Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Raven Crowking]

The right of fairness, perhaps? The DM has omnipotent power as it stands and by right doesn't NEED to play by any of the same rules the player does (i.e. Rule 0). IMO it's only fair to NOT be a complete jerk and deliberately put something that you know nobody in the group can find (or has a chance of finding) and then wonder why they're upset if it kills them. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? (don't mean that last comment to be offensive)

There is a big difference between (A) not informing players about each specific thing that might occur/effect that might exist that trumps skill use and (B) being a complete jerk. Again, You must tell the players what their characters should reasonably know about the world, no more and no less. The Emperor of Ptolomy might hate bluggyfruits, and that might affect your Diplomacy skill use if you offer some to him, but that isn't something that the villagers from Plundering Falls should know without travel and/or investigation.

The logical result of claiming that deliberately putting something in the game that you know nobody in the group can find or has a chance to find makes you a "complete jerk" is that no DC can ever exceed what the PCs can make by Taking 20...or by Taking 10 if you know that the situation will not allow them to Take 20...or by Taking 1 if you know that the situation will not allow them to Take 10. No challenge should ever be beyond the PCs. The PCs should never return to a place where they once were and discover something they did not know at the time.

In short, the growth of the world, of the PCs, all verisimilitude, and all requirement for the players (as opposed to the characters) to use their judgment should be thrown out of the window. The game is about the PCs. It should be structured to meet their needs.

Except, of course, that the game isn't about the PCs.

It is about the players...all of the players, including the DM. And while, on the surface, the players might want an unending string of ego-gratifying victories, deep down knowing that you cannot fail makes it all hollow. A good DM challenges not only the characters, but the players as well. A good DM makes the best of those moments of ego gratification earned so that the players know that they have value, and can take pride in their accomplishments.

That the PCs must trigger the trap in the example is not a foregone conclusion. That they cannot Search to determine it is a trap is true, but they should have other means to determine whether or not they should pull the lever, and the players are given ample reason to use those means. Divination spells exist for a reason, folks, and they are actually the most potent spells in the game. Fail to use them at your own peril.

If the DM's world follows any kind of logic, the lever should not automatically be assumed to open the secret door (why hide the door but make the lever so obvious?), and the players should be suspicious. If the DM's world does not follow any kind of logic, then they should automatically be suspicious of the lever. In neither case is this the IPUs that Kamikaze Midget wants them to be. The whole set-up screams "Trap"!

Imagine that the poll had read: "You find yourself in the back corner of the dungeon. There is a big, obvious lever and your Searching reveals a secret door. You cannot find a way to open the secret door. Your rogue Searches the lever for traps, and finds none. You have what you came into the dungeon for. Do you pull the lever?" Options given are Yes, No, and Maybe (explain below). How many people do you think would say "Yes"?

RC

 

[DonTadow]

There is a big difference between (A) not informing players about each specific thing that might occur/effect that might exist that trumps skill use and (B) being a complete jerk. Again, You must tell the players what their characters should reasonably know about the world, no more and no less. The Emperor of Ptolomy might hate bluggyfruits, and that might affect your Diplomacy skill use if you offer some to him, but that isn't something that the villagers from Plundering Falls should know without travel and/or investigation.

The logical result of claiming that deliberately putting something in the game that you know nobody in the group can find or has a chance to find makes you a "complete jerk" is that no DC can ever exceed what the PCs can make by Taking 20...or by Taking 10 if you know that the situation will not allow them to Take 20...or by Taking 1 if you know that the situation will not allow them to Take 10. No challenge should ever be beyond the PCs. The PCs should never return to a place where they once were and discover something they did not know at the time.

In short, the growth of the world, of the PCs, all verisimilitude, and all requirement for the players (as opposed to the characters) to use their judgment should be thrown out of the window. The game is about the PCs. It should be structured to meet their needs.

Except, of course, that the game isn't about the PCs.

It is about the players...all of the players, including the DM. And while, on the surface, the players might want an unending string of ego-gratifying victories, deep down knowing that you cannot fail makes it all hollow. A good DM challenges not only the characters, but the players as well. A good DM makes the best of those moments of ego gratification earned so that the players know that they have value, and can take pride in their accomplishments.

That the PCs must trigger the trap in the example is not a foregone conclusion. That they cannot Search to determine it is a trap is true, but they should have other means to determine whether or not they should pull the lever, and the players are given ample reason to use those means. Divination spells exist for a reason, folks, and they are actually the most potent spells in the game. Fail to use them at your own peril.

If the DM's world follows any kind of logic, the lever should not automatically be assumed to open the secret door (why hide the door but make the lever so obvious?), and the players should be suspicious. If the DM's world does not follow any kind of logic, then they should automatically be suspicious of the lever. In neither case is this the IPUs that Kamikaze Midget wants them to be. The whole set-up screams "Trap"!

Imagine that the poll had read: "You find yourself in the back corner of the dungeon. There is a big, obvious lever and your Searching reveals a secret door. You cannot find a way to open the secret door. Your rogue Searches the lever for traps, and finds none. You have what you came into the dungeon for. Do you pull the lever?" Options given are Yes, No, and Maybe (explain below). How many people do you think would say "Yes"?

RC

I think you should include that everyone took 20 on the search of the room and found nothing, also provide what level the characters are at. Those are very important factors in this. If we havedone everything within our possiblities to determine theres no trap it should be reasonable to believe there isnt one or even a hint of one.

The type of trap described might work in a slow plodding dungeon crawl where every 10 ft. actually has a roll associated wit hit but not in a traditional campaign.

 

[wayne62682]

Raven Crowking, I see your points. In your example though, I'm not saying the PCs should know if the Emperor of Ptolomy hates bluggyfruits if they come from the town of Plundering Falls. The original example (the lever) was more along the lines of "The Emperor of Ptolomy is going to have you executed unless you roll a natural 20 on your Diplomacy check". In other words, there's barely any chance of success. Nor am I saying that every challenge should be conquerable for the PCs, but there should be a decent chance of success and failure for the encounters the DM cooks up, NOT something that barring exceptional luck is going to result in someone being killed. It's not fair, and it certainly isn't fun.

A good DM challenges not only the characters, but the players as well

Now this, I don't agree with because you shouldn't require the players to use THEIR knowledge of a situation, you should require them to use their CHARACTER'S knowledge. But then again I've been jumped on too many times for metagaming (not to open that can of worms again, there's another thread for just that) and doing exactly what you're saying.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you should include that everyone took 20 on the search of the room and found nothing, also provide what level the characters are at. Those are very important factors in this. If we havedone everything within our possiblities to determine theres no trap it should be reasonable to believe there isnt one or even a hint of one.

Not actually true. Even if everyone Takes 20, that isn't all that you have the possibility to do. It is simply all that the dice make easy for you, and all that you can do without committing other resources (such as spells). OTOH, there is a big honking lever, a secret door with no way to open it, and every reason in the world to be suspicious. In other words, if there is ever a reason to think that a divination spell is needed, this is it.

The type of trap described might work in a slow plodding dungeon crawl where every 10 ft. actually has a roll associated wit hit but not in a traditional campaign.

BIG...HONKING...LEVER. SECRET DOOR. Add rationality and stir.

If the trap was just a 10-foot square, zap!, then I would agree with you. However, in this case, the players are given ample means to determine that pulling the lever without getting more information first is a bad idea. Moreover, the game offers ample methods at low levels to gain the required information.

If you ignore the situation, and you ignore divination spells, then the trap seems unfair. Sure. If you look at the situation, and the capabilities written into the game as a whole, it is fair.

Easy as that. At least, IMHO. YMMV.

RC

 

[Slife]

However, in this case, the players are given ample means to determine that pulling the lever without getting more information first is a bad idea. Moreover, the game offers ample methods at low levels to gain the required information.

How do you know that you need more information? Because it's a lever in an otherwise empty room? Why is a lever in an otherwise empty room dangerous? Is a raised dias in an otherwise empty room also dangerous? A table? A switch? A torch? A statue?

Is any object all alone sinister?

Is any object alone in a room with a "secret" door sinister?

What if there were two levers? Or if the lever was next to a bookcase? Next to a cauldron? Next to a sleeping troll? Between an orc and a pie?

 

[Falkus]

BIG...HONKING...LEVER. SECRET DOOR. Add rationality and stir.

Question: Why do you automatically assume that the lever is associated with the secret door? I can think of any number of reasons for a lever to be in a room, none of which involve the secret door in the same room. An alarm, for instance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Question: Why do you automatically assume that the lever is associated with the secret door? I can think of any number of reasons for a lever to be in a room, none of which involve the secret door in the same room. An alarm, for instance.

By its very nature, a lever implies that, by changing its position, you cause something to happen. This makes a lever very different from, say, a raised dias, a table, a torch, or a statue. All of those things might do something; it is a far more reasonable (and obvious) assumption that a lever or a switch will do something.

(It might not, of course. It could be a red herring. The mechanism could be broken. However, even if you see no obvious result, it is safe to assume that throwing the switch/lever has had some effect that you should, thereafter, keep your eye out for.)

In the example room, there is a secret door. A secret door implies both a space beyond (although this may not be true; it may be a false secret door leading to a stone wall) and a means to open it (again, this implication may not be true; the secret door could be built in such a way that it has no regular means to open it, especially if it is intended as bait rather than as a door).

In the example room, we have a secret door with no means to open it, and a lever that does something that we do not know. So here we have two objects. One does something, the other needs the means to do something. The easiest solution to the problem is that the one object does the something for the other object. We do not think any further, throw the lever, and roll a saving throw.

But...hold on. Naturally, the lever could do a lot of other things. Moreover, the means to open the secret door might not be in this room. If you were going to the effort to hide a door, would you place the lever in plain sight? Probably not. Logic therefore dictates that the lever probably does not open the secret door. A moment's thought takes us past the simple "throw the lever, and roll a saving throw" result.

By this point, perhaps, the idea that the secret door is bait to cause us to pull the lever might appear. Certainly, we search the lever for traps, Taking 20 to do our best job. We find nothing. That still doesn't mean that pulling the lever is a good idea. It is possible to make a trap that we cannot find. After all, the DC has to be no more than 1 beyond our maximum result, and we know as a fact that this is possible.

So, what now?

We have the McGuffin. We could just leave. If we are on a tight schedule, this is probably the best option.

We could cast a simple divination spell to determine whether or not throwing the lever is a good idea. The more we think about this, the better it sounds....even if it means having to rest up first, so long as we are not on a tight schedule. If we have the time for it, this is the best option.

If we don't have access to the best divination spells for the job, we could possibly use detect magic. That would at least give us some more information. Not a bad option. It might, in fact, give us reason to investigate further before doing anything rash.

We could also consider using a summoned creature to do the dirty work.

As a final option, we could just pull the lever. Doing so, after all, might grant the person doing the pulling a wish. Probably not. For all kinds of reasons, this is simply the worst option to take.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven Crowking, I see your points. In your example though, I'm not saying the PCs should know if the Emperor of Ptolomy hates bluggyfruits if they come from the town of Plundering Falls. The original example (the lever) was more along the lines of "The Emperor of Ptolomy is going to have you executed unless you roll a natural 20 on your Diplomacy check". In other words, there's barely any chance of success.

I don't buy that there is barely any chance of success. I think that there is sufficient information to allow the players to bypass the trap despite the failure of the Search check. It requires only minimal thinking about the situation, IMHO. YMMV. Certainly, in some 27 years of gaming, I have never had a group which would have fallen for this trap without at least having tried to gain more information via spells first. OTOH, I have fallen for abyssmally obvious traps. Of course, I don't claim to be half as clever as half the players I have run games for.

Nor am I saying that every challenge should be conquerable for the PCs, but there should be a decent chance of success and failure for the encounters the DM cooks up, NOT something that barring exceptional luck is going to result in someone being killed. It's not fair, and it certainly isn't fun.

What requirement exists to pull the lever? The question clearly states that you have the thing you went into the dungeon for.

Again, if the trap was just a 10-foot square, zap!, then I would agree with you. However, in this case, the players are given ample means to determine that pulling the lever without getting more information first is a bad idea. Moreover, the game offers ample methods at low levels to gain the required information.

And, again, imagine that the poll had read: "You find yourself in the back corner of the dungeon. There is a big, obvious lever and your Searching reveals a secret door. You cannot find a way to open the secret door. Your rogue Searches the lever for traps, and finds none. You have what you came into the dungeon for. Do you pull the lever?" Options given are Yes, No, and Maybe (explain below). How many people do you think would say "Yes"?

Now this, I don't agree with because you shouldn't require the players to use THEIR knowledge of a situation, you should require them to use their CHARACTER'S knowledge. But then again I've been jumped on too many times for metagaming (not to open that can of worms again, there's another thread for just that) and doing exactly what you're saying.

To some degree, the player's knowledge of a situation and a player's knowledge of a situation converge. This is an absolute necessity, and it would certainly be fair here. The character knows that he found no traps; the character does not know that there are no traps. Both player and character have more than adequate reason to be suspicious.

This is very different than, say, acting on (A) that Bob killed your last character or (B) knowledge of modern chemistry.

RC

 

[Ourph]

Now this, I don't agree with because you shouldn't require the players to use THEIR knowledge of a situation, you should require them to use their CHARACTER'S knowledge. But then again I've been jumped on too many times for metagaming (not to open that can of worms again, there's another thread for just that) and doing exactly what you're saying.

Challenging the players doesn't require metagaming. The characters cannot think. The intelligence, creativity and problem solving skills involved in playing RPGs are all provided by the players. Using in character knowledge as a basis for rational thought is not metagaming, it's gaming.

When the idea that challenging the players to exert their problem solving skills at the table is tantamount to the DM forcing the players to cheat becomes the cultural norm, what exactly is the point of having players involved in the game in the first place? If their purpose is just to run the numbers on their character sheet and roll the dice when it's called for while letting the DM provide all of the answers on a successful roll the players are doing a job that any $5 calculator could do just as easily.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

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.

With a DM who skips over the traps but concentrates on the battles, it would strike me that a fighter would be a lot more fun to play than a rogue.

If there were a party of six characters, and one was a rogue, then it seems fair that about one in six situations should focus around the rogue -- not necessarily always a trap, but we're in a dungeon here. And the situation focusing on the rogue's abilities should be given the same amount of time spent and dramatic tension as an average fight.

Am I missing something, or does this attitude give the rogue a really raw deal?