Should traps have tells?

[Zaukrie]

Of course. But traps don’t have to be perfect to be effective. Also not every single trap is going to be so badly made that it provides a tell.

Seems to be a lot of excluded middle here:

“The only possible way a trap wouldn’t have a tell is it’s perfectly made.”

That’s obviously not true.

Look at the traps used in Vietnam. Most were crudely made with barely a thin cover of dirt and flora hiding them, and yet the casualties caused were devastating. Little to no tells and when there were tells, they were used as lures for other traps.

Of course, I didn't say this. You said there is no realistic way for a trap to be noticed in an active world. In any event, we don't agree. Have a good day.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Although I think it was my post in another thread that started this, reading this thread I'll acknowledge (top of the hat to @Lanefan especially) that there's one possible exception to my insistence that all traps have tells: the kinds of traps that allow decision-making after they have been sprung. The room slowly filling with sand. The portcullis that prevents backtracking. The tripwire that rings that bell that alerts the guards. Etc.

Not that this means they can't have tells or shouldn't have tells...but I don't think it's a crime to have (some) tell-less traps like that.

In one sense this is a variation to the distinction I've made elsewhere between traps that are easy to find but hard to negate, and those that are hard to find by easy to negate. This type of trap is "easy to find" in that you just stepped on the pressure plate (dumb@$$!) but "hard to negate" in that you now have to figure out how to solve the predicament you just created.

As for the verisimilitude argument:

1. It is totally realistic for some traps to have tells.
2. It may not be realistic for all traps in the universe to have tells, but presumably the players are only seeing a tiny fraction of all the traps in the world. See point #1.
3. In the absence of modern dentistry, another thing that would be highly verisimilitudinous would be rampant tooth decay among PCs. (Which is more fun, tell-less traps or tooth decay? I dunno; it's a toss-up.)

In any given dungeon, I'd rather have just one well-thought out trap that is subtly telegraphed and requires ten or fifteen minutes of player planning to discover and bypass...the kind that causes the players to all cheer because they have genuinely accomplished something when it is finally "solved"...than any number of trivial roll-a-die and keep going traps.

Also, all of the above applies equally to secret doors.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Look at the traps used in Vietnam. Most were crudely made with barely a thin cover of dirt and flora hiding them, and yet the casualties caused were devastating. Little to no tells and when there were tells, they were used as lures for other traps.

We should survey some Vietnam vets and ask them how fun that was.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A "tell" doesn't have to mean the trap as poorly implemented. A tell (or telegraph) is anything that causes the players to spend time being extra careful in the right places, so that they don't have to waste time being extra careful everywhere. "Hey, remember what the old man said....'ware the weeping mermaid...maybe he meant this statue?"

 

[Bill Zebub]

I've read so many books recently... I don't remember which one but one of the system was very explicit in its rules.

You either moved cautiously, or you didn't. Cautiously took more time, etc. But more importantly, you'd automatically get tells for traps when you did, and you'd have to roll if you didn't move cautiously. I thought that was a simple and elegant solution to the whole trap thing.

But I do agree that if you have to pick one, giving a tell leads to more interesting moments. I also agree that sometimes it's all about not triggering the trap, because once you do it's over. But I really like traps that you can trigger and still have time to react and do something (a boulder coming down, walls closing in, etc).

Yeah I like games with those kinds of rules, too. Or even just notes to that effect for a particular adventure.

I like to write room descriptions in four categories (exact terminology varies):

1. First Impressions: typical boxed text; what the players see when they first "open the door"
2. Longer Look: what they see if they take some time and study without going in. Not possible if in a hurry, for example fleeing pursuit.
3. Full Search: what they find automatically if they take some time to do a thorough but normal search of the area (in Shadowdark, this would consume a turn, and each player gets a chance to "do something")
4. Secrets: what they find if they take the right action ("I look under the rug" "I cast detect magic" "Is there anything behind the wardrobe?")

Using that system, I would reveal few or no tells in First Impressions, most tells in Longer Look, and some...especially for secret doors...would only be discovered through Full Search. So kind of the same result as the thing @TheAlkaizer is talking about.