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.

 

[aco175]

I like placing a trap that is already exposed or tripped by someone else. This sets up that there is traps in the dungeon and the players can react.

I also like traps that cause something else than just damage. A tripwire tied to a bell that alerts the next room that the PCs are coming is better than one that just shoots darts for some damage.

Traps that are part of another encounter are better than a random trap in a hall. A pit in the room with some goblins is better than just one in a hall unless you are looking to separate the group. The PCs charge in to confront the goblin leader and fall into a pit. This add more to the encounter.

 

[The Firebird]

I think maybe you're interpreting "tell" to mean that the trap itself telegraphs it's own presence. Tells can also be things like the remains of previous victims, a sprung trap of the same type that is up ahead (or offing a henchman with the first of several traps), hints/clues/warnings encountered elsewhere that have to be remembered at the right time, etc. Literally anything that might cause a player to look for the right thing in the right place at the right time using their own deductive skills and not relying on RNG.

I hope you'll indulge me quoting from the other thread. No, I agree with your broader understanding of tells. But it's the same issue for me--that just wouldn't always happen, and if I always had a clue it would start to feel less immersive and more like a puzzle game.

That said if the clues are very subtle and often missed, I'm not sure in practice it would be all that different.

Is that any less verisimilitudinous than never finding dungeons completely cleaned out, with all traps sprung and all treasure taken? Isn't it strange that everywhere PCs go they just happen to find exciting adventures? Almost as if there's some all-powering being manipulating things just for their benefit.

It depends on the style of game. If the setting has a lot of adventuring parties venturing into an area with many untapped dungeons then I'd expect to see competitors and to get there late on occasion. If the PCs are the only band of heroes around, then it wouldn't be surprising for dungeons to be full.

 

[Koloth]

My assumption is most traps have tells. The fun is if the tell is:
1. Very subtle so that only a character with a specific trap finding ability(racial, trait, feat, spell, other) can find it.
2. Can be spotted by normal characters taking the time to actively look. Perception type check when the character actively checks.
3. Fairly obvious so that anyone in the area gets a free perception type check.

#4. the undetectable trap should be very rare.

A fair number should be #1, otherwise why would a character spend character build points on buying a trap finding ability?
I would limit the amount of #2 to avoid the problem of the party taking 10 minutes of real time to roll a bunch of active checks for every new movement unit. Unless you are trying for a deadly mission, nothing wrong with starting out with a few #3s to get the idea across that this is a trap zone. Then let the expert trap finders do their thing.

Not all traps have to be directly deadly. A trap that dumps a bunch of smelly goo on to the unlucky victim(s) might seem rather harmless. Until monsters keep showing up attracted by the stench.

 

[Wolfram stout]

So this thread made go reread the first part of the Raiders of the Lost Ark novelization. He gets tells but some are razor thin more like he gets ‘a feeling’. But how to gamify that?

As a DM putting in tells means I have to be more mindful and thoughtful about placement and purpose, which is always good.

 

[Reynard]

Traps might be designed to make some sort of sense in the world, but they are really the ultimate expression of D&D being a game, not a world simulator or a story engine. Traps exist for essentially purely gameplay reasons.

So the function a given trap serves in the gameplay should determine its tell, if any. Traps designed to whittle away hit points or other resources in order to balance the boss fight (or whatever) should not have a tell -- or if they do, it should still require some sort of resource expenditure to bypass it. In most games, skill checks so not eat resources (Gumshoe is an exception I can think of off the top of my head) but failed checks might eat some sort of metacurrency to negate that failure.

Traps meant to make the gameplay more exciting or tense should probably have a tell so that they PCs can interact with the trap, or be wary of it. Instead of a hidden tripwire, maybe the hallway is crossed by a web of wires that if any single one is disturbed, the trap goes off. Instead of a hidden pit trap, it is a chasm that can be crossed by pillars that phase into and out of existence randomly.

Then there are traps meant to be displays of evil GM genius. These need multiple tells that the players CHOOSE to ignore -- usually out of greed -- until it all goes horribly awry and the green slime oozes through the holes in the ceiling and every dies screaming.