When a Gm rolls perception for the players behind his screen, is it a gotcha when character fails?
Let me be more specific. I got a Dm that rolls Perception checks (and other sometimes too) for PC behind the screen, so only he knows the score. If the roll fails, players step into a trap/don’t notice monster/ something bad happens. There are otherwise no indications that something could be wrong.
Besides the DM in question says that he doesn’t want the players to know when/where they roll this checks. ( I think this is not wise)
So is it a gotcha when character sprung the trap, or doesn’t notice monster this way?
No.
DMs roll dice behind screens to avoid metagaming. If you search for traps and roll a '1', you will spend 5 minutes worrying that there may be a trap but you missed it. You may say things like 'I search again, more carefully', or suggest another player searches instead until a better number is rolled. If on the other hand you search for traps and roll a '20', you will dash forward, 100% sure there is no trap - unless of course the DM ruled you wouldn't find it anyway and then you'd complain that you rolled a '20'.
Is that the sort of game you want? I think it would lessen the suspense, surely?
[edit] actually it's a bad example since 'noticing threats' including traps should be covered by passive perception, to avoid that sort of thing entirely. But the hidden rolls can apply to a lot of other scenarios still.
TrueManiek wrote:
sim-h wrote:
It's a Gotcha in the sense that he's rolling to see if you noticed something, independent of any action you've taken.
As others have mentioned, he should be rolling against your passive perception. The only exception is if you state that your adventurer is looking, searching, etc. If that's the case, then he'd be ok determining the results of that check behind the screen. I personally dislike it and don't do it, but it's a matter of taste.
As Iserith notes, properly setting the scene and framing the challenges apparent to the adventurers would obviate 90% of the problem. So this is DM error through and through.
In my own games I frame things similar to how Isereth described them in my post above. Anything else feels too much like a "gotcha" to me, and as a player nothing sets me on edge more (not in a suspenseful, meaningful way, more in an irritated way) than a DM hiding rolls and narrating the "you don't notice anything." For myself, and most players I know, whether they are brand nee or with years/decades of experience, this always has the opposite effect. It seems to *encourage* metagaming, since the players always feel uncertain about what is really going on with their characters. Did they fail or succeed in that roll? Since they don't know, it always seems to create a paranoia (in a metagame sense) to the point that the game bogs down as the players try every trick they have at their disposal so find a way to grasp onto some certainty.
I prefer that all rolls are made in front of the players, and that a failed roll never results in "nothing happened." A failed roll should change the narrative in an interesting and meaningful way.
Cheers
The thing is that I feel so to. Rolling behind the screen cause DM “assumes” that players are inspecting the room, and the “gotcha” factor.
On our session things looked like this:
We (me and 2 friend) entered a dungeon room, DM said that it’s a huge room with water on the floor, some green grass, pilars, and a balcony (more or less), I was interested in the balcony that had no place to enter it, so I started making a rope with hook to throw it and climb on the balcony (Like a boss), and the other players went to inspect some bas-relief on opposite wall. They got some action and exposition, and I was still making my “batman” grappling hook. And suddenly DM informs me that I am constricted by a big-ass snake.
It felt to me like a “gotcha” - later I found out that I failed perception roll (and again I was like “de fuq?”)
And so when I tried explained to him about “gotchas” and most important about telegraphing things, he didn’t see it that way, not by a long shot. He felt that telegraphing leads to bad metagaming and players would like to roll perception anyway, so why bother. And that stats matter, and my character stats and background (I’m not outlander like rest of the party) gave me no clue or indication to the presence of big snake whatsoever.
So I guess I’m left with poking everything with 10-ft stick on my way through the dungeon 
TrueManiek wrote:
I don't see this as a gotcha. For DMs, either their rolls do matter or they do not. That is the real issue and I don't believe open rolls or hidden roll make a significant difference. There are probably more obvious and accurate signs of a gotcha than prefer rolling method. Hidden rolls are just an easier thing to latch on to when you suspect your DM fudges too often.
sim-h wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Kahless wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
So I guess this example of game is fun and normal for a lot of you:
“
DM: You see a dungeon room, 20x20 ft, made of stone, some barrels on the left wall, and a door on opposite side.
Players: OK guys, remember we are in a dangerous dungeon so don’t get careless. First we are trying to listen, maybe we will hear something from this room, then without stepping in, we are looking in the room very thoroughly, then we throw rocks there, and some light, then w poke immediate surroundings with a long stick, then we go carefully into the room, then again look around – all the time poking with a long stick.
DM: OK, let me do some rolls behind the screen *tumble, tumble, tumble* - OK nothings here.
Player: Cool, we are going in…
- Next room
DM: You see a dungeon room, 30x10ft, made of stone, some columns in the middle, with doors to left and right.
Players: OK guys, remember we are in a dangerous dungeon so don’t get careless. First we are trying to listen, maybe we will hear something from this room, then without stepping in, we are looking in the room very thoroughly, then we throw rocks there, and some light, then w poke immediate surroundings with a long stick, then we go carefully into the room, then again look around – all the time poking with a long stick.
DM: OK, let me do some rolls behind the screen *tumble, tumble, tumble* - OK nothings here.
Players: Cool, we are going in…
DM: Haha, got you suckers, there was a trap, and now a lot of arrows are falling from the celling cause you stepped on a pressure plate, sorry you rolled very low. Now for the damage…
Players: Oh man, we should all invest in perception guys!
“
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TrueManiek, that is exactly the type of play that "gotchas" foster, and exactly the type of play I find incredibly boring, frustrating, and lifeless.
I am really having a difficult time understanding how a lot of these DMs believe that it is fun for players to have to muddle through a half dozen S.O.P.protocols in order to have some sort of "suspense." To me, it creates angst amongst players, and not theatrical suspense.
On another level, the DM must remember, and this is critical, that they are the players and the characters *only* eyes and ears, smell, touch, and taste. They are the only visceral feedback the players have to the game world. We are not physically in that world. We cannot see or hear beyond what has been described by the DM. Thus, telegraphing plays a critical roles in displaying important information for the players to process.
Think of most every suspenseful film you've ever seen. Foreshadowing is used heavily, not only to drive the characters but to also engage the audience and build a sense of threat and suspense. A film filled with nonstop "gotcha" moments would wear thin and become boring and trite within the first few minute. Knowing a threat exists, but lacking enough solid details to keep said thread partially obscured, creates a much greater sense of urgency, of suspense, and of accomplishment when the threat is finally uncovered and dealt with.
Lastly, the players are more or less *supposed* to succeed at overcoming challenges. A challenge should be, no, MUST be more than "you failed your perception and take 4d6 damage. Whoo adventuring AmIRight?" Having a few choices to make, a few opportunities to be creative and heroic, makes taking that 4d6 damage satisfying when it occurs after you tried to Do-Rad-Things, rather than just something that is plopped on your head.
I suppose that more creative solutions to failure must also be considered. Half success can be more brutal than failure. Maybe instead of 4d6 damage from a trap, the PCs *mostly* avoid it by being clever, but the Wizard takes a nasty bump to the head, resulting in him losing 1d4 spell slots. Or the fighter twists his ankle and is at half movement for 1d4 rounds. Or the Rogue smashes a finger and has disadvantage on sleight of hand and thrives tools checks for an hour. Or....the possibilities are endless, and most importantly, FUN.
Adventuring, amiright?
Cheers
Kahless wrote:
It's a matter of how you do it though. If you always give hints when something is worth investigating, then players will eventually know "Only if the DM gives a hint we need to check". So I try to always narrate in a similar way, whether there is a trap or not.
So the other day, I opened the front door and there was a cobra on the door step. Peirre (our dog) ran out to play with the cobra as it thought it was a new toy or friend that it had just met. I had to make the descision of what to do, run out and try to save the dog, close the door to keep the snake out, try to distract the snake while someone else grabbed the dog. (This is what I eventually ended up doing). The fact that I had no warning that when I opened that door that there was a cobra on the other side pissed me off, who should I complain to?
Often I find gotchas are fine, if it instantly creates an unexpected problem, rather than a form of wandering damage.
So rather than the first thing that happens is "the snake attacks and you take x damage." you feel the snake move as it starts to constrict around your leg, what do you do in this split second (first thing you say is what happens).
For traps such as he arrow trap mentioned previously, you need to make sure that the telegraphing makes sense (I don't know the exact trap that was being referenced), but it is very irritating when a trap has been clearly set off already, but is still primed to go off again. Yet the location is long abandoned of the original occupants who designed the temple (or whaever) and the trap is a simple crossbow (no repeating mechanism, or magical enchantments to rearm it). How is it rearmed?Did the rats figure out how to maintain the traps in the run down temple?
I think we are doing this gaming group the op belongs to a disservice. Many are calling the DM for gotchas without having all the facts needed to make that call. We didn't even know the place was full of kolbolds until half way through this thread. We are tell the op, yup it's a bad DM you have there he is he cannot be trusted, but we don't know enough to make those claims. I think we need to back off those calls, it will only hurt the op's table if we continue. Espically bad mouthing the DM who isn't even here to post what he was thinking why he thought he was being fair to the players, clues he thought he gave them. Remember unless you really believe this DM is bad, they likely think they were being fair and did give the players a chance. Until we hear their side it's really bad form to denounce their actions.
For me if every room had kobolds until this one, that alone should make you nervous enough to check around. I don't expect players to check constantly but when there is a noticeable change in a dungeon that should get you nervous enough to do a search.
Another thing I want to put out there. What is a tell to one group may not be to another. My players know if I describe a group as being at least 50 in numbers this is a fight that will overwhelm them. They know if I say it's quiet that it's unnaturally so unless I say otherwise. These are tells a group developed over time. Sounds to me this group we are talking about are new, maybe they are still developing shared tells but aren't there yet. Doesn't make the DM bad or untrustworthy, just means what he sees as a tell isn't for this player yet. Might just take time for the tells to become more clear.
You also could pull a Lord Robolar and rush an army of orcs ahead of yourself to set off any traps by running through them. Work for him in Tomb of Horrors......
Rottle wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Hang on, "I was surprised by a cobra" means only that crap happens, it doesn't mean you like when it does.
I can't imagine you enjoyed it any more than I think players enjoy when gotchas are sprung on them.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I like the concept of ''every Perception check produces a result" e.g. a successful check means you spot the trap and a failed check means you trigger it. Cool. But what do you do when a PC looks for a trap that isn't there? What do you tell the player(s)? My default answer would be that any check (regardless of the d20 roll) produces the same accurate result: "you don't see anything suspicious," which seems potentially inaccurate to the player who rolled a 1, and introduces the metagaming problem discussed upthread. It's this situation that makes me think it's best if DMs roll such checks behind the screen. What am I missing?
Saeviomagy wrote:
distal wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
I make it a habit to ask my players how they do something. I don't want my players to think that their disable device skill will get them out of trouble simply by them rolling dice. I want to know how they plan to disable a trap, and then the dice decide if they are succesful. If I feel that they are being extra careful, or are taking extra measures to improve their success, I'll give them a bonus on their check.
And I also foreshadow my traps. In the case of the aforementioned underground lair, I had a nasty trap set up on a small staircase. But there were no clues that the trap was there. In fact, the trap itself was the clue. What I told the first player to go down the stairs was the following:
DM: "As you step onto the second step of the staircase, you hear a click, and the step sinks down slightly. Two rusty blades slide out of the wall, and stop just short of your feet. It would seem that time has taken its toll on the mechanism of the trap."
So this was an effective way to inform my players that there are traps. I left it up to the players whether they wanted to disarm this particular old trap or not. They decided that they may be able to repair it, and use it incase other people intrude the lair. I also think its realistic that a trap may no longer be working after such a long time.
But this doesn't mean that you can't surprise your players. In a different encounter, my players ended up in a large underground room full of spider webs. An old thin stone bridge led across the water, towards a small raised altar, with a tomb in the middle. Three large waterfalls cascaded down the walls, and in the water below they could see spider nests. Aquatic spiders obviously. It was pretty clear that messing with the tomb was going to get them into trouble, but of course they touched it anyway. It was magically warded, but as soon as they removed the magical ward, they were pelted with sticky webbing from behind the waterfall. Giant spiders were waiting for them behind the waterfall, and whenever they scored a hit, they would attempt to pull the players down from the platform, and into the water below (where the creatures would be at a natural advantage).
But the spiderwebs, the tomb, and the waterfalls were all clearly described to the players. They knew that this was a dangerous room to be in, and that they could expect a fight.
grendel111111 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Jeggrim wrote:
Jeggrim wrote:
Another example from my table to help better illustrate what I am advocating. I appreciate eveyone brining this back to a practical and spirited discussion.
DM: You enter a small stone chamber. Thick vines tendrils of ivy cover every surface save for on the opposite end of the room, where a heavy wooden door seems to be free of the thick vegetation. Moisture drips from cracks in the ceiling, covering everything in a thin veil of dew. In the center of the room, a single flagstone in the floor stands out from the rest, the vines and ivy clearly displaced around it. What do you do?
Wizard: I check along the walls, inspecting the vines and searching for any other doors or features.
Cleric: As a dwarf, I take an interest in the stone. I head over and investigate it.
Rogue: I creep towards the door, checking into this way out.
DM: Ok, Wizard, roll me an Intelligence(Investigation) check. *wizard rolls a 19* Ok, the vines obscure the stonework behind, but as you brush through the tangled mass of plant, you catch glimpses of dozens of coin sized holes in the walls. A foul oder assaults your nostrils.
Wizard: I don't like the smell of things guys. No, like literally. And figuratively. Be on guard.
DM: Cleric, you notice that the flagstone is worn smooth on the top surface. It is obvious that this stone is different that the others around it, what do you do?
Cleric: I get down on my hands and knees, getting as close a look as I can.
DM: Roll a perception. *cleric rolls a 17*. Ok, you notice that this stone is meant to be depressed. It is some kind of trigger switch. Beyond that, there are no more clues as to what it could do.
DM: You are in front of a heavy wooden door. There is obvious signs that this door has been used recently. It is free from the ivy and vines, and hangs proudly on it's hinges. What do you do.
Rogue: I give the door a thorough look before proceeding, looking for anything out of the ordinary.
DM: It looks as described. (there was nothing else to find, so no reason for perception.) What do you do?
Rogue: I don't know about this door guys. Something is not right about it. What should I do?
Wizard: I want to get out of this room, is it locked?
Rogue: Oh I forgot to check! I reach out and try the handle.
DM: Ok, as you give the latch a pull, a series of loud clicks and bangs echo through the chamber. Some sort of mechanism has been activated deep in the walls. An angry hiss emanates from behind the vines as dense green fog oozes from the holes in the walls. The door you came through slams shut with a bang on mechanized hinges, a loud clang ringing through the chamber as it locks shut. You have seconds before the poison fills the room, killing you. What do you do?
Eventually, after taking a round or two of damage and trying to blast the door down with spells, pick the lock with thieves tools, and trying to bash a door down with a hammer, the PCs figured out that the strange stone in the center of the room was actually the mechanism that unlocked the door! Everyone at the table had fun, and a "Doh" moment when they realized they had the key the whole time (a la the stone in the floor) and at the absentmindedness of the Rogue in not taking more caution. Hope that helps illuminate what I mean by telegraphing and letting a players actions dictate when rolls are made, and only to resolve uncertainty.
Cheers
Orethalion wrote:
Jeggrim wrote:
I've noticed how perception skills tend to dominate the game a lot. This was true for 3rd edition as well, where everyone tried to max out their Spot and Listen skills. And I think its because the perception skill has become synonymous with your character's ability to avoid being ambushed or surprised by traps. I think perhaps too many DM's give Perception too much of an importance in the game.
I'd rather have my players use their brains, and think about the clues that I've given them, rather than just spamming their Perception for every corridor till they arbitrarily fail.
Imaculata wrote:
Perception is a table setting ability.
If you don't perceive a trap you can't disarm it.
If you don't perceive a glyph you can't use any other skill to decipher it
If you don't perceive a foe you can't attack it
Why is perception so important you are asking, that seems an easy question to answer. Without perception of a situation you simply put can't use any other skill to resolve it.
Is that ok for the game, I think it's tough on an individual character but not on a party. In the end if you have a party with no perception strong member you really are a blunt tool. I am sure such a party can work but it will rely on brute force to overcome and that is fine too, but expect to be surprised and have to bounce back from that. I think the DM that telegraphs his encounters might want to really look at how under valued he is making perception and character stats over all. I feel if as a DM If I telegraph every encounter I am allowing the player's perception to fill in for,the character's and I am not certain I want that. For me, I like to rely more on character stats then player's because I don't think most players have the skills, or stats of the characters. I know I don't. I do not have an 18 int, cha, or wisdom. Nor do I want the player to use int as a dump stat because I allow his characters int to be over ridden by the players.
My goal is to have fun and provide a fun time for the players. My players want less telegraphing then many here suggest. They enjoy the challenges more if I don't give too much away too easily. That's my group, your group is going to be different. Find what works and enjoy it. Don't buy into this concept that if you don't do how some think you must your having wrong bad fun, or you are a bad DM if you don't make everything glow that could be interacted with. To me your a bad DM if you group isn't having fun. Only you and your group can decide that. These boards and the posters here certainly cannot.
I also believe not every roll matters, sometimes making the players roll adds to the suspense the excitement the enjoyment of the game, even if those rolls don't matter. As long as the players think they do, then they do. Enjoy all.
I like the idea of relying on character stats. Sometimes players focus on things in the description that aren't relevant and miss the telegraphing. Or take the Intelligence example. As a player, I hate puzzles. I'm no good at them. But if I'm playing a wizard with an 18 Int, it looks stupid if I can't figure out a simple riddle even if I think my character should. I think perception should work the same way. Same with high charisma. I may not be a big, flashy talker. I may fumble around in what I'm trying to say. But my 18 Cha bard isn't! He knows exactly how to sweet talk the king.
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jeggrim wrote:
Having just gotten past a strange blue orb that emanates music that at first compelled him to leave the area, Red Creek Rufus, a ranger, moves deeper into the dungeon by opening a stone door. The area of the map that is revealed is what he can see given his line of sight and light source (a torch) plus some light issuing from the blue orb.
DM: The air is stale in this 20-foot-long corridor, which leads to another closed stone door in front of which the ubiquitous rubble of this ruin has piled. A hallway once stretched to the north, but it has collapsed, a pile of stone blocking any progress in that direction. An overlarge arrow is lodged into the wall next to the door you opened. What do you do?
Player: Hmm. I bet that hallway once connected to the section of the dungeon the kobolds now inhabit. Rufus takes the arrow out of the wall and examines it. "This looks too big for kobolds - and they've been using slings..."
DM: The arrow is old and splintered from its age and downward impact into the wall at around knee-height. Its tip is a metal arrowhead, stained black. It is large enough to be unwieldy to a small humanoid like a kobold and appears to be of elven make. It's probably too big for their bows, too.
Player: "This citadel was once used by elves that venerated dragons..." I try to determine what substance is on the tip of the arrow using my herbalism kit, if it helps.
DM: Okay, go ahead and make a Wisdom (Herbalism Kit) check. The DC is 10. If you succeed, I'll tell you what it is. If you fail, I'll tell you what it is, but you use up some of the kit's supplies and take disadvantage on future checks until replenished.
Player: *rolls* Bah, a 7.
DM: You have to use up a number of reagents and the like to get a clear reading, but you do figure out that it's a plant-based poison. Make a note to take disadvantage with your kit going forward until you resupply.
Player: Sure. Rufus suspects a trap is in this area. It may have already gone off though. No stranger to the bow and arrow, Rufus tries to trace the path of the arrow given how it was lodged into the wall.
DM: It's true you're no slouch with a bow, so I'll tell you - it was likely loosed from a higher point than a bowman standing on the ground.
Player: The ceiling maybe. I squint my eyes and try to make out the details of the wall above the far door and the ceiling. I don't move further into the room.
DM: Your guttering torch and the damage done to the ceiling makes this uncertain. Let's see a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check. If you succeed, I'll tell you something useful. If you fail, I'll tell you something interesting.
Player: *rolls* 15, on the money.
DM: There are two holes carved into the ceiling at the far end of the corridor which would have been perfectly hidden but for the damage to the ruins. Something in the tube on the right glints in the light*.
Player: Aha. Two tubes, only one of which is loaded. I still have no clue how it is set off, but I think I can just avoid the arrow. Rufus proceeds to the far end of the corridor, back to the south wall.
DM: As you make your way there, a section of floor in the center of the room tilts like a seesaw when your weight is fully upon it. There is an audible click and what sounds like a spring, but nothing else happens. The floor near the far wall is stable.**
Player: I get it now. This will be useful if the kobolds or goblins follow us in here. I throw some gold pieces on the part of the floor that moves, closer to where the north hallway opens up, then set about opening this door.
DM: Nicely done. Take 100 XP for circumventing the trap.
* That there was something glinting in the tube on the right would have been left off if the Wisdom (Perception) check failed.
** Had Rufus thought to examine the floor, a successful Wisdom (Perception) check would have revealed variations in the mortar and stone of the floor in the middle portion of the corridor compared to the surrounding floor, indicating the existence of a pressure plate. A failed check would reveal simply that there were variations, but it would be on the player to figure out what that meant.
Orethalion wrote:
Nicely done, Iserith. And there's a lesson here: you have to design traps as carefully as you design other encounters in your adventures. You wouldn't randomly throw an NPC in a cell in the dungeon without knowing who he is, what his name is, why he's there, and what he wants. Don't sprinkle traps around without thinking through the details, either.
The other lesson is that the "Fail Forward" (a la Dungeon World) method works extremely well in these scenarios.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Excellent example Iserith. And this shows perfectly how you can foreshadow a trap, without making Perception useless, and without taking away the threat of the trap. The focus here is on the actions of the players, and not on a gotcha moment where they take damage from the trap due to a random failed dice roll. The latter is common in many campaigns, but obviously less fun.
I'd even go as far as to say that this method is more exciting than the trap just going off. Earlier Orethalion gave an example of a trap that isn't foreshadowed as much:
A covered pit trap.
If the perception roll is successful. "As you walk down the corridor, you notice a single straight line that cuts across the floor stones in the hall."
If the perception roll is not successful. "As you walk down the corridor your foot comes down on a section of floor that quickly begins tilting downward. What do you do?"
What I don't do. "You fall into a pit trap and take 12 points of damage."
The player can still attempt an action and attempt to alter or even negate the trap. Interraction with the trap can be simple and quick, like with the pit trap, or long and involved for more complex and slower traps.
Rottle wrote:
Should I give the character bonus melee damage if the player can bench 400 pounds?
Rottle wrote:
Thanks for your responses Iserith. You're skill in Intelligence(forum talk) is much better than my own I think.
I would love to play in one of your games one day.
Cheers
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
I'm not sure why one wouldn't just bundle all those rolls into passive perception? The published modules assume it's always on. I know others have argued it isn't (and cited PHB examples, I believe), but most characters aren't doing the specifically cited examples. Also, combat (which I would think IRL would be terribly distracting) isn't one of those things (so you use passive to find Hidden). So if the SOP is looking around, checking every door you come to for traps, etc, just tell the DM that's what you're doing. Then he'll tell you when to roll if a trap comes up. I mean, it's a pretty crappy trap if it telegraphs all the time. Get better trap builders. Gotchas seem built into the game (troll regeneration, gelatinous cubes, stealth lurker monsters). They happen. It sucks (or is amazing).
Kahless wrote:
BadMeeple wrote:
Which of these scenes has a trap in it? Show your work.
Scene A:
The buried citadel has sunk so far into the earth that the battlement is now level with the surrounding cavern floor, creating a courtyard, still whole at its center but cracked and shattered at its edges, at which the narrow steps you descend end. Twenty feet away, a heavy wooden door leads deeper into the dungeon.
Scene B:
The floor is crumbling granite, upon which sprawl four rotting, partially-consumed corpses, all apparently slain in combat. The air is thick with flies and stench. One stands with its back against the western wall, the killing spear still skewering it and holding it upright. Three wooden doors lead off from this the area. Above, a hollow tower of loose masonry reaches 30 feet, but the intervening floors and stairs are gone, except for a couple of crumbled ledges. Water seeps in along the southern wall.
Scene C:
The masonry walls of this hall are in poor repair. The far end is especially bad, as it has completely collapsed, filling the southern section with rubble. On the western wall, there is a stone door with a rearing dragon carved in relief upon it. The door contains a single keyhole, which is situated in the rearing dragon's open mouth.
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jeggrim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Jeggrim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Sidebar: Anyone want to engage my scenario? Or at least discuss what may or may not be there? C'mon, its fun yes?
Cheers
Jeggrim wrote:
Grendell, would you like to frame a scene? We are all getting a bit "bickery" in here, and I think it would be more beneficial for the "silent" readers, both current and future if we try and at least keep it some what constructive. Setting scenes and working through them at least serves to demonstrate in a more concrete way, different approaches to DMing. Which can then be discussed briefly, before moving to a new example. At least there is merit in that beyond, "uh huh," "nuh uh".
Cheers
Jeggrim wrote:
Jeggrim wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Just put up something on SOP (standard Operating Procedures) because I didn't want ot derail this thread and it want over a few non trap examples.
Jeggrim wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
BadMeeple wrote:
I had a tomb in one of my sessions, where some of the stone coffins were protected with explosive runes. I described to my players how they could hear a soft hum, that would become louder and more menacing the closer they got to a rune, and it would also start to glow more brightly.
Sometimes thats all you need to foreshadow a trap. In this case the trap was clearly visible. But in the case of the previously mentioned hidden fire trap, the mere mention of a strange smell is enough to make the players think to themselves "Ah, so that is why the room smelled funny". And that is the difference between a gotcha, and not a gotcha.
By the way, telegraphing a trap by killing a character with it, is not telegraphing, unless you are killing off some npc or monster. I'm often reminded of the game Half-Life, in which you'll often see a poor scientist get smushed by some hazard, in order to warn the player. I think that's good game design, plus you don't negate the shock effect of the trap. After all, you want to see what it does, but you don't want to be the victim.
grendel111111 wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DM_Craig wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
In 3.5 it's about 10,000 gold to do a resurrection. Yikes.
Saeviomagy wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Well, if you're going to go changing core assumptions about the game and make death significantly more meaningful, then it becomes a different matter, doesn't it? Just like if you say that your world does not include healing magic, then combat becomes more of a resource drain (and more dangerous).
Saeviomagy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote: