Very true, traps can do that.
Less likely where the trap leads to instant death like was being described earlier, such as poisons where a single failed save kills your character. In that case, you can provide your clues and hints, but players will still take extreme caution, because a single missed clue ends their character.
I do agree about gotcha traps. I don't use them. If I have a trap in my dungeon, it will be something that players will need to actually deal with.
I want the caution and consideration, the problem solving, the discussion. I want the challenge of figuring out a trap and getting past it. The stakes being getting killed adds to the tension and challenge.
Again, when talking about deadly equaling challenging, Tomb of Horrors is an extreme case.Which is exactly why I brought it up as an example of "Deadly =/= Challenging"
The Tomb is incredibly deadly, possibly the most deadly dungeon ever designed, but it isn't challenging in the way that people want things to be challenging. And once you know all the tricks, it may still be deadly, but it is no longer challenging.
Deadly does not equal Challenging.
What people? You are making a broad assumption.
Different people have different ideas of what is challenging. Personally, I think Tomb of Horrors is challenging because I really have to think and figure out the traps and puzzles it presents. It requires me to carefully approach and experiment and engage with environment instead of just using a prepackaged solution (skill check, spell, class ability, etc).
It is fair that you don't consider deadly to be challenging. But there are others who do and, in my case, I have explained why.
But, that is the point. Many of the things being touted as bringing the challenge back to the game are lethal, but you can't learn from them. You can't learn anything from a wraith sapping your Con or a Shadow sapping your Strength until your fighter is useless. What is there to learn? Don't fight wraiths? Great, but fighting monsters is deadly anyway. Have the low con people fight it? That just kills them. There isn't anything to learn, you just have to suffer through and try not to die while you're character is spending weeks or months recovering their abilities.
Of course players can learn from them. Each player's experience with every monster gives new insight in how to approach them in the future. Imagine the first time a player ever fights a troll. When they figure out that they need fire, they learn to use fire against trolls the next time they encounter them.
With concern to the wraith. Of course you learn something, here are some examples:
- They can drain Con or even levels.
- Yes, sometimes it is best to avoid them.
- They can hire a high level cleric.
- They can bring a form of radiant damage, or bring lots of holy water.
- They can scout the dungeon and find another way around them.
- They can distract the wraith while another player goes and grabs its loot.
There myriad things that can be learned in that situation and myriad approaches that can be taken to overcome such a challenge.
The wraith is an example of a monster that presents an obstacle that cannot be easily or effectively dealt with by using normal, rules-based, approaches (combat) and where the consequence in doing so is deadly or debilitating (not easily overcome or shrugged off).
The challenge is in figuring out an alternative approach.
In 5E, by contrast, the wraith can still be dealt with through normal means. Between still taking half damage to the ubiquity of spells removing the danger of its resistance it can be approached the same as any other threat. It doesn't present a challenge in overcoming it.
If a DM wanted to take an extremely deadly creature and have them attack with surprise against their players, they are free to do so. My point is that they would have to accept that by doing so, they are probably going to kill their characters. But this is a DM decision. I can do the same thing in 5E or any other edition. I can decide to have Banshee's or Archmages with Fireball surprise and kill my player's characters as well.I'll have to take your word for it, but I find it odd that one of the most famous ambush predators in the world, who lays traps for its prey, was always out in the open where the players could easily see it and decide if they wanted to fight it or not.
But, if no monster was ever hidden, snuck up on the characters, or set traps for them to fall into, then I can see why the increased deadliness of the monsters was necessary.
My comment was in response to your ridiculous scenario of having a party of player characters all die by DM fiat because they failed a roll while camped. This doesn't happen in even the most deadliest of games.No one said they did, "Deadly does not equal Challenging" and "Character death doesn't mean you have something to learn" Those are points I've been making and while this is an extreme example, it also highlights the point. Death itself doesn't challenge or tell the players anything
But there still things to learn:
- Next time you camp in that dangerous location, you can set up tripwires tied to metal objects to make an alarm
- They can use a spell like alarm to warn you of these dangers
- Bring extra mercenaries and double up on watches so you are less likely to be ambushed.
- Find a better camp site with more defensible terrain.
- Sleep up in the trees or make a hammock
- Travel at night and camp at day.
So, pixeling. Just have a large piece of paper and read off every part of the door and how you check it for the trap. And, the DM will never call for a roll while you do so?
Not pixeling, interacting with the environment. How do characters interact with traps and puzzles in your game? How do you run a poison needle trap on a door lock?
Pixeling is a term from those old King's Quest style games where one had to do a random thing to a random location. Checking the door knob for a poison needle or looking for pressure plates in front of the door is not pixeling. These are things that are logical and intuitive to the environment.
You seem to be mischaracterizing "combat as war" as an antagonist relationship between the DM and the Players. The responsibility of the DM in a "combat as war" style game is not to devise ways to auto kill the PCs, its to present an environment that allows players to use "combat as war" tactics in a meaningful way. Some of the ways to do this is to provide usable information, run monsters in a way that provides players meaningful choices, provide consequences that are understandable and expected.Three things.
1) I find it fascinating that in a game where you expect the players to try every trick in the book and follow a "combat is war" mentality, that something as simple as poisoning your weapons when you are cowardly and weak monsters, is going to come across as completely unfair.
The best description and explanation I can refer to is this video:
Running Combat as War
I never said there is lack of surprise in B/X. I just said that there is a chance of surprise (your example assumes that surprise is automatic).2) One thing that may be skewing my understanding of the game is this lack of surprise. In 5e it is completely possible that the Goblins will all get an entire round, maybe two, of firing before the players get their first action, but you keep mentioning the "Statisitcal improbability" of that happening in B/X. If surprise was never really a thing, that might explain why 5e abilities are weaker, because you can actually surprise the party in combat instead of then instantly reacting to the appearance of ambushes.
In B/X, surprise is rolled on a d6. On a 1 or 2 (some monsters or player classes have different odds), the side surprise their opponent. Surprise is rolled for both sides (although in dungeons, torch light usually removes the possibility of the party getting surprise).
Of course, a DM can, by fiat, give surprise to the monsters (or players for that matter) if the situation warrants it. But in a typical encounter where parameters haven't been described, that is base the rule.
In 5E, the DM would roll the monster's stealth vs. the player's perception to determine surprise. This is the mechanic in B/X that performs that same function.
3) Of course I am fabricating situations. We aren't actually playing a game here, I can't point to the chat log of what happened to your character. And I'm trying to prove the point that character death by itself is not challenging nor does it teach the player any lessons at all. So, an example where I say "The goblins ambush, but the fighter succeeds his reaction roll and slaughters all of them" doesn't exactly say anything about character death. So, I need to give examples where the character dies and doesn't learn anything or is challenged for me to even have a point, and I have done so, and all you have been able to say in response is "well, because of the dice, this isn't likely to happen" which doesn't disprove my point at all.
When the rules for surprise are used, in B/X, poisonous spiders surprising and killing everyone becomes less likely.
Your example assumed that surprise was achieved, the spider hit with its attack, and the player failed it's save. You are making the claim that death is arbitrary and doesn't provide any lessons to learn and you are supporting that claim by stating the possibility that a very unlikely event can happen.
An analog of your claim, in 5E, would be a surprise from a multiattack creature that crits on all its attacks and kills a PC automatically. It is unlikely but possible.
My question to you: what do you want/expect a player to learn as a result of an ambush?
My thoughts are that there are tons of things to learn and ways to approach such a situation. Some of my examples:
- Travel more spread out so PCs can flank or spot ambushes on the flank.
- Bring war dogs or such that have a good sense of smell and can alert the party to danger
- Have a character scout ahead so the party doesn't all get ambushed.
- Approach the ambush site from a different direction and attempt to ambush them instead
- Use spells to hide party number or obscure their location
- Use a decoy to draw out ambushes and counter with their own ambush
Scouting isn't something you just state you succeed at. But the act of scouting is going to provide a more favorable possible outcome. This is contextual. What are you doing to scout? What is the environment like? What aspects of the environment can you use to shield your location or obscure your approach. How you role-play will determine whether you succeed or feel. These are considerations that directly affect your outcome to scouting.Maybe in older editions, but that isn't the end all and be all of 5e.
For example on scouting ahead, I sneak up the dim hallway, sticking to the walls and peer around the corner.
Was I stealthy? Did the enemy around the corner see me?
I can describe them not seeing me, I can describe the perfect sneak, but if I'm just describing why I should succeed, then scouting isn't dangerous because nothing can go wrong. No monster can be hidden on the ceiling, because I will always add "I check the ceiling for monsters" to the end of every statement.
I can describe success to you, but does that mean I automatically succeed?
My response was an argument on how to eliminate the coin flip dungeon.No, the example you quoted was yet again me making the point that "Deadly does not equal challenging"
A coin flip dungeon is deadly. It is not challenging.
And, you are making the assumption that my players, despite not being old skool, do not interact with the environment, do not think about their actions, do not make meaningdul choices that have a direct impact on their success and failure.
They can do all of that. While Wraith's only drain max hp for the day, poison isn't an instant kill, ect.
Because, if after twenty minutes of deciding to check the tomb they were sent to raid in every possible manner, and they open it and still die to something or other, their choice wasn't meaningful. They check it, just not in the correct way, and they all died. But they had to open the tomb either way, because the only other choice was to turn around and count the entire dive as a lost cause.
Meaningful choices don't automatically appear just because the result might be death.
A coin flip dungeon occurs when die rolls and mechanics, only, determine success or failure. Exploration relying solely on Perception checks, Investigation checks and other skill checks or skill challenges, results in a coin flip dungeon experience. The hope is to just roll high.
Torches have weight. Only so many can be carried.. They also can be extinguished by wind or disarmed or lost. Rations, same with Goodberry. There are choices on how many torches and how many rations to carry. This may prevent from equipping certain other useful equipment, it may also prevent from being able to carry the treasure you discover.The poster said that the light cantrip makes torches unnecessary.
A cleric gets three cantrips, five ever, and so using one of those slots for light is a significant choice. And, since torches only cost 1 copper a piece, and plenty of casters have a free hand, it is equally valid to say that Torches make the Light Cantrip unnecessary. A single gold buys a hundred torches after all.
They said Goodberry makes rations unnecessary. However, Goodberry is a 1st level spell, and a spell not many classes have access to. It is equally valid to say that five silver a ration makes Goodberry unnecessary, because a few gold buys you plenty of rations and you do not need to use your spell slot.
Or, take the Outlander background, and that gives you plenty of food without needing rations or goodberry
Or just make a survival check to forage for food (or describe yourself hunting and setting snares if you want) and you can usually easily find enough food to last you without needing rations or goodberries.
The ubiquity of magic hasn't removed these items, and the cheapness of those items (or ease of countering the same problem) could be easily seen as making those spells sub-par choices anyways.
Outlander basically eliminates a lot of challenge from wilderness travel. I house rule that out.
Foraging is a good choice for adventuring in the wilderness. The consequence to foraging is that it prevents Passive Perception from being used to keep watch for encounters.
The use of rations, torches, foraging, are all choices that have consequences in the game. Managing them is a part of the challenge.