Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[ThirdWizard]

ThirdWizard, I am heading out of town, and will jump back on this when I return.

As a starter, I will ask, assuming you agree with Post 572, do you also agree that the three potential conclusions in that post correspond with the possible choices on this poll?

I don't know. It depends on how many people fall into various more extreme camps like "all traps that can possibly be bypassed in some way are fair" and for which case, no matter what if there was some way that the DM had for the PCs to bypass, no matter how difficult for a Player to think of, they will say fair.

Then there's the opposite camp that think that there shouldn't be instant death traps in a dungeon and that don't want PCs to die unless its for "story purposes" and will be completely against the trap on those grounds.

Then there are the less extreme views that still wouldn't think along the lines of those choices, but would have a leaning toward fairness and unfairness because either "death traps are good" or "death traps are bad" in which case their oppinions on fairness are based on those qualities.

I don't think anyone is wrong. I think that in the end, the fairness is going to be pretty much based on what you expect out of the game. I do think that several posters who have stated their oppinions on the side of unfair have taken the list to heart as a reason, but I can't be sure what the percentages are.


I think that since over 50% have voted it unfair we can, at the very least, assume that the majority of voters in this poll do not run games in which the PCs would have thought of any extranuous excersises in bypassing the trap, and would have had a PC casualty to the trap, my game included.

 

[delericho]

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

Oh no. I was merely commenting on the fact that, in D&D, death changes in significance at a particular level. And death by disintegration changes status much later (since you can't be Resurrected). So, rather than the arbitrary figure of 6th level, I would have gone for, probably, 10th level.

However, I have no problem with character death, even irreversible character death, in the right circumstances.

 

[delericho]

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.

Referring to this post, where I wrote:

No, it's just stupid.

If you want to protect something by placing it behind a secret door, you don't tip intruders off to the existence of the secret door by putting a honking great lever in the same room as the door, with nothing else in the room to be controlled by the lever.

If you must have the door opened by this lever, and absolutely must have the lever in the same room, then you have the lever take three positions, only two of which are obvious. The two 'known' positions control some other mechanism that is also present in the room (I'm sure the designer could think of something), and have the third position control the door. That way, the explorer may not associate the existence of the lever with the likely existence of the door. (And, if you really must, you can still put a trap on that third position.) The key is, to protect your secret door, your first aim should be to avoid people from looking for it in the first place.

If you really want it to be safe, you put the secret door in the back of a storeroom that you fill with shelves. Basically, put the secret door somewhere that it is unlikely to be looked for. Hence 'secret'.

Furthermore, if you have the ability to build undetectable traps, you don't invest the money in an undetectable trap on the lever - you spend the money on an undetectable door. That way, your <whatever you want to protect> remains safe.

Now, assuming for some bizarre reason you have the ability to construct undetectable traps, but not undetectable doors, and you absolutely must have the lever control the door, and you absolutely must have the lever in the same room as the door, and you absolutely cannot have any other mechanism in the same room, you still don't put your undetectable trap on the honking great lever.

You put it on the door. And you have it disabled by a code word that only you know, which you select such that it cannot be guessed but which you can easily remember. And you don't write it down. If you absolutely require that others be able to access the door, you choose some sort of secret tattoo for your order and require your followers all get it. Better still, have them get six, or choose one they already have. And don't tell them about the trap, or the significance of the tattoo. That way, if the intruders do manage to pull the lever using some clever mechanism that you didn't think of (like using a rope? Really, you didn't think of that?), the <whatever you want to protect> is still protected, because they still can't get through the door.

Honestly, the only reason you would design the encounter described as it has been, and put that trap on the lever, is if the purpose of the secret door is for no other reason than to have the party pull the lever and be killed. Which is an entirely backwards way of designing a lair.

Note: I have edited the above post, replacing the word "McGuffin" with the phrase "<whatever you want to protect>". I have done this because the OP uses the word "McGuffin" to refer to whatever the party went into the dungeon to retrieve, which is not the same thing as lies behind the secret door. Nonetheless, since it is a secret door, something lies behind it, and is being 'protected' by the door. So, the edits are to reduce confusion, but they do not alter the meaning of the post. (And this paragraph is to clarify the changes, so I'm not accused of trying to weasel out of what I said.)

The response to which was:

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.

You say that, but you haven't named one unfounded assumption. Nor have you (or anyone else) provided a single reason why the original builder of the trap and the secret door would build these devices in the configuration given. I'm not talking about "how can there be no warnings?", or "how do the current inhabitants of the dungeon survive?"

What I am asking is why the ORIGINAL builder of the complex would build THAT trap beside THAT door in THAT configuration, without thinking, just once, that it's a really bad idea to place a lever in an otherwise empty room to protect a 'secret' door.

I can think of precisely one explanation: the entire complex was designed as some sort of twisted test of adventurers (indeed, the "Fighting Fantasy" gamebook "Deathtrap Dungeon" is about a complex of this very type). However, that can hardly be considered the norm. Surely, the default assumption has to be that a secret door exists to protect something, and you would therefore want to build in such a way as to provide the best possible protection?

So, working from the assumption that you actually do want to protect whatever lies behind the secret door (rather than issue some sort of sick test to intruders), why would you believe that that was the best way to go, as opposed to any of the available (or even just the listed) alternatives?

 

[delericho]

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).

Okay, that makes sense. I would still expect some traps, at the very least at the entrances to the 'public' parts of the dungeon. In general, one would expect there to be three categories of people in the dungeon: the inner circle, the servants, and intruders. One would therefore expect some sort of defences against the third group even in the main part of the dungeon. These traps, however, would need to be designed to be easily bypassed by the servants, and so would be relatively easy for a skilled Rogue to deal with.

Alternatively, since we're postulating that he would set up traps in the secret areas keyed to himself alone, there's no reason he wouldn't have traps in the public areas keyed to his servants alone. However, since the identities of those servants is not fixed, he would have to do it using some sort of key (as I've mentioned before). Probably the best way is to have all his servants tattooed with a particular symbol. And a particularly devious wannabe demilich might think to have the traps keyed not to a particular tattoo, but rather to a particular tattoo made with ink containing certain uncommon ingredients.

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.

It still makes far more sense to put the trap on the secret door (or, since it's a magical trap, on the boundary between the two areas). That way, anyone who bashes down the secret door, or uses passwall or similar spells is still affected by the trap, rather than requiring the lever to do its job.

Furthermore, under that arrangement there is absolutely no point in using a secret door - the existence of the lever clearly marks the existence of something in the room, rendering the door non-secret. Just have a door.

Oh, and under that scheme there would probably be some means for his servants to alert Acerak in case of emergency. If the lair is invaded by marauding paladins, he would probably want to know about it, to take defensive measures (or perhaps flee). A giant gong, perhaps? (Of course, that could have been removed by those same paladins after Acerak moved on.)

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.

Okay, I can accept that. It's still a really bad trap design.

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.

A society that divisive wouldn't last for long. Either they'd pull apart fairly quickly or, more likely, they'd lose many of their number to the traps, and then be wiped out by a more agressive and cohesive group. Natural selection applies.

Honestly, Raven Crowking's argument that they might choose to leave the traps unmarked so they could lure intruders into them was far more compelling.

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 ).

I did make note of the "unless some special immunity applies" clause. I omitted to include dungeon inhabitants such as oozes and vermin that have no use for levers.

 

[delericho]

Note: What I say in the text below the quoted section applies to the context provided by the quoted section, and not to the out-of-context example provided by the OP.

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.

I've been thinking about this scenario some more. I will agree that it is a reasonable set-up for a dungeon, but there was something that was just bugging me about it. I've finally figured it out...

Under this scenario, a party could work their way carefully through the entirety of the 'public' parts of the dungeon. They carefully check every lever, every door, and anything else that looks suspicious, for traps, and find none. In every single case, this is because there is no trap.

And now they come to this room. They carefully search the room, and find the secret door, which wasn't that secret because the lever tipped us off. Still, a Search check was sufficient.

They then apply the Rogue's Search skill to the lever. They find no traps. Now, in EVERY PREVIOUS INSTANCE in this dungeon, this has been because there have been no traps. Suddenly, it's looking a lot more reasonable to assume that in this case there probably are no traps, isn't it?

Still, the party has a standard operating procedure with such things: the person with the best saves handles levers just in case. So, the same happens again here. And, despite having the best saves in the group, and having a really good roll, he still blows his save.

And, what's more, he is then insta-killed with no body, preventing an easy Raise Dead.

Basically, the DM has just inserted a MASSIVE jump in difficulty that has come out of nowhere (from the player's perspective), and which has had HUGE consequences.

And 'good play' can't even save you here. Unless the party has been extremely paranoid with every lever, every doorway, and every other thing that has looked suspicious, they have no reason to do so here. Do you really expect the party to use rope to pull every lever, to summon creatures to open every door, and to cast Augury every time the Rogue detects no traps?

It just reads like far too much of an intentional 'gotcha!' from the DM to be fair. And it certainly wouldn't be fun.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IF you accept the assumptions are true, THEN the logical conclusion is that the trap is unfair.

IF you do not accept that the assumptions are all true, but do not aver that the assumptions are false, THEN the logical conclusion is that the trap may or may not be fair, and that more information is required to make a statement that the trap is fair or unfair.

IF you believe that one or more of the assumptions is not true, THEN the logical conclusion is that the trap is fair.

The assumptions in question are:

(1) The DM has introduced a trap that he knows the PCs cannot detect with Search.

(2) That the trap will kill any PC who activates it unless they roll a 20 on a saving throw.

(3) That the DM has given no hints to the PCs that it is dangerous.

Do we agree on this much?

No, not quite.

Re: (1): For my playing style, being able to detect a trap with Take 20 is sufficient to make the scenario close enough to fair. But even would be untrue for some playing styles, and the effect of failing the save can matter.

And I am making some assumptions here as well. IME usually a Search by a Rogue will determine something about the nature of a trap. For me, the nature of the trap is sufficient information to know that I need to pull out every dungeon crawling survival trick in the book, and mysteriously failing to determine the nature of a trap is also clue we may be in over our heads so I should act in a similar manner.

Re: (2): No, a trap that is truly undetectable or unforeseeable and also deadly could be unfair even if it were DC 12 or DC 2. Is a completely and totally out of the blue 5% chance of instant death always fair in even your campaign style? I find it unlikely.

Player: "I enter the rundown little tavern of this nondescript town before me."
DM: "Roll a save."
Player: "Damn! A natural 1."
DM: "You crumble into dust."

Re: (3): Yes, if I the hints sufficient for the playstyle of the group in question. The difference between "no hints" and "weak hints" is entirely subjective. What is sufficient for one play style may not be sufficient for another.

Some posters in this thread have asserted that the existence of a secret door in the same room is a clear hint. I find it illogical to make any connection whatsoever between the two based on the information provided in the OP, and so far I have heard nothing but pure speculation to support this allegedly logical connection.

If you will not concede there is a significant component of personal playstyle in determining whether this proposition is true or untrue, you will need to formulate very clear standards and justify them.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The problem with the Acerak scenario is it is illogical on a number of levels.

First of all, one should expect numerous clues that this room or this section of the dungeon is very different from the others in terms of construction, original usage, and recent usage. Assuming such clues existed is not supported by the scenario provided by the OP.

Second of all, the lever is one of the least logical options of a large number similar tests. The lever might have some value. A doorknob would have even more.

 

[Lanefan]

The talk here seems to be much about why the dungeon's designer would put the trap there. One definition of "old school" would, I think, include things in a module do not always have, and do not always need to have, any reason whatsoever for being what or where they are.

This lever trap is 100% old school.

I've either forgotten or missed it, but was it ever made clear what was behind the secret door this trap was guarding?

Lanefan

 

[ThirdWizard]

I've either forgotten or missed it, but was it ever made clear what was behind the secret door this trap was guarding?

Hee "Guarding." A stone golem would cost less than this trap to create and would make a much better "guardian" methinks.

But, no, it hasn't been mentioned what's behind the secret door.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

This lever trap is 100% old school.

Not quite 100%. Maybe 80% old school.

A more typical super duper nasty old school trap of this style would either (1) forego the save altogether, or (2) give you the save vs Death Magic or -4 on the save vs. Death Magic variety.

It is hard to say for sure, but this looks rather like a -15 vs. Death Magic saving throw. Why bother? Saving throws like that are for DMs who are too cowardly to take responsibility for murdering the PC in cold blood for what the DM judges to be a mistake. What kind of pansy old school DM would do that?

In my personal opinion, one of the troubling aspect of this trap is that it gives a save that I presume happens to have a save DC in the stratosphere. That smells like some poorly conceived half-baked mix of old school and 3e.