Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Raven Crowking]

You however, have to propose the existence of the builder and the rope impaired dungeon squatters; that the current inhabitants found no way either to figure out how to the trap works, or to break down the secret door -or even that they found it, despite he existence of the lever; that they just left that lethal danger there, doing nothing to prevent any possible accident, and also that there´s no evidence of the trap´s deadly effects or existence despite the fact that the lever has been operated. I consider my assumption far more likely.

Or maybe they can cast 1st level spells, have at least the minimum wariness of a successful mouse, know how to warn each other orally, and just stay away?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Or maybe they can cast 1st level spells, have at least the minimum wariness of a successful mouse, know how to warn each other orally, and just stay away?

The theory this trap was designed by a doorknob seems vastly more likely.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The theory this trap was designed by a doorknob seems vastly more likely.

It also seems vastly more likely that the trap was designed by a doorknob than that the trap is unfair.

RC

 

[Someone]

So, let me see if I understand.

First, the idea was that the trap was unfair because it was unreasonable to assume that it was a trap. Pretty well answered.

Second, traps shouldn't be levers and you shouldn't have to do something to interact with the trap. Pretty well answered.

Now, the trap is unfair because it is in the wrong room, or isn't a doorknob.

*sigh* Let´s try again. Suppose you can install a trap. Choose between those options:

Location:

a) A place or room where intruders are likely or obligued to pass before they kill you or steal your things
b) A room your enemies are either unlikely to discover, or they´ll discover after killing and/or stealing from you.

Trap trigger:

a) Something seemingly innocuous your enemies are likely or obligued to interact with but not likely not investigate in the first place, like a doorknob like all other doorknobs, a rug, or even a corridor section.
b) Something your enemies are going to be either suspicious or curious about it´s working, like a lever, and likely going to investigate.

Priority:

a) You´ll trap important things before non-important ones.
b) You´ll leave important thing untrapped and trap unimportant things.

In this case, the dungeon denizens always choose option B.

Or maybe they can cast 1st level spells, have at least the minimum wariness of a successful mouse, know how to warn each other orally, and just stay away?

I bow before your ad-hoc hypothesis creating-fu. Should we suppose that the rogue had no ranks in Search and a Intelligence of 9, and the monk character had only 1 hit point? A DC 20 search trap that deals 1 point of Disintegrating damage is quite fair. Case closed!

 

[Someone]

nvm.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It also seems vastly more likely that the trap was designed by a doorknob than that the trap is unfair.

While I can easily tolerate the occasional situation that is unfair in a campaign because such is life, wasting my valuable gaming time on things designed by a doorknob is not acceptable to me.

 

[FireLance]

If one can say that the scenario in the original post wouldn't be unfair if it was an obvious trap, then let's see someone at least attempt to show where my reasoning falls down.

I think the main problem is not so much that the trap was not "obvious", but that the means of detecting or circumventing it are not "obvious" to any but players who are used to a particular style of play, and the consequences seemed rather harsh.

Really, how had the DM handled traps previously? If he had allowed the standard approaches of detecting and avoiding traps to work before this, thereby getting his players used to a particular style of play, suddenly requiring extraordinary measures (and yes, "leave it alone" is an extraordinary measure to players used to the idea of "something fun - perhaps risky and dangerous, but still fun - will happen if I pull the lever") to avoid character death seems unfair.

 

[Raven Crowking]

*sigh* Let´s try again. Suppose you can install a trap. Choose between those options:

Location:

a) A place or room where intruders are likely or obligued to pass before they kill you or steal your things
b) A room your enemies are either unlikely to discover, or they´ll discover after killing and/or stealing from you.

You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds none. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.​

a) We are not told where the McGuffin is, but it is not in this room. So, it is reasonable to assume that the trap does not protect the McGuffin.

b) There is a secret door, which the trap could be designed to protect.

c) Clever creatures do not lay traps in the places they intend to go frequently; they lay traps in out-of-the-way areas tangential to those areas, or areas that they frequent infrequently.

d) If you have stupid servants, it is easier to tell them not to pull levers than to come up with a code for every doorknob in the dungeon complex so that the minions can tell which are safe and which are not.

e) If this trap was on the doorknob, and the door was not secret, would that make it fair?

Trap trigger:

a) Something seemingly innocuous your enemies are likely or obligued to interact with but not likely not investigate in the first place, like a doorknob like all other doorknobs, a rug, or even a corridor section.
b) Something your enemies are going to be either suspicious or curious about it´s working, like a lever, and likely going to investigate.

The only important criteria for a good trap are (a) it will be interacted with and (b) the interacting party will not know it is a trap first.

I agree that this is not an ideal trap -- it is way too obvious -- but the question posed is not "Is this trap ideal?" The question is "Is this trap fair?" The fact that the trap is more obvious than would be ideal, IMHO, makes it fairer, not less fair. A lot of people have demonstrated why one might think this was a trap. No one yet has come up with a logical line of thinking that concludes "This must be safe."

Priority:

a) You´ll trap important things before non-important ones.
b) You´ll leave important thing untrapped and trap unimportant things.

In this case, the dungeon denizens always choose option B.

The area behind your fridge is not all that important, but you trap it because you understand mouse behavior. Or maybe you build a mousetrap into your TV remote because you use it more.....

People trap areas based upon several factors:

(a) Convenience: Is this trap going to hamper me? Should I put hidden pits in the areas used by my warriors?
(b) Purpose: I am trying to protect my vault; I am trying to kill intruders; I am trying to direct intruders to the killing pit; I am trying to make people believe that another area is more important than it is; I want revenge.

also

(c) Cost Effectiveness: How do I get the best bang for my buck? This is what I think you are complaining about, but it is far less important than (a) and (b) when making initial determinations. Since we have no other data about the dungeon, we have no idea how much or how little the creator could afford. However, the cost of this trap is so minimal compared to the cost of digging a dungeon complex in the first place, that one can assume that this is not an issue. Or, to put it another way, would the trap become fair if it were cheaper?

and

[d] Style: The creator's sense of personal style and preferences.

I bow before your ad-hoc hypothesis creating-fu. Should we suppose that the rogue had no ranks in Search and a Intelligence of 9, and the monk character had only 1 hit point? A DC 20 search trap that deals 1 point of Disintegrating damage is quite fair. Case closed!

What here is hard to believe?

They can cast 1st level spells? That requires, what, an Adept? If we postulate more than one being ("Think of the children" remember) living in a place where such traps are possible, it is somehow ad-hoc hypothesis creating-fu to think they might have at least one spellcaster?

That they have at least the minimum wariness of a successful mouse? Should we assume that, having watched the monk fry, the rest of the PCs pull the lever one-by-one, or can't we take this as a given? What communal creatures are you imagining here that would be able to make a mark to warn of the trap, yet cannot understand that the trap is there?

That they know how to warn each other orally? How many sentient creatures in the game don't have this capacity?

That they just stay away? We are told that (a) the room is located in the back corner of the dungeon, making it easy to avoid, and (b) that it is otherwise empty, so no one is using it to, say, store things. No trash from sleeping there, no gnawed bones, nothing.

If this is "ad-hoc hypothesis creating-fu" exactly how hard to you have to work to come up with an alternate, equally rational theory? If no intelligent beings currently dwell here, the "No mark to warn us; think of the children" line of reasoning doesn't live here either.

You are stretching so far to claim that this isn't fair that you're in danger of toppling over.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the main problem is not so much that the trap was not "obvious", but that the means of detecting or circumventing it are not "obvious" to any but players who are used to a particular style of play, and the consequences seemed rather harsh.

Really, how had the DM handled traps previously? If he had allowed the standard approaches of detecting and avoiding traps to work before this, thereby getting his players used to a particular style of play, suddenly requiring extraordinary measures (and yes, "leave it alone" is an extraordinary measure to players used to the idea of "something fun - perhaps risky and dangerous, but still fun - will happen if I pull the lever") to avoid character death seems unfair.

The DM setting you up to think that trolls are cuddly, and then using them to kill you, isn't fair, either. However, that doesn't make trolls unfair.

 

[FireLance]

The DM setting you up to think that trolls are cuddly, and then using them to kill you, isn't fair, either. However, that doesn't make trolls unfair.

It's not exactly a case of misleading the players. Rather, the point I was trying to make is: if the DM suddenly demands different things of his players, and imposes significant consequences for failing to live up to the new expectations, the situation starts to look unfair.

A comparable scenario might be camping out for the night in the wilderness. The party is used to taking basic precautions such as having a sentry and sleeping in light armor. The DM usually calls for Spot and Listen checks for the sentry. Sometimes, the sentry succeeds on the checks and manages to alert the party before the threat arrives. Sometimes, the sentry fails the checks and the party gets surprised by a monster. Sometimes, the party finds itself outmatched and has to run.

Given this set-up, a situation comparable to the OP's trap might be: the DM calls for Spot and Listen checks from the sentry, and despite the fact that the sentry is a ranger with decent Wisdom, maxed out Spot and Listen, and made good rolls (19 each), he fails to notice the threat. The monster surprises the sentry, rolls a 2 on its attack roll and manages to hit him anyway. The DM rolls damage and declares that the sentry is dead.

An observer who is used to a different style of play would state that the encounter is "fair" because the party's wizard did not cast alarm, the party did not search for a cave with a single entrance that could be trapped (perhaps with a rope) or camouflaged, did not search for signs or ask about rumors of dangerous creatures in the area before making camp, and probably list many other simple precautions that the party did not take that might have prevented this outcome.

None of this takes into account the fact that the DM previously had not required his players to take such extensive precautions before camping for the night, and has now decided to make them necessary to prevent the likely death of a character. It's the gaming equivalent of smuggling a gun into a school, shooting a student and saying it is fair because it could have been prevented if the school decided to search your bag before allowing you in.