Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9809139" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, but also no.An area with traps should have an early tell or else be the sort of place where you would expect to have a trap.Once in a "trap filled area" it becomes no longer necessary to telegraph the trap heavily.  You don't need a pile of bones around the locked chest in the evil lord's sepulcher to declare there is a trap likely to be here.  That's implied by the context.The real crux of the issue though is "Is the trap fun?"  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.  So if we have traps then in most cases we are stretching credulity anyway, and you might as well have the trap designer create traps that are interesting rather than as efficiently lethal as possible.  In my experience, players don't really contemplate the difference anyway. This isn't to say that a trap should completely forgo realism.  A trap ought to be able to plausibly exist in the state it is found for an extended period of time and ought to give off any sensory clues like temperature or odor that we might expect to radiate from a trap.  Pools of acid should give off noticeable fumes.  Pools of lava should give off both fumes and heat.  Gelatins and whipped creams are naturally going to dissolve into liquids over time or attract insects or spoil.  A boat that is on the edge of falling apart is going to noticeably have problems long before you get it into deep water, and a cursed boat that falls apart when used should radiate magic and a curse.  "Gotcha" is not a fun sort of trap.</blockquote>

Verification