I'm not sure that D&D was ever really based on what you have in the Real World, though. Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, and others certainly ran into traps rather frequently, and they're among the entries in Appendix N which supposedly inspired the game.
DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
I'm not sure that D&D was ever really based on what you have in the Real World, though. Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, and others certainly ran into traps rather frequently, and they're among the entries in Appendix N which supposedly inspired the game.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Er, did you read my post to which he is referring?
That is precisely my point. They are a construct of the genre, as I said. Further, they appear very inconsistently within that genre. Tons of Appendix N or S&S material and so on features no mechanical-unattended traps (or even magical quasi-traps). That's why D&D often has them. However, they are not required, nor is an adventure, dungeon or place without them somehow "unrealistic" or inappropriate, which was the apparent assertion that I was responding to. I do like traps, but for me they need to make sense in context, and many D&D ones do not.
I would differentiate traps and hazards, note (and D&D tends to as well).
The claim was that traps exist because, "A lack of traps wouldn't make sense. I strive for a world that makes sense."
The worlds of Conan, Fafhrd, et al do not make sense. That's why we consider them "fantasy".
I'm fine with, "I strive for a world like Nehwon, so I include traps."
Scrivener of Doom
Adventurer
Thanks for posting that.
I've only ever played it as a drinking game in China in Chinese even though I neither drink nor speak Chinese. (So, yes, I knock back water or tea while my opponent is knocking back Chinese whiskey. I normally win....) I never realised there was a non-drinking version....
I don't read any statement about D&D and "what makes sense" as an appeal to what makes sense in Real Life. I read it as an appeal to something that makes sense in the genre, where they do appear. Real Life and D&D remain independent cases, to my way of thinking. I expect traps in Nehwon or Hyboria, and their appearance in a game influenced by those settings makes sense. At least to me. And I think both you and [MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION], based on his further post. I'm not sure that's the way [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] thinks of them, to be fair, but there is plenty of reason to include them from my perspective even if it differs from his.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Again, I have to ask: did you read my post? I really get the feeling that you've still not.
I specifically addressed this. The genre is inconsistent. It makes no more or less "sense" to have lots of traps or absolutely no traps.
D&D-style traps are fairly rare in Nehwon, so "expecting" them as routine doesn't flow naturally from that. I can't speak for Hyboria.
Apart from that, you're moving the goalposts - it's not about "reason to include them". It's about the insistence that traps "make sense", with the strong suggestion that a lack of traps does not.
Hussar
Legend
I was going to say - I've read a lot of Conan stories, and I'm struggling to think of any with D&D style traps in them. I'm sure that there are a couple here or there, but, really, I don't think they make an appearance very often. The whole Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom thing with a series of traps with the golden statue at the end isn't a Conan thing.
Although, it certainly is a pulp fantasy thing. You do see it in lots of the pulp short stories. Which is why you see it in Indiana Jones. And, this is why you see it in D&D.
Although, it certainly is a pulp fantasy thing. You do see it in lots of the pulp short stories. Which is why you see it in Indiana Jones. And, this is why you see it in D&D.
There are secret doors, and the occasional pit. Off the top of my head I can't think of any scything blades, falling blocks or poison needles.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
We had a fun game tonight at Nexus gaming con in Milwaukee. I ran Castle Zagyg:Upper Works and the players all agreed at the end that it was an enjoyable module. one thing that happened early on was the party entering the "bat cave" (#E) and using a grappling hook to enter the castle from beneath via "a tubular tunnel of brickwork leading straight upwards, the top of which you notice has a large wooden crossbar across its end with a rope attached."
This is a classic D&D trick of course. They hadn't yet seen within the castle, so I was very careful about how I explained the "cave" shaft out of the natural cavern. I expected the players to figure it out right away, but they never let on. Once a couple PCs were finally out of the "4' ring of stonewall with wooden pylons, crossbar, and nearby bucket" I finally told them a they stood beside a well in a corner courtyard.
Of course they figured it out right away, but they never let on string ME along as I kept describing the environment in details rather than its composition.
I don't know how each DM differentiates between Tricks & Traps, but I guess I treat the first as environmental and the second as creature creations. Of course it's also common to think of both as creature creations where tricks fool players (like a wild goose chase), while traps must always entrap (like a bear trap hidden or not).
This is a classic D&D trick of course. They hadn't yet seen within the castle, so I was very careful about how I explained the "cave" shaft out of the natural cavern. I expected the players to figure it out right away, but they never let on. Once a couple PCs were finally out of the "4' ring of stonewall with wooden pylons, crossbar, and nearby bucket" I finally told them a they stood beside a well in a corner courtyard.
Of course they figured it out right away, but they never let on string ME along as I kept describing the environment in details rather than its composition.
I don't know how each DM differentiates between Tricks & Traps, but I guess I treat the first as environmental and the second as creature creations. Of course it's also common to think of both as creature creations where tricks fool players (like a wild goose chase), while traps must always entrap (like a bear trap hidden or not).
Emerikol
Adventurer
Another way of saying this perhaps is...given a set of setting premises does the concept make sense. D&D is in itself a set of premises. D&D has an implied setting even if not one single setting were supplied. In a world with teleport, things are different. I try and make peace with these things when I design a campaign world but if I want something different I change the game to reflect that difference.
Following a couple of old links brought me back to this thread from last year.
Rereading this particular post reminded me of some things Luke Crane said about running Moldvay Basic.
On player proficiency and TPKs:
The players duly raided away, but after the third wave of character deaths, they had a dawning realization that this endeavor was pointless. They quit Quasqueton after exploring 80% of the dungeon in three sessions, at the cost of about six deaths: They vowed never to go back. . . .
Why is this era of D&D about puzzle-solving and exploration? Because your characters are fragile and treasure compromises 4/5s of the experience you earn, whereas fighting monsters earns only 1/5. Thus if there's a big monster guarding a valuable piece of treasure, the incentive is to figure out a way to get the treasure without fighting the monster. Fight only as a last resort; explore first so you can better solve. This shift in emphasis away from fighting was frustrating at first, but then profoundly refreshing once we sussed out the logic. . . .
Having learned this lesson at the cost of another seven deaths, the group completed B2 in grand style: Their plans were so effective, their exploration so thorough, that the victorious player characters suffered not a point of damage in the final confrontation. And I opposed them with mind-boggling array of villainy!
Why is this era of D&D about puzzle-solving and exploration? Because your characters are fragile and treasure compromises 4/5s of the experience you earn, whereas fighting monsters earns only 1/5. Thus if there's a big monster guarding a valuable piece of treasure, the incentive is to figure out a way to get the treasure without fighting the monster. Fight only as a last resort; explore first so you can better solve. This shift in emphasis away from fighting was frustrating at first, but then profoundly refreshing once we sussed out the logic. . . .
Having learned this lesson at the cost of another seven deaths, the group completed B2 in grand style: Their plans were so effective, their exploration so thorough, that the victorious player characters suffered not a point of damage in the final confrontation. And I opposed them with mind-boggling array of villainy!
On conveying information and player skill:
t's a hard game to run. Not because of prep or rules mastery, but because of the role of the GM as impartial conveyer of really bad news. Since the exploration side of the game is cross between Telephone and Pictionary, I must sit impassive as the players make bad decisions. I want them to win. I want them to solve the puzzles, but if I interfere, I render the whole exercise pointless. . . .
The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.
So this wink and nudge that encourages GMs to fudge is the greatest flaw of the text.
The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.
So this wink and nudge that encourages GMs to fudge is the greatest flaw of the text.
And also:
During some of the darker moments of the game, when curses flew and lives ended, my players turned to me and said, "Don't worry; don't feel badly. It's not you. It's the game."
Manbearcat
Legend
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], good stuff. I've either read those excerpts before or I've watched/listened to the seminar (likely the latter) where this came from. Crane crushes it out of the park here. Running tight dungeon crawls requires an awful lot of skill with a very focused set of techniques. You don't want the players to lose, but your responsibility is to faithfully render the opposition and carry on the necessaries of play procedures with the primary objective always at the forefront; the authenticity of player success (by the mix of their own merits and the objective fall of the dice) is paramount.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], this is part of why I suck at running classic D&D dungeon crawls. I can't tolerate the Telephone/Pictionary aspect that Luke Crane describes: I want to get involved and tell my players what is really going on! But in this sort of game, that just ruins the whole thing.
Manbearcat
Legend
It certainly does. Do you enjoy Telephone, Pictionary, Charades? Or strategy games that require assymetric solutions (I know you don't play CRPGs, but Portal comes to mind). A well done dungeon crawl requires a lot of honed skill with regards to verbal and nonverbal communication (of the ilk required for those three parlour games), the ability to prep assymetric puzzles (and synch them their unraveling with the resolution mechanics), and the ability to stay committed to being a neutral referee. That last bit also takes a lot of practice as my disposition is certainly in-line with your own (and Cranes)! I want the PCs to win! But if they haven't earned it then the whole exercise is a waste of time...
This is why I'm very good at these for one-offs (even if it is a serial game connected by those one-off dungeons...run perhaps biannually), but I couldn't (and wouldn't want to) possibly commit to this style for weekly play. My preferences have long lied elsewhere.
What I often find interesting is the propensity on this board to conflate GMing one game agenda and one system with GMing another agenda or system. There is not much overlap in the techniques and disposition required to run a healthy dungeon crawl game versus a functional Story Now (!) game.
I enjoy them as classic parlour games, yes, but I wouldn't turn up every second weekend just to play charades! The dramatic fiction component of RPGs is hugely important to me, and the recurring narrative of those games is "D'oh! Who would have thought a fire hydrant would turn into a budgerigar in a cage?"
My neutral refereeing I tend to bring out for setting and marking exams. Whereas for me RPG-refereeing is more like supervising a research student - they have to do their own work, but I'm there to help and guide.
Manbearcat
Legend
Agreed. That is why I only run them about twice a year!
Interesting. Psychologically I sort of feel a different connection to my role in GMing the games I typically enjoy these days. I think it might best be encapsulated by basically:
I suspect you relate.
The current Lewis Pulsipher thread brought me back to this one.
Sometimes when you're supervising a research student - quite often, actually - you have to poke. It's not neutral, but it's pointless to just hand the student the answer - then they're not learning how to navigate their way through the discipline.
My sort of GMing is a bit like that - only substitute "thematic stuff" for "the discipline"!
Emerikol
Adventurer
I believe I come pretty close to following that philosophy when I play. I create a sandbox. I never design anything with any assumptions about what the players will do. Outcomes are outcomes. I adjudicate like a computer and let the dice fall where they may. I find it a satisfying way to play but I've come to learn it's not for everyone. It does work if you have people that like the approach.
Dorian_Grey
First Post
I stumbled across this thread today - and it's timely. I've recently been told I should be a computer - not in so many words, but that was the intent.
Similar Threads
