Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I don't think it's unfair, undetectable, nor indeed any more unrealistic than many other things we're asked to accept in a fantasy world.

If you put little hints and clues in to make things easier, your players will come to rely on the DM giving hints and clues. Take it to extremes, and they'll come to expect a safe sandbox world where there are convenient "danger!" signs whenever they're at risk, and even see that as "normal" D&D. They'll come to see character death as a rare and exceptional event, or even a punishment, and if it's allowed to continue they'll start to complain that more difficult situations are "unfair".

But any situation that isn't "unfair" contains so little risk that they'll start to play it for laughs. And they start to get bored.

In order to retain their interest the DM starts building plots, usually involving BBEG's, and bases these plots around the characters (at the expense of the world setting, which becomes blander and more vanilla all the time). You finally end up with a cookie-cutter series of games that really aren't any different from somebody else's game down the street, and it doesn't seem terribly interesting, but nobody really seems to know what's wrong with the game.

What's wrong with it, of course, is that it's seen as the DM's job to arrange matters so the players can't lose -- which means that winning loses its value, so the whole thing starts to feel somehow pointless.

Believe me, I've seen it in other peoples' games.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Believe me, I've seen it in other peoples' games.

Believe me, that's not my game. Neither is the undetectable save-with-20-or-die death traps on innoculous levers. By golly, I think there might just be a middle ground.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Believe me, that's not my game. Neither is the undetectable save-with-20-or-die death traps on innoculous levers. By golly, I think there might just be a middle ground.

The concern I have with that is that it presents my position as an extreme, and the view of the other side as moderate. It's a nice rhetorical trick, but a rhetorical trick is what it is.

I repeat that the trap is not undetectable. It is merely undetectable by rolling d20's. Surely the view that some situations should challenge the players, rather than the numbers on the character sheet, isn't an extreme.

Surely it's the crowd who see no other answer save the numbers on their character sheet for the resolution of in-game problems who represent the extremes.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I repeat that the trap is not undetectable. It is merely undetectable by rolling d20's. Surely the view that some situations should challenge the players, rather than the numbers on the character sheet, isn't an extreme.

Sure, its detected when the monk pulls the lever. A detect magic might have had it show up, though we can't be sure (it might have had undetectable aura on it) or it might have been detectable by a higher level rogue (though we can't be sure of that either).

All we really can know is that nothing the PCs did detected the trap. How else would you attempt to figure out if there were a trap on the lever, and why would you do that after the rogue has already declared that there are no traps present? It seems like one of those after the fact things where you had to know the right answer to know to do it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you put little hints and clues in to make things easier, your players will come to rely on the DM giving hints and clues. Take it to extremes, and they'll come to expect a safe sandbox world where there are convenient "danger!" signs whenever they're at risk, and even see that as "normal" D&D. They'll come to see character death as a rare and exceptional event, or even a punishment, and if it's allowed to continue they'll start to complain that more difficult situations are "unfair".

But any situation that isn't "unfair" contains so little risk that they'll start to play it for laughs. And they start to get bored.

Any single element of any game taken to extremes can make for a bad game experience. The idea is that it's not taken to extremes -- they don't rely on the DM, nor do they expect to die from levers. They mistrust levers, and investigate them, and know that there will be a fair oppotunity to either die or live from one. They know the DM will give them a good chance for survival, that he isn't against them or trying to kill them, that death, if it comes, will be as earned as success is.

The idea that we must all spend the session rolling dice is as extreme as the idea we must play a diceless game. The middle path -- between the extremes of lever paranoia and invincible PC's -- is often the most satisfying.

Now, people do enjoy lever paranoia, and people do enjoy more narrative games where characters rarely die. I think they're both ends of the bell curve, but they do have their place. I would not have fun at either place, myself.

In order to retain their interest the DM starts building plots, usually involving BBEG's, and bases these plots around the characters (at the expense of the world setting, which becomes blander and more vanilla all the time). You finally end up with a cookie-cutter series of games that really aren't any different from somebody else's game down the street, and it doesn't seem terribly interesting, but nobody really seems to know what's wrong with the game.

A doesn't seem to follow from B here. Plots based around characters don't come at the expense of the world setting, and cookie-cutter doesn't follow from either plain characters or a plain setting, and bored doesn't always come from cookie-cutter.

For anecdotal evidence, I've been involved in games that largely focus on the characters' pasts. This enriched the characters by drawing them closer to a world on the brink of collapse due to the evil force that they know face, that they only knew vaguely of in the beginning. The games played to each character's unique strengths as they meshed with the setting -- the warrior had a warrior's school, trained under a weapon master, and found an ancient swordmaster locked away in his own sword atop a precarious mountain peak where towns of goblins lived on the back of rocs.

Character-based, but neither cookie-cutter adventures nor vanilla worlds.

What's wrong with it, of course, is that it's seen as the DM's job to arrange matters so the players can't lose -- which means that winning loses its value, so the whole thing starts to feel somehow pointless.

Believe me, I've seen it in other peoples' games.

The DM arranging things so that players can't loose would be as extreme as arraning matters so that the players can't win. The same is true for "extreme ends" -- if there is only a 5% chance of living, or only a 5% chance of loosing, there is often something lost from the game. In the case of it being vastly unlikely to succeed, you lose a sense that your character matters in any sense. In the case of it being vastly unlikely to fail, you loose the sense that your abilities matter in any sense.

The alternative to traps like this is not cakewalk bland quests, and one does not need to like cakewalk bland quests to consider traps like this unfair.

I repeat that the trap is not undetectable. It is merely undetectable by rolling d20's. Surely the view that some situations should challenge the players, rather than the numbers on the character sheet, isn't an extreme.

Atoms aren't undetectable, they're just not detectable with the naked eye. Would it be fair to request the players to "think outside the box" and "develop magic capable of observing atoms" in order to avoid death from them?

I do believe it *is* an extreme, actually. I would never demand my players showcase themselves as master orators to play a spoony bard, nor would I request my players to demonstrate knowledge of swordsmanship to wield a weapon. I would never ask my players to try to outsmart me, either. They probably can, more often than not, but I wouldn't require it of them. If I had a puzzle, it would be up to the CHARACTERS to find it out, not the PLAYERS.

What I would demanad of my players is to put a high score in Strength if their character is a strong and mighty warrior, or to give them the Ride skill if they want to charge into combat astride a noble steed -- I demand they play the game by using the rules to give their characters capabilities. Then I test these capabilities.

I also don't believe that this trap was a really a challenge for the players. A challenge implies something that tests your ability to succeed. This trap did not test any ability to succeed -- they already had succeeded in their goal of getting the McGuffin, and their ability to precieve the trap failed on every count. Even giving that, having the monk pull the lever shows that they are thinking about how to succeed. If this was a graded test on what to do when encountering a lever in a dungeon, they scored an A+. But the monk died regardless.

So not only is it rather unorthodox to test the players to be what their characters are, this lever only tested the abilities of the players to read the DM's mind.

Surely it's the crowd who see no other answer save the numbers on their character sheet for the resolution of in-game problems who represent the extremes.

True, they would be. Unfortunately, those who oppose your view don't always fit that mold. Rather, in speaking for myself, I see the numbers on the character sheet as an essential skeleton for the resolution of in-game problems that should not be ignored. Generating those numbers and choosing when to use those numbers is the "player challenge" of D&D -- interacting with a world in a way that will lead them to success and treasure. Forbiding them the valid use of these numbers (a trap "undetectable by rolling d20s") is something I consider unfair.

They are not the only answer, but they are where most answers should start.

And those who refuse to deviate from the numbers on the sheet ARE just as extreme as your position -- they have no history, they have no personality, they have no item that does not translate into some form of bonus or bost for a mechanic. But those people have fun doing what they do. They just share, with your position, a gameplay style that I (and, I'd argue, the majority of D&D players) see as not only not fun, but also not fair, according to where I (and, it seems, this poll) believe the standard assumptions of D&D fairness lie.

My style isn't the One True Style, I don't hold anything against those who want to outsmart the DM or those who want to tell a story without fearing death. But it is a valid middle ground which neither inspires a fear of levers in my players, nor makes my players feel that winning is meaningless. Rather, this makes them feel that winning is hard-faught and noble, and that death is a constant threat but that they can feel confident attempting the risky and chancy without being assured of their demise.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Incredibly well-written post, Kamikaze.

 

[Ourph]

This is not the correct analogy.

It's not an analogy. It's an example. An example of an environment that reasonably requires the PCs to change their normal behavior in order to remain safe. As someone much wiser than I once said "Read. Understand. Post. In that order."

 

[delericho]

If you put little hints and clues in to make things easier, your players will come to rely on the DM giving hints and clues. Take it to extremes, and they'll come to expect a safe sandbox world where there are convenient "danger!" signs whenever they're at risk, and even see that as "normal" D&D.

So, what happens if you don't take it to extremes? What happens if you take it to a reasonable extent?

But any situation that isn't "unfair" contains so little risk that they'll start to play it for laughs. And they start to get bored.

Are you seriously suggesting that the only way to run an exciting and interesting game is to make it unfair?

In order to retain their interest the DM starts building plots, usually involving BBEG's, and bases these plots around the characters (at the expense of the world setting, which becomes blander and more vanilla all the time). You finally end up with a cookie-cutter series of games that really aren't any different from somebody else's game down the street, and it doesn't seem terribly interesting, but nobody really seems to know what's wrong with the game.

What's wrong with it, of course, is that it's seen as the DM's job to arrange matters so the players can't lose -- which means that winning loses its value, so the whole thing starts to feel somehow pointless.

Believe me, I've seen it in other peoples' games.

I guess I must be doing something wrong. In 18 years of DMing, I've never used a 'read my mind or die' trap, and yet I've never had a problem keeping players entertained. I shall immediately revise my DMing style to ensure boredom from now on.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Any single element of any game taken to extremes can make for a bad game experience. The idea is that it's not taken to extremes -- they don't rely on the DM, nor do they expect to die from levers. They mistrust levers, and investigate them, and know that there will be a fair oppotunity to either die or live from one. They know the DM will give them a good chance for survival, that he isn't against them or trying to kill them, that death, if it comes, will be as earned as success is.

*nods*

That's my position in a nutshell. The only thing I'd add is that you can't learn everything about the situation by rolling a d20 against the numbers on your character sheet; the players should engage their brains as well.

All I'm objecting to is the idea that because a rogue hasn't found the trap by rolling a d20, the players are then entitled to assume that there's no trap.

A doesn't seem to follow from B here. Plots based around characters don't come at the expense of the world setting.

Well, the answer to this goes fairly far afield from the thread title.

In a nutshell, I don't personally like plots at all, very much. Nor do I like purpose-created BBEG's.

Personally I see it as the DM's role to create an interesting and challenging area for the players to explore. Imo it's up to the players to find reasons to explore it -- in which case you don't need to devise a plot at all.

In other words, I think that plot and story are the result of fantasy gaming. They don't need to be processes within it, and I don't think the DM needs to worry about them at all.

The alternative to traps like this is not cakewalk bland quests, and one does not need to like cakewalk bland quests to consider traps like this unfair.

I'm not necessarily defending this particular trap (which I think is a bit dull anyway.) I'm saying that the trap isn't inherently "unfair", and that calling it "unfair" is symptomatic of roll-playing games where the dice and the character sheets have to be allowed to define the outcome.

What I AM defending is the idea of traps, or situations, that challenge the players rather than the characters. I think D&D is more fun when you have to play it with your brain in gear.

Atoms aren't undetectable, they're just not detectable with the naked eye. Would it be fair to request the players to "think outside the box" and "develop magic capable of observing atoms" in order to avoid death from them?

It's fair to ask the players to think outside the box, yes. Where you get this atom thing from I have no idea.

If I had a puzzle, it would be up to the CHARACTERS to find it out, not the PLAYERS.

And that, in a nutshell, is the fundamental issue. I think that if the CHARACTERS can overcome all the situations to be found in the game, then there is no demand made on the PLAYERS to engage their brains.

And if the game doesn't need any thought from the players, then in what sense is it a game?

To me, D&D is and should be partly a game of skill, strategy, and thought. It's also partly a game of roleplaying and, yes, partly a game of luck, but I think the suggestion that the characters should be able to overcome all obstables without reference to the players does need to be challenged.

(I think that it's also partly a game of character design, and I think that's a lamentable failure in the rules which has become particularly pervasive with the present edition, although the seeds of it were in all the previous editions as well.)

What I would demanad of my players is to put a high score in Strength if their character is a strong and mighty warrior, or to give them the Ride skill if they want to charge into combat astride a noble steed -- I demand they play the game by using the rules to give their characters capabilities. Then I test these capabilities.

Ayup, and that's a common attitude. What it leads to, inevitably, is the expectation that all obstables can be overcome by rolling d20's. I think that's detrimental to the fun of the game.

I also don't believe that this trap was a really a challenge for the players. A challenge implies something that tests your ability to succeed. This trap did not test any ability to succeed -- they already had succeeded in their goal of getting the McGuffin, and their ability to precieve the trap failed on every count. Even giving that, having the monk pull the lever shows that they are thinking about how to succeed. If this was a graded test on what to do when encountering a lever in a dungeon, they scored an A+.

Surely they got a D-.

They assumed that pulling the lever was to their advantage - or even that they were "supposed" to pull the lever. Ass, you, me, etc.

They then assumed that if there were a trap, their rogue would probably find it. (Reliance on the d20 to solve the problem: 100%). They then assumed that if their rogue had failed to find it, the safest thing to do would be to have the character with the highest saves pull the lever. (Reliance on the d20 to solve the problem: 100%).

They didn't think of using a rope to pull the lever. They didn't think of capturing a prisoner or questioning it about the lever. They didn't think of using a spell or informational magic. In fact, the amount of thought these players put into the situation was precisely zero.

And there's much subsequent whining about playstyles in which you CAN'T rely on the d20 in this thread - and indeed much sneering about those playstyles. All hail the holy d20.

Forbiding them the valid use of these numbers (a trap "undetectable by rolling d20s") is something I consider unfair.

You (and it seems many other people in this thread) would consider me a monstrously, savagely unfair DM.

I unfairly demand that the players show thought and strategy and, yes, skill. I unfairly allow players who play thoughtlessly or rely on the d20 to solve their problems to die. And I unfairly reward those players who play thoughtfully, trusting their actions rather than their character sheets, with success and wealth and experience. What a damnably unfair man I am!

 

[DonTadow]

I don't think it's unfair, undetectable, nor indeed any more unrealistic than many other things we're asked to accept in a fantasy world.

If you put little hints and clues in to make things easier, your players will come to rely on the DM giving hints and clues. Take it to extremes, and they'll come to expect a safe sandbox world where there are convenient "danger!" signs whenever they're at risk, and even see that as "normal" D&D. They'll come to see character death as a rare and exceptional event, or even a punishment, and if it's allowed to continue they'll start to complain that more difficult situations are "unfair".

But any situation that isn't "unfair" contains so little risk that they'll start to play it for laughs. And they start to get bored.

In order to retain their interest the DM starts building plots, usually involving BBEG's, and bases these plots around the characters (at the expense of the world setting, which becomes blander and more vanilla all the time). You finally end up with a cookie-cutter series of games that really aren't any different from somebody else's game down the street, and it doesn't seem terribly interesting, but nobody really seems to know what's wrong with the game.

What's wrong with it, of course, is that it's seen as the DM's job to arrange matters so the players can't lose -- which means that winning loses its value, so the whole thing starts to feel somehow pointless.

Believe me, I've seen it in other peoples' games.

This statement seems to say that games that are designed with the PCs in mind are cookie cutter , easy and lame?

at least thats what I get. From it. what is up with the extremes on this issue. Players don't play this game to see how high they can roll on a dice (though we all love a good 20 every now and then). Players don't want to play a game where the goal is to get 20 every single time. They want to play characters whom havea fair shake in the world. I am all for DMs providing hints and tips in game if the players know where hte find them. The sign that says danger is a bit much but having hard to find sages, pieces of artifacts, libraries, knowledable pcs, involving the knowledge checks, bards ect) these are all pretty good ways and opportunities that can be open for PCs to figure out clues on their own without the DM bouncing them over the head with it.

The odds for a typical encounter should be on averagebetween 40 to 0 percent. This game isabout the PCs not the overinflated ego of us DMs. The PCs have more fun when they succeed and even more fun when they succeed after failing a few times. If a PC dies it should be by their own merrit not because they didnt roll 20s for three ofr four consective rolls.

If there's something that the DC or the CR is so high I'll have ways in the game where the PCs can find out more. Will the PCs seek these ways, its up to them. Will they be easy to obtain, well they won't be in hte open in abook that is labeled secrets.

This puts the game back into the hands of the players.