Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Someone]

Someone, since I can state my criteria for tall (over X inches, for example), please state your criteria for fair.

I´f you don´t mind running in circles chasing the ever shifting argument is quickly losing it´s charm, so if you don´t mind I won´t (again)

Just one slightly off topic comment:

BTW, argumentum ad numerum certainly is a fallacy. Research it if you don't believe me

Normally yes, but there are circumstances where it´s not: specifically when it´s the general consensus what defines if a thing is true or not. One example is language: is true that "chair" means what it means because the vast majority of the english speakers agree on that.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Here's an encounter.

The PCs have obtained the McGuffin. They come across a doorway and if anyone walks through it forward then they save or die. If they walk through it backward then they bypass the trap. There are no clues to how to walk through it. The trap search DC is too high for the rogue in the party but exists. The person in the group with the highest save can only make it on a 20.

Fair or unfair?

AFAIC this is basically the same trap as the OP's. If the PCs do some arbitrary thing that will be obvious to anyone who is used to arbitrary traps (like levers that must be pulled by ropes) but to most people it will just kill them. They also didn't have to walk through the door.

If there was a series of encounters that was perfectly fair, by the book, easy even when you wrote it, and then by bungling and bad luck I was in far worse condition than you expected, and you saw that the final encounter would surely end my PC's life, I would still find it unfair for you to change that encounter or fudge your rolls. That violates the social contract of any game that I would find enjoyable. That doesn't mean that changing the encounter or fudging rolls is objectively unfair, but it is another "A + B = unfair" situation.

Rolling a 19 on a save and checking for traps are neither bad luck nor bungling. In fact, the party did everything right but still died to the trap. This is due to some arbitrary idea the DM had about pulling the lever with a rope or just leaving it alone. Or are we now assuming that it wasn't a death trap and that the monk was low on hp, and suffered because he didn't get healed after the last battle?

No, a party at full power with all their spells and all the options available to them would still have a fatality to this encounter because there was no recourse to react to the situation. The monk died, and there wasn't a thing they could do to prevent it short of knowing that the lever was trapped and how to bypass it.

This isn't like a combat where if they roll low for a while things can go bad. I know that. PCs die. It's unavoidable. But, that isn't the case here.

Is the man guilty?

You started the whole "There's an encounter, is it fair or unfair?" Then said that you consider it fair and proceded to claim that because I said I needed more information that I was somehow saying it was unfair. And, just in case you disagree:

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?

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

See, I guess here is where we differ. I thought it was quite clearly indicated in the game rules that there is a default. I was under the perhaps misguided belief that the DM was running the game, setting up the encounters, etc., and that the DM had the authority to do this. I was not under the impression that the DM was forced to design by committee. In fact, the rules seem to me to be rather clear that the DM adjudicates.

The only way to interpriet this is that you believe that your null encounter was fair. So if your null encounter is fair, why isn't null situation fair as well? Or are only your null situations fair? How can you even pretend to judge the null situation at all? But, you did. And, you have to defend that claim or give it up for the absurd statement that it is.

 

[gizmo33]

So what if my dungeon is judged "unfair" by the Council of Fairness? So what? The important part of the "fairness" debate to me would be the part that is useful. I know that my "unfair" dungeon has been judged "fun" by the players involved. So then what good is someone else's opinion about fairness?

I can't go to some player and say "you should have had fun because I submitted my dungeon to the Council of Fairness and they have it a gold star rating". Neither can some player tell me that the reason that he didn't have fun was because something was wrong with my dungeon.

The "child-like" reaction to a situation is to say "that's not fair", which is a left-over habit from dealing with omnipotent parent figures all of the time. IMO what this is really needs to be about is negotiating expectations with the other adults (or quasi-adults) that you deal with in the game, and doing your best to make sure folks are having a good time and at the same time trying to accomplish your own creative goals.

What fatality % is acceptable? What if you're 100% likely to be raised from the dead after being 100% likely to die? Especially in high level games (but probably all) there are so many variables and possible player actions (divinations, wish, raise dead) that I only have a hazy notion of what the "% survival" rate is IMC for any given encounter, and I don't think I'll ever be submitting it to the Council of Fairness for approval.

I think "fairness" is a useful thing to discuss subjectively - as long as it remains subjective and respective of various DMs styles. I know that I'm bothered as a player when things are too easy and the DM fudges and keeps my player alive. That doesn't mean the game is "unfair". It's just using a "% survival" that I don't care for. A DM should understand that there are different players out there with different preferences. But I don't think anyone should dictate to a DM what his survival rate ought to be.

 

[ThirdWizard]

gizmo33, I agree with everything you just said.

Some groups might find anything acceptable so long as it isn't a 100% chance of a TPK. Others might find something acceptable only if all the PCs have a chance to survive. As levels rise in D&D, I find myself shifting from the latter to the former. Once true ressurection is readily available, then death is just an inconvenience, after all. The PCs shrug, toss some diamond dust around and move on.

 

[Harlekin]

So what if my dungeon is judged "unfair" by the Council of Fairness? So what? The important part of the "fairness" debate to me would be the part that is useful. I know that my "unfair" dungeon has been judged "fun" by the players involved. So then what good is someone else's opinion about fairness?

I can't go to some player and say "you should have had fun because I submitted my dungeon to the Council of Fairness and they have it a gold star rating". Neither can some player tell me that the reason that he didn't have fun was because something was wrong with my dungeon.

The "child-like" reaction to a situation is to say "that's not fair", which is a left-over habit from dealing with omnipotent parent figures all of the time. IMO what this is really needs to be about is negotiating expectations with the other adults (or quasi-adults) that you deal with in the game, and doing your best to make sure folks are having a good time and at the same time trying to accomplish your own creative goals.

What fatality % is acceptable? What if you're 100% likely to be raised from the dead after being 100% likely to die? Especially in high level games (but probably all) there are so many variables and possible player actions (divinations, wish, raise dead) that I only have a hazy notion of what the "% survival" rate is IMC for any given encounter, and I don't think I'll ever be submitting it to the Council of Fairness for approval.

I think "fairness" is a useful thing to discuss subjectively - as long as it remains subjective and respective of various DMs styles. I know that I'm bothered as a player when things are too easy and the DM fudges and keeps my player alive. That doesn't mean the game is "unfair". It's just using a "% survival" that I don't care for. A DM should understand that there are different players out there with different pre
ferences. But I don't think anyone should dictate to a DM what his survival rate ought to be.

It should provide you with an idea on how to improve as a GM. After all, your group probably considered the game fun although there was an unfair trap at the end, not because there was a pointless fatality. Furthermore it will also give you an idea what players other than your regular group might think of your style of adventure design.

 

[gizmo33]

It should provide you with an idea on how to improve as a GM. After all, your group probably considered the game fun although there was an unfair trap at the end, not because there was a pointless fatality. Furthermore it will also give you an idea what players other than your regular group might think of your style of adventure design.

My "regular group"? How many regular groups do you think I've DMed over the last 25 years? Would it be unfair if your character was eaten by a sphinx for not guessing correctly?

In my time I've used many unfair traps, but there have been no pointless fatalities.

Ok, seriously though, we agree. Other people's opinions about what makes for a good DnD game and what doesn't are good to know (it can't hurt). That's why I come to the message boards. However IME the opinions and attitudes that I see on the internet about DnD doesn't 100% match the players that I've DMed over the years. People (myself included) tend to make too much of hypothetical situations where all factors cannot be taken into account.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's an encounter.

The PCs have obtained the McGuffin. They come across a doorway and if anyone walks through it forward then they save or die. If they walk through it backward then they bypass the trap. There are no clues to how to walk through it. The trap search DC is too high for the rogue in the party but exists. The person in the group with the highest save can only make it on a 20.

Fair or unfair?

AFAIC this is basically the same trap as the OP's. If the PCs do some arbitrary thing that will be obvious to anyone who is used to arbitrary traps (like levers that must be pulled by ropes) but to most people it will just kill them. They also didn't have to walk through the door.

Unfair. But then, this is not the same trap as the OP's.

Tell me specifically why you believe the OP's trap to be unfair, and then those claims can be rationally examined. The idea that something -- anything -- is unfair because of some whim you may have is simply....unfair.

Rolling a 19 on a save and checking for traps are neither bad luck nor bungling. In fact, the party did everything right but still died to the trap.

They did everything right? The rogue didn't maximize his chances of finding traps, did he? In fact, although it is clear that the party suspected a trap, they did almost nothing to prevent falling victim to it.

RC

P.S.: In my encounter example, you know an encounter took place. There is something to be judged fair or unfair. Lacking futher evidence, we should consider it fair. In Ridley's Cohort's example, there is no encounter to be judged, so there is nothing to be said to be fair or unfair.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Unfair. But then, this is not the same trap as the OP's.

So, the DM's arbitrary decision to make them use rope to pull a lever is different than his arbitrary decision to make them walk through a door backwards? I don't think so. In a game where the playstyle has encouraged the use of rope to pull levers in the past, this might be correct, but that is a particular playstyle, not something that is prevalent among all gamers. Most gamers wouldn't even think to pull the lever with a rope.

Just like most gamers wouldn't think to walk through the door backwards. But, in a game where the DM makes the PCs walk through doors funny, they'll use augury to figure out how to walk through every door in a dungeon correctly. Thus, it is just as fair as the lever.

Tell me specifically why you believe the OP's trap to be unfair, and then those claims can be rationally examined. The idea that something -- anything -- is unfair because of some whim you may have is simply....unfair.

Because it will kill a PC in my game.

They did everything right? The rogue didn't maximize his chances of finding traps, did he? In fact, although it is clear that the party suspected a trap, they did almost nothing to prevent falling victim to it.

Yes. They did everything right.

See, your belief that they should have taken extra precautions is purely based on your past experiences with your own style of gaming. It is a playstyle choice that you have chosen. In order to believe that there is an objectively fair trap, you have to believe that there is an objectively correct way to approach traps. In order to believe that there is an objectively correct way to approach traps, you have to believe that there is an objectively better way to play the game.

Your belief that they did almost nothing to prevent falling victim to it approaches insulting to my playstyle. Why does your playstyle get to be the objectively correct one, but mine doesn't? Why is your method of dealing with possible traps the objectively correct one while mine is inferior? Especially when your playstyle is in the minority!

The answer is that there is no objectively correct playstyle and thus there are no objectively fair traps.

P.S.: In my encounter example, you know an encounter took place. There is something to be judged fair or unfair. Lacking futher evidence, we should consider it fair. In Ridley's Cohort's example, there is no encounter to be judged, so there is nothing to be said to be fair or unfair.

Hardly. Here's everything you told us about your null encounter:

There is an encounter.

Here's everything he told us about his encounter:

Here is some information regarding a hypothetical encounter to look at:

In both, we know that an encounter exists, and that's it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

ThirdWizard,

There is no decision to make the PCs use a rope to pull a lever. There is a lever, and it is trapped.

Your belief that they did almost nothing to prevent falling victim to it approaches insulting to my playstyle. Why does your playstyle get to be the objectively correct one, but mine doesn't? Why is your method of dealing with possible traps the objectively correct one while mine is inferior? Especially when your playstyle is in the minority!

A few things:

(1) They did almost nothing. The rogue Searched. That is all they did. The rogue didn't even Take 10 or Take 20 to normalize or maximize his chance of success. If this is somehow not "almost nothing" then I have to ask what could they have done that would have been both some form of action, and yet closer to nothing? Have the monk Search? And if they did have the monk Search instead, I imagine that you would still find the observation insulting to your playstyle.

(2) Objectively fair and objectively correct are not co-equal. Just as all salmon are fish, but not all fish are salmon, all playstyles have the potential to be objectively fair, but not everything that is objectively fair is part of one particular playstyle. The set of encounters which is objectively fair is greater than the set of encounters that make up normal within the context of any playstyle.

Thus, when you say things like "The answer is that there is no objectively correct playstyle and thus there are no objectively fair traps", the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

(3) That the aforementioned observations approach insulting any playstyle is ludicrous.

(4) You obviously missed the several times that I said I would not personally use a trap like this as a DM. We are not talking about my playstyle vs. your playstyle. The encounter in the OP is not in my preferred playstyle. It is, nonetheless, fair. Fair is not fair simply because I like it. Nor is unfair simply unfair because you don't like it.

In both, we know that an encounter exists, and that's it.

Then both should be considered fair until/unless we have reason to believe otherwise.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

There is no decision to make the PCs use a rope to pull a lever. There is a lever, and it is trapped.

There is no decision to make the PCs walk through the doorway backwards. There is a doorway and it is trapped. The PCs can walk through the doorway forward if they want. They'll just die. Just like the PCs can pull the lever if they want. They'll just die.

(1) They did almost nothing. The rogue Searched. That is all they did. The rogue didn't even Take 10 or Take 20 to normalize or maximize his chance of success.

That's an assumption. We know the rogue used the Search skill, we do not know how. It could be that he spent 1 round. It could be that he spent 20. There is no way for us to know either way.

(2) Objectively fair and objectively correct are not co-equal. Just as all salmon are fish, but not all fish are salmon, all playstyles have the potential to be objectively fair, but not everything that is objectively fair is part of one particular playstyle. The set of encounters which is objectively fair is greater than the set of encounters that make up normal within the context of any playstyle.

I disagree. For a trap to be objectively fair, there has to be an objectively correct way to to handle traps.

How about this? The objectively correct way to check for traps is to make a Search check and assume you are correct in your check. Therefore, the only objectively fair traps are those which can be detected with the search skill of the PC with the highest possible Search check. Therefore, the trap in question is objecively unfair.

QED

Can you prove that wrong? If it is objective, you can provide a proof to the contrary.

(3) That the aforementioned observations approach insulting any playstyle is ludicrous.

No, it isn't. And it is insulting. If there is an objectively fair way to handle traps, then there has to be an objectively correct way to approach traps as a PC. Otherwise, the trap wouldn't be objectively fair. If there weren't an objectively fair way to approach traps in game as a PC then it would be impossible to know if a trap were fair or not unless we know the group's playstyle.

Which is what I've been saying all along. Fairness is completely determined by the group dynamic. There is no objectively fair trap that is independant of the group its attached to. There is no control group that completely lacks a playstyle which we can examine to determiine what is fair or unfair.

This trap in particular is indicative of a playstyle that practically died out in the larger gaming community about a decade and a half ago. If ENWorld weren't made up of so many old school gamers who started in OD&D and 1e D&D then I would imagine that the numbers would be skewed even further toward unfair. That a community made up of so many old schoolers still has a majority that says its unfair should indicate this to us.

(4) You obviously missed the several times that I said I would not personally use a trap like this as a DM. We are not talking about my playstyle vs. your playstyle. The encounter in the OP is not in my preferred playstyle. It is, nonetheless, fair. Fair is not fair simply because I like it. Nor is unfair simply unfair because you don't like it.

That's exactly how it works. You keep saying that there is an objective fairness. That just isn't true unless you start preaching the One True Way, which I know you won't do. There is no magical group out there who can determine whether something is fair or not, because there is no context that you are putting it in other than "all games everywhere."

There can probably be an objective fair in tournament modules designed for a particular group. There can probably be an objective fair in Living campaigns in the RPGA. There can probably be objective fair in a particular DM's given home game. There cannot be an objective fair that has any validity in all games everywhere.

Then both should be considered fair until/unless we have reason to believe otherwise.

I disagree. There isn't enough information for me to make a decision.