Should traps have tells?

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, you can manipulate the numbers to produce whatever result you wanted. Congrats.

Happy to use any numbers you want. The math is pretty straightforward. The point is that a 33% casualties does not mean a 66% trap detection rate. Assuming the traps are deadly and effective, it suggests a very high rate of detection.

Curiously, @Celebrim came up with very similar numbers, although more analytically. He figured 60 traps per career, whereas I just took a stab at 50. If it's sixty traps then the final figure is....well, a tiny bit closer to 100%.

EDIT: And really the whole point of this exercise is to demonstrate the futility of citing realism in RPGs. Design it the way you like, the way you have the most fun. Realism is quixotic.

 

[GMMichael]

I do have to wonder what percentage of traps a dedicated "tunnel rat" from the Vietnam era would spot.

I bet it's much higher than the chance of spotting a trap in D&D. If it were the same chance, no tunnel rats would have survived the war.

Wouldn't a "realistic" system give a thief character a similar chance?

It's a tradeoff. You can have 100% chance of detecting traps, but then you move slowly and don't detect enemies. The other end of the spectrum is 0% chance of detecting traps, and just hoping you don't walk into one, while being ready for battle and avoiding pursuers.

A realistic system would have a pretty narrow focus to allow thieves the same odds as Vietnam tunnel rats of detecting traps.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's a tradeoff. You can have 100% chance of detecting traps, but then you move slowly and don't detect enemies. The other end of the spectrum is 0% chance of detecting traps, and just hoping you don't walk into one, while being ready for battle and avoiding pursuers.

Yeah, while I will often grant automatic success to a Thief (I mostly play Shadowdark) using his crawling turns searching, all bets are off when they are fleeing the Minotaur.

Mwuhahahaha....

A realistic system would have a pretty narrow focus to allow thieves the same odds as Vietnam tunnel rats of detecting traps.

As noted above, I think it's pointless to chase 'realism.' Usually what 'verisimilitude' and 'realism' end up meaning is 'the very narrow set of features I care most about'. Which is fine.

 

[pemerton]

I think that poster meant a trap doing 2d6 damage, averaging 7.

Yes, but what does that mean in the fiction? Like, what is the trap designer thinking in saying to themself, "This will kill Kobolds, but not 2nd-level adventurers"?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, but what does that mean in the fiction? Like, what is the trap designer thinking in saying to themself, "This will kill Kobolds, but not 2nd-level adventurers"?

Oh, that's just another one of those unanswerables inherent in level-based games.

 

[Fenris-77]

Realism doesn't have a ton to add to the trap conversation IMO. They are more fiction than fact, and also heavily tied to the idea of a resource management loop. Obviously someone can certainly take the idea and make the damage or whatever more 'realisitc' but Im not sure what that move is in aid of. I suspect that it has more to do with the GM and their ideas about simulation than anything actually aimed at an improved game experience.