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.
I do believe that this is probably a minority style, and not a style that I would consider very fair. Because, as a Role Playing Game, part of playing the role is in having your character accomplish things that you as a player are incapable of, which not only includes physical feats (fighting dragons and running around in full plate), but also mental feats (solving puzzles and forcing information out of the reticent prince). The way these feats are accomplished is by rolling a d20.
Now, in my view, the player skill comes in designing an effective character for the campaign, and in choosing to use skills and abilities to the character's benefit -- choosing when and why to roll d20's. If you want to lie to the guards, you must roll a Bluff check, and it would be smart of a player to have a character good at bluffing to lie to the guards, rather than a low-charisma dwarven monk (for instance). And if no one designed a character with a good Bluff check, then they were not anticipating that guards perhaps had to be Bluffed, which is a new challenge that they must figure out a way to overcome.
I will not have the character's success depend upon the player's ingenius lying skills. This is unfair, I believe, and takes out out of the campaign world, making it less about the fantasy role you fill and more about some sort of personality test which, of course, not everyone is going to pass.
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.
Maybe we can whip up a new thread for this concept. Either way, I don't think this is a particularly common approach -- I think most DM's have something of a story (or several stories) in mind, or at least "plans for the villains that the PC's can stop," (which is the basic element of a plot).
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.
This is where I think you go out on a limb. Calling it "unfair" is not nessecarily symptomatic of playing the game based on dice at all -- many narrative games would still find the trap unfair because the PC's never got a chance to see it, either by rolling d20's or by saying "I examine the room for signs of a trap" without rolling a die. Many of the proposed solutions to make the trap fair are not hinged on rolling d20's -- I, for one, never argued that the Search DC was too high or that the save DC was too high, but rather that some clues would have been nice. These clues require no d20 roll to find, just some thought on the part of the DM about what logical consequences this trap would have in the world.
I think some people would agree that challenging the players to directly puzzle out things their characters think would make for a good D&D game. I wouldn't. D&D is more fun when you play it with your brain in gear, but I'd rather have them thinking "I'm an elven architect, I know how rooms are built, I can use my Search skill to see if this room was built to conceal a trap!" or pondering that this McGuffin has true connections to the ancient priesthood of which the villain is a part, or engaging it in other ways that don't pull you out of the immersion in your character and go against the idea of D&D as playing a role.
Because when you test the players directly, they are no longer playing a role, they are playing themselves.
Regardless of my subjective feelings on what makes a game fun for me, though, this trap can be "unfair" without focusing on dice-rolling, and neither does this trap test the players (as I said above, unless you're testing them for the psychic power to read the DM's mind).
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.)
It is a false dichotomy. The players engage their brains in many ways that don't have to deal with the capabilities of the player depending on their own native talents. For instance, they engage their brains in figuring out plot points, or in designing effective characters, or in dealing with the hazards that stand between them and their goal, in developing fully realized heroic adventurers.
You can play the game with the rules as a tight skeleton and still challenge the players in USING those rules to accomplish the goals they have.
Your willingness to challenge other play styles doesn't make sense to me. I certainly don't feel a need to change you to believe that you're wrong about how you love to play the game, why would you want to change anyone's mind about how they love to play the game?
And if you do feel you need to make people stop having fun their way, I would caution you that it is an unwinnable battle. The idea of using the rules to resolve conflicts is as old as Monopoly and Poker. People will continue to use the dice to resolve conflicts (to varying degrees), even if you think they shouldn't. Indeed, I'd say that your position is in the minority, so it is likely that the design and development of the D&D game will continue to focus on dice mechanics, even if you think they shouldn't, and that focus will contribute to their longevity and success.
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.
It is not true that this attitude leads to any inevitable conclusion. It can very easily be a conclusion in and of itself. And while you're free to feel that overcoming all problems by rollind d20's is not fun, I don't think it's appropriate to cast all those who think this trap is unfair in that category, because it's simply untrue.
You have seen it happen. And now you're hearing from at least one person to whom that has never happened and, as far as the future can be forseen, never will. You have new evidence -- that there is a middle ground.
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%).
I could be wrong, but are you suggesting that skill checks and saving throws are detrimental to your fun of the game because they rely on a d20 roll rather than the player's description? That you would rather have a player say "I poke the stone floor, every inch, every crack. And then I tap the walls and cielings with my spear butt. I have the torch come nearby to any holes or divots, and blow the dust away from every hole," and have that determine success, than roll a Search check? Or to have a player say "I grit my teeth and overcome the pain" rather than roll a saving throw?
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.
Again, there is this perception that they need to be very paranoid about the lever. Regardless of if d20's were rolled in the above search or not, it was searched, and no trap was found. To assume there is a trap when you are told that you do not precieve one is to be, in the opinion of many voting on this poll, too paranoid to be reasonably expected.
They put plenty of thought into it -- it took thought to search for a trap, and thought to place the likely survivor at the head. We aren't told about what they did prior to reaching the lever, so you're assuming they didn't capture a prisoner -- I can just as easily assume they did, and the prisoner said nothing. Using a rope and detecting magic on something that poses no precievable threat would be, I and much of this poll agree, acting far too paranoid to be expected.
The idea that they were dumb roll-players who couldn't be bothered to think is an idea I very much fight against in this thread, because it is an extraordinary and irrational requirement for the DM to assume that they will be very affraid of a lever in a room.
Not every group will have such courage when confronted with a lever. But their display of trust was not stupid or rash, merely based on what their characters could precieve.
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.
I will state once and for all that I am not a fan of a style that requires me to get out of character to solve a problem. Ever, in any capacity.
This doesn't mean I use a d20 to solve all my problems either.
And even though I don't use a d20 to solve all my problems, those who do are playing it in a valid and entertaining way.
And judging by this poll, at least (and, I'd argue, by the success of 3.x in general), the perspective is that those who think all players should play characters that are affraid of levers in dungeon rooms are a fringe minority.
I think a poll that tested whether people ever used Diplomacy checks without acting out the scene before or along with rolling the dice would find that the idea of just rolling the check and moving on is in a fringe minority, too.
What is there to gain by insulting, belittling, and condemning those who play different from you? Saying they don't use their brains, that they worship at the altar of d20, that they are crybabys whining without their security blanket...what do you gain from this? It's obviously untrue, it poses that there is some sort of battle going on for the Badwrongfun Police to investigate. People can play differently from you (and, it seems, most do) and LOVE their playstyle while still thinking in complex, challenging fashions and facing true danger to their character's well-being.
Your way of playing is not the right way. It is not the one true way, the best way, or the only way. It is your way, it is best for you. That doesn't mean that all other ways are scared of a true challenge, but rather that they find it in a different capacity. Your playstyle has no monopoly on smart players.
