Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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

I or my players wouldn't. I guess its a good thing we don't game together.

 

[satori01]

No, no, no. The trap doesn't hurt the BBEG, he can pull his lever all day and night, back and forth, up and down, and never get dusty.

Though if I remember 5th grade health class he might go blind afterwards!

 

[delericho]

Taking 20 being a "sure thing" in a "level appropriate dungeon" is metagame thinking.

I was speaking from an adventure-design rather than in-character standpoint. My contention is that in a level-appropriate dungeon then it should be. Of course, if the PCs are not in a level-appropriate dungeon then all bets are off.

From the character's perspective, an ancient dungeon inhabited by CR1/2 orcs could easily contain traps left over from a much higher CR inhabitant.

It's possible, but extremely unlikely. If the dungeon environment is that deadly to those who inhabit it (assuming no special immunities come into play), then it is almost certain that those inhabitants would have scrawled the words "deadly trap, do not pull lever" in very big letters in the room with the lever after the first member of their troupe got zapped. Or, since orcs are not necessarily known for their literacy, daubed a great big skull symbol on the wall. Or they would have walled up the room. Or something. Either way, there would be warnings of some sort. And they would do this, so that their children/visiting chief/someone else they care about doesn't accidentally trigger the trap.

Low CR creatures do not live long in dungeons with high CR traps (as a general rule), since those same traps would kill them off. And there's nothing metagame about that.

Only metagame thinking would dictate to the players that such a setup wouldn't occur because it would be disruptive to the assumptions made by the game.

The characters would, however, know whether they're in over their heads. If every challenge to this point has been of a certain lethality, it's highly unlikely that this one is suddenly going to be significantly worse.

And, perhaps surprisingly, they would have noticed had the rogue failed to spot traps earlier in the dungeon, so would know how much trust to put in his skills.

Their assumptions that they did the RIGHT THING are based on metagame thinking. In previous editions of D&D this wouldn't be considered the RIGHT THING because any search for traps always carried the possibility that the trap was simply missed. In fact, I can prove that, in this instance, the PCs did NOT do the RIGHT THING by the simple fact that the trap was, in fact, there and killed a PC when activated.

That's circular reasoning. The outcome can't be considered fair because the PCs did something wrong when the only evidence that the PCs did something wrong was that that outcome was bad.

Last month, I went to France on holiday. I took my car. Before I went, I took the car to my mechanic and had him give it a full service, and check it thoroughly for problems. He did so, found a few things, fixed those things, and gave it a clean bill of health.

Shortly after my arrival in France I had problems with the car, and had to have the brake pads replaced.

Now, tell me, did I do the RIGHT THING by having the car checked, and then having the tyre replaced? Or should I have doubted the mechanic who has given me flawless service for years when he gave the car a clean bill of health? Wouldn't that be excessively paranoid?

My point being that sometimes you do the RIGHT THING, and it still doesn't work out. That doesn't mean you did something wrong... it means you were unlucky.

But in a game based on different assumptions this trap makes perfect sense

Really? What sort of an idiot BBEG places a trap of extreme lethality on a lever a room with a secret door, and no other apparent ways of opening the door. Clearly, that just screams trap.

Surely, any smart BBEG would place the trap on the secret door such that the only way to disarm the trap is to place your hands on the door and utter the password. Which would, of course, be the BBEG's favourite colour, or first pet's name, or the punchline to some joke he liked a lot (or, since the use of ciphers isn't exactly new, might as well be the password "VZBUX")? And, while we're at it, dispense with the lever entirely, and have the same password unlock the door. Or, better still, don't bother with a secret door at all, and just use magic to walk through the wall.

No, considered in that light it's just stupid thinking. If you're admitting the possibility of a trap, then sending someone you actually care about to potentially set it off just because the numbers are on their side is ridiculously incautious.

When I drive to work, I don't expect to be involved in a crash. And yet I make sure to use my seatbelt every time. Just because the odds of something are very small doesn't mean that you don't do it, or go to ridiculous lengths to avoid the danger.

Especially when it's extremely easy to substitute a proxy or just wait until further information is available about the potential trap.

Substituting a proxy isn't that easy, you know. Not only are the number of summoning spells available tightly constrained, but you also need the ability to communicate with the summoned creatures to have them pull the lever. This may or may not be a further bar to the casual use of such a spell.

Using a prisoner is an option, provided a prisoner is available, and assuming sufficient moral flexibility in the party. It's certainly not a Good action to force a prisoner to pull a lever if the party sincerely believes there may be an insta-kill death trap on it.

Remember, there was absolutely no need for the party in question to pull the lever in this scenario. They had accomplished their mission, they had a safe way out of the dungeon already cleared of challenges, they could have simply left (or waited and rested to gain the appropriate divination or conjuration spells). Exposing the monk to risk simply because he's best able to survive most challenges is just silly when there are means available to expose NO ONE to any risk whatsoever.

Fine. Since the trap presumably didn't spring into existence when the party found the McGuffin, how do you deal with the case where you find it before they find said McGuffin? Then there is a (potential) need to pull the lever, they haven't completed their mission, and so forth. If the trap is fair after the McGuffin is found, it must be safe before. Is it really?

Your trap would be fair if detecting the trap indicated to the Rogue that the trap extended to both doors.

Had the rogue checked the entry door, he would have found it trapped also (and this applies whether the checking is done before entry or after). However, if the rogue only checks the lever and the secret door, it's entirely reasonable to not mention the danger on the other door as well. The OP specifically did not mention checking the first door, so neither did I, so the rogue didn't find it.

I would have given him that info on a successful roll because it allows the party to make better decisions. At that point they might figure out going through the door they came in (which was safe at the time) might be dangerous now.

They don't know that it was safe when they entered. Had they checked it for traps before entering, they'd have found the trap. But, in the example given, they did not.

I would say that your trap is significantly harder than the one described in the OP's post because there is no option for the party to simply walk away from the encounter safely. Once inside the room they MUST figure out the nature of the trap or face its consequences.

It's harder, but then it's specifically designed to screw players who can't read the DM's mind, and is further specifically designed to be more fair than the OP trap, since it can be detected. The OP trap relies on the party assuming that the group's dedicated trapfinder got it wrong, and that the lever is trapped despite his best efforts at finding such a trap. My trap lets them know explicitly that there is a trap, and that it is beyond their skill to disarm (which I thought was extremely generous - a sadistic DM would let the rogue try, and get himself zapped when he failed). And it makes as much if not more sense than the OP trap - anyone who should be in the room would know how to disarm the trap; anyone who doesn't know the 'trick' deserves to be zapped whether they leave by the secret or the obvious exit (or, indeed, by use of passwall, or any other means).

As I said before, I'd much rather face a trap where my own decision-making allows me to avoid a save rather than facing a trap where I must make a save but the DC is "level appropriate". So while I wouldn't call the trap you designed unfair, I would say it's a much greater challenge for the party and would think twice about using that design (whereas I have no problem with the design of the original trap).

Ideally, a trap should have both a means to avoid the save by good play, and the ability to detect and disarm and/or bypass the trap through good (if challenging) rolls, and appropriately tough but not instantly lethal consequences if this fails (assuming a monk in full health when he triggers the trap, he should perhaps die on a failed save, suffer significant but not terminal damage on a successful save, with a save DC such that he can make the save on, say, a natural 15+... bearing in mind that the Monk likely has the best saves in the group).

The above paragraph assumes a trap at the upper end of 'acceptable' for a normal challenge. I have no problem in removing some of the options as the trap gets more deadly. However, as the trap gets more deadly, it needs to do so in the context of the dungeon as a whole. If the trap becomes so deadly that it cannot be detected, and cannot be survived if triggered then only good play can protect the characters. That's okay, but I expect that such a trap will only appear in a dungeon that is beyond the ability of the PCs to survive for long, and then I absolutely demand that the players be aware of how tough the dungeon is, either before they enter, or more likely in the course of their explorations. If every challenge in the dungeon to date has been level-appropriate, and now the party are faced with this trap, then it's unfair.

 

[T. Foster]

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.

As I said before, the thing that makes this trap so difficult is the fact that the players won't know that they've already triggered it until it's too late (i.e. the monk dies). That, to me, is at least borderline unfair (though since I assume such a trap would only be used against experienced players with high-level characters, I also assume that such characters would also likely have means of restoring the dead monk to life, so it's not a permanent loss, just a temporary setback and annoyance -- the trap is much more unfair if the monk's death is likely to be permanent). As a player in this game I'd be minorly annoyed by this (even more annoyed if I was the monk's player and got whacked by the pure bad luck of being in the first rank) but I still wouldn't walk out -- I'd stick around and root the other players on (and give advice, if the GM would let me) because my fate is now in their hands -- if they're able to escape the trap they can likely resurrect my dead character; if not, well then we're all screwed.

As a DM, I'd probably nerf the trap a bit by giving the players some hint as they entered the room that a trap had been sprung -- they feel a pressure plate descend, or feel a "tingle of magical energy" as the cross the threshhold, or some other hint that they should be on high alert, thus making it more likely they'll notice the trap on the exit before someone tries to pass through it. Another twist I might do is to make only the entrance doorway trapped and not the secret door (though the players still wouldn't know how to open it). This would add another set of choices for the players -- it might be easier to exit through that door than the trapped entrance (by use of a knock spell, or maybe even a crowbar), but then they wouldn't know what they'd be facing and still wouldn't have a certain escape route (as a player I wouldn't likely go this route, but I imagine some players would).

 

[Ourph]

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!).

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.

I'm going to answer both of you at once, since you're basically making the same points.

The assumptions you are making are still, IMO, based on metagame thinking. The idea that one person looking over a potentially trapped area and failing to see something isn't proof about the presence of a trap one way or the other. Negative data can never disprove an hypothesis. The only reason the Rogue's conclusion bears as much weight as it does in some people's mind is because their perception of the game environment is colored by the concepts of "taking 20" and "level appropriateness". Those two metagame concepts turn negative data "I don't see a trap" into a positive conclusion "there is no trap". The character's assumptions about the reality of their game world are being colored by the player's knowledge about how the rules of the game work and what the basic assumptions of the game are concerning challenges the characters will face. That is, by any definition, metagame thinking.

The idea that the Monk can likely survive if there is a trap is also, totally, metagame thinking. No real person would voluntarily shoot themself in the head to determine if their gun were loaded with blanks or real bullets if other, safer, options (shoot at a target, shoot a dead animal carcass, shoot into a pillow, etc.) were available to determine the same information, even if they knew they would have a 3 in 4 chance of surviving the wound. It's ridiculous to say that characters in a fantasy game would do the equivalent simply because the numbers are on their side and say it has nothing to do with the fact that the player is aware he is playing a game.

And before we get off on too much of a tangent, I just want to re-emphasize that I have no problem with metagame thinking. This is not a criticism of the "unfair" stance in this discussion. I'm just pointing out that use of metagame knowledge applies to both sides of the issue.

 

[ThirdWizard]

By your view, everything everyone does is always metagaming.

 

[Someone]

I'm going to answer both of you at once, since you're basically making the same points.

The assumptions you are making are still, IMO, based on metagame thinking. The idea that one person looking over a potentially trapped area and failing to see something isn't proof about the presence of a trap one way or the other. Negative data can never disprove an hypothesis. The only reason the Rogue's conclusion bears as much weight as it does in some people's mind is because their perception of the game environment is colored by the concepts of "taking 20" and "level appropriateness". Those two metagame concepts turn negative data "I don't see a trap" into a positive conclusion "there is no trap". The character's assumptions about the reality of their game world are being colored by the player's knowledge about how the rules of the game work and what the basic assumptions of the game are concerning challenges the characters will face. That is, by any definition, metagame thinking.

And before we get off on too much of a tangent, I just want to re-emphasize that I have no problem with metagame thinking. This is not a criticism of the "unfair" stance in this discussion. I'm just pointing out that use of metagame knowledge applies to both sides of the issue.

But you´re talking about absolute proof of a negative proposition, which is impossible. Nobody is discussing that. There´s no way that you can be 100% sure that there´s a trap on the lever, sort of the player character activating it; after all, it may be constructed not to react to summoned critters or magical forces, and to foil divinations. Going into the dungeon with that mentality would lead to, well, not entering the dungeon at all.

The catch is, if you don´t have 100%, you must risk with 90%, or 95%, or 99%. How much you do perceive to be the risk and how much risk you´ll accept depends on many things. The trap expert searched carefully the level, inch by inch and then again, and arrived at the conclusion that it wasn´t trapped. That´s what "take 20" means. It means that you´re taking 20 times the time needed to examine the trap, to make sure no tiny detail escapes your attention. Also, the traps´location wasn´t the most logical to place a highly complex trap, so what they are saying is that the perceived risk here was minimal, once the lever was examined by the trap expert. This is because they are thinking like their characters would do, and reasoning supposing there´s a certain logic in the dungeon´s construction: that it was built for defense, thet the builder maybe had limited resources, and that he would put his most deadly means of defense defending the important bits, not a random lever somewhere.

However, if you think like players would do, you know that DM´s like to put traps on seemingly innocuous places, because it´s sort of a competition to see who outsmarts who. dungeon logic has nothing to do here. In that case the perceived risk is much, much higher, because a lone lever screams TRAP! as much as if he had a sign of a skull and crossed bones.

So, IMHO, if the game is one of DM vs players and the players know that, the trap is fair. If not, it´s unfair. As you can see, I´m partial to the later, as I would prefer to remain in my house solving sudokus to be in a game that´s essentially the same thing.

 

[silentspace]

Hi Ourph,

You make some good points. Seems that 'metagaming' means different things to different people. I understand both sides of the definition. Putting the definition of metagaming to the side, the questions remain:

1. Why would the party go to extraordinary means to determine if there is or isn't a trap?

This has been gone over pretty thoroughly. It seems it is quite obvious to some posters that there is a trap, while other (myself included) just don't get it.

2. Why would the party go to extraordinary safety measures to pull the lever?

First off, they'd have to be pretty sure that the lever is probably trapped. But ok, let's say you're pretty sure it is trapped, in-game evidence to the contrary. How do you know that having a proxy or a rope pull the lever helps in any way? How do you know the lever's undetectable trap affects a creature in direct contact with the lever as opposed to something else? That's why it seems arbitrary to me.

How do you know that you're not supposed to pull the lever? If we're playing hypotheticals (which we are ), how do you know the McGuffin isn't a decoy and the real McGuffin is yet to be discovered? How do you know that not pulling the lever saves you as opposed to pulling the lever?

 

[Ourph]

How do you know that having a proxy or a rope pull the lever helps in any way? How do you know the lever's undetectable trap affects a creature in direct contact with the lever as opposed to something else? That's why it seems arbitrary to me.

The point of using a proxy is not to find out whether the lever is trapped or to find out what the effects of the trap are. The point of having a proxy pull the lever is to find out if pulling the lever opens the secret door. Whether the trap does or does not trigger when your Mage Hand pulls the lever is irrelevant. What's relevant is that you found out if the lever opens the door without killing a member of your party. As for the lever affecting something else, yes that's a possibility, which is why I would stand as far away from the lever as possible (outside the room at least) when my proxy pulled the lever.

There are no guarantees. Anything you do in a dungeon might lead to character deaths, but IMO that's no reason not to take as many precautions as are reasonably possible.

How do you know that you're not supposed to pull the lever?

AFAIC there is no "supposed to". If the DM wants you to pull the lever or not pull the lever he's not doing his job as an impartial referee. As I said above, I'm a naturally curious player and would very much want to get through the secret door and find out what the lever does, but I wouldn't satisfy my curiousity by exposing my character to unnecessary risk.

 

[takyris]

If I'm in a D&D world, I don't consider knowing that the party monk has good saves is metagaming. If I'm in a D&D world, I grew up hearing about the monastic warriors who can dive through explosions, shrug off diseases that would kill any normal man, and steel their minds and souls against the most powerful charms any wizard can command. Acting surprised when the monk has good saves would be like acting surprised when the party wizard casts a spell.

That's not metagaming. That's immersion.

Or, to dumb it down a bit: I have several real-world friends. If we were all, through some horrific mischance, stuck in a dungeon, I can tell you which one I'd want looking for traps -- the guy who reads the MIT guide to lockpicking and tinkers with electronics and all that good stuff. If we found a lever to pull, I can tell you which one I'd want to pull it -- the guy who takes Capoeira and does backflips for fun and runs marathons and stuff. If we found a shifty person to parley with, I can tell you which one I'd want handling the talk -- my buddy who's getting the PhD in Psychology who's written papers on negotiation and manipulation tactics.

Me knowing which of my friends is good at stuff is not metagaming.

And yeah, if it were really me and my friends in that dungeon, I wouldn't pull the lever unless I had to. But then, my friends and I aren't trying to be heroic. I can be mundane and safe and paranoid in real life. Come Friday night, I want to pull the lever and not get killed unless a) I missed find-able clues that pulling the lever would be bad or b) I get unlucky.