Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Melan]

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.

In that case, it is also in character for the monk to die a horrible death. That can be pretty fun too, and makes for a good war story later on. On the other hand, characters are in the end extensions of the players - after a while, the same players should catch on and create characters who can be successful in that given game style.

I will give you a tangentially related example: lel us assume I am running a campaign centered around a bigass dungeon. This assumes the players should at least try to fit their characters into that framework. If you are playing a character who is too cowardly to delve dungeons, or maybe isn't willing to, you will frustrate yourself, the other players and the DM, and probably won't be very successful in the adventure. In this case, wouldn't it be better to retire this PC and start a new one? In my opinion, the answer is definitely yes. (also see my sig...)

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?

Low Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean foolishness. Even animals of a very low Int have some kind of cunning to avoid similar situations. Moreover (unless you rolled your ability scores in order, a rare occurence in 3.* D&D), it was you who allocated that ability score, and you should live with the consequences. Likewise, if you have a 6 Constitution, you will have low hit points and an abysmal Fortitude save.

***

All this unless the same player enjoys getting killed in various amusing ways... which, by the way, I sometimes do.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Another way of putting it:

What is, for example, paladinhood?

Is it:

(a) Being the guy who's prepared to die for his beliefs? Being the guy who won't send the prisoners forward into the landmines, so he treads on the landmine himself? Being the guy who'll lay down his life for the rights of the un-named orc the party captured in room #3?

or

(b) Being the guy who expects the world to adjust itself to his beliefs? Being the guy who won't send the prisoners forward into the landmines, so he demands that the DM makes sure there are no landmines in the first place? Being the guy who'll whine at the DM for the rights of the un-named orc the party captured in room #3?

 

[Hussar]

So, effectively, you believe that you should punish players for playing in character? That if any player takes a character that is not absolutely optimized for tactical play, he should be killed when he makes a mistake?

That's pretty harsh.

My beef with this trap, which I've stated numerous times, is that the save DC is way out of line. The fact that you cannot make this save is what I have a problem with.

Heck, paladins have huge saving throws PRECISELY because of what they do. If you are playing a paladin, you are supposed to take the risks and put yourself in the path of danger. So, you have honking huge save bonuses and high saving throws to begin with. The class itself is inherently balanced against its own presumed actions.

But, here, you kill the paladin specifically for doing what he's supposed to do. The player is playing the paladin in a very, very paladinish way. And he's being killed for it.

And this is fair?

 

[UniversalMonster]

I'm going with 'fair' -- if the monk got a fair saving throw, as in "roll a natural 20 or die".

But only if the party is high enough that a wish and/or resurrection would be possible for the group to afford, and the game was using the standard assumptions that such things would exist.

 

[Melan]

But, here, you kill the paladin specifically for doing what he's supposed to do. The player is playing the paladin in a very, very paladinish way. And he's being killed for it.

And this is fair?

Not only is it fair, it is what paladins do. They die for their ideals so others don't have to. They sacrifice life and wealth so others may live. Unless our concept of the paladin is "just like a fighter, but with neat save bonuses and the ability to summon a magical horsey", it is perfectly in line... as in line as a paladin going on dungeon adventures is.

This doesn't mean the paladin has to die senselessly. In this particular case (as outlined by Quasqueton) being a paladin is a non-issue. The player may refuse to be maneuvered into this situation and stay perfectly in character.

 

[Melan]

BTW, two addenda:
1) I don't consider the trap unfair, but I consider it uninspired.
2) if I see a lever in a dungeon, I leave it the hell alone unless I can manipulate it from a safe distance or I am fleeing from monsters. Or when I am not terribly attached to the character, heh.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

So, effectively, you believe that you should punish players for playing in character?

It's interesting to me that you equate "allowing a character to die" with "punishing a player". With the system I play, rolling a fresh character takes ~5 minutes, so it's hardly a big punishment -- unless the player's emotional investment is in the character rather than the game.

I understand that some people become emotionally attached to particular characters, and want to play them in a particular way. I don't adjust my world setting to take account of this -- my world's a very bleak, Darwinian place where the extremely careful, thoughtful and lucky survive, achieve character objectives and ultimately reach high level, but the careless, thoughtless or unlucky tend to die a lot.

Players who like this presumably seek out DMs who support their playstyle, and good luck to them.

That if any player takes a character that is not absolutely optimized for tactical play, he should be killed when he makes a mistake?

Any character can be killed for making a mistake.

That's pretty harsh.

As I said, it's Darwinian.

But, here, you kill the paladin specifically for doing what he's supposed to do. The player is playing the paladin in a very, very paladinish way. And he's being killed for it.

Who's killing him? The DM or the player?

The DM doesn't put a gun to his head and say, "Pull this lever."

And this is fair?

It's no different to any other game world really.

I think that in almost any game, there are actions that kill your character, regardless of whether or not you're "roleplaying." It might be perfectly in character to bitchslap the Queen of the Steelfist Realms and call her a dirty trollop in front of the whole court, but if you do it, then in almost any game you'd be facing a short stay in the Royal dungeons followed by execution. In fact, I think that any game where you could do that kind of thing without immediate and very unpleasant consequences would be really boring.

The question is, where do you draw the line? Where does "roleplaying" become intentional suicide?

I accept that where I draw the line might be uncomfortably restrictive for some players. But there are others who enjoy the kind of challenges that I present, and don't see it as "unfair."

 

[delericho]

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

In the scenario presented there is no indication that the lever is trapped. There is at least some indication that it is not trapped. Assuming that the level is, therefore, trapped because "OMG it's a LEVER!!!" is metagame thinking.

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."

You've missed out a third category of players, those who will readily accept character death, but won't accept the sort of nonsense that is represented by undetectable, impossible-save DC, insta-kill traps.

This thread has featured several examples of really well-designed traps. These include indications of the existence of the trap, the ability to detect the trap, the ability to disable the trap, the ability to circumvent the trap and, in the failure of all other means, some chance to survive the trap. The trap presented by the OP has none of those features. It is badly designed.

 

[Hussar]

It's interesting to me that you equate "allowing a character to die" with "punishing a player". With the system I play, rolling a fresh character takes ~5 minutes, so it's hardly a big punishment -- unless the player's emotional investment is in the character rather than the game.

This isn't "allowing a character to die". This is directly killing him. He has no chance of survival if he pulls that lever. Period.

Who's killing him? The DM or the player?

The DM doesn't put a gun to his head and say, "Pull this lever."

So the player should assume that any trap will be instant death, no save? Sorry, but, yes, the DM is killing this character in a completely arbitrary way. The paladin should be pulling the lever. Heck, even under the game you play, he almost HAS to pull that lever considering the code of conduct he's using. Chivalry and all that. Depending on whether or not you use Unearthed Arcana as well. Let others take risks before you? That's not very paladinish is it?

The player is playing a heroic character, and getting insta-killed for it. Well, I guess this explains why no one plays paladins.

 

[tzor]

But, here, you kill the paladin specifically for doing what he's supposed to do. The player is playing the paladin in a very, very paladinish way. And he's being killed for it.

And this is fair?

Yes, absolutely! To quote the bad star trek movie, "how we face death is equally important as how we face life." If I were playing a paladin, my goal would be keeping my paladin true, not keepin my paladin alive. Any valliant death that saved teh life of someone else would be a glorious act for the paladin and fun as well. Alas, as Daffy Duck once commented, "Yes I know, but I can only do this trick once!"

Then again I once played a 2E Dwarven Fighter (what be a paladin ... and loose weapon proficiency) who used to practically do a high five when he got killed in major combat, "Yes! Killed again. OK someone better survive this fight to raise our sorry butts."

OK back to the topic.

One of the problems is that the whole scenario is far too vague. (I'm only really not happy with the high save requirement and that's it.) I think what we have here is the McDonald's Coffee Dilemma. You see a cup. It has liquid. It is really the requirement of McDonald's to write in multiple languages "caution, this liquid is hot"? There is a lever in the middle of the room. There is no information on the lever. Could it be good or bad? Doesn't the cleric have augry? It might actually be a disintergrate lever! Designed not as a trap but on purpose! But more important it could do just about anything which could be equally harmful.

If you don't know what something does, and you don't have any real reason to use it, then DON'T USE IT!

P.S. did I mention that I thought that the only problem was the exceptionally high DC?