Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7598720" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I mean, I can't remember a specific occurrence off the top of my head, but generally it goes something like this: "Ok, that'll take 10 minutes and a successful DC X [Whatever] check.""Oh, shoot, maybe I don't want to spend that 10 minutes..."or"Ok, make a DC X [Whatever] check, on a failure, [consequence].""Hmmm... On second thought maybe I'll hold off on that."It doesn't happen all that often, but every once and a while it does.Hardy har. I've just taken to calling the games I'm talking about "from software games" because calling them "dark souls" games leaves out Demon's Souls, "the souls games" leaves out Bloodborne, and now even "Soulsborne" games leaves out Sekiro. And clearly you got what I meant.Yes, but you can still notice and avoid traps the first time you encounter them, if you're playing cautiously and paying close attention to the environment. It helps if you're familiar with the From Software/soulslike style, just like it helps in my D&D games if you're familiar with the conventions and tropes of the genre.Absolutely! Tons of games use telegraphing, which should be a strong indication that it's a piece of design that tends to be well-received by players. And it's no surprise. Avoiding a trap because you noticed it makes you feel smart, and gives you a little shot of dopamine. Falling into a trap always feels bad, but it feels less bad if you can clearly see where it was you who made the mistake, not the game putting you into an unfair situation. The reason I use From Software's Soulslike games as my go-to example is because they are widely known for this, and this way of thinking permeates their design on a large scale. It's been said that where a lot of modern games challenge the players' reflexes (look at Cuphead for a good example of this), Soulslikes challenge their situational awareness, and because of this, they are famous for being difficult-but-fair. This type of difficult-but-fair, awareness-based challenge is something I look to emulate in my D&D games.Often, but sometimes you can notice that something is fishy. Again, a genre-savvy player sees holes in the floor and thinks, "this looks suspicious."And there are some surprises my players don't see coming. But I always want to make sure they could. In my opinion, a surprise you can't possibly foresee is a gotcha. Maybe it's difficult to foresee, but it shouldn't be impossible.RE: enemies working to reduce telegraphing, I don't agree, at least when it comes to traps. The point of a trap is to protect something from those who aren't in the know, but to allow those who are in the know safe passage. That means there should be a signal for those in the know. Now, since the PCs aren't in the know, that signal shouldn't be obvious. Going back to my example of the statues that mark the locations of spear traps, there's no way someone not in the know is going to pick up on the fact that the statues of dwarves from a particular clan are safe while those of another clan are trapped. Heck, most folks not in the know aren't even going to be able to recognize the clans the dwarves in the statues belonged to, unless they're proficient in History. But a character who is paying attention might pick up on the pattern, and that, to me, is what makes it difficult-but-fair.I didn't say that. If the plan works, clearly it wasn't a mistake. If the plan doesn't work though, and you didn't consider the consequences, and they're bad consequences, that might be a mistake. I want to avoid putting players into situations where they make mistakes as a result of lack of information.Great! Glad to hear your way works well for you.</blockquote>

Verification