Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Raven Crowking]

Not at all. I'm saying that if someone has that certain playstyle, you can't tell them that they are playing the game objectively wrong. I'm saying that they aren't having wrongbadfun, and they are just as entitled to play the way they think is best as you are entitled to play the way you think is best.

Does that mean that the trap in the OP is fair?

 

[ThirdWizard]

No no no. You have missed it.

"Because it will kill a PC in my game" is how I determine fairness for purposes in this poll. That is how I determine if I should use something in my game. If it will kill a PC in my game, then I can't use it because it would be unfair.

That doesn't mean it holds anything for games other than mine. Let me quote myself before:

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.

Fair and unfair are merely subjective qualities. There is no such thing as a fair game. There is no such thing as an unfair game. There are only fair and unfair encounters that depend completely on the social contract of the game in question. In one game, this trap might very well be fair. It isn't in mine, and that's the only way I know to vote besides Other, which I think is a cop out.

I'm not the one claiming that there is an objective fair out there, you are. You're the one claiming that there is a way to determine if something is fair or not and if it doesn't conform to what you believe to be fair then it isn't fair. You're the one claiming that if it does conform to what you believe to be fair then it is fair. Not me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Because it will kill a PC in my game" is how I determine fairness for purposes in this poll. That is how I determine if I should use something in my game. If it will kill a PC in my game, then I can't use it because it would be unfair.

Okay. But the OP isn't in your game.

Is it fair or not?

 

[ThirdWizard]

That is an example of the ever-shifting burden of proof. At one point, we actually agreed on a burden of proof. What made you change your mind? I submit that it was that, as the consequences of that burden of proof became apparent, they did not support your position.

So, you can proclaim something as true, I have to prove it wrong, but if I want to proclaim something as truth, you don't have to prove it wrong is what you're saying.

I never said that that the thing we agreed on before applies to all people everywhere. I can't even begin to comprehend how that would be possible. It works for my game. But, that doesn't mean it can work for all games everywhere. There's a huge difference. And as soon as you started saying that it was objective, then the implication is that it should be universal, and that is just not true.

Quote, please.

Seriously?

Search And Disable Device DCs

The builder sets the Search and Disable Device DCs for a mechanical trap. For a magic trap, the values depend on the highest-level spell used.
Mechanical Trap

The base DC for both Search and Disable Device checks is 20. Raising or lowering either of these DCs affects the base cost (Table: Cost Modifiers for Mechanical Traps) and possibly the CR (Table: CR Modifiers for Mechanical Traps).
Magic Trap

The DC for both Search and Disable Device checks is equal to 25 + the spell level of the highest-level spell used. Only characters with the trap sense class feature can attempt a Search check or a Disable Device check involving a magic trap. These DCs do not affect the trap’s cost or CR.

No. You must establish the lowest common denominator if, and only if, the basis for "fairness" is in relationship to each individual. Which might be why you find the "difficult" trap of the OP unfair, while I find it fair. I am saying that the trap is fair if it falls within the set of "Fair Playstyles" while you are saying that it is fair only if it falls within the lowest common denominator of that set.

You're trying to determine a universal objective fairness correct? Well, if you want to determine a universal objective fairness, you have to take into considerations groups other than your own.

Okay. But the OP isn't in your game.

Is it fair or not?

It isn't in your game either.

Honestly, I can't determine if it is fair or unfair based on the OP because I don't know what the context of the game is in question. I belive I've admitted that somewhere back on page 3 or 4 or something.

But, that isn't the point of the poll. The point of the poll is to determine what people think of the trap in question, and I have to say that I find it unfair in the context of what I think is and is not fair based on what I find and do not find fun and appealing in a game of Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Lanefan]

"Because it will kill a PC in my game" is how I determine fairness for purposes in this poll. That is how I determine if I should use something in my game. If it will kill a PC in my game, then I can't use it because it would be unfair.

That solves traps, but how about monsters? Do you ever run anything against your PC's that exceeds their ability to deal with it, such that their only option is to leave it alone; or that the party will most likely only be able to kill if they take casualties in the process? Do you ever run assassins against the party, well enough that if the target PC standing watch fails one spot/listen check (and if the Assassin is good enough, that'd be a right hard check) that PC is auto-dead if the Assassin hits? If yes, then the discussion returns to this trap. If no, then I suspect in general you're rather easy on your PC's...

As a DM, it's your job to try and kill the PC's. Furthermore, it's your job to succeed once in a while so the players know the threat is real and will play their characters accordingly...

Lanefan

 

[ThirdWizard]

That solves traps, but how about monsters? Do you ever run anything against your PC's that exceeds their ability to deal with it, such that their only option is to leave it alone; or that the party will most likely only be able to kill if they take casualties in the process?

It depends on what you mean. The PCs know about a green dragon that is poweful (though they don't know its exact age category). It would slaughter them right now, and they could go fight it if they wished. There are also a pair of axiomatic illithids that they can go attack if they want, but if they do, they'll definately suffer at least one casualty.

Also, as they go up in levels they are facing more save or die situations in combat encounters, but raise dead and ressurection become more easily available as those get more difficult. I've had a 2 PC deaths over the last 3 sessions because of a string of bad rolls. In all these cases, though, they've had what I consider a fair chance, based on what I consider acceptable die roll requirements (hey, its a random game).

I don't drop encounters on them that are 100% lethal to one PC without giving them an opportunity to avoid it, however. I recently had a PC die in a surprise round due to bad rolls in an assassin attack, and he's been complaining about it endlessly, but I stand by my actions. He had a Spot roll, there were three attack rolls, and there was a saving throw involved. That's enough for my book to make it fair.

Do you ever run assassins against the party, well enough that if the target PC standing watch fails one spot/listen check (and if the Assassin is good enough, that'd be a right hard check) that PC is auto-dead if the Assassin hits? If yes, then the discussion returns to this trap. If no, then I suspect in general you're rather easy on your PC's...

I suppose I would, but that would be an insanely difficult check considering Death Attack has to be used with a melee attack. The PCs in my game use Leomund's Tiny Hut, though, when traveling. I also run more urban games, and the PCs know to spend their money on hired guards, and have outfitted their guard captain with magical items.

Their enemy actually had a contract taken out against them with an assassin's guild. They would be randomly attacked, and that resulted in two PC fatalities before they did anything about it, finally.

As a DM, it's your job to try and kill the PC's. Furthermore, it's your job to succeed once in a while so the players know the threat is real and will play their characters accordingly...

I disagree. My job is to challenge the PCs in a way that the group deems fair in order to maximize fun.

 

[gizmo33]

So, rather than promoting "the most inclusive definition of fairness....even if that renders the definition pretty much useless to any DM that's not a psychopath" I am promoting a reasonably inclusive definition of fairness, that recognizes that there is a difference between intrinsic fairness and whether or not something is fair within a particular subset of context.

"Reasonably inclusive" seems subjective to me. "Reasonableness" is not objective. If it were, we wouldn't need a jury of people to vote their opinion on what constituted reasonable, but that's exactly what they do. I would be very skeptical of someone who claims to be able to define reasonable in a way that excludes cultural and personal idiosyncracies and still resembles what people's working definition of the word means. "Reasonable" is just another subjective word, and so would be of little help.

What the law establishes is a set of procedures and definitions that are used to judge a situation. It attempts to remove layers of subjectivity in terms of definitions, but not results. So if the difference of degrees in murder is clearly defined as differences in premeditation, it helps to clarify that, even if in the end it comes down to the subjective opinions of the jury as to what happened.

That premeditation is an important factor in how a murder should be punished is not objective. It is entirely derived from custom and habit. It's what "feels" right to the majority and it was decided based on consensus. That a trap should allow a chance of survival is equally subjective and based on custom and habit.

In the world of DnD and judging traps, we're in a very primitive situation (and also in a situation that you would be hard pressed to say is a matter of "the common good"). Nobody (AFAIK) has even agreed on what the % fatality of a trap ought to be, much less what a given traps % fatality is. IMO people are never going to agree on the former (differences in old-school and new-school, for example) and there's no Council to vote on the latter.

In the case of traps:
1. is the rogue responsible for maxing out his ranks in search, and does he deserve to die if he takes fewer ranks (or puts a sub-optimal score in int, etc.)
2. is it unfair if one person dies and everyone else lives? (cf. Survivor)
3. is it unfair if one person lives and everyone else dies? (cf. Monopoly)
4. is it unfair if everyone eventually dies (cf. Pac Man, real life)
5. is the chance of survival to include the use of augury?
6. is the chance of survival to include not having discovered the trap (ie. not gone down that passage, not pulled the lever) to begin with?

That's off the top of my head. Those are all subjective issues AFAICT and I really don't think much is to be gained by assuming the answers (as people often do) and then arguing at cross-purposes with someone else who has a different set of answers.

If two people agree on the basics (which can be an involved process to identify/define to begin with) then maybe there's some use in ferreting out inconsistencies. For example, if I believe that a "fair" game is one where the PCs survive all of the time, then pointing out that a trap might kill my PCs would be useful.

One thing that could help would be defining a set of criteria. The "Raven Seal of Trap Approval" for example (sounds grim). Then you could say, according to that defined standard, how a given trap rates (which reduces the level of subjectivity by one). Calling such a standard "reasonable and universal" (and by implication, those who do not agree are marginalized and unreasonable) is somewhat risky (to put it nicely). It amounts to telling people how to play RPGs and I don't think the industry (consensus) really has the stomach for it, for what that's worth. So why should we?

 

[ThirdWizard]

gizmo makes the words better than me

 

[Crust]

Looks like a classic Tomb of Horrors insta-death.

I suppose if the PCs knew they were trespassing through some awful sanctum, they might expect devious traps set to bar intruders.

If it that lever were placed someplace where people or other creatures traveled, where anyone might grab the lever and risk disintegration, that would be ridiculous on the DM's part.

Taken all by itself, it seems unfair, but I see a Tomb of Horrors situation there, where peril clearly lurks around every corner. An anti-magic field might have helped there.

 

[Raven Crowking]

ThirdWizard,

Maybe I'm not seeing what you're getting at with the part of the RAW you quoted. The RAW states that all traps have a Search DC, and one can take that to mean that all traps can be found with a Seach check (by a qualified searcher), but I am still waiting for where you got "The playstyle indicates that all traps should be able to be found by a party if it is to be used against that party." in the RAW.