Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[I'm A Banana]

Whereas my character doesn't see himself like that at all. He sees himself as more like Odysseus -- a guy who succeeds through cunning, trickery, and pragmatism, who outsmarts dragons and tricks fiends, who couldn't care less about Little Timmy the Village Cripple (unless he's got some valuable information to share), who's just as likely to keep the macguffin for himself as he is to return it to its "rightful" former-owner, and who intends never to find out wheter or not he can take a bullet wound in the face and survive. And because of that he'll still be alive at the end of the day, listening as all the other dead heroes are memorialized by the bards.

Odysseus wooed and slept with saucy foreign women and never once worried about catching the ancient greek herpes.

Odysseus spat in the face of GODS, in fact, one of the most ancient and powerful of all gods, and lived to tell the tale.

When faced between Scylla and Charibdis, Odysseus didn't say "I will stay here because it is safe." He said "I need to get home, and they are in my way, so I will go THROUGH them. Damn the danger!"

Odysseus was VERY heroic. He recklessly confronted dangers of an extreme and obviously deadly nature and lived to tell the tale. He lived because of his cleverness (and no small amount of divine intervention), but that doesn't eradicate the fact that he most definately did not play it safe. Safe would have been accepting his fate. Safe would have been not going to Troy. Safe never entered into his equasion.

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.

Evil doesn't always loose. You're wrong to assume so. You are once again mischaracterising those opposing you of wanting it easy and simple, and that remains as untrue as it ever was. People don't want it easy. They just want it fair and fun.

No, evil attains many victories. But unless those victories make for a more interesting game, they really don't matter, and probably shouldn't be included. And certainly D&D should be played with the assumption that it is fair and fun.

This magical death lever is crazy out-of-the-blue assassination that only the very paranoid characters (and, thus, not fully apt for the vast majority of D&D characters) or most prescient metagame thinkers would avoid.

This makes it unfair, and, for most, not fun.

"Unfair" is a completely valid and apt label for this scenario, and one doesn't need to resort to ad absurdium attacks to disagree, merely just be comfortable with paranoid characters or presceint players.

 

[Ourph]

You are once again mischaracterising those opposing you of wanting it easy and simple, and that remains as untrue as it ever was.

No, I was making a joke about the silly notion that one very narrow definition of the word "hero" and one point of view about the types of things that are supposed to happen to that hero in a game that defines the way D&D is "suppoed to be played".

And, for the record, I've never characterized anyone in this thread as "wanting it easy and simple" - you must be confusing me with someone else.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, I was making a joke about the silly notion that one very narrow definition of the word "hero" and one point of view about the types of things that are supposed to happen to that hero in a game that defines the way D&D is "suppoed to be played".

....that suggested that "narrow definition" of "hero" was wrong because "it's a foregone conclusion that the heroes will eventually win." Which is wrong.

The main implication of "easy and simple" is "the HERO EXPRESS chugs it's way over [the BBEG]." While not expressly stated, comparing the villain to a man on a train track does imply that it is struck with a force it cannot hope to stop. Which is also untrue, and implies that which is not true.

Making the hyperbole a mischaracterization of how I believe the assumptions of fairness in the D&D game work. A micharacterization that, while you may not share, you still implied (though perhaps unintentionally?). Hence my post.

D&D is only SUPPOSED to be played the way you have fun. But it's still possible to have fun when it's not fair. And just because people have their reasons for calling this particular set-up unfair doesn't mean anything like "it's a foregone conclusion that the heroes will eventually win" as ""the HERO EXPRESS chugs it's way over [the BBEG]."

I do apologize for probably sounding more than a little pedantic here, but I am trying to show that there are more choices than "this situation is fair" or "the PC's face no true danger." The situation is unfair, and, even believing such, the PC's can and do face true danger.

They just don't routinely face nigh-unavoidable death from pulling levers.

It's okay to prefer a different playstyle, even one that includes "unfair" traps such as this one, but this does not make the playstyle I'm defending simply an inevitable march toward success without the risk of humiliating, painful, and permenant defeat.

 

[Someone]

Is it silly for characters to operate under the restriction that chopping down trees in a forest protected by treants is dangerous (whereas it's perfectly safe in other regions) or is it part of the "internal consistency" you believe is important?

This is not the correct analogy. The right one would be that the PCs entered the forest long ago, and saw no sign of treants, even when they looked for them; they saw large trees cut (and even cut themselves some) and nothing happened. But when one of them cuts a branch from one small tree, an army of treants appear out of nothing and beat the branch-cutter to a pulp.

Makes no sense. But anyway, doesn´t matter, because it´s a fantasy forest, isn´t it?

 

[DonTadow]

But, the DM is forcing the players to conform to a certain norm, the second they enter a "dungeon". Of course, that brings up the idea of what constitutes a dungeon as well. If said lever was inside a castle, should that matter? If it's inside a blacksmith's home, we should act differently? In a bar? Or is the presence of a lever indication that the players are now in a dungeon environment?

Change the situation slightly. Say the thief found a trap. The thief then goes to disarm the trap. Continuing this, the thief needs a 20 on his skill check to disarm the trap and he cannot make his saving throw. So, on a roll of 15 or less, the thief dies. Now the party has done everything by the book. They've done everything right and the thief dies 75% of the time (a fail of 5 or more sets off the trap according to the skill).

Is the trap fair or is it now far too high for what a party should be facing in a dungeon?

My problem isn't save or die traps. They happen. Heck, even a simple fireball trap could kill the rogue if he fails his save. But, a trap that kills the PC 100% of the time or even 75% of the time when interacted with is not fair. The save DC is simply too high.

This is the underlyning problem with the encounter. Unless there is some other way of solving it (which i always think sshould be presented to the party after theyve left the dungeon), then the encounter had a cr too high for the party. The PCs have to have a fair to slightly unfair chance( 40 to 60 percent) to solve the encounter. It seemed like neither was available in this case. It was essentially roll a 20 or die.

The way i do my games is, if these ar heroes some things are just understood. I don't make my rogues roll for traps every 10 ft and at every door. Its assumed they are and if a trap comes up i just roll in secret and move on so the game never loses its adventrious atmosphere. Too many mundane tasks makes games feel like D and D SWAT

 

[Nelly]

It is unfair because it is stupid at face value. I can imagine truly bizarre scenarios for which I would amend my opinion, but that is wild speculation.

Ah you know.. there once was a medic that was injured from an explosion, he crawled to the healing bag and pulled out the first medicine he could find and gave himself a shot of this medicine.

I as GM asked "Are you sure you want to do that?" the medic answered "Yep I do it! I'm addicted in medicine anyway, so I'll take what ever I get."

"Okay Medic, do a Saving Throw"

The medic rolled a Saving Throw and failed... he died from taking the wrong medicine, he was injured, had a collaps and simply died from it.

Live ain't fair, but you know what? We had so much fun by burning the Character Sheet and telling us stories from the good old dwarf medic that was addicted in drugs, medicine, alcohol and anything you can think of.

Thats another way a heroic character can be killed, might not be the way you think a character should be killed, yet he was a fallen heroe and we remember him well

Just don't take the game too serious and you sometimes might have a little fun, even when a character dies.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

If the characters have to change their personalities every time they enter a new environment, they're not characters at all.

If the environment changes to suit the characters all the time, they aren't characters. They're gods.

 

[delericho]

I believe there's ample justification for having an in character POV that indicates the dungeon is a place separate from the real world where all perceptions of normality and logic are altered.

It may surprise you to hear that I agree with this - PCs should act differently in a dungeon than in the town. And a lot more paranoia and care is entirely appropriate, sensible, and expected.

Where we crucially differ is in our assessment of how much more paranoia and care should be expected.

As it stands, the trap described is undetectable, has en extreme save DC, and is instantly fatal. I have no problem with any one of these. Put two together, and I start to get worried (depending on which two). Put the three together, and I'll call it unfair.

Unless, as I've stated several times before, the PCs are aware that they are in over their heads. If they're 4th level, and the dungeon is for 9th level PCs, all bets are off.

 

[Nelly]

It may surprise you to hear that I agree with this - PCs should act differently in a dungeon than in the town. And a lot more paranoia and care is entirely appropriate, sensible, and expected.

Yup, they should act professionally.. .something most gamers simply don't get.

They want to be handled like pro's, act and take it like pro's.

Especially when they are 7lvl up.. I expect more than just fooling and horsing around.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If the environment changes to suit the characters all the time, they aren't characters. They're gods.

There is a middle ground, you know. A place between the players having to change the way they play and being able to walk up to the Great Wyrm of the North at 2nd level and kill it because the DM won't make it more than CR2.

It's communication, and it's an under-used skill, but one of the DM's most vital.

It's the DM saying to the PC's "The Great Wyrm of the North is far beyond your capabilities to defeat. If you try, you will meet a horrible end. Instead, try overthrowing the local baron. He's sitting there being a jerk at you, and at least that's a fair fight."

Not always in so many words, but through plenty of hints and warnings and second chances.

For instance, if I were to put such a lever in my game, and the rogue (for some reason) failed to detect the trap, I would further describe the piles of dust around it, or a sign put up by the locals in a brutal language, or have the character make a Perception check when they reached out to touch it to see if they couldn't sense the leaping black bolts of unholy death energy. I might have it covered in slightly glowing runes that the rogue uncovered, or show how it seems the ghostly afterimage of a hand was burned into the wood of the lever. It might flicker with green energy (and the piles of dust may do so as well).

I never changed the trap, and persistance and bad luck could still kill a PC, but I gave them a good chance to avoid an untimely end.

Changing the world so that the CR = ECL formula is always even is unfair, too. It's not fair to the world you've created. But that's not the alternative. The alternative is to make the trap fair, by getting rid of one or two of those things that make it unfair (undetectability, unrealistic implementation, unbeatable DC, etc.).