This thread was inspired by another where they were discussing character skill monkey builds vs trap DCs, among other things.
I am interested in a discussion of adjudicating traps in general.
How do you do it? How do you foster DM/Player interaction for a trap challenge? Do you rely on the skill checks, or player action descriptions or a combo of both?
Chime in.
For me, it's really no different than how I adjudicate anything else. You describe the area and ask the players what they want to do. I foster DM/player interaction with traps the same way I do with everything else - I ask them to describe what their character is doing, not what the player wants to do. For example, if they say "I want to make a Perception check" (which I train my players not to do, btw), I ask them how they are searching - what is it that their characters are doing. If what they describe means they will find the trap, they find the trap without a die-roll. If there is a question as to whether or not they will find it with their described actions, I ask them for a Perception check. A player may have no clue how to check for traps and balk or fumble with the description of what they are doing, but their experienced Rogue does know how and you have to allow for that. As a general rule I apply to everything - including traps - I only ask for die rolls when the results of an action are in question and more importantly, failure is meaningful and interesting - otherwise, I just let them do it.
Most of the above is a fairly common process, but not the only process. Where I differ from a lot of people is that personally, I usually don't use Passive Perception for passive trap detection - if they can see signs of the trap, they can just see it. I think searching for traps is an active action, not a passive one. The same applies in my games to stealth.
Closely tied to the concept of adjudicating traps is a discussion of trap design - because one can affect the other - but I won't get into much detail here since it's a slightly different topic. Complex puzzle traps can make a great full encounter. Otherwise, for smaller, simple traps I make certain they are rare, have a purpose and fit into a larger context so that they aren't random or meaningless surprises, and I make sure they don't take up much game time. I try to make sure that traps have multiple ways to avoid or disarm them, and I also try not to use vanilla deadly-damage traps - I try to make them do something more interesting when sprung than just deal damage.
I telegraph the presence of a trap - adding a corpse to the area with evidence as to how it died, describing the environmental cues like ornate wall carvings (that happen to have small holes disguised within them from which something dangerous could come), and adding "rumor has it that there are many traps present" to any story the characters have heard about the adventure area - so that the players are aware of a trap being present without a check being involve.
Then, the players can interact with the trap by way of describing their actions and I adjudicate the results - whether that means they decide to guess the right thing to do to bypass the trap without a chance of failure, or they elect to resort to dice to determine if their character can do the right thing.
I'm sure later on today Iserith will show up and give a detailed example - I do pretty much what he does, and he is much better at thinking up examples than I am because I don't actually use traps very often at all (I average less than 1 per campaign because my campaigns don't tend to involve locations that I think traps make sense for).
Would you like to play a game?
(Frontal view of east end of the corridor.)
At the edge of Rogue's bullseye lantern, the long corridor ends in a small door surrounded by sharp metal spikes, two of which are stained with dried blood where two skeletons are impaled. The bones near Rogue appear to have belonged to an arcanist and a holyman based on their slashed and bloody gear. One of the impaled skeletons at the end of the hallway wears pierced chainmail while the other has on tattered leathers. About 10 feet away from Rogue, there is an obvious seam in the stone on the floor, walls, and ceiling. Twenty feet further on, a broken spike lay on the floor (not shown on map above), but no spikes appear to be broken on the wall.
According to Cleric's map, the heart of the dungeon lay somewhere to the east. Fighter knows packs of gnolls are known to frequent this area, so lingering is risky. Wizard says he wants the arcanist's spellbook if it's among the bones.
What do you do, Rogue?
iserith wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
On the close side of the mysterious seam, I hammer 3 pitons into the floor.
Rogue -> X - 1ft - X - 1ft - X -> seam.
I tie rope around and through the pitons sufficient to hold my weight in the event of a sudden fall. The other end of the rope I tie to my waist. The length of slack rope between me and the pitons is maybe 30 feet (or 10 feet less than th distance between the seam and the door).
I think I'll bring out my climbers gear and instead of tying the rope to my waist, I'll use my harness. Grabbing the rope, I step across the seam.
(My theory is the corridor is a slide that dumps us onto the spikes. Im going to use the rope so I don't fall to my death).
bawylie wrote:
Whatever happened was sudden. The undrawn sword and thieves' tools suggest they were caught unaware. I was wrong about the slide trap but now I see the door is damp.
Cleric determines cause of death, if possible. Wizard wonders what breaks metal plate.
Rogue doesn't need thieves' tools. He considers grabbing the sword but the wet door is intriguing. Rogue examines the spikes and looks to see if they're affixed or maybe they come out of holes. Fighter checks the craftsmanship on the broken spike.
Cleric determining cause of death on bodies not obviously impaled*
If the rogue is near that broken spike on the floor, what can he tell about it from picking it up and looking at the back of it?
Rogue also checks to see if any of the surrounding walls and floor area are as damp as the door appears to be. Rogue also checks to see if there are any outlines for what might be 'drain holes'. EDIT: disguised drain holes
The idea behind this is what if it is a water based trap that swept the other party right into/onto the spikes, then two of the four 'washed' back out into the corridor as the water receded/drained...
bawylie wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Akeisha wrote:
Rogue suspects Arcanist/Holyman came to blows with plate-wearing longsword-wielder. He kicks the broken spike to fighter.
Then he investigates the door. Is it wet or slick? Odor? (I want to find out if the dampness is acidic or just water, but I don't want to touch the door).
bawylie wrote:
Cleric and Wizard start checking the ceiling to see if anything looks out of place or unusual...the spike had to come from 'somewhere'...
Okay, we have an alchemist holy man's notes right? And a chemical smell. I know time's an issue but wizard's gonna have to read the holy man's notes here. The last folks brought a holy alchemisty dude for a reason.
And that seam... Fighter is a dwarf. What can he tell me about the stonework of the seam?
Rogue retreats from door, to party's side of seam, tosses a small dinner roll at the door.
Akeisha wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
All we need to do is go East.
Heres what I figure: once the trap is sprung, anyone on the wrong side gets dumped downward onto the spikes.
If we stay back here, the hall in front of us will become a pit with spikes at the bottom. When that happens, what will be in front of us? A way to go east.
Lets spring this trap. I want thr party on the safe side of the seam & then fighter chucks that broken spike at the door - looking for a ranged strength check to force the door open, which I suspect sets off the trap.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Rogue quickly harnesses fighter to the rope line: (action, bonus action fast hands, whatever else I can do). Then moves alongside cleric too hold the west/rear guard. Wizard & fighter take mimic.
Wizard casts a fireball at the 'mimic'! Burn baby burn! 
Fighter charges in and starts hacking away at the mimic while Wizard stays west of the seam and casts ranged attacks spells like fire bolt. (Unlike the tarrasque, the mimic is immune to acid splash.) The mimic has taken an amorphous form and moved away from the wall revealing damaged masonry. A fireball fries the mimic in the end.
The corridor dips downward slightly during the battle before righting itself again - any decent amount of weight brought to bear east of the seam (in addition to fighter) will likely tip the corridor downward completely. The gnolls have picked up the party's scent and have heard the sound of battle. Their arrival is imminent. What do you do?
Wizard prepares to cast a Sleep spell at the Gnolls! Sweet dreams! 
Looks like we'll need those gnoll a. The weight of them will keep the corridor "down."
I spill lamp oil in the doorway and leading toward the slope. Let's get the wizard to Grease the area. Cleric and I will each hold an end of rope to trip any gnolls that rush in this hall. With luck, we'll dump a few on the mimic.
bawylie wrote:
Nice... Nice...
bawylie wrote:
Hey look, Ma! No process checks!
Okay, so, awesome. Do you have a write-up of the trap that puts all the info about it in one place? I want to save this for later...
I hope you guys let the players know that if they take many skills that are wasting their time in your games and should put their resources into a few skills that can't be talked around.
Currently all the intelligence skills seem a waste as you give that info freely, Medicine would be a waste if you can describe how to bind and splint wounds, Perception isn't used, and I suspect if you describe an episode of survivor then you won't need that skill either. Deception and intimidation shouldn't ever be rolled as you describe what you are doing to make them talk etc. and if you can pay instrument in real life why waste a resource on performance. Having a set of theives tools is useful, but you don't need proficency in them as long as you describe their use. So it leaves a very small list of skills worth taking in your game.
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
This is a great example, but it needs a few caveats:
It is an example of play using an old school, complex puzzle trap worthy of a full encounter, played by an experienced GM and experienced players, where player skill > character abilities. It's the way many older GMs play (myself included), and it's a style choice that does require a social contract of sorts. It's a style that the OP asked about, it's not the end-all-be-all only way to play. Also, this style of play does not mean that character skills are suddenly irrelevant, just that they take a back seat to player actions.
As a GM you have to gauge things on the fly, and the most important question to ask yourself is "are the players having fun?" If the players are experienced with this method and are enjoying poking and prodding around the trap area, then all is well. If they are inexperienced players and getting stuck, if instead of enjoying themselves they are getting frustrated at having to poke and prod, or if they are just expressing a desire to allow their characters abilities to come into play so that they don't have to rely so heavily on player skill - then it's fine to ask them for skill rolls during the process. If the roll is successful, you could narrate them successfully overcoming the obstacle, or better yet - give them enough information that they can now plan successful actions on their own accord. Remember that you are always teaching them to adapt to your style of GMing, but you should also be making an effort to adapt to their preferences as well - this is a group activity after all and everyone has an equal say in what is fun to them.
Player Skill vs. Character Abilities is an interesting and important topic that each GM must ultimately determine how they are going to handle. If a player is terrible at figuring out how to disarm traps, but he's playing a 10th level Rogue who is a master at it - how are you going to adjudicate? My personal solution is that I am pretty heavily on the player skill side, but will adjust the other direction for players when I think it is not enjoyable to them. There's really no right or wrong answers to that question, it's more a matter of preference and play style and GMs are going to fall all over the spectrum. Many groups are not familiar with this old school play style or just may not enjoy it, and will play this encounter out closer to the RAW - with the GM asking for skill checks at appropriate times and adjudicating accordingly.
eleran wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Before I post anything actually relevant, Iserith, you have a quote error in one of your earlier posts - you've got me as saying something that paulstrait did. Not that I am bothered by it, but the other person might prefer their words not be assigned to me.
grendel111111 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
iserith wrote:
We don't run the style where the player has to describe his actions. We assume the character has sufficient knowledge and let the dice do the talking.
I do like to keep dice rolls to a minimum though so Ill ask for one perception check for an entire room say (instead of one per door), and I like to throw in more investigation into the mix.
I also assume passive perception unless the players specifically say they are searching for xyz.
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
iserith wrote:
My question, that has been prompted from this discussion, is about the opposite situation - the very experienced and smart player has a character with an 8 intelligence and keeps on working out great solutions to complex tasks, problems, puzzles etc. At what point, if at all, does the DM restrict, modify or adjudicate that the player is being too smart for the character?
Seems to me that, without some recourse to skill and ability checks, a player will put that 8 from the ability array into intelligence (unless they need it for spellcasting etc) because he or she is smart enough to negate its effect in the game.
If someone has a link to a discussion about this topic, I'd be interested to read it.
El_Condoro wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Ansbach is correct here. In my disabled-folks' group, I've got autistic players. They invariably struggle with in-character interaction.
But that's alright. All I need them to do is tell me what they're trying to do and how. Anything else is gravy.
This isn't about invalidating skill checks or describing your way out of them. It's about understanding how to use them to facilitate the actual playing of the game. The Game/The Play is making decisions - the process exists to help us determine the outcome of those decisions. The Process is NOT the Game, (Simulationists notwithstanding)
Well, Ansbach WAS right until he edited his post - there IS a right answer. And it has nothing to do with how silver-tongued a player might be. Evaluate the decisions & actions based on their merits alone, not on the delivery. It's downright unfair to give the fast talker and the cute player advantages while the awkward shy player struggles in the corner.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
@ Grendel - yes - those are the same odds.
@Ansbach. Having an opinion doesn't hurt my credibility. That's nonsense. Even in a subjective matter, naturally I would believe my opinion to be right, or else why would I espouse it?
And who knows what the rest of your post is about? Player skill vs character ability? The player's skill doesn't make it into the task-resolution of the action, only the character's abilities do. Player's skill is in deciding how to employ those abilities.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
bawylie wrote:
eleran wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
That's why, when you're DM-ing, you need to know the intent. And if it isnt clear, you need to ask.
I really don't see how you can rule anything at all without knowing what te player actually wants to do. Do you guys use dice for that?
Tongue-tied player: "bunch of stammering"
DM: "Give me a charisma check to [what? What is this check for?]"
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
"I want to disarm this trap."
"How?"
"I'm gonna use my thieves' tools and monkey with it."
Now at this point, I see no reason that's an automatic fail. So I say, "It looks complex. Give me a Dex check. If you succeed, you'll likely jam this thing. If you fail, you'll set it off. What do you do?"
"I don't want to set it off and it looks complex. Can I get help?"
"Absolutely. But anyone helping does so under same conditions. If you fail, trap will affect you both. Any takers?"
See, where we're clear on intent and approach (or goal and method), we don't have to rely on precision. Take diplomacy - you want to convince someone to drop a claim on something. How? Compliment them, intimidate th, bribe them, it doesn't matter to me if you say "I slip him a bag of coins covertly" or just "bribery."
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
First, some definitions.
Character ability: the numbers on the sheet
Player skill: the application of the character's abilities.
Play: making decisions for the character in the game world.
Given these definitions, I see no way that a player's skill can come I to conflict with a character's abilities. Nor do I see any way to "go with" one or the other. (unless we're departing from the game rules for a mini game, which I frequently do. In which case the players skill at that mini game is a stand-in for the task resolution system altogether).
I'm pretty clear on where you and I stand on our most recent discussion, Bawlie. Let me restate it to you to see if I am correct: you evaluate decisions and action based on merit alone, not on the delivery. I evaluate based on merit and delivery, but don't punish poor delivery - only reward good delivery.
If I understand the "why" correctly, it's because you think it's unfair to give the player with good delivery a reward over the player who might not be able to, while I think it's unfair to not reward good delivery because someone else might not be able to.
Ansbach wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
bawylie wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Reading through the posts on this thread, I wonder what people would think of this analogy. Suppose I play a fighter, and I come across a bunch of orcs in a place where there is some complicated terrain, and I've got a couple different weapons. Now, in real life, I've never swung a sword or fired an arrow, and I know nothing about combat tactics. I don't need to know how to swing a sword in order to attack with my sword. But I can't just say "meh, my fighter will fight in a tactically appropriate way [roll]." Instead, I have to decide which weapon to use, who to attack, where to move, etc.
Similarly, if I play a rogue, I don't need to know how to perform slight of hand tricks or use thieves tools, but I do need to know what I'm going to use them on. I don't need to be a litigator or politician to persuade an NPC to give aid to the party, but I can say "I try to persuade him to do x, and I appeal to y which he's made clear is important to him."
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
bawylie wrote:
TheLastDunedain wrote:
iserith wrote:
@Ansbach
Maybe that's so. But this is a game of decisions and that requires that the player makes decisions for the adventurer. Not the other way around. And I'm not going to stop the player to say "don't do that. Your char knows better." It's the player's call always.
That said, if something bad happens as a result of unclear circumstances or miscommunication, part of my credo is that I resolve things like that in favor of my players. In other words, if they did something because I was unclear on the consequences and they wouldn't have done it had they known, I assume that's on me.
Ansbach wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
He's not assuming - he's relaying personal experience, including testimonials from players who comment how little debate stalls his games.
bawylie wrote:
No. I see where you inferred his judgment on every other Playstyle than his.
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
You have to follow the subject. In this case we're looking at the word "it" which specifically refers to the dispute between the two characters.
Youve made the point that those disputes have merit. "It's valid" "it adds color" "it contributes to success."
Iserith countered "it also leads to pointless debate."
What he didn't say was that your game was bad because it's not like his. He said he wouldn't want to play in a game that was easily derailed by inter-player conflict.
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Asking "How do you disarm the trap" slows down the game way too much. If its a Rogue with thieves tools its safe to assume that's how he/she disarms the trap.
Just like a Fighter doesn't have to specify how he attacks the Orc. He swings his sword, of course.
I'll send you a PM so that we aren't derailing this thread any longer Bawylie. FWIW, I have defended Iserith multiple times - not that he asked for it or necessarily even needed it.
Would you like to play a game?
(Now in Grayscale!)
You are deep in the goblin's lair, a dungeon originally crafted by humans and dwarves, but later taken over by these foul, unwashed denizens. You stand in a 20-foot-square chamber, having entered via a corridor to the east.
Opposite the doorway from which you came is a well-crafted wooden door with ornate hinges that appears to have been hastily boarded up with two planks that wouldn't hold back so much as a kobold. One of the boards cover a simple circular door-pull and there appears to be no lock. Strangely enough, the faintly bitter odor of almonds hangs in the air around the door.
There is light coming from under the door and as well as the sounds of arcane words being cast by the leader of the goblins, the blood shaman Zmexur, whose head is the object of your quest. If Zmexur finishes his fiendish ritual, he will summon the forces of the Abyss to fight on his side.
What do you do?
TheLastDunedain wrote:
I ask the Wizard of the group "Are there any magics on the door?"
woif wrote:
Dragoloth wrote:
iserith wrote:
presuming the barbarian fails to break the door down, and that his physical assault does not trigger any trap on the door, I stand up and attempt to pry one of the boards off of the door (the one covering the ring)
TheLastDunedain wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
That's a pretty creative trap -- I was still pretty clueless. More investigation would have been needed to successfully avoid the trap.
How imaginative are you feeling tonight? Up for presenting us with another puzzle?
TheLastDunedain wrote:
iserith wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Here is a trap from a game we had 6 months ago. The players were looking for an artifact owned the King Sadim that was rumored to be so powerful it could destroy a kingdom in a day. He had died and hidden it in an underground burial complex with himself.
The players had discovered a map to the chambers and had gone there to find both the treasure and an NPC associate of the parties thief who had disappeared the month before.
They knew it was a death trap dungeon filled with deadly traps. but they weren’t the first party to try and get the treasure. When they arrived there was a body at the entrance with a thin needle sticking out of his eye. The rogue found the mechanism in the lock of the large doors in front of them. In the first corridor they found a large man wearing a loin cloth hanging from a pendulum with an axe in his back. At his feet was a heavy warhammer. And under where he was suspended was a pressure plate that released the axe trap.
After several more triggered traps and their victims they came to a long, ten foot wide corridor. There was a heavy set, wooden door at the end of the corridor. It was bound with iron bands, but bending slightly towards them in the middle. In the torch light they could see scorch marks coming from under the door.
What do you do?
Ansbach wrote:
One fav of mine is The Treasure Vault of Kasil from dungeon magazine issue 13. The entire adventure is one big booby-trapped treasure vault. Needless to say it takes a lot more than skill checks to reach the treasure vault.
grendel111111 wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I think you're almost right. I don't believe they player can push skill use. "I want to intimidate" is fine, totally. The question of how isn't a mechanical one though, it's fictional. "What are you threatening?" Even if the answer is short and sweet "physical violence" "loss of status" "stab" we have something in the game world that's going on. And this is relevent because it's the DM who decides how those NPCs react.
When you say, "I want to intimidate with my intimidate skill and my character knows how" yes they do - what we're looking for isn't a justification for your character to do something - we're looking for whats changing in game.
bawylie wrote:
Look at it like this.
Player "I intimidate the orc."
DM "The orc is intimidated."
This is complete. Mechanically an fictionally. And at the very base line, this is all that's required to play. But when we (both on the DM side and player side) contribute more to the fiction, we get more flavorful and evocative play.
Sometimes we complain that combat is a purely "hit, 8 damage," "miss," repeat affair. Because while that's mechanically (even narratively) what's happenkng, it's also pretty flat and boring. It's like keeping your sports car under 25mph. We can do more, even though no more is technically required. We want to do more, because doing more is more fun.
What we can't do is just say "I throw dice at the problem until its resolved." That's an abdication of decision-making, which is what this game is all about.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Alright let's back that one up.
If all you want to do is intimidate an orc, you can. I set a DC, you roll, whatever whatever.
But why are you doing it? If intimidation itself is the approach, and not the goal, what is the goal?
Player "I want the orc to confess the location of blah blah."
DM "How do you get him to confess?"
Player "Intimidation"
DM "Ok, DC blah ablah."
Now we have a complete player turn. In this case, intimidation is the approach while information is the goal.
But what if our orc is particularly brave in the face of violence? If I don't know how you're intimidating him, I may assume it's physical and set a very high DC. But maybe you have a better idea - and want to threaten his honor, a much lower DC - would you prefer that I assume what your character is doing? Or would you like to determine the course of your character's actions? Does your answer change if you know that your approach to the problem is a factor in determining the success of your action?
Alright guys, we're in a situation wherein:
1.) you seem to believe I'm saying one way of playing is "wrong," when I'm saying its boring/incomplete.
2.) you seem to believe these are two different ways to play when they are manifestly NOT different ways - they merely have different levels of content.
Im not going to defend positions I dont hold. If you want to just say the name of the skill and then throw dice (and your DM is cool with that), more power to you. I feel that's very boring and ignores the imaginative aspects of the game. It's not "wrong DND" anymore than two slices of bread is a "wrong sandwich."
bawylie wrote:
No, the character's skill doesn't modify the DC. The approach may, but the skill modifies the attempt only.
In play, some investigation or insight into how best to approach the intimidate is a great idea.
All told, someone who has invested resources DOES have a better chance at success than someone who hasn't. Those odds are increased on the check side, not the DC side.
Last, I don't think there's a realistic danger of auto success/fail becoming so prevalent that any/all character info isn't relevent. That's a weird claim.
Basic Rules, page 67 (emphasis mine):
The DM uses your character’s actions and attitudes to determine how an NPC reacts. A cowardly NPC buckles under threats of violence. A stubborn dwarf refuses to let anyone badger her. A vain dragon laps up flattery.
When interacting with an NPC, pay close attention to the DM’s portrayal of the NPC’s mood, dialogue, and personality. You might be able to determine an NPC’s personality traits, ideals, flaws, and bonds, then play on them to influence the NPC’s attitude.
Interactions in D&D are much like interactions in real life. If you can offer NPCs something they want, threaten them with something they fear, or play on their sympathies and goals, you can use words to get almost anything you want. On the other hand, if you insult a proud warrior or speak ill of a noble’s allies, your efforts to convince or deceive will fall short.
This is just further evidence to me that the expectation when playing this game is that what you say matters with regard to the outcome. And the DM determines this. If you don't offer sufficient context that makes your attempt at (for example) Intimidation possible (but not certain) in the DM's estimation, you just don't get a roll even if you really, really want to make one. Do a good job and you might get auto-success. Miss the mark entirely and you may fail. Land somewhere in between and the DM may call for a check.
But anyway, we're well off the trap discussion at this point. Let's bring it back around to that if we can, even if we're just referencing traps when talking about how and when to call for rolls. Agreed?
bawylie wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
The question "Can I make a check?" is problematic for me.
For one, you can't - it's putting the resolution of a task before determining what the task itself is.
"Paul, we have a problem..."
"Shoot it! Shoot it until it's dead!!"
"No, buddy, there's traffic on the 5 and we'll be late to the airport."
For two, it makes players more concerned with the rules and process of the game than the actual circumstances. If I'm your DM, I don't want your head in that space - I want it in the game world.
All in all I want to know WHAT you want and HOW you go about getting it done. "I want to make a N check" doesn't help me without the What and How. Maybe it IS the How, but let's discuss what your character is Doing before we discuss how it's resolved. I mean, you could decide something that doesn't need a roll...
bawylie wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Of course it can. Nobody's saying otherwise
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm sorry, but I disagree. The player is required to give an intent or goal and an approach to how they achieve it. The DM is not free to determine how the players' characters behave (except under certain specific exceptions like charm/dominate).
I do not assume the goal is implicit because I do not read minds or see the future and I refuse to take from the player the ability to decide for themselves what goals they pursue and how they do so (caveat: charm/domination).
Bloodscythe wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
The question becomes How detailed does the player's description need to be? The answer is it can range from no description other than I would like a dice roll to represent my character taking action, to a extremely thorough description of how a character may approach trying to win over the trust of a captured orc using a combination of psychological manipulation and an attempt to induce Stockholm Syndrome. The answer is: the description needs no detail. The dice roll represents the act.
iserith wrote:
Nah, you've sort of convinced me otherwise.
"I want to make a check" is out of order. I have to respond with, "To do what?"
"To solve the problem," isn't good enough.
I was thinking it's just an empty sandwich. Now I've changed my mind - it's wrong. That's not just a boring way to play, it's a bad way.
Bloodscythe wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
So the short version of this six page thread is that everyone has their own method of adjudicating traps, they either explicitly or implicitly think their method is the best, and the methods are all over the map?
Welcome to the internet! The funniest thing about this thread is imagining the thousands of roleplayers who would tell us we are all wrong simply because we shouldn't even be playing 5E to being with.
I am vaguely inclined to extract the useful bits out of this thread into an objective (as possible) list of tips and tricks, but I don't have the time today.
bawylie wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood then.
But giving people what they want (which I think we should do in entertainment) requires obstacles. Because We value more what we work for. Thus I'm disinclined to simply say "ok you're more powerful now." Id rather that power come at a price. And I'd rather "winning" happen over in-game situations than simply beating DCs. Sounds like I'm anti "roll" playing - but the reality is I'm FOR player engagement. If my players aren't engaged & would rather skip what's on deck, then let's shelve it and play something they're actually interested in.
Bloodscythe wrote:
bawylie wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
iserith wrote:
Yes. Because that's honestly and fairly explaining what the characters see, smell, sense hear and feel.
Most people smell almonds. Not the assassin. He smells a compound aerosol toxin.
bawylie wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
I think Grendel gets what I was trying to say. I just wasn't wording it well.
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Yeah I'm sorry I even said it. I was trying toake a counter factual point and the damn word got away from me and poisoned the well here.
Im very sorry.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Would you like to play a game?
You're traveling through the underground ruins of an ancient dwarven city whose name is lost to time - adventurers simply call it "The Delve." This section of The Delve is overrun with goblinkin and you know that a dangerous warband of hobgoblins lairs ahead to the east and south. You can hear their revelry echoing down the halls.
You stand in a 25-foot-square chamber with a ceiling that is just as high. The chamber is empty. The floor is comprised of large flagstones, some of which are cracked and broken. A large dark stain - dried blood and gore by the looks of it - covers the center of the floor with a matching one on the ceiling. The chamber opposite this one looks about the same so far as you can tell from this distance.
Separating the chambers is a 30-foot corridor with a 10-foot-high ceiling. The flagstones here are discolored compared to the chambers and, where the corridor meets the chamber you're in, the floor is slightly uneven. The ceiling above this spot is scuffed and chipped compared to other parts of the ceiling.
What do you do?
The ceiling is scuffed and chipped above the blood stains, or above the spot where the discolored hallway and the chamber meet?
Ansbach wrote:
Someone else can be the Rogue. As the Cleric, I'll pull out my wineskin and (staying in the room) carefully pour some wine where the floor is uneven - trying to determine if there is space under the discolored flagstones or the floor we are standing on.
Ansbach wrote:
The Cleric says, "Well friends - I'm not sure how this trap works, but judging by the bloodstains on the ceiling I think it's clear that it will somehow mash us. Most likely if we cross this corridor. Either the floor we are standing on is going to move, or this hallway floor will. But what do I know - I'm just a poor servant of the gods. This is not my area of expertise." He waits for the rest of the party to further investigate, regretting that he will need to rest again before he is able to cast Find Traps.
For something to scuff and chip, something else has to scrape against it. I look around for compatible damage on other surfaces.
Ansbach wrote:
bawylie wrote:
@Bloodscythe
Your player is fundamentally misunderstanding how to play games. The "character" can't do ANYTHING unless the player directs it to. It is artificial, and possessed of no independent thought or will. If the character could think for itself and solve its own problems, we wouldn't need the player in the first place.
The intelligence scores, training, & expertise of the character apply to task resolution only AFTER the player has decided a course of action. The benefits of that expertise come into play vs the game mechanics - not vs the fictional world.
Your player is wrong.
I'm going to move closer to the hallway and inspect the discoloration (staying in the main room) does it appear to be made out of the same stone? If so is the hallway actually discolored or is the main room? I would also like to poke at the first stones of the hallway with a staff to test if there is any give or if it seems stable.
woif wrote:
Like a see-saw?
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I use my player meta-knowledge to realize these crazy mmo "dungeons" alway have a final encounter area with a treasure chest just one secret door away from the entry room, intended for ease of retreat after the daring heros defeat the baddies and take their stuff. Therefore there must be a secret door around here somewhere that will bypass all this trap altogether and just get me directly to my boots of flying and helm of true sight that I was promised in the brochure.
I'm not sure that the hallway is meant to dump back into the main room for squishing, If I had to guess I would think the hallway is meant to catch the front line and that somehow triggers the two falling ceilings to catch everybody else.
When I pushed down on the floor and released did it go right back to rest or did the hallway on our side rise up above the floor of the main chamber before it reached eaquilibrium? If so, was I able to gauge the thickness of the floor?
I would like to inspect the walls at this point looking for a few key things,
a) are there any scratch/scuff marks on the walls of the main room near the top that may indicate a moving ceiling?
b) does it look possible for the rouge to climb up the wall and down the hallway (avoiding the floor)
bawylie wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I don't think that anyone believes that there is only one way to play D&D. I think almost everyone (at least among experienced players) believes that their way is the best way and will argue about why until the cows come home (myself included sometimes).
Ansbach wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
bawylie wrote:
"So the question is: Is there only one style or way that 5th ed D and D can be played?
You and Iserith seems to think "yes". I think "No". Funny enough I like playing the game in the style you guys now say it should be played."
@Grendel -
You've made some bad assumptions. I don't care how detailed a description is. As I've written in this thread, I need the player to give me an intent and an approach. It doesn't matter how flowery those things are. (If you recall, I said I would accept the word "stab" as both an intent and an approach). The word count or narrative qualities of the description have no bearing on the difficulty of achieving the goal. The approach might.
Lets examine how I'd run a locked
door. Say there's a heavy Oak door
that's locked and reinforced. What do
you do?
"I make a strength check" isn't an
answer insofar as it says nothing
about what your character is trying to
do to.
"I kick in the door" actually is both a goal and an approach! Now I'll ask for
a check (if I think it can be done).
"I pray to my ancestors, begin for strength, and, bellowing my family's
name, I hurl forward with all my might
to slam the oak door from its iron
seat!" is also a goal and approach!
Now I'll ask for a check (if I think it
can be done).
See, these aren't different ways of playing the game. Both answers are
valid and actionable. Skipping action
and moving straight to task resolution
fails because we don't know what
task needs to be resolved.
Now you've given some examples of other ways to play the game. And that's cool. All that works and to varied levels of entertainment. but all of that follows the form of the game. Problem -> proposed solution -> resolution. The task resolution system exits to support the proposed solution, not to replace it. In other words it's not DC -> Dice.
DC -> Dice isn't a game of D&D (presence of Ds aside). It's a game of "beat this number." Now, "beat this number" is a component of D&D and it should be used! It doesn't though replace the in-world circumstances.
Which brings me to my statement that the subject player was wrong. He was. For one, he can't call for a check (I suppose he CAN but doing so meaningless w/o declaring some course of action). For two he can't simply say "my character does whatever's best to do in this situation" and expect the dice to resolve it. Take a fighter - the player decides who to attack and how. Take a rogue, she must decide what to do about a trap and how to do it. She can't abdicate decisions for dice.
Decisions are the "play" part of the game. If there IS a wrong way to play, it's in refusing to make decisions.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
@Bawlie - I think you mistook Grendel's post for mine...
Ansbach wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
"grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Hey Iserith - would you consider that what the rest of us have been doing works as a Help action for Gary's roll so that he would have advantage on his check? I can certainly see players trying to make that case.
Also, he was a bit excited and rolled the dice too fast (noobs!), but as the Cleric I would have liked to have cast Guidance on his investigation check. Not that it would have likely made a difference on a roll that low, but with Guidance and advantage he would have had a really good chance of passing, I would imagine.
Also, with your "Yes, and..." style - I imagine that you wouldn't consider it blocking if I said, "Wait Gary - don't check yet! Let me cast a spell to help you out first..." Correct?
What about if one of us said, "Wait Gary! Before you make your check - I think I know how to disarm this thing. Let's talk about it first." That sounds more like it might be blocking in your games, but I'm not certain.
Ansbach wrote:
This has been a tremendously useful thread. It shows examples, and provides a good basis for discussion. Thank you.
Onto the two sides of the coin that I face.
I started in the AD&D 1st ed days where player skill was how we approached it.
Today, most of the players that I DM are used to the mechanics and numbers on the character sheet driving the character, and not the player skill. Often times when I try to steer the game back to more player skill driven models, I take a lot of flak.
A common scenario for me:
Players are in a large room. There are several pieces of furniture, a desk, a trap triggered by a pressure plate on the floor underneath a rug, and a hidden object in a false drawer in one of the dressers.
How I would like the game to play out would be to describe the room, the furniture, the rug, etc... and then the players tell me how they are searching (as given in the examples in this thread)
What normally happens:
DM: Describes room etc
Rogue: I search the room and roll a 22.
Player and the party expect with a 22 that pretty much everything will be revealed now.
If I deviate from that and ask what they are searching, there will be grumbles about the point of having a search roll in the first place and how they invested a ton of points into perception and searching so that should speak for itself.
I find this to be fairly common with many players these days, and recognize that this is a group dynamic and so I usually just go with it to keep harmony at the table, though I prefer more detailed actions be given. Things can be cleverly and easily wrapped up into a dice roll that almost never fails.
For example, all parties I DM for over the past ten years always have a pair of skill monkey builds that are maxed out on things like perception and trap detection and trap disabling. The DC for most hidden things is usually well below what they normally roll on average so the odds of them failing are pretty low, then exaggerated by the fact that there are two of them so both have to fail rolls that they will succeed 9 times out of 10. That doesn't account for the other party members who may not be optimized for perception but the given DCs are still low enough that they will pass 40-60% of the time on their own anyway.
This has led to many discussions about even needing dice since a player group of five players is usually covering every angle where a failed perception check by the party is either done because the DC is made so high that there can be a chance of a party failure or just a bad round of luck (happens in one every ten or so sessions overall).
Some stuff to think about. Not really sure how to steer more towards "player skill" these days because out of the book it seems like house ruling to minimize the ability.
Ansbach wrote:
Sorry, I'm a habitual editor - I added two more questions... 
Edit:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
@Icedcrow
I sympathize with your position. One way I've handled eager ability rollers is to tell them up front that I will ask for checks when I want them. If someone starts picking up their dice as they talk about their action, I politely ask them to put the dice back or hang onto that for a second - I need to know what you're doing so I can set a DC. Then I remind them I need a goal and an action.
Means I have to interrupt. "Searching the entire room will take half an hour or longer, and if you're doing more than looking, like actually walking around and examining things, it'll be Investigate, not perception. Using your passive perception, I've already stated Everything you see. So now I need to know if you're doing a CSI investigation or just picking specific areas."
"What's the point of the perception skill/ranks anyway?"
Like all mechanics, they exist to help me resolve tasks and determine outcomes. They're not an "action button" - nor a prerequisite step to taking an action. They happen after your character actually DOES something, not before. If I want a check, I'll ask for one. All I need from you is Actions (goals & approaches to achieving those goals).
Most players I've played with require very little re-training to break the check-IS-action habit. I just have to be consistent about it and not let them push me on when I need a check.
icedcrow wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
icedcrow wrote:
This statement is part of every game I run. I put it in writing as part of the page-setting document:
Fiction first, always. To do something, describe it and be clear with your goal and intent. If you don't, I will have to stop to ask you "How do you go about doing that?" or "What does that look like?" or "What do you hope to accomplish?" Please do not roll dice unless you are asked to do so (with the possible exception of in-initiative attack rolls, damage, etc.).
icedcrow wrote:
iserith wrote:
Much of what's being called "Playstyle" is basically a discussion of how and when to use the task-resolution system. That's not truly a Playstyle, though. It's just getting the fundamental game engine correct. This is important. It's like starting out in first gear instead of 3rd.
Im a big proponent for player agency - by all means, do whatever you can think to do. But the fundamental structure of the game belongs to me. It works for me. It's built for me. And it exists to help me facilitate the actual Play.
Ansbach wrote:
If Gary gets upset, or disagrees with what's offered, it's his responsibility to say so.
"No, I want to disarm the trap, not just figure it out."
Okay, I respect your decision. (Consequences of trap).
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Maybe there's a pill for what Gary has.
I, the dwarf barbarian, first slap the back of the Cleric's head for wasting wine like that. Then while he's distracted by my slap, I steal his hefty money pouch, tie it tightly so that no coins will spill out, and such that it won't jingle when it lands. I also tie a long piece of twine to it, handing the end of the twine to the Cleric, and toss it to the end of the tilting hallway, slapping his hands away as he most likely tries to take the money pouch back.
As our end of the hallway tilts up due to the weight of the money pouch on the other end, I stop it with my foot (or grab it with my hand) and check to see if there's a gap under the ledge (you said about a foot?) I can use to hook my grappling hook (with a rope tied to it). If so, I pass the grappling hook under the tilt floor and push the floor back down such that the grappling hook is under the floor and the rope, pinched in the crack, pokes up through the crack. Meanwhile, the Cleric is making sure his money pouch doesn't slide off the other end into the abyss by keeping it in place with the twine.
I tell the cleric to press down slightly over the end of the tilting part of the hallway to hold the floor a little under the level of the floor we're standing on. Then wrapping the head of a piton with the Cleric's stole, and placing the Cleric's backpack over the contact point to muffle the pounding and driving, I drive a piton into the floor with slow random hits in time with the enemy's revelry to disguise the sound further from prying ears, at an angle such that it will prevent the tilt-a-floor from rising, and then tie the grappling hook rope tightly to it.
Now this end of the floor should not be able to move up due to the piton, or down due to the grappling hook/rope tied to the piton, thus securing the entire hallway from tilting. I test it carefully, gradually putting my weight on this end, and if it works out as planned I walk confidently across, testing carefully once again once I pass the halfway point.
Once we're on the other side, I send the Cleric back across to the other side to untie the rope, cut it fairly short (but leave enough such that it can be grabbed) and have him hide the end of the rope in the crack or cover it with some gore, assuming it's pinched well enough to keep the grapple in place. Now the floor only tilts one way (as weight on the grapple end should quickly overcome the holding force of the pinched rope). With me holding down my side of the floor, the Cleric can safely walk back across.
With the piton in place, it will only prevent the floor from tilting from our side (at least until someone passes the halfway point). The floor will still work if someone tries to come up behind us (and doesn't have a means to foil it). If we need to escape (and someone didn't follow us setting off the trap and releasing the grappling hook), half of us can rush back across with the other half hanging back to prevent the floor from tilting, then a person on the other side can recover the rope and hold it tightly, preventing that side of the floor from dropping while everyone else crosses quickly afterward. Once we're all across, we drop the rope and any pursuing forces will likely pass the mid-way point and get caught by the trap, thinking it's safe as we taunt them from the other side just before ducking out of the danger area.
iserith wrote:
icedcrow wrote:
thehobb wrote:
iserith wrote:
What makes a trap?
thehobb wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I forwarded this to a couple of groups I play with and got some conversation going. The majority are of the mindset that to keep the game moving quickly that it should be
* detect trap - one roll per room - if you make the DC you detect that a trap exists
* disarm trap - if you succeed with the DC you disarm it and move on. Otherwise it goes off
To them per discussion - setting off a trap by accident should only happen if all players fail their perception DC to detect the trap and that the style given in this thread does not appeal to them because it removes the need to have skills on the character sheet if they can just bypass needing them (and if you are optimized to detect and disarm traps that you are being penalized by having useless bonuses)
I feel that this is because they are more interested in quick paced games that are centered around fighting for the most part.
This is of course entirely a taste issue. Anecdotal - the players that liked the more player skill driven games also were like me and came up with D&D in the 80s, and the players that really did not like this tended to have started in 3.5 or 4.
Again - thank you for the topic it has been very useful to me, as I try to inject more player driven skill into our games and trying to understand the player resistance to it. As it is a taste thing, it pretty much requires players open to moving away from the character sheet more, which is where I'm finding most of the friction.
iserith wrote:
I don't really get that. If all 4-5 players are looking, the odds of finding something approach 100%
if the odds are 95% or better, what is the purpose of rolling the dice? There's none. Finding the trap is an eventuality, not a possibility. Therefore, their own strategy removes completely the benefit of skills and training.
Theres nothing wrong with liking fast paced games. I certainly do. So I run them fast. But it is a mistake to think that anything other than 2 rolls is slow paced. Pacing, btw, is an art and involves knowing when to speed up, when to slow down, and it exists not to absorb as much content as possible but to engage the players as powerfully as possible.
bawylie wrote:
icedcrow wrote:
thehobb wrote:
icedcrow wrote:
iserith wrote:
Fortunately we have a new action economy that will help you. One player makes the check and you ask the others "While she's searching this room, what are the rest of you doing?"
Anyone who "also searches the room" ask them if they're helping (in which case the main investigator gets advantage on their search check) or if they're simply searching a different area independently of the first investigator (in which they each get a check in their specific zone, of course there's no dice involved in a zone that has no traps, they just don't find anything.
If they ALL search the room, well, multiple sources of advantage do not stack. So the main person just makes the role with advantage. Meanwhile, your party is taking no other actions for the next 10 explorer minutes. Nobody's looking out or keeping watch. Nobody's searching for secret doors, hidden treasures, or taking the time to think ahead. They are responding to the mechanics of the task resolution system and ignoring the circumstances in the game.
It seems like you have a golden opportunity to make the in-game circumstances matter more than the task resolution system. I would begin by placing traps in combats. Or time-limited incentives (such as a momentarily defenseless enemy or a treasure that's only intermittently achievable). The idea is to create situations in which the decision on how to act is more relevant than the die roll.
Save the girl and let the villain escape or sacrifice her to prevent future evil?
Take the short (trapped path) to engage an enemy/help an ally, or go the long way around and risk whatever happens that round.
A goblin assassin clings to your back, stabbing away. Meanwhile the orc chieftain makes off with a powerful spell scroll. Will you drag the goblin with you in pursuit of the orc or deal with the murderous little jerk first?
Find opportunities to push them off their best laid plan so they have to rub backup plans. Create obstacles that promote difficult decisions.
icedcrow wrote:
thehobb wrote:
I really like that double crusher trap, it had me feeling a little bit scared. I'm definitely going to steal that for my campaign. +1DM point for you
While Iserith pokes around with his pole I'm going to start inspecting the floors and walls of the hallway and the cells specifically looking for evidence of water (lack of dust in an old catacomb, shiny clean walls, cracks along the floor, spots where the water could drain out, etc.) I'm being careful not to walk ahead of where the pole is probing. I'm going to pick three spots about 5 to 10 feet apart and pour small puddle of water on the ground to see if it will drain away or just puddle up where it was poured.
thehobb wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
thehobb wrote:
thehobb wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
thehobb wrote:
iserith wrote:
Sorry, it's a little hard for me to follow without a visusl reference so let me see if I understand the layout.
20 feet from the door is a piece of gold laying on the ground.
10 feet beyond that there is another shiny
edge of view (I belive 40 feet with a torch?) lies a skeleton
a few in front of the first gold coin is the criss cross pattern cracked stone?
Has Iserith poked the cracked stone yet? If not I'm going to point it out to the party and ask if anybody has seen this particular pattern before.
Assuming I'm mostly correct in my assumptions above I'm going to move just before the cracked stone and try to get a better view of the skeleton and see if I can identify an obvious cause of death.
I watch as Iserith pulls the skeleton into view. does the skeleton have any remains of clothing or equipment? especially anything metal?
thehobb wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
I'm also going with the rust monster theory for now. I'm also going to assume for now that this is some sort of trigger to call/release them.
With that in mind I proceeded forward slowly watching for and avoiding any other suspicious stones, using my staff to test each stone before I step. I'd also like to try and see how far back this corridor leads without going too far ahead of everybody else.
woif wrote:
I quickly drew a picture of the area.
I want to look at the 2 coins, one at least is not stuck down, I try to pick them up, Also I suggest everyone swap to a non metal back up weapon if you have one, just in case. Sadly I didn't think of bringing one myself. Iseroth can you sue your 11 foot pole as an improvised quarter staff? Or disassemple it to get 2?
thehobb wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
thehobb wrote:
thehobb wrote:
A few notes:
This is an example of what I'd put in the category of trap rather than puzzle or obstacle. If the coins were ignored, the party could walk right past the trap without ever setting it off and nothing had to be figured out in order to continue on. The only thing that turned it into a puzzle is the player's own curiosity about the various clues (telegraphing of the trap) and investigating those clues.
The little trap door and the first gold coins were deceptions. The trap door, while mechanically part of the trap resetting mechanism, also serves to divert attention away from the real trigger because it plays off of player's assumptions that it is a pressure plate. The first gold coin is just a gold coin - since it would likely be investigated first, and nothing would be found wrong with it, it would provide some amount of confidence that the second one, the real trigger of the trap, would also be safe.
I tried to set it up with enough clues that something was amiss (aside from the fact at the very beginning I said somthing like "here's an example of a trap" thereby not letting there be any question to that fact). You certainly did figure out a rust monster was involved.
There was no need to use or roll for any skills, if the players are looking in the right place, I'm perfectly fine readily revealing what can be found. If however someone closely inspected the second gold coin, they'd have detected the wire and could have made a Remove Traps roll (DC 15 most likely) to cut the wire and not set it off.
If someone inspected the cells adjacent and opposite to the dead body, they'd have seen a thin line in the dust - revealing some of the nature of the "elevators" mechanism.
If someone chiseled into the stone around the cracks, they'd have been able to pry open the cavity and find the beetle and gold coins without setting off the trap as well.
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
thehobb wrote:
I'd like to bring up the topic quickly of gottchas.
What happens when you use a trap or puzzle like this in an adventure and the players complain about gottchas.
For example:
Player: I hate playing in games with gottcha DM's and you just showed me that you are one, too. All I did was pick up that coin and BAM, you layed a trap on me, this is bull.
DM: It wasn't a gottcha, here are all the things that indicated and telegraphed what was going on (states X,Y, and Z).
Player: But how the hell am I supposed to know that gold doesn't rust, I don't have a degree in things that rust, or what ever that would be called.
DM: Here are things you coud have done (A B and C)
Player: You only included those subtle things so you could claim your gotcha wasn't a gotcha because I am too stupid to figure them out. (proceeds to sulk).
We all by being here in this thread most likely have a higher than average interest for D and D players in traps.
I have a few players that just want to break things and kill them. They drive me nuts and when I put traps in I have to simplify over what I have designed because the clues would be too subtle.
How do you adjust traps for the abilities of the players you are playing with (or do you)?
The player in your example is wrong. The trap was telegraphed adequately by the DM.
But if your players don't like traps, why bother putting them in?
iserith wrote:
Ask the player why he or she doesn't like traps - a very well established trope for the genre of D&D - and what level of telegraphing he or she considers fair. If that sounds reasonable, do it. If it's completely unreasonable, tell the player that and seek compromise.
Bloodscythe wrote:
thehobb wrote:
@thehobb That a cool trap. The setup was more then reasonable and the reward for failing it is pretty nice to boot.
I was trying to figure out a interesting mount for one of the races in my campaign that is still using bone and chittin weapons in a world where most armies are using bronze, iron or steel. I think you just gave me my answer.
I don't think the task resolution mechanics anything to do with Playstyle. They're like a coin-toss.
For instance, I like emotionally and mentally engaging games (more than half the time I write these). I also like lighter "beer and pretzels" fare. But whatever style I write, how I resolve tasks doesn't change. Mechanics aren't Playstyle. Neither is genre.
Compare Mario to Sonic. Two platformer games with similar setup. Toons running through levels. Mario rewards exploration, enables you to replay prior levels, use new power ups to go to areas you couldn't reach. Sonic rewards quick reflexes and skill as you navigate obstacle courses. These are styles. The mechanics are fundamentally the same. Move, jump, objects, Gravity. And you interact with the mechanics the same way. But HOW you play - the style of the game - is different.
We can play games in the same genre, with the same mechanics, and still have very different experiences (as you've pointed out). Because Playstyle is our approach to the game and the game's approach to us. Playstyle isn't - and never has been - about how the game system determines if actions succeed or fail. Throwing a d20 or a pool of d6s is NOT a Playstyle.
bawylie wrote:
Characters can't lead. They aren't real. Players lead characters, always. When you take an action that the DM decides has a chance of failure, then you're going to roll dice. That is the game's task resolution system. No action, no dice. No uncertainty, no dice. You have to think up what action to take and that's player skill.
Yeah, there's not really a "my character comes up with what to do next" skill.
You're both smart enough to know exactly what I mean, so stop being obtuse.
Personally I have never swung a sword, been very good at deception, or cast magic missile, so expecting me to be able to be good at those things, vs my character, is a definite play style.
Likewise my 8 int character probably isn't too good at tactics and strategy, so it goes both ways.
But since its player led we should just ignore the 8 int character, right?
Why shouldn't we? The 8 Int only comes into play when you try to do an action that's resolved with an INT check. HOW you choose to RP your character is up to you, naturally. But ultimately all actions come from the player. If you want your 8 INT character to make bad decisions, then do that. But they're your decisions.
Personally, I think you're smart enough to tell the difference between Playstyle and mechanics, but here we are, debating it. It comes down to this: "Pushing the B button is not the same as deciding WHEN to push the B button." In both cases, the character is gonna do whatever the B button does however well that character does it.
DaveDash wrote:
I'd say play style is the style by which the game is played. While the resolution mechanics are not inof themselves a play style, the way they are utilized is. Much of the playstyle of a game is dependent on the play style of the DM.
A) Some DMs use a lot of description and ask of the players to do the same, describing their actions and only rolling on rare occasion in dramatically appropriate times.
B) Other DMs have players roll much more often and let the dice determine how the story plays out while not requiring of the players detailed descriptions of what they're doing.
For example, play style A:
DM: There's a wooden chest with metal bands and a lock sitting in front of the party. What do you do?
Player: I'm looking at the area around the chest, looking for suspicious cracks, prodding the stones with my 10 foot pole, pour water on the stones...
DM: You find a suspicious stone right in front of the chest.
Play style B:
DM: There's a wooden chest with metal bands and a lock sitting in front of the party. What do you do?
Player: I'm a rogue, I'm checking the area for traps
DM: rolls <insert skill> or has the player roll - the roll is a 19
Dm: You succeed in finding a suspicious stone right in front of the chest.
In the first case, a lot more impetus is placed on the player to come up with descriptive actions to accomplish a task, and cooperatively with the DM tell the story of what happens.
In the second case, the player and DM rely on dice results to help tell the story of what happens.
In this regard, I understand and agree with Dave - these are two different play styles and the latter play style does require less mental effort on behalf of the players.
I feel like style A is akin to first person perspective, where everyone is privvy to the internal thought process of the character, and style B being 3rd person perspective, where you only see the actions and their results and not the specific thought process involved.
This has been a very informative and constructive thread for a new DM like myself. I will certainly steal some ideas when I make my next dungeon
Does anyone have ideas for outdoor traps, aside from pits and snares? I'm thinking of including one in an encounter while my players are traveling between cities.
grendel111111 wrote:
@TheHobb
I don't think there's a difference between A&B. Seriously, take a look.
DM describes the scenario. Asks what the players do.
Players state a course of action (including a goal and an approach)
DM determines (first, if a check is needed or not) results and describes the new scenario.
I have players who do A and who do B in the same game. Its a personal preference how to state your actions, to speak in character or not, to be acute or obtuse in your approach, but it's still not a Playstyle.
Inertius wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Right, if the player in A takes a thousand words to describe how he checks somewhere other than the chest, he's going to find nothing BC there isn't anything. Auto fail bc nothing to find. Whereas player in B could check the exact right spot and auto succeed (even if he used a single word).
- Where do you get your trap designs from?
I make them up, but sometimes I take pieces from other trap ideas and incorporate them into a new trap.
- What do you think are the most important elements of good trap design?
I try to be logical about traps based on who set it, and what it's purpose is in the scope of the dungeon.
- How do you keep them from being too deadly?
By not making them deadly, mainly.
Make them result in an encounter
Make them alter the player's options in some way (block off the exit)
Make them create a situation that they then have to escape (dropping ceiling, the room is filling up with water, etc), and providing them the means to escape
- How do you make sure they have interesting effects?
Don't throw them in willy nilly - have a purpose for the traps, and not just for the sake of making the dungeon difficult.
- What are your standards for countermeasures?
Countermeasures? You mean against detection or disablement? I tend to not have much in the way of countermeasures in either case - the primary countermeasure is that it's a trap and the player's don't know it's a trap until they discover that it is.
- Do you make certain that your traps have multiple methods of avoidance/disarming?
I don't. Usually there are inherently multiple methods and so I tend not to worry about it. I do not tend to put traps in an adventure that can't be avoided or can't be disarmed (aside from pit traps - those can't technically be "disarmed")
- Where do you like to put traps?
In areas that lead from the previous encounter to the next encounter. This helps break the monotony of fight after fight after fight. I might have a fight, then a puzzle, then a fight, then an empty area, then maybe a trap, then a fight. and so on.
- How do you keep them from being boring?
By not having boring traps who's sole purpose is to hurt a surprised party member. Instead turn them into obstacles or puzzles once discovered.
- How do you keep them from being "unfair" gotchas?
By not having their effect happen instantly, and by often offering some sort of reward or boon after it is set off that they might not have gotten if they didn't set it off.
- How do you keep them from slowing the game down to a crawl?
By not making them too obtuse. Most traps should be obvious and easy to figure out. Players enjoy when they figure things out and get frustrated if they know there's a trap and you're not providing enough information for them to find it.
- Do you perfer to keep traps as individual encounters, or do you add them to larger encouters (or both)?
I generally prefer to keep traps as individual encounters, I would rather use puzzles with encounters instead.
- What do you think is a good frequency of use?
Depends on the adventure. In an exploration dungeon where the majority of "scenes" involve puzzles, obstacles and traps, maybe one trap per 3-4 "scenes" - in a dungeon clearing adventure where your goal is to kill lots of monsters, maybe only two traps total in the entire dungeon.
- What are your favorite types of traps?
Ones where I challenge the players assumptions, I suppose.
- What's the coolest trap you have ever seen (so that we can steal the idea for our own game)?
I'd say my favorite trap is the following:
The party faces a door. Scrawled across the top of the door in old dried blood are the words "BEWARE OF DOPPLEGANGERS".
When the door is opened, it seems to open into an empty room - this is an illusion. When the first person steps across the threshold, he vanishes (and the player is excused from the table for a private chat with the DM).
At the table, the rest of the players hear a short cut off scream, which sounds like the character who entered, and then a moment after that, the character emerges from the doorway.
The DM tells the player privately that he crosses the threshold and seems to instantly get turned around and exit. This can be embellished somewhat to drag out the conversation to make it seem to the rest of the players waiting back at the table that something more significant happened.
Nothing has happened to the player, he crossed a portal which transported him a few moments into the future with the exit facing back out. The other players may or may not believe he's been replaced by a doppleganger...but you never know for sure...
iserith wrote:
Inertius wrote:
TheLastDunedain wrote: