Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Raven Crowking]

What I would hope to accomplish by the "invisible pink unicorns" example is to show that assuming things exist when evidence suggests that they do not is a level of paranoia that is unrealistic to expect from players.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; neither is it evidence of presence. Imagine that the townfolk mention invisible pink unicorns killing people in the dungeon. In the town, there is no evidence of such. In the wilderness leading to the dungeon, there is no evidence of such. On the first level of the dungeon, there is no evidence of such.

Perhaps there are no invisible pink unicorns, but having been warned of the same only a fool would not at least keep an eye out for evidence of said critters. A few bags of sand, say, to strew in rooms (allowing you to watch out for hoofprints) might not be too extreme. Nor would having the ranger occasionally look for tracks.

In the trap example, there is a lever. The lever is there for some reason. They detect no trap using the easiest, most mundane means available. But, so far as they know, they've cleared the dungeon and got the MacGuffin. So, what's the lever for?

It might be good. It might be bad. I'd give it a 50/50 chance of each. As with the invisible pink unicorns, this is a pretty good point to seek more information. Divination spells -- low, low level divination spells -- can tell you whether or not there really are invisible pink unicorns in the dungeon. They can also tell you whether or not pulling that lever is a good idea. That is what they are in the game for.

Simply put, this is not an invisible nonsensical inevitable death trap. It is neither nonsensical nor inevitable. The lever seems nonsensical until you start asking what it is there for. It is hardly inevitable. Use an augury, don't pull the lever, take the MacGuffin, and go.

You had to make your pink unicorns "also scentless and unable to be precieved via see invisibility" to make your point seem valid. This trap has a scent (stinks to high heaven and practically screams potential trouble) and is permeable to all sorts of simple, low-level magic. Not even close to the same thing.

RC


(And, btw, yes, if you are told something strange about an area you are venturing into, and you make no effort to determine the veracity of that something strange, and take no precautions against it, in a game where literally anything can happen, then you only have yourself to blame.)

 

[Slife]

To me, the fact that it's a big lever that you have to pull removes completely "no in-character warning" and ameliorates almost completely the high Search DC.

So... people should always be on gaurd against levers? Why? What makes levers special? They are, if anything, one of the least useful places to put a trap in. Why is a lever a warning?

Is there some god of traps whose holy symbol is the lever?

I suppose it's just like Archimedes said, give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I'll scare off the PCs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Is it safe to assume that any trap we encounter can be detected?" Not an assumption I'd make, and certainly not an assumption that a being living in an rpg world would make (unless those beings assume also that the world is devised for their benefit). (emphasis added)

"Is it safe to assume that any trap we set off can be survived?" Again, the answer must be No. Either, from a role-playing standpoint, we remember that the world is not designed for our survival, or, from a meta-gaming standpoint, we remember that a certain percentage of encounters are supposed to be overwhelming.

While both accurate, this boils into the metagame consideration of what kind of characters you want to encourage.

If their deaths can come out of left field, undetectable and unsurvivable (or virutally so), you breed paranoid characters who will use elaborate survival tactics on seemingly inoccuous things as well as on truly dangerous things because they cannot reliably tell the difference.

If they can reliably detect and/or survive traps, you breed characters for whom traps are a threat but not a game-breaking one. They will take chances based on their information, and those chances may pay off or they may not, but they feel confident in taking those chances.

When faced with an adventure, I would much rather my PC's GO ADVENTURE than stay on the dirt farm for another year.

When faced with a challence, I would much rather my PC's ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE than shy away from it.

When faced with a lever, I would much rather my PC'S PULL THE LEVER than leave it alone.

Because that is part of what hereos do, and I feel that it very much encourages a heroic game when the PC's go on adventures, face challenges, and pull levers. That's why their heroes and adventurers and not dirt farmers. That's why they're a cut above the NPC's.

This doesn't mean that they will always win their adventures, succeed in their challenges, or not activate traps by pulling levers, but it does mean that they won't fear defeat from every adventure, every challenge, or every lever -- they will BRAVE the unknown, not FEAR it. And to me, that is a very strong way to support a heroic game. I'm under the impression that most D&D games strive for a heroic feel (hence the d20 mechanic and alignment and feats and 4d6-drop-the-lowest ability score generation and level advancement), rather than a feel of constant fear and suspicion.

While it is not safe to assume that what you can't see is not there or won't kill you, the descision to face the fear anyway is what makes D&D worth playing to me, and, I would argue, to the majority of players (given the way the game's rules encourage it). Thus, punishing someone for being a brave hero by killing them and calling them rash and roll-playing and proposing that they want to steamroll the BBEG seems unfair in most circumstances.

It also comes to the "absurdly paranoid of invisible pink unicorns" scenario. Fear of invisible pink unicorns is no more rational than fear of levers, but you can easily make PC's deathly affraid of both by making them undetectable and deadly.

(And, btw, yes, if you are told something strange about an area you are venturing into, and you make no effort to determine the veracity of that something strange, and take no precautions against it, in a game where literally anything can happen, then you only have yourself to blame.)

Once again the PC's in the above scenario DID take precautions against the trap.

These precautions were just ineffective.

Like scentless, SI-immune deadly pink unicorns.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Please note that players are to check with the Dungeon Master during character creation. It notes that "Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules" but it does not state that these rules have to be supplied to you, nor does it state that the DM must tell you all house rules at the time of character creation.

Okay, you got me there.

But, back on topic, I just can't think its fair to have a trap that the PCs can't detect that will kill the PCs on any roll but a 20. In my mind there are limits to what a DM should do, and this goes beyond that line.

For example, if the PCs in question didn't take a 20 (ie the rogue just casually glanced the lever over) before declaring it wasn't trapped, but he could have detected it if he had taken some time, then yes, I'd probably call it fair.

If the PCs were 15th levle or higher, I would also consider the trap fair. Beause the consequences of a death trap are different at that level.

Way back in the thread I posted one of my death trapped doors. That's the kind of death traps I generally like to use against PCs.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

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.

I think you're still not understanding me, and I think that's partly my fault for not being clear.

Let me try to illustrate my point through examples.

Sample dialogue 1:

PLAYER: I bribe the customs man not to look in the wagons.
DM: Okay, roll your d20.
PLAYER: A 13.
DM: You succeed.
PLAYER: We go into the city and I fence the painting we found.
DM: Okay, roll your d20.
PLAYER: A 7.
DM: You're offered 500 gold pieces for it.
PLAYER: Bah. I'll take the offer. (Amends character sheet.)
DM: What now?
PLAYER: We'll head back to the dungeon.
DM: Okay (rolls dice)... you get there without incident.

Sample dialogue 2:

PLAYER: I bribe the customs man not to look in the wagons.
DM: What do you say, exactly?
PLAYER: (Slipping into character): "That looks like dull work, good sir. And I'll bet the pay's none too good, either."
DM: (Playing the customs man): "Aye, that's true enough."
PLAYER: "Perhaps a contribution from some well-meaning citizen, as a token of our appreciation for your selfless devotion to duty, might be welcome?"
DM: "Perhaps it would!"
PLAYER: I pass him a handful of gold pieces.
DM: The customs man grins as he waves you past.
PLAYER: I'll try to fence the painting.
DM: How do you go about it, exactly?
PLAYER: Well, I'll pop back to the Cup & Blade Tavern and look to see if Hakil's around.
DM: A little later on, after stabling your horses, you make your way into the tavern. There are about fifteen people in the bar, even though it's before sunset. Hakil isn't anywhere around.
PLAYER: I approach the barman and greet him, and ask him where Hakil is.
DM: What do you say?

...

Dialogue 1 depends on dice rolls; dialogue 2 doesn't involve any dice rolling at all. Dialogue 1 is quickly resolved, a lot happening in a short period of time; dialogue 2 zooms in on the details, and eats up a lot more time.

I think that every DM uses a combination of those techniques to determine what happens. There's always an element of dice rolling and an element of skipping over the details. There's also always an element of DM judgment based on the actions that the players declare. That's the game.

I'm not saying that dice should never have relevance. Likewise, you're not saying that DM judgment calls have no place. I also do NOT think you're saying that player skill should be irrelevant, although perhaps you're in a little danger of painting yourself into that corner.

The question, I think, is whether this lever trap should be resolved along the lines of Dialogue 1 or Dialogue 2.

Personally, my bias is this: I find the "dialogue 1" style where you just roll over the details (pun intended) very dull and totally inappropriate for dungeoneering. At the end of the day dungeoneering needs to be high adventure with plenty of tension and I think it needs to be treated "dialogue 2" style.

Roll-playing approach to this trap:

PLAYER: I search for traps.
DM: Roll away.
PLAYER: Err, actually I take 20.
DM: K. You don't find a trap.
PLAYER: The monk pulls the lever.
DM: Roll a saving throw.
PLAYER: A 19.
DM: You fail and crumble to dust.

I agree, this is a crappy approach to gaming and no fun for anyone.

My approach to this trap:

PLAYER: I search for traps.
DM: How do you go about it, exactly?

Answer 1: "Hey, am I a thief in real life? Just give me the d20."
Answer 2: "Hmm. Describe this lever in more detail."

If your reaction is to come back with answer 1, you're not going to survive a game I run. It's really that simple. But I think most gamers would come back with answer 2, and maybe we'd have a game going.

 

[ThirdWizard]

PLAYER: I search for traps.
DM: How do you go about it, exactly?

Answer 1: "Hey, am I a thief in real life? Just give me the d20."
Answer 2: "Hmm. Describe this lever in more detail."

If your reaction is to come back with answer 1, you're not going to survive a game I run. It's really that simple. But I think most gamers would come back with answer 2, and maybe we'd have a game going.

At the risk of sounding cliched:

PLAYER: I take a swing at the ogre with my great axe!
DM: How do you go about it, exactly?
PLAYER: Erm... what?

I think most players would come back with answer: "Why can't I make a search check?" personally.

EDIT: There is a middle ground. Here's my post from before.

The PCs were in a tower controlled by an illithid and a negoi working together. They were brain, slave, and soul traders. They had a treasure vault where they kept the money they made through these lucrative transactions. The door leading to the room was behind an illusionary wall and had a reseting destruction trap on it.

The trap, however, had a way to bypass it. Each of the two inhabitants, the illithid and the negoi, had an Amulet of Nondetection. The door to the room also had two indentions in the same strange shape that these amulets were in, and putting the amulets in the indentions disabled the trap. Thus, both of them together were required to get inside, since neither trusted the other. It made perfect logical sense and it was a way for the PCs to think their way past the trap, regardless of rolls.

Of course, the trap was Searchable and Disarmable as well, and the PCs were 10th level. It was a difficult trap for them, but it wasn't too far out there. They had multiple ways to get by, and being that it was a door behind an illusionary wall and in a deep part of the dungeon, they had reason to be suspicious beyond it just being a door.

 

[MarkB]

Personally, my bias is this: I find the "dialogue 1" style where you just roll over the details (pun intended) very dull and totally inappropriate for dungeoneering. At the end of the day dungeoneering needs to be high adventure with plenty of tension and I think it needs to be treated "dialogue 2" style.

Roll-playing approach to this trap:

PLAYER: I search for traps.
DM: Roll away.
PLAYER: Err, actually I take 20.
DM: K. You don't find a trap.
PLAYER: The monk pulls the lever.
DM: Roll a saving throw.
PLAYER: A 19.
DM: You fail and crumble to dust.

I agree, this is a crappy approach to gaming and no fun for anyone.

My approach to this trap:

PLAYER: I search for traps.
DM: How do you go about it, exactly?

Answer 1: "Hey, am I a thief in real life? Just give me the d20."
Answer 2: "Hmm. Describe this lever in more detail."

If your reaction is to come back with answer 1, you're not going to survive a game I run. It's really that simple. But I think most gamers would come back with answer 2, and maybe we'd have a game going.

Oddly enough, whilst I do indeed use something in between the two extremes of the examples you provided, I'd be far more prone to veer towards Method 2 in social situations, and far more prone to veer towards Method 1 in a dungeon situation.

Frankly, there's a limit - a fairly sharp limit - to how interesting and tension-filled searching for traps can be, especially for those not directly involved in the process. At the end of the day, there's no character interaction going on - the only interaction is between a rogue and a stick. I have no desire to build that up or play it out any further than strictly necessary, and neither, I think, do my players. They'd far rather move on to something a little more interactive, like a nice big battle.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The Rogue "spending a few minutes" carefully checking for traps would hardly make it certainly safe to pull that lever in my book. Even if, for the sake of argument, we could have absolute confidence the Rogue's skills to search for such things, the lever could easily be extremely dangerous.

It could release the Kraken. It could open a Gate into the 7th level of Hell and something horrific might slither in. It could open a rift to the Negative Energy Plane and blast everyone within LoS with Negative Energy.

But those are interesting dangers that (1) are not traps, because (2) it is so easy to imagine why a BBEG would create such an effect for reasons other that killing PCs. If the lever has a clear and obvious purpose that makes sense then fairness is not an issue.

IMNSHO the instadeath lever reeks of the DM abusing Rule 0 for what seem most likely to be very poor reasons.

 

[DonTadow]

The Rogue "spending a few minutes" carefully checking for traps would hardly make it certainly safe to pull that lever in my book. Even if, for the sake of argument, we could have absolute confidence the Rogue's skills to search for such things, the lever could easily be extremely dangerous.

It could release the Kraken. It could open a Gate into the 7th level of Hell and something horrific might slither in. It could open a rift to the Negative Energy Plane and blast everyone within LoS with Negative Energy.

But those are interesting dangers that (1) are not traps, because (2) it is so easy to imagine why a BBEG would create such an effect for reasons other that killing PCs. If the lever has a clear and obvious purpose that makes sense then fairness is not an issue.

IMNSHO the instadeath lever reeks of the DM abusing Rule 0 for what seem most likely to be very poor reasons.

I think we miss the point of what exactly does this rogue's search do. Does it simply look at an area and a bell goes off that says trap or no trap, or does he carefully inspect the area looking for anything odd or any hint that there is more to the mechanism. Why was there no other dust on the floor I asked earlier? Thats not a hint, thats logic. They couldnt have been the first to fall victim to the trap.

 

[Virel]

As mentioned many times a lot depends on the details around the situation.

For an experienced group of players the trap isn't unfair. Normally, most of folks I DM for are smart enough to have more than one thief check for traps as counting on a single die roll even if your odds are good will eventually catch up. Likewise, remote activation is a reasonable approach.

Papers and Paychecks makes an excellent point that the discussion involved in the encounter can be very important to the way something like that plays out.