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

[Wuzzard]

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.

You've turned the trap into a combat encounter environment facet. That's fabulous, and it makes the combat much more interesting. But its no longer a trap. Traps are exploration pillar fun, not combat fun. You can put traps into combat, but unless the players have the time to sweat it out, debate and try crazy stunts, its not a trap worth having.

 

[Wuzzard]

Not just you. Putting that kind of time pressure on the player while being very vague about what's happening feels very "gotcha"-y to me. Which is odd, Angry hates "gotcha" monsters, like mimics, rust monsters, etc. Randomly picking a response, with little to no info and no time to think about it, and getting rewarded or penalized for it, isn't really my cup of tea as a GM, and certainly not as a player.

It may seem gotch-y if the consequences are dire. But you should throw these quick-response situations at the players everyone once in a while to keep them on their toes and paying attention. They won't think gotcha when then successfully evade the danger.

 

[Wuzzard]

About thirty seconds later Weston says, "Found it!"

5 rounds later?! That's like the entire combat!

 

[Wuzzard]

It's the same problem as Riddles, but a little less obvious. It becomes a challenge for the players instead of the characters. Otherwise one of the characters in the game probably has some experience with traps, and has every right to ask:

"My character knows WAY MORE about this kind of stuff than me. What does he deduce?"

Roleplaying it adds important and delicious flavor to the scene. But after a certain point you are no longer adding flavor, you are demanding your players to metagame.

To players that just want to get on to the next fight, traps are just boring annoyances. To players that want to have fun interactive experience with the environment, traps are delicious morsels of goodness. D&D is really multiple games put together. Some players really resonate with the combats, and others really fell in love with the endless exploration. The question you need to ask yourself is what kind of players do you have? Make the game for them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The summer I first got into D&D when I was 13, one of my fellow fanatics and I would sit around (when we couldn't actually play) and put each other through theater-of-the-mind traps and puzzles.

My favorite was the thick oaken log crossing the dungeon corridor, about 3' off the ground, disappearing into the stone on either side.

It didn't actually do anything, but boy was Matt terrified to get near it.

 

[Seramus]

The question you need to ask yourself is what kind of players do you have?

The kind that enjoy roleplaying.

 

[Wuzzard]

The kind that enjoy roleplaying.

Its all role playing. Do you mean the interaction part where there is a lot more talking and less doing?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Those who primarily enjoy social interactions should probably not spend much time dungeon delving (my current group is a little like this actually), and if they do dungeon delve, the DM should make sure to use reaction rolls or similar ideas that empower players to (potentially) interact with NPCs and monsters in ways that do not involve attack rolls.

 

[Seramus]

Its all role playing. Do you mean the interaction part where there is a lot more talking and less doing?

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm having a conversation about roleplaying vs metagaming.

 

[delericho]

Not just you. Putting that kind of time pressure on the player while being very vague about what's happening feels very "gotcha"-y to me. Which is odd, Angry hates "gotcha" monsters, like mimics, rust monsters, etc.

Yeah. When I read that post, I got the impression that the players should be given information about what caused the *click*. But, equally, that they had to answer the "what do you do" immediately. If their immediate reaction is "um..." then so too is their character's, and they get a normal save.

And, yeah, it's worth noting that the "Click" mechanic was very much an additional last-ditch defence - it only applies after the normal uses of Perception, careful probing of the environment, and everything else has been exhausted.

(Oh, and it's also worth noting that in that same article Angry also advocates "themed" traps - that is, the same style of trap should recur several times in the adventure locale. So the first instance may be a "gotcha", but once the PCs get past it they can then learn how the trap works and apply the solution next time. So the first swing-blade probably catches you out, but then the second, third, and fourth are easily dealt with.)