Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Raven Crowking]

Okay, I'm back.

ThirdWizard,

I doubt that any form of reasoning will change the minds of some people on this thread, although there are others who's arguments do not rely on the "cowardice" of the DM in question.

Previously, you had agreed with Post 572, to wit:

F 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.​

As an aside, Ridley's Cohort suggests that "a trap that is truly undetectable or unforeseeable and also deadly could be unfair even if it were DC 12 or DC 2." I admit that I waffle on whether or not I accept this. If we were discussing creatures, for example, a monstrous spider might be able to hide in such a way as to be undetectable by the party's average (or even best) Spot check, resulting in a potentially dangerous, or even deadly poisoning (depending upon what other challenges the poisoned character must then face).

This would also make nearly any trap unfair to a group that does not contain a rogue....in other words, the DM becomes responsible for the players' lack of party balance or foresight. This is a really nasty conclusion, IMHO, and leads back into those "player entitlement" and "sense of wonder" threads that were so despised some time ago. On those threads, largely due to the arguments of Hussar, I was eventually convinced that "player entitlement" was a phantom created by a vocal minority on the Internet. Threads like this, where there are clear numbers and percentages, make me begin to think that the reasoning which convinced me earlier was wrong. Aside over.

ThirdWizard, oddly enough, while we agree that there can be a logical conclusion that the trap is unfair, fair, or that the fairness cannot be determined, we do not agree that the three potential conclusions in that post correspond with the possible choices on this poll, which are also YES (that the trap is unfair), NO (that the trap is not unfair; i.e., that it is fair), and MAYBE (that the trap may or may not be fair, depending upon circumstances we do not know).

I'm not really sure how to proceed with that. In effect, you are arguing that we can, say, logically determine that the trap is fair, but that our conclusion should not be that someone who voted "unfair" is not being illogical, but rather that we need to alter the logical conclusion to meet the subjective needs of the person who voted "unfair".

So, I'll ignore the poll question/responses for the moment being, and look at just what you and I agree upon.

The OP states:

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.​

From this, I make a number of assumptions:

(1) That the word useage indicates that there is only one rogue and one monk in the party.

(2) The party members are all the same level.

(3) The monk has the highest saves in the party.

(4) None of the characters has multi-classes and has rogue or monk levels.

(5) Motivation enough exists to cause the rogue to search for traps on the secret door and the lever.

(6) The above mentioned motivation can be due to a number of factors, including (but not limited to) knowledge of play style, previous encounters in this complex, knowledge of real world traps, knowledge of the real world implications of levers, previous encounters in the campaign, etc.

So, before examining the three assumptions required to make this trap unfair (or, if you are Ridley's Cohort, you only require #1 and #3 to be valid), let us examine the hypothetical scenario given, and determine what information we can derive therefrom.

So, given the six assumptions derived from the OP, what do you agree with, and what do you disagree with, and why?

RC

 

[Delta]

Here's a question: Would you consider "fair" a dungeon that has an 83% death rate among even top-notch, expert D&D players?

Like the Goodman Games tournament at 2005 Gen Con?

 

[Someone]

From this, I make a number of assumptions:

(1) That the word useage indicates that there is only one rogue and one monk in the party.

(2) The party members are all the same level.

(3) The monk has the highest saves in the party.

(4) None of the characters has multi-classes and has rogue or monk levels.

(5) Motivation enough exists to cause the rogue to search for traps on the secret door and the lever.

(6) The above mentioned motivation can be due to a number of factors, including (but not limited to) knowledge of play style, previous encounters in this complex, knowledge of real world traps, knowledge of the real world implications of levers, previous encounters in the campaign, etc.

So, before examining the three assumptions required to make this trap unfair (or, if you are Ridley's Cohort, you only require #1 and #3 to be valid), let us examine the hypothetical scenario given, and determine what information we can derive therefrom.

So, given the six assumptions derived from the OP, what do you agree with, and what do you disagree with, and why?

RC

This is very interesting. How´s that you think those assumptions are valid or not, or more valid than other possible assumptions, yet when I posted mine they weren´t valid for the argument because they were assumptions and not logical neccesities?

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Here's a question: Would you consider "fair" a dungeon that has an 83% death rate among even top-notch, expert D&D players?

Like the Goodman Games tournament at 2005 Gen Con?

In a tournement setting with throwaway character that you have no connection with, where the intent is to game the module in the most tactical situation and "win" then yes.

In a home campaign, where characters are cherished adnd the intent is to enjoy challenges that you character can overcome with thought and planning, but you aren't trying to "win" you are trying to have a good time, then no.

 

[Delta]

So, following the brevity of the original post in this thread, is that a vote for "other"?

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is very interesting. How´s that you think those assumptions are valid or not, or more valid than other possible assumptions, yet when I posted mine they weren´t valid for the argument because they were assumptions and not logical neccesities?

No argument can proceed without some assumptions. However, there is a very big difference between base assumptions and reasoning derived from base assumptions. Stating your base assumptions allows others to determine whether or not any reasoning built upon those assumptions is going to be of any value whatsoever.

A chain of logical reasoning requires steps between the base assumptions and the conclusions drawn.

In the case of your assumptions, "The builder was a moron" is an assumption that is actually built on other, unstated, assumptions that could not be derived from the original post. In fact, it is an assumption that pre-supposes the condition that you wish to prove through the use of that assumption.

Examine the assumptions that I bring up (and I note that you do not say whether or not you think that they are valid):

(1) That the word useage indicates that there is only one rogue and one monk in the party.

I am assuming that when the OP says the[/] rogue and the[/] monk, that this usage is designed to imply that there is only one rogue and only one monk. Is this a valid assumption?

(2) The party members are all the same level.

I am assuming this because it is a staple in the 3.X rules. If, OTOH, the example was using 1e or 2e, I would not make this assumption. Is this a valid assumption?

(3) The monk has the highest saves in the party.

Again, I am assuming the Core Mechanics, and the default assumptions of the Core Mechanics, are being used. If this is not the case, then it will be impossible to say anything about the fairness or unfairness of the trap simply because it is impossible that we have enough information available to us at this time. Is this a valid assumption?

(4) None of the characters has multi-classes and has rogue or monk levels.

Again, I am basing this on the OP's use of the monk and the rogue. Is this a valid assumption?

(5) Motivation enough exists to cause the rogue to search for traps on the secret door and the lever.

I am following the basic rule that suggests that any action has a cause. Is this a valid assumption?

(6) The above mentioned motivation can be due to a number of factors, including (but not limited to) knowledge of play style, previous encounters in this complex, knowledge of real world traps, knowledge of the real world implications of levers, previous encounters in the campaign, etc.

I am refining the previous assumption, and asserting that any action has a cause which can be known or reasonably inferred if there is enough data presented. Basically, I am making the assumption that the players in the example are not insane. Either the players react to the environment that the DM presents, or they do not. If the former is the case, then their actions allow us some insight into the environment that the DM presents. If not, then there can be no valid assessment of the relative value of what the DM presents. Is this a valid assumption?

So, given the six assumptions derived from the OP, what do you agree with, and what do you disagree with, and why?

 

[Nightfall]

Shenanigans! I have to say it again, Shenanigans!

And with feeling... Shenanigans!

 

[Screaming Monkey]

I don't think it's either fair or unfair. I would however say it's just a bit harsh, but that's just me - a nice DM.

 

[Someone]

No argument can proceed without some assumptions. However, there is a very big difference between base assumptions and reasoning derived from base assumptions. Stating your base assumptions allows others to determine whether or not any reasoning built upon those assumptions is going to be of any value whatsoever.


A chain of logical reasoning requires steps between the base assumptions and the conclusions drawn.

That´s OK

In the case of your assumptions, "The builder was a moron" is an assumption that is actually built on other, unstated, assumptions that could not be derived from the original post. In fact, it is an assumption that pre-supposes the condition that you wish to prove through the use of that assumption.

That´s false. That was derived logically from the OP and or course some base assumptions, assumptions that were in my opinion more reasonable that your own counter-assumptions. Since you didn´t try to demonstrate that your assumtions were more reasonable, I understand you conceded it. You tried instead to refute my argument stating that, since my assumptions were, well, assumptions, they were not a neccesity and therefore dismissable, wich I took for a joke from your part until you insisted.

So, given the six assumptions derived from the OP, what do you agree with, and what do you disagree with, and why?

First, I´ll say that I pretty much agree with your assumptions, and that you´re making a lot more than the ones you´re posting here; that the rogue´Search skill was relatively high; that they didn´t need desperately a escape route; that the monk´s health was good, that the party indeed had a rope and other means to operate the lever other than manually... I could go on. However, I´ll refute you using your own arguments. You can´t use those assumtions because there are other logical possibilities; some of them:

I am assuming that when the OP says the rogue and the monk, that this usage is designed to imply that there is only one rogue and only one monk. Is this a valid assumption?

No since he could use "the" to indicate one particular rogue. English is a flexible language and the original poster had no obligation to use "one of the rogues" or "one of the monks" and still be correct. Maybe he´s no so fluent in English after all, or was late, and he didn´t thought that using "the" he could be inducing confusion. You can´t assume there were only one rogue and one monk.

I am assuming this because it is a staple in the 3.X rules.

It´s a extended practice, but not obligatory. The rules do not force anyone to play characters of the same level, and circumstances like level draining, dieing and being raised, dieing and creating another character, and spending XP on spells and item creation will create parties with characters of different level. You can´t assume they all were of the same level.

Again, I am assuming the Core Mechanics, and the default assumptions of the Core Mechanics, are being used. If this is not the case, then it will be impossible to say anything about the fairness or unfairness of the trap simply because it is impossible that we have enough information available to us at this time. Is this a valid assumption?

No, from your point of view. The monk could have been cursed, or have very low abilities, or just be of lower level, which all are common circumstances. You can´t assume he had the highest saves.

(4) None of the characters has multi-classes and has rogue or monk levels.

Again, I am basing this on the OP's use of the monk and the rogue. Is this a valid assumption?

See above.

(5) Motivation enough exists to cause the rogue to search for traps on the secret door and the lever.

I am following the basic rule that suggests that any action has a cause. Is this a valid assumption?

Non sequitur. From the premises a) every action has a cause and b) searching for traps is an action, you can just conclude conclude that searching from traps had a cause, not anything about what that cause was. Surely, if as you told me many times, installing a killer trap must not have the purpose of killing, searching for traps must have a large number of causes other than the desire of finding traps.

Basically, I am making the assumption that the players in the example are not insane. Either the players react to the environment that the DM presents, or they do not. If the former is the case, then their actions allow us some insight into the environment that the DM presents. If not, then there can be no valid assessment of the relative value of what the DM presents. Is this a valid assumption?

As I´ve demonstrated, there are a number of other logical possibilities (I mean they are not impossible a priory, not that they are more plausible than your assumptions) which you´ve used to infer if that player´s playstile is right or wrong and therefore they theserved to die or not. Which is a red herring since the OP asked if the trap was fair, not if the players did well.

Yet, when I did exactly the same and also used a number of assumptions, also the most plausible based on the OP, about the DM's playstyle and how he designed the dungeon, you dismissed it saying I was basing my case on assumptions. I´d like to know if you changed your mind, or just want to win the argument no matter what.

 

[Nightfall]

Shenanigans!

There. I'm done for now.