Should traps have tells?

[zakael19]

I think that if you're playing a game in which a significant goal of play is the back and forth of investigating a dungeon using conversational modes between the players declaring actions and the DM responding with a clear hierarchy of Landmark -> Hidden -> Secret knowledge, you must have Tells of some sort. As noted above, Dr. Jones instinctively notices certain key tells that traps might be present, and then puzzles them out. THat's the sort of vibe this style of gameplay is trying to hit on.

You also generally see this style of play in rule-systems that deemphasize discrete I See Things skills or the like, or those are a fallback with a good chance of failure compared to being curious and poking at the environmental descriptions. An example from the Tomb of the Serpent Kings is the first door. It's complicated, it has things to look at that lead to new information, it gives hints that something bad is happening when you mess with it, you can say that examine the ceiling and probably notice the hammer, you can get clever and see the results without getting smashed, etc.

 

[Fenris-77]

Other than our diverging opinions about Angry DM, I think we're pretty aligned on the overall question.

Angry is a divisive guy, that's the schtick. By and large I find him insightful, but sometimes I need to finish eye rolling a couple of times.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, this is a standard skill check so there are actually a number of choices to be made, and some RP also. Additionally there are occasional other choices

• Obviously, there is the often tricky choice of whether or not to spend hope to improve your chances. Classic RPG decision on balancing current needs versus future possibilities. It becomes more tricky again when you have magical success as an option. Yeah,. you will succeed, but what attention will you attract?
• With a large party, or (as for my players) when they have a guide, which roles do you double up on?
• My players will often change roles during journey as one of them is losing hope or endurance. Do you stick with a guide who is nearly miserable, but has 3 skill, or one who is pretty hopeful, with only two skill? This has proven to be a tricky decision.
• My players will also try to solve the challenge in a way that engages either their helpful items, or that makes them inspired when they spend hope.
• Not common -- but it has happened in my game that players have to decide whether to force march or not to make up time lost

I'm not saying that journeys are any favorite part of TOR -- I generally agree that they could do with more, and I usually also players to choose other skills if it makes sense when rolling on the vanilla table.

I think there is a categorical difference between making decisions about how to overcome obstacles and making decisions about how best to succeed because a dice roll has been imposed upon you by the game.

For example, the player could say, "I'll try to wade across the flooded ford". The LM could say, "Ok, but that will cost you 1 Endurance, and you'll have to make an Athletics check and if you fail that...etc." The player says, "Hmm...maybe instead I'll scout around upstream...". There he finds a log over the stream, and the LM presents a new test/consequence. Now the player has two bad choices to choose from. Etc.

In my mind, at least, that's entirely different from the LM saying "Because I rolled on a table, you have no choice but to give me an Athletics test to see if you lose Endurance" and then the player deciding whether or not to spend Hope, or whether to afterward drink one swallow of miruvor.

But there are more decisions required than I think you are either aware of, or maybe just haven't played?

FWIW, I was talking about 1st Edition, which I mentioned earlier in the thread but not in that last post, so the rules are a little different. No Inspiration, for example.

 

[pemerton]

My answer to the question is it depends on the system being played.

Most of the posts in this thread seem to assume D&D, or a D&D-like system, where looking and searching are (mostly) free in system terms, but risk bogging down play at the table, and the consequence of triggering a trap is (mostly) resource depletion.

Change the system, and the relationship between traps and tells changes. Here are some examples from playing Torchbearer 2e:

I then described the workroom. Fea-bella went for the Elfstone; Golin saw the various powders and reagents and rushed for them. I clarified that he was still carrying his candle. Thus there was a great explosion!

The PC, Golin, had Explosives-wise plus a Belief that An explosive solution is a good solution. So the "tell", that powders and reagents in a workroom might explode, was located in the character build rather than the external situation

the PCs - with Megloss - then went to Gerda's apartment.

<snip>

We had already established that no one had spoken with Gerda since she went shopping with the PCs and stole Fea-bella's cursed Elfstone, and she had only been seen silhouetted by her apartment window in the evening, as if gloating over a small bauble held in her hands! Whereas Megloss's house (as had already been established) is on the edge of the village, overlooking a cliff, Gerda's apartment - I now narrated - was at the centre, near the base of the rise on which stands the wizard's tower. I decided - but didn't tell the players at this particular point - that Gerda would erect a deadfall trap over the entrance to her apartment. The players declared that they opened the door and went in. I called for Heath tests against Ob 2 (and as one of the players noted, this time cloaks and woollen sweaters didn't help; though I allowed Golin's player to add +1D to his pool, given Golin wears a helmet). Telemere and Fea-bella were both Injured by the falling stones!

Telemere's player then noticed that he should have used his Instinct - When I enter somewhere new, I check to see if I am being watched - and he used it now. Golin helped, as he also had a salient Instinct - Always look for weak points. Telemere could see that the downstairs rooms seemed dusty and empty, but that someone seemed to have stuck their head out of the door at the top of the staircase - Gerda!

This is another case where there is no tell in the immediate situation, but there is some context - Gerda, a Dwarf, has not been seen outside, but only gloating over her jewel - and also the PC who is oriented towards looking around when he enters a new place.

When the conflict was over I duly rolled on Loot Table 1, and was amused by my result. I told the players that the bandits fled, taking all their gear with them but for a helmet and shield that had been destroyed in the fight. But did not yet divulge the loot!

The PCs were in a hurry now to get to the tower, where they knew there was a pool of water at its base. They could see that the scree field leading up to the Tower had been smoothed, and a path made. Naturally they were suspicious - but with a successful Scout test, all Telemere could see was a barrel next to the pool. That was their loot! - as I explained, a roll on Loot Table 1 led to the Gear subtable, which in turn led to the Vessel sub-subtable, which yielded a barrel. Although they could see its utility for storing water, on balance they were underwhelmed.

<snip>

And there was also a wooden ladder, leading to the open trapdoor to the next level.

<snip>

Golin went up the ladder, and I was able to deploy the trap I had noted up - unless the metal pin is slotted into place, Turner's trick ladder collapses when climbed! I gave Golin's players two options for his Health check: try and land safely on the floor, or make the harder attempt to grab hold of the trapdoor lip as the ladder collapsed. He opted for the latter, and failed the roll - which took Golin's Health to 6. I told him that Golin grabbed the lip, but pulled a muscle doing so - Golin was Injured.

He used his rope to pull up the other PCs.

The tell, here, is simply that the ladder was put there by the bandits whom the PCs had driven off. And bandits, notoriously, are untrustworthy!

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, sure. But either way, the secret door serves a story purpose even if the players never even suspect its existence. They might always wonder how he escaped. In that sense it's almost like giving the Vizier a potion of gaseous form.

Again with a hypothetical post-mortem reveal, I think there would be a big difference in player reaction between:
"Remember when the Vizier escaped? It was through a secret door you never found."
and
"There was a secret door with some awesome treasure behind it, but I rolled a 4 on a d6 so you didn't find it."

I'll rarely if ever do the second type of reveal unless I can somehow know for sure that no adventuring party is ever going back there.

There's one adventure from a few years ago where a party missed a walloping great bit of treasure hidden behind a secret door; I never said anything about it afterwards and just as well, as two other parties (with some player overlap) have since visited or passed through the same site.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'll rarely if ever do the second type of reveal unless I can somehow know for sure that no adventuring party is ever going back there.

Clarification: I'm not suggesting that one actually do such post-mortems. I'm using them as a thought experiment to examine assumptions.

There's one adventure from a few years ago where a party missed a walloping great bit of treasure hidden behind a secret door; I never said anything about it afterwards and just as well, as two other parties (with some player overlap) have since visited or passed through the same site.

That makes sense for GMs who are really into maintaining a consistent world for multiple different groups of players. My hunch is that an overwhelming majority of GMs would just "reset" the dungeon. I certainly would.

 

[pemerton]

Clarification: I'm not suggesting that one actually do such post-mortems.

I regularly mock/tease the players in my TB2e game when they miss good treasure hauls. Which is something they seem to have a knack for . . .

 

[Lanefan]

Clarification: I'm not suggesting that one actually do such post-mortems. I'm using them as a thought experiment to examine assumptions.

I'll sometimes do post-mortems on adventures, usually if-when they're no longer accessible e.g. they were off-plane or the whole dungeon collapsed or whatever.

That makes sense for GMs who are really into maintaining a consistent world for multiple different groups of players. My hunch is that an overwhelming majority of GMs would just "reset" the dungeon. I certainly would.

In this case I reset the occupants, consistent with previously-known info as to who-what was intending to move in there once the PCs left; but not the treasure hoard. None of the new occupants know about the treasure chamber either (though sooner or later one might stumble on it by sheer luck), and all the previous occupants who knew of it are now dead.

I just remembered - the same party also missed another secret treasure chamber in a different adventure; here the treasure wasn't so much money-valuable as it was historically valuable, having the potential to rewrite the known history of two nations. That one I specifically didn't say anything about as I immediately realized those items could be the reason/hook for a second adventure sometime later, using the same site.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I think there is a categorical difference between making decisions about how to overcome obstacles and making decisions about how best to succeed because a dice roll has been imposed upon you by the game.

Agreed. But your statement was "there is no player agency, no decision-making", which I disagreed with. I do agree that the type of decision is different and I agree it could be a lot better. I personally fix with the simple statement that if you can think of a better skill to use, I'll entertain it. But honestly, I do that for all my rolls, so my players are used to it so I don't think I even needed to tell them that -- they just assumed it and went for it.

Apologies for not noticing you were talking about 1E. That does sound like your choices are more limited, but I have only played that two or three times, so cannot really comment.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Agreed. But your statement was "there is no player agency, no decision-making", which I disagreed with. I do agree that the type of decision is different and I agree it could be a lot better. I personally fix with the simple statement that if you can think of a better skill to use, I'll entertain it. But honestly, I do that for all my rolls, so my players are used to it so I don't think I even needed to tell them that -- they just assumed it and went for it..

I also allow/encourage players to propose different skills, in any game with skills, but by itself that is not (in my opinion) meaningful decision-making or agency unless they also are freely choosing the action that triggers the roll. TOR 1e journeys did not provide that, and neither do typical “Perception checks” in 5e and other games.

Does that make sense?