Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[ThirdWizard]

"DM is giving a setup the PCs have seen hundreds of times that was relatively safe with a few precautions" is a playstyle assumption. There is no assumption inherent in the OP, and it is safer therefore to follow the assumption that you do not know the playstyle and act accordingly.

Lever being an obvious place to put a trap is a playstyle assumption that you are making, though.

 

[delericho]

I agree with virtually everything you said. In particular, your point about verbal-only warnings is especially well made.

Even goblins could survive in such a place, if there were safe areas and paths (which seems likely), they had the numbers to withstand initial losses of exploring the place (and the rewards were high enough), and the inhabitants have enough intelligence to memorize the safe places/routes by adulthood. Canny inhabitants would intentionally lure invaders toward the deadlier traps. Careful observation of the inhabitants would, in fact, allow the PCs to bypass most (if not all) of the traps.

Indeed. This would constitute the clues I felt were missing from the example as presented. If the PCs miss those clues... well, sucks to be them.

It is logical, following this reasoning, to assume that the party will know or should know that they are not dealing with a level-appropriate dungeon (depending, of course, on what you view as level-appropriate ).

However, the assumption that the inhabitants would have marked the room somehow to remind themselves not to pull the lever by mistake or when drunk is not well founded IMHO. The likelihood is higher that they would confine drunkeness to certain safe areas. After all, presumably you accepted the dangers of those traps initially because they afforded you a certain level of security. Any system that would warn invaders removes this benefit.

If they were raising children, I would expect more forceful measures be used. Of course, here I wouldn't consider a big "Danger!" sign appropriate - I would expect the door in to be blocked, or the lever to be jammed, or something.

However, that's predicated on them raising children, and on the assumption that goblin parents would care to do such things, neither of which is certain. In any event, you're right that it wouldn't necessarily be marked.

Taken in isolation, the trap is obvious. If you assume, instead, that the trap is part of a "fair" complex (rather than simply assuming it is there for no reason, which is a condition not existent in the OP), then it is perhaps even more obvious. Which, agreed, makes this less than ideal as a trap...but a trap which, I would argue, as a direct result of being less ideal is also more fair.

Agreed. And with that, I think we've reached agreement.

 

[Ourph]

It is highly unlikely that the original builders of this dungeon placed only this one trap in the whole complex.

I agree.

It is further extremely unlikely that this trap is so significantly more difficult than any of the others that they placed.

Again, I agree.

However, your reasoning has one fatal flaw. You're assuming the PCs have explored the entire dungeon when they encounter this trap. That's an inappropriate assumption because it's obvious that they have not yet explored at least one portion of the dungeon, the portion that lies beyond the secret door. Perhaps the secret door marks the beginning of the trap laden portion of the dungeon. Consider, for example, the following scenario.

Acerak constructs a a dungeon headquarters for himself as a young, wannabe demi-lich. The "front rooms" (only a small portion of this dungeon) are constructed with the convenience of his servants in mind. He places no traps in these areas because his servants will need to move about freely to do their work and it's cheaper to buy new slaves than it is to construct effective traps anyway. However, at the entrance to his private rooms Acerak constructs a very expensive trap, it is very nearly undetectable and seriously deadly to everyone but him. He does so to prevent both his servants and his enemies from penetrating into his domicile (understanding the evil nature of his servants, he knows he must protect himself no matter how much he pays them or how many members of their family he holds hostage). He places it on a lever because he wants to kill only those who actually attempt to enter his area, not just anyone who enters the room. His servants know that if they require his attention they may enter the room and wait safely for him to appear, but shouldn't pull the lever. Everything beyond the secret door is filled with deadly traps that are tuned to leave Acerak and Acerak alone unharmed.

Eventually, Acerak shuffles off his mortal coil and takes up residence in his tomb as a demilich. His servants wander off and his HQ lies abandoned. Several generations of squatters make use of the front area of his dungeon (one displacing the next in various power struggles between humanoid tribes, evil cultists, etc.) but none have the means to get past his fiendish trap and enter his private sanctum.

Then the PCs happen along. They clear out the "safe" servants area of Acerak's abandoned dungeon. The portion which was constructed with no traps and, like many of the previous occupants before them, encounter the trapped lever and lose one of their number before discovering that the trapless nature of the rest of the dungeon ends in this room.

IMO, a perfectly reasonable and common setup for a D&D dungeon that fully explains the presence of a very deadly trap at one point of the dungeon even though the portion of the dungeon the PCs have already explored contained no traps or traps of a very different nature.

Then the inhabitants would have marked the room somehow (perhaps a honking big skull and crossbones in red paint?) to remind themselves not to pull the lever by mistake or when drunk.

Maybe if your dungeon is populated by the Swiss that would be true. I wasn't aware that Orc or Kobold society had advanced far enough in the D&D world that they had developed OSHA inspectors. IMO the chaotic humanoid races are no more likely to leave warning signs for others than they are to establish a Social Security system. Chaotic humanoids are self-centered and uncaring by nature. When an Orc sees his companion get dusted by the trap his thoughts are "Now I know never to pull that lever." not "Poor Og, I'll miss him. I'd better put up a warning sign before any of my other friends die." IMO most Orcs who saw a drunken companion pull the lever on a dare and turn to dust would laugh their a***s off because they're selfish and evil and that's just how Orcs are.

And we're both assuming that the dungeon has been populated by sentient humanoid beings. If the dungeon is known to the locals as the Dungeon of Skeletons and Slimes I think a big warning sign is highly unlikely (unless Pedro the Pudding has developed the ability to write "Cuidado" with his own slime trail ).

And, finally, I refer you again to my post at the bottom of page 12, which explains at length that only a damn fool would build this trap in this location.

Which is all subjective opinion based on (what I would call) a number of unfounded assumptions. If my scenario above doesn't convince you that the trap is, in fact, entirely reasonable under certain circumstances, then Raven Crowking does an excellent job of explaining a number of different, additional, reasons why the trap not only makes sense but is, in fact, fiendishly clever.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Lever being an obvious place to put a trap is a playstyle assumption that you are making, though.

Not at all.

(A) That the players believe that the lever is potentially trapped enough to check using Search is an a priori assumption of the original post.

(B) That the lever is potentially dangerous is based upon a rational train of thought that only requires real-world considerations to be taken into account.

(C) The (exhaustive) discussion of the nature of traps requires only real-world considerations to be taken into account.

(D) That the lever can be trapped, and that the trap might not be found by our particular rogue Taking 20, are both inherent assumptions of the Core Rules, requiring no adjudication of play style to be true.

A given playstyle may ameliorate the foregoing considerations, but unless you take playstyle into account, that is what you are left with.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I would have put the level significantly higher - there comes a point where character death changes from a matter of a new character to a matter of getting a ressurrection, which is an inconvenience, and which hurts, but where it is a much smaller issue than previously.

The would make the 'fair' level what? A PC cleric can cast Ressurrection at 13th level, but I would expect the party to have access to that sort of magic rather earlier. Perhaps 11th or so would be my changeover point.

So, the argument now boils down to irreversable PC death being unfair?

 

[Raven Crowking]

If they were raising children, I would expect more forceful measures be used. Of course, here I wouldn't consider a big "Danger!" sign appropriate - I would expect the door in to be blocked, or the lever to be jammed, or something.

However, that's predicated on them raising children, and on the assumption that goblin parents would care to do such things, neither of which is certain. In any event, you're right that it wouldn't necessarily be marked.

Modern cultures are in many ways incredibly lenient in the raising of children compared to even those that existed 100 years ago. (Of course, in other ways they are more strict.) When the goblin young are not working at the mines (and "if you can walk, you can work" has been the rule over the vast majority of human existence) they need only be confined to a certain range of freedom to be kept safe.

 

[Someone]

IF the bad guys with the McGuffin didn't build the dungeon, THEN they migrated to it. [snip] (which the PCs earlier mistook for a magical dust, and are still wearing in their hair).

I mentioned ad-hoc hypothesis earlier, and this is a good example of one. You´re inventing scenarios about how your theory could work; while they are not logical impossibilities on themselves, I notice they become more and more far fetched with each page. Considering how Nightfall´s posts are one third of the thread by now, this makes the rate even faster.

I need a moronic original builder to explain the OP. You need the original builder (wich wasn´t also very bright, for what it seems), and a tribe of orcs doing all kind of progressively bizarre things designed to keep the trap as the OP describes. Guess which one is more likely or parsimonious.

Again, I'd hate to walk barefoot in your house, or try to make a midnight snack. Mousetraps are left in the middle of oft-used walkways and the pantry doors are electrified. The alternative (putting the mousetraps where mice are likely to go, but you are not; using the mousetraps to entice and kill mice instead of simply trying to defend the food) is apparently a foreign concept.

We are also setting aside, apparently, the fact of the secret door. Since this room seems to be a portal from one complex to another (or one area to another), it could be what is beyond the secret door (if anything) that the trap protects.

Again, no evidence whatsoever that the trap is illogical, and the only issue is fairness. I would say that a trap which catches over half the intended victims is, perforce of its effectiveness, logical.

Moreover, crying on one hand that the trap is ineffective because of placement or components, while crying on the other hand that the trap is unfair because it is too effective, is self-contradictory and throws both premises (ineffective and unfair) out, at least insofar as the reasons given go.

I think I start to see your position. Adventurers are mice to you. If you like to put them in a maze to measure their IQ or just to amuse yourself, I don´t know yet. No, you shouldn´t compare adventurers to mice, but to intruders to your home. In this case, you´re putting the alarm not on the windows or the main door, but connected to a bathroom you rarely use. You see, if a robber enters your home, he could want to take a shower!

But you still to miss the point, despite having repeated it several times. Given how the dungeon is built there´s absolutely no reason to suspect that such a trap could be present –and please, spare us the speculations on orc burial customs-. The only reason to suspect that the trap could hold such a trap, beyond the ability of the rogue and more advanced than whatever else they’ve found in the dungeon, is to metagame that, since it´s a lever, it´s likely that it has a very dangerous trap and/or proceed with paranoid care.

The scenario also has no gaming redeeming qualities: it requires caution for it´s own sake; it´s not innovative in any way, or rewards the adventurers for thinking logically but to approach new situations with a mechanic, algorithmic, slow approach and discard their assumed personalities instead of acting in character, act dynamically or use logic. It´s, in a nutshell, designed to keep the mice dancing.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Not at all.

(A) That the players believe that the lever is potentially trapped enough to check using Search is an a priori assumption of the original post.

So, if they didn't look for traps, then it would be unfair? It's fair because they searched for traps?

 

[BeauNiddle]

PLAYER: I search the lever for traps.
DM: How do you go about it, exactly?
PLAYER: Hmm. Describe this lever.
DM: It's a three-foot iron pole with a red rubber moulded top, designed for easy grasp. There pole is slightly rusted along its length, but not excessively so, and there is some grease at the bottom of the pole, where it enters the main mechanism (that's a lubricant, nothing more). The mechanism itself can be seen somewhat, and consists of several large interlocking cogwheels.
PLAYER: Without touching the lever, I examine it minutely.
DM: Your inspection reveals nothing new.
PLAYER: Using a wooden stick, I touch one of the cogwheels, but not enough to make it rotate.
DM: Nothing seems to happen.
PLAYER: Hmm. Okay, I carefully loop a piece of rope around the lever, still being careful not to touch it. I warn the party to move back.
DM: Go on then, warn them.
PLAYER: I give the party a courteous bow, then twirl my moustaches. I'm looking particularly debonair. "Ladies and gentlemen, I invite you to retreat some goodly distance. It's possible that I'm being overcautious, but it's also possible that there might be a nasty surprise rigged for whoever touches this lever."
(The other players retreat.)
DM: What now?
PLAYER: I think I'll pay out the rope a good ten feet and retreat around the corner in the corridor, so if there's an explosion, the corner will shelter me. Then I put on my thick leather gauntlets before taking hold of the rope.
DM: And?
PLAYER: Very gently, very tentatively, I pull the lever -- just enough to make it move slightly...

Okay I have to ask - what possible reason would anybody have for playing the rogue class in your game?

If player intellect (and descriptive skills) replace character skill and if you intend to use a level 1 spell to double check my results then what reason is there for anybody to play a rogue (or at least a trap based rogue).

Then again I like the social skills added in 3.X so maybe it's just yet another play style thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I mentioned ad-hoc hypothesis earlier, and this is a good example of one.

Either the current inhabitants were the original inhabitants or they were not. This is simply tautologically true. Yet for you this is somehow "more and more far fetched"?

In any event, what you are calling "ad-hoc hypothesis" are examples that demonstrate the flaws of your initial assumption (that the builder must be moronic). There are, literally, thousands of ways in which the complex could logically contain the trap as described -- and your line of reasoning works only if all of them are untrue.

I need a moronic original builder to explain the OP. You need the original builder (wich wasn´t also very bright, for what it seems), and a tribe of orcs doing all kind of progressively bizarre things designed to keep the trap as the OP describes. Guess which one is more likely or parsimonious.

A moronic builder is not necessary. Not only have you failed to demonstrate a rational train of thought that leads to that concludion, but the evidence is conclusive -- the trap worked. What percentage of people do you think find the trap unfair because they wouldn't have pulled the lever?

I think I start to see your position. Adventurers are mice to you.

No. Adventurers should be smarter, and/or wiser, than mice. On the other hand, if you expect the dice to do your thinking for you, you might as well be a mouse. D&D, IMHO, should require the participants to be actively involved in the adventure. It is not TV. The DM is not telling you a story. A game that doesn't challenge me to think is not a game I would want to play in. Period.

No, you shouldn´t compare adventurers to mice, but to intruders to your home.

Sure, but you are presupposing that the purpose of every trap is to alert you to intruders or to kill intruders as they enter your home. Not only is this a dangerous assumption (as the monk learned in the OP), but it is an incorrect assumption (as mousetraps, bear traps, wiretaps, and all sorts of other security measures demonstrate more than amply).

But you still to miss the point, despite having repeated it several times. Given how the dungeon is built there´s absolutely no reason to suspect that such a trap could be present

Please quote from the OP how the dungeon is built.

Taken in isolation, the trap is obvious. If you assume, instead, that the trap is part of a "fair" complex (rather than simply assuming it is there for no reason, which is a condition not existent in the OP), then it is perhaps even more obvious. Which, agreed, makes this less than ideal as a trap...but a trap which, I would argue, as a direct result of being less ideal is also more fair.

Your argument works only if the asumption is made that the dungeon complex itself is unfair.

Ad hoc hypothesis, indeed!