Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[ThirdWizard]

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).

Ahh, see, I don't agree that it can be judged objectively fair. I agree with those criterium on a subjective level for judging fairness of my own game. In other words, for me to think something is fair, it would definately have to conform to those rules.

I think the most objective way to look at fairness has to look at an individual group. I think that the easiest way to indicate fairness is to determine the likelihood of a trap being bypassed. And, that will vary from group to group.

For example, in my group, there is almost a 100% chance that someone would die to this trap. That means that the trap is unfair by my standards. If one of those criterium were changed, say the rogue could find the trap present with a Take 20, then a PC will not definately die from the trap, and I can once again look at it to see if it is fair.

Groups will also have different levels of what they'll accept. Some might accept an 80% chance of PC death, while others would accept a 20% chance of PC death on traps. So, I do think you really have to take the group into consideration. A trap that has a low chance of killing a PC in your game would be fair, but place that same trap in my game for a 100% PC death chance, and suddenly it doesn't look so fair.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I reiterate- this trap is more fair than the 50'+ spiked pit trap that almost claimed one of our party in RttToEE...and I think THAT was a fair trap as well.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ahh, see, I don't agree that it can be judged objectively fair. I agree with those criterium on a subjective level for judging fairness of my own game. In other words, for me to think something is fair, it would definately have to conform to those rules.

I think the most objective way to look at fairness has to look at an individual group. I think that the easiest way to indicate fairness is to determine the likelihood of a trap being bypassed. And, that will vary from group to group.

For example, in my group, there is almost a 100% chance that someone would die to this trap. That means that the trap is unfair by my standards. If one of those criterium were changed, say the rogue could find the trap present with a Take 20, then a PC will not definately die from the trap, and I can once again look at it to see if it is fair.

Groups will also have different levels of what they'll accept. Some might accept an 80% chance of PC death, while others would accept a 20% chance of PC death on traps. So, I do think you really have to take the group into consideration. A trap that has a low chance of killing a PC in your game would be fair, but place that same trap in my game for a 100% PC death chance, and suddenly it doesn't look so fair.

I would certainly agree with you that the dynamic of any individual group can include a spoken or unspoken social contract, and that a violation of that social contract can be unfair, even if the thing which is therefore unfair is not intrinsically unfair in and of itself. Drinking Diet Root Beer while gaming is not intrinsically unfair, but a social contract could be imagined wherein drinking Diet Root Beer could become unfair in context.

Because a thing can be placed in a context where it becomes unfair does not make that thing unfair in and of itself. A combination of A + B can be unfair, where neither A nor B are unfair on their own.

I would say that fairness/unfairness exists within the individual group more as a construct of A + B than as a question of intrinsic fairness or unfairness. Before you had agreed to three conditions that, if existing, would mean that the trap was unfair in the context of the OP. You seem to be backing away from that agreement, and you haven't yet told me whether or not you find the assumptions I am making acceptable for discussing those conditions.

Maybe, before we can even discuss whether or not this trap is fair, we should come up with some working definition of what fairness is?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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:

It doesn't matter whether or not the rogue's Search skill was relatively high.

The OP states that the dungeon was otherwise cleared, so it requires no assumption that they didn't desperately need an escape route.

It doesn't matter whether or not the monk's health was good.

It doesn't matter whether or not the party has a rope.

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 made that assumption as the Devil's Advocate to my own position.

IF there was more than one rogue, THEN having "the rogue" Take 20 while Searching for traps and fail does not mean that the party cannot find the trap through the use of Search, unless and until all additional characters perform the Aid Another action while the rogue Takes 20.

If it is possible that there were other rogues in the party, we can no longer say that trap meets our first condition for unfairness. It must be either Fair or Maybe/Other.

Likewise, if we are free to assume that the monk was cursed with 1 hp, then the trap cannot be said to meet condition 2.

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.

When did I say that installing a killer trap doesn't have the purpose of killing?

I did say that installing a killer trap doesn't necessarily have the purpose of protecting your valuables (i.e., you cannot always presume that the appearance of a trap means that you are going the right way to reach the monsters or their stuff), and that you wouldn't want to install it where you were likely to trigger it yourself. Pretty obvious, in my book.

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.

Again, you mistake an assumption meant to establish a proposition with an example meant to demonstrate that the initial assumption might not be valid. Secondarily, you conflate the idea that a player's playstyle might be inappropriate for a given game with the idea that their playstyle is objectively or absolutely right or wrong. There is nothing wrong with, say, wanting to play the game as an unpaid thespian, however, playing in that style will not always produce the desired result in all scenarios.

An inability to react to the environment rationally is not a good thing for anyone, IMHO, and in the game (as in real life) we must frequently deal with how things are rather than how we would like them to be[/b].

Sarah: It's not fair!
Goblin King: You keep saying that. I wonder what your basis of comparison is?​

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

Fairness is basically equallity. Sometimes it means that both sides are playing by the same rules (baseball). Sometimes it means one side must give an advantage to the other (golf). It is generally used in competitions between people, from one's chance for a promotion (a fair shake) to the price of car that is trying to be sold/bought (a fair price).

Fairness in my game can be figured out by those three things. I never intended to imply otherwise.

If we're looking for objective fairness (which I don't think exists in the context of RPGs) then the only way you're going to get any real data to work with is a sample group and see what they think. Since over 50% of the people in this poll voted unfair, I think we can safely assume that this would be deemed unfair in a majority of games on ENWorld. How much more objective can you get than that? Double the people voted unfair as voted fair.

The idea that you can throw something perfectly fair at a party of PCs and have a 100% chance to kill one of them is just strange to me. If its going to kill 100% of them, how is it fair? If you give me a sword and someone else a sword and tell us to fight, is it fair because we both have swords? Not if he's been practicing kendo for 20 years and I've been practicing judo for 20 years.

 

[Someone]

The OP states that the dungeon was otherwise cleared, so it requires no assumption that they didn't desperately need an escape route

"The whole place is gonna blow! wee ned to get outta here!"

"If the king doesn´t get the McGuffin soon... he´ll DIE!!"

Sorry, I couldn´t help it. You assume they tried the level out of curiosity or greed. Continuing with this all would be very amusing, but better if we go to the meat of the question

Again, you mistake an assumption meant to establish a proposition with an example meant to demonstrate that the initial assumption might not be valid.

Thank you. You finally got it; I kindly direct you to the history of the orcs that found the lever and what happened then.

Secondarily, you conflate the idea that a player's playstyle might be inappropriate for a given game with the idea that their playstyle is objectively or absolutely right or wrong. There is nothing wrong with, say, wanting to play the game as an unpaid thespian, however, playing in that style will not always produce the desired result in all scenarios.

An inability to react to the environment rationally is not a good thing for anyone, IMHO, and in the game (as in real life) we must frequently deal with how things are rather than how we would like them to be.

Sarah: It's not fair!
Goblin King: You keep saying that. I wonder what your basis of comparison is?​

RC

So, I understand that, from your point of view, the trap is fair no matter what?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Okay. Try this:

There is an encounter.

Is your default that the encounter is fair unless there is reason to believe otherwise, or that it is unfair unless there is reason to believe otherwise?

 

[Someone]

None of those two options: the default is "I don´t have enough information."

I see your point, though; you think that in doubt, the DM is "innocent". The move is also quite astute: if I respond "fair", then you can easily point that there´s no enough evidence to condemn the encounter; if I say "unfair" you accuse me of being biased.

I don´t think however this is what we´re discussing; what you posted is similar to this:

"There is a man.

Is your default that the man is tall unless there is reason to believe otherwise, or that it is short unless there is reason to believe otherwise?"

I have a set of parameters on what is fair and unfair the same way as I have a set of parameters on when is a parson tall, and compare the information presented in the OP, filling the gaps with the most reasonable (IMO) assumptions (assumptions we all have to make).

This has two problems, as I´m the first admiting: my take on what´s fair and unfair is subjective, the same way that the opinion of at what exact height is a man tall or short varies from person to person, and even can vary depending on the circumstances; the trap may be perfectly fine in a campaing where people play characters called "Ted the fighter XVI", and part of the fun is that everyone dies at least twice per session, but won´t fit the standard of "fair" in most of the campaings.

Also, my assumptions and the logical construction built on them may either not be the most reasonable (though I still think they are, not having been shown otherwise) or I could have misinterpreted the OP (but I don´t think so)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Okay. Try this:

There is an encounter.

Is your default that the encounter is fair unless there is reason to believe otherwise, or that it is unfair unless there is reason to believe otherwise?

What's the party level, and do they have the default wealth? What's the CR? Is this an end boss encounter or is it a random encounter? Did the PCs have ample opportunity to avoid the encounter, or was it thrown against them without their ability to avoid it? Is the battle stacked against them in some way beyond the usual assumptions (things like in an antimagic field or underwater)? Does the party have some kind of advantage against the enemy (bane weapons, etc)?

There are so many options available in this game that there is no default.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

That's why the equipment list has ROPE!

Fair ball.

The Wizard/Sorcerer spell Mage Hand works great for situations like this.

However...

Somehow I think we are missing part of the story. If that really is what happened I'd have a problem if the Rogue successfully checked for traps. However, if the DM is like me he/she would never let the Rogue player (or the party for that matter) know if the Rogue succeeded or not... I make detection rolls for my players.