Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[drothgery]

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?

It's the setup of the scenario.

You two elements, either of which are dubious on their own, in a save-or-die trap, and a trap whose save DC is pretty much unbeatable (monk failed on a natural 19), both connected to a difficult to find trap (the normal means of detecting the trap, a rogue searching for it, revealed nothing; unless the rogue is incompetent or suffering from a run of bad rolls, it should be possible to discover and avoid a lethal trap) and the setup meant that most non-paranoid players were going to take the action that triggered the trap. And it kills the character in a way that prevents raise dead from working for extra suckiness.

I just can't see how the hyper-paranoid style of play advocated by the people who think the trap is fair can be fun.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I just can't see how the hyper-paranoid style of play advocated by the people who think the trap is fair can be fun.

My theory is that it is a test of intelligence. You know, "thinking man's dungeon," and all that. It's a metagame thing. "I outsmarted the DM's trap." It would be less fun in the playing, and more fun in the achievement.

Is this correct?

Would this playstyle overlap with the type that likes puzzles? (not be the same, but overlap)

Is the roleplaying aspect of the game downplayed, or is it that just certain character types aren't roleplayed?

 

[MerricB]

One of my favourite death traps is in Grasp of the Emerald Claw. There's a door. Around it, are a lot of recently dead Emerald Claw soldiers, glowing green. If you open the door, you set off the trap. You can detect the trap magically, or by Search (although the Search is quite difficult, IIRC).

You have the clues that something is up, and so you're empowered to make an interesting decision. (In fact, past the door is something good to get, so the decision is significant as well).

There's another one in Cradle of Madness (Dungeon #87). A archway with a strange purple mist. Detect magic reveals a strong transmutation aura (actually a disintegration field that works only on living matter, although it's unlikely the PCs will discover that in advance). If you search around the room, you find a secret closet with the robes that allow you to pass through the field.

Or, you can say, "I'm a dwarf! I have a high Fort save" and roll a 2 and get disintegrated. (After that, the PCs actually dismantled the arch, which also works. Didn't stop the TPK in the next encounter, though).

Both of those traps share something in common: they're gateway traps. Passing through them enables you to continue on with the adventure (or get to a secret). They have a purpose, which is really important. I'm not fond of random "I kill you now" traps. Sure, they're lethal, but they exist in context.

When I place "random" traps, I prefer confining or hazard traps. For instance, as my players attacked a Dragon's lair last Sunday, the approach they used contained a pit trap; due to the fact they were in combat, they couldn't detect it in advance, and thus one of them set it off and was suddenly out of the combat... until he found a way to overcome it. The rest of the party found their approach to the dragon suddenly blocked by a 30' wide pit, requiring more tactical thinking to overcome. (The solutions they came up with surprised me).

The context of Q's example trap is somewhat obscure; as written, I don't like it very much. I'm fond of traps that force the PCs into making decisions, but if the only decision is between pulling the lever and ignoring the lever, that's not very interesting.

Far more interesting was the trapped throne in my version of Castle Greyhawk that caused those sitting in it to become dominated by a Knight of Hell, thus changing the aspect of the campaign...

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

When I place "random" traps, I prefer confining or hazard traps. For instance, as my players attacked a Dragon's lair last Sunday, the approach they used contained a pit trap; due to the fact they were in combat, they couldn't detect it in advance, and thus one of them set it off and was suddenly out of the combat... until he found a way to overcome it. The rest of the party found their approach to the dragon suddenly blocked by a 30' wide pit, requiring more tactical thinking to overcome. (The solutions they came up with surprised me).

Reminds me of Life's a Bazaar from Shackled City. Bloody pit traps everywhere with hobgoblins on the other side controlling the levers to open them. We got one over on them though, dumped those stupid construct thingies into one of them and closed the top.

 

[pawsplay]

My theory is that it is a test of intelligence. You know, "thinking man's dungeon," and all that. It's a metagame thing. "I outsmarted the DM's trap." It would be less fun in the playing, and more fun in the achievement.

Is this correct?

Would this playstyle overlap with the type that likes puzzles? (not be the same, but overlap)

Is the roleplaying aspect of the game downplayed, or is it that just certain character types aren't roleplayed?

You seem intent on psychoanalyzing people to determine what malfunction would cause them to think differently than you do. As I've said many times, this has very little to do with metagame thinking.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You seem intent on psychoanalyzing people to determine what malfunction would cause them to think differently than you do. As I've said many times, this has very little to do with metagame thinking.

Why does a reason have to be a malfunction?

I have reasons for playing the way I do. I like DMing for people who do off the wall things and reward them for it.

EDIT: Here's an example. The PCs were trying to gain access to a place that had been taken over by their enemies. They basically recruited an army and just stormed the place. Ran in with the lead force and attacked anything they saw.

Or the time they jumped through a portal without being sure where it went because they were on the trail of an enemy and didn't want to slow down. Sure, I could have had it drop them on the Plane of Fire, but then they'd just die.

Or the time they lept through another portal that was in a crematorium fire pit on just the word of a guy they hardly knew. Sure, maybe he could have lied and they would be jumping to their deaths, but instead they got whisked away to where they were trying to get.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

either you have to metagame or you die.

Yup. I realise this is probably anathema to the amateur theatrics crowd.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Yup. I realise this is probably anathema to the amateur theatrics crowd.

I realized the option of "just don't play that character" so I erased it.

So it comes down to that does it? By amateur theatrics, I assume you mean "roleplaying."

EDIT: It probalby wouldn't suprise you to know, though, that I've run sessions without a single combat. I also rarely use dungeons. I did, however, kill a wizard in a surprise round of combat recently in what I would call a fair fight. It happens. I had a PC die recently in a battle with an equal CR creature because the healer kept failing Concentration checks. It happens.

 

[Hussar]

Yup. I realise this is probably anathema to the amateur theatrics crowd.

I'd hardly call myself part of the amateur theatrics crowd.

I do, however, tend to insist that people play the character that's on paper and not themselves. If it's entirely in character for that monk to pull the lever, then, he should be pulling that lever. The player saying, "Nope, not touching that lever," when the player has never shown any sort of paranoia before is very jarring.

What if Mr. Monk had a 6 Int? Monks don't need intelligence. Would you still be on board with the monk insisting that they tie a rope or poke it with a pole?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

So it comes down to that does it? By amateur theatrics, I assume you mean "roleplaying."

I think "roleplaying" and "metagaming" are terms that have been hijacked. I think it's perfectly possible to play a role in character without sacrificing your ability to think tactically, as a player rather than a character. I think that to contrast "roleplaying" with "metagaming" is a false dichotomy.

I think "metagaming" is simply a pejorative term used by people who want to avoid a need for tactical thinking in RPGs.

I think there's a school of thought which says that roleplaying considerations should override tactical thinking. Since these are usually the people who see playing a role with complete accuracy as the primary focus of the game, these people might be called the "strong roleplayers" and I don't mean that in a derogatory way.

Good roleplaying is its own reward. I've played like that, and I've occasionally found it very satisfying to play a character so accurately that the character does something which I think, or know, will lead to his death. The route to victory might be to capture a prisoner, interrogate it, learn about the challenges ahead, and then send it ahead of you to open the doors and trigger the traps, but the paladin won't stomach it and chooses to take the risks himself instead.

To me, that's the heart of paladinhood. The question is whether the paladin still gets disintegrated when he pulls the lever.

I think there's a subset of the strong roleplayers, which I'll call "the amateur theatrics crowd" (and yes, I DO mean that in a derogatory way), who think that if there's a paladin in the party, the lever shouldn't have the disintegrate trap on it in the first place. They think they should be allowed to play their role exactly how they like and, even if their roleplaying decisions lead their characters to play incautiously or in a suboptimal way, they still shouldn't die.

These people see any character death as a failure of the DM, and any situation which requires them to think instead of roll or role as "poor design."