Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8106369" data-attributes="member: 12731">Remember that since I'm running an AP, my hands are considerably more tied than if I ran a scenario of my own creation.That would not change my approach to describing dungeon features, however. My players and me have agreed a long time ago that poking at things with ten-feet poles are a thing of the past (for us).To be clear: the characters might still poke things with ten-feet poles. It's just thata) the players don't have to describe them doing it any more than they have to say their character takes bathroom breaksb) being clever about it doesn't mean you get to circumvent actual mechanics.That is, in old adventures, you could have a lethal trap because the intention was that by prodding and poking it in sufficiently clever ways (obviously necessitating a clear focus on foreshadowing by the DM) you would be able to bypass or disable it.That's akin to the difference between two ways of resolving a combat:I) you describe how you swing and where you aim, and this influences if there's a solid hit, a glancing blow, a block or a dodgeII) characters have statistics and whether you hit or miss is determined by game mechanics and diceIt's player skill vs character skill.We just run our traps the way we run combat: as a game, where the details are trusted upon the characters and not the players.If you play combat as a game a Fighter doesn't get a bonus just because his player says he's aiming for the weak spot between the armor plates of the monster. This is instead resolved as "if you roll good enough you get a critical hit". That the Fighter is trying his best to make smart thrusts is assumed, rather than something the player must keep up.The same way, whether the Rogue finds a trap isn't dependent on whether the player says she's looking or not. We simply look at the dice - if the GM rolls 23 on her Perception check he says "You find minute holes in the walls, you suspect a trap" but if he rolls 14 he says "You take your time, moving closely and carefully, but suddenly you hear a distinctly mechanical clicking sound. Green noxious gas spews from hidden nozzles".The value we perceive is in cutting down on time spent just exploring the parts of the dungeon that isn't interesting. The party is just moving on until the GM says something interesting happens, the players trusting the GM not to shortchange their characters' abilities.I have a hard time thinking anyone considering this not a valid play style. In fact, given that traps are presented much like monsters with similar attention to mechanical detail, I would consider our play style being the intended default for PF2. (Contrast to how <a href="https://geekandsundry.com/grimtooths-traps-are-an-old-school-way-to-cause-dd-chaos/" target="_blank">Grimtooth's</a> traps are much more intended to be interacted with by the players)It may not be the ONLY playstyle, but it should definitely be enough to contest an assertion such as "to make the game work as Paizo intended it you need to foreshadow more" as not necessarily true.Regards,Zapp</blockquote>

Verification