Should traps have tells?

[Edgar Ironpelt]

What do you mean by "tells"?

They might be signs that "everyone sees automatically, the GM shouldn't require a roll."

They might be signs that "characters with good perception scores may spot, even if not actively looking."

They might be signs that "only characters who actively look for them have a chance of spotting."

I'm inclined to the second version. Traps might sometimes have the first version of tells, but I wouldn't make that the default. And I want to avoid the third version because that produces the "Progress at the rate of an arthritic snail, as the party engages its Total Paranoia Mode" effect.

Worst of all are no "tells" at all, which is just a variant on the rightly-maligned 'random damage table.'

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Overall, I use traps very sparingly. They're a hassle for NPCs & monsters to set up, so they won't without believing they have a good reason to, and they're a hassle for me as a GM, so I won't go looking for reasons why the NPCs & monsters might set them up.

Also, my NPCs and monsters mostly prepare for and expect to face opponents that are much less skilled and powerful than the PCs. So any traps that they do set will be suitable for keeping out the riff-raff, but no more than speed bumps for a PC party.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What do you mean by "tells"?

They might be signs that "everyone sees automatically, the GM shouldn't require a roll."

They might be signs that "characters with good perception scores may spot, even if not actively looking."

They might be signs that "only characters who actively look for them have a chance of spotting."

I'm inclined to the second version. Traps might sometimes have the first version of tells, but I wouldn't make that the default. And I want to avoid the third version because that produces the "Progress at the rate of an arthritic snail, as the party engages its Total Paranoia Mode" effect.

Worst of all are no "tells" at all, which is just a variant on the rightly-maligned 'random damage table.'

How do tells that "characters with good perception scores may spot, even if not actively looking" work at the table?

I'm imagining something like (please do correct me if I have this wrong): "In the room you see blah blah blah blah. And, Derek, your character notices X."

At that point, the whole table knows that the thing Derek has noticed is important (because otherwise it would have been in the general description), at which point you may as well have simply let Derek spot the trap itself. Not only has nobody has experienced the pleasure of actually figuring something out, but the players are being trained to not even try to figure out tells, because they know that if there is a tell it and if a character has high enough Perception, it will be handed to the player for free. At most they will learn to say "I search..." in every conceivable place, hoping that they will be rewarded with a tell.

In my opinion, one of the "blahs" used to describe the area to everybody should be the tell, if the players are paying close enough attention to realize it. You can't possibly simulate the experience of paying close sensory attention to notice clues, so the closest approximation is to put the clues into the narration.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Traps are inherently unrealistic as presented. Elaborate booby traps do not normally persist because the nature of a trap is to be sensitive to being triggered and sensitive things don't endure for very long in a functional way.

By the way, this is an excellent counterpoint to the verisimilitude argument offered upthread (that is, that all traps having tells isn't realistic).

I could see a scenario where the heroes have raided a dungeon that has been occupied by cowardly but crafty humanoids (kobolds are the obvious candidate...) but the party has gone back to town to rest. When they return, the denizens have built tons of booby traps, which the players either guess at or soon discover.

The general "tell" in this situation is that the entire place is filled with traps, and the theme of the dungeon becomes "make every move extremely carefully and assume that everything is trapped". Or at least until they break through the defenses.* That could be fun for a session or two, and the players are not being taught that everywhere they go in any dungeon for as long as they play the game they have to search every 5' square, because this is a specific situation.

*If the kobolds have finite time to prepare traps for the invaders, why would they waste that time leaving booby traps where they plan to make their last stand? By definition, they've already lost if any intruders reach those traps.

 

[The Firebird]

By the way, this is an excellent counterpoint to the verisimilitude argument offered upthread (that is, that all traps having tells isn't realistic).

This is a good point and it depends a lot on the specifics of the dungeon. Personally, I'd prefer for a designer to think through why each trap is there, why it hasn't been sprung and so on.

You know what I see little of? Traps that failed or are deactivated due to age.

 

[Epic Meepo]

How do tells that "characters with good perception scores may spot, even if not actively looking" work at the table?

I'm imagining something like (please do correct me if I have this wrong): "In the room you see blah blah blah blah. And, Derek, your character notices X."

If you're playing online (or passing notes at the table), the DM can send direct messages to players with higher passive Perception scores embellishing upon baseline room descriptions. If any "tells" are present, the DM can add them to baseline room descriptions or to embellishments on room descriptions, as appropriate.

Doing it that way creates occasional decision points for characters with higher Perception scores. Do they take time to call the party's attention to less obvious environmental details? Or do they act immediately without stopping to explain their actions to the rest of the party in advance?

At that point, the whole table knows that the thing Derek has noticed is important (because otherwise it would have been in the general description), at which point you may as well have simply let Derek spot the trap itself. Not only has nobody has experienced the pleasure of actually figuring something out, but the players are being trained to not even try to figure out tells, because they know that if there is a tell it and if a character has high enough Perception, it will be handed to the player for free. At most they will learn to say "I search..." in every conceivable place, hoping that they will be rewarded with a tell.

That's only a problem if every extra detail the DM provides is a "tell" for a trap. The DM could also provide some details which aren't related to traps, at which point the characters with high Perception scores must determine for themselves which details are important.

In my opinion, one of the "blahs" used to describe the area to everybody should be the tell, if the players are paying close enough attention to realize it. You can't possibly simulate the experience of paying close sensory attention to notice clues, so the closest approximation is to put the clues into the narration.

If you're playing with visual maps, another way to approximate that would be including details on maps which aren't mentioned in narrative descriptions. Players who are paying attention can then compare the narrative to the map and ask questions about unexplained map features. ("Is that a pile of debris I see in the southeast corner?" "The floor in the middle of the map seems darker than the floor at the edge of the map. Does that signify anything?" Stuff like that.)

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

In my opinion, one of the "blahs" used to describe the area to everybody should be the tell, if the players are paying close enough attention to realize it. You can't possibly simulate the experience of paying close sensory attention to notice clues, so the closest approximation is to put the clues into the narration.

Hiding the tell in the "blahs" has its own drawbacks. Among other things it tests player-skill instead of character-skill. As a player who is playing (and who spent the character-resources to have) a highly noticing character, I'd want the reward of my character being highly noticing.

As a GM, I prefer to err on the side of giving away "too much" information rather than "not enough." If the whole party knows of the tell because Derek spotted it, well, the group is presumed to be cooperating, with Derek pointing out the extra stuff he spotted, and with Derek getting the attaboy for being the one who spotted it.

It's a tradeoff, and mileage obviously varies. Putting the clues into the narration is AN approximation, but I differ about it being obviously and clearly the best or closest approximation with all others being clearly and obviously inferior.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Hiding the tell in the "blahs" has its own drawbacks. Among other things it tests player-skill instead of character-skill.

I know that's one RPG philosophy, but not mine. A character has no skill; he/she is imaginary.

I want players to engage their own skills. Even in combat. Sure, they don't know how to swing a sword, but I want the players to at least think through, "Hmmm...I should stand in that doorway instead of

As a player who is playing (and who spent the character-resources to have) a highly noticing character, I'd want the reward of my character being highly noticing.

I get that, and I also think it's poor design (if very common) to enable investment in "noticing" skills.

As a GM, I prefer to err on the side of giving away "too much" information rather than "not enough."

I totally agree. If a player asks about some sort of lore or history, unless it's really going to spoil the entire adventure I just tell them. I never gate it behind "knowledge checks" (another example of bad design, imo).

If the whole party knows of the tell because Derek spotted it, well, the group is presumed to be cooperating, with Derek pointing out the extra stuff he spotted, and with Derek getting the attaboy for being the one who spotted it.

But Derek didn't spot it. A die was rolled, or he was selected because his character sheet has the highest Perception, and the information was handed to him. The player was just along passively for the ride. Literally the only decision he made, as you just noted above, was investing in that skill during chargen.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you're playing online (or passing notes at the table), the DM can send direct messages to players with higher passive Perception scores embellishing upon baseline room descriptions. If any "tells" are present, the DM can add them to baseline room descriptions or to embellishments on room descriptions, as appropriate.

Oh, I don't think I was clear earlier. The problem, in my opinion, isn't based on whether or not something only Derek knows is given to the whole party or not, or whether or not Derek decides to share it. The problem is that by sharing a piece of information with one player, based on a skill or die roll, it is then immediately identified as important. So there's no player engagement with solving a challenge.

Now, you could argue that the challenge isn't solved yet, that the thing that was noticed is what triggers the challenge. Great...so what was the point of gating the original act of noticing behind a skill or die roll, instead of just drawing attention to the actual challenge? So the player feels good about investing in Perception? So let's get rid of Perception skills?

Doing it that way creates occasional decision points for characters with higher Perception scores. Do they take time to call the party's attention to less obvious environmental details? Or do they act immediately without stopping to explain their actions to the rest of the party in advance?

Ok, sure, those are a kind of decision, but not the kind that brings satisfaction for having overcome a challenge. A player could make up an infinite variety of such self-imposed roleplaying decisions completely independently of the challenges presented by the GM.

That's only a problem if every extra detail the DM provides is a "tell" for a trap. The DM could also provide some details which aren't related to traps, at which point the characters with high Perception scores must determine for themselves which details are important.

Ok, so now the GM has to generate extra details just to create red herrings in order to rationalize having Perception scores in the game. I think I'd rather get rid of Perception scores.