Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Slife]

IRL, what would you do if you found a toy on the battlefield? LEAVE IT ALONE- its probably not booby trapped, but the consequences of it being so are lethal.

IRL, what would you do if you entered a room in a secure area of a military base that had an unlabled phone on the wall? LEAVE IT ALONE- if it were meant for your use, there would be a sign and/or you would have been told going in what the phone's purpose was.

IRL, what would you do if you were in a maximum security prison (just visiting) and you were left unattended in a room with a lever on the wall? LEAVE IT ALONE- you don't know what it does- it could be a power switch, but it could also open barred doors meant to be closed, or close those meant to be open.

Case 1
Land mines are way too small to fit into toys. I'd be more worried about things that I know could be dangerous (like a mound of recently tilled soil, or that patch of leaves that's been strewn all the way across the road in an otherwise unwooded area.) That stated, while a toy may be unusual on a battlefield (depending on where the battle is taking place, of course. Urban combat, anyone?), a lever is certainly not too unusual in dungeons.

Case 2
If I'm invading the base? Probably leave it alone - but only because it's only possible to use as a communications device. Even then I might smash it just on the off chance someone coming behind me might use it. If it were a computer I'd use it, and if it were a big ol' switch or lever I'd use it.

Case 3
Well, if I'm supposed to be invading the prison and killing the guards, I'll go for it. The more chaos the better!
But seriously, how many switches that could release prisoners wouldn't have... I don't know, a key, or a pass code, or a fingerprint scanner, or a retinal identification...

====================

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."

Propositions
1) There exists a room in a side branch of a dungeon with a secret door in it
2) Whomever designed the dungeon had a finite amount of resources
3) The designer of a dungeon would try to deploy these resources in the most effective way possible
4) There is a lever in the room with the secret door in it
5) Making a trap undetectable costs a lot of cash
6) Making a trap deadly costs a lot of cash
7) Stupid people don't tend to have a lot of disposeable income, or the abilites to design dungeons. Other people will kill them and take their stuff if they're dumb, and skill points are based on int. Therefore, we may conclude that the trap/dungeon designer is of at least above average intelligence.

If you're smart, which of these choices will you pick for your expensive, magical, undetectable, deadly, alignment targetable trap? Remember, you want to get the most out of your investment. You could buy a small country for the amount you paid
a) A freaking lever in the middle of a room
b) An otherwise normal floor tile
c) The door to get into your dungeon in the first place
d) The secret door itself
e) The floor around whatever you're protecting (IE, the Macguffin)

Since it has been established by the law of the jungle (and skill point mechanics) that the designer can't be stupid, the lever is not trapped with a deadly, undetectable trap.
====================
Here's another question. Would you consider having three half-red-dragon celestial paragon hydras in the same 10x10 room fair if they attacked as soon as the door was opened?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

I would say a more comparable situation would be:

The party is used to taking basic precautions such as having a sentry and sleeping in light armor when camping in the wilderness. 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 PCs enter the dungeon, slay lots of monsters (but not all) and leave. They then camp several yards from the dungeon entrance. 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.

55-56% of the players protest because they were camped out in the "wilderness" same as before.

An observer states that the encounter is "fair" because the proximity of the dungeon means that the PCs should have taken greater precautions. Someone claims that the monsters should have used the time, instead, to plan an ambush within the dungeon. Someone else claims that the encounter is unfair because the monster was an X instead of a Y, but when asked if the encounter would be fair if the monster was Y instead claims that it is unfair for some other reason. Yet another person claims that this means the party must always take elaborate precautions whenever they sleep, regardless of situation, because he is unable to tell the difference between sleeping next to the dungeon entrance and sleeping in a reputable inn.

One player claims 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. The DM points out that the necessities haven't changed; the PCs have simply never camped in such a mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous place before.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Propositions
1) There exists a room in a side branch of a dungeon with a secret door in it
2) Whomever designed the dungeon had a finite amount of resources
3) The designer of a dungeon would try to deploy these resources in the most effective way possible
4) There is a lever in the room with the secret door in it
5) Making a trap undetectable costs a lot of cash
6) Making a trap deadly costs a lot of cash
7) Stupid people don't tend to have a lot of disposeable income, or the abilites to design dungeons. Other people will kill them and take their stuff if they're dumb, and skill points are based on int. Therefore, we may conclude that the trap/dungeon designer is of at least above average intelligence.

You were doing well until you hit #5. After all, presumably, making the door mechanism or the trap hard to detect costs the same amount. Moreover, if you take #5 to heart, why are you building underground anyway? Way more expensive than building above-ground.

Actually, you were doing well until you hit #3, which should really read: The designer of a dungeon would try to deploy these resources in the most effective way possible to achieve the goals that the dungeon was created for.

If you're smart, which of these choices will you pick for your expensive, magical, undetectable, deadly, alignment targetable trap? Remember, you want to get the most out of your investment. You could buy a small country for the amount you paid

But you still paid significantly more to create the dungeon in the first place.

a) A freaking lever in the middle of a room

Sure to catch at least 55-56% of the mice.

b) An otherwise normal floor tile
c) The door to get into your dungeon in the first place
d) The secret door itself

All of these things are likely to catch my less-intelligent servitors....and even me if I haven't had my morning coffee.

e) The floor around whatever you're protecting (IE, the Macguffin)

Who says that wasn't trapped too? Or does the location of the trap in the OP somehow preclude the existence of other traps in this dungeon?

Since it has been established by the law of the jungle (and skill point mechanics) that the designer can't be stupid, the lever is not trapped with a deadly, undetectable trap.

#7 does not logically follow from the previous points. The conclusion is invalid. Consequently, the monk is dead.

Stupid people don't tend to have a lot of disposeable income: Unsupported. Do PCs have Wealth by Intelligence caps? Do NPCs? Do the treasure tables bear this out?

Other people will kill them and take their stuff if they're dumb: Unsupported. Is CR based on Intelligence?

Skill points are based on intelligence: True. But, since my fighter just commissioned a magic sword that he doesn't have the skill to make, also irrelevant.

Therefore, we may conclude that the trap/dungeon designer is of at least above average intelligence: Probably true, but there is nothing that logically links the designer's intelligence to this being or not being a trap. In other words, there is no chain of logic saying that because of the previous statements, the lever must not be a trap.

Faulty logic or faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions. 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."

Here's another question. Would you consider having three half-red-dragon celestial paragon hydras in the same 10x10 room fair if they attacked as soon as the door was opened?

No. But, then again, the question is irrelevant. The trap isn't going to eat me when I open the door. Nor is it unable to fit where it is placed. Nor is it likely to destroy itself.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

The PCs enter the dungeon, slay lots of monsters (but not all) and leave. They then camp several yards from the dungeon entrance. 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.

It's nowhere near that. You're missing the analogy:

DM is giving a setup the PCs have seen hundreds of times that was relatively safe with a few precautions.
PCs approach situation just like all the other times and someone dies.
DM wonders why the PCs didn't see the "obvious" way around the problem.

 

[FireLance]

One player claims 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. The DM points out that the necessities haven't changed; the PCs have simply never camped in such a mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous place before.

Again, you're making a playstyle assumption. What makes the wilderness close to a dungeon that the party has partly cleared a "mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous" place, or a lever a "mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous" object? Some players may have been conditioned by their DMs to view them as such, but it is certainly not the case for everyone.

 

[Nightfall]

I think this whole thread is one big doornob.

Shannagins!

 

[Melan]

I think this whole thread is one big doornob.

Shannagins!

Just for the record - it is spelled shenanigans.

 

[Nightfall]

Melan,

Thank you. shenanigans!

shenanigans!

And for good measure...


shenanigans!

 

[Someone]

Amazing, we´re building a module here. From the initial OP, we deduced now that the bad guys that got the McGuffin didn´t build the dungeon, but ocupied it after the original inhabitants left it. The bad guys group found a room with a lever, but before doing anything else, they called the group´s spellcaster (they had an spellcaster) who using his mojo determined that the level could be problematic, and left without interacting with the lever, investigating the room at all, or leave any trace of doing any of the above. Then proceeded to just forget the room.

These people apparently live in a world where a trap´s purpose isn´t to protect your things, but to have your revenge on intruders, and built where it´s difficult to find them (Raven, you can´t seriously believe that)

Anyway, it´s clear for me that the trap is illogical, even leaving aside the issue of fairness. Deadly, random, illogical, trapped levers without warning signals strongly reward two playing styles: the one that seeing a lever metagames that, since it´s a lever and can be interacted, it´s a test to see how smart the players -who can choose to pull or not, and how to pull- are, or the paranoid playing style, who treats everything as a deadly trap. You may like either style, but seems that the majority doesn´t.

 

[Nightfall]

shenanigans!

A whole host of doornobbish shenanigans!