Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Ourph]

The really smart (and extravagant) BBEG adds a second Disintegrate effect to be triggered precisely 48 feet back up the corridor, because he knows adventurers always carry rope in 50-foot lengths.

Apparently, the really smart BBEG isn't all that smart, because it's a foregone conclusion that the heroes will eventually win and the BBEG will always lose at a dramatic and climactic moment because that's how games of HEROIC fantasy gaming work (everybody knows that, duh!). So no matter how well he plans, how much money he spends or how cunning he thinks he's being, he ought to know he is done for because he's not just up against any old opponent, he's up against a band of HEROES.

When he notices that someone just built a new railroad line leading directly to his hideout, the really smart BBEG realizes it's time to take his treasure and retire to a small village, before the HERO EXPRESS chugs it's way over him.

 

[MarkB]

Apparently, the really smart BBEG isn't all that smart, because it's a foregone conclusion that the heroes will eventually win and the BBEG will always lose at a dramatic and climactic moment because that's how games of HEROIC fantasy gaming work (everybody knows that, duh!). So no matter how well he plans, how much money he spends or how cunning he thinks he's being, he ought to know he is done for because he's not just up against any old opponent, he's up against a band of HEROES.

BBEGs get through plenty of HEROES, but they were all NPCs. It's PCs that he has to look out for.

And it's not about the destination, it's about the journey.

 

[Hussar]

At the beginning of a game, particularly with inexperienced players, then as I've said all along, this trap would be harsh. Once the players are experienced and have learned the basics, then in games of the kind that I run it becomes normal.

That, right there, pretty much sums up the metagame nature of the "fair" side.

It's not the characters who are experienced, it's the players. So, as a long term gamer, it's perfectly acceptable to play my 3rd level barbarian with an int and wis of 6 like he was a SWAT member.

Or, even my wizard, who's spent his whole life with his nose in dusty tomes, should now make Chuck Norris cry as he examines everything with a fine toothed comb.

My chaotic priest of Kord should be more meticulous than Grissom from CSI when entering a room.

Doesn't matter what the character's background is. Doesn't matter what his abilities are, or his history or even his skills. Any player who has become "experienced and have learned the basics" should act like he's a member of a tactical squad.

And this isn't metagaming?

 

[FireLance]

After thinking about it for some time, I've narrowed it down to about three dimensions of fairness:

A. Warning Shot: Were the PCs given some indication of what they are going to do is dangerous? There is a continuum of what different people may consider to be a sufficient warning:

1. Obvious signs of danger, e.g. a sign written in Common that says, "Danger! Trapped lever".
2. Signs that hint at danger, e.g. a pile of dust in front of the lever.
3. Signs that can be discovered with an average reactive check (50% or greater chance of success), e.g. Spot, Listen, Knowledge, Sense Motive.
4. Signs that can be discovered by taking reasonable* precautions, e.g. a rogue taking 20 when searching for traps.
5. Signs that can be discovered with a difficult reactive check (about 25% chance of success).
6. Signs that can be discovered by taking extraordinary* precautions, e.g. detect magic.
7. Subtle signs that require knowledge of specific information or conventions on the part of the player, e.g. "Levers are always trapped".
8. Signs that can be discovered with a very difficult reactive check (about 5% chance of success).
9. No sign of danger.

B. Avoidance: What can the PCs do to avoid the danger? Again, there is a continuum:

1. Obvious way to circumvent the danger, or facing the danger does not contribute to any of the party's objectives, e.g. going around a pool of lava, getting out of the dungeon by the same way you came in after getting the McGuffin.
2. Danger can be avoided with an average check (50% or greater chance of success), e.g. Disable Device, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Hide, Move Silently, Climb, Jump, Tumble, attack roll vs AC, a saving throw.
3. Danger can be avoided by taking reasonable* precautions, or facing the danger contributes in a minor way to the party's objectives, e.g. do not openly wear the holy symbol of a deity when attempting to parley with the servants of another deity that opposes him, a trap that guards some useful potions.
4. Danger can be avoided with a difficult check (about 25% chance of success).
5. Danger can be avoided by taking extraordinary* precautions, or facing the danger contributes in a major way to the party's objectives, e.g. use a rope to activate a lever, rescue the hostages taken by the BBEG.
6. Danger can be avoided with a very difficult check (about 5% chance of success).
7. Danger cannot be avoided, or facing the danger is the party's objective, e.g. defeat the BBEG.

C. Consequences: What effect does it have on the PCs? Once more, there is a continuum:

1. Temporary or minor consequences, e.g. character death in a campaign where an NPC is willing and able to cast true resurrection for free.
2. Longer-term or moderate consequences, e.g. character death in a campaign where a PC is able to cast true resurrection.
3. Very long-term or major consequences, e.g. character death in a campaign where a PC or NPC is able to cast resurrection or raise dead.
4. Permanent, irreversible consequences, e.g. character death in a campaign where coming back from the dead is not possible or practical.

* Definitions of "reasonable" and "extraordinary" may vary between groups.

Since the OP's example seems to fall at the upper range of the continuum on the Warning Shot scale, and (depending on one's perspective) falls at either the lower or upper range of the continuum on the Avoidance scale, and does not really address the Consequences scale (although many posters seem to assume character death will always be at the upper end of the continuum), I can see why it has generated a lot of discussion.

 

[Someone]

Somebody should e-mail Rich Burlew about this thread. He´d find material for a couple dozen strips.

 

[delericho]

OK, let's say you have the superhuman ability to survive getting shot in the face 19 times out of 20. Note the term SURVIVE. It still hurts you just as much as it would hurt a normal person. You still look horrible and feel horrible until it heals, you just can't die. Now let's say you want to buy a TV. The guy at the counter gives you an option. You can give him $500 for the TV or you can let him shoot you in the face and get the same exact TV.

After your friend, the firearms expert has carefully examined the gun. Now, your friend hasn't seen this type of gun before (it's a custom job), but he knows a lot about firearms in general, and as far as he can tell, this weapon is not even loaded.

Oh, and even that's not an accurate analogy. A closer one would be if the store owner said he would 'shoot' you with this 'pen', that your friend the expert in devices in general has concluded is nothing more than a pen.

Oh, and also, a gunshot does not hurt a high level monk as much as it hurts anyone else. A hit doing 10 hit points of damage is a near-fatal wound to a character with 11 hit points. It's little more than a scratch to a character with 200 hit points.

Do you honestly let him shoot you, knowing that it's going to be excruciating and that you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying? Or do you pay the $500? Or, if you don't have the $500, do you just wait to get the TV until you DO have the $500?

Depends how tight I am for money. The answer is I probably would let him shoot me with the 'pen', since my device-expert friend is reasonably sure it is just a pen. There is, however, a threshold at which I would not take that chance. I probably wouldn't do it to save $5, for example.

 

[delericho]

See my remarks to silentspace above. I don't care about proving the existence of a trap, all I care about is not getting my character killed.

Then you don't enter the dungeon at all. If it's entirely reasonable for there to be an undetectable, extreme-save-DC insta-kill trap on a lever in a random room in the dungeon, then it's far more reasonable to assume that the same BBEG who installed that trap would have put an undetectable extreme-save-DC insta-kill trap on the entry to the dungeon, disarmed only by reciting the code phrase, which you don't know because he never wrote it down (being a smart BBEG). (Or, perhaps, it is disarmed by a special brand he had all his allies apply to themselves. Of course, he insisted on them doing a lot of bizarre things - wearing only purple, never wearing boots, self-mutilation, brushing their teeth... - so you can't be sure which of his crazy rituals are the key one.) Of course, there might well not be such a trap, but you just can't know. And if there might be, surely that's enough to warrant not going? Don't want to get killed, after all.

Oh, and before you say, "I know there's not a trap because people go in and out"... The place is filled with orcs, so people don't go in and out. Sure, the orcs do, but they've all got the brand. Of course, they don't know the significance of the brand, since it's now a tribal tradition, and they don't know which of the many tribal brands they have that does the trick. So, taking a prisoner won't help you. (Of course, there might well not be a trap. In which case taking a prisoner is pointless. But you can never be 100% certain, so...)

If the goal is to open the secret door and it's possible that pulling the lever opens the door then I'll find some way to pull the lever while putting my character at the minimum risk possible. I don't care whether there is or is not a trap. What I care about is that the trap is a possibility and if there are ways to avoid the possible risk pulling the lever represents I'll take advantage of them.

Okay, how do you deal with the possible risk of simply entering the dungeon? This one doesn't have a nice lever to scream TRAP at you, but it's a possibility (as much as the lever is).

The fact is, the DM could easily install absurd traps at the start of every dungeon. That's certainly the most likely place for them. And he could easily construct his traps so that they are undetectable, unsaveable, and instantly lethal. And he could construct the rest of the dungeon so that the whole thing makes logical sense.

But a DM who does so makes it impossible for the party to adventure at all. So no sane DM does that. But, of course, that's a metagaming concern, so shouldn't be taken into account.

My point about negative data is simply that you can never prove with a Search check that no trap exists, so (from my perspective) acting as if a Search check is absolute proof relies on the metagame knowledge that "taking 20" plus "challenges appropriate to level" equates to proof positive that a trap isn't present.

I'm not talking about "absolute proof". I'm talking about reasonable assurance.

The party will know whether they are in over their heads or not. I've been through that before. Either the trapfinder has successfully found all the traps in this dungeon so far, or he has not. If he has, then the monk has no reason to doubt him.

In general, a layman should not doubt the assessment of a skilled professional, in said professional's area of expertise, without good reason. And, unless the rogue has missed traps in this dungeon before, no such reason exists.

Would the monk stake his life on the skills of the rogue?

Well, if the McGuffin is found, perhaps not, since there's no need. But, if the McGuffin has not been found? Bearing in mind that, unless this is their first adventure together, they have a history of trusting one another, and often when their lives are on the line?

I would say it is reasonable for the monk to trust the assessment of the rogue. There's no good reason not to.

You might well argue, "but the McGuffin is found". That's true. However, unless the trap mysteriously sprang into existence when the McGuffin was found, the possibility exists of it being found first. And if the trap is fair after the McGuffin is found, it must be fair before the McGuffin is found. So, kindly deal with that case.

 

[Ourph]

And this isn't metagaming?

I don't think anyone has said, even once, that the "fair" side of the argument doesn't rely on metagame thinking. It's just not the ONLY side the relies on metagame thinking in this discussion.

 

[Jolly Giant]

Somebody should e-mail Rich Burlew about this thread. He´d find material for a couple dozen strips.

Probably the smartest post in this entire tread!

 

[Mycanid]

Wow!

This has been a more popular thread than I would have guessed....

Always interesting to see which threads arouse the most ... errr ... activity.