Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[ThirdWizard]

Examples of metagame thinking on the "unfair" side in this thread so far (paraphrased).

Okay, see, these aren't reasons to pull the lever. These are reasons why it isn't fair, there's a difference.

Metagame thinking influences character actions. The character actions are very straightforward: check for traps resulted in no traps and levers are fairly commonplace items, so there's no reason to worry about it. That's really it. The same could be said of a doorknob or any other object.

Now, yes, we're using metagame arguments to determine why it isn't fair. Would you rather we use in character arguments to determine whether or not its fair? Because that wouldn't work, as far as I know. The PCs can't argue over fairness themselves, only the Players.

So in short, the reason for pulling the lever is not anything having to do with DM expectations of the game or somesuch. It isn't a metagame thinking. It is simply, there is no reason to think there are traps on the lever in character, so you might as well pull it. That's it.

So, your argument is flawed in that manner. You can't expect us to ignore the metagame in debating whether it is fair in an inherently metagame sense. Metagaming is only when PC actions are determined by the Players' knowledge that this is a game.

 

[Harmon]

Something that I was thinking about earlier with regards to this thread-

Player- "pull the lever."
GM <looking stunned> "your pulling the lever?"
Player- "Ya."
Other Players shake their heads and groan.
GM- "okay- roll save- oh, that is a miss. Doninc turns to ashe, all his gear is gone."
Later the GM tells him- "okay, the room you appeared in has only a little light, the ground is uneven and loose, shifting you foot you feel the coins, and the treasure..."

 

[Ourph]

Okay, see, these aren't reasons to pull the lever. These are reasons why it isn't fair, there's a difference.

No, actually, all of the examples I listed above are processes of thinking that lead to a decision to pull the lever. None of them have anything to do with the discussion of fairness. They're all reasons people have given in this thread as to why it would make sense for their characters to pull the lever and all of them require some level of metagame consideration.

A lot of the discussion has centered around the debate over whether pulling the lever without taking any precautions is a smart move or a dumb move on the part of both the players and the characters. The "unfair" camp has repeated numerous times that part of their position is based on the idea that the PCs did the "right thing" and were punished for it, while the "fair" camp has asserted that the PCs did the "wrong thing" and suffered the inevitable consequences. The assertion that the PCs did the "right thing" is based in large part on the metagame thinking I gave examples of above, all of which are addressing the question of "do we pull the lever" not "was the outcome fair".

Metagame thinking influences character actions. The character actions are very straightforward: check for traps resulted in no traps and levers are fairly commonplace items, so there's no reason to worry about it. That's really it. The same could be said of a doorknob or any other object.

...

So in short, the reason for pulling the lever is not anything having to do with DM expectations of the game or somesuch. It isn't a metagame thinking. It is simply, there is no reason to think there are traps on the lever in character, so you might as well pull it. That's it.

No matter how many times you repeat this I'm not going to agree. To you, the opposite conclusion (that the lever is suspicious) requires metagame thinking. You're so caught up in that conclusion that you fail to see that your POV requires just as much metagame thinking. Your interpretations of the situation are based on the expectations you have about the game you are playing. Those expectations have nothing to do with your character's perspective and everything to do with your experience and perception of how a typical game of D&D works. Yes, my point of view is based on the same type of thinking. Therefore, you can't critique one side or the other in this discussion based on the fact that it relies on metagame thinking, because that analysis applies to both. The idea that a simple check for traps means that the lever is safe or that a lever in this context is "commonplace" is totally based on your knowledge that you are playing the game and on your specific perception of the inherent rules of that game (either written or unwritten). Things like "taking 20" and "level appropriate challenges", which are, without question, part of the metagame.

So, your argument is flawed in that manner. You can't expect us to ignore the metagame in debating whether it is fair in an inherently metagame sense. Metagaming is only when PC actions are determined by the Players' knowledge that this is a game.

If you can't see that the examples I listed in the above post are examples of PC's actions being determined by the player's knowledge that this is a game (and even more to the point, that it's a certain type of game which the player has preconceived notions about) I honestly don't know how to respond. Because from my perspective all of the examples unquestionably fit that definition. :\

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Really...is this trap any more unfair than the well concealed- perhaps MAGICALLY concealed- 50' deep pit trap with spikes at the bottom with a Carrion Crawler waiting to pounce upon the survivors? As in RttToEE?

That was save or die (or come doggone close to dying)...and save again or get paralyzed and eaten.

I don't think so.

 

[Bagpuss]

No, actually, all of the examples I listed above are processes of thinking that lead to a decision to pull the lever. None of them have anything to do with the discussion of fairness. They're all reasons people have given in this thread as to why it would make sense for their characters to pull the lever and all of them require some level of metagame consideration.

There reasons why it isn't fair, to help illustrate the prefectly valid in character none "rash" none "stupid thinking" reason why I'ld pull the lever, here's a modern example.

In this age of terror attacks (and even before) it's common practice for high profile targets to have their vehicles checked for bombs before they use them.

So the use mirrors and people trained to spot bombs to check the car for explosive devices (like a rogue checking for traps), if they don't discover any then they use the car (like the Monk pulling the lever).

If every time a diplomat wanted to go somewhere they got a remote robot (like a 50ft rope) to start the car, even though they never detected any sign of a bomb, then they are being paranoid and over caucious.

If however they detect a device they use a robot to detonate it (like using a rope, or unseen servant), or bomb desposal team to remove it (rogue disable device). They don't take this precautions if they never find anything.

For the folks that pull the lever with a 50ft rope, why don't you open every door in the dungeon with one even if the rogue doesn't discover traps?

The original poster (in some of his later comments) seemed to think the party shouldn't even investigate the lever or the door, just leave well alone because they already have the McGuffin. To me this is expecting the players not to be curious which I think is something you should expect and encourage.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The assertion that the PCs did the "right thing" is based in large part on the metagame thinking I gave examples of above, all of which are addressing the question of "do we pull the lever" not "was the outcome fair".

This is inocorrect.

At least for me, my assertion that the PCs did the "right thing" is based largely on the concept of a lever. That levers exist so that they may be used. Now, knowing that the use may be trapped, they took reasonable and steady precautions for handling the trap that would have been known to the characters (this guy can find even magical traps! and I've seen Bruce Lee over here dodge right around fireballs and resist charms and laugh off poison! Even if our keen-eyed trapfinder misses something, this guy can probably take what it would dish out!).

IMHO, that's exactly the right thing for the situation unless, assuming no metagame thinking, your characters are simply naturally paranoid of levers found in dungeons. Which works in some campaigns, but is, I believe, hardly heroic, interesting, or fun.

The metagame enters the picture when analyzing the fairness of the situation. In-character, I simply did the right things, took reasonable precautions, and was destroyed. As a player, I know I had my character do the right things, had the party take reasonable precaustions, and was destroyed in a situation where, at best, there was only a 5% chance of survival. Which then raises the problems of verisimilitude, purpose, history, atmosphere, and expectations. Given the rules of the game (the criteria by which one determines fairness in a game), this seems unfair.

(oh, and to answer the ongoing Q, I think traps definately have their place in D&D and should be used, but that this particular trap was an unfair one)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Ourph, you can't tell me what I think. I know what I think, and you're wrong about what I think.

No metagame thinking is required. There is no in game reason to think a lever would be trapped in and of itself. You seem to approach it as if it is obviously trapped. But, here's what happens in game:

PCs think it's kind of suspicious.
PCs check it for traps.
PCs find that there is no trap.

They've had their suspicions and they've found that their suspicions were unfounded. I see no reason to make the following leap, for the PCs, that they must for some reason take extra careful precautions.

Here's an example of something that happened in a game I was running.

The PCs were exploring somewhere that had undead in it. They're level 10. They came across two large undead creatures. Now, according to the description, the Players knew that the undead were devourers, a CR 11 enemy with death attacks, and that there were two of them making the situation even worse.

But, none of the PCs had ranks in Knowledge (religion), so the PCs just saw two more large undead things. They had no real reason to think that these were any more powerful than the large zombies they had fought earlier. So they attacked.

It seems like you would argue that they were metagaming. They knew that it was dangerous, but they trusted in the DM to use level-appropriate encounters? That's not true. They were doing the opposite of metagaming. They knew that they had little chance to survive the encounter (two of them died to death attacks), but their PCs didn't know that so they attacked.

This is the essense of what I'm saying. The PCs can't go on the logic that the Players have, that the dungeon is a construct of the DM and there are certain cliches like trapped levers out there. They can only approach the situation with what they as PCs know.

Now, if they had seen lots of trapped levers in the past, then they would have a reason to be fearful, just like if the party in the example had fought devourers before or had someone with Knowledge (religion) to tell them that. But, we don't know.

I would think that a game with trapped levers as the norm would not be a generic D&D game. I don't think this is wrong, as the majority of votes have been "unfair" so it at least seems to me that a large portion of posters here on ENWorld (a board with lots of long time players) don't use lots of trapped levers everywhere.

Therefore, it is not even remotely metagaming to pull the lever.

 

[Someone]

I would have been very annoyed if I was the monk´s player. My lines of thinking would have been along these lines:

- The rogue, the authority in traps, the guy´s whose jobs is to find traps, the very guy who´s getting a share of the treasure because he´s good finding traps and who I´ve been seeing training hard finding and disarming traps, has found no traps even when he´s exhaustively searched for one.

- There´s the possibility that there´s, in fact, a trap so cleverly hidden that the rogue, the authority in traps, the guy´s whose jobs is to find traps, the very guy who´s getting a share of the treasure because he´s good finding traps and who I´ve been seeing training hard finding and disarming traps, has not found, even when he´s exhaustively searched for them. But since traps aren´t cheap, it makes sense that only an idiot would put a trap so cleverly hidden in a place where any would be intruder won´t likely interact with it (and if they interact with it, it will be only after kicking his ass and stealing the McGuffin, so the trap wouldn´t have actually any sense). I would put such a cleverly hidden trap either protecting the McGuffing, or at the start of my dungeon, where it can zap the maximum number of intruders and get the maximum zapped adventurer/Gp cost ratio. The BBEG wasn´t an idiot, therefore there´s no such clevely hidden trap.

- This lever, being where it is, probably just opens a scape hatch designed to make a backdoor exit from the dungeon. If we use it, we may avoid running into any monster we didn´t fight in the first place and that is now wandering the corridors looking for the bathroom. I´ll pull it.

*ZAP*

- I hope that the rogue, the authority in traps, the guy´s whose jobs is to find traps, the very guy who´s getting a share of the treasure because he´s good finding traps and who I´ve been seeing training hard finding and disarming traps, hasn´t found this trap even when he´s exhaustively searched the lever, doesn´t get his share of the treasure. And the BBEG is a moron.

 

[GQuail]

Examples of metagame thinking on the "unfair" side in this thread so far (paraphrased).

• It's OK to pull the lever because, even if it is trapped, insta-kill traps aren't fun, so the effect will only be an inconvenience or consume resources or be a temporary setback. The DM won't put anything in the dungeon that's "unfun".
• The monk should pull the lever because he has the best Saves. If there is a trap, he will definitely survive because the DM shouldn't be setting DCs that are impossible for our best character to make.
• The Rogue "took 20" and found nothing. Any level appropriate trap should have been found and the DM always runs level appropriate encounters for us, so there must not be a trap.
• If this lever is trapped with a really deadly trap beyond our ability to detect it will just encourage us to be paranoid and super-cautious. I know the DM doesn't want to run a game where we are super-cautious rather than balls-to-the-wall hero types, so we'll either detect the trap or it won't be too deadly or there simply isn't a trap.
• The rest of the dungeon has been level appropriate, so this one room must be too.
• The DM wouldn't have put this lever here if we weren't supposed to pull it, so it must be safe.

As ThirdWizard said, these aren't exactly reasons to pull the lever, so much as reasons why the lever trap wouldn't be fun for most players: I know when I asked my players about this kind of trap they were pretty against it for very much the reasons you listed. It's not something to be overcome, but something to be avoided, a "neener neener" trap if you will. Of course, 3.X does say that dungeons should invlude encounters you just have to drop and run from (hence me feeling the last two arguments aren't erribly solid: certainly, my party have tried to fight everything they've met in the past and learnt the folly of their actions.) but there's a difference in my mind between something that's obviously insurmountable and something which is gonna kill a player before they realise how deep they're in.

Whilst I personally have no problem with the occasional situation which breaks the "it's a game" mentality because of ICly reasons, this trap at heart follows a design paradigm which I don't think is terribly condusive to how many modern players play the game. It's more 1E than 3E: more Tomb of Horrors than Heroes of Horror, y'know what I'm saying? I think this thread has turned into a sort of edition war with regards to module design: many of the people saying it's fair are posters I know are big fans of older editions, and indeed someone on this thread already brought up the Green Devil Head as a similar example, didn't they? It's something where curiosity means death unless you're adopting an astounding careful dungeon clearing procedure, full of 10ft poles, summoned monsters and augurys: and I sense a lot of later D&D players don't have much experience in those kinds of modules, and thusly fail to see why that sort of behaviour would be expected of them.

I wonder if this is part of the reason for the question in the first place: Quas' threads on older editions and modules often bring up the differences in current and older adventure design and if it has any quantifiable traits. Whilst not all old-school modules have them, earlier D&D modules were certainly a lot more free & easy about snuffing out characters who didn't play cunning. The differences between the original and the 3.5 version of the Tomb Of Horrors is an obvious example of these different expectations.

I've stuck my players in lots of potentially fatal situations before: doesn't every DM? Just last fortnight my Rogue and Fighter got stuck in a 30ft diameter circular room which started to fill up with water, with a Belker and some Water Elementals hassling them, whilst the others deperately tried to open the sealed room and break the magical trap making the water. That was fair and fun to my players, who liked the drama of being split up and getting to show off their tricks. (Breaking down iron doors, casting Dispel Magic, swim checks to stay in combat in the water, etc) But I don't think if they'd walked into the same suspicious room and I'd just said "water fills room quickly, you drown, here's 4d6" that they'd have had anywhere near as much fun. Like a lot of people here, I can only really speak for what my players enjoy, so I can't say for sure that it's the WORST TRAP EVAR!!!11!!1one! or anything: but I do think that it's one I would be unlikely to use as written.

That's assuming the trap has killed the monk, mind. As more than one person has said, that's something we don't know for sure: I bet that Monk is haaving a lot of fun meditating whilst polymorphed into sand. :>

 

[delericho]

I thought about this trap while I was at lunch (which probably says something about me, but that's another thread...) and decided that I like it, and very well may use a variation of it someday. I agree with the other response (Ourph?) that this trap is significantly more difficult than the OP's trap because 1) the party has no choice but to disarm it in order to survive/continue, and 2) the party triggers it without realizing they've done so (and thus there's nothing to arouse their caution or suspicion). Neither of these make the trap "unfair," but they do make it very difficult (much moreso than the OP trap), and any DM who uses it should do so fully aware that it's likely to cause PC fatalities.

For 'likely' read 'almost certain'. Except by blind stupid luck there is no way for the party to escape this trap without losing at least one party member.

Here's how I'd react to this trap were I a player in this game. First off, an otherwise empty room with no apparent exits and a lever in the middle of the floor, way in the back/bottom of the dungeon (assumed because the room was discovered after the macguffin had been recovered), after we've already got the macguffin. This whole setup smells like a trap to me. Therefore, I'd probably never enter the room in the first place, and would suggest my party-mates not do so either. Even if they did enter the room, I probably wouldn't follow them -- I'd stand in the doorway, observe, and shout advice to them. Seriously, I do stuff like this all the time. Yeah, the other players make fun of me for being a coward, but their characters die and mine doesn't. But, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that the DM or the other players were somehow able to trick or cajole me into entering the room.

That's fair enough, and probably a sensible course of action... except that in that situation it's likely that there is a secret door in such a room, which might be worth investigating. In any event, not entering the room leads to survival of the trap.

We search the room and find a secret door but no way to open it. We search the door and lever for traps and are told that both are somehow connected to a trap, and that the trap is well beyond his ability to disarm and is of extreme lethality. Stop right there: I wouldn't accept that answer, and would want more detail.

Tough. If the rogue knew how they were connected he would also know enough to disarm the trap. If pressed, all you're getting is "there's some sort of mystical connection. You've never seen it before, but it's powerful, deadly, and beyond your ability to remove." Frankly, informing the Rogue that it's beyond his skill is excessively generous anyway. If I were using the trap in a real game, you'd get "it's trapped", and that's it.

Depending on how much magic I had available I might even consider attempting to commune, contact higher plane or similar magic to try to gain more info about the nature of the trap.

Seems rather like overkill, but appropriate given the situation. In that circumstance then, yes, you'd have enough information to know what's going on.

But, assuming that for whatever reason I was unable to gain any more specific info, the party wizard casts detect magic and no magic is detected. Why is that?

That one's easy. Nystul's Magical Aura can be used to mask the magical aura entirely (this use was originally in Nystul's Undetectable Aura in 3.0, and rolled into the one spell in 3.5). There's a caster level check, but given the nature of this trap, the caster level is extremely high, so my example assumed it was failed.

And, any BBEG capable but insane enough to build a trap like this is also capable but insane enough to also put a permanent undetectable aura on his trap.

(and, likewise, any magical means of trap detection such as a find traps spell or wand of secret door and trap detection should've also shown both exits as being trapped).

Very true. But a search of the other door and the lever would not. And you're assuming that such a wand or spell is available and used.

But, assuming for whatever reason that the detect magic doesn't work, yeah, at this point I'd probably decide it was time to leave. ZAP -- the monk gets hit by the force-field and dies.

As soon as the Monk dies, the game's up. If the trap is fair, then it must be possible for the party to escape without fatalities through clever play. Can you manage that?

(Incidentally, I don't believe the trap is fair. In fact, it's intentionally constructed not to be. As far as I can see, the only way to escape the room without fatalities is through dumb luck.

... a whole load of stuff about how to deal with the trap after the monk dies, some of which would work, some of which would not, but with the net result of your PC surviving...

As I said above, once the monk dies, the game's up.

Oh, and incidentally, I would've had a really fun time at this session, and would congratulate the DM on coming up with such a good trap and ask him how he expected we'd deal with the trap and laugh about all the hoops I jumped through when the solution was literally in plain sight the entire time. This is the kind of stuff I enjoy. This is why I play this game.

Meanwhile, the player of the monk has long since packed his bags, and left. Shortly thereafter, he's enjoying a game with a DM who provides sane challenges.

As far as I can see, for the entire party to survive this trap they need to do one of three things:

1) Not enter the room. This will either be due to dumb luck (we've completed our mission, let's just go), natural suspicion (although that could go either way - sure, you may well suspect the lever is trapped, but would you automatically assume it was trapped such that the rogue couldn't neutralise it?), or having the rogue check the entry doorway for traps (which may be dumb luck, or may be SOP).

2) Having determined that the lever and secret door are trapped, also check the door you came in for traps. I've seen no replies anywhere in this thread suggesting that that should be SOP, so I'm going to put that down to dumb luck. Of course, you get that information for free if using a wand of trap detection or a find traps spell, but is that the first recourse for a party with a rogue to do the job? And is it something that would be done once the rogue has confirmed that there is, in fact, a trap? Why use magic to detect traps that you now know are there?

3) Pull the lever. But, since the consensus on the 'the OP trap is fair' crowd is that strange levers should not be pulled as default, I have to assume that that's not SOP, and so put it down to dumb luck.

I don't see how a group can survive this trap without fatalities through good play, except by not entering the room. And I see no real reason not to enter the room (except that the party already has the McGuffin. So, what about the case where they find the room before finding the McGuffin?)

That was, of course, my intent. I don't believe that the OP trap was fair, I believe that this one is more fair than the OP, since it can be detected (although not disarmed), and can be disabled very easily, and I absolutely don't believe that the trap I suggested was fair.

I would walk away from a game featuring this trap, or the one in the OP.