Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[ThirdWizard]

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.

I thought you were questioning "All traps have a search DC"

Afterall, we don't know that the OP example trap had one, unless we assume the scenario followed the RAW.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Reasonably inclusive" seems subjective to me.

I don't disagree with you. However, while we cannot ever be certain that we are being as objective, or as reasonable, as possible, we can certainly strive to be as objective and reasonable as we can. We cannot always be certain that we are determining guilt and innocence justly, but that is not an excuse for simply throwing up our hands and declaring the entire thing to fall within the bounds of subjectivity.

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?

My answers would be:

1. No. However, netiher should the rogue expect all traps to fall within his ability to Search (whether he has maximized ranks or not) unless this is an implicit or explicit part of the group social contract.

2. That would not be an unfair game setup, but it would be nasty and probably unfair to spring on a party unless it was set up by NPCs or PCs in game and the PCs had some options or ability to figure a way out of the "Survivor" game. That they fail to do so does not make it unfair, however.

3. As #2.

4. No, unless this is an implicit or explicit part of your group social contract, especially if real life is the model and there is a mechanism to change the campaign world/grant legacies to your progeny.

5. Sometimes, specifically if one can reason out the probability of a trap without resorting to the mechanics of the game, and augury (or similar magics/mechanics) are used to confirm or deny the result of that reasoning process.

6. No, unless the chance of discover is 0%, in which case it is a moot point.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

My answers would be:

Your answers.

If someone has different answers than you, do you consider it brought on by some kind of bias that is imparing their objectivity, or do you think their answers have as much merit as your own? Do you consider answers that differ from yours as being subjective answers based on their own playstyle?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your answers.

That must be why I said "My answers".....

If someone has different answers than you, do you consider it brought on by some kind of bias that is imparing their objectivity, or do you think their answers have as much merit as your own?

Depends.

Example:

(1) Ketchup.

Not as much merit as my answer.

Do you consider answers that differ from yours as being subjective answers based on their own playstyle?

Depends.

Example:

(2) It would kill a PC in my game, therefore is unfair.

Not as objective. However, it would be equally objective were the reply "It would kill a PC in my game, therefore is unfair in my game.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

Isn't that the definition of an oppinion then? Not a fact?

 

[gizmo33]

I don't disagree with you. However, while we cannot ever be certain that we are being as objective, or as reasonable, as possible, we can certainly strive to be as objective and reasonable as we can. We cannot always be certain that we are determining guilt and innocence justly, but that is not an excuse for simply throwing up our hands and declaring the entire thing to fall within the bounds of subjectivity.

"Throwing up our hands" IMO is not the logical result of recognizing the subjectivity in an issue. People collaborate on creative, subjective issues all of time - I really don't think that talking only about the subset of issues that can be made objective (and can they?) is the only option - or is as useful. More than one person could not write a song (and they do all of the time) if they confined their activities to just what was "provable". I think if people are going to talk about setting up an interesting adventure for an RPG, it's a similar situation. I think that recognizing the subjectivity makes for a more respectful environment. That doesn't mean that I won't have opinions and express them (ex. "killing PCs once in a while is good for them") it's just that I don't want to forget that they're opinions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Isn't that the definition of an oppinion then? Not a fact?

I refer you to Post 583.

BTW, are you still of the opinion that this is a "simple" matter, and that the DM simply created a trap that he knew the PCs had no chance of surviving?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Throwing up our hands" IMO is not the logical result of recognizing the subjectivity in an issue.

No, but claiming that the most objective one can be in determining fairness is to examine a thing in light of one's one preferences is IMHO "throwing up our hands". While we cannot ever be certain that we are being as objective, or as reasonable, as possible, we can certainly strive to be as objective and reasonable as we can.

The claim that 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 is equivilent to promoting "the most inclusive definition of fairness....even if that renders the definition pretty much useless to any DM that's not a psychopath" is also, IMHO "throwing up our hands" because it denies that we can ever rise above a contextual subset.

I am certainly not alone in this thread in declaring that, while I might not use the trap, the trap is not unfair....in other words, despite my contextual subset the trap remains fair. Contrast this with a response that declares the trap is fair only if it is fair within my contextual subset.

These are not co-equal positions.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

Post 583 does nothing to confirm or deny whether or not you see your position as the "correct" position. One problem is that the only proof you've given to your own objectivity is that you are claiming to be objective. This is mostly because one can't prove that one is being objective. But, I still don't see any reason to believe that your oppinion is more objective than my own. Indeed, I need some kind of reasonable proof that my oppinion is wrong if I'm going to accept it.

And while your desire for there to be an objective intrinsic fair value is admirable, I think it is an unreachable goal, especially with the approach you are taking. For example, you were appalled by the idea that a trap should not include creative thought. This is an example of your playstyle showing bias in your results. If you were truly being objective, then you would consider the possibility that it is a correct assessment.

If the average D&D player's IQ is 110 (mainly because D&D has many more high IQ players than low IQ players so the average goes up), then a ubiquitously fair trap would have to take that into consideration. You would have to do a study on the average IQ of the D&D player and add a rule that says that as the trap difficulty begins requiring IQs higher than this average (though we should probably use mode), then the lethality must go down.

Surley you can't believe that requiring a population made up of 110 IQ players to have 120 IQs be fair, correct? You can't require a 2nd grade class to pass a 4th grade test after all, and call it a fair test. So, we have to discover what these numbers actually are, and then build off of that.

 

[Storm Raven]

Do you think/feel the above scenario is fair?

Fair? Yes.

Fun? No.