Whenever someone says, “That’s not how traps work.” I point to Vietnam. If that’s how they worked in Vietnam, that’s how they work in my games. If a trap has a tell, the tell itself is a trap. It’s asymmetrical warfare. That’s the point.

If I’m going to the trouble of including traps, they’re going to work like they did in Vietnam. I know a lot of people who find that style of play fun. I also know a lot of people who hate that style of play. It’s a big hobby. It takes all kinds.

The other touchstone is Indiana Jones. It’s great for the more gamey style of traps. I’ve done that style myself. It can be a lot of fun. But it always feels like a ride at an amusement park. Nothing wrong with that. I just prefer something that feels more grounded and substantial. This style always feels hollow to me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not sure what this looks like in the fiction, that is, what is the nature of a trap that is lethal enough to deal 7 hp damage but not more.

I think that poster meant a trap doing 2d6 damage, averaging 7.

 

[Bill Zebub]

For me it’ll always come back to Vietnam. That’s how traps work.

Whenever someone says, “That’s not how traps work.” I point to Vietnam. If that’s how they worked in Vietnam, that’s how they work in my games. If a trap has a tell, the tell itself is a trap. It’s asymmetrical warfare. That’s the point.

If I’m going to the trouble of including traps, they’re going to work like they did in Vietnam. I know a lot of people who find that style of play fun. I also know a lot of people who hate that style of play. It’s a big hobby. It takes all kinds.

The other touchstone is Indiana Jones. It’s great for the more gamey style of traps. I’ve done that style myself. It can be a lot of fun. But it always feels like a ride at an amusement park. Nothing wrong with that. I just prefer something that feels more grounded and substantial. This style always feels hollow to me.

I do have to wonder what percentage of traps a dedicated "tunnel rat" from the Vietnam era would spot.

I bet it's much higher than the chance of spotting a trap in D&D. If it were the same chance, no tunnel rats would have survived the war.

Wouldn't a "realistic" system give a thief character a similar chance?

 

[bloodtide]

I am mostly Team Fun, with a side of Fair.

I'm Team Hard Fun, with a side of Unfair!

 

[overgeeked]

I do have to wonder what percentage of traps a dedicated "tunnel rat" from the Vietnam era would spot.

I bet it's much higher than the chance of spotting a trap in D&D. If it were the same chance, no tunnel rats would have survived the war.

Wouldn't a "realistic" system give a thief character a similar chance?

According to this article the casualty rate was 33%.

Video: Here are the little known 'Tunnel Rat' soldiers of the Vietnam War

So going with that figure, 1/3 of all PCs who are specially trained to engage with traps (rogues) simply die or are so wounded as to be removed from action long term or permanently.

The casualty rates for untrained soldiers engaging with traps would be much, much higher. These would be the equivalent of all non-rogue PCs. Effectively.

More here.


And here.

Opinion | My Life as a Tunnel Rat

Attacking underground bunkers in Vietnam was the least of my worries.

archive.nytimes.com

 

[Bill Zebub]

According to this article the casualty rate was 33%.

Video: Here are the little known 'Tunnel Rat' soldiers of the Vietnam War

So going with that figure, 1/3 of all PCs who are specially trained to engage with traps (rogues) simply die or are so wounded as to be removed from action long term or permanently.

The casualty rates for untrained soldiers engaging with traps would be much, much higher. These would be the equivalent of all non-rogue PCs. Effectively.

More here.


And here.

Opinion | My Life as a Tunnel Rat

Attacking underground bunkers in Vietnam was the least of my worries.

archive.nytimes.com

Well, I imagine a lot of those casualties were not from traps but from engaging the enemy.

But let's pretend the 33% is solely from traps. Which means 66% were never badly injured or killed by traps. Since those traps are designed to seriously wound or kill, and soldiers don't have "hit points" that heal in 24 hours, I am guessing that it only takes one bad mistake....maybe two if you're lucky....to get taken out of the war.

Assuming that "only" 33% of tunnel rats got wounded or killed by traps, it's pretty easy to do some math showing the relationship between the number of traps encountered, and the frequency at which they were avoided. Or not avoided.

For example, if on average a tunnel rat encounters only 10 traps total, over their course of their deployment, and the chance of detection a trap is N%, then N^10 = 66%, and N is ~96%. That is, if tunnel rats have an 96% chance of detecting a trap, and they encounter a total of 10 traps each, expected survival rate is 66%.

From your description, it sounds like they encounter a lot more traps than that. Let's say 50. And now let's just guess that only half of those casualties are traps, which we'll round up to 17%. So now we need detection rate that, when raised to the 50th power, equals 83%.

Drumroll....

~99.6%

So if we are going for realism, and using Vietnam as our archetype, delvers with expertise in trap detection who are actively looking for traps should have a success rate nearing 100%.

 

[Celebrim]

According to this article the casualty rate was 33%.

This is not however a figure per trap, but a figure by career.

Approximately 700 men served as Tunnel Rats. They explored 4500 tunnels, or about 6 tunnels per man. Since they generally went down in teams of 2-3, that's probably 12-18 tunnels each. Each tunnel would generally have multiple traps - mines, grenades on trip wires, pit traps for feet or arms leading to spikes, razorwire, ect. If each tunnel had 10 traps, each man then faced about 60 traps in a career. Something less than 1/3rd of those men were however injured by traps, as at least some and perhaps the majority of the injuries were from combat with dug in enemies.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, I imagine a lot of those casualties were not from traps but from engaging the enemy.

But let's pretend the 33% is solely from traps. Which means 66% were never badly injured or killed by traps. Since those traps are designed to seriously wound or kill, and soldiers don't have "hit points" that heal in 24 hours, I am guessing that it only takes one bad mistake....maybe two if you're lucky....to get taken out of the war.

Assuming that "only" 33% of tunnel rats got wounded or killed by traps, it's pretty easy to do some math showing the relationship between the number of traps encountered, and the frequency at which they were avoided. Or not avoided.

For example, if on average a tunnel rat encounters only 10 traps total, over their course of their deployment, and the chance of detection a trap is N%, then N^10 = 66%, and N is ~96%. That is, if tunnel rats have an 96% chance of detecting a trap, and they encounter a total of 10 traps each, expected survival rate is 66%.

From your description, it sounds like they encounter a lot more traps than that. Let's say 50. And now let's just guess that only half of those casualties are traps, which we'll round up to 17%. So now we need detection rate that, when raised to the 50th power, equals 83%.

Drumroll....

~99.6%

So if we are going for realism, and using Vietnam as our archetype, delvers with expertise in trap detection who are actively looking for traps should have a success rate nearing 100%.

Yes, you can manipulate the numbers to produce whatever result you wanted. Congrats.