D&D 5E Why traps in D&D usually suck

[Psikerlord#]

I have to admit I generally don't concern myself with metagaming in the sense of separating PC and player knowledge. If the player knows about trolls and fire, so does his PC (he's heard the tales, or whatever). I just hand wave it.

Does that encourage players to go read the MM? Maybe, but hell, at least they're enthusiastic! And maybe they'll DM next

 

[Wik]

Yeah, count me on this "it's only fair if we just challenge the characters" thinking. If I wanted to roll my way through a game, there are plenty of board games for me.

Challenge the players. Sure, they might occasionally use real world knowledge, but in my experience, they generally don't. They WILL try to creatively engage with the problem you put before them... and often, things will go sideways anyway.

 

[GX.Sigma]

To make a quality puzzle you must give your PLAYERS something to solve.


To make a quality trap you must give your PLAYERS something to solve.

That's meta-gaming.

No, that's gaming. In any game, the players are trying to accomplish the goal using the tools at their disposal. If the players aren't being challenged, I don't see how that even qualifies as a game.

If you think that traps and puzzles are boring, then you don't have to include them, but asking the PLAYER to do something rather than the CHARACTER is missing the whole point of a role-playing game.

I don't understand how you can roleplay without the players doing anything. I'm imagining the following conversation:

DM: "Your mission is to infiltrate the hill giant stronghold, kill them all, and steal all their treasure. Roll a Dungeoneering check to see how your characters handle this quest."
Player: "23."
DM: "This happens. Two hours later, you're walking home with your big bag of treasure."

I thought the whole point of roleplaying is that the player is acting as the character. If the players never make decisions, I don't see how that even qualifies as role-playing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No, that's gaming. In any game, the players are trying to accomplish the goal using the tools at their disposal. If the players aren't being challenged, I don't see how that even qualifies as a game.

First of all, RPGs don't have "goals" in the traditional sense; there is no "winning" or "losing". You play the character, and as long as you have fun, then that's as close as you come to a victory condition.

The characters have goals, though. The characters want to slay the monsters and acquire the loot, or whatever. Those characters are able to pursue those goals using the abilities which they have at their disposal, which does not include information or skill that the players possess.

I thought the whole point of roleplaying is that the player is acting as the character. If the players never make decisions, I don't see how that even qualifies as role-playing.

It's a fair point. Sometimes the rules tell us what a character is capable of, and sometimes it's up to the player to determine what the character is capable of. The exact breakdown depends on the nature of the game at hand. It's just that, in most versions of D&D, disabling traps and persuading guards are both firmly within the character skill-set rather than being free to player determination.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think different tables (and different players) have different allowances for metagaming. Some tables have ZERO issues with testing the player. That's cool, as long as everyone at the table is on board.

Personally, I'll let the players talk it out, even out of character, but regardless of which player had the idea, in the game, it is the high INT character who came up with it. In this way, we get a player who can play a high INT character, but players who have good ideas don't get shut down, either. It also can help model "superhuman" INT - four or five people hashing it out over ten minutes is the equivalent of the high-INT character just having a eureka moment in the game world.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think different tables (and different players) have different allowances for metagaming. Some tables have ZERO issues with testing the player. That's cool, as long as everyone at the table is on board.

As an extreme example, some people play Dread.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As an extreme example, some people play Dread.

I'd actually say that Dread uses a pretty innovative mechanic to reduce the amount of metagaming that goes into tabletop RPG horror games and to help the players to feel more like the characters in that genre than dice can. It is MUCH more in character to have that build of anticipation and the nervousness of the pull and the slowly escalating danger. That's how the characters feel!

A good example might be some Gygaxian dungeon crawls - early on in D&D the line between character and player was some times a little more fluffy.

 

[DMSage]

I like how you looked to yourself as the problem here. Many DMs look to the players or the game system when something goes awry when it's often an issue with the DM's approach. So good on you for thorough self-examination and implementing solutions in light of what you found. Not enough DMs do this in my experience.



I'm not sure I can agree with how you lay this out and would like to suggest a simpler way of looking at it:

It's the player's skills and the character build that work together to determine the outcome of a challenge.

There is no "character responsibility." After all, the character is not real, so it's all on the player to place his or her character in the fictional position to accomplish its goals. When the player's stated goal and approach for the character falls short of certain success (or isn't quite certain failure), then the character's skills are used to resolve the uncertainty. Sometimes you succeed outright, sometimes you fail outright, sometimes the DM calls for a check and you hope that the die is kind and your character build is solid.

I also think there is an inherent assumption in the way you say things that indicates it's expected for players to ask to make skill checks. As others have pointed out upthread, leaving your fate to a 20-sided die is not a particularly good strategy, so why a player would ask to make a check when success without a check is possible is kind of baffling. Players do not ask to make checks at my table. That would just be silly.

But otherwise, I like where you're headed with this and look forward to the next article.

Thanks, I wrote this a long time ago and hadn't figured out that part yet. I think Ill use what you said here to make it more clear. That's a much better way of stating it.

 

[DMSage]

Very traditionally speaking, metagaming is when a character uses knowledge that the player has, but of which the character should be unaware. Examples of metagaming include using fire spells against a troll (when the character has no knowledge of trolls), or specifically checking behind a certain pillar for a hidden treasure cache (which the player knows about from having read the module).

Likewise, if the player knows how to bypass a trap (either from having read the module, guessing how the DM plots, or personal understanding of how machines work), then the character does not necessarily possess that knowledge. The first two points are obviously just cheating. The fair and established way to determine what the character does or does not know, regarding that third point, is to roll for it. Instead of the player saying that she has her character position a shield in front of the firing mechanism in order to render the trap harmless, you roll to determine if the character can figure that out; and if he can, then the DM is free to describe how he bypasses the trap.

It makes no sense for an ugly barbarian to fast-talk a guard just because the barbarian's player is a stand-up comedian, when the barbarian has low charisma and no proficiency. If the player uses player knowledge about how to talk to people, instead of relying on character skill (as governed by the die roll), then that's pure meta-gaming. It's the opposite of role-playing.

Oh we are saying the same thing, we are just talking about different games. You are talking about a board game or a ROLE PLAYING. Im talking about D&D the Role playing GAME. Its a game because the players are involved in making tactical decisions and accomplishing goals. If you want to play a role playing you will just be telling stories and rolling dice to see what happens. D&d is a game, with winners and losers, (kind of, if you consider accomplishing your goals wining and failing your goals/dying losing)
It is a game for the players not just a story telling session. Players dont spend hours outfitting their characters with the perfect tactics so that they can not use them. They do it because THEY themselves, the players, want to overcome the challenge.

No one says, I sure hope my character can beat the dragon we are going to fight next week in D&D. They say, I sure hope we employ proper tactics and kill the dragon next week.

 

[DMSage]

If you want to talk your way through finding and removing traps, or talking your way through a guard, then it's recommended to play games where these are not otherwise represented as character abilities. The trade-off is that you can never play a character that is more clever, in any way whatsoever, than the player controlling that character; nor is there any incentive for a player to play below his or her full potential.

This sort of thing is an important design consideration, when a game is being created.

Why not use both? Allow your players to solve the puzzle themselves. Allow the characters to make checks to put the information together or to preform the tasks that require in game actions like cutting a rope while holding the trigger to keep it from going.
It give your players a sense of fulfillment and still allows a player to use the skills of their character who is smarter or stronger than them.