Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Quasqueton]

For those who say the scenario is unfair:

There is a recurring theme, I see. So I want to ask about it.

Is it the results of the scenario that makes it unfair, or the set up of the scenario that makes it unfair?

Had the scenario said the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?

How about if the monk rolled a natural 10 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?

Or is it the mere presence of the trap in the form of a lever that makes it unfair?

Would some clues have made it fair? Say, some piles of dust around the lever? How about a sign on the door saying, "Do not enter. Deadly trap within." [I'm not joking about this last thing, either. I could see the dungeon inhabitants putting such a sign on the door after a comrade or six got dusted.]


For those who say the scenario is fair:

What would make it unfair?


I'm interested to see if there is a line of fairness/unfairness for this scenario that can be drawn.

Quasqueton

 

[ThirdWizard]

Had the scenario said the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?

Had the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived, we wouldn't have a reference as to how high or low the DC was.

How about if the monk rolled a natural 10 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?

Quite possibly.

Or is it the mere presence of the trap in the form of a lever that makes it unfair?

It's partially the idea that the PCs should always think all levers are inherently deadly. It is only when you think that levers are inherently deadly that you take all these measures that others think are normal, but that I think are extreme.

Would some clues have made it fair? Say, some piles of dust around the lever? How about a sign on the door saying, "Do not enter. Deadly trap within." [I'm not joking about this last thing, either. I could see the dungeon inhabitants putting such a sign on the door after a comrade or six got dusted.]

A pile of dust on the floor by the lever might make it fair. The high DC still worries me, though.

EDIT: Note my example death trap, which I do think is fair and fun, for reference.

 

[Quasqueton]

A pile of dust on the floor by the lever might make it fair. The high DC still worries me, though.

Obvious clues and warnings, but the trap has a high save DC (and/or does deadly damage).

...or...

No clues or warnings at all, but the trap has a low save DC (and/or does low damage).

Would you say the above two options are fair?

Quasqueton

 

[pawsplay]

silentspace just did a nice job of summing up the metagame argument nicely. Oohhh a lever, the DM must have put a trap there!

Why wouldn't the character suspect a trap? I can't imagine why a character would think an obvious lever opens a secret door.

 

[merelycompetent]

When participants in a discussion start using hyperbole and strawmen, any potential for understanding gets buried in the bullcrap.

Quasqueton, that is probably the wisest and most astute sentence I've read in a long time. Kudos.

I still say that I don't have enough information to reach any valid conclusions as to whether the described situation is fair or unfair. I'll take a stab at answering your other questions, tho. All of this is IMO.

Is it the results of the scenario that makes it unfair, or the set up of the scenario that makes it unfair?

The results don't necessarily make it unfair. It is the setup that makes it fair/unfair. For example, if the DM tells the players at the campaign/adventure start, "This place is a deathtrap. Be on your toes. If you're not careful, your character will die", then the results are not unfair. If, by contrast, no such indication of the DM's style was given, and this was the players' first time ever playing D&D, then the results are grossly unfair. If the expectations are set such that the *players* only discover that the scenario is a deathtrap *after* their characters die, then it's unfair and not fun. Setting those expectations early gives the *players* the opportunity to decide if this play style will be fun or not, and play (or skip this session) accordingly.

Had the scenario said the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?

No change from the above. Scraping by with a lucky die roll when your character would fail and die 95% of the time is just luck. That's not a measure of (un)fairness.

How about if the monk rolled a natural 10 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?

Again, it depends on the setup and player expectations.

Or is it the mere presence of the trap in the form of a lever that makes it unfair?

No. A lever in the room with a secret door is neither fair nor unfair. The consequences of pulling the lever, and the resulting violation or confirmation of player expectations, makes it unfair or fair.

Would some clues have made it fair? Say, some piles of dust around the lever? How about a sign on the door saying, "Do not enter. Deadly trap within." (I'm not joking about this last thing, either. I could see the dungeon inhabitants putting such a sign on the door after a comrade or six got dusted.)

Those would all work towards setting the players' (and their characters') expectations. That would make it more fair.

I also wonder why you don't include a level modifier question in here. Resurrection-type magics are more easily available at higher levels, and reduce PC deaths from being catastrophic to just very annoying. That definitely affects the (un)fairness of a trap like this.

For those who say the scenario is fair:
What would make it unfair?

See the examples I gave above.

Finally, just to be clear, I'd never put a save-or-die trap in an adventure with new players, even veteran players who are new to my DMing style. It might be save-or-take-massive-damage instead. But losing your character to a die roll in the first five sessions kinda ruins the player recruitment pitch. I'd certainly talk with the players about what kind of game they, and I, want to play before starting. All bets are off, though, if the PCs are high level, have already been through several adventures with save-or-take-massive-damage traps, *and* I've set the players' expectations for save-or-die traps.

I hope this provides food for thought.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Obvious clues and warnings, but the trap has a high save DC (and/or does deadly damage).

...or...

No clues or warnings at all, but the trap has a low save DC (and/or does low damage).

Would you say the above two options are fair?

I think its safe to say that the DC is not "high" in your example it is "impossible." I would say nothing can make a trap with an impossible death save fair. At least nothing I can think of.

A high save would be something the monk would have to roll, say, a 15+ to make. I think that personally an obvious + high would be more fair than no warnings + low save, although they're pretty darn close.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Why wouldn't the character suspect a trap? I can't imagine why a character would think an obvious lever opens a secret door.

He doesn't have to think it opens the door. It could, for example, ring a bell somewhere to summon a servant. Why are the only two options trap and open the secret door? Why is it so obviously trapped? I can see no reason for the PCs to think its traped beyond "levers are traped" metagame thinking.

I also wonder why you don't include a level modifier question in here. Resurrection-type magics are more easily available at higher levels, and reduce PC deaths from being catastrophic to just very annoying. That definitely affects the (un)fairness of a trap like this.

Agreed. I would put the bar at 15th level, I think. At that point, they have access to true ressurection which turns death traps into annoyances. They pull out the diamond dust, laugh at their comrade, and get on with the dungeon. So, if its 15+ then my vote turns to fair. That's not the majority of the game, nor the majority of the levels played on these boards, though, so I can't make that assumption.

 

[Quasqueton]

I think its safe to say that the DC is not "high" in your example it is "impossible."

You are saying a natural 20 is "impossible"? (Not even considering that maybe just another +2 or +1 could have made the natural 19 a successful roll.)

Quasqueton

 

[ThirdWizard]

You are saying a natural 20 is "impossible"? (Not even considering that maybe just another +2 or +1 could have made the natural 19 a successful roll.)

How about "It's not going to happen?" It's a 5% chance for the guy with one of the best saves in the group. If the monk can't make the save on a 19, then odds are really good that no one else will either. Saying needing a 20 is "hard" is easily as much hyperbole as my "impossible," so I don't see reason to split hairs here.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yeah, I'm with ThirdWizard on this one. This attitude wasn't all that much fun when I was 13 and played this way. I certainly don't do it now.

So every possible action deserves a save? Should there be a save for half damage if a pc fell into an active volcano, into a pool of lava 20 feet deep? Should there be a save for being at ground zero during a nuclear explosion? After all a monk could take no damage if he made his save, right?

Yeah, those are extremes, but so what? Not every action merits digging out the dice. The steamroller trap in ToH had no save, either, but I never heard anyone claim it was "unfair." Maybe I've just been lucky enough to not play with Doug and Wendy, I dunno.