Yes, fine. Just doing everything automatically is an option. I think it’s an
incredibly boring option, but it is technically an option.
I guess I’m having trouble understanding why one would want to bother having hazards in a way that doesn’t present any interesting gameplay, and doing something to make them interesting is apparently something the GM should need relief from doing. I can understand wanting to montage exploration, treating it as scene dressing (as I expect most people do), but what’s the point of having a scene where the PCs don’t make meaningful choices?
If that's a genuine question, I'd happy to answer. But before I do that I'd like to make it clear that while sometimes I do think I'm playing the game in a better way
, this is simply a case of different preferences.
We like our focus to be on combat, and story, and interacting with NPCs. Exactly how you scan a wall, or how you approach a statue, or whether you first check the door knob for hidden traps before opening the door is tedious old-school "dungeon minutiae" to us.
Just assume the characters are doing their thing, and tell us when there's anything requiring our input as players.
That means either "the chest blows up in your face" or "you spot the tripwire, hidden daggers, evil genie". Those are the two end outcomes. That's what's important. All the specifics of where you look, and whether you look behind the bookshelves or lift all the pillows is not useful - at least not when you've seen a hundred dungeons already. All that's best abstracted away just making the Spot Hidden or Perception check.
The main reason for this is: You're asked to discuss specifics with no actual information. That's akin to role-playing what you're eating for breakfast. A perfectly fine way of spending your game sessions, and sure we might do it. Once, at level 1. Then we'd much rather get to the point.
Now, if you spot the trap, then obviously you do have actual information. Do we back off, try to disable the trap or maybe something else.
But describing doors and walls, and trying to put in clues as to when it's worthwhile to take particular care, only to the take that particular care... I probe it. I smell it. I reach behind it. I look at it in UV light.
Traps just don't have that amount of detail.
They're just traps, and constantly worrying about them or manually handling them makes dungoneering slow to a crawl. Not to mention that for every instance where there really IS a trap, you have all the instances where there is no trap! When the party becomes suspicious of a statue that just happens to look like the King's assassin it can easily take oodles of time (that you never get back)... or "I check the statue. Your Perception tells you nothing. Fine. Let's move on"
And then you have the mechanics side of it. The game simply isn't detailed enough for extensive investigations of chests or doors to have meaning. Sure the GM can make up details such as the exact length of the door handle or how worn it appears to be. But there's no game, no modifiers, no game behind it. We believe there are plenty of actual rules that take time, and do not need to invent even more time sinks.
We're entirely fine with no foreshadowing needed, and no player detailed interaction needed. It's just a trap. It doesn't merit slowing down the entire dungeon experience.
We prefer to simply say "Mighty Krull goes from the outer room to the inner room". All the disclaimers like "I check everything carefully along the way" is implicit and assumed. Is there a trap, either we detect it or we don't. No need to draw it out. And if there isn't a trap, then no time was lost. A lot less work for the GM, a lot less time spent on nothing by the group.
Cheers
