D&D 5E Brief Thoughts on Traps and Player Agency

[FormerlyHemlock]

[Preface: If you're not sure why you'd want to plant traps in your dungeon, you need to read this post: "The purpose of a trap is to make decisions meaningful. If there is no risk from just walking around, opening chests, or exploring rooms, then those activities become flat and dull. If the only threat is monsters, then you've removed uncertainty from the game making it flatter and less interesting. Traps should make the play of the game more interesting."]

I've been thinking lately about traps in dungeons and how on the one hand they are more fun if players interact with them directly through roleplaying (as opposed to Perception or Investigation checks), and on the other hand, players should still reap some benefit if they chose to invest mechanically in Investigation/etc., because that's part of agency too.

Let's say I've got an interesting trap planned. (Or at least, one that I think is interesting.)

This room is thick with the stench of decay seeping up from between the loose wooden floorboards. The room is too large to see the far wall in the torchlight. Broken dishes are strewn about the floor, and in the center of the room two large trestle tables heaped with dessicated food meet at an angle beneath a large chandelier. To your left, an oversized metal bucket has been placed upside-down in the corner with a large stone on top. The walls that you can see are filthy, and the wall to your left is darker than the others. To your right is a dented iron portcullis, beyond which you can see cheery sunlight streaming down into a dusty stone corridor.

Let's say the trap is that the floor is weak and rotten, and that approaching the trestle tables in the center of the room will result in floor collapsing like a pit trap into the room below (which is inhabited by several Grey Oozes). This trap can be avoided by player skill, of course, just like any other trap--e.g. testing the floor with a 10' pole before venturing onto it, examining the floorboards to find out what's causing the decaying stench, etc. But how do we make it rewarding for the Rogue who invested in Perception Expertise and the Observant feat? Do we just say, "Oh, your passive Investigation is 19, so you know the floor will collapse if you walk on it?" That seems likely to cheapen the experience.

So here's the solution I'm considering: set the DCs really high (but somewhat random), and don't let one skill give away all the answers. After all, there's no law of nature that says it should be easy to detect rotten flooring just be looking at it. Keeping the DCs randomized prevents the challenge from becoming too binary.

In this specific case, let's say there is no way normally to detect the rot visually before you actually step on the section which is rotten enough to give way under the weight of an adult human, but not only can you smell the rot easily (DC 2d10+5 Perception (smell) check determined in advance to notice that the smell of decay is stronger in the center of the room; DC 2d10 + 10 check determined in advance to realize that it smells like an old lumberyard after the rain) but it's possible to outright deduce that the floor here is probably weak (DC 15 + 3d6) just because it's so old and wet.

Players who outright ask about some feature of the environment ("can I tell where the smell is coming from?") automatically get the correct answer; players whose passive Perception or passive Investigation beat the requisite DC get that information volunteered to them by the DM.

TL;DR if you're worried about gamist mechanics sucking all the joy out of dungeon traps, you can just set the DCs realistically high, high enough to represent "a normal person would not figure this out automatically just by looking around even if they rolled a natural 20; only a trained individual might recognize this situation as something he's seen before". Mid-twenties is probably a good range.

 

[mrpopstar]

TL;DR if you're worried about gamist mechanics sucking all the joy out of dungeon traps, you can just set the DCs realistically high, high enough to represent "a normal person would not figure this out automatically just by looking around even if they rolled a natural 20; only a trained individual might recognize this situation as something he's seen before". Mid-twenties is probably a good range.

So, follow the guidance provided in the aptly named Dungeon Master's Guide?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, follow the guidance provided in the aptly named Dungeon Master's Guide?

I don't remember the DMG giving any such specific guidance, but if so, then great. Does it also discuss how to maintain player agency as the primary mode of interaction for those who fail the check?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think the mistake here is that this trap is just boring and so doesn't meet the needs as outlined in the OP. That your solution is to arbitrarily increase DCs to counter the agency of players in what mechanical choices they've made to somehow balance against the agency of declared actions, which you obviously value more, again fails to achieve the needs as outlined at the top of the OP. You're introducing gamist meta-mechanics to offset the bad design of the trap vs character skill suites. That's not a suitable solution. Also, your trap design is really just a pixel hunt.

Skills like perception give you sensory clues, not deductive answers. It's fine for you to determine that passive perception is incapable of determining where the floor is rotten enough to collapse, but it should just be an impossibility -- no need to hide it behind an arbitrarily high DC (especially not a randomly rolled one). The effect is the same, but the route is more honest. However, it shouldn't be difficult to determine that there's a rotting smell, nor that the smell is similar to wood rot (almost everyone has smelled rotting wood). But the smell of wood rot is just a clue, and doesn't answer the trap. Effort on the player's part to actively investigate to determine where the wood is rotten is next, and that doesn't yield to a simple roll -- they have to ask for the check. At which time you should grant it, with reasonable difficulty (just slightly rotten, but enough to collapse under weight due to shoddy construction would be a hard DC, crumbles to the touch would be an easy one). Then your players have their agency rewarded for both their mechanical choices and their in game choices. And the trap is something they have to work around. But it's still a bit boring.

I would fix your trap in a number of ways. Firstly, I would telegraph it by having a section of the floor already having collapsed - a previous visitor stepped in the wrong place. This adds immediate tension. Secondly, I'd place it in a location that requires the players to operate under time pressure -- an enemy is fleeing and they're pursuing and/or they're being chased, or some other plot reason. Or, alternatively, I'd have the trap area as part of an encounter with hostiles -- preferably ones that aren't vulnerable to the trap such as fliers or climbers or light enough to not cause the floor to fall. Either way, I'd make the determination of the rotten areas easier (but not automatic) because the trap at that point isn't a gotcha but an obstacle that enhances the area. Finally, I'd likely reduce the effects of a failure to an easy encounter at the bottom or a forced change of location (slide, new level, etc.) This enhances play because it causes the party to have to make the choice between risking a rescue or voluntarily entering the new area to stay together. It makes the dungeon/encounter area more dynamic. This is the only thing I liked about your trap design above -- it's failure mode did add a dynamic new area and a new traversal method.

However, the thing that most interested me about your description was the upside-down pail with the rock on it. My characters are all very interested in what's under the pail.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Players who outright ask about some feature of the environment ("can I tell where the smell is coming from?") automatically get the correct answer; players whose passive Perception or passive Investigation beat the requisite DC get that information volunteered to them by the DM.

I think that's the right of it. I'd even adjust the original description to suppress some of the specifics. "You smell the stench of decay" for example, and maybe also "large cracks between the floorboards". If they specifically ask where it's coming from you can say from the floor. If they say they get down and sniff the floor you can add that it's coming from between the cracks.

For players who just want to roll Perception/Investigation, have a list of such details, sorted by DC. Give each player one roll, and then give them the hint with the highest DC that they qualify for.

Maybe what we need is a standardized "stat block" for such traps/puzzles. A default description, then a table of clues. For each clue there's a DC, and an example of the type of action that will reveal the clue automatically.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Thanks [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], good ideas.

I should add that I would use AngryDM's "click" rule here. If a player says, "I walk forward with the torch so I can see the far wall," I've set up the rotten wood in such a way that there's no warning sound or creaking before the collapse occurs--but I would still follow the click rule to let the player's intuition about the dangers in the room guide how events unfold.

Bob: I walk forward with the torch so I can see the far wall.
DM: Click!
Bob: I leap backwards!
DM: The floor collapses under your weight, but you're already leaping away backwards when it happens. Roll a DC 15 Dex save to grab one of the floorboards that remain, but you have advantage on the roll.
Bob: 17!
DM: Hooray! The trestle tables fall with a loud sploosh! but you catch a floorboard and avoid falling into whatever they fell in. You're now dangling over a pool of murky fluid with two trestle tables poking out. As you watch, they shift and sink. You can easily climb back up into the room you came from. What do you do?

If Bob had said "I drop prone!" or "I duck under the table!" then he would have disadvantage on the roll because his intuition steered him in the wrong direction. If he'd said, "I Dodge!" or "I turn to face the portcullis!" then he's doing something unhelpful but not hurtful, and he just rolls his Dex save normally.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think the mistake here is that this trap is just boring and so doesn't meet the needs as outlined in the OP.

Then pretend it was a more interesting trap, like Grimtooth's lava trap or something. That's not the point--the point is to find a way to allow either players or character skills to engage with the same content. If you're using Grimtooth's The Bigger They Are trap, wouldn't it be a pity if it just turned into "I roll Investigation. Oh, it's a falling rock"? And it would also be a pity if maxed out passive Investigation 32 provided no benefit even against simple, obvious traps. If a player "pays" character resources to avoid certain kinds of content, he should get the benefit of his choice. Choosing the DCs in a range where normal humans would not detect the clues, but an optimized PC could detect the clues, seems like a pretty good compromise. Do you disagree?

I'm pleased that you found the red herrings in the room more interesting than the trap. That's why they're there.

My characters are all very interested in what's under the pail.

It's a dead mouse.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thanks [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], good ideas.

I should add that I would use AngryDM's "click" rule here. If a player says, "I walk forward with the torch so I can see the far wall," I've set up the rotten wood in such a way that there's no warning sound or creaking before the collapse occurs--but I would still follow the click rule to let the player's intuition about the dangers in the room guide how events unfold.

Bob: I walk forward with the torch so I can see the far wall.
DM: Click!
Bob: I leap backwards!
DM: The floor collapses under your weight, but you're already leaping away backwards when it happens. Roll a DC 15 Dex save to grab one of the floorboards that remain, but you have advantage on the roll.
Bob: 17!
DM: Hooray! The trestle tables fall with a loud sploosh! but you catch a floorboard and avoid falling into whatever they fell in. You're now dangling over a pool of murky fluid with two trestle tables poking out. As you watch, they shift and sink. You can easily climb back up into the room you came from. What do you do?

If Bob had said "I drop prone!" or "I duck under the table!" then he would have disadvantage on the roll because his intuition steered him in the wrong direction. If he'd said, "I Dodge!" or "I turn to face the portcullis!" then he's doing something unhelpful but not hurtful, and he just rolls his Dex save normally.

Ooh...I like it. The rule could be:
- If you react generically ("I jump to safety") or in the obvious way ("I leap back the way I came!") or in some way irrelevant ("I jump straight up") then you roll normally.
- If you react in a bad way ("I jump toward the table!") you roll with Disadvantage
- If you react in a non-obvious beneficial way ("I leap for the hanging chandelier!") you get Advantage

That might give players an incentive to try something creative, rather than just being generic. But it doesn't really penalize the absence of an inspiring idea, either.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So here's the solution I'm considering: set the DCs really high (but somewhat random), and don't let one skill give away all the answers. After all, there's no law of nature that says it should be easy to detect rotten flooring just be looking at it. Keeping the DCs randomized prevents the challenge from becoming too binary.

Randomized DCs are an interesting wrinkle, but requiring several successes from several different skills - well, you're edging close to re-inventing the Skill Challenge (which, really, could do with some re-inventing)...

Players who outright ask about some feature of the environment ("can I tell where the smell is coming from?") automatically get the correct answer; players whose passive Perception or passive Investigation beat the requisite DC get that information volunteered to them by the DM.

Doesn't that lend itself to 'pixel bitching?' That is, wouldn't it tend to train players to badger you with constant questions about the environment, even when they really don't matter? And that's not really a question: IMX, that's exactly what happens if you get too consistent in giving out auto-successes for asking just the right question.

 

[robus]

Bob: I walk forward with the torch so I can see the far wall.
DM: Click!
Bob: I leap backwards!

I imagine you didn't mean literally "click" - but rather something like:

DM: You feel the floor start to give way with a terrible groaning sound... what do you do?

And, yes, totally down with the "click" approach.