Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 9335214" data-attributes="member: 86653">No, traps are not historically accurate for medieval Europe. Neither are 36-level dungeons filled with monsters and supernatural threats. So medieval historical accuracy is nothing but a red herring. There are historical precedents though. Pharaoh’s tombs were occasionally trapped, for example.But traps are historically significant for when the game was published and to the wargamers who invented and eventually published it.Original D&amp;D was published in 1974. At the tail end of the Vietnam War.Traps were very much on the minds of a bunch of wargamers in the late 60s and early 70s. To say nothing of the soldiers who would return home and eventually play the game. You see this with things like stories of Tucker’s Kobolds and phrases like “fantasy @&amp;$?ing Vietnam” applied to early D&amp;D.Also, the thief needed something to do.As mentioned up thread, some people want the fiction to make sense. For that to happen, traps (at least some of them) have to be hidden. Having some obvious traps to act as visible deterrents is fine. Having a sprung trap with an attached corpse is far more effective as a deterrent.But it makes no sense whatever to have only clearly visible traps. If your goal is to capture, kill, demoralize, dissuade, deter, etc you need hidden traps.I’m a huge advocate for player agency. I can’t stand railroading or even linear modules. The argument that traps limit player agency just doesn’t hold water. Being surprised by something does not remove agency. You know traps exist. You know they can be fairly common in dungeons. You choose to go in. You choose to not search for traps. Traps and player agency are not mutually exclusive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="overgeeked, post: 9335214, member: 86653"] No, traps are not historically accurate for medieval Europe. Neither are 36-level dungeons filled with monsters and supernatural threats. So medieval historical accuracy is nothing but a red herring. There are historical precedents though. Pharaoh’s tombs were occasionally trapped, for example. But traps are historically significant for when the game was published and to the wargamers who invented and eventually published it. Original D&D was published in 1974. At the tail end of the Vietnam War. Traps were very much on the minds of a bunch of wargamers in the late 60s and early 70s. To say nothing of the soldiers who would return home and eventually play the game. You see this with things like stories of Tucker’s Kobolds and phrases like “fantasy @&$?ing Vietnam” applied to early D&D. Also, the thief needed something to do. As mentioned up thread, some people want the fiction to make sense. For that to happen, traps (at least some of them) have to be hidden. Having some obvious traps to act as visible deterrents is fine. Having a sprung trap with an attached corpse is far more effective as a deterrent. But it makes no sense whatever to have [I]only[/I] clearly visible traps. If your goal is to capture, kill, demoralize, dissuade, deter, etc you [I]need[/I] hidden traps. I’m a huge advocate for player agency. I can’t stand railroading or even linear modules. The argument that traps limit player agency just doesn’t hold water. Being surprised by something does not remove agency. You know traps exist. You know they can be fairly common in dungeons. You choose to go in. You choose to not search for traps. Traps and player agency are not mutually exclusive. [/QUOTE]

Verification