D&D General GMing and "Player Skill"

[Charlaquin]

You cant just mention the fireplace in detail, thats obvious. Also, im curious about "anyone searching must make a save..." Does this mean there is no chance to spot the trap before encountering it? If so, you cant really player skill or character skill that situation as it just happens.

Though, its tricky. You need to give enough enough information to be interesting, without giving any obvious clues. At least from folks I feel do this well (most folks I find dont ymmv). I am way out of practice though as I did a bit of this to spice up Paizo AP dungeons as lengthy as later level ones got. These days im much more into social aspects and overviews and less detail oriented. Im struggling becasue all I have in my mind is a room with a fireplace and Im the type that needs a greater context (where are they, what is the reason for this place, etc...) One thing I think is important, is there needs to be some benefit beyond not getting hurt by a trap. Skill play ought to be rewarded to encourage it in the first place.

You enter a study with dark rosewood walls and gold trimmed fixtures and window treatments. Shelves are lined with books and a writing desk with numerous drawers and compartments sits neatly by a fireplace. A glowing set of embers crackles as the fire is slowly dying out. A large handwoven rug is lying across the floor with a large inviting sitting chair sits opposite side of the room from the writing desk. A single book sits on a small end table within arms reach of the sitting chair. A small ladder aligned with casters lies against the wall that can be used to reach higher shelves of books and documents stored on them. Currently, the room is empty of any occupants, and it seems its been so for at least an hour or two judging by the state of the fire.

I'd put a scroll or other trinket just inside the chimney that can be reached into to obtain. Doing so without addressing the trap though will result in the blade swinging out of the bottom of the mantle and striking the person standing in front. The blade swings out and then resets quickly after a second or two. Behind a book on one of the shelves is a lever that will lock the blade in place. Otherwise, the blade could be jammed with an object to prevent reset. Though, it would have to be triggered beforehand and timed.

Something like that maybe.

I gotta push back on this a bit. Obvious is good when it comes to challenging the players in this sort of context. Unless the players are very experienced with this sort of play (which most of the 5e playerbase is not), they need obvious to have any chance of noticing the trap. Also, even with a group of grizzled OSR veterans, telegraphs are always less obvious to the players than you think they’re going to be. And the goal is not to get the players to fall for the trap. The goal is to make them feel rewarded for paying attention to the description of the environment, thinking about it like a real space, and making informed decisions about how to interact with that space. That requires finding the right level of subtlety for your particular group of players, to where when they do notice a trap, they feel like they almost missed it, and when they fall for a trap, they feel like they could have caught it - they should be able to retroactively identify the tell they missed and rationalize why they missed it, or it will just feel like a screw job. And unless you are very familiar with a group of players, you’re far more likely to overestimate the amount of subtlety they need to hit that sweet spot than to underestimate it. A good rule of thumb is, if it seems like just the right balance based on what you know of the players, make it a little more obvious. If it’s a new group of players, start glaringly obvious and work your way up to more subtle over time.

 

[payn]

I gotta push back on this a bit. Obvious is good when it comes to challenging the players in this sort of context. Unless the players are very experienced with this sort of play (which most of the 5e playerbase is not), they need obvious to have any chance of noticing the trap. Also, even with a group of grizzled OSR veterans, telegraphs are always less obvious to the players than you think they’re going to be. And the goal is not to get the players to fall for the trap. The goal is to make them feel rewarded for paying attention to the description of the environment, thinking about it like a real space, and making informed decisions about how to interact with that space. That requires finding the right level of subtlety for your particular group of players, to where when they do notice a trap, they feel like they almost missed it, and when they fall for a trap, they feel like they could have caught it - they should be able to retroactively identify the tell they missed and rationalize why they missed it, or it will just feel like a screw job. And unless you are very familiar with a group of players, you’re far more likely to overestimate the amount of subtlety they need to hit that sweet spot than to underestimate it. A good rule of thumb is, if it seems like just the right balance based on what you know of the players, make it a little more obvious. If it’s a new group of players, start glaringly obvious and work your way up to more subtle over time.

All in the description? Cause in all my experience with skill play that comes from probing questions from the players as they start interacting with the room. There isnt going to be a spot check roll, or a simple disable roll. They need to first find the trap, then learn how to disable it, perm or temp, to get the prize.

Also, I dont know anybody who does skill play with 5E (even though its probably better for it than 3E and 4E).

 

[overgeeked]

I gotta push back on this a bit. Obvious is good when it comes to challenging the players in this sort of context. Unless the players are very experienced with this sort of play (which most of the 5e playerbase is not), they need obvious to have any chance of noticing the trap. Also, even with a group of grizzled OSR veterans, telegraphs are always less obvious to the players than you think they’re going to be. And the goal is not to get the players to fall for the trap. The goal is to make them feel rewarded for paying attention to the description of the environment, thinking about it like a real space, and making informed decisions about how to interact with that space. That requires finding the right level of subtlety for your particular group of players, to where when they do notice a trap, they feel like they almost missed it, and when they fall for a trap, they feel like they could have caught it - they should be able to retroactively identify the tell they missed and rationalize why they missed it, or it will just feel like a screw job. And unless you are very familiar with a group of players, you’re far more likely to overestimate the amount of subtlety they need to hit that sweet spot than to underestimate it. A good rule of thumb is, if it seems like just the right balance based on what you know of the players, make it a little more obvious. If it’s a new group of players, start glaringly obvious and work your way up to more subtle over time.

I 100% agree with most of what you're saying in this thread about this style of play.

The bolded above is the part I'll disagree with slightly.

This isn't thinking about the environment as a real space, this is thinking about the environment as a gaming space. Telegraphing traps is explicitly treating the environment like a game. Which it is. And that's fine. I love that style of play. But in no way is telegraphing traps treating it like a real space.

If it were a real space, the traps would be as invisible to detection as it was possible to make them. Because that's the whole point of real traps. To hurt, hinder, or outright kill anyone who comes across them.

 

[Charlaquin]

I 100% agree with most of what you're saying in this thread about this style of play.

The bolded above is the part I'll disagree with slightly.

This isn't thinking about the environment as a real space, this is thinking about the environment as a gaming space. Telegraphing traps is explicitly treating the environment like a game. Which it is. And that's fine. I love that style of play. But in no way is telegraphing traps treating it like a real space.

If it were a real space, the traps would be as invisible to detection as it was possible to make them. Because that's the whole point of real traps. To hurt, hinder, or outright kill anyone who comes across them.

Ok, very good point, I agree.

 

[Charlaquin]

All in the description? Cause in all my experience with skill play that comes from probing questions from the players as they start interacting with the room.

Well the players can’t really be expected to probe and interact with something they don’t even know is there. Again, maybe with a group of OSR veterans, they might just probe anything and everything as part of their standard procedures because they're used to anything being able to be a trap without warning. But most groups are not going to be used to engaging with the game that way, and a lot of them won’t enjoy that degree of paranoia (not to mention how long it could take). If you want most players to interact, you need to tell them there’s something to interact with.

There isnt going to be a spot check roll, or a simple disable roll. They need to first find the trap, then learn how to disable it, perm or temp, to get the prize.

Well, in my book whether or not there are rolls depends on what the players actually describe their characters doing. This goes back to my “goal and approach” method of action resolution, which for me is deeply connected with so-called “skilled play.”

Also, I dont know anybody who does skill play with 5E (even though it’s probably better for it than 3E and 4E).

I do. Also, 5e is what we’re talking about here, isn’t it?

 

[payn]

Well the players can’t really be expected to probe and interact with something they don’t even know is there. Again, maybe with a group of OSR veterans, they might just probe anything and everything as part of their standard procedures because they're used to anything being able to be a trap without warning. But most groups are not going to be used to engaging with the game that way, and a lot of them won’t enjoy that degree of paranoia (not to mention how long it could take). If you want most players to interact, you need to tell them there’s something to interact with.

I did tell them about things to interact with. A study with a desk, shelves of books, and a reading chair by a fireplace. Without warning is at the very heart of skill play. You have no idea what any given room beyond the most obvious has in store for it. My example might have worked better if I had several descriptions that narrowed things down as the players explored them. And, yeah, that takes a lot of time, but for skill play thats time well spent. My description was purely based on the thought of old school skill play. Did I miss the assignment?

Well, in my book whether or not there are rolls depends on what the players actually describe their characters doing. This goes back to my “goal and approach” method of action resolution, which for me is deeply connected with so-called “skilled play.”

Skill play is a bit more direct than that. For example, a modern take might say something like "im searching the fireplace." The expectation is that they will get any and all pertinent details. For skill play, you will be asked what part of the fire palce are you directly interacting with? You will get piece after piece of info as you investigate. Will you get pieces int he safest/best order? Thats where the skill of skill play comes in.

I do. Also, 5e is what we’re talking about here, isn’t it?

I thought this was a "general" D&D discussion on skill play? Older editions did better at it becasue they didnt have easy access to magic and nuanced skill systems for interacting with environments in a general sense, instead of a specific one. I agree with you, many 5E groups probably wont bother with this level of escape room exercise, but it is the point of skill play. The activity is exploration in a way the game has largely abstracted in modern editions.

 

[Stormonu]

I skipped ahead a few pages, so forgive me if this has already been covered.

One of the big things that used to come up in the old games I ran was "your character knows what you know." If someone could, for example, describe how they open a stuck door by hammering out the hinge pins and taking a crowbar to the door, it'd work and wasn't a Carpentry skill check to do so or figure it out. On the other hand, the reason there were dice rolls for combat was because you and the DM weren't expected to stand up and actually cross blades.

Since those days of 1E & 2E, there has been an increasing separation of player and character. What the in-game character knows and can do is a lot more siloed than those days, and that siloing highly encouraged to avoid metagaming. That's led to a lot of cutting out the description and just reaching for the dice to resolve it.

I think there's a middle ground that can be reached; if the player can describe their actual action and it makes sense it would be in the character's ability to replicate, forgo the dice roll. If the player doesn't have a clue about what to do, but the character likely would, then roll the dice - or if it sounds within the bounds something the character would see, understand or could perform just tell the player. Save the dice rolls for real times of drama where just saying you're going to do something doesn't mean it's going to work, and something interesting happens should you fail. I think this is how 5E intends for things to play out, but I suspect a lot of folks don't actually do this as they want the drama of the dice, all the time - even when there isn't any stakes or failure results in an impasse and brings the session to a screeching halt.

Over the years, I've had a lot of problems in giving incomplete (or erroneous at the worst of times) information as a DM, or the players just not catching on something that would be flat obvious if they were standing where their character was. There's not a bulletproof solution for these moments, you just sometimes have to be understanding and roll with it when it comes to light, then try to do better next time.

 

[payn]

I skipped ahead a few pages, so forgive me if this has already been covered.

One of the big things that used to come up in the old games I ran was "your character knows what you know." If someone could, for example, describe how they open a stuck door by hammering out the hinge pins and taking a crowbar to the door, it'd work and wasn't a Carpentry skill check to do so or figure it out. On the other hand, the reason there were dice rolls for combat was because you and the DM weren't expected to stand up and actually cross blades.

Since those days of 1E & 2E, there has been an increasing separation of player and character. What the in-game character knows and can do is a lot more siloed than those days, and that siloing highly encouraged to avoid metagaming. That's led to a lot of cutting out the description and just reaching for the dice to resolve it.

I think there's a middle ground that can be reached; if the player can describe their actual action and it makes sense it would be in the character's ability to replicate, forgo the dice roll. If the player doesn't have a clue about what to do, but the character likely would, then roll the dice - or if it sounds within the bounds something the character would see, understand or could perform just tell the player. Save the dice rolls for real times of drama where just saying you're going to do something doesn't mean it's going to work, and something interesting happens should you fail. I think this is how 5E intends for things to play out, but I suspect a lot of folks don't actually do this as they want the drama of the dice, all the time - even when there isn't any stakes or failure results in an impasse and brings the session to a screeching halt.

Over the years, I've had a lot of problems in giving incomplete (or erroneous at the worst of times) information as a DM, or the players just not catching on something that would be flat obvious if they were standing where their character was. There's not a bulletproof solution for these moments, you just sometimes have to be understanding and roll with it when it comes to light, then try to do better next time.

Yeap, one of the pitfalls can be the conveyance one way or another between GM and player(s). I recall a story about a group of players who spent three grueling sessions trying to get out of a maze in their campaign. After they finally reach the exit after numerous tracking checks and random encounters, the GM declared the walls only 3 feet tall and they could have climbed over them at any time, but never asked about the walls specifically....

One of the best GM skills ive picked up is realizing when a player isn't working with a full set of info they ought to have becasue the character can clearly sense it, but they dont know that. Which is tricky with skill play becasue that info is absolutely key.

 

[Reynard]

Yeap, one of the pitfalls can be the conveyance one way or another between GM and player(s). I recall a story about a group of players who spent three grueling sessions trying to get out of a maze in their campaign. After they finally reach the exit after numerous tracking checks and random encounters, the GM declared the walls only 3 feet tall and they could have climbed over them at any time, but never asked about the walls specifically....

I hope they ran him out of town with rotten fruit and horse whips.

 

[Scribe]

Let's say there is a room description in a module that says "There is a swinging blade trap in the fireplace mantle. Anyone searching the fireplace must make a save..."

How do you (anyone, not just Scribe) turn that into a "player skill" situation?

As a DM I may add 'a beheaded skeleton lies before the mantle, legs bent as if in supplication'