# Is this fair? -- your personal opinion



## Quasqueton (Aug 21, 2006)

*Note: There are two threads, with similar titles, on this subject on the forum right now. Please make sure to note which one you are responding to.*

What do _you_, personally, think/feel about this scenario?

Hypothetical scenario:


> You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds none. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.




Do _you_ think/feel the above scenario is fair?

Quasqueton


----------



## Agent Oracle (Aug 21, 2006)

I fail to see the need for the second thread.

Personally, i believe it seems extremely unfair for the monk, but I'd still love to hear the rationale behind the scenario.  Other.


----------



## werk (Aug 21, 2006)

That's why the equipment list has ROPE!

Fair ball.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Aug 21, 2006)

You have really split this hair as fine as you can....


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 21, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> That's why the equipment list has ROPE!
> 
> Fair ball.




There's no reason to think that pulling the lever with rope will not have the same effect.


----------



## Grazzt (Aug 21, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There's no reason to think that pulling the lever with rope will not have the same effect.




No reason not to think it true, but even most "Killer DMs" would let the rope on the lever trick work (unless they are truly out to get their players or whatever...and most killer DMs just arent that hell-bent on killing the characters...)


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 21, 2006)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> No reason not to think it true, but even most "Killer DMs" would let the rope on the lever trick work (unless they are truly out to get their players or whatever...and most killer DMs just arent that hell-bent on killing the characters...)





There are several ways to avoid the dusty monk.

Rope on lever, mage hand or telekinisis on rope.
Summon monster, have him pull lever.
Toss rock at lever.
And my favorite - leave the damn lever alone.

Imo, it is fair, even without a save.  And even if it's NOT fair, so what?  Not all things in life (or gaming) are fair.  Is it fair when your opponent lands on free parking 3 times in a row?


----------



## Goldmoon (Aug 21, 2006)

Its fair. No traps were found on the secret door or the lever. That does not mean the trap was not somewher else and the level just activated it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 21, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> There are several ways to avoid the dusty monk.




There are no ways to avoid the dusty monk other than walking away.

I can prove that just as easily as you can prove yours.


----------



## painandgreed (Aug 21, 2006)

Not enough information. Whether this would be fair or not for me would have a lot to do with verisimilitude, the expectations of the players towards the game, and the previous actions of the DM. If the DM has warned them that the game would include danger, perhaps way beyond their ability if they stumble upon it, the players had encontered such examples of danger, and there is a good reason why such a trap existed, how it worked, and it had been written up as part of the adventure, it would be much more fair than if the DM had told them it was a standard hack and slash campaign where everything had been a milk run and the DM just threw in a random trap on the spur of the moment to kill a character.

Editted to add: We don't even know if it was a trap or what the lever did. Could be that the lever did open the secret door and the wizard with a held action on the other side cast a silent quickened spell that did in the monk.


----------



## Grazzt (Aug 21, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> There are several ways to avoid the dusty monk.
> 
> Rope on lever, mage hand or telekinisis on rope.
> Summon monster, have him pull lever.
> ...




Good point on all counts. But you know...most players/characters just can't or won't leave levers, buttons, handles, whatever alone.


----------



## werk (Aug 21, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There's no reason to think that pulling the lever with rope will not have the same effect.




That's why you use a LONG rope...


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 21, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> There are several ways to avoid the dusty monk.
> 
> Rope on lever, mage hand or telekinisis on rope.
> Summon monster, have him pull lever.
> ...





While I agree with you on all your points, it isn't the style of gaming I would want to play in. Some times a lever should just be a lever.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Aug 21, 2006)

With what we have been told, this sounds fair.  I have a couple of questions that may change my opinion though:

What was the save DC for the Monk?

Why didn't the rogue find the trap? (Did he roll low and miss the DC or was the trap "technically" not part of the lever?)

Just because the rogue didn't see the trap didn't mean it wasn't there.  The monk dying to a missed trap is a bad end but a fair one.  The monk dying to a trap that wasn't found because the DM split hairs about the search (it wasn't the lever, it was a pressure plate in the floor around the lever) or because their really wasn't a save DC (it was 10,456,786 because the DM ate a bag egg that morning) then it wasn't fair.

But the story, as it is told so far, sounds fair.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 21, 2006)

The situation is too setting-dependent. Yes, as players, we know darn well that there's a good chance the lever is trapped, but in the situation as presented, is there any reason _other_ than metagaming why this would be so?

Levers are designed to be pulled to achieve some function. The only reason to trap the lever (as opposed to, say, a flagstone in front of the hidden door) is as a deliberately-sadistic "gotcha" trap.

Now, many BBEGs may indeed be sadistic and favour such traps. If there's reason for the characters to think they're up against such a being as they explore the dungeon, then the trap is not unfair, it's the sort of thing they should be expecting.

If, however, they don't have prior reason to expect such a thing, making the first one they encounter impossibly powerful _is_ unfair.

And in response to the "life isn't fair" comments: D&D isn't life, nor is it some kind of lesson in the world's inherent unfriendliness. It's a game, played for fun, and as such it should meet some standards of reasonable fairness.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 21, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> That's why you use a LONG rope...




I can see it now... every time the BBEG wanted to go through the door, he pulled out his LONG rope. 

Or if it doesn't open the door, the BBEG just felt like paying exhorbant amounts for an _extremely_ powerful death trap to be placed on a lever in the event of his death as a way to get his killers afterward?

It's not fair because it makes no sense.


----------



## werk (Aug 21, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I can see it now... every time the BBEG wanted to go through the door, he pulled out his LONG rope.
> 
> Or if it doesn't open the door, the BBEG just felt like paying exhorbant amounts for an _extremely_ powerful death trap to be placed on a lever in the event of his death as a way to get his killers afterward?
> 
> It's not fair because it makes no sense.




No, no, no.  The trap doesn't hurt the BBEG, he can pull his lever all day and night, back and forth, up and down, and never get dusty.  

The point is that it is a trap designed to see if a player is foolish enough to run up and grab it.  If they do pretty much anything to avoid the OBVIOUS trap that doesn't test positive as a trap they will be fine.  Someone else above mentioned several other ways to do it...any should work.

The point is, if the DM in UNFAIR, nothing you can do will save you and have the desried result.
If he is FAIR, anything you do to avoid grabbing and pulling it will work.

This is really a test of sense.  Does the character act in accordance with what he should know (it's probably trapped but he can't figure it out), or does he act according to what the player knows (it's not trapped and/or I should be able to find/disarm/or save against any level appropriate traps).  Play the character, not the player playing the character.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 21, 2006)

You do seem to be making a lot of inferrances that I'm not making. A lot of metagaming going on from my perspective as well.

Just out of curiosity, if the Player had tied a 100' rope to it, gone around a few corners outside of the room, and pulled the lever, only to have to make the save or dust, would it still be fair?


----------



## painandgreed (Aug 21, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I can see it now... every time the BBEG wanted to go through the door, he pulled out his LONG rope.
> 
> Or if it doesn't open the door, the BBEG just felt like paying exhorbant amounts for an _extremely_ powerful death trap to be placed on a lever in the event of his death as a way to get his killers afterward?
> 
> It's not fair because it makes no sense.




Could be that the BBEG is undead and pulling the lever sets off a Fortitude save which he is immune to. I've used traps like that before in dungeons. Something critical or a bottleneck that is in an environment adverse to all but the person who put it there. Water based creatures putting everything under water. Undead using poison gas or disease filled rooms. Fire based creatures activating fire traps. Etc. Etc. Etc. If nobody but one person is supposed to go through something, it makes perfect sence to make it so that it is adverse to most everybody except that one person. 

Once agian, we do not have enough informtion to tell if it makes sence or not.


----------



## werk (Aug 21, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You do seem to be making a lot of inferrances that I'm not making.



Yeah...


			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, if the Player had tied a 100' rope to it, gone around a few corners outside of the room, and pulled the lever, only to have to make the save or dust, would it still be fair?



LOL, of course not!  That's the point, if there is NO WAY to avoid getting dusted and work the lever, then it's UNFAIR.  
If it is easily avoided, then no clues are needed.  
If it is hard to avoid, then some clues should be dropped.

I still think it's a test whether they are playing the character or the player.  The character wouldn't know that 'if there was a trap, I would have found it or I can make the save', he just knows that he needs to pull the lever to hopefully open the door, and that it is probably a set-up because he has no other choice of action.

Yeah, if there's no possible way to avoid the trap and still work the lever, then it's unfair.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 21, 2006)

Okay, then its just a playstyle thing. What we're used to in play will determine whether we think this is fair or not. 

My playstyle says that lever + door = pull. The PC has no real reason to be overly paranoid about levers in rooms that the BBEG didn't think would be accessable to anyone but himself (behind the McGuffin), therefore in my experience, the PCs would have no reason to be paranoid about the lever.

In your games, this is an obviously trapped lever, so taking a few precautions should allow the PCs to pass by. It's mostly there to keep the PCs on their toes and thinking, but it isn't there just to hurt them.

In someone else's game, they might be expected to cast multiple _augury_ for every possible scenario before trying anything. They might think that it is perfectly fair to have it affect them even with 100' rope, and the real way to open the door is in a completely different room by casting a cold based spell into a fire pit.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 21, 2006)

Were I a player in such a game I'd never just pull that lever. I'd use whatever magical tricks I had to get the secret door open without pulling the lever (_knock_, _passwall_, gaseous form, etc.), then to get as much info as possible about the door and the lever (_divination_, _find traps_, _detect magic_, _true seeing_, etc.), and if all else failed _personally_ I'd probably just leave with my macguffin (and perhaps come back later armed with more of the above or similar spells/techniques), but if the rest of the party insisted and I was outvoted I'd at least try to find some remote means of pulling the lever (rope, _unseen servant_, _summoned_ monster, etc.). Since the hypothetical player didn't do any of that, I can't really judge if this situation was "fair" or not. If he did do all of that and still came down to having to roll a natural 20 save to survive, I'd probably declare the situation unfair (maybe not quite "unfair" since no one's _forcing_ him to pull the lever and he can always just walk away, but not really much fun).


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 21, 2006)

Whether it is fair or not is neither here nor there for me. It is something that for me does not seem to add anything to what's going on. There does not seem to be any "fun" quotient attached to it so it is a not something I would wish to challenge my party with.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## werk (Aug 21, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Okay, then its just a playstyle thing. What we're used to in play will determine whether we think this is fair or not.
> 
> My playstyle says that lever + door = pull. The PC has no real reason to be overly paranoid about levers in rooms that the BBEG didn't think would be accessable to anyone but himself (behind the McGuffin), therefore in my experience, the PCs would have no reason to be paranoid about the lever.
> 
> ...



Totally.  Like I said in the other thread, I don't know if it's fair, but I've been conditioned to act a certain way as a player, so I guess there are a lot of ways this scenario could be made unfair using the same tactics.  If every door in the dungeon had a lever to pull that was untrapped, and this last one was...well, it's misleading to say the least.

But, like I said, if actions such as the last ones you described were necessary to open the door, there should have been some clues alluding to that, even if they were missed.  Just given the info in the OP, I would have not grabbed the lever, but that is just due to my previous experiences.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 21, 2006)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Were I a player in such a game I'd never just pull that lever. I'd use whatever magical tricks I had to get the secret door open without pulling the lever (_knock_, _passwall_, gaseous form, etc.), then to get as much info as possible about the door and the lever (_divination_, _find traps_, _detect magic_, _true seeing_, etc.), and if all else failed _personally_ I'd probably just leave with my macguffin (and perhaps come back later armed with more of the above or similar spells/techniques), but if the rest of the party insisted and I was outvoted I'd at least try to find some remote means of pulling the lever (rope, _unseen servant_, _summoned_ monster, etc.). Since the hypothetical player didn't do any of that, I can't really judge if this situation was "fair" or not. If he did do all of that and still came down to having to roll a natural 20 save to survive, I'd probably declare the situation unfair (maybe not quite "unfair" since no one's _forcing_ him to pull the lever and he can always just walk away, but not really much fun).



But that's just ridiculous. If you're blowing _true seeing_ spells and even considering walking away rather than pulling a simple, apparently non-trapped lever, then that just blows the importance of levers out of all proportion.

And if you've been burned badly enough, often enough, that the mere sight of a lever triggers a rush of paranoia, then the DM is blowing levers out of all proportion.

99% of the time, a lever should just be a lever. If they're traps so often that you come to rely upon it being the case, then it just becomes a design flaw.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 21, 2006)

Of course it's not fair. If the party's designated trapfinder doesn't find traps on a lever that will certainly be pulled by all but the most paranoid of characters, it darn well better not have an undetectable sudden death trap on it. They showed reasonable caution by searching for traps. Requiring excessive paranoia to survive just ain't fun.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 21, 2006)

*Other:*  Varies according to the level of the players.  If they're newbies, then I'd say yeah, that's harsh.  If they're experienced players, they deserved it.


----------



## silentspace (Aug 21, 2006)

too bad it wasn't a regular door. or better just a section of floor looking like all others. no traps detected, first person to step on it turns to dust!


----------



## Harmon (Aug 21, 2006)

Dude,

Okay, so it happened, the GM did something you didn't like, okay.  

Make a new character- a monk, near exact to the one that died, give him the same name or a name very close to the other monk.

The next time you come across a lever that you have no clue about, walk away.  Don't pull the lever from afar with a rope, don't do anything.  Just leave it.  Later the GM tells you that there was a billion gold pieces behind the hidden door, and that the rogue missed the Search check by 1 (DC = roll + 1)- just shrug to your GM and say- "my experience with mystery levers drove me to believe that I would be turned to dust."

Keep in mind that the characters are just paper, yes you might miss playing them, yes you will be sad, but in the end- its just paper, imagination, and a whole lot of fun.

Take care, and remember that nothing in life is fair, its a lesson what you do with it is what you learn.


----------



## Turanil (Aug 21, 2006)

> The monk pulls the lever <...> fails the save <and> turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.



Not only this is unfair, it's also stupid. I guess it's in a kind of "room-monster-treasure" dungeon?


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 21, 2006)

My edition ignorance is showing here: in 3E would a successful find traps roll by the party thief spot a magical trap (and I'm assuming a trap that _disintegrates_ someone is magic-based)? Because in OD&D/1E it wouldn't -- to find magical traps you need magical means of detection. So, as a player, I'd never assume that there isn't a trap on something just because the thief didn't find one, even if he has a very good find traps skill.


----------



## painandgreed (Aug 21, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The PC has no real reason to be overly paranoid about levers in rooms that the BBEG didn't think would be accessable to anyone but himself (behind the McGuffin), therefore in my experience, the PCs would have no reason to be paranoid about the lever.




We don't know if the door beyond the McGuffin would only be accessable to the BBEG. In this case, the dungeon has already been cleared and we have no knowledge of where in the dungeon it is (except that it is in a back room in a corner) as far as importance or danger. For that matter, McGuffin's aren't always the thing most valued by the BBEG or the most valuable in the dungeon and we have no information about where in the dungeon it was or what importance was given to it.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 21, 2006)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> My edition ignorance is showing here: in 3E would a successful find traps roll by the party thief spot a magical trap (and I'm assuming a trap that _disintegrates_ someone is magic-based)?




A successful search check by the party rogue (or any character with the _trapfinding_ special ability) will find a magical trap in by-the-book D&D 3.x (and I think in 2e, too, IIRC), though the DC is harder.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 21, 2006)

silentspace said:
			
		

> too bad it wasn't a regular door. or better just a section of floor looking like all others. no traps detected, first person to step on it turns to dust!



 In a high enough level dungeon I'd have no problem with such a trap, assuming it was detectable via the aforementioned methods (_detect magic_, _find traps_, _true seeing_, *wand of secret door and trap detection*, etc.) and that it could be triggered harmlessly remotely by throwing a pebble into the room, probing with a pole, or similar means. As a DM I'd probably never actually use such a trap because I know most players would throw a fit complaining about it, but as a player I've got no problem with it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 21, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> We don't know if the door beyond the McGuffin would only be accessable to the BBEG.




True. But, surely, whatever it is guarding is worth more than the trap costs itself, right?

The trap is most likely a triggered _destruction_ spell. That would be a 4550 gp (364 XP) cost for a single activation or 45,500 gp (3640 XP) for automaticly reseting. It would also have a DC 20 Fortitude Save partial. In order to raise this, you'll need to Heighten the spell, raising the DC by a maximum of +3. That would change the cost of the trap to 7650 gp (612 XP) and 76,500 gp (6,120 XP) respectively.


----------



## ZSutherland (Aug 21, 2006)

I voted other because there's a lot of information not present in the hypothetical.  It sounds like it likely wasn't very fair (or more importantly fun), but it may have been fair.  You lay out in detail how the saving throw went, but the information on the original search for both traps and a means of opening the door is very vague.  Was the roll made in secret, in which case the result could have been abysmal, and other party members might have tried taking 20 on Search checks to find a way to open the door?  Did the door actually open when the lever was pulled?      If not, was there any reason to suspect that whatever BBEG controlled this dungeon and was guarding the McGuffin was the chaotic-crazy type that would go to the expense and trouble have having a very heightened _disintegrate_ trap on a lever that served no other purpose than to insta-gib anyone who pulled it?  Where they players made aware at the outset that this would be a very lethal campaign and/or has their prior experience borne this out?

On the whole, whether it's fair or not is irrelevant.  It is generally inadvisable to put an save or die effect in the game that requires a natural 20 to avoid by the character with some of the best saves because it's just not much fun.  The real question, assuming this really happened, is if the DM is relatively new (in which case it may just have been a bad decision/mistake on his part) or experienced enough to know better.  Regardless, you need to have a talk with the DM about why you game and what constitutes fun, but if it's the latter, you need to ask some probing questions to try and decide if this is an adversarial DM or if he just made mistaken assumption (he assumed you would read the BBEG's journal which included the password to open the secret door in the back room) and simply applied the rules when you didn't do what he expected, in which case he may just have made a bad call.  We all do it sometimes.


----------



## Gold Roger (Aug 22, 2006)

Imho it depends on how hard it was for the rogue to find the trap. If he threw a 1 or something simmilar it's still fair (though I'd question that absurdly high DC, it's still in the realm of possibilities). If the chance of him finding it was less than 50%, then that was a DM hellbend on killing a PC and imho not fair, unless that lever opens a secret vault with something appropiately big to follow (enough money to res the dead PC, real ultimate MC Gruffin).


----------



## Ourph (Aug 22, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> But that's just ridiculous. If you're blowing _true seeing_ spells and even considering walking away rather than pulling a simple, apparently non-trapped lever, then that just blows the importance of levers out of all proportion.




If this were a lever in the middle of some merchant's house I could see your point, but the situation described is in a dungeon controlled (before you defeated him) by a BBEG with a MacGuffin.  IMO being "in dungeon" means some things (like levers) take on an entirely different character than they would in the "real world".  If you're walking through a hiking area, a muddy footprint on the path doesn't mean much to you.  If you see the same thing in the middle of a war zone behind enemy lines, the import is entirely disproportional to its meaning in the other context (for good reason).

The first thing I thought when I read the scenario was "Why are the PCs going around pulling levers after they have the MacGuffin? The first rule of successful dungeoneering is set a goal and stick to it.  If the goal was 'bring the MacGuffin out of the dungeon' then the PCs were making a very stupid mistake by doing anything other than leaving by the quickest, safest route possible once they acquired their objective.  If they want to figure out what the lever does or where the secret door goes, they should come back prepped to do that as their primary goal (with all the equipment and magic necessary to accomplish that goal in the safest manner possible).

A PC isn't "blowing" a _True Seeing_ spell on the lever if he has come prepared to cast that exact spell on that exact area.  He is only "blowing" it if he's unprepared for that expenditure of resources - in which case, IMO, he shouldn't be messing with the lever at all unless it's obviously necessary to accomplish his pre-established objectives (and in this scenario, it obviously isn't).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2006)

There is only a very limited number of situations I can think of in which it would be fair.

One would be if the rogue rolled low or decided not to take 10/20 on his Search check. Similarly, if the lever was magical and, though they checked for traps, they forgot to detect magic. If there were clues scattered about the dungeon, if the BBEG warned them about the door, if there were piles of dust all around the lever....if there were HINTS as to what it would do, so that a clever character could at least roll a quick check to put the clues together before they were vaporized, then it's fair. Harsh, but fair. The signs were there, and they either weren't found or were ignored. There is a penalty for rolling low, otherwise there wouldn't be a whole lot of GAME to this game. But there should be a fair chance to end the problem without the consequence, otherwise there still wouldn't be a whole lot of GAME to this game. 

The other one would be if quick and easy resurrection from dust piles was available. If this was  a 20th level game, I'd have no qualms about throwing one of these in there, even without much in the way of hints. I wouldn't spring it from them out of nowhere ("fair chance to end the problem without the consequence", remember), but they can recover from the problem handily enough, without loosing more than a few minutes of game time and a few seconds of real time. They'll loose some time and some treasure, but a quick mention of "I cast True Res" and they're on the way. I also wouldn't have that be the ONLY consequence -- the spell gives the critter in the other room time to prepare, or a wandering monster patrol finds them or something minor but notable that furthers the plot of the game, no matter how nebulous that plot may be. I'm not just syphoning rescources, there's a reason for it to be there.

Similarly, the mention about it being a "high death dungeon," or noting that the PCs will often meet challenges they cannot overcome is under this heading. It's about the tone of the campaign -- if it is somewhat expected, it's fair. 

Outside of those two situations, I can't see it being fair. You just killed the character for no good reason. They took all normal precautions. It was obviously far above their level to deal with. they had no reason to expect it and they have no way to recover from it. What was the point of including it?

And because this is a game, it should be fair. I want heroics, not a "life's a crapshoot" lesson.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 22, 2006)

ZSutherland said:
			
		

> I voted other because there's a lot of information not present in the hypothetical.  It sounds like it likely wasn't very fair (or more importantly fun), but it may have been fair.  You lay out in detail how the saving throw went, but the information on the original search for both traps and a means of opening the door is very vague.




I think Quasqueton may be intentionally limiting our knowledge about the situation to what a player at that table would know from the events transpiring in the game.  For example, as a DM, I would roll the Rogue's Search check for him.  The players at the table wouldn't know the result, so we don't know the result.



			
				ZSutherland said:
			
		

> On the whole, whether it's fair or not is irrelevant.  It is generally inadvisable to put an save or die effect in the game that requires a natural 20 to avoid by the character with some of the best saves because it's just not much fun.




But there are numerous ways to avoid the save or die effect besides making the save.  The most obvious one is to simply not pull the lever.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Aug 22, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Not enough information. Whether this would be fair or not for me would have a lot to do with verisimilitude, the expectations of the players towards the game, and the previous actions of the DM.




I agree.

AR


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> But there are numerous ways to avoid the save or die effect besides making the save.  The most obvious one is to simply not pull the lever.




What if it were a doorknob or a button on the wall beside the door?

Is there some unwritten rule of "levers are deadly" that doesn't apply to other mechanisms?


----------



## takyris (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm voting No based on the information we have. If the rogue didn't take 20, that vote would change.

"The trap being attached to another area" doesn't work with the rules as written. If pulling the lever activates a trap, trapfinding would let the rogue spot the trap, even if the mechanism that spring the trap is elsewhere. That is, as far as I know, the way trapfinding works. If stepping on a pressure plate gets me shot with a dart, I don't need to use trapfinding on the spot where the dart comes from. I need to use trapfinding on the plate.

If the party missed all kinds of potential evidence and warning signs, that's a different story. But based on the information we've been given here, I think it's fair to say that it's unfair.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> What if it were a doorknob or a button on the wall beside the door?
> 
> Is there some unwritten rule of "levers are deadly" that doesn't apply to other mechanisms?



 If it's a secret door, I'd expect the means of opening it to also be secret (hidden knob or catch or pressure plate or some such), and, yeah, I'd expect it to probably be trapped in some manner. A blatant lever in the middle of the floor of an otherwise empty room just _screams_ trap to me. I mean, if you went to the trouble of concealing the door, why leave the means of opening it sitting out in the open unless it's a trap?

Seriously, when I'm exploring a dungeon and I come across a lever with no idea what'll happen if I pull it, I'm _not going to pull it_ unless I have no other options. That would seem to me to be part of common sense dungeoneering 101.


----------



## Mycanid (Aug 22, 2006)

I agree with Bagpuss.

Yes ... I think the arguments could be made that it was "fair", but it is not the type of game I would want to play in on a personal level.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 22, 2006)

It is unfair because it is stupid at face value.  I can imagine truly bizarre scenarios for which I would amend my opinion, but that is wild speculation.

As ThirdWizard points out, this looks like it is a Destruction spell with a value of ballpark 5k-10k.  That is a lot of lucre invested in something of questionable real value.  And any such a Destruction spell is likely to roll off even a low level Monk who rolls a natural 19.

If this trap is sensible for a particular BBEG, I see no logical reason to not substitute the 'doorknob' for 'lever'.  In fact, it makes much more sense for the BBEG to create a door that is only intended to be opened by his enemies or used as some kind of loyalty test.  Does not sound like much fun to me...


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 22, 2006)

I don't personally find "save or die" situations to be fair, at least as far as D&D as a game is concerned.  And when you can't succeed even on a 19 + mods ... that DC is too high.  It's essentially the same as "no save, and die".  

If the result wasn't instant destruction -- anything lesser would be fair game in my opinion -- it would be much more sporting.  At least give the player the illusion that he can try to do something about it.


----------



## Barak (Aug 22, 2006)

I voted no.  If a monk with a roll of 19 failed, I doubt anything but someone rolling a 20 could have succeeded.  Anything else ends up being irrelevant.


----------



## FrostedMini1337 (Aug 22, 2006)

Is the monk dead?  It doesn't actually say the monk is dead.  Couldn't he be polymorphed to any object (Pile of Dust) for 10 minutes?  Did the OP leave important stuff out for a reason?  Is this some sort of weird sociological expiriment to see what we infer?  Madness!!

Not fair though.  If a 19 won't save me, I either did something rel rel dumb (not the case) or the dm is angry with me (might be the case).


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2006)

Add me to the not fair camp as well because of the save DC.  Doesn't really matter what kind of save it was if the monk is pulling the lever.  If you roll a 19 on a save, you should probably be making that saving throw.  Otherwise, why bother?

Yeah, was never much for this kind of "Aha gotcha" kind of gaming, even when it was expected.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Aug 22, 2006)

ZSutherland said:
			
		

> It is generally inadvisable to put an save or die effect in the game that requires a natural 20 to avoid by the character with some of the best saves because it's just not much fun.




Quoted for truth.


----------



## merelycompetent (Aug 22, 2006)

Other - Again, not enough information. See here for details why: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3020822&postcount=43

As a DM and a player, I've run into too many situations that appear "unfair", when the reality is that the players (myself included) ignored all the warning signs, got a bad case of "dice-itis" or "hack-itis", or decided to go for "just one more room - how bad could it be?" Note that I do not discount a possible DM screw-up or killer DM situation in this either. We simply don't have enough information to form a valid conclusion. Heck, with the info available, we don't even know for sure if the Monk is dead. He might have been teleported to the other side of the secret door and replaced with a pile of dust.


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 22, 2006)

Not enough information, Magic Eight Ball says: "Answer hazy, vote Other". 

Did they cast _detect magic_? Why pull the lever anyways? Bare room, secret door with no way to open it, and a lever on the floor -- there doesn't seem to be any connection between lever and door. It screams "trap" to me. They had the MacGuffin, why were they hanging around to yank on strange levers? If time was of the essence, they should've been getting gone; if time wasn't of the essence, and they were curious/greedy, why not wait until the next day and have the cleric throw an _augury_ at the lever? What's the dungeon? (If it was some legendary epic wizard's long-lost sanctum that had been found & occupied by someone else, then maybe a random uber trap in a corner might make some sense.)  Etc.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Aug 22, 2006)

There's not enough info to really decide.  But I like to give the benefit of the doubt - I assumed that there's a context for such a deathtrap and that the players have had some kind of clue that pulling random levers is a bad thing.  I voted fair.


----------



## Dire_Pug (Aug 22, 2006)

I'd say at first glance that this is a borderline case.  The save DC sounds pretty high (especially if the monk failed it) and the consequences are a little harsh.  I could certainly see unleashing some other damaging spell (preferable one without a save or die mechanic) with this trap.  Taking out a character via disintegration to teach them not to pull random levels in your dungeons seems a liitle heavy handed.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Life is inherently unfair. If we believe that RPing is has some versmilitude to it, then why should it be any less unfair/fair?


----------



## Heathansson (Aug 22, 2006)

Just don't whine when the pc's "wise up" and start taking 20 to search every inch of the dungeon for traps from now on...
Sometimes, it's condusive to the game for the players to be a little daft about things.
Hyper-paranoia is boring, and it's this kind of crap that initiates it.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Maybe but I'm more against "natural 20s are always successes" in the save and skill departments. Maybe his DM was against it too.. *shrugs*


----------



## Barak (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Maybe but I'm more against "natural 20s are always successes" in the save and skill departments. Maybe his DM was against it too.. *shrugs*




But no one rolled a 20, so that made no sense.


----------



## takyris (Aug 22, 2006)

If his DM wants to encourage the bold heroism of "We take 20 on all skill checks, cast every detection spell we have, avoid anything that looks even remotely dangerous, and assume that we could die with effectively no chance to save ourselves at any time," he's doing a wonderful time.

Real life isn't fair. I completely agree. I could get taken out by an Apache attack chopper on my way to work. My console could have been rigged with explosives by anti-video-game terrorists. I could get hit by a bullet from someone firing a gun into the air half a mile away.

And do you know why I play roleplaying games? It's NOT because I want to replicate real life. I want fun. The kind of play experience I described above is not fun for me.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2006)

Natural 20's aren't auto successes in skills, nor are 1's a failure.  That only applies to saves and attacks.

The point is, there's a trap here that no one can save against.  If the monk fails on a 19, then no one else is going to make that save.  That's an "aha gotcha" trap.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

More than fair. Ignorance isn't bliss. Although, in my case, evil ignorance can be bliss. I played an anti-paladin in the original Tomb of Horros adventure. Remember the face with the open mouth? This guy:







Well, after  my character felt around in it, and the DM describing the euphoria the character felt, he climbed right in. Can you guess what happened next? Yep, the character died. I had it coming.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Fru,

If you fall into a pit, you deserve dying.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Fru,
> 
> If you fall into a pit, you deserve dying.



It was a permanently affixed Sphere of Annihilation.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Even so, open pits = death 98.9% of the time. I mean if you fall into a pit, it's generally a death involved in my book Fru.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Even so, open pits = death 98.9% of the time. I mean if you fall into a pit, it's generally a death involved in my book Fru.



Unless you make your save against massive damage.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Just for reference, I play PCs who would gladly jump into the sphere mouth cavalierly and brashly while winking to the other PCs. And then, the next character would do something crazy as well, and the next and the next. It's much _much_ more fun than the alternative (ie boring) playing.

Hopefully the DM would wise up and start planning accordingly.

It works both ways.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Unless you make your save against massive damage.



yeah well I might just say "you failed!"  

Third,

There's boring living and then there's quick death.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Third,
> 
> There's boring living and then there's quick death.




I think I approach death in RPGs a bit differently than most people. My characters can die repeatedly, and I'll keep putting the same amount of effort into them regardless. I can also enjoy a random PC death, so repeatedly dying doesn't really bother me. I would rather not die, but I'm stubborn. I put a finger into a earth weird (MM II) once. I'm _insane_. If it sounds like fun or interesting (or someone dares me), I'll do it.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Yeah well I believe in the idea that when you die the gods say "Hey we're not letting you go unless you explain to us just WHY I should let you come back!"  That kind of death thing is more fun.

Unless its Rappan Athuk. Then I fully expect deaths.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> yeah well I might just say "you failed!"



Without actually letting them roll! Scandalous!


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

If you ever GM a game in which I am playing Nightfall, I am going to play a ghost!!


----------



## Starglim (Aug 22, 2006)

Insufficient information, but I think the *really* interesting poll would be,

Do you think Quasqueton was

the player of the monk in question,
the DM,
another player or observer/don't know/didn't actually happen?
I see responses here based on all of those assumptions.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2006)

Just because I can.


----------



## Fieari (Aug 22, 2006)

I voted unfair based on the fact that a 19 failed on a save-or-die roll, and because it was the MONK who failed the save.  That DC just feels way too high for me, esspecially when the trap wasn't found by the rogue.

On the otherhand, I also agree that the party probably shouldn't have been pulling the lever anyway, since they have the McGuffin.  It's a very good point and had I noted it before voting, might have voted fair.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just because I can.



 ROFLMAO!!!!!! Love it! 

<printing>


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Without actually letting them roll! Scandalous!



Only if I'm feeling evil Fru.  And if you do play in one of my games, I'd recommend a cleric as they tend to die a lot.  

Hussar,

Good one! 

Star,

I think Quasquestion is just interested in starting fights.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just because I can.




The phrase "It's never as good as the first time" with the mouth open wide just doesn't seem right to me.

But, then, that's probably my own fault.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The phrase "It's never as good as the first time" with the mouth open wide just doesn't seem right to me.
> 
> But, then, that's probably my own fault.



Yup, you arent geeting the punch line: read my posts.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

I think he missed a lot of your punchlines Fru. But don't worry I get it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Yup, you arent geeting the punch line: read my posts.




I think you're probably better off not getting my joke.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I think he missed a lot of your punchlines Fru. But don't worry I get it.



You're a good egg, Nightfall!


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think you're probably better off not getting my joke.



Oh, if that is how you meant it, fine. But I don't think it is appropriate. Not quite Grandma friendly.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> You're a good egg, Nightfall!



Not really. If I was an egg, I'd be a Tarrasque egg.


----------



## Treebore (Aug 22, 2006)

Its fair because they didn't cast detect magic. If they had done that, and seen nothing to warn them, then you were being a killer DM. Its not your fault they were going to fast to think of casting detect magic.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Indeed Tree. You are absolutely correct.


----------



## TheEvil (Aug 22, 2006)

I voted unfair, though by that I mean that if the result were within the expectations for the game, it is probably not the style of game I would enjoy.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Not really. If I was an egg, I'd be a Tarrasque egg.



an egg is an egg, whether crack'd or not. 

Remember, if you are hungry, eat the contents of the egg, but preserve the shell. Almost Heroes reference here.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

I don't like eggs.  Except in cake mixes.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I don't like eggs.  Except in cake mixes.



I love cake, especially chocolate cake. :drool:


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Chocolate cakes are very nice. German Cholocate cakes are even better. (with no coconuts anyway! Almonds are fine)


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Chocolate cakes are very nice. German Cholocate cakes are even better. (with no coconuts anyway! Almonds are fine)



Mmm, German chocolate cake. Now that, I have got to try. Is there a specific recipe you like?


----------



## Agent Oracle (Aug 22, 2006)

Actually, according to the Trap designing sourcebook, A Reflex save of 30+ is only +2 to the base CR of the trap.  Since the DMG only contains traps up to CR 10, it's entirely possible that the trap could have been higher than CR 10


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 22, 2006)

Right well many magical traps could be designed like that.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 22, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Right well many magical traps could be designed like that.



I've done quite a few myself.


----------



## Nyeshet (Aug 22, 2006)

Just for their cleverness I'd allow a PC using a rope to pull the lever an additional save to survive. Specifically, I'd allow a reflex save to drop the rope before the disintegration flowing up the rope reached their hands. If they failed that, then they would make the Fort save. 

I suppose my main question here is: why wasn't Detect Magic used by a caster in the room? The rogue searched the lever and found no traps. That suggests that either there are no traps or that they are so well hidden that the trap is likely of high level (relative to the rogue and thus the party). If Detect Magic found something on the lever, it would be all but obvious that it is trapped with a high level - and thus potentially fatal - trap. Or it could mean something else. But in a trap and monster filled dungeon, any sane / cautious PCs will know better than to take hold of the lever once a trap check failed yet a detect magic succeeded. 

The suggestion about Summon Monster I was a good idea for this, as was the idea of using a rope - although I would merely add a reflex save to drop it in time in that situation. I'm not sure about throwing a rock at the lever to move it. They would have to really _really_ throw well - likely more than once - to move the lever full across to the opposite position, I think.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 22, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Actually, according to the Trap designing sourcebook, A Reflex save of 30+ is only +2 to the base CR of the trap.  Since the DMG only contains traps up to CR 10, it's entirely possible that the trap could have been higher than CR 10




I would like to point out that any Monk who rolls a natural 19 is likely to successfully save against any such trap, even one CR +5 or CR +6 above his level equivalent, and if it is a Reflex save take 0 damage.  A 10th level Monk is likely to have +12 or better saves across the board.  DC 30?  No problem!

While it is true that casting _Detect Magic_ may have provided more options, in general a Rogue will be able to find the trap by simply using Search without the assistance of any magic whatsoever.  Under 3e rules.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2006)

It's fair. There are a number of rules for a dungeon:

1. Do not pull levers in the middle of rooms without being damned sure what their function is.
2. Don't eat meals you find in empty or haunted banquet halls. 
3. Don't wield the bad guy's demon sword.
4. Don't yell, "ANYBODY DOWN THERE?" Ever.
5. Lowering a halfling down on a rope should only be done with spare halflings.
6. Don't press the button labeled, "Press this button."
7. If a man-made tunnel abruptly ends, something bad is about to happen. It could be something bad from behind, or it could be something bad ahead. But you have definitely gone the wrong way.

Anyone who pulls a big lever in the middle of a room, thinking it will open a secret door, gets what they deserve. Who would put such a thing there, and why?


----------



## Templetroll (Aug 22, 2006)

There is an online game, _Kingdom of Drakkar_, that has a door with a sign on it



> If you open this door you will die.  It's that simple.




Opening the door erased the character.  

The game developer eventually 'locked' the door due to so many complaints from people who had heard from other players that it was an accurate sign but 'wanted to experience it'.  But, when they did, they got upset.  Go figure.

Back on topic, is the Tomb of Horrors fair?  It has instant death traps.  [edit: as noted ont he page I skipped.  ]

If you ever want to end your campaign world put a big red button in a small room.  Have a sign that says:

_Do Not Push, This Will Destroy The World_ 

See how long the campaign lasts after that.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2006)

I have no sympathy for players who push the Big Red Button, or who find a plate of eggs benedict in a strange, uninhabited cavern sitting on at a fancy table in the middle of an empty, dark, stalactite-filled room and say, "I eat the eggs benedict."

Simiarly, if you see a duck on the 9th level of Hell, don't try to feed it. Try to consider, just for a moment, what chain of events could lead to an ordinary, harmless duck wandering the wastes of Hell. Most likely, you don't want anything to do with that duck.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Its fair because they didn't cast detect magic. If they had done that, and seen nothing to warn them, then you were being a killer DM. Its not your fault they were going to fast to think of casting detect magic.




But, even with detect magic, why would they particularly stop?  So the lever is magical.  It's iffy whether or not the cleric or mage would make his spellcraft check to determine school, so, all you get is, "The lever is magical".  Well, duh, it's connected to a secret door.  

It still, in no way warns the party that an unavoidable instant death trap is on the lever.

Of course this automatically assumes that the party has either a cleric or a wizard and that either one has detect magic memorized.

I'm sorry, the trap is just cheezy.  Extra strong fromage.  Bang bang, ah crap I'm dead type traps are neither fun nor particularly memorable.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2006)

Why would there be a big, non-secret lever in the middle of the room for a secret door? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the secret door?

Obvious trap.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I have no sympathy for players who push the Big Red Button, or who find a plate of eggs benedict in a strange, uninhabited cavern sitting on at a fancy table in the middle of an empty, dark, stalactite-filled room and say, "I eat the eggs benedict."




_Of course_, they'll eat the eggs. Or at least, they'll interact with the eggs in some way, and being that eggs are a type of food, more than likely it will be by eating them.

I mean, what are the odds of finding eggs in the middle of a dungeon? That's just weird. Obviously, something very important is going down with those eggs. You don't just find eggs in the middle of a dungeon. Is there anyone alive who would merely pass by the eggs? Who can do that???

Perhaps there are two groups of people responding. The unfair crowd generally thinks of adventuring as exploring, being a hero, and facing the unknown in front of you with eyes wide open, blazenly.

The other group sees adventuring as carefully making your way through life, touching nothing that looks odd, analyzing every detail for minutia, and generally being scared of every shadow you come across.

Yeah, that's an exaggeration, but I find the first type of adventuring far more fun than the second, and I would rather play in a game built around the first, more cinematic and what I consider adventurous.


----------



## Numion (Aug 22, 2006)

I think it's fair. A million ways to defuse the situation. There's detect magic to give some hints, then there's the cleric spell (Augury?) that let's you ask whether good or bad will ensue from said lever pullage .. but most of all, there's common sense  

It isn't too different from a dungeon adventure where there were death symbols behind a tapestry .. peek-a-boo


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2006)

I voted fair.

I've personally lost PCs from touching surfaces that were trapped with disintigrate-type traps...and they weren't levers or anything that obviously screamed "Touch me!"

THAT was unfair.

Like pawsplay said- as traps go, this one was pretty obvious.

And I, knowing my luck, would not eat the eggs.

I would not eat them with a gnome, I would not eat them in my home.  I would not eat them in a box, I would not eat them with a fox (not even if it were Courtney Cox).  I would not eat those eggs, my man- dungeon eggs are such a sham!  So no such eggs will I consume, I'll leave them be within that room.  I'll wander off some leagues and paces to eat some eggs in safer places.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 22, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Lowering a halfling down on a rope should only be done with spare halflings.



Is there any other kind?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 22, 2006)

If I found a secret door hidden in a room with a very prominent lever, I probably wouldn't assume that the lever activated the secret door... why would the door be secret and the lever public? It would rather defeat the object of having a secret door.

Beyond that though?

In deciding whether it seems fair or not though, I wonder this - had the monk got the best saves in the party (presumably why he was chosen to pull the lever)? Because I think a trap which will kill *anyone * in the party who doesn't roll a 20 on their save is bad design. I don't mind traps which require a 20 fort save for the wizard but are fine for the fighter, for instance, but I certainly wouldn't use a trap that required a 20 for everybody.

Cheers


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 22, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Obvious trap.




Isn't the whole points of traps that they aren't obvious. Also if it was so obvious why didn't the rogue detect it on his Search check?  

To me adverturing is about action not inaction, if I just wanted to leave every lever or switch I found alone, I'ld become a commoner and stick to farming.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 22, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> To me adverturing is about action not inaction, if I just wanted to leave every lever or switch I found alone, I'ld become a commoner and stick to farming.




C'mon, Bagpuss:  adventuring's about decision-making.  If the adventurers are automatically going to pull the lever, there's no point having a lever; you might as well just have the secret door pop open when the players enter the room.  Therefore, pulling the lever or not needs to be a real decision.


----------



## delericho (Aug 22, 2006)

Assuming the party is of such level that character death actually matters (ie low to mid level), then this trap is simply bad design - save or die with an extremely high DC just isn't fun. (As opposed to save or 3d6 Con damage, or save or unleash chain lightning on party, or...)

Whether the trap is fair or not depends on two factors: the DC to detect, and whether this is an otherwise level-appropriate dungeon.

If the DC to detect the trap was placed such that the Rogue had little to no chance of success, and the save DC was likewise so high that the character with the best saves needed a 20 to survive, then the trap was unfair.

Unless, that is, the PCs are in over their heads. If this lair of the BBEG has been shown time and again to be extremely deadly, and far beyond their current capabilities, then they should be aware that they've pushed their luck to the limits already, and that there may well be dangers that they can't properly detect or defend against.

If this is a level-appropriate dungeon, then the check DC to find the trap should be such that the Rogue can do so on a 10 or so (actually, less if the save DC is so high and the consequences so dire - the DM should WANT the PCs to find this trap before it kills off a PC).

I'm going to vote unfair. However, my position would be changed if further information came to light that the Search DC was very low, that the dungeon wasn't designed to be level-appropriate, or it emerged that the Monk was suffering some (known) penalties to his saves for some reason. But, even if that happens, I'll still argue that the trap was badly designed for anything other than a high-level game.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 22, 2006)

For the record: This scenario is completely made up, is not based on a real scenario, is not something I DMed, is not something in which I had a PC.

Quasqueton


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 22, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Assuming the party is of such level that character death actually matters (ie low to mid level), then this trap is simply bad design - save or die with an extremely high DC just isn't fun. (As opposed to save or 3d6 Con damage, or save or unleash chain lightning on party, or...)




Treated as a test of the characters, this trap's clearly unfair.  It's (effectively) an undetectable get-disintegrated-with-all-your-gear trap with no saving throw.

But I don't play to test the numbers on my character sheet against the numbers on the DM's scenario booklet.  The trap is a test of the _players_.

I think good* players are the ones who, whenever possible, arrange things so they don't _need_ to roll the dice, and those are the players who'd survive the trap and progress towards the (presumably rich) treasure that awaits!

*Edited to add:*

* This use of the word "good" needs a qualifier.  I accept that there are players who think all traps should be detectable and nonlethal if undetected, and such groups would doubtless call me a crap DM.  By their lights, they would be correct to do so.

By "good players" I mean those who would be likely to survive in the most challenging tactical environments.  Other groups are less Darwinian and would presumably call "good players" those who were best at improvisational theatre.  Or something.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 22, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> If the adventurers are automatically going to pull the lever, there's no point having a lever; you might as well just have the secret door pop open when the players enter the room.




If a trap is just going to automatically kill the players you might as well not have the trap and just rip up their character sheets when they walk in the room.

If your running a dungeon where the lever is trapped with a trap impossible (at their level) to detect which instantly kills them on a failed save, how is a player ment to know if the next door nob is similiarly trapped or, the next 5ft of corridor?

If you put a lever in the dungeon and you don't intend the players to ever pull it, why put it in? If you have just put it in to kill a player, why not just hit them with a divine DM Fait lightning bolt and be done with it?

All that lever is going to do is make sure the players never pull another lever again, or open a door or move another inch, without testing it with a 10ft pole or using a rope, etc. Hardy what I call heroic behaviour. Sound "tactical play" perhaps but not the sort of game I'ld want to be playing in.

Edit: To steal a phrase from the following poster.

This trap is definately unfair (and but sometimes I don't mind a little unfair in my games); what I don't like about it more is it is also "unfun".

First it kills a character for one bad roll.
2nd it makes the rogue feel useless since he can't detect traps, one of his characters main abilities.
3rd it discourages curiousity.


----------



## Kesh (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm just going to copy & paste from the other thread:

I had to vote Other, because it depends on the circumstances.

If it happened exactly as described, it's completely unfair. Further, I'd consider it unfun.

If this is deep in a dungeon full of insta-kill traps, then it's a bit of a toss-up. They've got the macguffin, they are trying to get out, there's no other (obvious) avenue of escape... well, they should have seen it coming. Still, not that fun.

If, however, there's an obvious warning that the only way to escape is to pull the lever, but whoever pulls it will die, it just became a dramatic situation. Someone can choose to sacrifice themselves for the others, or the group can try to figure out a way to trigger the lever without someone getting killed, or they can look for another way out.

The difference is, in the latter instance, the players choose how to react instead of getting a "bang, you're dead" response. Which wasn't fun when playing cops 'n robbers as a kid, either.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 22, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If a trap is just going to automatically kill the players you might as well not have the trap and just rip up their character sheets when they walk in the room.




It doesn't, though.  It kills whatever pulls the lever, which could be anything; I have no idea whether this is an option in d20, but in 1e you could have something like an unseen servant pull the lever.



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If your running a dungeon where the lever is trapped with a trap impossible (at their level) to detect which instantly kills them on a failed save, how is a player ment to know if the next door nob is similiarly trapped or, the next 5ft of corridor?




They don't.    They proceed carefully, cautiously and quietly at all times or risk death.



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If you put a lever in the dungeon and you don't intend the players to ever pull it, why put it in?




To test them.

This is a party that's _already retrieved_ the McGuffin; they've presumably already achieved their purpose from the adventure.  Are they satisfied with their success, or does some combination of curiosity or greed push them further?  And if it does, is their curiosity/greed matched by their caution?


----------



## Numion (Aug 22, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If a trap is just going to automatically kill the players you might as well not have the trap and just rip up their character sheets when they walk in the room.




But only the one pulling the lever was killed, no? Even if pulling the lever was mandatory for adventurers (as you put it, but I don't agree), there's the choice "who's going to pull it?".


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 22, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> It doesn't, though.  It kills whatever pulls the lever, which could be anything; I have no idea whether this is an option in d20, but in 1e you could have something like an unseen servant pull the lever.




You can't tell that from the original discription, besides the wizard might not have a suitable spell memorized or even available at their level.



> They don't.    They proceed carefully, cautiously and quietly at all times or risk death.




Yeah our party did that in the Whispering Caern after finding the wind trap, it took us two months in game time to complete an adventure that might have normally taken us a week in game time. Because we rested and went back to town after nearly every encounter. Thank god we don't play like that anymore (although we have had more character deaths and near misses).


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 22, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> You can't tell that from the original discription, besides the wizard might not have a suitable spell memorized or even available at their level.




Possible edition clash there; in the version of the game I play "Unseen servant" is a commonly-available spell that any first level m-u could cast.  If such a spell wasn't available in the spellbooks, then I'd say that the DM should make sure that pulling the lever with a rope was safe.



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Yeah our party did that in the Whispering Caern after finding the wind trap, it took us two months in game time to complete an adventure that might have normally taken us a week in game time. Because we rested and went back to town after nearly every encounter. Thank god we don't play like that anymore (although we have had more character deaths and near misses).




Different strokes, etc.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Treated as a test of the characters, this trap's clearly unfair.  It's (effectively) an undetectable get-disintegrated-with-all-your-gear trap with no saving throw.
> 
> But I don't play to test the numbers on my character sheet against the numbers on the DM's scenario booklet.  The trap is a test of the _players_.
> 
> ...




Great post.  Some players want their acting abilty challanged, some want thier brains wracked.  It all depends and the answer to this question will vary wildly depending on what kind of player answers it.   I think it would be great, and I know the veteran players at my table wouldn't even think of touching it without some kind of plan.


----------



## Barak (Aug 22, 2006)

Hmm.  If I was a BBEG in a game played by some of the posters, I think I'd have the entrance to my real lair openable by a simple, non-hidden, non-magical lever.  Then they'd -never- get me.


----------



## wayne62682 (Aug 22, 2006)

I don't see how it's fair in the least.  It's deliberately screwing over a player with a save-or-die trap when there's no indication that it's a trap.  Nevermind the ludicrously high DC which basically guarentees someone will die.  That kind of "Oh but it's a dungeon, there are going to be death traps" attitude should have gone the way of the dodo along with 3d6 stats in order, weapon speeds and THAC0. 

Just my two cents.. but then again I hate anything that purposely hinders/screws over the players.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## zypherillius (Aug 22, 2006)

*The monk bit the dust...*

apparently its the rogues fault for not searching hign enough on the lever.  next time he can take a 20, because youre allowed to take a 20 on search checks.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 22, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> That kind of "Oh but it's a dungeon, there are going to be death traps" attitude should have gone the way of the dodo along with 3d6 stats in order, weapon speeds and THAC0.




Now that you've lit the blue touch paper, I think I'll retire to a safe distance.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Perhaps there are two groups of people responding. The unfair crowd generally thinks of adventuring as exploring, being a hero, and facing the unknown in front of you with eyes wide open, blazenly.
> 
> The other group sees adventuring as carefully making your way through life, touching nothing that looks odd, analyzing every detail for minutia, and generally being scared of every shadow you come across.




Exactly. Theres a contingent at ENWorld who believes Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been better if it was 90 minutes of Indiana Jones taking spending 10 minutes searching a 5 foot square, throwing a rope on it, throwing a stick at it, sending a native to walk forwards, then proceeding and repeating. The golden idol? Screw picking that up, its time to leave. Roll credits.

I find that incredibly lame and sad.

The only way this is a fair scenario is if the monk isnt dead, but teleported or something.


----------



## tzor (Aug 22, 2006)

I voted other.  I've played since 1980, I've known and loved the old save and/or die traps of the early days.  I tend not to favor them these days, but the whole thing to me revolves around context.  There is a time and a place for even a killer dungeon.

Since the context is missing, I can't really talk about the specific case.  Is the general area itself filled with such traps or is this a singluar occurance?  What is the level of the trap in relation to the occupants therein?  (In this case I think the trap is overkill.  If you can't save with a 19 you are probably way to low level to be playing with the trap.  But they defeated the general occupants so there is a clear level disconnect.)  What is the purpose of the trap?  (It might have been a suicide room allowing those convicted of treason the way to humanely execute themselves without having to be stabbed, poisoned, etc.  The secret door might be in fact a one way door openable only by someone on the other side.)

And when you only had four choices as to what to play (unless you rolled high enough for the premium classes) 3d6 in order gave you that not to subtle hint.  Weapon speeds on the other hand, like the to hit verses armor types was routinely ignored by my ganing group.  As were the non weapon combat rules.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Exactly. Theres a contingent at ENWorld who believes Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been better if it was 90 minutes of Indiana Jones taking spending 10 minutes searching a 5 foot square, throwing a rope on it, throwing a stick at it, sending a native to walk forwards, then proceeding and repeating. The golden idol? Screw picking that up, its time to leave. Roll credits.
> 
> I find that incredibly lame and sad.
> 
> The only way this is a fair scenario is if the monk isnt dead, but teleported or something.




Movies and games are not the same thing and what works in one does not always work in the other.  I would think that is obvious.

P.S. Was the director screwing Indy by putting a trap on the idol podium?  If he hadn't had that bag of sand he would have been screwed and had to go home empty handed.  Obviously the director was out to screw Indy out of his fun time....


----------



## takyris (Aug 22, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Movies and games are not the same thing and what works in one does not always work in the other.  I would think that is obvious.




They're the same in one respect, though. If Indy had to summon a magical creature to pull every darn lever for him because there might be a nondetectable instakill trap on it, I'd think it was kind of a lame movie. I would similarly find this an asinine DMing tactic -- if the rogue can't find it and the monk can't save against it, it shouldn't be an instakill.



> P.S. Was the director screwing Indy by putting a trap on the idol podium?  If he hadn't had that bag of sand he would have been screwed and had to go home empty handed.  Obviously the director was out to screw Indy out of his fun time....




Flex, I'd posit that there's a subtle difference between a nice slow rolling boulder and an instant disintegration trap that a monk can't save against on a natural 19.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

It depneds on if you outrun the boulder...

plus weren't there poison dart traps and spear traps in there that he had to run through?  Talk about a screw job!


----------



## takyris (Aug 22, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> It depneds on if you outrun the boulder...
> 
> plus weren't there poison dart traps and spear traps in there that he had to run through?  Talk about a screw job!




I believe you're attempting to use humorous sarcasm to make a point, but your metaphor is badly flawed. Did Indy need to roll a natural 20 to outrun the boulder?

I'm not arguing against traps. I'm arguing against traps that the rogue can't possibly detect and that the guy with the best saves can't realistically survive.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 22, 2006)

> I believe you're attempting to use humorous sarcasm to make a point, but your metaphor is badly flawed. Did Indy need to roll a natural 20 to outrun the boulder?




I agree--not only that, the boulder trap leaves room for a lot more ingenuity than a boring instant death (save DC too high for anyone).  There are plenty of ingenious ways to avoid the boulder in D&D--I had one player who encountered a boulder trap like the one in Indiana Jones and quickly cast Rope Trick, scuttling into the extradimensional space and waiting for the boulder to roll past.  It was a great idea on the player's part, and if the trap had instead been an instant death trap with a DC that the characters couldn't make, this would have been less fun *and* discouraged player ingenuity.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 22, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Exactly. Theres a contingent at ENWorld who believes Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been better if it was 90 minutes of Indiana Jones taking spending 10 minutes searching a 5 foot square, throwing a rope on it, throwing a stick at it, sending a native to walk forwards, then proceeding and repeating. The golden idol? Screw picking that up, its time to leave. Roll credits.
> 
> I find that incredibly lame and sad.
> 
> The only way this is a fair scenario is if the monk isnt dead, but teleported or something.




There's a difference between pulling a lever that potentially stands between you and your golden idol and pulling a lever you don't know the function of after you have the golden idol safely in your hand.  The situation is a classic "do you take the bait" scenario.  The players have no idea what lies behind the secret door, their objective does not require that they find out, the lever is obviously a potential trap, smart players either walk away or do a significantly more thorough job of protecting themselves from the potential risk.  This trap is tough, but the players in the scenario were foolish too.  A wiser party could have easily handled the trap without losing a party member.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 22, 2006)

What is the purpose of a trap?

Kill intruders? Stop intruders? Delay? Distract? Weaken? Harm? Discombobulate? Aggravate? Annoy? Deter? Entertain? Please?

Who places a trap? Who is "responsible" for a trap? A BBEG or a DM? Is it metagaming to say that the scenario is unfair.

What if the rogue did find a trap, and the group decided to let the monk pull the lever anyway, presuming that he had the best chance to avoid the effects? Maybe they loaded the monk up with all the party's protection magic.

What if the party used a summoned monster to pull the lever? Would the scenario be unfair, then? Is the unfairness based on the results or on the set up?

If a dungeon is full of kobolds and goblins, does that mean that there will not/can not be a _disintegrate_ trap back in a corner room? If a dungeon is full of demons and devils, does that mean that there will not/can not be a _sleep_ trap back in a corner room?

When I posed this question in the other thread, where folks could predict the voting outcome in this thread, this is what I expected:

I figured that most people would predict that most people here would say the scenario was unfair. But I figured that when voting personal opinion, I expected the fair/unfair numbers to be close to even. I thought it possible that the fair votes could actually outnumber the unfair votes. I was wrong, and I'm surprised.

Quasqueton


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> _Of course_, they'll eat the eggs. Or at least, they'll interact with the eggs in some way, and being that eggs are a type of food, more than likely it will be by eating them.
> 
> I mean, what are the odds of finding eggs in the middle of a dungeon? That's just weird. Obviously, something very important is going down with those eggs. You don't just find eggs in the middle of a dungeon. Is there anyone alive who would merely pass by the eggs? Who can do that???
> 
> ...




You're completely wrong. What I'm talking about is adventurers, not lemmings with spiked chains. The whole point of roleplaying is to potrary a hero, who is a kind of character, who hopefully inhabits a world that exhibits some logic. To put it succinctly, a little common sense goes a long way.

The person who would eat the eggs benefict without elaborate testing is probably a metagamer, who probably figures the GM would not turn him into a hezrou when he eats the demonic eggs benedict, or that the eggs benedict are a ghostly illusion that causes wraiths to attack, or its a psychic projection created by a relatively unintelligent and unimaginive magical beast that uses such illusions to lure prey.

We're talking about a dashing hero who thinks _someone within the last few hours left a plate of eggs benedict for him in case he got hungry._ Or suppose he thinks it is a benign or even helpful dish; whose eggs does he suppose they are, and how will they feel about him eating them?

It's true, the eggs are obviously significant, or they wouldn't be in such a strange place. But "signifcant" does not mean good. Statues of adventurers frozen in terror, rendered in incredible detail, is not a sign that you should investigate and see about selling some of them off for loot. It means something has a petrification ability.

That sword sticking out of that skull in the altar room of the evil temple? There's probably a reason no one has strolled along and plucked it from its resting place in all these years. If it's easy to acquire, you probably don't want it.

This isn't about searching 5' by 5' squares, this is about not acting like a total yahoo when you go into a dangerous situation. It's no different than if you were playing Vampire, and a mysterious wolf started following you, and you offered it some food and tried to take it home.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> I believe you're attempting to use humorous sarcasm to make a point, but your metaphor is badly flawed. Did Indy need to roll a natural 20 to outrun the boulder?
> 
> I'm not arguing against traps. I'm arguing against traps that the rogue can't possibly detect and that the guy with the best saves can't realistically survive.




Who knows what Indy rolled.  What was the mechanic in the Indy RPG?  I don't think it was D20.  He may have used some kind of Hero Point mechanism to save his hide too.  

The real screw job was the final scene, so they go through all this and if they look inside the treasure box they all die?  Did those Nazis get a save?  Those spirits were way over the CR of the people there.  What if Indy had tried to fight them?  There was only one "right" way to avoid that trap and that really limits creative freedom of the player/movie character.  

In any event my metaphor probably isn't correct...unless like you are right and Indy needed to roll a 20 to beat that boulder.

And I'm not really trying to make any points about the fairness of death traps in a RPG.  Everything depends on the players and how they enjoy playing the game, with some other factors tossed in.  I'd probably put a few more clues in, like the mentioned dust pile.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> What if the rogue did find a trap, and the group decided to let the monk pull the lever anyway, presuming that he had the best chance to avoid the effects? Maybe they loaded the monk up with all the party's protection magic.




I'd probably tell the Monks player, "that was stupid, but that is what happens when you decide to set off traps with yourself!  Get out 4d6..."


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 22, 2006)

All this talk of finding plates of eggs benedict in the middle of dungeons is reminding me of _The Shadow People_ by Margaret St. Clair. Fun book, an obvious source for Gygax's "Descent into the Depths of the Earth" series, and which made me decide that all good dungeons need enticing plates of food left sitting around seemingly at random just waiting for some foolish adventurer to come along and eat them


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Movies and games are not the same thing and what works in one does not always work in the other.  I would think that is obvious.




I always thought "cinematic" games were considered a good thing around here. But, I completely disagree with you there. My games can be Indiana Jones-like adventurous just fine. You should try it. It's fun.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The person who would eat the eggs benefict without elaborate testing is probably a metagamer, who probably figures the GM would not turn him into a hezrou when he eats the demonic eggs benedict, or that the eggs benedict are a ghostly illusion that causes wraiths to attack, or its a psychic projection created by a relatively unintelligent and unimaginive magical beast that uses such illusions to lure prey.




*jaw drop* We play in two very different games. That's okay, though.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 22, 2006)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> All this talk of finding plates of eggs benedict in the middle of dungeons is reminding me of _The Shadow People_ by Margaret St. Clair. Fun book, an obvious source for Gygax's "Descent into the Depths of the Earth" series, and which made me decide that all good dungeons need enticing plates of food left sitting around seemingly at random just waiting for some foolish adventurer to come along and eat them



Could be worse - it could have been a bottle marked "DRINK ME" and a cake marked "EAT ME".


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 22, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> It depneds on if you outrun the boulder...
> 
> plus weren't there poison dart traps and spear traps in there that he had to run through?  Talk about a screw job!




I'd check his dice then, since thats clearly a ton of 20's.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I always thought "cinematic" games were considered a good thing around here. But, I completely disagree with you there. My games can be Indiana Jones-like adventurous just fine. You should try it. It's fun.




Hate to disappoint you, but lots here seem to feel that if your character wakes up and yawns without taking proper precautions you're an idiot...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2006)

Player choices should lead to interesting encounters and challenging scenarios.

Zapping someone dead is neither. 

The lever could have done a million and one troublesome but non-fatal things, things that would challenge the players further to overcome new difficulties and find out the secret.

Why should I be scared of the lever? Hell, I'm playing a character who is going into a dangerous dungeon in search of a lost artifact and you're telling me that a mere *stick* should warn me off and make me run away? I'm an ADVENTURER. I take RISKS.

The job of the DM is to make those risks challenging but fun. In most cases, destroying your character without hope of resurrection is neither. 

It's like pulling out a distant sniper in a kung fu fight. It's death, without hope, for simply doing what you're there to do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2006)

> Perhaps there are two groups of people responding. The unfair crowd generally thinks of adventuring as exploring, being a hero, and facing the unknown in front of you with eyes wide open, blazenly.
> 
> The other group sees adventuring as carefully making your way through life, touching nothing that looks odd, analyzing every detail for minutia, and generally being scared of every shadow you come across.




There is at least a third group.

There are some among us (me included) who chart the middle path, and see an *obvious *lever implied to be the one that opens the _*secret*_ door as a trap for SUCKERS, and would let someone else touch it...or let NOBODY touch it, depending upon what kind of info we had and how we read the situation.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The lever could have done a million and one troublesome but non-fatal things, things that would challenge the players further to overcome new difficulties and find out the secret.




Reminds me of a trap I had long long ago. Three levers.

PC: I pull the first lever, then the third, then the second.
DM: You feel electricity coursing through your body! Take 1 damage.
PC: Hmmm... there must be a trick to it. I pull the first, then the third, then the second.
DM: ... erm...
PC: I'm an idiot.
DM: 1 damage.





			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> There are some among us (me included) who chart the middle path, and see an obvious lever implied to be the one that opens the secret door as a trap for SUCKERS, and would let someone else touch it...or let NOBODY touch it, depending upon what kind of info we had and how we read the situation.




I just find that _way_ overly paranoid. That fits into my 2nd camp. It's just a lever!

I mean what kind of stupid, idiotic, BBEG is going to trap some random lever somewhere deep in his fortress with a trap that cost him somewhere around 50,000 gp? If he's that stuipd, then I should hope the PCs killed him easily with no trouble, seeing as he had no equipment on him because he spent all his money on trapping some lever.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Hate to disappoint you, but lots here seem to feel that if your character wakes up and yawns without taking proper precautions you're an idiot...




Just sad...



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I just find that _way_ overly paranoid. That fits into my 2nd camp. It's just a lever!
> 
> I mean what kind of stupid, idiotic, BBEG is going to trap some random lever somewhere deep in his fortress with a trap that cost him somewhere around 50,000 gp? If he's that stuipd, then I should hope the PCs killed him easily with no trouble, seeing as he had no equipment on him because he spent all his money on trapping some lever.




Huh?  I never thought to examine the DMG suggested wealth table when making out a dungeon that will be fun and challanging for my players.   Thank god for that.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 22, 2006)

Exactly if the guy can create a instant disintergate trap, why the hell has he trapped a lever that most people here seem to think is "an obvious trap" and so wouldn't touch. 

If the BBEG wanted to kill a PC why didn't he trap the handle on the entrance to the chamber before the McGuffin or before the PC's found him and killed him, it seems a more than a little stupid and illogical to place it in a room that the PC's will only get to after they have robbed him blind and killed him?

It's such a stupid place to actually put a trap, because it screams trap. Hence logically it wouldn't be, if you are going to trap something you make it more subtle, you don't hang a neon sign over it saying trap.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 22, 2006)

I'd like to point out that the scenario never mentions a BBEG, in any form. Even if there is a BBEG, nothing in the scenario suggests that he had/has anything to do with the lever or secret door.

Quasqueton


----------



## Ourph (Aug 22, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Player choices should lead to interesting encounters and challenging scenarios.



In this case, the choice IS the encounter.  For some types of players, this is one of the most interesting kinds of encounters because it cannot be solved by straightforward thinking.  Games of cat & mouse logic are a big part of the fun for the groups I play with.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The lever could have done a million and one troublesome but non-fatal things, things that would challenge the players further to overcome new difficulties and find out the secret.



Why would someone create a trap that is troublesome or inconvenient but non-fatal?  Isn't the idea of a trap that it prevents you from going someplace or doing something by killing you in the most efficient way possible if you try to go where or do what you aren't supposed to?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Why should I be scared of the lever? Hell, I'm playing a character who is going into a dangerous dungeon in search of a lost artifact and you're telling me that a mere *stick* should warn me off and make me run away? I'm an ADVENTURER. I take RISKS.



If your job is to take RISKS (underlined, exclamation point) then shouldn't you expect the consequences of taking RISKS (underlined, double exclamation point) to be RISKY (underlined, bolded, quadrulple exclamation point) rather than just inconvenient or troublesome?  You seem to be implying that adventurers should be the type who laugh in the face of danger, but what you're really saying is that adventurers in a D&D game are the type of laugh in the face of the thinly veiled illusion of danger because they know that no matter how incautious or unprepared they might be the danger will never be anything more than a temporary setback.  WOW!  How brave!


----------



## Treebore (Aug 22, 2006)

Everyone knows Ol Grimtooth puts those mysterious traps in these dungeons, just for the fun the pain and agony gives him! If you don't know about Grimtooth its no wonder you die!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out that the scenario never mentions a BBEG, in any form. Even if there is a BBEG, nothing in the scenario suggests that he had/has anything to do with the lever or secret door.
> 
> Quasqueton




I know, and to be honest your poll is a bit rigged.  With no info really on the surroundings of the lever its hard to guage if it fits.  To be honest I'm suprised there are as many Yes votes as there are.

Mostly these threads end up being a case of two groups trying to convince the other side that thier style is objectively badwrongfun.


----------



## Harmon (Aug 22, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Everyone knows Ol Grimtooth puts those mysterious traps in these dungeons, just for the fun the pain and agony gives him! If you don't know about Grimtooth its no wonder you die!




Dude, isn't that like Meta Gaming or something?


----------



## FrostedMini1337 (Aug 22, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> If a dungeon is full of kobolds and goblins, does that mean that there will not/can not be a _disintegrate_ trap back in a corner room? If a dungeon is full of demons and devils, does that mean that there will not/can not be a _sleep_ trap back in a corner room?




If I'm fighting Goblins and Kobolds (Under CR 1) and there is a disintegrate trap (CR 8?) there is a serious problem.

And if I'm fighting demons and devils and I still have 4 HD there is also a problem.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 22, 2006)

> It's such a stupid place to actually put a trap, because it screams trap. Hence logically it wouldn't be, if you are going to trap something you make it more subtle, you don't hang a neon sign over it saying trap.



Would "hiding" the trap make the scenario fair?

Quasqueton


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 22, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> There is at least a third group.
> 
> There are some among us (me included) who chart the middle path, and see an *obvious *lever implied to be the one that opens the _*secret*_ door as a trap for SUCKERS, and would let someone else touch it...or let NOBODY touch it, depending upon what kind of info we had and how we read the situation.




The fact that it is completely obvious that a lever standing smack in the middle of the room is not going to open the secret door has absolutely no logical connection to whether the lever can reasonably be expected to be obscenely lethal or should be pulled.  

In a real killer campaign, such sloppy thinking will get you killed.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 22, 2006)

> If your job is to take RISKS (underlined, exclamation point) then shouldn't you expect the consequences of taking RISKS (underlined, double exclamation point) to be RISKY (underlined, bolded, quadrulple exclamation point) rather than just inconvenient or troublesome? You seem to be implying that adventurers should be the type who laugh in the face of danger, but what you're really saying is that adventurers in a D&D game are the type of laugh in the face of the thinly veiled illusion of danger because they know that no matter how incautious or unprepared they might be the danger will never be anything more than a temporary setback. WOW! How brave!




Going up against a DC 20 deathtrap when you have +6 to save is taking risks.  Going up against a DC 42 deathtrap when the character in the party with the highest save has a +15 is a GM being cruel.  Give this same scenario and say that the Wizard pulled the lever and failed on a 10 and I bet you that there is a huge swing away from unfair.


----------



## Treebore (Aug 22, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Going up against a DC 20 deathtrap when you have +6 to save is taking risks.  Going up against a DC 42 deathtrap when the character in the party with the highest save has a +15 is a GM being cruel.  Give this same scenario and say that the Wizard pulled the lever and failed on a 10 and I bet you that there is a huge swing away from unfair.





Yep. Killing a character for being too stupid to tie a 50 foot length of rope to the lever and then pull on it from 45 feet away is very unfair. I hate it when DM's expect me to think.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Huh?  I never thought to examine the DMG suggested wealth table when making out a dungeon that will be fun and challanging for my players.   Thank god for that.




I don't follow them, but I also find it illogical to find a trap that costs more than the rest of the dungeon put together. 

First, the _destruction_ trap's DC is wrong. It should be 20 Fort, so the monk should have made the save. So, we're dealing with an even more powerful trap, with heightenings and some kind of insane DC boosting going on. Should the PCs expect anything like that? The DM is purposely raising the DC in order to increase the lethality of an already extremely lethal trap.

Second, the whole setup is completely metagamey. It's a lever in a room. Maybe it lowers the dumbwaiter. Maybe it signals for someone in another room to come attend to whomever is staying there. There are lots of reason to have a lever in a room that have nothing to do with the secret door and have nothing to do with traps. 

That's what levers are _for_. To do things. Nobody sticks a randomly trapped lever in a room for the sole purpose of killing curious intruders. You put the lethal trap on a place they're sure to go/touch/mess with. To expect it to be trapped is completely metagaming, and I don't plan out dungeons based on metagame views and I don't take character actions based on metagame views.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Would "hiding" the trap make the scenario fair?




No. And, that's part of the entire point. For some of us, there is no difference between putting this trap on a doorknob and putting it on a lever. It's the exact same thing.

I've put death traps on doorways, of course. Once a gnome was tossed through one because he was playing a practical joke on another PC at the wrong time. But, they've always been able to be found with a Search check, and they've always been able to be passed with a successful save by the person with the highest save vs. the trap. And, they've always occured in groups that could raise their dead.


----------



## FrostedMini1337 (Aug 22, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Yep. Killing a character for being too stupid to tie a 50 foot length of rope to the lever and then pull on it from 45 feet away is very unfair. I hate it when DM's expect me to think.






			
				Takyris said:
			
		

> If his DM wants to encourage the *bold heroism* of "We take 20 on all skill checks, cast every detection spell we have, avoid anything that looks even remotely dangerous, and assume that we could die with effectively no chance to save ourselves at any time," he's doing a wonderful time.



That's been QFT'd.  It's also my new mantra for DMing.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I don't follow them, but I also find it illogical to find a trap that costs more than the rest of the dungeon put together.
> 
> First, the _destruction_ trap's DC is wrong. It should be 20 Fort, so the monk should have made the save. So, we're dealing with an even more powerful trap, with heightenings and some kind of insane DC boosting going on. Should the PCs expect anything like that? The DM is purposely raising the DC in order to increase the lethality of an already extremely lethal trap.
> 
> ...




We metagame all the time I'd say.  I like the challange the players as much as the characters.  Different strokes and all.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> We metagame all the time I'd say.  I like the challange the players as much as the characters.  Different strokes and all.




Yep. My way of challenging Players is to figure out when to use the Search skill, which this has only showed them is a useless thing to do.

Also, my character will die before I metagame.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 22, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Yep. Killing a character for being too stupid to tie a 50 foot length of rope to the lever and then pull on it from 45 feet away is very unfair. I hate it when DM's expect me to think.



 At that point, it could have been a trap that disintegrated you even then.  The key is that the DC was absurd.  Had it been a normal Destruction trap, DC 20, that would be completely fair to toss onto a lever, even in a first level dungeon (in my opinion, of course).  Would it make sense in a first-level dungeon?  Hell no.  But it would be fair.  The DC was high to the point where the trap in this example was not fair.  

It seems like (though I'm not trying to pigeonhole you) you're one of the GMs who would say those old 1st edition traps that when you step on the stairs they automatically killed you, no save, as you fell into the stairs and were crushed, were fair, even when there was no way to detect the trap.  I can't agree with that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> In this case, the choice IS the encounter. For some types of players, this is one of the most interesting kinds of encounters because it cannot be solved by straightforward thinking. Games of cat & mouse logic are a big part of the fun for the groups I play with.




Then you can see how this is really player vs. dm logic. Who is more devious, who can one-up the other, can you outsmart the placer of traps or do you become a victim of them?

It's fine, but it's no kind of game I want to play, and it's certainly not what I expect when I sit down to play a game of heroic fantasy. I'm not trying to outsmart the DM, I'm trying to be Lord Albright the Dragonslayer. I don't want to have my personal intelligence pitted against the DM's personal intelligence, I want Lord Albright's cleverness to be pitted against the dragon's cleverness. If Lord Albright fails, I expect it to lead to interesting and challenging scenarios, not his untimely and unavoidable death. The simple reason is that facing challenges is heroic and fantastical, while dying is neither.

It's fine to play the game a different way, but it would be _nonstandard_. Which means that, sure, in a nonstandard game there might be room for such a thing, and if your personal games are nonstandard in this manner then your personal feelings would be different. You're playing it different, but you're having fun, and that's what's important. You can't be too flabberghasted that it's a minority way of precieving things, though.



> Why would someone create a trap that is troublesome or inconvenient but non-fatal? Isn't the idea of a trap that it prevents you from going someplace or doing something by killing you in the most efficient way possible if you try to go where or do what you aren't supposed to?




If it's a question of verisimilitude, it opens up a can of many worms that the OP isn't answering. Who IS supposed to go there, how do they do it, why would they want to stop others from doing it, why would they hide the trap, and how did they become so extravagantly rich that they spent so much gold on one lever?

See, if your goal is to stop people from going somewhere, you've got a lot of tools at your disposal before you even have to resort to traps. A wall would do the job...heck, an illusory one would probably still cost less. Various spells (like _glyphs and wards_) are made from scratch to do such things. If you're only trying to prevent most people from doing it, spreading rumors around town about the dangerous monsters and dressing up scooby-doo style will do it quite nicely. A simple poisoned dart would be very cheap and work well enough for most purposes. If you were watching out for heroic adventurers, monsters do the same trick for a lot less money, normally (you guard the mcguffin with a BBEG). 

A death trap itself has all sorts of security holes. If you're making it that powerful, how can you guarantee a lich or vampire won't try to do it? What about tying a rope to the lever, how do you fight against that? What if they have access to resurrection? What about the SECOND person to pull the lever? How, exactly, is that doing a good job of protecting your whatever?

An invincible death trap would simply be out of the realm of believability in the first place. It screams of lack of imagination -- a DM who just wanted to dangle a baited hook to revel in his omnipotent DM powers of life and death over imaginary heroes. 

If verisimilitude is a problem with a less leathal trap (though it usually isn't, as I've shown above), it's an even bigger problem with a trap this pointlessly lethal.



> If your job is to take RISKS (underlined, exclamation point) then shouldn't you expect the consequences of taking RISKS (underlined, double exclamation point) to be RISKY (underlined, bolded, quadrulple exclamation point) rather than just inconvenient or troublesome? You seem to be implying that adventurers should be the type who laugh in the face of danger, but what you're really saying is that adventurers in a D&D game are the type of laugh in the face of the thinly veiled illusion of danger because they know that no matter how incautious or unprepared they might be the danger will never be anything more than a temporary setback. WOW! How brave!




You're setting up a strawman. I'm saying the danger should be fair. It'd also be nice if it made sense (the death trap does not).  Because this is made to be a game of fantasy adventure, not a game of DM/Player one-upmanship, it's not unreasonable to expect that. Heroes laugh in the face of danger, they don't die from touching levers. They sometimes fall into pit traps filled with thousands of venomous scorpions from touching levers, or open the door to the sleeping monster by touching levers, or release the tainted  black evil cloud by touching levers, but all those are interesting challenges where survival depends on strength and skill, not arbitrary punishments for arbitrary descisions.


----------



## silentspace (Aug 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I don't follow them, but I also find it illogical to find a trap that costs more than the rest of the dungeon put together.
> 
> First, the _destruction_ trap's DC is wrong. It should be 20 Fort, so the monk should have made the save. So, we're dealing with an even more powerful trap, with heightenings and some kind of insane DC boosting going on. Should the PCs expect anything like that? The DM is purposely raising the DC in order to increase the lethality of an already extremely lethal trap.
> 
> ...




Bravo!  My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...but all those are interesting challenges where survival depends on strength and skill, not arbitrary punishments for arbitrary descisions.




Or by a roll of the very arbitrary dice.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2006)

> Or by a roll of the very arbitrary dice.




Aye, but that's what makes 'em challenging. That die roll may be arbitrary, but the DC is fair, and you have the bonuses your character can add to it, and that's fair. So you have a fair chance.

And if you fail the die roll? Then things get worse, but you can keep trying, time and time again, fighting the uphill battle against fate and chance. If you fail enough die rolls (and the enemies, who have the same fair chance, succeed), maybe you won't be able to try another die roll without a new character. But it took more than one failure to kill you, and it took more than one success by your enemies to destroy you, and that fight against the fair chance for success is the elemental nature of the heroic struggle at the core of the d20 mechanic.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 22, 2006)

---


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 22, 2006)

I"m not a fan of save or die type traps so I'd vote it was unfair, regardless of other circumstances. Now, two saves or three saves or die, thatsa  different story, but I always like to give thepcs a chance outside of one die roll to overcome something.


----------



## takyris (Aug 22, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> _Lots of maybes about how the lever could make sense..._




Maybe the boxed text for the room, when translated into Sanskrit and displayed in Courier font, makes a picture of a sailboat if you look at it with your eyes unfocused.

That doesn't matter to the adventuring party.

If you're running a worldsim, fine and dandy. If you're running an adventure for other people, it's sloppy design.

Pre-emptively, to team "My world is a living world and sometimes it has death in it and I'm not going to change things just to make life easy for the PCs": If your world's history is so rich with a veiled tapestry of culture and intrigue as to not even allow but REQUIRE this ridiculous instakill lever, it's rich and cultured enough to not even allow but REQUIRE additional clues in the area -- ancient glyphs in the dungeon that can still be read; stories passed down for generations about the ancient lever that holds that last power of a dead god and will slay anyone save a faithful worshipper... of which there are none, since the god is dead; the ability to find the trap with trapfinding and taking 20 taken into account; and so forth. If you can come up with a justification for the absurd trap, you can come up with a justification for some clues about the absurd trap... unless creating a faithful living is not actually your goal. Because in a faithful living world, that trap would have clues. Anything that deadly would.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 22, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Yep. Killing a character for being too stupid to tie a 50 foot length of rope to the lever and then pull on it from 45 feet away is very unfair. I hate it when DM's expect me to think.




Honestly Treebore, DM's like you and JrrNelliot and tons of others would just have it travel down the rope. Gaming isnt about fun with you guys, its about screwing the player and pinning the sheet on your fridge. If you make it to level 2, its because the DM didnt feel like porting the tarrasque in on your character while they were on the can.

You opened the door? You fools! You should have listened!
You listen? Haha, killer earwigs swarm you!
You place a glass on the door! IDIOTS! It had a shatter spell on it, you're deaf now.

Yup, sums up adversarial grognard gaming at its finest.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2006)

Removed because the quoted post was removed.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 22, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Then you can see how this is really player vs. dm logic. Who is more devious, who can one-up the other, can you outsmart the placer of traps or do you become a victim of them?




I wouldn't say it's player vs. dm logic, but it's definitely challenging the player to think about the world his character lives in.  If there's a 99.999% chance that the lever doesn't have an instant death trap on it (i.e. 1 out of 100,000 levers in the world WILL have an instant death trap on it), does that mean you pull the lever with no precautions or does that mean you treat the 99,999 other levers the same way you would treat the 1 that's trapped with an instant death trap?  Players who choose the former route shouldn't complain when their characters turn to a pile of dust.  Especially when this particular trap is easily avoided by a number of easily accessible means, even at low level.



> I'm not trying to outsmart the DM, I'm trying to be Lord Albright the Dragonslayer. I don't want to have my personal intelligence pitted against the DM's personal intelligence, I want Lord Albright's cleverness to be pitted against the dragon's cleverness.




What is the stat check, skill roll or saving throw for cleverness?  As far as I know, the game doesn't have a mechanic that allows you to determine your characters every action based on a number on their character sheet or a dice roll.  Do you roll an Int check for your character every time there's a choice to be made in game (do we go left or right at the intersection, do we fight the monster or run away, do we decide to sneak around the guards or fight them directly or attempt to bribe our way past them, do we pull the lever or let a summoned monster do it or just walk away) and allow the DM to decide for you based on whether you roll well or poorly?  Unless you are doing exactly that you ARE pitting YOUR cleverness (not your character's) against the challenges the DM has set up.

There is no difference between all those decision you make for your character in every single game and the decisions the players were faced with in this scenario.  The only difference is that, in some people's opinion, the consequences of making the wrong choice were too harsh.



> If Lord Albright fails, I expect it to lead to interesting and challenging scenarios, not his untimely and unavoidable death. The simple reason is that facing challenges is heroic and fantastical, while dying is neither.
> 
> It's fine to play the game a different way, but it would be _nonstandard_.




How is the game outlined by the scenario non-standard (except perhaps for the high Save DC of the trap)?  The books seem to assume that characters can and will die during game play.  They assume the PCs will occasionally meet challenges which are beyond their ability to defeat or circumvent.  They assume that traps are a natural part of the game.  They also seem to assume that choices such as "do we pull the lever" are something decided by the players and not by a roll of the dice or some other game mechanic.  It seems to me that a game that eliminates the chance of dying because it's not heroic or fantastical (if we assume, for the moment that your assertion is true) is more nonstandard than the game described in Quasqueton's scenario.



> You're setting up a strawman. I'm saying the danger should be fair. <snip> but all those are interesting challenges where survival depends on strength and skill, not arbitrary punishments for arbitrary descisions.




The real strawman here is that the decision is arbitrary and doesn't involve skill.  If you read through the thread you can see at least half a dozen ways the PC could (even at low level) find out what happens when you pull the lever without exposing themselves to any risk.  The decision to pull the lever or not pull the lever or to have a PC pull the lever or move the lever in some other (safer) way is not arbitrary, it's part of the challenge of that particular trap.  No one was forced to pull the lever.  In fact, no one was even encouraged to pull the lever.  The PCs made some unsupported assumptions about the relationship between the lever and the door and faced the consequences.  You're not saying the danger should be fair, you're saying that the most obvious assumptions about a situation should always be the correct ones because that's "heroic".  Not only do I disagree with your definition of "heroic", I also disagree with the assumption that obvious always equates to correct makes for a fun game.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 22, 2006)

I wasn't fast enough deleting my post.

Quasqueton


----------



## silentspace (Aug 22, 2006)

By the way, when I read the scenario, I didn't assume the lever opened the door.  How come people think this?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 22, 2006)

I find the "ha ha, use a rope" sentiment to be amusing.

It was a mistake not to try using a rope.  But if I were DM and had a solid reason to place a trap of this potency in a dungeon, the rope would prove to be no protective benefit whatsoever.  And I would laugh at you for thinking otherwise.


----------



## silentspace (Aug 22, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I find the "ha ha, use a rope" sentiment to be amusing.
> 
> It was a mistake not to try using a rope.  But if I were DM and had a solid reason to place a trap of this potency in a dungeon, the rope would prove to be no protective benefit whatsoever.  And I would laugh at you for thinking otherwise.




Not me!  I'd only laugh if they only used a 50 ft. rope.  If they used a 55 ft. rope, I'd let them to get away scot-free!


----------



## Treebore (Aug 22, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Honestly Treebore, DM's like you and JrrNelliot and tons of others would just have it travel down the rope. Gaming isnt about fun with you guys, its about screwing the player and pinning the sheet on your fridge. If you make it to level 2, its because the DM didnt feel like porting the tarrasque in on your character while they were on the can.
> 
> You opened the door? You fools! You should have listened!
> You listen? Haha, killer earwigs swarm you!
> ...




Nope. Read my initial responses in this and the other thread. I'm all for pain and torture, but I'm not about killing them outright. They always have a chance, especially if they are good at thinking. As a general rule I have to think of 4 ways for them to survive before I'll put my players through it.

So no, the trap wouldn't travel down the rope and disintegrate the holder of the rope. I'm adverarial, and I'll kill your PC for doing stupid things or not thinking, but I don't go out of my way to kill PC's and I don't kill PC's due to dumb luck/bad dice rolls. If that does happen I get the character raised and don't have them suffer any penalties for it.

Players kill their characters often enough without me helping them do it beyond setting up a fair encounter. Fair meaning surviveable, not easy. Remember the rule of 4. If the DM can't see 4 ways for the party to survive/live, you can rest assured the party may not even think of one.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say it's player vs. dm logic, but it's definitely challenging the player to think about the world his character lives in. If there's a 99.999% chance that the lever doesn't have an instant death trap on it (i.e. 1 out of 100,000 levers in the world WILL have an instant death trap on it), does that mean you pull the lever with no precautions or does that mean you treat the 99,999 other levers the same way you would treat the 1 that's trapped with an instant death trap? Players who choose the former route shouldn't complain when their characters turn to a pile of dust. Especially when this particular trap is easily avoided by a number of easily accessible means, even at low level.




Except that's entirely unrealistic for even the REAL WORLD, let alone for a game of heroic fantasy. If one out of every 100,000 people die in a plane crash or get eaten by a shark or get struck by lightning or die of spontaneous combustion or of being mauled to death by ferrets do people stop swimming in the ocean or taking flights or standing in the rain or ever being dry or being around ferrets? You take a calculated risk every time you take a breath that some deadly contagious disease isn't upon the ambient zephyrs. Or do you treat every breath as if it contained disease? Every rain shower as if it could strike you dead? Do you only swim in shark cages when you go to the beach? Do ever take airplaine flights?

Would I complain if my PC got struck by lightning or spontaneously combusted? Or caught a vicious disease from breathing the tavern air? Heck yes. It's not fair when it happens in the real world, and it's doubly not fair when it happens in a game that's supposed to be about heroes in a fantasy world.



> What is the stat check, skill roll or saving throw for cleverness? As far as I know, the game doesn't have a mechanic that allows you to determine your characters every action based on a number on their character sheet or a dice roll. Do you roll an Int check for your character every time there's a choice to be made in game (do we go left or right at the intersection, do we fight the monster or run away, do we decide to sneak around the guards or fight them directly or attempt to bribe our way past them, do we pull the lever or let a summoned monster do it or just walk away) and allow the DM to decide for you based on whether you roll well or poorly? Unless you are doing exactly that you ARE pitting YOUR cleverness (not your character's) against the challenges the DM has set up.




I certainly would if the DM started throwing random deathtraps on odd levers. Fortunately, my DM's enjoy a world that makes sense and pit my characters against challenges that they have a fair chance to overcome by their own abilities, so it often doesn't become an issue. I know a bad choice will hurt me, but I can recover from it. If a bad choice would just make me generate a new character, I'd definately be more pro-active about NOT making that bad choice.



> There is no difference between all those decision you make for your character in every single game and the decisions the players were faced with in this scenario. The only difference is that, in some people's opinion, the consequences of making the wrong choice were too harsh.




No, my problem is largely with the fact that the choice was arbitrarily and randomly declared WRONG, and THEN punished so harshly. "Oh, you walk out the left door to the tavern? You now have AIDS." "Oh, you use the word "Sword?" You explode." "Oh, I see you're waring a gauntlet. Your hand falls off."

It takes no imagination to be random and petty.



> How is the game outlined by the scenario non-standard (except perhaps for the high Save DC of the trap)? The books seem to assume that characters can and will die during game play. They assume the PCs will occasionally meet challenges which are beyond their ability to defeat or circumvent. They assume that traps are a natural part of the game. They also seem to assume that choices such as "do we pull the lever" are something decided by the players and not by a roll of the dice or some other game mechanic. It seems to me that a game that eliminates the chance of dying because it's not heroic or fantastical (if we assume, for the moment that your assertion is true) is more nonstandard than the game described in Quasqueton's scenario.




They also assume there will be an internal logic to the game, that the traps will be commesurate with the encounters faced, and that something beyond their ability to beat or circumvent will declare it's unbeatability. If you see the Terrasque and you're 5th level, you know what to do. If the Terrasque falls suddenly out of orbit on your 5th level character, then, no, it's not fair or fun for me. If you could see bits of bone in a pile of dust on the floor under the lever, if you had faced magical traps in the dungeon before and didn't detect magic...that's a different story (and a story not told in the OP).

That trap is dirty pool by the RAW, as ThirdWizard is pointing out.



> The real strawman here is that the decision is arbitrary and doesn't involve skill. If you read through the thread you can see at least half a dozen ways the PC could (even at low level) find out what happens when you pull the lever without exposing themselves to any risk. The decision to pull the lever or not pull the lever or to have a PC pull the lever or move the lever in some other (safer) way is not arbitrary, it's part of the challenge of that particular trap. No one was forced to pull the lever. In fact, no one was even encouraged to pull the lever. The PCs made some unsupported assumptions about the relationship between the lever and the door and faced the consequences. You're not saying the danger should be fair, you're saying that the most obvious assumptions about a situation should always be the correct ones because that's "heroic". Not only do I disagree with your definition of "heroic", I also disagree with the assumption that obvious always equates to correct makes for a fun game.




No, it is arbitrary, and the key word before skill that you are missing is "character". The character's skills should have an effect on the outcome. 

It's as arbitrary as any of the effects I listed above. Because just as you might occasionally take an airplane flight or use a knife to cut your steak (despite the risk that the plane might fall or the knife might slip), you could also do a dozen things to avoid that threat, it's still arbitrary if something tragic happens. It might make sense, but that doesn't mean it's any less a random handwaved occurance. It does not follow logically from the course of  events. If there is no reason to EXPECT a trap, then a trap is arbitrary. And there is no reason to expect that the lever would be horribly destructive given in the OP, so it is, as far as we know, arbitrary. 

The point is that it is paranoid and unnatural to avoid something that doesn't pose an obvious threat. People don't always walk around wearing surgical masks, and I doubt you boil your water before you drink it every time. Why should PC's do that? They're not SUPPOSED to be affraid of the dangers lurking unseen around the corner. They're supposed to BEAT UP the dangers lurking unseen around the corner.

I'm not saying anything should always be anything. You're leaping to far too many conclusions to make a cogent argument for your case, i'm affraid. 

If I wanted to play a game where danger was in waking up in the morning and walking out my front door (which could have been trapped by ninjas in the middle of the night!), I wouldn't play D&D. I might play Paranoia, but I wouldn't be playing a game of heroic fantasy. And I definately wouldn't play D&D expecting to treat every door as if it could explode and every commoner as if they were a polymorphed great wyrm and ever horse turd as if it was a land mine. Which seems to me to be the way a game in which a randomly and arbitrarily trapped levers would be full of.

It's the Chewbacca Defense. That lever just does not make sense. In any context. So it's arbitrary and, thus, unfair. Just like spontaneous human combustion (which, after all, there should be a chance for! After all, it could happen! Shouldn't adventurers always act as if it may be the case that they will suddenly explode for no apparent reason? After all, it can be prevented just by constantly being wet! All they have to do is pour water on themselves every hour or two, and they'll be safe! Wow, that'll make this desert adventure interesting!).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That trap is dirty pool by the RAW, as ThirdWizard is pointing out.




Everybody has been good about this, but I thought I'd point something out about the RAW thing, in case the RAW arguments are bothering anyone, or conjuring up rules lawyering players complaints.

I have no problem with the DM going outside the RAW to create an interesting game. Going beyond the RAW to create interesting, and engaging, scenarios for the PCs to interact with are not only fun, but something I encourage.

My problem with going outside the RAW in this case is that it is specifically ignored in order to kill the PC. A DM can kill PCs often and easily if desired. However, when creating situations in which PC death is already a high probability (as in a normal _destruction_ trap) the only reason I can think to ignore the RAW in order to make it more deadly is because the DM is specifically looking to kill the PC.

Save-less death is, IMO, not fun, and not fair. Saves, skills, and other PC abilities are built into the game in order to give them a certain amount of control over their own destiny in the form of a die roll. Ignoring these things only moves the game into a more dictated series of events. The DM says you die and you do, no chance of not dying. And, a monk not saving on a 19 is practially (95% chance assuming a 20 would have succeeded) save-less death.

A save-less death, I might add, that doesn't exist under the RAW and the DM felt the need to include in the game for the sole purpose of punishing the PC, beyond anything they could do, for pulling a simple lever.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 22, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Yep. Killing a character for being too stupid to tie a 50 foot length of rope to the lever and then pull on it from 45 feet away is very unfair. I hate it when DM's expect me to think.




Yeah but then you'ld caught in the Widened Empowered Maximised Firestorm it also sets off.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 22, 2006)

I see two concepts here that I find puzzling:

1 – No trap should ever be deadly.

2 – If a trap is deadly, it should absolutely be so, with no way to “outsmart” it.

Is there no middle ground? A deadly trap that can be circumvented.

Quasqueton


----------



## MarkB (Aug 22, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out that the scenario never mentions a BBEG, in any form. Even if there is a BBEG, nothing in the scenario suggests that he had/has anything to do with the lever or secret door.



If there is a dungeon to clear out and a McGuffin to be recovered, a BBEG is all-but-implicit. And since Disintegrate traps do not grow naturally upon untended levers in dungeons (goodness knows how Gygax missed that one), somebody must have put it there.

That being the case, if that somebody wasn't already the BBEG, then by turning the party monk to gravel they've just promoted themselves to the position.


And now, I'm very curious to know:

When you posted this scenario, did you have any particular opinion as to whether it was fair or unfair?

Has the subsequent discussion done anything to alter your view?

Has the discussion gone the way you thought it would, and has it been useful to you?


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 22, 2006)

"Is there no middle ground? A deadly trap that can be circumvented."

To be circumvented you need to know it's there, that would be what a rogue's search check is for, or other clues that the lever is trapped.

If the rogue had detected the trap, but said it looked too tricky for him to disarm and likely deadly, then even with the boosted save DC, I would have considered this a fair challenge, even a fun one.

There were no in game clues that this was a trap in this case.

Unless of course Disintegrate traps DO actually grow naturally upon untended levers in dungeons in your campaign world and the PC's are aware of this?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I see two concepts here that I find puzzling:
> 
> 1 – No trap should ever be deadly.
> 
> ...




1 - Not true. Traps can be deadly. They should be 1) detectable 2) savable. This was neither.

2 - Not true. Traps can be bypassed by other methods. You have to know they're there to do that, though.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2006)

Here, I'll give an example of a _destruction_ trap I used recently.

The PCs were in a tower controlled by an illithid and a negoi working together. They were brain, slave, and soul traders. They had a treasure vault where they kept the money they made through these lucrative transactions. The door leading to the room was behind an illusionary wall and had a reseting _destruction_ trap on it.

The trap, however, had a way to bypass it. Each of the two inhabitants, the illithid and the negoi, had an Amulet of Nondetection. The door to the room also had two indentions in the same strange shape that these amulets were in, and putting the amulets in the indentions disabled the trap. Thus, both of them together were required to get inside, since neither trusted the other. It made perfect logical sense and it was a way for the PCs to think their way past the trap, regardless of rolls.

Of course, the trap was Searchable and Disarmable as well, and the PCs were 10th level. It was a difficult trap for them, but it wasn't too far out there. They had multiple ways to get by, and being that it was a door behind an illusionary wall and in a deep part of the dungeon, it was an obvious place for a trap.

Unfortunately, when they discovered it, they had killed the illithid but not the negoi. They also failed to discover the trap with Search (they were in a hurry and didn't take 20). I told them that the amulet they had appeared like it would fit in one of the two indentions. They didn't put 2 and 2 together, so they opened it, setting off the trap. The Fighter who opened it made the save, took 10d6 damage, and didn't die. Trap bypassed, but they were not well off after that damage for the rest of the session.


See the difference between how I approached this and the lever?

EDIT: As a side note, they set off another trap later that ended up with one guy turned to stone and one with _insanity_. It was the classic "item on a pedistal" and they didn't even look for traps. That was fair as well, in my book, since most PCs made their saves and they were going to search for traps (the gnome just ran up and grabbed it for some reason).


----------



## drothgery (Aug 22, 2006)

silentspace said:
			
		

> By the way, when I read the scenario, I didn't assume the lever opened the door.  How come people think this?




There was nothing else in the room that looked like it could open the door.

Here's the original setup again



> You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds none. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.




So the salient points are
1 - There's a lever in the room.
2 - A search of the room found a secret door, and no other possible means of opening it beyond the lever.
3 - A search of the door and the lever by a rogue for traps revealed no traps (we'll assume that the rogue took 20, and has search maxed out; competent trapfinding rogues do this; also note that the search skill, when used by characters with trapfinding, does reveal magic traps)
4 - Given no other way to open the door, the monk (who presumably has the best all-around saves in the party, and evasion) pulls the lever, and has to make a saving throw. He rolls a natural 19, and dies, turned into dust (i.e. can't be revived with anything short of Resurection, and possibly not without True Resurection).

It's not fair because it's an apparently undiscoverable trap (searching for traps revealed no traps) that's also an impossible-to-make save-or-die trap (monk failed by rolling a 19) on the only apparent means of opening a secret door (and adventurers will always try and open secret doors). The PCs took reasonable percautions; they had the rogue search for traps, and had the character most likely to make his saves pull the lever. And absolute best case, they're a high level party, so the cost (in time, money, and high level spell slots) to revive the dead monk is only expensive instead of crippling.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 22, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Unless of course Disintegrate traps DO actually grow naturally upon untended levers in dungeons in your campaign world and the PC's are aware of this?




I run a fantasy campaign; some suspension of disbelief is necessary.  Players have to be able to believe in five-ton dragons that fly on batlike wings and breathe fire, clerics that raise people from the dead, pointy-eared elves that live for millenia, and levers with disintegrate traps on them.

Other DMs may do things differently.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 22, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The PCs took reasonable percautions; they had the rogue search for traps, and had the character most likely to make his saves pull the lever.




To you these are reasonable precautions; to other people, they're the equivalent of putting your hard hat on before stepping into the door marked "Extreme danger."


----------



## Treebore (Aug 22, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I run a fantasy campaign; some suspension of disbelief is necessary.  Players have to be able to believe in five-ton dragons that fly on batlike wings and breathe fire, clerics that raise people from the dead, pointy-eared elves that live for millenia, and levers with disintegrate traps on them.
> 
> Other DMs may do things differently.




I think I play the same kind of D&D you do.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 22, 2006)

Levers have disintergate traps in my game, but normally I at least throw the characters a bone, like it is possible to detect, or there is some clue like a pile of dust with maybe a few surviving bones next to it, etc.

This one there is no in game reason for a character (not a player) to think there is a trap on the lever. Unless every lever in the dungeon has been trapped perviously or some other reason that isn't availble from the discription provided at the start.

With out some in character reason to think there is a trap why should they take any precautions and try and out smart it?

Are you seriously suggesting that PC's should pull every door in the dungeon open at the end of a 50ft length of rope or burn through scrolls of Telekinesis to pull every lever and open every door? Should they levitate down every corridor just incase the next 5ft has an undetectable trap?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I see two concepts here that I find puzzling:
> 
> 1 – No trap should ever be deadly.
> 
> ...




I don't think anyone is arguing the first or the second point, nor do I think the trap in the OP falls into the "middle ground" category. It was a deadly trap with no way to outsmart it other than for the player to be prescient, which is an unreasonable burden to place on most players, I'd say.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 22, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Are you seriously suggesting that PC's should pull every door in the dungeon open at the end of a 50ft length of rope or burn through scrolls of Telekinesis to pull every lever and open every door?




Nah.  Generally they take a captive and make _it_ open the door for them.



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Should they levitate down every corridor just incase the next 5ft has an undetectable trap?




Usually they probe ahead with spear-butts.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 22, 2006)

I would have pulled the lever.  If a trap had gone off and my character injured, I'd have sucked it up and made fun of the rogue for not finding the trap.  If the trap had gone off and my character rolled low on his save and died, I'd have made fun of the rogue's player out of character for not finding the trap, and rolled up a new character.  If my monk (good fort save) rolled a 19 and failed and then died as described, I'd have rolled my eyes and quit playing the game.

I hate campaigns where everyone has to sit around and spend 15 damn minutes opening every freaking door you see.  I'm more of a "doors are boring, just open the damn thing" kind of player.  If the DM is willing to use a trap this deadly on a stupid lever in a room with a door, then I probably will hate his DMing style and his campaign.  At the very least, I will hate the hours we spend next session every time a door is found, and we all spend ages trying to investigate it from every angle before we open it.  Once burned, twice shy, and the campaign is thereafter screwed.

That has nothing to do with whether the trap is fair.  It has to do with how much of my game time I want to spend on some damn door.  

It has to do with whether the trap is _fun._


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 22, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Nah.  Generally they take a captive and make _it_ open the door for them.




LOL. I'll suggest that to our Paladin...   



> Usually they probe ahead with spear-butts.




You see to me that's the sort of stuff you are doing with a rogue's search check, hence it ain't going to help you any. Undetectable, even to your spear's bottom.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 23, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Except that's entirely unrealistic for even the REAL WORLD, let alone for a game of heroic fantasy.




I think the disconnect here may be partially due to the fact that you seem to see the dungeon as part of the normal structure of the fantasy world, whereas I look at it as the fantasy world equivalent of being in a warzone or a police raid.  No, I don't swim in a cage when I'm at the beach, but I would definitely not swim without a cage in shark-infested waters full of fishblood.  IMO entering "the dungeon" in a fantasy world is the equivalent of swimming in shark-infested waters full of blood.



> I certainly would if the DM started throwing random deathtraps on odd levers. Fortunately, my DM's enjoy a world that makes sense and pit my characters against challenges that they have a fair chance to overcome by their own abilities, so it often doesn't become an issue. I know a bad choice will hurt me, but I can recover from it. If a bad choice would just make me generate a new character, I'd definately be more pro-active about NOT making that bad choice.




I don't understand, are you saying that last sentence is a bad thing?  Why is being more pro-active about not making bad choices bad?  That's all I'm saying about this scenario.  If the PCs had been more proactive about avoiding the bad choice of touching the lever themselves rather than using an easily available proxy (summoned monster, unseen servant, mage hand, rope, etc.) they'd be fine.




> No, my problem is largely with the fact that the choice was arbitrarily and randomly declared WRONG, and THEN punished so harshly. "Oh, you walk out the left door to the tavern? You now have AIDS." "Oh, you use the word "Sword?" You explode." "Oh, I see you're waring a gauntlet. Your hand falls off."
> 
> It takes no imagination to be random and petty.




Again, I'm not understanding.  Do you have a problem with the trap being there at all or do you just object to the fact that it's a save or die effect.  The choice is only arbitrary if there's no excuse for a trap of any kind to be there.  I understand, but disagree with, the idea that the consequence is "too harsh" but I can't understand at all the idea that the DM has no right to place a trap on the lever at all.  I simply don't understand how anyone can argue that the PCs weren't wrong at some level when they could have easily avoided triggering the trap so directly.  Is it REALLY that much of a burden to avoid directly touching a potentially dangerous mechanism in the dungeon with an expedient as simple as using a rope rather than your hand.  I'm not saying the rope would definitely save the PC but when something like that is so easy to do and it might save the PC, why not do it?



> They also assume there will be an internal logic to the game, that the traps will be commesurate with the encounters faced, and that something beyond their ability to beat or circumvent will declare it's unbeatability.






> No, it is arbitrary, and the key word before skill that you are missing is "character". The character's skills should have an effect on the outcome.




OK, look at those two statements.  To me, you're contradicting yourself.  You're saying that if there's an unbeatable challenge the PCs are facing there should be clues to its unbeatability around to discover.  Then you say the character's skill has to have an effect on the outcome.  But an unbeatable challenge with interpretable clues that give warning about the challenges unbeatable nature inherently ISN'T something that character skill effects.  It's up to the players to recognize the clues for what they are and interpret them correctly.  There is no mechanic for characters to think on their own.  YOU are supplying any "clue interpretation" involved in avoiding that unbeatable challenge.  Please explain to me how that is any different than YOU the PLAYER being required to make the choice between pulling or not pulling a potentially trapped lever.



> It does not follow logically from the course of  events. If there is no reason to EXPECT a trap, then a trap is arbitrary. And there is no reason to expect that the lever would be horribly destructive given in the OP, so it is, as far as we know, arbitrary.




I still don't understand the argument that there's no reason to expect a trap.  Why would you NOT expect a trap when you're in a dangerous environment like a dungeon?  This just makes my question above even more pertinent.  Do you object to this trap or do you object to the presence of a trap on the lever period?



> The point is that it is paranoid and unnatural to avoid something that doesn't pose an obvious threat. People don't always walk around wearing surgical masks, and I doubt you boil your water before you drink it every time. Why should PC's do that? They're not SUPPOSED to be affraid of the dangers lurking unseen around the corner. They're supposed to BEAT UP the dangers lurking unseen around the corner.




This leads me to believe that you really are opposed to the idea of traps period.  Because traps by definition are threats which do not pose an obvious threat.  If a trap is as obvious as a squad of orcs or a red dragon it poses no challenge whatsoever.  If I'm misreading this, please explain how you're OK with traps but you believe that threats that aren't obvious are somehow unfair of unfun, because I'm really confused about this point.



> I'm not saying anything should always be anything. You're leaping to far too many conclusions to make a cogent argument for your case, i'm affraid.  If I wanted to play a game where danger was in waking up in the morning and walking out my front door (which could have been trapped by ninjas in the middle of the night!), I wouldn't play D&D.




I think you may also be drawing way too many conclusions to make this a useful discussion.  As I said before, there's a huge difference between being "in dungeon" and being in your own home.  I haven't once made the argument that PCs should have to live in hermetically sealed chambers to avoid death in a D&D game.  It seems like an unreasonable stretch to take the statement "Levers in a dungeon can be dangerous, it's best to be very careful and use all the safety precautions at your disposal before touching them." and make it mean "PCs should treat every door as if it could explode and every commoner as if they were a polymorphed great wyrm and ever horse turd as if it was a land mine.".



> Which seems to me to be the way a game in which a randomly and arbitrarily trapped levers would be full of.




If you could just explain as plainly as possible what exactly about having a trap on a lever in a dungeon is arbitrary I think that would seriously help me understand your point.  Are you honestly meaning to say that levers in dungeons should never be trapped (because that's what I'm getting) or are you saying this specific trap is arbitrary.  If its the latter, could you please explain what makes it arbitrary.  I understand you think it's not fun and unfair, but the word arbitrary is confusing me.  Are you applying that term to the placement of the trap, the difficulty of the trap, both?  Are you sure arbitrary is the word you're looking for?  I just don't get it.   :\


----------



## painandgreed (Aug 23, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> So the salient points are
> 1 - There's a lever in the room.
> 2 - A search of the room found a secret door, and no other possible means of opening it beyond the lever.
> 3 - A search of the door and the lever by a rogue for traps revealed no traps (we'll assume that the rogue took 20, and has search maxed out; competent trapfinding rogues do this; also note that the search skill, when used by characters with trapfinding, does reveal magic traps)
> 4 - Given no other way to open the door, the monk (who presumably has the best all-around saves in the party, and evasion) pulls the lever, and has to make a saving throw. He rolls a natural 19, and dies, turned into dust (i.e. can't be revived with anything short of Resurection, and possibly not without True Resurection).




You make lots of assumptions I don't think can be taken from the given text. You assume they take 20 in searching. You assume the player of the rogue is competent. You assume the door has no other possible means of being opened. You assume the monk is of a level appropriate for the dungeon and has best saves of the party. For that matter, you assume that pulling the level causes the monk to turn to dust. Nowhere are we given this information and I don't think we can assume it for this Gedankenexperiment.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 23, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Should they levitate down every corridor just incase the next 5ft has an undetectable trap?



If it's cheap enough, yes. 

My Fell Flying warlock in a tabletop campaign never touched the ground once whilst in dungeons (we slept in Rope Tricks).

My Spiderwalking warlock in an online campaign spent most of his time on the walls, even though we had a rogue doing trapfinding nearly every step of the way.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

Ourph, I think you're missing the focus on the 19 roll on the save from a person with all good saves.

The death trap, was in effect a no save death. That is generally going to be frowned upon nowadays.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 23, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The PCs took reasonable percautions; they had the rogue search for traps, and had the character most likely to make his saves pull the lever.




To me, having the character with high saves pull the lever isn't a reasonable precaution.  Having an expendable proxy pull the lever is a reasonable precaution.  If the party is having the person with the best saves pull the lever it's obviously an admission that they suspect the lever may be trapped.  If you suspect the lever may be trapped a "reasonable precaution" is to make sure no one in the party directly pulls the lever.  You either 1) use a proxy or 2) if you don't have a proxy leave and come back when you do or 3) don't ever pull the lever.

Having the monk pull the lever seems like the equivalent of a group of people in the real world who want to find out if a handgun is loaded with blanks or real bullets selecting the person who is in the best health to get shot in the stomach because he has the best chance of surviving if the bullets are real.  Yeah, you've made some effort to mitigate the danger of someone dying while figuring out the question at hand, but I'd hardly say you've taken "reasonable precautions".


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

Logically, the lever is less likely to be trapped than the doorknob leading into the room where the lever was found.

I have to wonder if you take all these "precautions" at every doorknob. That certainly doesn't sound fun to me.

EDIT: I think the monk was chosen in the example not because the Players wanted the one with the highest overall saves to be the one to pull it, but more for the sake of the example, to showcase that the save was in fact high. In other words, to keep people from debating whether or not another character would have more easily made the save and keep the discussion on the topic the OP intended.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Ourph, I think you're missing the focus on the 19 roll on the save from a person with all good saves.
> 
> The death trap, was in effect a no save death. That is generally going to be frowned upon nowadays.




Listen, I understand the argument that something with such a high save and such a severe consequence is unfun (with which I agree) and unfair (with which I don't agree) I just don't get the idea that it's arbitrary.

Yeah, the saving throw doesn't mean much, but as I say above, it's obvious from the setup that the PCs involved suspect there is a trap on the lever, otherwise they wouldn't have the person with the best saves of the group pulling the lever.  No one is forcing them to pull the lever.  Nothing is preventing them from using a proxy.  Nothing is preventing them from using their resources to further examine the lever before acting.  Nothing is preventing them from simply walking away and leaving the lever alone altogether.

Personally, I would MUCH rather have a trap that's as easily avoidable as this one with some reasonable player choices rather than one where I'm left with little choice as to whether I actually activate it or not and a reasonable save DC.  I would much rather my character's welfare rest with my decision-making ability as a player than a random roll of the dice.  

In my opinion, if you're making the saving throw you've already screwed up.  The way to avoid death isn't to have a high save bonus and roll well, the way to avoid death is to not put yourself in the position of making the saving throw in the first place.


----------



## Brian Gibbons (Aug 23, 2006)

If this is a campaign where only an idiot pulls an obvious lever, then this is fair.

If this is a campaign where the GM expects players to follow his lead, investigate clues and jump at plot hooks, then this was a really stupid thing for him to do.

I have played in campaigns where half the fun was outsmarting the module, where it was common to passwall through walls instead of using the door and taking the obvious path was sneered at.  In that kind of campaign, pulling an obvious lever without taking a half-dozen dfferent precautions means you deserve whatever is coming.

On the other hand, I have played in campaigns where not pulling the lever means that you don't find the secret dungeon with the imprisoned elven princess that the GM was counting on to lead into the next adventure, where you assume that the rogue is always taking 10 on Search while he walks down the corridor because all that time investigating every 5' square of empty floor is time that could be spent on more fun activities.

The issue isn't fair or unfair, it's what kind of campaign the GM wants to run and what kind of campaign the players were expecting.

If the GM wants to run the kind of campaign where no one investigates further after they have the MacGuffin and spends five minutes at every door before opening it, he emphasized his desires quite explicitly.  If that actually isn't the type of campaign he wants to run, he certainly sent the wrong message.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 23, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Levers have disintergate traps in my game, but normally I at least throw the characters a bone, like it is possible to detect, or there is some clue like a pile of dust with maybe a few surviving bones next to it, etc.




We don't know that the trap wasn't possible to detect, only that the characters in the OP didn't detect it. For all we know a _find traps_ spell or a *wand of secret door and trap detection*, or perhaps even a simple _detect magic_ spell would've detected the trap (or, in the latter case, that the lever was somehow magicked, which should be enough to make any reasonable player suspicious and cautious). (Plus, as mentioned previously, in OD&D/1E (which are the games I play, and thus the games I tend to think in terms of when responding to ostensibly edition-neutral questions like this one) thieves can't detect magic traps and there's no such thing as Taking 20, so _as a player_ I'd never be confident that there wasn't a trap somewhere (especially somewhere that I was suspicious about there likely being a trap) just because the party's best trap-sniffer said he didn't detect one.) 



> This one there is no in game reason for a character (not a player) to think there is a trap on the lever. Unless every lever in the dungeon has been trapped perviously or some other reason that isn't availble from the discription provided at the start.
> 
> With out some in character reason to think there is a trap why should they take any precautions and try and out smart it?




I don't follow the logic here. Why would a character be any less suspicious than a player? Because the player knows that random levers in dungeons tend to be dangerous (especially ones found way in the back of the dungeon in otherwise empty rooms) but the character (who does this sort of thing for a living and whose life depends on it) doesn't? If anything I'd think the character would have reason to be a lot _more_ cautious and suspicious than the player. My reasons as a player for suspecting a trap aren't based on "metagame" knowledge, they're based on exactly the same line of reasoning I would employ were I actually in such a situation (i.e. were I a character rather than a player). That's the way I approach the game -- I project my mind into my character's situation and try to decide what I would do were I in that character's situation. 



> Are you seriously suggesting that PC's should pull every door in the dungeon open at the end of a 50ft length of rope or burn through scrolls of Telekinesis to pull every lever and open every door? Should they levitate down every corridor just incase the next 5ft has an undetectable trap?




Of course not. Because most doors and corridors (especially ones that have traffic going in and out -- which is something that should be apparent to a reasonably cautious set of PCs) aren't going to be trapped. Levers are a little more of a borderline case -- as I mentioned in a previous post, if I come across a lever in a dungeon and don't know what will happen if I pull it, I'm almost always not going to pull it unless I have no other options (and the PCs in the OP did have _at least_ one other option -- go home with the macguffin, like they'd originally planned to). But when I do come across something that seems likely to be trapped (and the situation described in the OP definitely would've seemed to me like something likely to be trapped) yes, I'll take precautions and, if it isn't something crucial to my mission (as the situation in the OP wasn't -- they'd already recovered the macguffin) more than likely I'll just leave it alone. 

That's the way I've played the game for years, and that's honest-to-goodness what's fun to me -- knowing that the DM was trying to kill my character but I was clever and cautious enough that I managed to survive, and even prosper; that I took all the necessary risks but no unnecessary ones; that I accomplished my mission and avoided getting distracted by red herrings (and maybe, just maybe, that some other players weren't as lucky or clever as me -- but that's not something that's usually admitted out loud  ). This sort of may not sound like fun to other folks, and in that case all I can say is that it's probably for the best that we're not playing at the same table. But even so I'd hope the hobby would be big enough for both approaches -- that Tomb of Horrors and Dragonlance can both exist, and both find an appreciative audience, and that we could focus on the common-ground rather than the differences.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Yep. My way of challenging Players is to figure out when to use the Search skill, which this has only showed them is a useless thing to do.
> 
> Also, my character will die before I metagame.




I just don't see the metagaming argument. If I were Bob the Elf, and I found a secret door and an obious lever, I would not pull it until I had some clue what it did. What if it's the "release the Kraken!" lever or something? 

Or, for that matter, what if it opens a secret treasure stash? Most likely, it was specifically designed to deal with casual intruders. 

"Should this trap exist?" is one question. That would really depend on the context. "Does the monk's player have a right to be outraged?" is another, and the answer is no. Save or no, he had good reason to suspect pulling the lever was a really bad idea. He's just lucky it wasn't a Lever Golem imbued with one use of _trap the soul_.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 23, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Personally, I would MUCH rather have a trap that's as easily avoidable as this one with some reasonable player choices rather than one where I'm left with little choice as to whether I actually activate it or not and a reasonable save DC.  I would much rather my character's welfare rest with my decision-making ability as a player than a random roll of the dice.
> 
> In my opinion, if you're making the saving throw you've already screwed up.  The way to avoid death isn't to have a high save bonus and roll well, the way to avoid death is to not put yourself in the position of making the saving throw in the first place.




QFT.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> At that point, it could have been a trap that disintegrated you even then.  The key is that the DC was absurd. .




Any save at all is a bonus, and not at all required by the dm.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Any save at all is a bonus, and not at all required by the dm.




What is required by/of the DM?

EDIT: By the way, just for the record, I totally and completely disagree with the sentiment of your statement in its totality. A DM who killed my character without a save won't be my DM for long, and I wouldn't expect to have many Players if I ever pulled that anywhere.


----------



## silentspace (Aug 23, 2006)

I still don't get how this is any different from having a regular door, or section of floor trapped.  The rogue actually searches for traps, but doesn't find one.  He steps on it, and poof.  Because it's a lever and not a door you should waste detect magics and summon monster spells?  Because that's what the pro-trap arguments seem to boil down to: it was a *lever*, for crying out loud! Of course it's trapped!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I just don't see the metagaming argument.




silentspace just did a nice job of summing up the metagame argument nicely. Oohhh a *lever*, the DM must have put a trap there!


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 23, 2006)

> And now, I'm very curious to know:
> 
> When you posted this scenario, did you have any particular opinion as to whether it was fair or unfair?
> 
> ...



Yes, I had an opinion.

No, the discussion here has not altered my view.

The discussion has gone the way most threads here do -- it has become an argument that some/many people want to win, rather than a discussion to understand. The first page was good and insightful, but it soon thereafter turned to an absurd argument.

When participants in a discussion start using hyperbole and strawmen, any potential for understanding gets buried in the bullcrap.

Quasqueton


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Any save at all is a bonus, and not at all required by the dm.




Yeah, I'm with ThirdWizard on this one.  This attitude wasn't all that much fun when I was 13 and played this way.  I certainly don't do it now.

DM:  Bang, you're dead.
Player:  What?  
DM:  The great flaming booger of the gods fell on you, you're dead.
Player:  .... You're kidding right.
DM:  Nope.  You were walking down the corridor and SPLAT!  You die.
Player:  Not even a saving throw?
DM:  Nope.  I'm the DM.  I don't have to give you a saving throw.
Player:  Well, I'm the player.  I don't have to play.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 23, 2006)

For those who say the scenario is unfair:

There is a recurring theme, I see. So I want to ask about it.

Is it the results of the scenario that makes it unfair, or the set up of the scenario that makes it unfair? 

Had the scenario said the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair? 

How about if the monk rolled a natural 10 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair? 

Or is it the mere presence of the trap in the form of a lever that makes it unfair?

Would some clues have made it fair? Say, some piles of dust around the lever? How about a sign on the door saying, "Do not enter. Deadly trap within." [I'm not joking about this last thing, either. I could see the dungeon inhabitants putting such a sign on the door after a comrade or six got dusted.]


For those who say the scenario is fair:

What would make it unfair?


I'm interested to see if there is a line of fairness/unfairness for this scenario that can be drawn.

Quasqueton


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Had the scenario said the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?




Had the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived, we wouldn't have a reference as to how high or low the DC was.



> How about if the monk rolled a natural 10 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?




Quite possibly.



> Or is it the mere presence of the trap in the form of a lever that makes it unfair?




It's partially the idea that the PCs should always think all levers are inherently deadly. It is only when you think that levers are inherently deadly that you take all these measures that others think are normal, but that I think are extreme.



> Would some clues have made it fair? Say, some piles of dust around the lever? How about a sign on the door saying, "Do not enter. Deadly trap within." [I'm not joking about this last thing, either. I could see the dungeon inhabitants putting such a sign on the door after a comrade or six got dusted.]




A pile of dust on the floor by the lever might make it fair. The high DC still worries me, though.

EDIT: Note my example death trap, which I do think is fair _and_ fun, for reference.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 23, 2006)

> A pile of dust on the floor by the lever might make it fair. The high DC still worries me, though.



Obvious clues and warnings, but the trap has a high save DC (and/or does deadly damage).

...or...

No clues or warnings at all, but the trap has a low save DC (and/or does low damage).

Would you say the above two options are fair?

Quasqueton


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> silentspace just did a nice job of summing up the metagame argument nicely. Oohhh a *lever*, the DM must have put a trap there!




Why wouldn't the character suspect a trap? I can't imagine why a character would think an obvious lever opens a secret door.


----------



## merelycompetent (Aug 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> When participants in a discussion start using hyperbole and strawmen, any potential for understanding gets buried in the bullcrap.




Quasqueton, that is probably the wisest and most astute sentence I've read in a long time. Kudos.

I still say that I don't have enough information to reach any valid conclusions as to whether the described situation is fair or unfair. I'll take a stab at answering your other questions, tho. All of this is IMO.



> Is it the results of the scenario that makes it unfair, or the set up of the scenario that makes it unfair?




The results don't necessarily make it unfair. It is the setup that makes it fair/unfair. For example, if the DM tells the players at the campaign/adventure start, "This place is a deathtrap. Be on your toes. If you're not careful, your character will die", then the results are not unfair. If, by contrast, no such indication of the DM's style was given, and this was the players' first time ever playing D&D, then the results are grossly unfair. If the expectations are set such that the *players* only discover that the scenario is a deathtrap *after* their characters die, then it's unfair and not fun. Setting those expectations early gives the *players* the opportunity to decide if this play style will be fun or not, and play (or skip this session) accordingly.



> Had the scenario said the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?




No change from the above. Scraping by with a lucky die roll when your character would fail and die 95% of the time is just luck. That's not a measure of (un)fairness.



> How about if the monk rolled a natural 10 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?




Again, it depends on the setup and player expectations.



> Or is it the mere presence of the trap in the form of a lever that makes it unfair?




No. A lever in the room with a secret door is neither fair nor unfair. The consequences of pulling the lever, and the resulting violation or confirmation of player expectations, makes it unfair or fair.



> Would some clues have made it fair? Say, some piles of dust around the lever? How about a sign on the door saying, "Do not enter. Deadly trap within." (I'm not joking about this last thing, either. I could see the dungeon inhabitants putting such a sign on the door after a comrade or six got dusted.)




Those would all work towards setting the players' (and their characters') expectations. That would make it more fair.

I also wonder why you don't include a level modifier question in here. Resurrection-type magics are more easily available at higher levels, and reduce PC deaths from being catastrophic to just very annoying. That definitely affects the (un)fairness of a trap like this.



> For those who say the scenario is fair:
> What would make it unfair?




See the examples I gave above.

Finally, just to be clear, I'd never put a save-or-die trap in an adventure with new players, even veteran players who are new to my DMing style. It might be save-or-take-massive-damage instead. But losing your character to a die roll in the first five sessions kinda ruins the player recruitment pitch. I'd certainly talk with the players about what kind of game they, and I, want to play before starting. All bets are off, though, if the PCs are high level, have already been through several adventures with save-or-take-massive-damage traps, *and* I've set the players' expectations for save-or-die traps.

I hope this provides food for thought.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Obvious clues and warnings, but the trap has a high save DC (and/or does deadly damage).
> 
> ...or...
> 
> ...




I think its safe to say that the DC is not "high" in your example it is "impossible." I would say nothing can make a trap with an impossible death save fair. At least nothing I can think of.

A high save would be something the monk would have to roll, say, a 15+ to make. I think that personally an obvious + high would be more fair than no warnings + low save, although they're pretty darn close.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't the character suspect a trap? I can't imagine why a character would think an obvious lever opens a secret door.




He doesn't have to think it opens the door. It could, for example, ring a bell somewhere to summon a servant. Why are the only two options trap and open the secret door? Why is it so obviously trapped? I can see no reason for the PCs to think its traped beyond "levers are traped" metagame thinking.



			
				merelycompetent said:
			
		

> I also wonder why you don't include a level modifier question in here. Resurrection-type magics are more easily available at higher levels, and reduce PC deaths from being catastrophic to just very annoying. That definitely affects the (un)fairness of a trap like this.




Agreed. I would put the bar at 15th level, I think. At that point, they have access to _true ressurection_ which turns death traps into annoyances. They pull out the diamond dust, laugh at their comrade, and get on with the dungeon. So, if its 15+ then my vote turns to fair. That's not the majority of the game, nor the majority of the levels played on these boards, though, so I can't make that assumption.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 23, 2006)

> I think its safe to say that the DC is not "high" in your example it is "impossible."



You are saying a natural 20 is "impossible"? (Not even considering that maybe just another +2 or +1 could have made the natural 19 a successful roll.)

Quasqueton


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> You are saying a natural 20 is "impossible"? (Not even considering that maybe just another +2 or +1 could have made the natural 19 a successful roll.)




How about "It's not going to happen?" It's a 5% chance for the guy with one of the best saves in the group. If the monk can't make the save on a 19, then odds are really good that no one else will either. Saying needing a 20 is "hard" is _easily_ as much hyperbole as my "impossible," so I don't see reason to split hairs here.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm with ThirdWizard on this one.  This attitude wasn't all that much fun when I was 13 and played this way.  I certainly don't do it now.




So every possible action deserves a save?  Should there be a save for half damage if a pc fell into an active volcano, into a pool of lava 20 feet deep?  Should there be a save for being at ground zero during a nuclear explosion?  After all a monk could take no damage if he made his save, right?

Yeah, those are extremes, but so what?  Not every action merits digging out the dice.  The steamroller trap in ToH had no save, either, but I never heard anyone claim it was "unfair."  Maybe I've just been lucky enough to not play with Doug and Wendy, I dunno.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> He doesn't have to think it opens the door. It could, for example, ring a bell somewhere to summon a servant. Why are the only two options trap and open the secret door? Why is it so obviously trapped? I can see no reason for the PCs to think its traped beyond "levers are traped" metagame thinking.




A lever to ring a bell to summon a servant? Riiight. 

It's not so much that levers are trapped, so much that levers in strange places have strange functions and should be approached accordingly. An obvious lever in a room with a secret door suggests someone is hoping someone will pull the lever and suffer a terrible fate.

Incidentally, disintegrate does not take a Reflex save, so there's no telling what the trap does. If it does a disintegrate effect for 20d6, Fortitude for half, you could make your save and still end up a pile of dust.


----------



## Sejs (Aug 23, 2006)

Other: What was the reasoning for the disintegrate switch being there in the first place? Does it serve some purpose other than to hose PCs?

If it's there for some practical reason (.. wacky magical trash disposal, maybe?) is the area its in appropriately indicitative of said use?  Why does it disintegrate the switch flipper?

What was the basis for the saving throw DC?  I guess that's really the only hard and fast critera for being fair in the not-cheating sense.  Otherwise it just falls under the aegis of poor DMing.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 23, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Other: What was the reasoning for the disintegrate switch being there in the first place? Does it serve some purpose other than to hose PCs?
> 
> If it's there for some practical reason (.. wacky magical trash disposal, maybe?) is the area its in appropriately indicitative of said use?  Why does it disintegrate the switch flipper?




My guess would be that it opens a special vault, and the owner either has some kind of immunity, or some way of circumventing the effect.

[/quote]
What was the basis for the saving throw DC?  I guess that's really the only hard and fast critera for being fair in the not-cheating sense.  Otherwise it just falls under the aegis of poor DMing.[/QUOTE]

If we're talking about a 6th level monk (Fortitude save, say, +7), then we just need to identify how to generate a DC of 27. A disintegrate heightened to level 9 is DC 19. If the area it is in generates a constant _greater bestow curse_ which the monk has already succumbed to, there you go.


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 23, 2006)

To me it is the DC.  If you can't survive it by rolling a natural 19, there should be clearer signs to stay away.  Jumping into lava is instant death.  Pulling a lever shouldn't be without a good reason, some relevant clues, and a decent chance to avoid the horrible fate.  

Not related to the fairness issue is the "what I'm teaching my players" issue.  I want to reward my players for taking reasonable risks -- the reward being a fun situation, not necessarily a pile of gold falling out of the ceiling.  I do not want them grinding the game to a halt every time they come across a lever or a door or a pillar or a brown smudge on the wall.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> A lever to ring a bell to summon a servant? Riiight.
> 
> It's not so much that levers are trapped, so much that levers in strange places have strange functions and should be approached accordingly. An obvious lever in a room with a secret door suggests someone is hoping someone will pull the lever and suffer a terrible fate.
> 
> Incidentally, disintegrate does not take a Reflex save, so there's no telling what the trap does. If it does a disintegrate effect for 20d6, Fortitude for half, you could make your save and still end up a pile of dust.




Levers exist in the real world. How many are trapped? Obviously levers can have many purposes beyond killing the puller. Who would ever expect the purpose of a lever to be to kill the puller? Last time I used a lever, it opened a secret door to the sewers. Why was it a lever? It was an escape measure, and it was used as such. The door was hidden because it was just a trap door in the floor. So, I for one _have_ used a lever to open a secret door.

The concept of approaching a lever as some kind of deadly instrument just isn't realistic, IMO.

Perhaps a greater question of "why do dungeons exist" needs to be posited. The purpose of the dungeon, in a campaign context, will tell us its purpose. Who lived here, and why? Who made the trap? Why did they trap the dungeon? Answers to these can help the PCs determine what to expect inside and give meaning behind the lever _if_ such questions are important in the game.

If the meaning behind the dungeon is just "so the PCs can adventure" in the game, then the lever makes sense because nothing makes sense anyway, so it fits right in. If the dungeon serves a purpose beyond the PCs' adventure, then the answer to if the 50+k gp trap on the innoculous lever makes sense can begin to be questioned.

Lastly, note that the OP directly says he failed the save. He didn't make the save but still take enough damage to die.



			
				Sejs said:
			
		

> What was the basis for the saving throw DC?  I guess that's really the only hard and fast critera for being fair in the not-cheating sense.  Otherwise it just falls under the aegis of poor DMing.




It's an important note, I think that it is impossible for the save DC to be that high under RAW. While that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, it does mean that the DM should think hard and carefully about making the DC that high before using it. In this case, it seems uncalled for unless the DM was specifically hoping to kill a PC.


----------



## pogre (Aug 23, 2006)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Whether it is fair or not is neither here nor there for me. It is something that for me does not seem to add anything to what's going on. There does not seem to be any "fun" quotient attached to it so it is a not something I would wish to challenge my party with.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




Entirely true in my case as well. But I voted yes just because the darn question seemed so slanted to "no."


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> To me it is the DC.  If you can't survive it by rolling a natural 19, there should be clearer signs to stay away.  Jumping into lava is instant death.  Pulling a lever shouldn't be without a good reason, some relevant clues, and a decent chance to avoid the horrible fate.
> 
> Not related to the fairness issue is the "what I'm teaching my players" issue.  I want to reward my players for taking reasonable risks -- the reward being a fun situation, not necessarily a pile of gold falling out of the ceiling.  I do not want them grinding the game to a halt every time they come across a lever or a door or a pillar or a brown smudge on the wall.




This pretty much answers JRRNeiklot as well.  If the DM has invisible lava with no heat radiating from it and no smoke, well, I'd say that was pretty unfair.  You know that the lava is there.  A lever on the floor is not lava.

For me, it's the DC.  Again, if the monk can't make his save on a 19, that probably means that any other character will die as well.  95% is close enough to 100 to say that the save isn't really a save in any case.

It's not that save or die traps have no place.  Of course they do.  I can tell you that LOTS of people complained about the roller trap in TOH.  OTOH, if you were playing TOH, you pretty much knew ahead of time that you were going to die, it was more just playing to see how you died.

Heck, I have even used no save situations.  In the first region of the World's Largest Dungeon, there are unstable portals that are summoning fiendish creatures.  A were-rat sorcerer is guarding the portals.  In the combat, I suggested the fourth level rogue to jump into the portal (the suggestion was worded that it was a way home) - he failed his will save and managed to evade no less than three AOO's from party members trying to grapple him before launching himself into the portal and smearing himself across 11 dimensions.  Very, very dead.

Fair?  I think so.  He died because of a string of bad luck, which happens.  He was never placed in a situation where he had no chance of survival if he took a particular act.

That's my problem with this setup.  The party can do anything, except pull the lever.  Any other action and they live, pull the lever and die.  I hate "gotcha" stuff.  It's no fun.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 23, 2006)

> For those who say the scenario is unfair:
> 
> There is a recurring theme, I see. So I want to ask about it.
> 
> Is it the results of the scenario that makes it unfair, or the set up of the scenario that makes it unfair?




It's really the combination of the two. No clues + instant nigh-unavoidable death = not fair. This is why I drew the comparison to "you walk out the left door and you catch a deadly disease." There are no clues, and it's nigh-unavoidable death. There is no in-character reason to suspect that left door, and there is not significantly more in-character reason to suspect that lever (one assumes this lever didn't just stand out by being a lever in a room, that levers exist in this party's experience that did not kill you). If it had no clue and did something less deadly and more challenging, it would be more fair. If it had big clues to it's deadly consequences, it would be more fair.



> Had the scenario said the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?




Just because people get lucky doesn't mean that requiring them to get the best possible "trump card" result is fair. You can win a hand of poker with a pair of fives, but that doesn't make a pair of fives a good hand.



> How about if the monk rolled a natural 10 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?




Significantly more fair, because that would represent a danger overcome for the character.



> Or is it the mere presence of the trap in the form of a lever that makes it unfair?




ThirdWizard and Bagpuss have both given examples of trapped levers that I'd find perfectly fair.



> Would some clues have made it fair? Say, some piles of dust around the lever? How about a sign on the door saying, "Do not enter. Deadly trap within." [I'm not joking about this last thing, either. I could see the dungeon inhabitants putting such a sign on the door after a comrade or six got dusted.]




This would make it immensely more logical, and definately more fair, because it would give them a chance to avoid it. If they push the button that says DO NOT PUSH, feel free to zap 'em. This is more similar to my style of DMing where I don't balk at big explosions, but I do paint the barrels bright red and show some exploding before I jam one in a hole with a PC.



> Obvious clues and warnings, but the trap has a high save DC (and/or does deadly damage).
> 
> ...or...
> 
> ...




I would say they are fair enough, or at least significantly more fair. It doesn't seem as arbitrary if it makes sense. I go for the first result myself, more often than not, but the second result is an option that is still more realistic (though, IMHO, it lacks some teeth). 

That still doesn't get into the rogue not finding the trap (a search DC of how high?), or the CR of the trap being taken into account with XP awards and treasure tables, or why the trap is instant-death instead of something a bit more less binary, but I think we can agree that those are secondary to the concerns about the fairness of the trap itself.


----------



## FrostedMini1337 (Aug 23, 2006)

> Is it the results of the scenario that makes it unfair, or the set up of the scenario that makes it unfair?




Setup.



> Had the scenario said the monk rolled a natural 20 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?




No.  The effect of the monks roll has no effect on the fairness of the situation. Why are you asking how if altering the result alters a choice I made based on the setup?



> How about if the monk rolled a natural 10 and survived unharmed, would the scenario be called fair?




No, but it's leaning closer towards fair.



> Or is it the mere presence of the trap in the form of a lever that makes it unfair?




Trapping a level isn't cool, but it's ok.  Keep the PCs on their toes and whatnot



> Would some clues have made it fair? Say, some piles of dust around the lever? How about a sign on the door saying, "Do not enter. Deadly trap within." [I'm not joking about this last thing, either. I could see the dungeon inhabitants putting such a sign on the door after a comrade or six got dusted.]




Completely.  I've smoked PCs like this before.  Be brave, not smug.  Just the piles, not so much.  If there are clues and the PCs don't look for them, then it becomes more pallatable, but still distasteful.(Since there are details missing, I'll assume the PCs can and did all in their power to trapcheck)


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> For those who say the scenario is fair:
> 
> What would make it unfair?




If this trap were presented to a party of newbie players with low-level characters

If the party were required to open the secret door (whether by pulling the lever or otherwise) in order to leave the dungeon

If even magical means of trap detection and/or divination had failed to uncover the potential negative consequences of pulling the lever

If attempts to either open the secret door without pulling the lever (_knock_, _passwall_, crowbars, etc.) or pull the lever remotely (via ropes, _unseen servant_, _telekinesis_, _summoned_ monster, etc.) either weren't successful or still didn't prevent the trap from affecting a PC 

If the GM had previously given the players the impression (on a metagame level) that they were expected to pull levers, open doors, etc. without taking such precautions as outlined above and/or that they would only be faced with traps were 'balanced' to the party's capabilities to discover via searches and/or survive via saving throws


----------



## drothgery (Aug 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> For those who say the scenario is unfair:
> 
> There is a recurring theme, I see. So I want to ask about it.
> 
> Is it the results of the scenario that makes it unfair, or the set up of the scenario that makes it unfair?




It's the setup of the scenario.

You two elements, either of which are dubious on their own, in a save-or-die trap, and a trap whose save DC is pretty much unbeatable (monk failed on a natural 19), both connected to a difficult to find trap (the normal means of detecting the trap, a rogue searching for it, revealed nothing; unless the rogue is incompetent or suffering from a run of bad rolls, it should be possible to discover and avoid a lethal trap) and the setup meant that most non-paranoid players were going to take the action that triggered the trap. And it kills the character in a way that prevents _raise dead_ from working for extra suckiness.

I just can't see how the hyper-paranoid style of play advocated by the people who think the trap is fair can be fun.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I just can't see how the hyper-paranoid style of play advocated by the people who think the trap is fair can be fun.




My theory is that it is a test of intelligence. You know, "thinking man's dungeon," and all that. It's a metagame thing. "I outsmarted the DM's trap." It would be less fun in the playing, and more fun in the achievement.

Is this correct?

Would this playstyle overlap with the type that likes puzzles? (not be the same, but overlap)

Is the roleplaying aspect of the game downplayed, or is it that just certain character types aren't roleplayed?


----------



## MerricB (Aug 23, 2006)

One of my favourite death traps is in _Grasp of the Emerald Claw_. There's a door. Around it, are a lot of recently dead Emerald Claw soldiers, glowing green. If you open the door, you set off the trap. You can detect the trap magically, or by Search (although the Search is quite difficult, IIRC).

You have the clues that something is up, and so you're empowered to make an interesting decision. (In fact, past the door is something good to get, so the decision is significant as well).

There's another one in _Cradle of Madness_ (Dungeon #87). A archway with a strange purple mist. Detect magic reveals a strong transmutation aura (actually a disintegration field that works only on living matter, although it's unlikely the PCs will discover that in advance). If you search around the room, you find a secret closet with the robes that allow you to pass through the field. 

Or, you can say, "I'm a dwarf! I have a high Fort save" and roll a 2 and get disintegrated. (After that, the PCs actually dismantled the arch, which also works. Didn't stop the TPK in the next encounter, though).

Both of those traps share something in common: they're gateway traps. Passing through them enables you to continue on with the adventure (or get to a secret). They have a purpose, which is really important. I'm not fond of random "I kill you now" traps. Sure, they're lethal, but they exist in context.

When I place "random" traps, I prefer confining or hazard traps. For instance, as my players attacked a Dragon's lair last Sunday, the approach they used contained a pit trap; due to the fact they were in combat, they couldn't detect it in advance, and thus one of them set it off and was suddenly out of the combat... until he found a way to overcome it. The rest of the party found their approach to the dragon suddenly blocked by a 30' wide pit, requiring more tactical thinking to overcome. (The solutions they came up with surprised me).

The context of Q's example trap is somewhat obscure; as written, I don't like it very much. I'm fond of traps that force the PCs into making decisions, but if the only decision is between pulling the lever and ignoring the lever, that's not very interesting.

Far more interesting was the trapped throne in my version of Castle Greyhawk that caused those sitting in it to become dominated by a Knight of Hell, thus changing the aspect of the campaign...

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2006)

> When I place "random" traps, I prefer confining or hazard traps. For instance, as my players attacked a Dragon's lair last Sunday, the approach they used contained a pit trap; due to the fact they were in combat, they couldn't detect it in advance, and thus one of them set it off and was suddenly out of the combat... until he found a way to overcome it. The rest of the party found their approach to the dragon suddenly blocked by a 30' wide pit, requiring more tactical thinking to overcome. (The solutions they came up with surprised me).




Reminds me of Life's a Bazaar from Shackled City.  Bloody pit traps everywhere with hobgoblins on the other side controlling the levers to open them.    We got one over on them though, dumped those stupid construct thingies into one of them and closed the top.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> My theory is that it is a test of intelligence. You know, "thinking man's dungeon," and all that. It's a metagame thing. "I outsmarted the DM's trap." It would be less fun in the playing, and more fun in the achievement.
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> ...




You seem intent on psychoanalyzing people to determine what malfunction would cause them to think differently than you do. As I've said many times, this has very little to do with metagame thinking.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You seem intent on psychoanalyzing people to determine what malfunction would cause them to think differently than you do. As I've said many times, this has very little to do with metagame thinking.




Why does a reason have to be a malfunction?

I have reasons for playing the way I do. I like DMing for people who do off the wall things and reward them for it.

EDIT: Here's an example. The PCs were trying to gain access to a place that had been taken over by their enemies. They basically recruited an army and just stormed the place. Ran in with the lead force and attacked anything they saw.

Or the time they jumped through a portal without being sure where it went because they were on the trail of an enemy and didn't want to slow down. Sure, I could have had it drop them on the Plane of Fire, but then they'd just die.

Or the time they lept through another portal that was in a crematorium fire pit on just the word of a guy they hardly knew. Sure, maybe he could have lied and they would be jumping to their deaths, but instead they got whisked away to where they were trying to get.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> either you have to metagame or you die.




Yup.  I realise this is probably anathema to the amateur theatrics crowd.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Yup.  I realise this is probably anathema to the amateur theatrics crowd.




I realized the option of "just don't play that character" so I erased it.

So it comes down to that does it? By amateur theatrics, I assume you mean "roleplaying."

EDIT: It probalby wouldn't suprise you to know, though, that I've run sessions without a single combat. I also rarely use dungeons. I did, however, kill a wizard in a surprise round of combat recently in what I would call a fair fight. It happens. I had a PC die recently in a battle with an equal CR creature because the healer kept failing Concentration checks. It happens.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Yup.  I realise this is probably anathema to the amateur theatrics crowd.




I'd hardly call myself part of the amateur theatrics crowd.  

I do, however, tend to insist that people play the character that's on paper and not themselves.  If it's entirely in character for that monk to pull the lever, then, he should be pulling that lever.  The player saying, "Nope, not touching that lever," when the player has never shown any sort of paranoia before is very jarring.

What if Mr. Monk had a 6 Int?  Monks don't need intelligence.  Would you still be on board with the monk insisting that they tie a rope or poke it with a pole?


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So it comes down to that does it? By amateur theatrics, I assume you mean "roleplaying."




I think "roleplaying" and "metagaming" are terms that have been hijacked.  I think it's perfectly possible to play a role in character without sacrificing your ability to think tactically, as a player rather than a character.  I think that to contrast "roleplaying" with "metagaming" is a false dichotomy.

I think "metagaming" is simply a pejorative term used by people who want to avoid a need for tactical thinking in RPGs.

I think there's a school of thought which says that roleplaying considerations should override tactical thinking.  Since these are usually the people who see playing a role with complete accuracy as the primary focus of the game, these people might be called the "strong roleplayers" and I don't mean that in a derogatory way.

Good roleplaying is its own reward.  I've played like that, and I've occasionally found it very satisfying to play a character so accurately that the character does something which I think, or know, will lead to his death.  The route to victory might be to capture a prisoner, interrogate it, learn about the challenges ahead, and then send it ahead of you to open the doors and trigger the traps, but the paladin won't stomach it and chooses to take the risks himself instead.

To me, that's the heart of paladinhood.  The question is whether the paladin still gets disintegrated when he pulls the lever.

I think there's a subset of the strong roleplayers, which I'll call "the amateur theatrics crowd" (and yes, I DO mean that in a derogatory way), who think that if there's a paladin in the party, the lever shouldn't have the disintegrate trap on it in the first place.  They think they should be allowed to play their role exactly how they like and, even if their roleplaying decisions lead their characters to play incautiously or in a suboptimal way, _they still shouldn't die_.

These people see any character death as a failure of the DM, and any situation which requires them to think instead of roll or role as "poor design."


----------



## Melan (Aug 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I do, however, tend to insist that people play the character that's on paper and not themselves.  If it's entirely in character for that monk to pull the lever, then, he should be pulling that lever.  The player saying, "Nope, not touching that lever," when the player has never shown any sort of paranoia before is very jarring.



In that case, it is also in character for the monk to die a horrible death. That can be pretty fun too, and makes for a good war story later on. On the other hand, characters are in the end extensions of the players - after a while, the same players should catch on and create characters who can be successful in that given game style. 

I will give you a tangentially related example: lel us assume I am running a campaign centered around a bigass dungeon. This assumes the players should at least try to fit their characters into that framework. If you are playing a character who is too cowardly to delve dungeons, or maybe isn't willing to, you will frustrate yourself, the other players and the DM, and probably won't be very successful in the adventure. In this case, wouldn't it be better to retire this PC and start a new one? In my opinion, the answer is definitely yes. (also see my sig...)



> What if Mr. Monk had a 6 Int?  Monks don't need intelligence.  Would you still be on board with the monk insisting that they tie a rope or poke it with a pole?



Low Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean foolishness. Even animals of a very low Int have some kind of cunning to avoid similar situations. Moreover (unless you rolled your ability scores in order, a rare occurence in 3.* D&D), it was you who allocated that ability score, and you should live with the consequences. Likewise, if you have a 6 Constitution, you will have low hit points and an abysmal Fortitude save.

***

All this unless the same player enjoys getting killed in various amusing ways... which, by the way, I sometimes do.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 23, 2006)

Another way of putting it:

What is, for example, paladinhood?

Is it:

(a) Being the guy who's prepared to die for his beliefs?  Being the guy who won't send the prisoners forward into the landmines, so he treads on the landmine himself?  Being the guy who'll lay down his life for the rights of the un-named orc the party captured in room #3?

or

(b) Being the guy who expects the world to adjust itself to his beliefs?  Being the guy who won't send the prisoners forward into the landmines, so he demands that the DM makes sure there are no landmines in the first place?  Being the guy who'll whine at the DM for the rights of the un-named orc the party captured in room #3?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2006)

So, effectively, you believe that you should punish players for playing in character?  That if any player takes a character that is not absolutely optimized for tactical play, he should be killed when he makes a mistake?

That's pretty harsh.

My beef with this trap, which I've stated numerous times, is that the save DC is way out of line.  The fact that you cannot make this save is what I have a problem with.

Heck, paladins have huge saving throws PRECISELY because of what they do.  If you are playing a paladin, you are supposed to take the risks and put yourself in the path of danger.  So, you have honking huge save bonuses and high saving throws to begin with.  The class itself is inherently balanced against its own presumed actions.

But, here, you kill the paladin specifically for doing what he's supposed to do.  The player is playing the paladin in a very, very paladinish way.  And he's being killed for it.

And this is fair?


----------



## UniversalMonster (Aug 23, 2006)

I'm going with 'fair' -- if the monk got a fair saving throw, as in "roll a natural 20 or die". 

But only if the party is high enough that a wish and/or resurrection would be possible for the group to afford, and the game was using the standard assumptions that such things would exist.


----------



## Melan (Aug 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, here, you kill the paladin specifically for doing what he's supposed to do.  The player is playing the paladin in a very, very paladinish way.  And he's being killed for it.
> 
> And this is fair?



Not only is it fair, it is what paladins _do_. They die for their ideals so others don't have to. They sacrifice life and wealth so others may live. Unless our concept of the paladin is "just like a fighter, but with neat save bonuses and the ability to summon a magical horsey", it is perfectly in line... as in line as a paladin going on dungeon adventures is.

This doesn't mean the paladin has to die _senselessly_. In this particular case (as outlined by Quasqueton) being a paladin is a non-issue. The player may refuse to be maneuvered into this situation and stay perfectly in character.


----------



## Melan (Aug 23, 2006)

BTW, two addenda:
1) I don't consider the trap unfair, but I consider it un_inspired_.
2) if I see a lever in a dungeon, I leave it the hell alone unless I can manipulate it from a safe distance or I am fleeing from monsters. Or when I am not terribly attached to the character, heh.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, effectively, you believe that you should punish players for playing in character?




It's interesting to me that you equate "allowing a character to die" with "punishing a player".  With the system I play, rolling a fresh character takes ~5 minutes, so it's hardly a big punishment -- unless the player's emotional investment is in the character rather than the game.

I understand that some people become emotionally attached to particular characters, and want to play them in a particular way.  I don't adjust my world setting to take account of this -- my world's a very bleak, Darwinian place where the extremely careful, thoughtful and lucky survive, achieve character objectives and ultimately reach high level, but the careless, thoughtless or unlucky tend to die a lot.

Players who like this presumably seek out DMs who support their playstyle, and good luck to them.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> That if any player takes a character that is not absolutely optimized for tactical play, he should be killed when he makes a mistake?




Any character can be killed for making a mistake.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> That's pretty harsh.




As I said, it's Darwinian.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> But, here, you kill the paladin specifically for doing what he's supposed to do.  The player is playing the paladin in a very, very paladinish way.  And he's being killed for it.




Who's killing him?  The DM or the player?

The DM doesn't put a gun to his head and say, "Pull this lever."



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> And this is fair?




It's no different to any other game world really.

I think that in almost any game, there are actions that kill your character, regardless of whether or not you're "roleplaying."  It might be perfectly in character to bitchslap the Queen of the Steelfist Realms and call her a dirty trollop in front of the whole court, but if you do it, then in almost any game you'd be facing a short stay in the Royal dungeons followed by execution.    In fact, I think that any game where you could do that kind of thing without immediate and very unpleasant consequences would be really boring.

The question is, where do you draw the line?  Where does "roleplaying" become intentional suicide?

I accept that where I draw the line might be uncomfortably restrictive for some players.  But there are others who enjoy the kind of challenges that I present, and don't see it as "unfair."


----------



## delericho (Aug 23, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think "metagaming" is simply a pejorative term used by people who want to avoid a need for tactical thinking in RPGs.




In the scenario presented there is no indication that the lever is trapped. There is at least some indication that it is not trapped. Assuming that the level is, therefore, trapped because "OMG it's a LEVER!!!" is metagame thinking.



> These people see any character death as a failure of the DM, and any situation which requires them to think instead of roll or role as "poor design."




You've missed out a third category of players, those who will readily accept character death, but won't accept the sort of nonsense that is represented by undetectable, impossible-save DC, insta-kill traps.

This thread has featured several examples of really well-designed traps. These include indications of the existence of the trap, the ability to detect the trap, the ability to disable the trap, the ability to circumvent the trap and, in the failure of all other means, some chance to survive the trap. The trap presented by the OP has none of those features. It is badly designed.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2006)

> It's interesting to me that you equate "allowing a character to die" with "punishing a player". With the system I play, rolling a fresh character takes ~5 minutes, so it's hardly a big punishment -- unless the player's emotional investment is in the character rather than the game.




This isn't "allowing a character to die".  This is directly killing him.  He has no chance of survival if he pulls that lever.  Period.  



> Who's killing him? The DM or the player?
> 
> The DM doesn't put a gun to his head and say, "Pull this lever."




So the player should assume that any trap will be instant death, no save?  Sorry, but, yes, the DM is killing this character in a completely arbitrary way.  The paladin should be pulling the lever.  Heck, even under the game you play, he almost HAS to pull that lever considering the code of conduct he's using.  Chivalry and all that.  Depending on whether or not you use Unearthed Arcana as well.  Let others take risks before you?  That's not very paladinish is it?

The player is playing a heroic character, and getting insta-killed for it.  Well, I guess this explains why no one plays paladins.


----------



## tzor (Aug 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, here, you kill the paladin specifically for doing what he's supposed to do.  The player is playing the paladin in a very, very paladinish way.  And he's being killed for it.
> 
> And this is fair?




Yes, absolutely!  To quote the bad star trek movie, "how we face death is equally important as how we face life."  If I were playing a paladin, my goal would be keeping my paladin true, not keepin my paladin alive.  Any valliant death that saved teh life of someone else would be a glorious act for the paladin and fun as well.  Alas, as Daffy Duck once commented, "Yes I know, but I can only do this trick once!"

Then again I once played a 2E Dwarven Fighter (what be a paladin ... and loose weapon proficiency) who used to practically do a high five when he got killed in major combat, "Yes!  Killed again.  OK someone better survive this fight to raise our sorry butts."

OK back to the topic.

One of the problems is that the whole scenario is far too vague.  (I'm only really not happy with the high save requirement and that's it.)  I think what we have here is the McDonald's Coffee Dilemma.  You see a cup.  It has liquid.  It is really the requirement of McDonald's to write in multiple languages "caution, this liquid is hot"?  There is a lever in the middle of the room.  There is no information on the lever.  Could it be good or bad?  Doesn't the cleric have augry?  It might actually be a disintergrate lever!  Designed not as a trap but on  purpose!  But more important it could do just about anything which could be equally harmful.

If you don't know what something does, and you don't have any real reason to use it, then DON'T USE IT!

P.S. did I mention that I thought that the only problem was the exceptionally high DC?


----------



## delericho (Aug 23, 2006)

Contrast the trap given below with the trap presented in the OP:



> You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door.
> 
> The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds that both are somehow connected to a trap. He's also sure that the trap is well beyond his ability to disarm, and is of extreme lethality.
> 
> ...




This is an extremely similar trap to the one described by the OP. The key difference is that the 'right' answer is to pull the lever, not leave it alone. What's more, this trap neatly negates any 'have a proxy pull the lever while we watch from a safe distance', since getting to a safe distance triggers the trap. It's also just as sensible as the original, since whoever installed it would also know how to bypass it.

Finally, the trap is significantly more fair than the original - the Rogue was able to detect it, and was provided a great deal of information about the trap.

Now, tell me, is that really a fair trap? Or should PCs be paranoid about not pulling levers, just as they should be about pulling them? Alternatively, if this trap is unfair, but the other fair, why is that?


----------



## wayne62682 (Aug 23, 2006)

I think the bigger issue here is that there's no sign that the lever is trapped.  If it's the only way out of a room (as the scenario described it) then there's no reason NOT to pull it to open the secret door, and as a result you get screwed because of a seemingly impossible save-or-die trap.



> I think "metagaming" is simply a pejorative term used by people who want to avoid a need for tactical thinking in RPGs.




AMEN!  Do I think it's metagaming to say "Lever, it's trapped!"?  Sure I do, even though I agree 100% that "metagaming" is a term cooked up to make it "wrong" to play tactically.  If you have no reason to believe it's a trap, then you shouldn't act like it (barring circumstances such as having experienced similar things in the past and/or playing a highly paranoid character)



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The player is playing a heroic character, and getting insta-killed for it. Well, I guess this explains why no one plays paladins.




Exactly the point.  The player is taking the initiative by pulling the lever, and his reward is insta-death via a ludicrous DC that nobody could reasonably save against short of miraculous luck.  I don't consider that fair, I consider that a load of bulldrek.  This is supposed to be a heroic D&D game, not Shadowgate where if you touch the seemingly inconspicuous book on a shelf you fall into a pit, break both your legs and die horribly.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 23, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> In the scenario presented there is no indication that the lever is trapped. There is at least some indication that it is not trapped. Assuming that the level is, therefore, trapped because "OMG it's a LEVER!!!" is metagame thinking.




It's not metagame thinking if levers in dangerous places like dungeons are often trapped in the PC's world (and in most games I've played in, this is exactly the case, traps abound in dungeons, especially around strange set ups like a lever in the open that potentially opens an otherwise secret door).  In my experience, both the players and characters in this situation would have every reason to be cautious about the presence of a trap and should act accordingly.  Even if levers are trapped only rarely, cautious PCs will treat all levers as if they could be trapped because doing otherwise just means you're SURE to fall victim to the one that is.

The argument that this is metagame thinking is not only incorrect for many player's groups, it's also hypocritical; since the other "side" in this debate is basing their judgement on whether a trap should or shouldn't be present on whether it's "fun" in the context of the game.  If the reason the monk's player feels comfortable sending him forward to pull the lever is "the DM won't put a lever with an instant kill trap on it here because it wouldn't be fun, so as the person with the best saves in the party I might take damage or suffer some other inconvenience but I shouldn't die" then he's engaging in BIG TIME metagame thinking.  That decision-making process has absolutely nothing to do with what his character is thinking about the situation.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This isn't "allowing a character to die".  *The player* is directly killing him.  He has no chance of survival if he pulls that lever.  Period.




This is how I would put it.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> So the player should assume that any trap will be instant death, no save?




At the beginning of a game, particularly with inexperienced players, then as I've said all along, this trap would be harsh.  Once the players are experienced and have learned the basics, then _in games of the kind that I run_ it becomes normal.

_To me_ the situation in a dungeon is analagous to the situation a 21st Century Special Forces soldier might be in, after he's parachuted into a combat zone which may contain landmines or booby traps.  

The Special Forces guy who lives assumes that there are traps he can't see and proceeds accordingly.  He scouts out the territory.  If possible, he captures a prisoner and questions him.  He doesn't open doors, pull levers or otherwise take risks he doesn't need to take.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Sorry, but, yes, the DM is killing this character in a completely arbitrary way.




I simply disagree.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The paladin should be pulling the lever.




I disagree with this too.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Heck, even under the game you play, he almost HAS to pull that lever considering the code of conduct he's using.




This is a paladin who's already retrieved the McGuffin, rescued the princess, or whatever.  Surely his thoughts should be on his mission?  Surely his primary focus should be to bring his comrades safely back to the surface?


----------



## takyris (Aug 23, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> It's interesting to me that you equate "allowing a character to die" with "punishing a player".  *With the system I play*, rolling a fresh character takes ~5 minutes, so it's hardly a big punishment -- unless the player's emotional investment is in the character rather than the game.




Emphasis mine.

Also, "the character rather than the game" is a false distinction. For some people, the character is the game. For other people, the tactics are the game. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're one of the latter.



> I understand that some people become emotionally attached to particular characters, and want to play them in a particular way.  I don't adjust my world setting to take account of this -- my world's a very bleak, Darwinian place where the extremely careful, thoughtful and lucky survive, achieve character objectives and ultimately reach high level, but the careless, thoughtless or unlucky tend to die a lot.




"My world's a place where every dungeon has at least one instakill trap well beyond the save-capability of the best guy in the party, and the trap can't be detected with the abilities that were put into the game specifically for detecting traps!"



> Players who like this presumably seek out DMs who support their playstyle, and good luck to them.
> 
> Any character can be killed for making a mistake.




With "mistake" in this instance being read as "Had the rogue take 20 and determined that there was no danger from the lever, then pulled it, and was then forced into a roll-a-20-or-die situaation."

The first sentence is the one that works for me, provided your clause on the end is actually sincere. Some players want to play a tactical game in which every darn lever is a five-minute event involving casting two-thirds of your daily allotment of spells, in which either the rules as written for trapfinding are ignored or the trap is beyond the capability of the party's designated trapfinder, and in which the result of taking reasonable precautions is roll-a-20-or-die. Good luck to them.

As stated earlier, I'm not against traps. I'm not against impossible-at-that-level-to-spot traps. I'm not against massively damaging traps. I'm not even against instakill traps. I'm against impossible-at-that-level-to-spot instakill-traps. Making the trap detectable but not disarmable, or leaving the trap undetectable but lowering the damage, would be fine.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 23, 2006)

It _is_ detectable though, Takyris.  Or at least, if you extrapolate a little, it should be.

I agree that you can't detect it by rolling a d20.

In my game you'd be able to detect it by, for example:

Pulling the lever remotely using one of the many methods discussed in this thread
Using informational magic such as _augury_ or _detect magic_
Capturing a prisoner from elsewhere in the dungeon and questioning it (assuming you use a _charm_ of some kind to make sure it provided all the useful information; a hostile prisoner probably wouldn't mention the trap)


----------



## painandgreed (Aug 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I'm interested to see if there is a line of fairness/unfairness for this scenario that can be drawn.




I still say there is not enough information. For what is given us, it could be a 20th level monk in a 1st level dungeon, or it could be a 1st level monk in a 20th level dungeon. Many assumptions are made and people are argueing on those assumptions. Since different people will come up with different assumptions, it's doubtful if anybody will ever talk about the same situation, let alone come to a consensus.

Give us all the details, such as DCs, mechanics, levels of the people involved, etc, and then we can being to discuss if it was fair or not. Of course, you might as well start with a discussion about "what is fair?" first, since, like alignment, I suspect that there will be a wide variation on expectations of "fairness" in a game and what that means.


----------



## delericho (Aug 23, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> It's not metagame thinking if levers in dangerous places like dungeons are often trapped in the PC's world (and in most games I've played in, this is exactly the case, traps abound in dungeons, especially around strange set ups like a lever in the open that potentially opens an otherwise secret door).  In my experience, both the players and characters in this situation would have every reason to be cautious about the presence of a trap and should act accordingly.  Even if levers are trapped only rarely, cautious PCs will treat all levers as if they could be trapped because doing otherwise just means you're SURE to fall victim to the one that is.




The lever had been checked for a trap. No trap was found.

This suggests:

1) There is no trap.
2) There is a trap, but the Rogue failed to spot it.
3) There is a trap that is beyond the ability of the Rogue to spot.

Of these, #1 is by far the most likely outcome - far more levers are not trapped than are trapped. #2 should not apply - the Rogue should have taken 20. If the Rogue failed to do so, the party deserves to be hit by the trap.

#3 should not occur in a level-appropriate dungeon. The trick here is that the Rogue needs to look in the right place, but if the Rogue looks where there is, in fact, a trap, then in a level-appropriate dungeon he should find it (assuming he takes 20).

Ah, you say, but isn't that metagame thinking? My answer is "no". My reasoning for this is that the group will know in fairly short order whether or not they are over their heads. If the Rogue has been doing his job, he's been looking in all the sensible places for traps. In a non-level-appropriate dungeon, he will have failed to spot at least some of them. In this case, the party will be well aware that the Rogue's ability can't be trusted.

So, except in the case where the party know they're in over their heads, they shouldn't be missing traps that exist.

And this isn't a lack of "tactical thinking" either. The party did the RIGHT THING. If you suspect a trap, have the Rogue check for traps. If it's there, he should find it (again, unless #3 applies, in which case, you'll know).

The assumption, once the Rogue has taken-20 on his search, should be that there is no trap.



> The argument that this is metagame thinking is not only incorrect for many player's groups, it's also hypocritical; since the other "side" in this debate is basing their judgement on whether a trap should or shouldn't be present on whether it's "fun" in the context of the game.




An undetectable, extreme-save-DC, insta-kill trap has no business being in any level-appropriate dungeon.



> If the reason the monk's player feels comfortable sending him forward to pull the lever is "the DM won't put a lever with an instant kill trap on it here because it wouldn't be fun, so as the person with the best saves in the party I might take damage or suffer some other inconvenience but I shouldn't die" then he's engaging in BIG TIME metagame thinking.  That decision-making process has absolutely nothing to do with what his character is thinking about the situation.




I file this under, "but don't be an idiot". Okay, the Rogue has detected no traps, and is confident about that assessment (he's taken-20). But even the best of us make mistakes. Therefore, if someone's going to pull the lever, you send forward the person best able to survive a mistake, just in case. (Hardly metagaming.)

Presumably, the reason for pulling the lever (at all) is that they think it might open the secret door. Which is a sensible goal, and hardly metagaming. And they've taken reasonable precautions - the Rogue has satisfied himself that there is no trap.

Did you read my other post, with the example trap where if you don't pull the lever you get zapped? Isn't that an equally valid set-up? Do you think that's fair too?


----------



## takyris (Aug 23, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> It _is_ detectable though, Takyris.  Or at least, if you extrapolate a little, it should be.
> 
> I agree that you can't detect it by rolling a d20.
> 
> ...




- Augury, Monster-Summoning, Mage Hand, and other methods are fine -- but limited. As a PC, the point where I start burning daily resources is when I've got some clue -- any clue -- that this could be bad. A lever that the party rogue doesn't see as trapped doesn't merit that kind of resource expenditure without additional clues -- like piles of dust on the floor or old runes on the wall that translate as something ominous. Either the DM has failed to provide those clues, in which case I don't consider it valid to use daily resources unless I'm in the Dungeon of Undetectable Traps, or Quas neglected to mention it... and my assumption is that if Quas didn't mention it, it wasn't available.
- If a rogue's trapfinding can't detect it, a detect magic wouldn't. That's the whole point of trapfinding.
- The captured prisoner makes sense, provided that a DM who provided no clues relating to the lever decided to do an about-face and have a prisoner tell you that.

At this point, you can come up with all kinds of "If only they'd done ____" points on how you'd have handled it... but you don't have any additional information that supports your theory. All we have is what Quas wrote, and my assumption is that, if a DM makes an insta-kill trap that cannot be found with a rogue's trapfinding ability and doesn't put any warning signs around the lever, it's a stretch to assume that the DM has offered all kinds of additional clues that the poor pathetic players were too dense to find.

If we're going to make assumptions about things Quas didn't write, why don't we assume that the death-beam travels down the rope, or affects magically summoned creatures by casting a bless spell on them instead of Destruction, making it look like an attractive option for PCs? Why don't we assume that the monsters that live in the dungeon are immune to the lever's effects and don't consider it harmful at all? After all, the only information we HAVE is that the party rogue couldn't find it.

The logical conclusion, given that information, is that the DM didn't want that trap to be able to be avoided except by not pulling the lever.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I see two concepts here that I find puzzling:
> 
> 1 – No trap should ever be deadly.
> 
> ...




Definately. IMO, a well designed trap is one that does not begin and end in the same action. The player's trigger it, are given a chance to react and interact with it, then face consequences. For my dislike of the Tomb of Horrors, the bleeding trap is an incredibly well done trap that rewards creativity. Same thing with the eyeball wall in Mud Sorcerer's Tomb. 

The piano trap and the Rube-Goldberg style arm grabber/cannonball thing in the Goonies were good examples of traps as well. 

What I dislike is the "zinger" traps. You walk down a hallway and get zapped with a magic missile, dart, or whatever. A trap should lead to more adventure, not just damage/death and move on. The lever could have done a million different things, like teleport you into an efreeti's harem... a dangerous situation, but not immediately fatal. 

Even worse are the grimtooth "meta traps" that just exist to give players a damned if you do, damned if you dont feeling, which I thoroughly hate. In one of the "classics", theres an easy to discover trap on the outside of a chest. By disarming it, you enable the trap on the inside of the chest, which goes off when you open it. By succeeding, you've hosed yourself. Or the delightful one that is specifically designed to counter the "open the door with a rope" bit, that explodes 50 feet away. Lets not forget the delight of symbols of death/insanity scribed with invisible ink that only show up with detect magic or detect invisibility. Thus ensuring you that you're ed no matter what you do. Its just pure BS. If the DM is running that kind of game, they may as well tick off damage whenever they feel like it. Its crap like that which got me into DM'ing, when I realized that the game could be more enjoyable than some chode hiding behind a screen so he could cheat on every roll.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 23, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't the character suspect a trap? I can't imagine why a character would think an obvious lever opens a secret door.




Of course the obvious lever does not open the secret door.  Therefore it is foolish to assume any connection between the two.

If we remove the secret door from the scenario, does it change your opinion about pulling the lever?


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 23, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Nah.  Generally they take a captive and make _it_ open the door for them.




FOOLS! Opening the door causes a 10x10 pit to open up 10 feet behind the person opening the door! Your plan fails!




> Usually they probe ahead with spear-butts.




IDIOTS! The trap goes off 8 seconds after being prodded! Your efforts PRIMED the trap! OMG, what morons!

See where I'm going with this?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 23, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Even worse are the grimtooth "meta traps" that just exist to give players a damned if you do, damned if you dont feeling, which I thoroughly hate. In one of the "classics", theres an easy to discover trap on the outside of a chest. By disarming it, you enable the trap on the inside of the chest, which goes off when you open it.





That is an awesome trap. Very twisted.  Will see use in one of my games.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 23, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> The logical conclusion, given that information, is that the DM didn't want that trap to be able to be avoided except by not pulling the lever.




That's an inference I didn't draw.  I presumed that the trap was avoidable, but only if you relied on other means than simply rolling d20's.

If the DM specifically doesn't want the trap to be avoidable at all, then I agree, that's an attitude that sucks.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 23, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> FOOLS! Opening the door causes a 10x10 pit to open up 10 feet behind the person opening the door! Your plan fails!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are just showing off that massive chip you have on your shoulders?  Seriously, no matter what anyone says you are going to claim they are lying and really would screw the players no matter what.  What did you say when someone suggested using a rope?  Something along the lines of "be honest you would have the trap effects travel down the rope so you can get off on your god complex".


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Levers exist in the real world. How many are trapped? Obviously levers can have many purposes beyond killing the puller. Who would ever expect the purpose of a lever to be to kill the puller? Last time I used a lever, it opened a secret door to the sewers. Why was it a lever? It was an escape measure, and it was used as such. The door was hidden because it was just a trap door in the floor. So, I for one _have_ used a lever to open a secret door.




IMO, thats the most reasonable thing for it to do. Seal off the entrance door, open the secret door. Your perfect escape hatch.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 23, 2006)

Other inferences in this thread are also going afield from the OP, and imputing motives on the DM which weren't stated.

Incidentally, I think a rope probably doesn't count as a once-a-day resource.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 23, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> You are saying a natural 20 is "impossible"? (Not even considering that maybe just another +2 or +1 could have made the natural 19 a successful roll.)




Are you saying that there is a meaningful difference between an effect with "No Save" and an effect with "Save vs. DC 152"?

I am pretty confident that they are at least 95% the same.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> It's not metagame thinking if levers in dangerous places like dungeons are often trapped in the PC's world (and in most games I've played in, this is exactly the case, traps abound in dungeons, especially around strange set ups like a lever in the open that potentially opens an otherwise secret door).




I've never used a death trapped lever as a DM. I've never seen a trapped lever as a Player.

Yay for anecdotal evidence!

EDIT: The one lever trap I used did 1 electricity damage, btw. It was there to be funny.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 23, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> As stated earlier, I'm not against traps. I'm not against impossible-at-that-level-to-spot traps.




So, traps should suddenly morph into a different form each time a party enters simply depending on their level?  That amounts to the Houston Astros taking Roger Clemens out and putting in Joe the hotdog salesman simply because a rookie is coming up to bat.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 23, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> #3 should not occur in a _level-appropriate dungeon._




Itallcs mine.

The above term irritates me to no end.  In my games, it's not uncommon for 1st level pcs to hear rumors about a deadly place like "The Tomb of Horrors" or "Fire Swamp."  Low level character venturing there get what they deserve.  I'm not changing the giants to orcs or the traps to nerf spitballs simply based on the party's level.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 23, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> You are just showing off that massive chip you have on your shoulders?  Seriously, no matter what anyone says you are going to claim they are lying and really would screw the players no matter what.  What did you say when someone suggested using a rope?  Something along the lines of "be honest you would have the trap effects travel down the rope so you can get off on your god complex".




This coming from the guy who likes the "trap within a trap" chest...

The entire point of alternating those traps IS to screw the players no matter what choice they make. Oh, you disarm the trap? You're screwed. Use a rope? you're screwed. Theres no rhyme or reason to their placement, other than to ensure that, even with caution, you still wont get off, and that their caution ensures their defeat at times. 

Its a terrible style of play that damn near ruined an entire generation of gamers. When the simple act of opening a chest or door requires 10-20 minutes of experimentation (which will occasionally bite you on the ass at the DM's whim), those are games I'd rather pull my teeth out with pliers than attend. 

Here's another "gem" from Grimtooth if you like crap like that. The party comes to a door. The hinges and lock on it are heavily corroded, but the door itself looks somewhat weak. If bashed open, their actions break a flask of poisonous gas on the other side of the door. GOTCHA! Or perhaps the door has dry rot, and kicking through it unleashes a blade trap that cuts off their leg. Mix that one up with doors that have explosive runes painted on the other side, mimics in the form of doors etc for added "fun" that leave your players wondering why they attended the session.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Itallcs mine.
> 
> The above term irritates me to no end.  In my games, it's not uncommon for 1st level pcs to hear rumors about a deadly place like "The Tomb of Horrors" or "Fire Swamp."  Low level character venturing there get what they deserve.  I'm not changing the giants to orcs or the traps to nerf spitballs simply based on the party's level.




What are the odds that they'd make it through the dungeon and aquire the McGuffin in a dungeon far above their level, though? I think one of the salient points in the OP is that they've made it through the dungeon, so by this point at least, they have been in a beatable dungeon. This is not the case of a first level party going to the ToH.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 23, 2006)

Maybe we should rename this thread "101 things to hate about traps."


----------



## delericho (Aug 23, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Itallcs mine.
> 
> The above term irritates me to no end.  In my games, it's not uncommon for 1st level pcs to hear rumors about a deadly place like "The Tomb of Horrors" or "Fire Swamp."  Low level character venturing there get what they deserve.  I'm not changing the giants to orcs or the traps to nerf spitballs simply based on the party's level.




I agree with what you're saying. Except that for 1st level PCs, "The Tomb of Horrors" is *not* a level-appropriate dungeon. If they choose to go there, more fool them, and they should pay the price for doing so.

It doesn't change my point, though. There is such a thing as a level-appropriate dungeon for any given level. If the party are in such a dungeon, they should not encounter an undetectable, extreme-save-DC, insta-kill trap. And, if they're not in such a dungeon, then they should know they're not in such a dungeon.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Aug 23, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> So, traps should suddenly morph into a different form each time a party enters simply depending on their level?  That amounts to the Houston Astros taking Roger Clemens out and putting in Joe the hotdog salesman simply because a rookie is coming up to bat.




(sigh) Okay, tell you what.  Let's put this in a different context.

Suppose that all the players aforementioned were only 1st level.

The rogue might only have +4 to detect traps at that level.

Subsequently, because we don't know how the rogue rolled, we can argue that the GM may have been rolling and rolled a natural 1, giving the rogue all of a "5" towards finding the overtly trapped lever.

The Monk might only have a +2 to their saving throw.

Rolling a 19 yields a total of a 21 base save.  And now, the really funny news:

Magic-based traps can have anything up to a DC 31 saving throw, and only be "Spell level +2" CR.

So, theoretically, it could have been a basic "Lightning bolt" trap, dealing 4d6 damage, made by the dungeon's creator long ago.  The CR of the trap would be 6, (which is "Run away" for a 1st level party) maybe it was intended for the flesh golem to pull the level when the master wanted to walk through.4d6 damage is enough to kill a monk (up to 5th level if the monk has no con bonus and rolled poorly)

The "pile of dust" is purely DM addition to the situation, he probably chuckled after it happened.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 23, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Its a terrible style of play that damn near ruined an entire generation of gamers. When the simple act of opening a chest or door requires 10-20 minutes of experimentation (which will occasionally bite you on the ass at the DM's whim), those are games I'd rather pull my teeth out with pliers than attend.




But that's, like, your opinion, man. I think it's pretty well established by this point that you and I prefer different styles of play, and that it's probably for the best that we aren't playing at the same table. But I don't see the point of your continuing to insist that my prefered style of play is "wrong" and "bad" and "terrible" and that I'm part of a "ruined generation" because I prefer to play the game in a different manner than you do.


----------



## takyris (Aug 23, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> So, traps should suddenly morph into a different form each time a party enters simply depending on their level?  That amounts to the Houston Astros taking Roger Clemens out and putting in Joe the hotdog salesman simply because a rookie is coming up to bat.




The example with the Astros works because both teams want to win. The goal of the Astros is to defeat their opponents.

If your intention is to WIN against your players, then an undetectable instakill lever makes perfect sense.

If your intention is to provide a reasonable challenge -- with, YES, the possibility of death for bad luck or sloppy play -- then the undetectable lever, based on the info we've got, is sloppy design.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 23, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> #3 should not occur in a level-appropriate dungeon. The trick here is that the Rogue needs to look in the right place, but if the Rogue looks where there is, in fact, a trap, then in a level-appropriate dungeon he should find it (assuming he takes 20).




Taking 20 being a "sure thing" in a "level appropriate dungeon" is metagame thinking.  Only game design strictures dictate that an entire dungeon is going to contain challenges within a certain range.  This is not true in the real world and it is also not true in most game worlds not based on the fairly new paradigm that PCs should only face challenges within ~3CR +/- of their average level.  From the character's perspective, an ancient dungeon inhabited by CR1/2 orcs could easily contain traps left over from a much higher CR inhabitant.  Only metagame thinking would dictate to the players that such a setup wouldn't occur because it would be disruptive to the assumptions made by the game.



> So, except in the case where the party know they're in over their heads, they shouldn't be missing traps that exist.




This is one way to play, and I understand that preference, but a preference for a game where failure to detect traps that are searched for is actually a possibility is OK too.  It adds a different level of challenge to the game that some people don't want to deal with.  Fine, I understand that.  But that type of play doesn't require metagame thinking and it certainly isn't inherently "unfair".



> And this isn't a lack of "tactical thinking" either. The party did the RIGHT THING. If you suspect a trap, have the Rogue check for traps. If it's there, he should find it (again, unless #3 applies, in which case, you'll know).




Their assumptions that they did the RIGHT THING are based on metagame thinking.  In previous editions of D&D this wouldn't be considered the RIGHT THING because any search for traps always carried the possibility that the trap was simply missed.  In fact, I can prove that, in this instance, the PCs did NOT do the RIGHT THING by the simple fact that the trap was, in fact, there and killed a PC when activated.  Again, you may prefer a game where metagame thinking based on "level appropriateness" leads the actions of the characters, which is fine.  I don't have a problem with that.  But in a game based on different assumptions this trap makes perfect sense and is immenently fair both in-character and at the metagame level.



> An undetectable, extreme-save-DC, insta-kill trap has no business being in any level-appropriate dungeon.




I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.



> I file this under, "but don't be an idiot". Okay, the Rogue has detected no traps, and is confident about that assessment (he's taken-20). But even the best of us make mistakes. Therefore, if someone's going to pull the lever, you send forward the person best able to survive a mistake, just in case. (Hardly metagaming.)




No, considered in that light it's just stupid thinking.  If you're admitting the possibility of a trap, then sending someone you actually care about to potentially set it off just because the numbers are on their side is ridiculously incautious.  Especially when it's extremely easy to substitute a proxy or just wait until further information is available about the potential trap.  Remember, there was absolutely no need for the party in question to pull the lever in this scenario.  They had accomplished their mission, they had a safe way out of the dungeon already cleared of challenges, they could have simply left (or waited and rested to gain the appropriate divination or conjuration spells).  Exposing the monk to risk simply because he's best able to survive most challenges is just silly when there are means available to expose NO ONE to any risk whatsoever.



> Did you read my other post, with the example trap where if you don't pull the lever you get zapped? Isn't that an equally valid set-up? Do you think that's fair too?




Your trap would be fair if detecting the trap indicated to the Rogue that the trap extended to both doors.  I would have given him that info on a successful roll because it allows the party to make better decisions.  At that point they might figure out going through the door they came in (which was safe at the time) might be dangerous now.  I would say that your trap is significantly harder than the one described in the OP's post because there is no option for the party to simply walk away from the encounter safely.  Once inside the room they MUST figure out the nature of the trap or face its consequences.  As I said before, I'd much rather face a trap where my own decision-making allows me to avoid a save rather than facing a trap where I must make a save but the DC is "level appropriate".  So while I wouldn't call the trap you designed unfair, I would say it's a much greater challenge for the party and would think twice about using that design (whereas I have no problem with the design of the original trap).


----------



## werk (Aug 23, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> See where I'm going with this?




I think I played with that DM!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 23, 2006)

> Contrast the trap given below with the trap presented in the OP:




I think the other trap brings out something important, because both seem unfair. Both assure your destruction for not being prescient, because neither provided appropriate clues nor a fair chance at surviving the trap.

It is not unreasonable adventurer behavior to go around pulling levers. Especially after checking for traps. Especially when they guy with the highest chance for success pulls it. Even if some of them had been trapped. 

It is also not unreasonable adventurer behavior to NOT pull the levers, especially after finding something suspicious about it, even if none of the previous levers had been trapped.

There are, I'd believe, only a minority of D&D players who enjoy having to outsmart the DM themselves to survive.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 23, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> This coming from the guy who likes the "trap within a trap" chest...
> 
> The entire point of alternating those traps IS to screw the players no matter what choice they make. Oh, you disarm the trap? You're screwed. Use a rope? you're screwed. Theres no rhyme or reason to their placement, other than to ensure that, even with caution, you still wont get off, and that their caution ensures their defeat at times.
> 
> ...





I wouldn't use such a trapped chest often, but I could see maybe putting something like that in a treasure chamber mixed with real treasure chests.  Of course the bad guy would know to avoid it, but looters would try to open it.  I wouldn't use such a trap often, but I could see using somethign like that on occasion, depending on what was being guarded by the trap.  I probably wouldn't put an instant death trap on it though, more like 6d10 damage from gas or something along those lines. 

I play with a group of gamers that have been playing various RPG's since the late 1970's.  We have fun playing and haven't noticed any ruining effect.  Lots of traps and puzzle filled dungeons is the norm for us, it works fine for our group.  You hate it, but there are plenty that don't.  Why get so worked up by it?  You seem to be a strong proponent of the concept of other game styles being "badwrongfun".


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 23, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Remember, there was absolutely no need for the party in question to pull the lever in this scenario.




Other than curiousity, next time they won't be so curious and walk away. Maybe next time they won't be so curious about the whole adventure you've written and walk away from that as well.

Personal I like my players to be curious, it's not the sort of thing I discourage with instant death undetectable traps.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 23, 2006)

It's unfair if the players aren't playing a game with insta-death traps of this sort.

It's fair if they are.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 23, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Other than curiousity, next time they won't be so curious and walk away. Maybe next time they won't be so curious about the whole adventure you've written and walk away from that as well.
> 
> Personal I like my players to be curious, it's not the sort of thing I discourage with instant death undetectable traps.




Curiousity is not what killed the character, rashness is what killed him. I love it when my players are curious and as a player I'd desperately want to find out what the lever does and what's behind the secret door.  If I made the mistake of being rash and pulling the lever and lost a character I wouldn't be any less curious the next time, I'd just be more careful to use one of the numerous avenues available to me to discover what pulling the lever does and what's behind the secret door without exposing myself to unnecessary risk.

You're drawing an entirely false dichotomy here (and taking that quote completely out of context I might add) to try to prove that my and others approach to the game is badwrongfun.  Why is it important to you to assert that no player is going to enjoy a game like this when it's patently obvious that there are actually people out there who enjoy this type of player challenge vs. character challenge in the game?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 23, 2006)

> Curiousity is not what killed the character, rashness is what killed him. I love it when my players are curious and as a player I'd desperately want to find out what the lever does and what's behind the secret door. If I made the mistake of being rash and pulling the lever and lost a character I wouldn't be any less curious the next time, I'd just be more careful to use one of the numerous avenues available to me to discover what pulling the lever does and what's behind the secret door without exposing myself to unnecessary risk.




For my milage, I don't see what's so rash about pulling levers. It's not like you're poking a sleeping dragon in the eye with your finger. Or even like you're ignoring the warning signs (because, according to the OP, there weren't any). Or even that they didn't take sensible precautions (the rogue searched for a trap, the one most likely to survive pulled the lever just in case). It was that what they did was deemed "not enough," when they had no way of knowing that.

If you see a hundred dollar bill laying on the street and look around for people who might be missing it and even call out "Hey, did anyone drop this?" and then pick it up, I don't think that's rash. 

I guess I also don't see caution and fear of levers as a very heroic trait. 

I wouldn't say having fun doing it another way is bad, but I would say that you can have plenty of fun in unfair situations despite or even because of the lack of fairness. I would also say that, judging by the results of this poll and the ensuing discussion, a lot of people don't like to play in unfair situations like the one the OP described.

It's not bad to enjoy it unfair, but it's probably not a good idea to say "It's perfectly fair and those who see it as unfair are just being dumb whiny crybabys that want to be coddled! They would be fine if they just were clever and not stupid about it! They deserve what they got!"

I'm not saying you've EVER even come CLOSE to saying that, of course, but I bet some have read that into your posts (or posts by others who think it is perfectly fair) anyway.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 23, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Why is it important to you to assert that no player is going to enjoy a game like this when it's patently obvious that there are actually people out there who enjoy this type of player challenge vs. character challenge in the game?




You know I don't really know, but you seem to be have the same sort of drive to call folks that would pull the lever "rash", "stupid", "hypocritical", and also quoting stuff out of context, so perhaps we should both look in the mirror then continue to play our own brands of badwrongfun in peace.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 23, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For my milage, I don't see what's so rash about pulling levers.




It's not that pulling levers in itself is rash, but in this context it screams trap.  Why would a secret door have a blatent lever as an opening device?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 23, 2006)

> It's not that pulling levers in itself is rash, but in this context it screams trap. Why would a secret door have a blatent lever as an opening device?




Because levers open things. Like doors, sometimes. They checked for traps (one assumes even took 20, because they didn't appear to be in much of a rush). If they wouldn't have found the secret door, perhaps they would not have been able to see it opening, making the lever appear to do nothing. 

It doesn't scream trap unless you are already paranoid and suspicious. Which is a fine atmosphere for a campaign, but I don't think we can assume that this was a campaign in that style with the information given. It is not reasonable to expect adventurers to, in general, as a rule, be paranoid and suspicious in a game of heroic fantasy, I think. Reasonably cautious, yes, and they were that. They certainly didn't just yoink the lever, they took, to appearances, all the standard precaution they'd take in any similar scenario. Unless they're pulling EVERY lever in the dungeon with a rope (unless they had reason to do it), why would they do it here?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 23, 2006)

A secret door isn't very secret if it is opened by a lever sticking out of the wall, unless the door was invisible or something and you wouldn't see it open.  Or if that door wasn't secret.  I dunno, the question is nearly impossible to answer, but when I asked my players and they said "trap".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 23, 2006)

Probably just REALLY subjective then. 

I wouldn't spring this on my group, but I've never known them NOT to take the bait. If this were sprung on me...I'd like to think I'd be suspicious, but if the rogue's gonna take a half hour searching the thing, I could do less than detect magic or something while he's busy.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 23, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door.
> 
> The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds that both are somehow connected to a trap. He's also sure that the trap is well beyond his ability to disarm, and is of extreme lethality.
> 
> ...




I thought about this trap while I was at lunch (which probably says something about me, but that's another thread...) and decided that I like it, and very well may use a variation of it someday. I agree with the other response (Ourph?) that this trap is _significantly_ more difficult than the OP's trap because 1) the party has no choice but to disarm it in order to survive/continue, and 2) the party triggers it without realizing they've done so (and thus there's nothing to arouse their caution or suspicion). Neither of these make the trap "unfair," but they do make it very difficult (much moreso than the OP trap), and any DM who uses it should do so fully aware that it's likely to cause PC fatalities.

Here's how I'd react to this trap were I a player in this game. First off, an otherwise empty room with no apparent exits and a lever in the middle of the floor, way in the back/bottom of the dungeon (assumed because the room was discovered after the macguffin had been recovered), after we've already got the macguffin. This whole setup smells like a trap to me. Therefore, I'd probably never enter the room in the first place, and would suggest my party-mates not do so either. Even if they did enter the room, I probably wouldn't follow them -- I'd stand in the doorway, observe, and shout advice to them. Seriously, I do stuff like this all the time. Yeah, the other players make fun of me for being a coward, but their characters die and mine doesn't. But, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that the DM or the other players were somehow able to trick or cajole me into entering the room. 

We search the room and find a secret door but no way to open it. We search the door and lever for traps and are told that both are somehow connected to a trap, and that the trap is well beyond his ability to disarm and is of extreme lethality. Stop right there: I wouldn't accept that answer, and would want more detail. How are the lever and door "somehow connected" to a trap? In what way? What makes him think the trap is beyond his ability to disarm? What makes him think it's of extreme lethality? I wouldn't accept this vague explanation and would try to get as much detailed and specific info about the nature of the trap as possible. Depending on how much magic I had available I might even consider attempting to _commune_, _contact higher plane_ or similar magic to try to gain more info about the nature of the trap.

But, assuming that for whatever reason I was unable to gain any more specific info, the party wizard casts _detect magic_ and no magic is detected. Why is that? Clearly this trap is magical, and both the lever and _both_ exits should detect as magical (and, likewise, any magical means of trap detection such as a _find traps_ spell or *wand of secret door and trap detection* should've also shown _both_ exits as being trapped). This is the one element of the trap that strikes me as unfair (unless the _detect magic_ spell somehow works differently in 3E than in the versions I know/play (OD&D and 1E AD&D).

But, assuming for whatever reason that the detect magic doesn't work, yeah, at this point I'd probably decide it was time to leave. ZAP -- the monk gets hit by the force-field and dies. Now is where things get interesting, because we have 2 vital new pieces of information: 1) what the trap actually does, and 2) that it's blocking our retreat (and, possibly, 3) that the monk failed his save even with a rolled 19, meaning that running through and hoping for a lucky roll isn't a realistic strategy). This is where I sit forward in my chair, put the bag of chips down, and start really paying attention. 

First course of action is going to be to determine if the force field is still there or if it was a one-time effect. Throw a pebble through the doorway and see if it gets zapped. If not, throw something larger, etc. Have the thief check for traps again (and _detect magic_ again) to see if the trap still seems to be there, etc. Assuming that I am somehow able to determine that the trap is still there (perhaps even by losing another party member), attention turns to how to get back into the hall without passing through the force-field. _Passwall_, _dimension door_, _teleport_, _plane shift_, etc. If I have one available (not bloody likely in 3E, much moreso in OD&D or 1E) I might even burn a _wish_ to get the party safely outside of the room (much to the chagrin of the dead player(s), who were hoping that _wish_ would be used to resurrect them, no doubt). I don't care about trying to get past the secret door at this point because I don't know what lies beyond it and don't want to use up resources possibly getting myself from the frying pan into the fire (and possibly still not having any means of escape, assuming there's not an exit beyond the secret door), but I keep it in mind for a future expedition, after we've gotten out of this trap, because whatever's behind that door, being guarded by this trap, is very likely to be something interesting or worthwhile.

The DM by this point, depending on how good a poker face he has, is likely laughing his ass off at all the elaborate means I'm trying to avoid this trap and how little success I'm having. If I see this, I realize that the solution is probably simpler than what I've been trying (and this is the _first_ action of everything I've done that is actual metagaming; everything else, as far as I'm concerned, has been completely in-character appropriate). So I do another thorough search of the room looking for any additional clues (hidden keyholes or inscriptions or such). Not finding any I _for the first time_ consider pulling the lever (which is, to my mind, still an obvious trap and sucker-killer, but if the DM's smiling too much then I suspect that the too-obvious solution may in fact be the correct one).

But, assuming I don't have any means of escape and the DM isn't giving anything away with his body language, I stop and consider my situation, what I know, and my options. At this point I probably conduct another search looking for additional clues as described above. Once all other options are exhausted (as, given the situation described, they eventually will be) I begin to consider the lever. I still don't trust it, I still think it's too-obvious and intended as a sucker-killer, but I have no other choice. If possible, I perform an _augury_ (or _divination_, _commune_, etc.) to try to learn as much as I can about the consequences of pulling the lever, and whether they're likely to be good or bad. (Another trick I try at this point, if not earlier, is to draw a wandering monster into the room, to see if the force-field works both ways, or only for people trying to _leave_ the room -- not that knowing this would necessarily help me, but I want to have all the information possible at my disposal.)

Finally, assuming I'm not able to gain any definitive info about the consequences of pulling the lever, I still don't pull it myself -- I use an _unseen servant_, or a rope (and stand in the most remote possible part of the room before pulling it), or try to talk one of the other surviving PCs (if there are any) into doing it. 

Even after pulling the lever, I don't automatically assume the trap is disarmed, and follow the same sort of testing procedure described earlier -- throwing pebbles, having the thief search again, casting _detect magic_ again, etc. -- and only when I'm totally sure the trap is no longer operative do I hurry through, gather up the remains of my companions, go home and either try to get them resurrected or seek out replacements, and begin planning a return expedition to find out what lies beyond that secret door.

Oh, and incidentally, I would've had a _really_ fun time at this session, and would congratulate the DM on coming up with such a good trap and ask him how he expected we'd deal with the trap and laugh about all the hoops I jumped through when the solution was literally in plain sight the entire time. This is the kind of stuff I enjoy. This is why I play this game.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 24, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> It's not that pulling levers in itself is rash, but in this context it screams trap.  Why would a secret door have a blatent lever as an opening device?




If it is illogical to assume that the lever opens the door, that it is equally illogical to make any connection with the secret door at all.  Why do you keep connecting the two?

Does a lever in an otherwise featureless room scream trap to you also?

Subtract the secret door out of the scenario.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 24, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Does a lever in an otherwise featureless room scream trap to you also?




YES! See my (very long  ) preceding post...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 24, 2006)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> YES! See my (very long  ) preceding post...




I probably would have run screaming from the room about 1/4 of the way into that whole thing.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If you see a hundred dollar bill laying on the street and look around for people who might be missing it and even call out "Hey, did anyone drop this?" and then pick it up, I don't think that's rash.




You keep bringing up real world situations that don't have any relation to the situation described by the OP.  If my character saw a gold piece laying in the middle of the street in a village, there would be no more reason to be paranoid than your example.  Finding a lever in a dungeon in a room with a secret door and relying on a single character (the Rogue) to determine whether it is safe is not in any way related to either of those two situations.



> I guess I also don't see caution and fear of levers as a very heroic trait.




If you want a game where the "hero" never has to second guess his environment then more power to you.  On the other hand, I can think of a number of heroes from literature, cinema and television who would be quite paranoid about the setup in the OP without being "out of character" so (while your preference is valid) you're working from a fairly narrow definition of "hero" IMO.

BTW - I don't think you answered this when I asked before.  Some of your earlier comments led me to believe you simply don't like traps in the game period.  Is this true?



> I would also say that, judging by the results of this poll and the ensuing discussion, a lot of people don't like to play in unfair situations like the one the OP described.




I agree that the style of play I and my group enjoys is in the minority.  My vote in the other, related poll reflects that.  That has been the case since around 1983.  That doesn't really prove that the situation is objectively unfair.  I think the main thing this thread and poll reveal is that someone's perception of fairness is entirely colored by their expectations about the types of challenges that their characters will face in the game.



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> You know I don't really know, but you seem to be have the same sort of drive to call folks that would pull the lever "rash", "stupid", "hypocritical", and also quoting stuff out of context, so perhaps we should both look in the mirror then continue to play our own brands of badwrongfun in peace.




In this context, I don't think "rash" is an insult, if anyone has taken it as such I apologize.  When I say the player/character acted "rashly" I simply mean to indicate they took the most direct route and failed to explore less direct options first.  The phrase "stupid thinking" was directed at a hypothetical situation constructed by another poster involving imaginary players.  I do believe the imaginary players in that specific situation were acting stupidly, it's not my intent that anyone posting to this thread should take that as a personal slam against them.  As for hypocritical, I completely stand behind the use of that particular word because it's accurate.  It is not intended as an insult.  It is merely an accurate description of at least one poster's comments about the issue at hand.  If you are condemning the "fair" position for relying on metagame thinking you're being hypocritical because the "unfair" position relies on metagame thinking to the same extent, if not moreso (at least, IMO).  If you've not asserted that metagame thinking is a reason to eschew the "pro-fair" position, then this comment doesn't apply to you.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> If you are condemning the "fair" position for relying on metagame thinking you're being hypocritical because the "unfair" position relies on metagame thinking to the same extent, if not moreso (at least, IMO).  If you've not asserted that metagame thinking is a reason to eschew the "pro-fair" position, then this comment doesn't apply to you.




How do you figure?


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> If you want a game where the "hero" never has to second guess his environment then more power to you.  .




That about sums it up for me -to me  the environment is the place where the heroes get to do cool and heroic things. If there are bad guys that have set up something then the characters might get suspicious, but overall, no I don't want my players/characters second guessing the enviroment.

Thanks for making the statement that helped me clarify my position on that.


----------



## Goblyn (Aug 24, 2006)

I voted 'fair' because it technically is. Why? They didn't HAVE to. I try to think of it from the view of who built the the dungeon. Why put this thing here, anyway? It's a huge drain on resources(lotsa money to boost that DC to rediculous heights) and, more importantly, is not protecting you(the BBEG) or the all-important McGuffin(MacGuffin? You know what? I don't like that word anyway. Ima just use Macguyver).

If said would-be evil overlord had possession of this all-important thing that a group of ragtag mercenary types might slaughter their way to finding, wouldn't it make more sense to put it and oneself BEHIND this excellent doohickey that is sure to take out at least one of them?

Or, if said WBEO(would-be evil overlord) had another Macguyver of equal or greater importance, it still doesn't explain why this uber-trap isn't defending the ENTRANCE to his stomping grounds, not to mention he himself, rather than in the back where it MIGHT punish a curious tresspasser only after he and his buddies have killed all your pets and taken their stuff.

If said WBEO(aka BBEG) is a lich and immune to the effect: still; why not be BEHIND it? Even if you reform later, I'm sure it stillsucks to get your rotted ass kicked.

So there. That's what I think. Fair but stupid.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> How do you figure?




Examples of metagame thinking on the "unfair" side in this thread so far (paraphrased).


It's OK to pull the lever because, even if it is trapped, insta-kill traps aren't fun, so the effect will only be an inconvenience or consume resources or be a temporary setback.  The DM won't put anything in the dungeon that's "unfun".
The monk should pull the lever because he has the best Saves.  If there is a trap, he will definitely survive because the DM shouldn't be setting DCs that are impossible for our best character to make.
The Rogue "took 20" and found nothing.  Any level appropriate trap should have been found and the DM always runs level appropriate encounters for us, so there must not be a trap.
If this lever is trapped with a really deadly trap beyond our ability to detect it will just encourage us to be paranoid and super-cautious.  I know the DM doesn't want to run a game where we are super-cautious rather than balls-to-the-wall hero types, so we'll either detect the trap or it won't be too deadly or there simply isn't a trap.
The rest of the dungeon has been level appropriate, so this one room must be too.
The DM wouldn't have put this lever here if we weren't supposed to pull it, so it must be safe.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Examples of metagame thinking on the "unfair" side in this thread so far (paraphrased).




Okay, see, these aren't reasons to pull the lever. These are reasons why it isn't fair, there's a difference.

Metagame thinking influences character actions. The character actions are very straightforward: check for traps resulted in no traps and levers are fairly commonplace items, so there's no reason to worry about it. That's really it. The same could be said of a doorknob or any other object.

Now, yes, we're using metagame arguments to determine why it isn't fair. Would you rather we use in character arguments to determine whether or not its fair? Because that wouldn't work, as far as I know. The PCs can't argue over fairness themselves, only the Players.

So in short, the reason for pulling the lever is _not_ anything having to do with DM expectations of the game or somesuch. It isn't a metagame thinking. It is simply, there is no reason to think there are traps on the lever in character, so you might as well pull it. That's it.

So, your argument is flawed in that manner. You can't expect us to ignore the metagame in debating whether it is fair in an inherently metagame sense. Metagaming is only when PC actions are determined by the Players' knowledge that this is a game.


----------



## Harmon (Aug 24, 2006)

Something that I was thinking about earlier with regards to this thread-

Player- "pull the lever."
GM <looking stunned> "your pulling the lever?"
Player- "Ya."
Other Players shake their heads and groan.
GM- "okay- roll save- oh, that is a miss.  Doninc turns to ashe, all his gear is gone."
Later the GM tells him- "okay, the room you appeared in has only a little light, the ground is uneven and loose, shifting you foot you feel the coins, and the treasure..."


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Okay, see, these aren't reasons to pull the lever. These are reasons why it isn't fair, there's a difference.




No, actually, all of the examples I listed above are processes of thinking that lead to a decision to pull the lever.  None of them have anything to do with the discussion of fairness.  They're all reasons people have given in this thread as to why it would make sense for their characters to pull the lever and all of them require some level of metagame consideration.  

A lot of the discussion has centered around the debate over whether pulling the lever without taking any precautions is a smart move or a dumb move on the part of both the players and the characters.  The "unfair" camp has repeated numerous times that part of their position is based on the idea that the PCs did the "right thing" and were punished for it, while the "fair" camp has asserted that the PCs did the "wrong thing" and suffered the inevitable consequences.  The assertion that the PCs did the "right thing" is based in large part on the metagame thinking I gave examples of above, all of which are addressing the question of "do we pull the lever" not "was the outcome fair".



> Metagame thinking influences character actions. The character actions are very straightforward: check for traps resulted in no traps and levers are fairly commonplace items, so there's no reason to worry about it. That's really it. The same could be said of a doorknob or any other object.
> 
> ...
> 
> So in short, the reason for pulling the lever is _not_ anything having to do with DM expectations of the game or somesuch. It isn't a metagame thinking. It is simply, there is no reason to think there are traps on the lever in character, so you might as well pull it. That's it.




No matter how many times you repeat this I'm not going to agree.  To you, the opposite conclusion (that the lever is suspicious) requires metagame thinking.  You're so caught up in that conclusion that you fail to see that your POV requires just as much metagame thinking.  Your interpretations of the situation are based on the expectations you have about the game you are playing.  Those expectations have nothing to do with your character's perspective and everything to do with your experience and perception of how a typical game of D&D works.  Yes, my point of view is based on the same type of thinking.  Therefore, you can't critique one side or the other in this discussion based on the fact that it relies on metagame thinking, because that analysis applies to both.  The idea that a simple check for traps means that the lever is safe or that a lever in this context is "commonplace" is totally based on your knowledge that you are playing the game and on your specific perception of the inherent rules of that game (either written or unwritten).  Things like "taking 20" and "level appropriate challenges", which are, without question, part of the metagame.



> So, your argument is flawed in that manner. You can't expect us to ignore the metagame in debating whether it is fair in an inherently metagame sense. Metagaming is only when PC actions are determined by the Players' knowledge that this is a game.




If you can't see that the examples I listed in the above post are examples of PC's actions being determined by the player's knowledge that this is a game (and even more to the point, that it's a certain type of game which the player has preconceived notions about) I honestly don't know how to respond.  Because from my perspective all of the examples unquestionably fit that definition.   :\


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2006)

Really...is this trap any more unfair than the well concealed- perhaps MAGICALLY concealed- 50' deep pit trap with spikes at the bottom with a Carrion Crawler waiting to pounce upon the survivors?  As in RttToEE?

That was save or die (or come doggone close to dying)...and save again or get paralyzed and eaten.

I don't think so.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> No, actually, all of the examples I listed above are processes of thinking that lead to a decision to pull the lever.  None of them have anything to do with the discussion of fairness.  They're all reasons people have given in this thread as to why it would make sense for their characters to pull the lever and all of them require some level of metagame consideration.




There reasons why it isn't fair, to help illustrate the prefectly valid in character none "rash" none "stupid thinking" reason why I'ld pull the lever, here's a modern example.

In this age of terror attacks (and even before) it's common practice for high profile targets to have their vehicles checked for bombs before they use them.

So the use mirrors and people trained to spot bombs to check the car for explosive devices (like a rogue checking for traps), if they don't discover any then they use the car (like the Monk pulling the lever).

If every time a diplomat wanted to go somewhere they got a remote robot (like a 50ft rope) to start the car, even though they never detected any sign of a bomb, then they are being paranoid and over caucious.

If however they detect a device they use a robot to detonate it (like using a rope, or unseen servant), or bomb desposal team to remove it (rogue disable device). They don't take this precautions if they never find anything.

For the folks that pull the lever with a 50ft rope, why don't you open every door in the dungeon with one even if the rogue doesn't discover traps?

The original poster (in some of his later comments) seemed to think the party shouldn't even investigate the lever or the door, just leave well alone because they already have the McGuffin. To me this is expecting the players not to be curious which I think is something you should expect and encourage.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 24, 2006)

> The assertion that the PCs did the "right thing" is based in large part on the metagame thinking I gave examples of above, all of which are addressing the question of "do we pull the lever" not "was the outcome fair".




This is inocorrect.

At least for me, my assertion that the PCs did the "right thing" is based largely on the concept of a lever. That levers exist so that they may be used. Now, knowing that the use may be trapped, they took reasonable and steady precautions for handling the trap that would have been known to the characters (this guy can find even magical traps! and I've seen Bruce Lee over here dodge right around fireballs and resist charms and laugh off poison! Even if our keen-eyed trapfinder misses something, this guy can probably take what it would dish out!). 

IMHO, that's exactly the right thing for the situation unless, assuming no metagame thinking, your characters are simply naturally paranoid of levers found in dungeons. Which works in some campaigns, but is, I believe, hardly heroic, interesting, or fun.

The metagame enters the picture when analyzing the fairness of the situation. In-character, I simply did the right things, took reasonable precautions, and was destroyed. As a player, I know I had my character do the right things, had the party take reasonable precaustions, and was destroyed in a situation where, at best, there was only a 5% chance of survival. Which then raises the problems of verisimilitude, purpose, history, atmosphere, and expectations. Given the rules of the game (the criteria by which one determines fairness in a game), this seems unfair.

(oh, and to answer the ongoing Q, I think traps definately have their place in D&D and should be used, but that this particular trap was an unfair one)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph, you can't tell me what I think. I know what I think, and you're wrong about what I think.

No metagame thinking is required. There is no _in game_ reason to think a lever would be trapped in and of itself. You seem to approach it as if it is obviously trapped. But, here's what happens in game:

PCs think it's kind of suspicious.
PCs check it for traps.
PCs find that there is no trap.

They've had their suspicions and they've found that their suspicions were unfounded. I see no reason to make the following leap, for the PCs, that they must for some reason take extra careful precautions.

Here's an example of something that happened in a game I was running.

The PCs were exploring somewhere that had undead in it. They're level 10. They came across two large undead creatures. Now, according to the description, the Players knew that the undead were devourers, a CR 11 enemy with death attacks, and that there were two of them making the situation even worse.

But, none of the PCs had ranks in Knowledge (religion), so the PCs just saw two more large undead things. They had no real reason to think that these were any more powerful than the large zombies they had fought earlier. So they attacked.

It seems like you would argue that they were metagaming. They knew that it was dangerous, but they trusted in the DM to use level-appropriate encounters? That's not true. They were doing the opposite of metagaming. They knew that they had little chance to survive the encounter (two of them died to death attacks), but their PCs didn't know that so they attacked.

This is the essense of what I'm saying. The PCs can't go on the logic that the Players have, that the dungeon is a construct of the DM and there are certain cliches like trapped levers out there. They can only approach the situation with what they as PCs know.

Now, if they had seen lots of trapped levers in the past, then they would have a reason to be fearful, just like if the party in the example had fought devourers before or had someone with Knowledge (religion) to tell them that. But, we don't know.

I would think that a game with trapped levers as the norm would not be a generic D&D game. I don't think this is wrong, as the majority of votes have been "unfair" so it at least seems to me that a large portion of posters here on ENWorld (a board with lots of long time players) don't use lots of trapped levers everywhere.

Therefore, it is not even remotely metagaming to pull the lever.


----------



## Someone (Aug 24, 2006)

I would have been very annoyed if I was the monk´s player. My lines of thinking would have been along these lines:

- The rogue, the authority in traps, the guy´s whose jobs is to find traps, the very guy who´s getting a share of the treasure because he´s good finding traps and who I´ve been seeing training hard finding and disarming traps, has found no traps even when he´s exhaustively searched for one. 

- There´s the possibility that there´s, in fact, a trap so cleverly hidden that the rogue, the authority in traps, the guy´s whose jobs is to find traps, the very guy who´s getting a share of the treasure because he´s good finding traps and who I´ve been seeing training hard finding and disarming traps, has not found, even when he´s exhaustively searched for them. But since traps aren´t cheap, it makes sense that only an idiot would put a trap so cleverly hidden in a place where any would be intruder won´t likely interact with it (and if they interact with it, it will be only after kicking his ass and stealing the McGuffin, so the trap wouldn´t have actually any sense). I would put such a cleverly hidden trap either protecting the McGuffing, or at the start of my dungeon, where it can zap the maximum number of intruders and get the maximum zapped adventurer/Gp cost ratio. The BBEG wasn´t an idiot, therefore there´s no such clevely hidden trap.

- This lever, being where it is, probably just opens a scape hatch designed to make a backdoor exit from the dungeon. If we use it, we may avoid running into any monster we didn´t fight in the first place and that is now wandering the corridors looking for the bathroom. I´ll pull it.

*ZAP*

- I hope that the rogue, the authority in traps, the guy´s whose jobs is to find traps, the very guy who´s getting a share of the treasure because he´s good finding traps and who I´ve been seeing training hard finding and disarming traps, hasn´t found this trap even when he´s exhaustively searched the lever, doesn´t get his share of the treasure. And the BBEG is a moron.


----------



## GQuail (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Examples of metagame thinking on the "unfair" side in this thread so far (paraphrased).
> 
> 
> It's OK to pull the lever because, even if it is trapped, insta-kill traps aren't fun, so the effect will only be an inconvenience or consume resources or be a temporary setback.  The DM won't put anything in the dungeon that's "unfun".
> ...




As ThirdWizard said, these aren't exactly reasons to pull the lever, so much as reasons why the lever trap wouldn't be fun for most players: I know when I asked my players about this kind of trap they were pretty against it for very much the reasons you listed.  It's not something to be overcome, but something to be avoided, a "neener neener" trap if you will.  Of course, 3.X does say that dungeons should invlude encounters you just have to drop and run from (hence me feeling the last two arguments aren't erribly solid: certainly, my party have tried to fight everything they've met in the past and learnt the folly of their actions.) but there's a difference in my mind between something that's obviously insurmountable and something which is gonna kill a player before they realise how deep they're in.

Whilst I personally have no problem with the occasional situation which breaks the "it's a game" mentality because of ICly reasons, this trap at heart follows a design paradigm which I don't think is terribly condusive to how many modern players play the game.  It's more 1E than 3E: more Tomb of Horrors than Heroes of Horror, y'know what I'm saying?  I think this thread has turned into a sort of edition war with regards to module design: many of the people saying it's fair are posters I know are big fans of older editions, and indeed someone on this thread already brought up the Green Devil Head as a similar example, didn't they?  It's something where curiosity means death unless you're adopting an astounding careful dungeon clearing procedure, full of 10ft poles, summoned monsters and augurys: and I sense a lot of later D&D players don't have much experience in those kinds of modules, and thusly fail to see why that sort of behaviour would be expected of them.

I wonder if this is part of the reason for the question in the first place: Quas' threads on older editions and modules often bring up the differences in current and older adventure design and if it has any quantifiable traits.  Whilst not all old-school modules have them, earlier D&D modules were certainly a lot more free & easy about snuffing out characters who didn't play cunning.  The differences between the original and the 3.5 version of the Tomb Of Horrors is an obvious example of these different expectations.

I've stuck my players in lots of potentially fatal situations before: doesn't every DM?  Just last fortnight my Rogue and Fighter got stuck in a 30ft diameter circular room which started to fill up with water,  with a Belker and some Water Elementals hassling them, whilst the others deperately tried to open the sealed room and break the magical trap making the water.  That was fair and fun to my players, who liked the drama of being split up and getting to show off their tricks.  (Breaking down iron doors, casting Dispel Magic, swim checks to stay in combat in the water, etc)  But I don't think if they'd walked into the same suspicious room and I'd just said "water fills room quickly, you drown, here's 4d6" that they'd have had anywhere near as much fun.  Like a lot of people here, I can only really speak for what my players enjoy, so I can't say for sure that it's the WORST TRAP EVAR!!!11!!1one! or anything: but I do think that it's one I would be unlikely to use as written.

That's assuming the trap has killed the monk, mind.  As more than one person has said, that's something we don't know for sure: I bet that Monk is haaving a lot of fun meditating whilst polymorphed into sand.  :>


----------



## delericho (Aug 24, 2006)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> I thought about this trap while I was at lunch (which probably says something about me, but that's another thread...) and decided that I like it, and very well may use a variation of it someday. I agree with the other response (Ourph?) that this trap is _significantly_ more difficult than the OP's trap because 1) the party has no choice but to disarm it in order to survive/continue, and 2) the party triggers it without realizing they've done so (and thus there's nothing to arouse their caution or suspicion). Neither of these make the trap "unfair," but they do make it very difficult (much moreso than the OP trap), and any DM who uses it should do so fully aware that it's likely to cause PC fatalities.




For 'likely' read 'almost certain'. Except by blind stupid luck there is no way for the party to escape this trap without losing at least one party member.



> Here's how I'd react to this trap were I a player in this game. First off, an otherwise empty room with no apparent exits and a lever in the middle of the floor, way in the back/bottom of the dungeon (assumed because the room was discovered after the macguffin had been recovered), after we've already got the macguffin. This whole setup smells like a trap to me. Therefore, I'd probably never enter the room in the first place, and would suggest my party-mates not do so either. Even if they did enter the room, I probably wouldn't follow them -- I'd stand in the doorway, observe, and shout advice to them. Seriously, I do stuff like this all the time. Yeah, the other players make fun of me for being a coward, but their characters die and mine doesn't. But, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that the DM or the other players were somehow able to trick or cajole me into entering the room.




That's fair enough, and probably a sensible course of action... except that in that situation it's likely that there is a secret door in such a room, which might be worth investigating. In any event, not entering the room leads to survival of the trap.



> We search the room and find a secret door but no way to open it. We search the door and lever for traps and are told that both are somehow connected to a trap, and that the trap is well beyond his ability to disarm and is of extreme lethality. Stop right there: I wouldn't accept that answer, and would want more detail.




Tough. If the rogue knew how they were connected he would also know enough to disarm the trap. If pressed, all you're getting is "there's some sort of mystical connection. You've never seen it before, but it's powerful, deadly, and beyond your ability to remove." Frankly, informing the Rogue that it's beyond his skill is excessively generous anyway. If I were using the trap in a real game, you'd get "it's trapped", and that's it.



> Depending on how much magic I had available I might even consider attempting to _commune_, _contact higher plane_ or similar magic to try to gain more info about the nature of the trap.




Seems rather like overkill, but appropriate given the situation. In that circumstance then, yes, you'd have enough information to know what's going on.



> But, assuming that for whatever reason I was unable to gain any more specific info, the party wizard casts _detect magic_ and no magic is detected. Why is that?




That one's easy. Nystul's Magical Aura can be used to mask the magical aura entirely (this use was originally in Nystul's Undetectable Aura in 3.0, and rolled into the one spell in 3.5). There's a caster level check, but given the nature of this trap, the caster level is extremely high, so my example assumed it was failed.

And, any BBEG capable but insane enough to build a trap like this is also capable but insane enough to also put a permanent undetectable aura on his trap.



> (and, likewise, any magical means of trap detection such as a _find traps_ spell or *wand of secret door and trap detection* should've also shown _both_ exits as being trapped).




Very true. But a search of the other door and the lever would not. And you're assuming that such a wand or spell is available and used.



> But, assuming for whatever reason that the detect magic doesn't work, yeah, at this point I'd probably decide it was time to leave. ZAP -- the monk gets hit by the force-field and dies.




As soon as the Monk dies, the game's up. If the trap is fair, then it must be possible for the party to escape without fatalities through clever play. Can you manage that?

(Incidentally, I don't believe the trap is fair. In fact, it's intentionally constructed not to be. As far as I can see, the only way to escape the room without fatalities is through dumb luck.



> ... a whole load of stuff about how to deal with the trap after the monk dies, some of which would work, some of which would not, but with the net result of your PC surviving...




As I said above, once the monk dies, the game's up.



> Oh, and incidentally, I would've had a _really_ fun time at this session, and would congratulate the DM on coming up with such a good trap and ask him how he expected we'd deal with the trap and laugh about all the hoops I jumped through when the solution was literally in plain sight the entire time. This is the kind of stuff I enjoy. This is why I play this game.




Meanwhile, the player of the monk has long since packed his bags, and left. Shortly thereafter, he's enjoying a game with a DM who provides sane challenges.

As far as I can see, for the entire party to survive this trap they need to do one of three things:

1) Not enter the room. This will either be due to dumb luck (we've completed our mission, let's just go), natural suspicion (although that could go either way - sure, you may well suspect the lever is trapped, but would you automatically assume it was trapped such that the rogue couldn't neutralise it?), or having the rogue check the entry doorway for traps (which may be dumb luck, or may be SOP).

2) Having determined that the lever and secret door are trapped, also check the door you came in for traps. I've seen no replies anywhere in this thread suggesting that that should be SOP, so I'm going to put that down to dumb luck. Of course, you get that information for free if using a wand of trap detection or a find traps spell, but is that the first recourse for a party with a rogue to do the job? And is it something that would be done once the rogue has confirmed that there is, in fact, a trap? Why use magic to detect traps that you now know are there?

3) Pull the lever. But, since the consensus on the 'the OP trap is fair' crowd is that strange levers should not be pulled as default, I have to assume that that's not SOP, and so put it down to dumb luck.

I don't see how a group can survive this trap without fatalities through good play, except by not entering the room. And I see no real reason not to enter the room (except that the party already has the McGuffin. So, what about the case where they find the room before finding the McGuffin?)

That was, of course, my intent. I don't believe that the OP trap was fair, I believe that this one is more fair than the OP, since it can be detected (although not disarmed), and can be disabled very easily, and I absolutely don't believe that the trap I suggested was fair.

I would walk away from a game featuring this trap, or the one in the OP.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 24, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> I would walk away from a game featuring this trap, or the one in the OP.




I or my players wouldn't.  I guess its a good thing we don't game together.


----------



## satori01 (Aug 24, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> No, no, no.  The trap doesn't hurt the BBEG, he can pull his lever all day and night, back and forth, up and down, and never get dusty.




Though if I remember 5th grade health class he might go blind afterwards!


----------



## delericho (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Taking 20 being a "sure thing" in a "level appropriate dungeon" is metagame thinking.




I was speaking from an adventure-design rather than in-character standpoint. My contention is that in a level-appropriate dungeon then it should be. Of course, if the PCs are not in a level-appropriate dungeon then all bets are off.



> From the character's perspective, an ancient dungeon inhabited by CR1/2 orcs could easily contain traps left over from a much higher CR inhabitant.




It's possible, but extremely unlikely. If the dungeon environment is that deadly to those who inhabit it (assuming no special immunities come into play), then it is almost certain that those inhabitants would have scrawled the words "deadly trap, do not pull lever" in very big letters in the room with the lever after the first member of their troupe got zapped. Or, since orcs are not necessarily known for their literacy, daubed a great big skull symbol on the wall. Or they would have walled up the room. Or something. Either way, there would be warnings of some sort. And they would do this, so that their children/visiting chief/someone else they care about doesn't accidentally trigger the trap.

Low CR creatures do not live long in dungeons with high CR traps (as a general rule), since those same traps would kill them off. And there's nothing metagame about that.



> Only metagame thinking would dictate to the players that such a setup wouldn't occur because it would be disruptive to the assumptions made by the game.




The characters would, however, know whether they're in over their heads. If every challenge to this point has been of a certain lethality, it's highly unlikely that this one is suddenly going to be significantly worse.

And, perhaps surprisingly, they would have noticed had the rogue failed to spot traps earlier in the dungeon, so would know how much trust to put in his skills.



> Their assumptions that they did the RIGHT THING are based on metagame thinking.  In previous editions of D&D this wouldn't be considered the RIGHT THING because any search for traps always carried the possibility that the trap was simply missed.  In fact, I can prove that, in this instance, the PCs did NOT do the RIGHT THING by the simple fact that the trap was, in fact, there and killed a PC when activated.




That's circular reasoning. The outcome can't be considered fair because the PCs did something wrong when the only evidence that the PCs did something wrong was that that outcome was bad.

Last month, I went to France on holiday. I took my car. Before I went, I took the car to my mechanic and had him give it a full service, and check it thoroughly for problems. He did so, found a few things, fixed those things, and gave it a clean bill of health.

Shortly after my arrival in France I had problems with the car, and had to have the brake pads replaced.

Now, tell me, did I do the RIGHT THING by having the car checked, and then having the tyre replaced? Or should I have doubted the mechanic who has given me flawless service for years when he gave the car a clean bill of health? Wouldn't that be excessively paranoid?

My point being that sometimes you do the RIGHT THING, and it still doesn't work out. That doesn't mean you did something wrong... it means you were unlucky.



> But in a game based on different assumptions this trap makes perfect sense




Really? What sort of an idiot BBEG places a trap of extreme lethality on a lever a room with a secret door, and no other apparent ways of opening the door. Clearly, that just screams trap.

Surely, any smart BBEG would place the trap on the secret door such that the only way to disarm the trap is to place your hands on the door and utter the password. Which would, of course, be the BBEG's favourite colour, or first pet's name, or the punchline to some joke he liked a lot (or, since the use of ciphers isn't exactly new, might as well be the password "VZBUX")? And, while we're at it, dispense with the lever entirely, and have the same password unlock the door. Or, better still, don't bother with a secret door at all, and just use magic to walk through the wall.



> No, considered in that light it's just stupid thinking.  If you're admitting the possibility of a trap, then sending someone you actually care about to potentially set it off just because the numbers are on their side is ridiculously incautious.




When I drive to work, I don't expect to be involved in a crash. And yet I make sure to use my seatbelt every time. Just because the odds of something are very small doesn't mean that you don't do it, or go to ridiculous lengths to avoid the danger.



> Especially when it's extremely easy to substitute a proxy or just wait until further information is available about the potential trap.




Substituting a proxy isn't that easy, you know. Not only are the number of summoning spells available tightly constrained, but you also need the ability to communicate with the summoned creatures to have them pull the lever. This may or may not be a further bar to the casual use of such a spell.

Using a prisoner is an option, provided a prisoner is available, and assuming sufficient moral flexibility in the party. It's certainly not a Good action to force a prisoner to pull a lever if the party sincerely believes there may be an insta-kill death trap on it.



> Remember, there was absolutely no need for the party in question to pull the lever in this scenario.  They had accomplished their mission, they had a safe way out of the dungeon already cleared of challenges, they could have simply left (or waited and rested to gain the appropriate divination or conjuration spells).  Exposing the monk to risk simply because he's best able to survive most challenges is just silly when there are means available to expose NO ONE to any risk whatsoever.




Fine. Since the trap presumably didn't spring into existence when the party found the McGuffin, how do you deal with the case where you find it before they find said McGuffin? Then there is a (potential) need to pull the lever, they haven't completed their mission, and so forth. If the trap is fair after the McGuffin is found, it must be safe before. Is it really?



> Your trap would be fair if detecting the trap indicated to the Rogue that the trap extended to both doors.




Had the rogue checked the entry door, he would have found it trapped also (and this applies whether the checking is done before entry or after). However, if the rogue only checks the lever and the secret door, it's entirely reasonable to not mention the danger on the other door as well. The OP specifically did not mention checking the first door, so neither did I, so the rogue didn't find it.



> I would have given him that info on a successful roll because it allows the party to make better decisions.  At that point they might figure out going through the door they came in (which was safe at the time) might be dangerous now.




They don't know that it was safe when they entered. Had they checked it for traps before entering, they'd have found the trap. But, in the example given, they did not.



> I would say that your trap is significantly harder than the one described in the OP's post because there is no option for the party to simply walk away from the encounter safely.  Once inside the room they MUST figure out the nature of the trap or face its consequences.




It's harder, but then it's specifically designed to screw players who can't read the DM's mind, and is further specifically designed to be more fair than the OP trap, since it can be detected. The OP trap relies on the party assuming that the group's dedicated trapfinder got it wrong, and that the lever is trapped despite his best efforts at finding such a trap. My trap lets them know explicitly that there is a trap, and that it is beyond their skill to disarm (which I thought was extremely generous - a sadistic DM would let the rogue try, and get himself zapped when he failed). And it makes as much if not more sense than the OP trap - anyone who should be in the room would know how to disarm the trap; anyone who doesn't know the 'trick' deserves to be zapped whether they leave by the secret or the obvious exit (or, indeed, by use of passwall, or any other means).



> As I said before, I'd much rather face a trap where my own decision-making allows me to avoid a save rather than facing a trap where I must make a save but the DC is "level appropriate".  So while I wouldn't call the trap you designed unfair, I would say it's a much greater challenge for the party and would think twice about using that design (whereas I have no problem with the design of the original trap).




Ideally, a trap should have both a means to avoid the save by good play, and the ability to detect and disarm and/or bypass the trap through good (if challenging) rolls, and appropriately tough but not instantly lethal consequences if this fails (assuming a monk in full health when he triggers the trap, he should perhaps die on a failed save, suffer significant but not terminal damage on a successful save, with a save DC such that he can make the save on, say, a natural 15+... bearing in mind that the Monk likely has the best saves in the group).

The above paragraph assumes a trap at the upper end of 'acceptable' for a normal challenge. I have no problem in removing some of the options as the trap gets more deadly. However, as the trap gets more deadly, it needs to do so in the context of the dungeon as a whole. If the trap becomes so deadly that it cannot be detected, and cannot be survived if triggered then only good play can protect the characters. That's okay, but I expect that such a trap will only appear in a dungeon that is beyond the ability of the PCs to survive for long, and then I absolutely demand that the players be aware of how tough the dungeon is, either before they enter, or more likely in the course of their explorations. If every challenge in the dungeon to date has been level-appropriate, and now the party are faced with this trap, then it's unfair.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 24, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> As far as I can see, for the entire party to survive this trap they need to do one of three things:
> 
> 1) Not enter the room. This will either be due to dumb luck (we've completed our mission, let's just go), natural suspicion (although that could go either way - sure, you may well suspect the lever is trapped, but would you automatically assume it was trapped such that the rogue couldn't neutralise it?), or having the rogue check the entry doorway for traps (which may be dumb luck, or may be SOP).
> 
> ...




As I said before, the thing that makes this trap so difficult is the fact that the players won't know that they've already triggered it until it's too late (i.e. the monk dies). That, to me, is at least borderline unfair (though since I assume such a trap would only be used against experienced players with high-level characters, I also assume that such characters would also likely have means of restoring the dead monk to life, so it's not a permanent loss, just a temporary setback and annoyance -- the trap is much more unfair if the monk's death is likely to be permanent). As a player in this game I'd be minorly annoyed by this (even more annoyed if I was the monk's player and got whacked by the pure bad luck of being in the first rank) but I still wouldn't walk out -- I'd stick around and root the other players on (and give advice, if the GM would let me) because my fate is now in their hands -- if they're able to escape the trap they can likely resurrect my dead character; if not, well then we're all screwed. 

As a DM, I'd probably nerf the trap a bit by giving the players some hint as they entered the room that a trap had been sprung -- they feel a pressure plate descend, or feel a "tingle of magical energy" as the cross the threshhold, or some other hint that they should be on high alert, thus making it more likely they'll notice the trap on the exit before someone tries to pass through it. Another twist I might do is to make only the entrance doorway trapped and not the secret door (though the players still wouldn't know how to open it). This would add another set of choices for the players -- it might be easier to exit through that door than the trapped entrance (by use of a _knock_ spell, or maybe even a crowbar), but then they wouldn't know what they'd be facing and still wouldn't have a certain escape route (as a player I wouldn't likely go this route, but I imagine some players would).


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Now, knowing that the use may be trapped, they took reasonable and steady precautions for handling the trap that would have been known to the characters (this guy can find even magical traps! and I've seen Bruce Lee over here dodge right around fireballs and resist charms and laugh off poison! Even if our keen-eyed trapfinder misses something, this guy can probably take what it would dish out!).






			
				Third Wizard said:
			
		

> Ourph, you can't tell me what I think. I know what I think, and you're wrong about what I think.
> 
> No metagame thinking is required. There is no in game reason to think a lever would be trapped in and of itself. You seem to approach it as if it is obviously trapped. But, here's what happens in game:
> 
> ...





I'm going to answer both of you at once, since you're basically making the same points.

The assumptions you are making are still, IMO, based on metagame thinking.  The idea that one person looking over a potentially trapped area and failing to see something isn't proof about the presence of a trap one way or the other.  Negative data can never disprove an hypothesis.  The only reason the Rogue's conclusion bears as much weight as it does in some people's mind is because their perception of the game environment is colored by the concepts of "taking 20" and "level appropriateness".  Those two metagame concepts turn negative data "I don't see a trap" into a positive conclusion "there is no trap".  The character's assumptions about the reality of their game world are being colored by the player's knowledge about how the rules of the game work and what the basic assumptions of the game are concerning challenges the characters will face.  That is, by any definition, metagame thinking.

The idea that the Monk can likely survive if there is a trap is also, totally, metagame thinking.  No real person would voluntarily shoot themself in the head to determine if their gun were loaded with blanks or real bullets if other, safer, options (shoot at a target, shoot a dead animal carcass, shoot into a pillow, etc.) were available to determine the same information, even if they knew they would have a 3 in 4 chance of surviving the wound.  It's ridiculous to say that characters in a fantasy game would do the equivalent simply because the numbers are on their side and say it has nothing to do with the fact that the player is aware he is playing a game.

And before we get off on too much of a tangent, I just want to re-emphasize that I have no problem with metagame thinking.  This is not a criticism of the "unfair" stance in this discussion.  I'm just pointing out that use of metagame knowledge applies to both sides of the issue.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 24, 2006)

By your view, everything everyone does is always metagaming.


----------



## Someone (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I'm going to answer both of you at once, since you're basically making the same points.
> 
> The assumptions you are making are still, IMO, based on metagame thinking.  The idea that one person looking over a potentially trapped area and failing to see something isn't proof about the presence of a trap one way or the other.  Negative data can never disprove an hypothesis.  The only reason the Rogue's conclusion bears as much weight as it does in some people's mind is because their perception of the game environment is colored by the concepts of "taking 20" and "level appropriateness".  Those two metagame concepts turn negative data "I don't see a trap" into a positive conclusion "there is no trap".  The character's assumptions about the reality of their game world are being colored by the player's knowledge about how the rules of the game work and what the basic assumptions of the game are concerning challenges the characters will face.  That is, by any definition, metagame thinking.
> 
> And before we get off on too much of a tangent, I just want to re-emphasize that I have no problem with metagame thinking.  This is not a criticism of the "unfair" stance in this discussion.  I'm just pointing out that use of metagame knowledge applies to both sides of the issue.




But you´re talking about absolute proof of a negative proposition, which is impossible. Nobody is discussing that. There´s no way that you can be 100% sure that there´s a trap on the lever, sort of the player character activating it; after all, it may be constructed not to react to summoned critters or magical forces, and to foil divinations. Going into the dungeon with that mentality would lead to, well, not entering the dungeon at all.

The catch is, if you don´t have 100%, you must risk with 90%, or 95%, or 99%. How much you do perceive to be the risk and how much risk you´ll accept depends on many things. The trap expert searched carefully the level, inch by inch and then again, and arrived at the conclusion that it wasn´t trapped. That´s what "take 20" means. It means that you´re taking 20 times the time needed to examine the trap, to make sure no tiny detail escapes your attention. Also, the traps´location wasn´t the most logical to place a highly complex trap, so what they are saying is that the perceived risk here was minimal, once the lever was examined by the trap expert. This is because they are thinking like their characters would do, and reasoning supposing there´s a certain logic in the dungeon´s construction: that it was built for defense, thet the builder maybe had limited resources, and that he would put his most deadly means of defense defending the important bits, not a random lever somewhere.

However, if you think like players would do, you know that DM´s like to put traps on seemingly innocuous places, because it´s sort of a competition to see who outsmarts who. dungeon logic has nothing to do here. In that case the perceived risk is much, much higher, because a lone lever screams TRAP! as much as if he had a sign of a skull and crossed bones. 

So, IMHO, if the game is one of DM vs players and the players know that, the trap is fair. If not, it´s unfair. As you can see, I´m partial to the later, as I would prefer to remain in my house solving sudokus to be in a game that´s essentially the same thing.


----------



## silentspace (Aug 24, 2006)

Hi Ourph,

You make some good points. Seems that 'metagaming' means different things to different people. I understand both sides of the definition. Putting the definition of metagaming to the side, the questions remain:

1. Why would the party go to extraordinary means to determine if there is or isn't a trap?

This has been gone over pretty thoroughly. It seems it is quite obvious to some posters that there is a trap, while other (myself included) just don't get it.

2. Why would the party go to extraordinary safety measures to pull the lever? 

First off, they'd have to be pretty sure that the lever is probably trapped. But ok, let's say you're pretty sure it is trapped, in-game evidence to the contrary. How do you know that having a proxy or a rope pull the lever helps in any way? How do you know the lever's undetectable trap affects a creature in direct contact with the lever as opposed to something else? That's why it seems arbitrary to me. 

How do you know that you're not supposed to pull the lever? If we're playing hypotheticals (which we are   ), how do you know the McGuffin isn't a decoy and the real McGuffin is yet to be discovered? How do you know that not pulling the lever saves you as opposed to pulling the lever?


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

silentspace said:
			
		

> How do you know that having a proxy or a rope pull the lever helps in any way? How do you know the lever's undetectable trap affects a creature in direct contact with the lever as opposed to something else? That's why it seems arbitrary to me.




The point of using a proxy is not to find out whether the lever is trapped or to find out what the effects of the trap are.  The point of having a proxy pull the lever is to find out if pulling the lever opens the secret door.  Whether the trap does or does not trigger when your _Mage Hand_ pulls the lever is irrelevant.  What's relevant is that you found out if the lever opens the door without killing a member of your party.  As for the lever affecting something else, yes that's a possibility, which is why I would stand as far away from the lever as possible (outside the room at least) when my proxy pulled the lever.

There are no guarantees.  Anything you do in a dungeon might lead to character deaths, but IMO that's no reason not to take as many precautions as are reasonably possible.



			
				silentspace said:
			
		

> How do you know that you're not supposed to pull the lever?




AFAIC there is no "supposed to".  If the DM wants you to pull the lever or not pull the lever he's not doing his job as an impartial referee.  As I said above, I'm a naturally curious player and would very much want to get through the secret door and find out what the lever does, but I wouldn't satisfy my curiousity by exposing my character to unnecessary risk.


----------



## takyris (Aug 24, 2006)

If I'm in a D&D world, I don't consider knowing that the party monk has good saves is metagaming. If I'm in a D&D world, I grew up hearing about the monastic warriors who can dive through explosions, shrug off diseases that would kill any normal man, and steel their minds and souls against the most powerful charms any wizard can command. Acting surprised when the monk has good saves would be like acting surprised when the party wizard casts a spell.

That's not metagaming. That's immersion.

Or, to dumb it down a bit: I have several real-world friends. If we were all, through some horrific mischance, stuck in a dungeon, I can tell you which one I'd want looking for traps -- the guy who reads the MIT guide to lockpicking and tinkers with electronics and all that good stuff. If we found a lever to pull, I can tell you which one I'd want to pull it -- the guy who takes Capoeira and does backflips for fun and runs marathons and stuff. If we found a shifty person to parley with, I can tell you which one I'd want handling the talk -- my buddy who's getting the PhD in Psychology who's written papers on negotiation and manipulation tactics.

Me knowing which of my friends is good at stuff is not metagaming.

And yeah, if it were really me and my friends in that dungeon, I wouldn't pull the lever unless I had to. But then, my friends and I aren't trying to be heroic. I can be mundane and safe and paranoid in real life. Come Friday night, I want to pull the lever and not get killed unless a) I missed find-able clues that pulling the lever would be bad or b) I get unlucky.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> But you´re talking about absolute proof of a negative proposition, which is impossible. Nobody is discussing that. There´s no way that you can be 100% sure that there´s a trap on the lever, sort of the player character activating it; after all, it may be constructed not to react to summoned critters or magical forces, and to foil divinations. Going into the dungeon with that mentality would lead to, well, not entering the dungeon at all.




See my remarks to silentspace above.  I don't care about proving the existence of a trap, all I care about is not getting my character killed.  If the goal is to open the secret door and it's possible that pulling the lever opens the door then I'll find some way to pull the lever while putting my character at the minimum risk possible.  I don't care whether there is or is not a trap.  What I care about is that the trap is a possibility and if there are ways to avoid the possible risk pulling the lever represents I'll take advantage of them.

My point about negative data is simply that you can never prove with a Search check that no trap exists, so (from my perspective) acting as if a Search check is absolute proof relies on the metagame knowledge that "taking 20" plus "challenges appropriate to level" equates to proof positive that a trap isn't present.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> By your view, everything everyone does is always metagaming.




That's somewhat accurate.  I think the idea that characters (as opposed to players) make decisions in the game is silly.  The player provides the intelligence and decision-making ability for his character.  An individual player might incorporate certain personality elements from his imaginary character into that process but that doesn't eliminate the fact that all decisions are still colored by the players perceptions (including the fact that he's playing a game and that both the game and the individual group the player is participating in have standards, rules and conventions which are integral parts of his perception of the game environment).

So everything a player does isn't necessarily metagaming, but everyone, IMO, metagames and almost all choices made during the game are colored by the metagame perceptions of the player controlling the character.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> If I'm in a D&D world, I don't consider knowing that the party monk has good saves is metagaming.




I don't either, but using that as an excuse to have the Monk be your official trapspringer is definitely metagaming.  How do you think your backflipping friend would feel about being elected "most likely to survive the trap" if you were all stuck in the dungeon?  Would he willingly pull all potentially trapped levers?  Or would he be upset that you weren't all sharing the risk of pulling potentially trapped levers equally?  After the first time a scything blade nearly missed decapitating him, would he be reassured that he could survive the next trap or would he start looking for ways to avoid being in that same dangerous position again?  The attitude that "I'll only lose some HPs" or "I can probably survive if I get poisoned" (which is exactly the type of thinking motivating the Monk's player's decisions when he pulls the lever) is obviously metagame thinking, because it's ignoring the character's perspective (even if I save I'll probably get hurt real bad and there's always a chance that I'll die) and totally looking at it from the player's perspective (there's only a very small chance that I'll suffer any consequence that will interfere with my play of this character for more than a brief portion of this play session).



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> And yeah, if it were really me and my friends in that dungeon, I wouldn't pull the lever unless I had to. But then, my friends and I aren't trying to be heroic.




How is pulling a potentially trapped lever heroic?  It seems to me that you're equating "heroic" with "impatient".  I just don't get that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 24, 2006)

> The assumptions you are making are still, IMO, based on metagame thinking. The idea that one person looking over a potentially trapped area and failing to see something isn't proof about the presence of a trap one way or the other. Negative data can never disprove an hypothesis. The only reason the Rogue's conclusion bears as much weight as it does in some people's mind is because their perception of the game environment is colored by the concepts of "taking 20" and "level appropriateness". Those two metagame concepts turn negative data "I don't see a trap" into a positive conclusion "there is no trap". The character's assumptions about the reality of their game world are being colored by the player's knowledge about how the rules of the game work and what the basic assumptions of the game are concerning challenges the characters will face. That is, by any definition, metagame thinking.




I have this friend, here. She's got a real keen eye, a real sense for detail, a ginger touch. See, she's spent her life robbing the rich and famous of every coin they've got, so she's really familiar with security measures. She knows how traps are made, she can dismantle them. She's done so before. She, barring an unfortunate fate, will continue to do so for the forseeable future. You see, that's why she's even with us on this little lark. Because we know there's probably security measures down there guarding the McGuffin, and this bird knows security measures from a thousand years ago and from today. Pit her against any locksmith or trapmaker in the town, she'll get at what you're protecting before you even know she's there. She's robbed the houses of some wizards and priests, too, so we know a bit of runes and hexes aren't any scarier to her than a bell on a string.

Now, maybe she won't know everything down there. This is new territory for her, after all. She's good, best in the world, maybe, but she's not perfect. 

Deep in this thing, we see a suspicious stick, and we send her to check it out. She's the best eye we got and the best eye maybe in the world. She checks it, takes her time, goes over it real good, feeling in cracks and looking for holes, and trying to pick up runes, even licking the thing. I'm not sure what that tells her, but she says she can't find anything on the lever, but she did find this mechanism behind one of the stones in the wall. I was astonished. I mean, I'm a dwarf, I know stonework, but this little doorway could be hidden from even ME. She once stole an archmage's wand from his bedroom while he slept. We've sent her at a few doors down here where she told us the same stuff, and we walked through, no problems. Why should this be any different?

Still, it's a stick in the middle of the room, so I'm going to play it safe. This is a new environment for her, and she did take a nasty blow to the face from a spider a few rooms back. Good thing I have Chuck Norris here, too....

How is this, by any definition of the word, metagame thinking? Your basing your character's knowledge on your character's experience. Your characters know the rogue is good at finding traps and usually does so. That's not simply because of "level-appropriateness", that's because, over the course of any given adventure, _the rogue is good at finding traps and usually does so_. 



> The idea that the Monk can likely survive if there is a trap is also, totally, metagame thinking. No real person would voluntarily shoot themself in the head to determine if their gun were loaded with blanks or real bullets if other, safer, options (shoot at a target, shoot a dead animal carcass, shoot into a pillow, etc.) were available to determine the same information, even if they knew they would have a 3 in 4 chance of surviving the wound. It's ridiculous to say that characters in a fantasy game would do the equivalent simply because the numbers are on their side and say it has nothing to do with the fact that the player is aware he is playing a game.




Now Chuck Norris is a crazy kind of half orc. I don't know where, exactly he's from, but it ain't these parts. He doesn't trust an axe, but I've seen his bare hands break brick, I've seen him sprint accross town in less than half a minute, and I've seen mages lob fireballs at him, and he never seems to get scathed. In fact, we picked him up because of a fight we saw him in with a few wizards. There were fireworks like you wouldn't believe, but this kid got out. My sorceress for this journey, Mathilda, she said he resisted charm spells, disintigration spells, energy spells....almost any magic that could be dodged, this kid dodged it, and without even breaking a sweat he grabbed one of the wizards and forced them all to flee. He ain't clever or pretty, but he's a survivor, that's for sure. Once, we were caught by surprise when we forgot to have our halfling burgaler check a door. Kid removed the poison needle from his arm and, laughing, jammed it into the next green-skinned critter we saw -- the critter's skin almost boiled off his bones, that poison was so harsh. And this half-orc treated it like it was nothin'. 

So, yeah, our burgaler says there's nothing there. So this guy, who's survived longer than most fullblood orcs I know, pulls the lever, just in case. Get this, the kid could survive a disintegration spell, but he gets disintegrated right there. Don't know how it happened, really. Must've missed something on the lever. 

.....that's not knowing you're playing a game, that's using the evidence in the world to make your descisions. The world's evidence is -- this guy can take a mystical beating.



> And before we get off on too much of a tangent, I just want to re-emphasize that I have no problem with metagame thinking. This is not a criticism of the "unfair" stance in this discussion. I'm just pointing out that use of metagame knowledge applies to both sides of the issue.




And I'm pointing out that viewing a character as good at finding traps or surviving disaster isn't metagame knowledge. It's character knowledge. So at least as far as my position is concerned, you're wrong.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 24, 2006)

> How is pulling a potentially trapped lever heroic? It seems to me that you're equating "heroic" with "impatient". I just don't get that.




Heroism is braving the unknown. If you're only 85% sure that lever isn't trapped, pulling it is braving the unknown (however mildly).



> How do you think your backflipping friend would feel about being elected "most likely to survive the trap" if you were all stuck in the dungeon? Would he willingly pull all potentially trapped levers? Or would he be offended that you weren't all sharing the risk of pulling potentially trapped levers equally?




If I got shot in the face seven times a day (eight on tuesdays) and survived, I wouldn't think that getting shot once on a day off would kill me.

Yes, he would willingly pull all trapped levers. Because he knows, in-character, that if the lever has some unexpected surprise, he's better at getting out of the way. Because, in-character, he has been better at getting out of the way of unexpected surprises to date. He wouldn't ask the wizard to pull the trapped lever -- what's the point, he'd just blow up or get poisoned or something, and then you're out a wizard. He doesn't know how to dodge fireballs, he doesn't have the training to resist poisons like you do. You know, in-character, you can survive most poisons, because you've been poisoned before and have survived when others have not.


----------



## takyris (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I don't either, but using that as an excuse to have the Monk be your official trapspringer is definitely metagaming.  How do you think your backflipping friend would feel about being elected "most likely to survive the trap" if you were all stuck in the dungeon?  Would he willingly pull all potentially trapped levers?




If my friend were tossed into this dungeon against his well, he might be pissed off -- although he might also opt to take one for the team. He's a hell of a lot more agile than I am, but then, I can hit harder than he can. I'd be in front if we ran into bad guys.

On the other hand, if my friend had specifically signed up to be part of a group of people who used their special skills and assets to get through this dungeon, him not wanting to be the guy who pulled the lever would be pretty whiny. Uh, dude, that's what you signed up to do. If I were in the dungeon for that reason, I wouldn't whine if I had to be the guy in front doing the hitting.

So, no. In the my-friend example, possibly, but in a D&D game, no. It's not metagaming. That's what the monk, quite literally, brings to the party. Survivability. In every game I've run or played in, unless we're tossed into things against our will, the party forms based on the idea of everyone using their unique skills. Deliberately not being able to see the monk's unique skill just because it doesn't explode or use spell slots is silly.



> The attitude that "I'll only lose some HPs" or "I can probably survive if I get poisoned" is obviously metagame thinking - which is what's motivating the Monk's player's decisions when he pulls the lever.




It's certainmly metagaming if you say "I'll only lose some HPs." It's also not the world's greatest grammar. But it's not metagaming to say, "I'm the best person on the team at dodging attacks, and my training in the Jhin-Saris mysteries will let me cleanse my body of toxins if, by some horrific mischance, the lever holds a trap that Dalshin wasn't able to find. I think you all should stand back and let me give it a try."

Knowing your own abilities is not metagaming. It's immersion. Pretending NOT to know your own abilities, when your character uses them every day, often with his own survival at stake, is silly.



> How is pulling a potentially trapped lever heroic?  It seems to me that you're equating "heroic" with "impatient".  I just don't get that.




Hey, if it's a dungeon full of evil stuff, and I've found a secret door, then pulling that lever might let me find a room full of evil masterminds that I'd have otherwise missed. Sure, having a lever open a secret door (that we've found, but cannot open) is weird, but maybe the lever summons a magical creature that asks a riddle or something, and THAT opens the secret door.

Exploring is heroic. The implication from the original post was that they'd explored everything else in the dungeon. If you've explored everything else and still haven't figured out a way through the secret door or a likely indication of what the lever does, you pull the lever.

At least, under the mindset that bad guys don't make levers with no purpose beyond killing people. (Cue David Spade in "The Emperor's New Groove": "Why does she even HAVE that lever?")


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I have this friend, here. She's got a real keen eye, a real sense for detail, a ginger touch. See, she's spent her life robbing the rich and famous of every coin they've got, so she's really familiar with security measures. She knows how traps are made, she can dismantle them.




Let's say you had a friend like this in the real world.  Would you trust your life to her ability to spot traps?  Would you risk your life on her word if there were a means to accomplishing your goal that wouldn't put your life at risk?

I wouldn't.  

The only reason I can see that someone would make a different decision in an RPG is because they would know what her Search skill bonus was, that she took 20 and that the combination of those two things were more than enough to detect any level appropriate trap (and that the DM always presented the party with level appropriate challenges).


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> It's certainmly metagaming if you say "I'll only lose some HPs." It's also not the world's greatest grammar. But it's not metagaming to say, "I'm the best person on the team at dodging attacks, and my training in the Jhin-Saris mysteries will let me cleanse my body of toxins if, by some horrific mischance, the lever holds a trap that Dalshin wasn't able to find. I think you all should stand back and let me give it a try."
> 
> Knowing your own abilities is not metagaming. It's immersion. Pretending NOT to know your own abilities, when your character uses them every day, often with his own survival at stake, is silly.




You are obfuscating the point (and I have no idea what the purpose of the grammar comment is about, are contractions verbotten in casual conversation now?).  An in character justification doesn't change the fact that the attitude the player has is colored by metagame thinking.  Sure if a PC has to pull the lever, then the Monk should probably do it.  The fact that the Monk's player is approaching the situation with the attitude of "Potential trap?  No problem.  I'll step up and pull the lever.  That's my job!" is totally based on his knowledge that he's playing a game and that the game follows certain guidelines.  A real person would look for options that allowed them to pull the lever without exposing them to such direct risk because they wouldn't have the assurance of knowing the basic assumptions and math that are shaping the player's perception.




> Hey, if it's a dungeon full of evil stuff, and I've found a secret door, then pulling that lever might let me find a room full of evil masterminds that I'd have otherwise missed. Sure, having a lever open a secret door (that we've found, but cannot open) is weird, but maybe the lever summons a magical creature that asks a riddle or something, and THAT opens the secret door.
> 
> Exploring is heroic. The implication from the original post was that they'd explored everything else in the dungeon. If you've explored everything else and still haven't figured out a way through the secret door or a likely indication of what the lever does, you pull the lever.
> 
> At least, under the mindset that bad guys don't make levers with no purpose beyond killing people. (Cue David Spade in "The Emperor's New Groove": "Why does she even HAVE that lever?")




I've never said heroes shouldn't pull the lever.  I do maintain that heroes can find a way to move the lever without actually touching it (even if that involves waiting a day or two to move it) while still being heroes.  Nothing about "being heroic" indicates that you have to be impatient or incautious.


----------



## takyris (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Let's say you had a friend like this in the real world.  Would you trust your life to her ability to spot traps?  Would you risk your life on her word if there were a means to accomplishing your goal that wouldn't put your life at risk?
> 
> I wouldn't.




If she were a professional trap-finder, and if I'd signed on for a mission that involved traps... yeah. I'd sort of have to.

I mean, yeah, your "If there's a way to avoid it" is a duh, but only to a point. In a heroic game, there's only so much time I want to spend summoning monsters and asking them to pull levers for me. I'd happily do that garbage if I'd taken on "The Lair of Trappy McTrapster, Master of Traps", but if every useable object in the dungeon was like that, I'd find a new group.

Your mileage may, and almost certainly does, vary.



> The only reason I can see that someone would make a different decision in an RPG is because they would know what her Search skill bonus was, that she took 20 and that the combination of those two things were more than enough to detect any level appropriate trap (and that the DM always presented the party with level appropriate challenges).




If you can't get into a PC's head enough to put in the context of "We take jobs we think we can do, and there weren't horrible nasty things well beyond our abilities in the rest of this hellhole, so yeah, I'm gonna logically conclude that even if there's a trap she can't find after a careful search, it'll probably be something we can limp away from afterward," then that's your issue.

Your assumption that knowing the degree of danger implies that one is metagaming by using the exact numbers doesn't hold up. I don't need a tape measure to decide whether it's safe to jump from a given height. I don't need a vision test to figure out which of my friends is the best at scouting when we play paintball. And if I've been watching a friend find and disable traps in life-threatening situations for awhile now, I don't need a rated score of her abilities to know that if she takes her time, there's not a heck of a lot she can't find.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If I got shot in the face seven times a day (eight on tuesdays) and survived, I wouldn't think that getting shot once on a day off would kill me.




OK, let's say you have the superhuman ability to survive getting shot in the face 19 times out of 20.  Note the term SURVIVE.  It still hurts you just as much as it would hurt a normal person.  You still look horrible and feel horrible until it heals, you just can't die.  Now let's say you want to buy a TV.  The guy at the counter gives you an option.  You can give him $500 for the TV or you can let him shoot you in the face and get the same exact TV.  Do you honestly let him shoot you, knowing that it's going to be excruciating and that you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying?  Or do you pay the $500?  Or, if you don't have the $500, do you just wait to get the TV until you DO have the $500?

The point is, there are easily available way to expose NO member of the party to risk.  The fact that many players don't take those options (some don't even think of taking those options) is mostly based on metagame thinking about the consequences of setting off a trap (expenditure of resources and possible disruption in the flow of play) rather than in-character thinking (it will probably hurt, it may severely injure me and there's a possibility that I coudl die).


----------



## takyris (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> An in character justification doesn't change the fact that the attitude the player has is colored by metagame thinking.  Sure if a PC has to pull the lever, then the Monk should probably do it.




Okay.



> The fact that the Monk's player is approaching the situation with the attitude of "Potential trap?  No problem.  I'll step up and pull the lever.  That's my job!" is totally based on his knowledge that he's playing a game and that the game follows certain guidelines.




A) Please quote me the line that shows that that was the monk's attitude.

B) No. It's based on the fact that the party is essentially a paramilitary unit or task force of people with specific skill-sets. If you're a military team in the jungle and you come to an abandoned shack, you know which guy to have check for booby-traps, which guy to have listen and look around for an ambush, and which guy to have kick open the door after everyone else has done the best that they could. That's not metagaming. You're the one who equates "Knowing the strengths of each team member" with "Only looking at the rules."



> Nothing about "being heroic" indicates that you have to be impatient or incautious.




Bull.

Totally subjective, and no way we're ever going to agree on that one, I suspect.

To you, my kind of heroic sounds stupid.
To me, your kind of heroic sounds bland.

That'd be the lion's share of what it all comes down to, I think.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> In a heroic game, there's only so much time I want to spend summoning monsters and asking them to pull levers for me. I'd happily do that garbage if I'd taken on "The Lair of Trappy McTrapster, Master of Traps", but if every useable object in the dungeon was like that, I'd find a new group.




In other words, if you found yourself in a group where the in-game environment was frustrating, you'd find a new group where the in-game environment was based on metagame considerations more closely matched to your own.  Yes?    



> Your assumption that knowing the degree of danger implies that one is metagaming by using the exact numbers doesn't hold up. I don't need a tape measure to decide whether it's safe to jump from a given height. I don't need a vision test to figure out which of my friends is the best at scouting when we play paintball. And if I've been watching a friend find and disable traps in life-threatening situations for awhile now, I don't need a rated score of her abilities to know that if she takes her time, there's not a heck of a lot she can't find.




"Not a heck of a lot" doesn't equate to zero though, and the argument so far has been that after the Rogue searches and finds nothing the correct assumption should be "there are no traps".  The only way you get from "not a lot" to "none" is by application of metagame thinking (i.e. running the numbers).


----------



## silentspace (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> The point of using a proxy is not to find out whether the lever is trapped or to find out what the effects of the trap are..



I never said that.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> AFAIC there is no "supposed to".



If survival is not one of your goals, either as a character or as the player, then you're playing a completely different game than me.


----------



## takyris (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> In other words, if you found yourself in a group where the in-game environment was frustrating, you'd find a new group where the in-game environment was based on metagame considerations more closely matched to your own.  Yes?



Yep. As would you. Somehow, I suspect that after one or two sessions of watching everyone else swashbuckle while you complained that there could have been traps and insisted that we should have talked to the Mistress of Souls from fifty feet away with a bullhorn in case she was a disguised banshee, you'd ditch my group and find something else.

Mileage. Vary. Very Very Vary.



> The only way you get from "not a lot" to "none" is by application of metagame thinking (i.e. running the numbers).



Or logically looking at how the area was laid out. I survived everything else without too much trouble, and I got the big thing I wanted to get, which was presumably guarded by the biggest baddest stuff the guy making this place could come up with. Why should something so much deadlier be slapped on some little deal on the side?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> In other words, if you found yourself in a group where the in-game environment was frustrating, you'd find a new group where the in-game environment was based on metagame considerations more closely matched to your own.  Yes?




Let me phrase that a different way: If he found himself in a game that forced him to metagame or die, he'd find another group, because he doesn't like to metagame.


----------



## Someone (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> See my remarks to silentspace above.  I don't care about proving the existence of a trap, all I care about is not getting my character killed.  If the goal is to open the secret door and it's possible that pulling the lever opens the door then I'll find some way to pull the lever while putting my character at the minimum risk possible.  I don't care whether there is or is not a trap.  What I care about is that the trap is a possibility and if there are ways to avoid the possible risk pulling the lever represents I'll take advantage of them.




That´s fair.



> My point about negative data is simply that you can never prove with a Search check that no trap exists, so (from my perspective) acting as if a Search check is absolute proof relies on the metagame knowledge that "taking 20" plus "challenges appropriate to level" equates to proof positive that a trap isn't present.




You can never prove that a trap doesn´t exists; it´s impossible. You can´t also prove that you have a monkey on your shoulder, or that your character won´t die. "Proof" means 100% cretainty. The most you can do is to be really, really, really sure that there´s not a trap; some people here think that given the circumstances, it´s a safe bet that there are no traps on the lever, and that losing time tieing ropes, or spending resources summoning monsters or whatnot is a bit foolish. 

They (we) are not thinking that the monk should be able to whithstand any trap because they must be of the apprpiate CR. They think that it´s very unlikely that there´s a trap in the first place. Not impossible, but the risk is very small. 

However, if the risk exist, why take it, as you say? wouldn´t it be better to not take it at all, and use the rope? Actually, we take such risks daily; we use cars that can crash, and eat food that could be poisoned. We take risks that we could avoid daily when we think that the risk involved is minimal, even when we could die as a result.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> To you, my kind of heroic sounds stupid.
> To me, your kind of heroic sounds bland.
> 
> That'd be the lion's share of what it all comes down to, I think.




I would completely agree.  Different perceptions about what is "normal" for the game and different tastes are the main issues here.  I would note, for the record, that I don't think of your kind of heroic as "stupid".  It's just that I see that heroic stereotype as a single facet of heroism rather than the complete spectrum.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

silentspace said:
			
		

> I never said that.




Then I must be misreading the part of your post that I quoted, because I thought I was directly answering a question that you posed.




> If survival is not one of your goals, either as a character or as the player, then you're playing a completely different game than me.




If you think I'm not interested in character survival, you're definitely misreading my response.


----------



## silentspace (Aug 24, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Then I must be misreading the part of your post that I quoted, because I thought I was directly answering a question that you posed.
> 
> If you think I'm not interested in character survival, you're definitely misreading my response.




Seems you've misread mine as well.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Yep. As would you. Somehow, I suspect that after one or two sessions of watching everyone else swashbuckle while you complained that there could have been traps and insisted that we should have talked to the Mistress of Souls from fifty feet away with a bullhorn in case she was a disguised banshee, you'd ditch my group and find something else.




I think you're missing the point of my comment.  If you're switching to a group where the in-game environment matches your preferences because the metagame considerations like appropriate challenges and what type of behavior constitues "heroic" are more in line with your own; it demonstrates that all in-game "logic" is really based on metagame expectations.  So the argument that in-game logic alone justifies a response to the lever (in either direction) can't be valid.  All in-game assumptions are based at some level on understandings between the players and DM about how the game will be run and how the DM will construct the game world.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 24, 2006)

> Let's say you had a friend like this in the real world. Would you trust your life to her ability to spot traps? Would you risk your life on her word if there were a means to accomplishing your goal that wouldn't put your life at risk?
> 
> I wouldn't.




Military units do this every day. "Sir, Intelligence indicates that the area ahead has no land mines." And then you act on that knowledge. You do trust the information of the specialists, when in life-or-death situations.



> The only reason I can see that someone would make a different decision in an RPG is because they would know what her Search skill bonus was, that she took 20 and that the combination of those two things were more than enough to detect any level appropriate trap (and that the DM always presented the party with level appropriate challenges).




Or because their characters are heroes who take calculated risks as a matter of course, heroes who aren't intimidated by inoccuous levers. 



> OK, let's say you have the superhuman ability to survive getting shot in the face 19 times out of 20. Note the term SURVIVE. It still hurts you just as much as it would hurt a normal person. You still look horrible and feel horrible until it heals, you just can't die. Now let's say you want to buy a TV. The guy at the counter gives you an option. You can give him $500 for the TV or you can let him shoot you in the face and get the same exact TV. Do you honestly let him shoot you, knowing that it's going to be excruciating and that you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying? Or do you pay the $500? Or, if you don't have the $500, do you just wait to get the TV until you DO have the $500?




Depends on how badly I want the TV, and how brave I am. I'm no hero, and I'd definately consider being put in excrutiating temporary pain for $500. Yeah, it's bad, but it's only temporary. This TV will kick ass for YEARS to come! 

Now, if I was truly heroic, and I had just stopped a bank robbery and saved the people inside with my magical power to survive getting shot in the face, and on my way home I cut through the park where there was a guy with a TV who was offering to give it to people who could be shot in the face, or for $500....I'd still say "Okay! Fire away random person!" And if he happened to have a kryptonite bullet that actually killed me, I would not be feeling heroic anymore.



> The point is, there are easily available way to expose NO member of the party to risk. The fact that many players don't take those options (some don't even think of taking those options) is mostly based on metagame thinking about the consequences of setting off a trap (expenditure of resources and possible disruption in the flow of play) rather than in-character thinking (it will probably hurt, it may severely injure me and there's a possibility that I coudl die).




What does a hero do, send people to die in his place, or go to die in the place of others (knowing he's got the skills to survive where they don't)? Do I brave the unknown, or do I pay Little Jimmy the town cripple to go brave the unknown so I don't get hurt? Do I go explore dungeons for a McGuffin, or do I just bankroll some adventurers to do it for me? Do I fight the monster, or hide under the bed so the monster doesn't get me?

The characters, being heroes, don't choose the safest course of action. That's the point. Heroes survive not choosing the safest course of action because they're HEROES. You wouldn't, I wouldn't, even that military general wouldn't, but a hero....a hero would. No man in a book or a movie ever died from pulling a lever.


----------



## Barak (Aug 24, 2006)

The use of spells for the pulling of lever/opening of doors that the rogue is 99% sure is untrapped is unrealistic.  What the heck?  Does the spellcasters only memorize spells that can do that, and rest every time they are out?  Or does the party spend all their money on wands of Summon monsters?

With that out of the way..  If it's that obvious that using the 50' rope is -the- way to go to pull levers, wouldn't people trapping levers take that into consideration, and make their traps in consequence?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 24, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> With that out of the way..  If it's that obvious that using the 50' rope is -the- way to go to pull levers, wouldn't people trapping levers take that into consideration, and make their traps in consequence?




I can see it now...

BBEG: Heh, those adventurers are so dead.
Trap Artisan: That'll be 45,000 gp please.
BBEG: Wow! Expensive. *hands over gold* It will definately kill intruders.
TA: Oh yeah! Unless they use rope to pull it or something.
BBEG: What???
TA: Oh you know, those adventurers, they use rope to pull levers.
BBEG: Surely you took that into consideration when making the trap?
TA: 'Course not. That wouldn't be fair.
BBEG: Not fair??
TA: Of course. Everyone knows that pulling it with a rope wouldn't kill you. That wouldn't be sporting. The point is to let the smart ones through.
BBEG: That's not really what I was going for.
TA: Sorry, its in the Union rules. What can you do?
BBEG: What can? GAH! *zap*
TA: *is a pile of dust*


----------



## Barak (Aug 24, 2006)

Exactly.  And it's not really that hard to take the rope into consideration.  Just require some weight close to the lever in order for the lever to do whatever it does, trap or open the door.  Sure, it would make it a lil easier to find, but since the master trapfinder didn't find it while taking 20, I'm sure it could handle a slight hit to the search DC.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 24, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Military units do this every day. "Sir, Intelligence indicates that the area ahead has no land mines." And then you act on that knowledge. You do trust the information of the specialists, when in life-or-death situations.




If there some question about landmines in the area ahead (and obviously there is or intel wouldn't be checking) and I had the option of going around that area, through an area where there is absolutely no indication of landmines, I'd go around. Any smart military commander would make the same decision.



> The characters, being heroes, don't choose the safest course of action. That's the point.




Your character's perception of himself as a hero and that heroes operate under different rules than normal people is a metagame consideration and is specifically related not only to the fact that you know you are playing a game but also to the fact that you have a certain set of preconceived notions about how the events of the game should play out.


----------



## silentspace (Aug 24, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I can see it now...
> 
> BBEG: Heh, those adventurers are so dead.
> Trap Artisan: That'll be 45,000 gp please.
> ...




   

Trap's probably underpriced by quite a bit though...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 24, 2006)

> If there some question about landmines in the area ahead (and obviously there is or intel wouldn't be checking) and I had the option of going around that area, through an area where there is absolutely no indication of landmines, I'd go around. Any smart military commander would make the same decision.




Ah, because even the cleverest soldier cannot survive an explosion...

But "Intelligence indicates there are no mines. The passage is safe." You'd still go around?



> Your character's perception of himself as a hero and that heroes operate under different rules than normal people is a metagame consideration and is specifically related not only to the fact that you know you are playing a game but also to the fact that you have a certain set of preconceived notions about how the events of the game should play out.




No, my character's perception of himself as a hero is that Little Timmy the Village Cripple says "You're my hero!" And he slays dragons and kills fiends. And he was hired to get this McGuffin. And he can take a bullet wound in the face and survive. And not everyone in town can do that. 

He probably also has a shiny cape, an ancient blade of legend...bards are singing about him in taverns as a hero. He knows he's a hero because evidence tells him he is.


----------



## T. Foster (Aug 24, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> No, my character's perception of himself as a hero is that Little Timmy the Village Cripple says "You're my hero!" And he slays dragons and kills fiends. And he was hired to get this McGuffin. And he can take a bullet wound in the face and survive. And not everyone in town can do that.
> 
> He probably also has a shiny cape, an ancient blade of legend...bards are singing about him in taverns as a hero. He knows he's a hero because evidence tells him he is.




Whereas my character doesn't see himself like that at all. He sees himself as more like Odysseus -- a guy who succeeds through cunning, trickery, and pragmatism, who outsmarts dragons and tricks fiends, who couldn't care less about Little Timmy the Village Cripple (unless he's got some valuable information to share), who's just as likely to keep the macguffin for himself as he is to return it to its "rightful" former-owner, and who intends never to find out wheter or not he can take a bullet wound in the face and survive. And because of that he'll still be alive at the end of the day, listening as all the other dead heroes are memorialized by the bards. 

That's probably why I prefer to play True Neutral magic-users and barbarians rather than Lawful Good fighters and paladins (and would sooner stab myself with a pencil than play a cavalier).


----------



## MarkB (Aug 24, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I can see it now...
> 
> BBEG: Heh, those adventurers are so dead.
> Trap Artisan: That'll be 45,000 gp please.
> ...



The _really_ smart (and extravagant) BBEG adds a second Disintegrate effect to be triggered precisely 48 feet back up the corridor, because he knows adventurers always carry rope in 50-foot lengths.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 24, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> The _really_ smart (and extravagant) BBEG adds a second Disintegrate effect to be triggered precisely 48 feet back up the corridor, because he knows adventurers always carry rope in 50-foot lengths.




And another at 38 feet because adventures often knot their rope for climbing which uses 10ft of the 50ft rope I believe.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 25, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> The _really_ smart (and extravagant) BBEG adds a second Disintegrate effect to be triggered precisely 48 feet back up the corridor, because he knows adventurers always carry rope in 50-foot lengths.




Apparently, the really smart BBEG isn't all that smart, because it's a foregone conclusion that the heroes will eventually win and the BBEG will always lose at a dramatic and climactic moment because that's how games of *HEROIC* fantasy gaming work (everybody knows that, duh!).  So no matter how well he plans, how much money he spends or how cunning he thinks he's being, he ought to know he is done for because he's not just up against any old opponent, he's up against a band of *HEROES*.

When he notices that someone just built a new railroad line leading directly to his hideout, the really smart BBEG realizes it's time to take his treasure and retire to a small village, before the *HERO EXPRESS* chugs it's way over him.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 25, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Apparently, the really smart BBEG isn't all that smart, because it's a foregone conclusion that the heroes will eventually win and the BBEG will always lose at a dramatic and climactic moment because that's how games of *HEROIC* fantasy gaming work (everybody knows that, duh!).  So no matter how well he plans, how much money he spends or how cunning he thinks he's being, he ought to know he is done for because he's not just up against any old opponent, he's up against a band of *HEROES*.



BBEGs get through plenty of HEROES, but they were all NPCs. It's PCs that he has to look out for.

And it's not about the destination, it's about the journey.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2006)

> At the beginning of a game, particularly with inexperienced players, then as I've said all along, this trap would be harsh. Once the players are experienced and have learned the basics, then in games of the kind that I run it becomes normal.





That, right there, pretty much sums up the metagame nature of the "fair" side.

It's not the characters who are experienced, it's the players. So, as a long term gamer, it's perfectly acceptable to play my 3rd level barbarian with an int and wis of 6 like he was a SWAT member.

Or, even my wizard, who's spent his whole life with his nose in dusty tomes, should now make Chuck Norris cry as he examines everything with a fine toothed comb.

My chaotic priest of Kord should be more meticulous than Grissom from CSI when entering a room.

Doesn't matter what the character's background is. Doesn't matter what his abilities are, or his history or even his skills. Any player who has become "experienced and have learned the basics" should act like he's a member of a tactical squad.

And this isn't metagaming?


----------



## FireLance (Aug 25, 2006)

After thinking about it for some time, I've narrowed it down to about three dimensions of fairness:

*A. Warning Shot:* Were the PCs given some indication of what they are going to do is dangerous? There is a continuum of what different people may consider to be a sufficient warning:

1. Obvious signs of danger, e.g. a sign written in Common that says, "Danger! Trapped lever".
2. Signs that hint at danger, e.g. a pile of dust in front of the lever.
3. Signs that can be discovered with an average reactive check (50% or greater chance of success), e.g. Spot, Listen, Knowledge, Sense Motive.
4. Signs that can be discovered by taking reasonable* precautions, e.g. a rogue taking 20 when searching for traps.
5. Signs that can be discovered with a difficult reactive check (about 25% chance of success).
6. Signs that can be discovered by taking extraordinary* precautions, e.g. _detect magic_.
7. Subtle signs that require knowledge of specific information or conventions on the part of the player, e.g. "Levers are always trapped".
8. Signs that can be discovered with a very difficult reactive check (about 5% chance of success).
9. No sign of danger.

*B. Avoidance:* What can the PCs do to avoid the danger? Again, there is a continuum:

1. Obvious way to circumvent the danger, or facing the danger does not contribute to any of the party's objectives, e.g. going around a pool of lava, getting out of the dungeon by the same way you came in after getting the McGuffin.
2. Danger can be avoided with an average check (50% or greater chance of success), e.g. Disable Device, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Hide, Move Silently, Climb, Jump, Tumble, attack roll vs AC, a saving throw.
3. Danger can be avoided by taking reasonable* precautions, or facing the danger contributes in a minor way to the party's objectives, e.g. do not openly wear the holy symbol of a deity when attempting to parley with the servants of another deity that opposes him, a trap that guards some useful potions.
4. Danger can be avoided with a difficult check (about 25% chance of success).
5. Danger can be avoided by taking extraordinary* precautions, or facing the danger contributes in a major way to the party's objectives, e.g. use a rope to activate a lever, rescue the hostages taken by the BBEG.
6. Danger can be avoided with a very difficult check (about 5% chance of success).
7. Danger cannot be avoided, or facing the danger is the party's objective, e.g. defeat the BBEG.

*C. Consequences:* What effect does it have on the PCs? Once more, there is a continuum:

1. Temporary or minor consequences, e.g. character death in a campaign where an NPC is willing and able to cast _true resurrection_ for free.
2. Longer-term or moderate consequences, e.g. character death in a campaign where a PC is able to cast _true resurrection_.
3. Very long-term or major consequences, e.g. character death in a campaign where a PC or NPC is able to cast _resurrection_ or _raise dead_.
4. Permanent, irreversible consequences, e.g. character death in a campaign where coming back from the dead is not possible or practical.

* Definitions of "reasonable" and "extraordinary" may vary between groups.

Since the OP's example seems to fall at the upper range of the continuum on the Warning Shot scale, and (depending on one's perspective) falls at either the lower or upper range of the continuum on the Avoidance scale, and does not really address the Consequences scale (although many posters seem to assume character death will always be at the upper end of the continuum), I can see why it has generated a lot of discussion.


----------



## Someone (Aug 25, 2006)

Somebody should e-mail Rich Burlew about this thread. He´d find material for a couple dozen strips.


----------



## delericho (Aug 25, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> OK, let's say you have the superhuman ability to survive getting shot in the face 19 times out of 20.  Note the term SURVIVE.  It still hurts you just as much as it would hurt a normal person.  You still look horrible and feel horrible until it heals, you just can't die.  Now let's say you want to buy a TV.  The guy at the counter gives you an option.  You can give him $500 for the TV or you can let him shoot you in the face and get the same exact TV.




After your friend, the firearms expert has carefully examined the gun. Now, your friend hasn't seen this type of gun before (it's a custom job), but he knows a lot about firearms in general, and as far as he can tell, this weapon is not even loaded.

Oh, and even that's not an accurate analogy. A closer one would be if the store owner said he would 'shoot' you with this 'pen', that your friend the expert in devices in general has concluded is nothing more than a pen.

Oh, and also, a gunshot does not hurt a high level monk as much as it hurts anyone else. A hit doing 10 hit points of damage is a near-fatal wound to a character with 11 hit points. It's little more than a scratch to a character with 200 hit points.



> Do you honestly let him shoot you, knowing that it's going to be excruciating and that you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying?  Or do you pay the $500?  Or, if you don't have the $500, do you just wait to get the TV until you DO have the $500?




Depends how tight I am for money. The answer is I probably would let him shoot me with the 'pen', since my device-expert friend is reasonably sure it is just a pen. There is, however, a threshold at which I would not take that chance. I probably wouldn't do it to save $5, for example.


----------



## delericho (Aug 25, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> See my remarks to silentspace above.  I don't care about proving the existence of a trap, all I care about is not getting my character killed.




Then you don't enter the dungeon at all. If it's entirely reasonable for there to be an undetectable, extreme-save-DC insta-kill trap on a lever in a random room in the dungeon, then it's far more reasonable to assume that the same BBEG who installed that trap would have put an undetectable extreme-save-DC insta-kill trap on the entry to the dungeon, disarmed only by reciting the code phrase, which you don't know because he never wrote it down (being a smart BBEG). (Or, perhaps, it is disarmed by a special brand he had all his allies apply to themselves. Of course, he insisted on them doing a lot of bizarre things - wearing only purple, never wearing boots, self-mutilation, brushing their teeth... - so you can't be sure which of his crazy rituals are the key one.) Of course, there might well not be such a trap, but you just can't know. And if there might be, surely that's enough to warrant not going? Don't want to get killed, after all.

Oh, and before you say, "I know there's not a trap because people go in and out"... The place is filled with orcs, so people don't go in and out. Sure, the orcs do, but they've all got the brand. Of course, they don't know the significance of the brand, since it's now a tribal tradition, and they don't know which of the many tribal brands they have that does the trick. So, taking a prisoner won't help you. (Of course, there might well not be a trap. In which case taking a prisoner is pointless. But you can never be 100% certain, so...)



> If the goal is to open the secret door and it's possible that pulling the lever opens the door then I'll find some way to pull the lever while putting my character at the minimum risk possible.  I don't care whether there is or is not a trap.  What I care about is that the trap is a possibility and if there are ways to avoid the possible risk pulling the lever represents I'll take advantage of them.




Okay, how do you deal with the possible risk of simply entering the dungeon? This one doesn't have a nice lever to scream TRAP at you, but it's a possibility (as much as the lever is).

The fact is, the DM could easily install absurd traps at the start of every dungeon. That's certainly the most likely place for them. And he could easily construct his traps so that they are undetectable, unsaveable, and instantly lethal. And he could construct the rest of the dungeon so that the whole thing makes logical sense.

But a DM who does so makes it impossible for the party to adventure at all. So no sane DM does that. But, of course, that's a metagaming concern, so shouldn't be taken into account.



> My point about negative data is simply that you can never prove with a Search check that no trap exists, so (from my perspective) acting as if a Search check is absolute proof relies on the metagame knowledge that "taking 20" plus "challenges appropriate to level" equates to proof positive that a trap isn't present.




I'm not talking about "absolute proof". I'm talking about reasonable assurance.

The party will know whether they are in over their heads or not. I've been through that before. Either the trapfinder has successfully found all the traps in this dungeon so far, or he has not. If he has, then the monk has no reason to doubt him.

In general, a layman should not doubt the assessment of a skilled professional, in said professional's area of expertise, without good reason. And, unless the rogue has missed traps in this dungeon before, no such reason exists.

Would the monk stake his life on the skills of the rogue?

Well, if the McGuffin is found, perhaps not, since there's no need. But, if the McGuffin has not been found? Bearing in mind that, unless this is their first adventure together, they have a history of trusting one another, and often when their lives are on the line?

I would say it is reasonable for the monk to trust the assessment of the rogue. There's no good reason not to.

You might well argue, "but the McGuffin is found". That's true. However, unless the trap mysteriously sprang into existence when the McGuffin was found, the possibility exists of it being found first. And if the trap is fair after the McGuffin is found, it must be fair before the McGuffin is found. So, kindly deal with that case.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And this isn't metagaming?




I don't think anyone has said, even once, that the "fair" side of the argument doesn't rely on metagame thinking.  It's just not the ONLY side the relies on metagame thinking in this discussion.


----------



## Jolly Giant (Aug 25, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> Somebody should e-mail Rich Burlew about this thread. He´d find material for a couple dozen strips.





Probably the smartest post in this entire tread!


----------



## Mycanid (Aug 25, 2006)

Wow!

This has been a more popular thread than I would have guessed....

Always interesting to see which threads arouse the most ... errr ... activity.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 25, 2006)

Jolly Giant said:
			
		

> Someone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, but most of it's already been done there, and done well.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone has said, even once, that the "fair" side of the argument doesn't rely on metagame thinking.  It's just not the ONLY side the relies on metagame thinking in this discussion.




But, the problem is, this point of view is purely metagaming.  There's no room for any role other than Tac Squad Member.  And, it assumes that any gamer who has a certain level of experience will automatically fall into this behavior while completely ignoring his character. 

No matter what the class/background or playstyle, if according to this school of thought, the second my foot hits the flagstone in a dungeon, I will automatically act a particular way.  Is this even defensible?


----------



## Ourph (Aug 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, the problem is, this point of view is purely metagaming.




I can't agree with that.  There have been plenty of justifications put forward for being paranoid about the setup that are completely in character.  Those justifications don't eliminate the fact that to a certain degree both the "fair" and "unfair" perspectives are colored by the knowledge that the player is controlling a character in a game and the player has certain expectations and prejudices about how the game world works, but I don't believe it's true that there is NO in character justification for reacting to the setup with suspicion.  If the game world is a Darwinian one (as Papers&Paychecks described earlier) and your character is a part of that world, he has probably heard numerous tales of devilish traps in dangerous places which kill the unwary and rash.  If that's the type of milieu your character finds himself in, it's natural to be suspicious in this situation.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Is this even defensible?




I believe there's ample justification for having an in character POV that indicates the dungeon is a place separate from the real world where all perceptions of normality and logic are altered.  This is, after all, a fantasy world we're talking about.  When Alice enters Wonderland she quickly comes to understand that applying standards of normalcy developed in a non-fantastic world to her experiences in Wonderland is inadvisable and learns to question her assumptions and mold her thinking to the altered reality in which she finds herself.  In my games, entering the dungeon requires the same shift in thinking.  It is an otherworld where the logic of "normal D&D-land" doesn't apply.  The players have ample in character justification for their change in assumptions and perceptions as a result.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 26, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I believe there's ample justification for having an in character POV that indicates the dungeon is a place separate from the real world where all perceptions of normality and logic are altered.  This is, after all, a fantasy world we're talking about.  When Alice enters Wonderland she quickly comes to understand that applying standards of normalcy developed in a non-fantastic world to her experiences in Wonderland is inadvisable and learns to question her assumptions and mold her thinking to the altered reality in which she finds herself.  In my games, entering the dungeon requires the same shift in thinking.  It is an otherworld where the logic of "normal D&D-land" doesn't apply.  The players have ample in character justification for their change in assumptions and perceptions as a result.



Alice's wonderland isn't a fantasy world, it's a fairytale world. In any fantasy world I play or DM, I expect there to be some internal consistency.

Dropping the rules of the world the moment you step through the dungeon door and expecting the players to work under a completely different set of rules is just silly, and whilst it might work for a few people, expecting it to be a standard form of play is totally unrealistic. A dungeon may have a particular style or feel, but it should never require players to radically change the way they play their characters.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 26, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Alice's wonderland isn't a fantasy world, it's a fairytale world.




You're right, there's SUCH a big difference between those two things.  Thanks so much for correcting me.



			
				MarkB said:
			
		

> In any fantasy world I play or DM, I expect there to be some internal consistency.




My worlds are perfectly consistent.  The fact that there are areas where the rules of normal existence don't apply doesn't change that.  In civilized human lands you dont' have to wonder if every door is trapped or whether there might be a monster behind it.  In a dungeon environment you do (and the characters know where those environments are to be found and what sets them apart from the "normal" world).  



			
				MarkB said:
			
		

> Dropping the rules of the world the moment you step through the dungeon door and expecting the players to work under a completely different set of rules is just silly




So the environment they find themselves in never alters the rules your PCs operate under?  Is it silly for characters to operate under the restriction that chopping down trees in a forest protected by treants is dangerous (whereas it's perfectly safe in other regions) or is it part of the "internal consistency" you believe is important?  There is no difference between the above and having dungeon environments follow their own logic.  They are a different environment, therefore they operate under a different set of rules.



			
				MarkB said:
			
		

> A dungeon may have a particular style or feel, but it should never require players to radically change the way they play their characters.




When did the RPG gods hand down that rule?    

My experience leads me to believe that players alter the way they play their characters depending on the environment they find themselves in all the time.  To do otherwise wouldn't make any sense at all.  Not only is altering your tactics to fit the opponent you are facing an important part of skillful play it's part of what keeps the game from being repetitive and mundane.

A PC who lives in a world where trapped levers are non-existant in merchant's houses and knights castles but are a real danger in ancient ruins and dungeons is only reacting to the facts of the fantasy milieu if he's more suspicious and careful in the latter than the former.  And the fact that those two environments are different in no way makes the world inconsistent or silly.

A world in which you're just as likely to find a gelatinous cube behind the door to the cellar of an inn as you are in an abandoned ruin seems completely silly to me.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 26, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Dropping the rules of the world the moment you step through the dungeon door and expecting the players to work under a completely different set of rules is just silly, and whilst it might work for a few people, expecting it to be a standard form of play is totally unrealistic.




Do you have any trouble accepting dragons that breathe fire and weigh 5 tons but still fly around on bat-like wings?  Any difficulty accepting priests who bring dead people back to life and ecosystems full of dozens of huge carnivores but mysteriously short on vast herds of vegetarian food sources?

D&D is silly.  You need suspension of disbelief to play.



			
				MarkB said:
			
		

> A dungeon may have a particular style or feel, but it should never require players to radically change the way they play their characters.




So the world should conform to the characters rather than the other way around?


----------



## MerricB (Aug 27, 2006)

It might be worth revisiting Dragon #277 (November 2000), and Tracy Hickman's article "How You Play the Game".

A few quotes:
"I was a barbarian surrounded by the dungeoneering equivalent of forensic accountants. Every door we came upon had to have paint chips taken for cobalt carbon dating. We would spend half an hour on a door before moving cautiously on to the next, only to repeat the process all over again..."

"I turned to [the DM] and asked, 'Where is the door nearest to my character?' 'To your left you see an intricately carved door with images of ...' 'I open the door.' A stunned silence around the table - then chaos! The other players shouted 'No he doesn't!' I bellowed back, 'YES I DO!'..."

"Many a brave PC was charbroiled that night, but what a great story we had to tell!"

"Why do we play these games? Do we say to ourselves, 'Let's all get together next week, and instead of leading our everyday, boring lives, make believe we are fantasy characters leading everyday, boring lives?' Being a hero takes two elements: the courage to put your life on the line, and a villain that represents a serious threat to that life. Would you pay to see a movie where the hero stood around, never confronting his arch-nemesis face to face?... No thank you! Give me a character who does brave deeds!..."

Cheers!


----------



## MarkB (Aug 27, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> So the world should conform to the characters rather than the other way around?



If the characters have to change their personalities every time they enter a new environment, they're not characters at all.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 27, 2006)

Aren't they?

How many of us sit home alone and fart in their favorite chair, drink milk straight from the carton, cuss, spit, throw drink cans at the garbage can, etc, etc.  We don't (or at least I hope we don't) do that in church or school.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2006)

But, the DM is forcing the players to conform to a certain norm, the second they enter a "dungeon".  Of course, that brings up the idea of what constitutes a dungeon as well.  If said lever was inside a castle, should that matter?  If it's inside a blacksmith's home, we should act differently?  In a bar?  Or is the presence of a lever indication that the players are now in a dungeon environment?

Change the situation slightly.  Say the thief found a trap.  The thief then goes to disarm the trap.  Continuing this, the thief needs a 20 on his skill check to disarm the trap and he cannot make his saving throw.  So, on a roll of 15 or less, the thief dies.  Now the party has done everything by the book.  They've done everything right and the thief dies 75% of the time (a fail of 5 or more sets off the trap according to the skill).  

Is the trap fair or is it now far too high for what a party should be facing in a dungeon?

My problem isn't save or die traps.  They happen.  Heck, even a simple fireball trap could kill the rogue if he fails his save.  But, a trap that kills the PC 100% of the time or even 75% of the time when interacted with is not fair.  The save DC is simply too high.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2006)

> Whereas my character doesn't see himself like that at all. He sees himself as more like Odysseus -- a guy who succeeds through cunning, trickery, and pragmatism, who outsmarts dragons and tricks fiends, who couldn't care less about Little Timmy the Village Cripple (unless he's got some valuable information to share), who's just as likely to keep the macguffin for himself as he is to return it to its "rightful" former-owner, and who intends never to find out wheter or not he can take a bullet wound in the face and survive. And because of that he'll still be alive at the end of the day, listening as all the other dead heroes are memorialized by the bards.




Odysseus wooed and slept with saucy foreign women and never once worried about catching the ancient greek herpes.

Odysseus spat in the face of GODS, in fact, one of the most ancient and powerful of all gods, and lived to tell the tale.

When faced between Scylla and Charibdis, Odysseus didn't say "I will stay here because it is safe." He said "I need to get home, and they are in my way, so I will go THROUGH them. Damn the danger!"

Odysseus was VERY heroic. He recklessly confronted dangers of an extreme and obviously deadly nature and lived to tell the tale. He lived because of his cleverness (and no small amount of divine intervention), but that doesn't eradicate the fact that he most definately did not play it safe. Safe would have been accepting his fate. Safe would have been not going to Troy. Safe never entered into his equasion.



> Apparently, the really smart BBEG isn't all that smart, because it's a foregone conclusion that the heroes will eventually win and the BBEG will always lose at a dramatic and climactic moment because that's how games of HEROIC fantasy gaming work (everybody knows that, duh!). So no matter how well he plans, how much money he spends or how cunning he thinks he's being, he ought to know he is done for because he's not just up against any old opponent, he's up against a band of HEROES.
> 
> When he notices that someone just built a new railroad line leading directly to his hideout, the really smart BBEG realizes it's time to take his treasure and retire to a small village, before the HERO EXPRESS chugs it's way over him.




Evil doesn't always loose. You're wrong to assume so. You are once again mischaracterising those opposing you of wanting it easy and simple, and that remains as untrue as it ever was. People don't want it easy. They just want it fair and fun.

No, evil attains many victories. But unless those victories make for a more interesting game, they really don't matter, and probably shouldn't be included. And certainly D&D should be played with the assumption that it is fair and fun.

This magical death lever is crazy out-of-the-blue assassination that only the very paranoid characters (and, thus, not fully apt for the vast majority of D&D characters) or most prescient metagame thinkers would avoid.

This makes it unfair, and, for most, not fun.

"Unfair" is a completely valid and apt label for this scenario, and one doesn't need to resort to _ad absurdium_ attacks to disagree, merely just be comfortable with paranoid characters or presceint players.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 27, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You are once again mischaracterising those opposing you of wanting it easy and simple, and that remains as untrue as it ever was.




No, I was making a joke about the silly notion that one very narrow definition of the word "hero" and one point of view about the types of things that are supposed to happen to that hero in a game that defines the way D&D is "suppoed to be played".

And, for the record, I've never characterized anyone in this thread as "wanting it easy and simple" - you must be confusing me with someone else.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2006)

> No, I was making a joke about the silly notion that one very narrow definition of the word "hero" and one point of view about the types of things that are supposed to happen to that hero in a game that defines the way D&D is "suppoed to be played".




....that suggested that "narrow definition" of "hero" was wrong because "it's a foregone conclusion that the heroes will eventually win." Which is wrong.

The main implication of "easy and simple" is "the HERO EXPRESS chugs it's way over [the BBEG]." While not expressly stated, comparing the villain to a man on a train track does imply that it is struck with a force it cannot hope to stop. Which is also untrue, and implies that which is not true. 

Making the hyperbole a mischaracterization of how I believe *the assumptions of fairness in the D&D game work*. A micharacterization that, while you may not share, you still implied (though perhaps unintentionally?). Hence my post.

D&D is only SUPPOSED to be played the way you have fun. But it's still possible to have fun when it's not fair. And just because people have their reasons for calling this particular set-up unfair doesn't mean anything like "it's a foregone conclusion that the heroes will eventually win" as ""the HERO EXPRESS chugs it's way over [the BBEG]."

I do apologize for probably sounding more than a little pedantic here, but I am trying to show that there are more choices than "this situation is fair" or "the PC's face no true danger." The situation is unfair, and, even believing such, the PC's can and do face true danger. 

They just don't routinely face nigh-unavoidable death from pulling levers. 

It's okay to prefer a different playstyle, even one that includes "unfair" traps such as this one, but this does not make the playstyle I'm defending simply an inevitable march toward success without the risk of humiliating, painful, and permenant defeat.


----------



## Someone (Aug 27, 2006)

> Is it silly for characters to operate under the restriction that chopping down trees in a forest protected by treants is dangerous (whereas it's perfectly safe in other regions) or is it part of the "internal consistency" you believe is important?




This is not the correct analogy. The right one would be that the PCs entered the forest long ago, and saw no sign of treants, even when they looked for them; they saw large trees cut (and even cut themselves some) and nothing happened. But when one of them cuts a branch from one small tree, an army of treants appear out of nothing and beat the branch-cutter to a pulp. 

Makes no sense. But anyway, doesn´t matter, because it´s a _fantasy_ forest, isn´t it?


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 27, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, the DM is forcing the players to conform to a certain norm, the second they enter a "dungeon".  Of course, that brings up the idea of what constitutes a dungeon as well.  If said lever was inside a castle, should that matter?  If it's inside a blacksmith's home, we should act differently?  In a bar?  Or is the presence of a lever indication that the players are now in a dungeon environment?
> 
> Change the situation slightly.  Say the thief found a trap.  The thief then goes to disarm the trap.  Continuing this, the thief needs a 20 on his skill check to disarm the trap and he cannot make his saving throw.  So, on a roll of 15 or less, the thief dies.  Now the party has done everything by the book.  They've done everything right and the thief dies 75% of the time (a fail of 5 or more sets off the trap according to the skill).
> 
> ...



This is the underlyning problem with the encounter. Unless there is some other way of solving it (which i always think sshould be presented to the party after theyve left the dungeon), then the encounter had a cr too high for the party. The PCs have to have a fair to slightly unfair chance( 40 to 60 percent)  to solve the encounter. It seemed like neither was available in this case. It was essentially roll a 20 or die. 

The way i do my games is, if these ar heroes some things are just understood.  I don't make my rogues roll for traps every 10 ft and at every door. Its assumed they are and if a trap comes up i just roll in secret and move on so the game never loses its adventrious atmosphere. Too many mundane tasks makes games feel like D and D SWAT


----------



## Nelly (Aug 27, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> It is unfair because it is stupid at face value.  I can imagine truly bizarre scenarios for which I would amend my opinion, but that is wild speculation.



_
Ah you know.. there once was a medic that was injured from an explosion, he crawled to the healing bag and pulled out the first medicine he could find and gave himself a shot of this medicine.

I as GM asked "Are you sure you want to do that?" the medic answered "Yep I do it! I'm addicted in medicine anyway, so I'll take what ever I get."

"Okay Medic, do a Saving Throw" 

The medic rolled a Saving Throw and failed... he died from taking the wrong medicine, he was injured, had a collaps and simply died from it.

Live ain't fair, but you know what? We had so much fun by burning the Character Sheet and telling us stories from the good old dwarf medic that was addicted in drugs, medicine, alcohol and anything you can think of. 

Thats another way a heroic character can be killed, might not be the way you think a character should be killed, yet he was a fallen heroe and we remember him well  

Just don't take the game too serious and you sometimes might have a little fun, even when a character dies.
_


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 27, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> If the characters have to change their personalities every time they enter a new environment, they're not characters at all.




If the environment changes to suit the characters all the time, they aren't characters.  They're gods.


----------



## delericho (Aug 27, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I believe there's ample justification for having an in character POV that indicates the dungeon is a place separate from the real world where all perceptions of normality and logic are altered.




It may surprise you to hear that I agree with this - PCs should act differently in a dungeon than in the town. And a lot more paranoia and care is entirely appropriate, sensible, and expected.

Where we crucially differ is in our assessment of how much more paranoia and care should be expected.

As it stands, the trap described is undetectable, has en extreme save DC, and is instantly fatal. I have no problem with any one of these. Put two together, and I start to get worried (depending on which two). Put the three together, and I'll call it unfair.

Unless, as I've stated several times before, the PCs are aware that they are in over their heads. If they're 4th level, and the dungeon is for 9th level PCs, all bets are off.


----------



## Nelly (Aug 27, 2006)

> It may surprise you to hear that I agree with this - PCs should act differently in a dungeon than in the town. And a lot more paranoia and care is entirely appropriate, sensible, and expected.




_Yup, they should act professionally.. .something most gamers simply don't get.

They want to be handled like pro's, act and take it like pro's.

Especially when they are 7lvl up.. I expect more than just fooling and horsing around.
_


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2006)

> If the environment changes to suit the characters all the time, they aren't characters. They're gods.




There is a middle ground, you know. A place between the players having to change the way they play and being able to walk up to the Great Wyrm of the North at 2nd level and kill it because the DM won't make it more than CR2.

It's communication, and it's an under-used skill, but one of the DM's most vital. 

It's the DM saying to the PC's "The Great Wyrm of the North is far beyond your capabilities to defeat. If you try, you will meet a horrible end. Instead, try overthrowing the local baron. He's sitting there being a jerk at you, and at least that's a fair fight."

Not always in so many words, but through plenty of hints and warnings and second chances.

For instance, if I were to put such a lever in my game, and the rogue (for some reason) failed to detect the trap, I would further describe the piles of dust around it, or a sign put up by the locals in a brutal language, or have the character make a Perception check when they reached out to touch it to see if they couldn't sense the leaping black bolts of unholy death energy. I might have it covered in slightly glowing runes that the rogue uncovered, or show how it seems the ghostly afterimage of a hand was burned into the wood of the lever. It might flicker with green energy (and the piles of dust may do so as well). 

I never changed the trap, and persistance and bad luck could still kill a PC, but I gave them a good chance to avoid an untimely end. 

Changing the world so that the CR = ECL formula is always even is unfair, too. It's not fair to the world you've created. But that's not the alternative. The alternative is to make the trap fair, by getting rid of one or two of those things that make it unfair (undetectability, unrealistic implementation, unbeatable DC, etc.).


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 27, 2006)

I don't think it's unfair, undetectable, nor indeed any more unrealistic than many other things we're asked to accept in a fantasy world.

If you put little hints and clues in to make things easier, your players will come to rely on the DM giving hints and clues.  Take it to extremes, and they'll come to expect a safe sandbox world where there are convenient "danger!" signs whenever they're at risk, and even see that as "normal" D&D.  They'll come to see character death as a rare and exceptional event, or even a punishment, and if it's allowed to continue they'll start to complain that more difficult situations are "unfair".

But any situation that isn't "unfair" contains so little risk that they'll start to play it for laughs.  And they start to get bored.

In order to retain their interest the DM starts building plots, usually involving BBEG's, and bases these plots around the characters (at the expense of the world setting, which becomes blander and more vanilla all the time).  You finally end up with a cookie-cutter series of games that really aren't any different from somebody else's game down the street, and it doesn't seem terribly interesting, but nobody really seems to know what's wrong with the game.

What's wrong with it, of course, is that it's seen as the DM's job to arrange matters so the players can't lose -- which means that winning loses its value, so the whole thing starts to feel somehow pointless.

Believe me, I've seen it in other peoples' games.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 27, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Believe me, I've seen it in other peoples' games.




Believe me, that's not my game. Neither is the undetectable save-with-20-or-die death traps on innoculous levers. By golly, I think there might just be a middle ground.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 27, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Believe me, that's not my game. Neither is the undetectable save-with-20-or-die death traps on innoculous levers. By golly, I think there might just be a middle ground.




The concern I have with that is that it presents my position as an extreme, and the view of the other side as moderate.  It's a nice rhetorical trick, but a rhetorical trick is what it is.

I repeat that the trap is not undetectable.  It is merely undetectable by rolling d20's.  Surely the view that some situations should challenge the players, rather than the numbers on the character sheet, isn't an extreme.

Surely it's the crowd who see no other answer save the numbers on their character sheet for the resolution of in-game problems who represent the extremes.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 27, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I repeat that the trap is not undetectable.  It is merely undetectable by rolling d20's.  Surely the view that some situations should challenge the players, rather than the numbers on the character sheet, isn't an extreme.




Sure, its detected when the monk pulls the lever. A _detect magic_ might have had it show up, though we can't be sure (it might have had _undetectable aura_ on it) or it might have been detectable by a higher level rogue (though we can't be sure of that either). 

All we really can know is that nothing the PCs did detected the trap. How else would you attempt to figure out if there were a trap on the lever, and why would you do that after the rogue has already declared that there are no traps present? It seems like one of those after the fact things where you had to know the right answer to know to do it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2006)

> If you put little hints and clues in to make things easier, your players will come to rely on the DM giving hints and clues. Take it to extremes, and they'll come to expect a safe sandbox world where there are convenient "danger!" signs whenever they're at risk, and even see that as "normal" D&D. They'll come to see character death as a rare and exceptional event, or even a punishment, and if it's allowed to continue they'll start to complain that more difficult situations are "unfair".
> 
> But any situation that isn't "unfair" contains so little risk that they'll start to play it for laughs. And they start to get bored.




Any single element of any game taken to extremes can make for a bad game experience. The idea is that it's not taken to extremes -- they don't rely on the DM, nor do they expect to die from levers. They mistrust levers, and investigate them, and know that there will be a fair oppotunity to either die or live from one. They know the DM will give them a good chance for survival, that he isn't against them or trying to kill them, that death, if it comes, will be as earned as success is.  

The idea that we must all spend the session rolling dice is as extreme as the idea we must play a diceless game. The middle path -- between the extremes of lever paranoia and invincible PC's -- is often the most satisfying.

Now, people do enjoy lever paranoia, and people do enjoy more narrative games where characters rarely die. I think they're both ends of the bell curve, but they do have their place. I would not have fun at either place, myself.



> In order to retain their interest the DM starts building plots, usually involving BBEG's, and bases these plots around the characters (at the expense of the world setting, which becomes blander and more vanilla all the time). You finally end up with a cookie-cutter series of games that really aren't any different from somebody else's game down the street, and it doesn't seem terribly interesting, but nobody really seems to know what's wrong with the game.




A doesn't seem to follow from B here. Plots based around characters don't come at the expense of the world setting, and cookie-cutter doesn't follow from either plain characters or a plain setting, and bored doesn't always come from cookie-cutter.

For anecdotal evidence, I've been involved in games that largely focus on the characters' pasts. This enriched the characters by drawing them closer to a world on the brink of collapse due to the evil force that they know face, that they only knew vaguely of in the beginning. The games played to each character's unique strengths as they meshed with the setting -- the warrior had a warrior's school, trained under a weapon master, and found an ancient swordmaster locked away in his own sword atop a precarious mountain peak where towns of goblins lived on the back of rocs.

Character-based, but neither cookie-cutter adventures nor vanilla worlds.



> What's wrong with it, of course, is that it's seen as the DM's job to arrange matters so the players can't lose -- which means that winning loses its value, so the whole thing starts to feel somehow pointless.
> 
> Believe me, I've seen it in other peoples' games.




The DM arranging things so that players can't loose would be as extreme as arraning matters so that the players can't win. The same is true for "extreme ends" -- if there is only a 5% chance of living, or only a 5% chance of loosing, there is often something lost from the game. In the case of it being vastly unlikely to succeed, you lose a sense that your character matters in any sense. In the case of it being vastly unlikely to fail, you loose the sense that your abilities matter in any sense.

The alternative to traps like this is not cakewalk bland quests, and one does not need to like cakewalk bland quests to consider traps like this unfair. 



> I repeat that the trap is not undetectable. It is merely undetectable by rolling d20's. Surely the view that some situations should challenge the players, rather than the numbers on the character sheet, isn't an extreme.




Atoms aren't undetectable, they're just not detectable with the naked eye. Would it be fair to request the players to "think outside the box" and "develop magic capable of observing atoms" in order to avoid death from them?

I do believe it *is* an extreme, actually. I would never demand my players showcase themselves as master orators to play a spoony bard, nor would I request my players to demonstrate knowledge of swordsmanship to wield a weapon. I would never ask my players to try to outsmart me, either. They probably can, more often than not, but I wouldn't require it of them. If I had a puzzle, it would be up to the CHARACTERS to find it out, not the PLAYERS. 

What I would demanad of my players is to put a high score in Strength if their character is a strong and mighty warrior, or to give them the Ride skill if they want to charge into combat astride a noble steed -- I demand they play the game by using the rules to give their characters capabilities. Then I test these capabilities.

I also don't believe that this trap was a really a challenge for the players. A challenge implies something that tests your ability to succeed. This trap did not test any ability to succeed -- they already had succeeded in their goal of getting the McGuffin, and their ability to precieve the trap failed on every count. Even giving that, having the monk pull the lever shows that they are thinking about how to succeed. If this was a graded test on what to do when encountering a lever in a dungeon, they scored an A+. But the monk died regardless.

So not only is it rather unorthodox to test the players to be what their characters are, this lever only tested the abilities of the players to read the DM's mind. 



> Surely it's the crowd who see no other answer save the numbers on their character sheet for the resolution of in-game problems who represent the extremes.




True, they would be. Unfortunately, those who oppose your view don't always fit that mold. Rather, in speaking for myself, I see the numbers on the character sheet as an essential skeleton for the resolution of in-game problems that should not be ignored. Generating those numbers and choosing when to use those numbers is the "player challenge" of D&D -- interacting with a world in a way that will lead them to success and treasure. Forbiding them the valid use of these numbers (a trap "undetectable by rolling d20s") is something I consider unfair. 

They are not the only answer, but they are where most answers should start. 

And those who refuse to deviate from the numbers on the sheet ARE just as extreme as your position -- they have no history, they have no personality, they have no item that does not translate into some form of bonus or bost for a mechanic. But those people have fun doing what they do. They just share, with your position, a gameplay style that I (and, I'd argue, the majority of D&D players) see as not only not fun, but also not fair, according to where I (and, it seems, this poll) believe the standard assumptions of D&D fairness lie.

My style isn't the One True Style, I don't hold anything against those who want to outsmart the DM or those who want to tell a story without fearing death. But it is a valid middle ground which neither inspires a fear of levers in my players, nor makes my players feel that winning is meaningless. Rather, this makes them feel that winning is hard-faught and noble, and that death is a constant threat but that they can feel confident attempting the risky and chancy without being assured of their demise.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 28, 2006)

Incredibly well-written post, Kamikaze.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 28, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> This is not the correct analogy.




It's not an analogy.  It's an example.  An example of an environment that reasonably requires the PCs to change their normal behavior in order to remain safe.  As someone much wiser than I once said "Read. Understand.  Post.  In that order."


----------



## delericho (Aug 28, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> If you put little hints and clues in to make things easier, your players will come to rely on the DM giving hints and clues.  Take it to extremes, and they'll come to expect a safe sandbox world where there are convenient "danger!" signs whenever they're at risk, and even see that as "normal" D&D.




So, what happens if you don't take it to extremes? What happens if you take it to a reasonable extent?



> But any situation that isn't "unfair" contains so little risk that they'll start to play it for laughs.  And they start to get bored.




Are you seriously suggesting that the only way to run an exciting and interesting game is to make it unfair?



> In order to retain their interest the DM starts building plots, usually involving BBEG's, and bases these plots around the characters (at the expense of the world setting, which becomes blander and more vanilla all the time).  You finally end up with a cookie-cutter series of games that really aren't any different from somebody else's game down the street, and it doesn't seem terribly interesting, but nobody really seems to know what's wrong with the game.
> 
> What's wrong with it, of course, is that it's seen as the DM's job to arrange matters so the players can't lose -- which means that winning loses its value, so the whole thing starts to feel somehow pointless.
> 
> Believe me, I've seen it in other peoples' games.




I guess I must be doing something wrong. In 18 years of DMing, I've never used a 'read my mind or die' trap, and yet I've never had a problem keeping players entertained. I shall immediately revise my DMing style to ensure boredom from now on.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 28, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Any single element of any game taken to extremes can make for a bad game experience. The idea is that it's not taken to extremes -- they don't rely on the DM, nor do they expect to die from levers. They mistrust levers, and investigate them, and know that there will be a fair oppotunity to either die or live from one. They know the DM will give them a good chance for survival, that he isn't against them or trying to kill them, that death, if it comes, will be as earned as success is.




*nods*

That's my position in a nutshell.  The only thing I'd add is that you can't learn everything about the situation by rolling a d20 against the numbers on your character sheet; the players should engage their brains as well.

All I'm objecting to is the idea that because a rogue hasn't found the trap by rolling a d20, the players are then _entitled_ to assume that there's no trap.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A doesn't seem to follow from B here. Plots based around characters don't come at the expense of the world setting.




Well, the answer to this goes fairly far afield from the thread title.

In a nutshell, I don't personally like plots at all, very much.  Nor do I like purpose-created BBEG's.

Personally I see it as the DM's role to create an interesting and challenging area for the players to explore.  Imo it's up to the _players_ to find reasons to explore it -- in which case you don't need to _devise_ a plot at all.

In other words, I think that plot and story are the result of fantasy gaming.  They don't need to be processes within it, and I don't think the DM needs to worry about them at all.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The alternative to traps like this is not cakewalk bland quests, and one does not need to like cakewalk bland quests to consider traps like this unfair.




I'm not necessarily defending this particular trap (which I think is a bit dull anyway.)  I'm saying that the trap isn't inherently "unfair", and that calling it "unfair" is symptomatic of roll-playing games where the dice and the character sheets have to be allowed to define the outcome.

What I AM defending is the idea of traps, or situations, that challenge the players rather than the characters.  I think D&D is more fun when you have to play it with your brain in gear.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Atoms aren't undetectable, they're just not detectable with the naked eye. Would it be fair to request the players to "think outside the box" and "develop magic capable of observing atoms" in order to avoid death from them?




It's fair to ask the players to think outside the box, yes.  Where you get this atom thing from I have no idea.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If I had a puzzle, it would be up to the CHARACTERS to find it out, not the PLAYERS.




And that, in a nutshell, is the fundamental issue.  I think that if the CHARACTERS can overcome all the situations to be found in the game, then there is no demand made on the PLAYERS to engage their brains.

And if the game doesn't need any thought from the players, then in what sense is it a game?

To me, D&D is and should be partly a game of skill, strategy, and thought.  It's also partly a game of roleplaying and, yes, partly a game of luck, but I think the suggestion that the characters should be able to overcome all obstables without reference to the players does need to be challenged.

(I think that it's also partly a game of character design, and I think that's a lamentable failure in the rules which has become particularly pervasive with the present edition, although the seeds of it were in all the previous editions as well.)



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What I would demanad of my players is to put a high score in Strength if their character is a strong and mighty warrior, or to give them the Ride skill if they want to charge into combat astride a noble steed -- I demand they play the game by using the rules to give their characters capabilities. Then I test these capabilities.




Ayup, and that's a common attitude.  What it leads to, inevitably, is the expectation that all obstables can be overcome by rolling d20's.  I think that's detrimental to the fun of the game.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I also don't believe that this trap was a really a challenge for the players. A challenge implies something that tests your ability to succeed. This trap did not test any ability to succeed -- they already had succeeded in their goal of getting the McGuffin, and their ability to precieve the trap failed on every count. Even giving that, having the monk pull the lever shows that they are thinking about how to succeed. If this was a graded test on what to do when encountering a lever in a dungeon, they scored an A+.




Surely they got a D-.

They assumed that pulling the lever was to their advantage - or even that they were "supposed" to pull the lever.  Ass, you, me, etc.

They then assumed that if there were a trap, their rogue would probably find it.  (Reliance on the d20 to solve the problem:  100%).  They then assumed that if their rogue had failed to find it, the safest thing to do would be to have the character with the highest saves pull the lever.  (Reliance on the d20 to solve the problem:  100%).

They didn't think of using a rope to pull the lever.  They didn't think of capturing a prisoner or questioning it about the lever.  They didn't think of using a spell or informational magic.  In fact, the amount of thought these players put into the situation was precisely zero.

And there's much subsequent whining about playstyles in which you CAN'T rely on the d20 in this thread - and indeed much sneering about those playstyles.  All hail the holy d20.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Forbiding them the valid use of these numbers (a trap "undetectable by rolling d20s") is something I consider unfair.




You (and it seems many other people in this thread) would consider me a monstrously, savagely unfair DM.  

I unfairly demand that the players show thought and strategy and, yes, skill.  I unfairly allow players who play thoughtlessly or rely on the d20 to solve their problems to die.  And I unfairly reward those players who play thoughtfully, trusting their actions rather than their character sheets, with success and wealth and experience.  What a damnably unfair man I am!


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 28, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I don't think it's unfair, undetectable, nor indeed any more unrealistic than many other things we're asked to accept in a fantasy world.
> 
> If you put little hints and clues in to make things easier, your players will come to rely on the DM giving hints and clues.  Take it to extremes, and they'll come to expect a safe sandbox world where there are convenient "danger!" signs whenever they're at risk, and even see that as "normal" D&D.  They'll come to see character death as a rare and exceptional event, or even a punishment, and if it's allowed to continue they'll start to complain that more difficult situations are "unfair".
> 
> ...



This statement seems to say that games that are designed with the PCs in mind are cookie cutter , easy and lame? 

at least thats what I get. From it. what is up with the extremes on this issue.  Players don't play this game to see how high they can roll on a dice (though we all love a good 20 every now and then). Players don't want to play a game where the goal is to get 20 every single time. They want to play characters whom havea  fair shake in the world. I am all for DMs providing hints and tips in game if the players know where hte find them. The sign that says danger is a bit much but having hard to find sages, pieces of artifacts, libraries, knowledable pcs, involving the knowledge checks, bards ect) these are all pretty good ways and opportunities that can be open for PCs to figure out clues on their own without the DM bouncing them over the head with it. 

The odds for a typical encounter should be on averagebetween 40 to 0 percent. This game isabout the PCs not the overinflated ego of us DMs. The PCs have more fun when they succeed and even more fun when they succeed after failing a few times. If a PC dies it should be by their own merrit not because they didnt roll 20s for three ofr four consective rolls. 

If there's something that the DC or the CR is so high I'll have ways in the game where the PCs can find out more. Will the PCs seek these ways, its up to them. Will they be easy to obtain, well they won't be in hte open in abook that is labeled secrets.

This puts the game back into the hands of the players.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 28, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> All I'm objecting to is the idea that because a rogue hasn't found the trap by rolling a d20, the players are then _entitled_ to assume that there's no trap.




Red herring.  Who has suggested otherwise?

The word "entitled" implies that the lever is practically safe.  If a Sorceror pulled that level, rolled a 6 on save, and turned to ash, we would not be having this discussion.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 28, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Red herring.  Who has suggested otherwise?




Have you actually read the rest of the thread?   :\ 

There are numerous instances of people declaring this trap "undetectable" as a result of the Rogue not find it and saying that is unfair.  There are numerous instances of people declaring that "taking 20" should reveal the presence of any reasonable trap as long as the Rogue is looking in the correct spot.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 28, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> And that, in a nutshell, is the fundamental issue.  I think that if the CHARACTERS can overcome all the situations to be found in the game, then there is no demand made on the PLAYERS to engage their brains.
> 
> And if the game doesn't need any thought from the players, then in what sense is it a game?
> 
> ...



I guess this is where my DMing philosophy differs from yours: in my games, lack of player skill does not automatically result in character death. That is not to say that player skill has no effect on a game. I tend to calibrate my challenges so that characters played by less skilful players still have about a 50% chance of overcoming them. With player skill, the chance of overcoming the challenge increases, or the characters are likely to expend fewer resources (hit points, spells, etc.) to overcome the challenge. I like to think of that as my happy medium between placing too much emphasis on player skill, and not requiring player skill at all.



> They assumed that pulling the lever was to their advantage - or even that they were "supposed" to pull the lever.  Ass, you, me, etc.
> 
> They then assumed that if there were a trap, their rogue would probably find it.  (Reliance on the d20 to solve the problem:  100%).  They then assumed that if their rogue had failed to find it, the safest thing to do would be to have the character with the highest saves pull the lever.  (Reliance on the d20 to solve the problem:  100%).
> 
> ...



I'd like to turn this scenario on its head. These players don't exist in a vacuum. Relatively inexperienced players take their cue on how to behave in a fantasy RPG from the books they have read and the movies they have seen (and to the best of my knowledge, none of them have portrayed the protagonists using a rope to pull a lever). More experienced players take their cue from the way their DM has run his games. So, what has the DM been doing all this while? Has he given them sufficient opportunities to learn that sending a monk to pull a lever, even after checking for traps and finding nothing, is a bad idea? It seems to me that this attitude of extreme paranoia towards dungeon trappings does not occur outside of the games of certain DMs. I think the issue is less about player abilities vs character abilities than it is about player expectations vs DM expectations. 



> You (and it seems many other people in this thread) would consider me a monstrously, savagely unfair DM.
> 
> I unfairly demand that the players show thought and strategy and, yes, skill.  I unfairly allow players who play thoughtlessly or rely on the d20 to solve their problems to die.  And I unfairly reward those players who play thoughtfully, trusting their actions rather than their character sheets, with success and wealth and experience.  What a damnably unfair man I am!



To me, the question is, if in your games, a character's survival depends entirely upon the player's ability, why bother with character abilities at all? Just rely on what the player says he's doing to adjudicate success and failure. I'd say that a 100% reliance on player ability instead of character ability is about as extreme and unfair as a 100% reliance on character ability instead of player ability. And happens about as often.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 28, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Have you actually read the rest of the thread?   :\
> 
> There are numerous instances of people declaring this trap "undetectable" as a result of the Rogue not find it and saying that is unfair.  There are numerous instances of people declaring that "taking 20" should reveal the presence of any reasonable trap as long as the Rogue is looking in the correct spot.




Red herring nonetheless.

"Entitled" implies "safe", at least when used by PapersAndPaychecks in this context.  If a Sorceror pulled that lever, rolled low, and then vaporized, we would not be having this discussion would we?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 28, 2006)

> The only thing I'd add is that you can't learn everything about the situation by rolling a d20 against the numbers on your character sheet; the players should engage their brains as well.
> 
> All I'm objecting to is the idea that because a rogue hasn't found the trap by rolling a d20, the players are then entitled to assume that there's no trap.




I do believe that this is probably a minority style, and not a style that I would consider very fair. Because, as a Role Playing Game, part of playing the role is in having your character accomplish things that you as a player are incapable of, which not only includes physical feats (fighting dragons and running around in full plate), but also mental feats (solving puzzles and forcing information out of the reticent prince). The way these feats are accomplished is by rolling a d20.

Now, in my view, the player skill comes in designing an effective character for the campaign, and in choosing to use skills and abilities to the character's benefit -- choosing when and why to roll d20's. If you want to lie to the guards, you must roll a Bluff check, and it would be smart of a player to have a character good at bluffing to lie to the guards, rather than a low-charisma dwarven monk (for instance). And if no one designed a character with a good Bluff check, then they were not anticipating that guards perhaps had to be Bluffed, which is a new challenge that they must figure out a way to overcome.

I will not have the character's success depend upon the player's ingenius lying skills. This is unfair, I believe, and takes out out of the campaign world, making it less about the fantasy role you fill and more about some sort of personality test which, of course, not everyone is going to pass.



> Well, the answer to this goes fairly far afield from the thread title.
> 
> In a nutshell, I don't personally like plots at all, very much. Nor do I like purpose-created BBEG's.
> 
> ...




Maybe we can whip up a new thread for this concept. Either way, I don't think this is a particularly common approach -- I think most DM's have something of a story (or several stories) in mind, or at least "plans for the villains that the PC's can stop," (which is the basic element of a plot).



> I'm saying that the trap isn't inherently "unfair", and that calling it "unfair" is symptomatic of roll-playing games where the dice and the character sheets have to be allowed to define the outcome.
> 
> What I AM defending is the idea of traps, or situations, that challenge the players rather than the characters. I think D&D is more fun when you have to play it with your brain in gear.




This is where I think you go out on a limb. Calling it "unfair" is not nessecarily symptomatic of playing the game based on dice at all -- many narrative games would still find the trap unfair because the PC's never got a chance to see it, either by rolling d20's or by saying "I examine the room for signs of a trap" without rolling a die. Many of the proposed solutions to make the trap fair are not hinged on rolling d20's -- I, for one, never argued that the Search DC was too high or that the save DC was too high, but rather that some clues would have been nice. These clues require no d20 roll to find, just some thought on the part of the DM about what logical consequences this trap would have in the world. 

I think some people would agree that challenging the players to directly puzzle out things their characters think would make for a good D&D game. I wouldn't. D&D is more fun when you play it with your brain in gear, but I'd rather have them thinking "I'm an elven architect, I know how rooms are built, I can use my Search skill to see if this room was built to conceal a trap!" or pondering that this McGuffin has true connections to the ancient priesthood of which the villain is a part, or engaging it in other ways that don't pull you out of the immersion in your character and go against the idea of D&D as playing a role.

Because when you test the players directly, they are no longer playing a role, they are playing themselves.

Regardless of my subjective feelings on what makes a game fun for me, though, this trap can be "unfair" without focusing on dice-rolling, and neither does this trap test the players (as I said above, unless you're testing them for the psychic power to read the DM's mind).



> I think that if the CHARACTERS can overcome all the situations to be found in the game, then there is no demand made on the PLAYERS to engage their brains.
> 
> And if the game doesn't need any thought from the players, then in what sense is it a game?
> 
> ...




It is a false dichotomy. The players engage their brains in many ways that don't have to deal with the capabilities of the player depending on their own native talents. For instance, they engage their brains in figuring out plot points, or in designing effective characters, or in dealing with the hazards that stand between them and their goal, in developing fully realized heroic adventurers.

You can play the game with the rules as a tight skeleton and still challenge the players in USING those rules to accomplish the goals they have.

Your willingness to challenge other play styles doesn't make sense to me. I certainly don't feel a need to change you to believe that you're wrong about how you love to play the game, why would you want to change anyone's mind about how they love to play the game?

And if you do feel you need to make people stop having fun their way, I would caution you that it is an unwinnable battle. The idea of using the rules to resolve conflicts is as old as Monopoly and Poker. People will continue to use the dice to resolve conflicts (to varying degrees), even if you think they shouldn't. Indeed, I'd say that your position is in the minority, so it is likely that the design and development of the D&D game will continue to focus on dice mechanics, even if you think they shouldn't, and that focus will contribute to their longevity and success.



> What it leads to, inevitably, is the expectation that all obstables can be overcome by rolling d20's. I think that's detrimental to the fun of the game.




It is not true that this attitude leads to any inevitable conclusion. It can very easily be a conclusion in and of itself. And while you're free to feel that overcoming all problems by rollind d20's is not fun, I don't think it's appropriate to cast all those who think this trap is unfair in that category, because it's simply untrue. 

You have seen it happen. And now you're hearing from at least one person to whom that has never happened and, as far as the future can be forseen, never will. You have new evidence -- that there is a middle ground.



> They assumed that pulling the lever was to their advantage - or even that they were "supposed" to pull the lever. Ass, you, me, etc.
> 
> They then assumed that if there were a trap, their rogue would probably find it. (Reliance on the d20 to solve the problem: 100%). They then assumed that if their rogue had failed to find it, the safest thing to do would be to have the character with the highest saves pull the lever. (Reliance on the d20 to solve the problem: 100%).




I could be wrong, but are you suggesting that skill checks and saving throws are detrimental to your fun of the game because they rely on a d20 roll rather than the player's description? That you would rather have a player say "I poke the stone floor, every inch, every crack. And then I tap the walls and cielings with my spear butt. I have the torch come nearby to any holes or divots, and blow the dust away from every hole," and have that determine success, than roll a Search check? Or to have a player say "I grit my teeth and overcome the pain" rather than roll a saving throw?



> They didn't think of using a rope to pull the lever. They didn't think of capturing a prisoner or questioning it about the lever. They didn't think of using a spell or informational magic. In fact, the amount of thought these players put into the situation was precisely zero.




Again, there is this perception that they need to be very paranoid about the lever. Regardless of if d20's were rolled in the above search or not, it was searched, and no trap was found. To assume there is a trap when you are told that you do not precieve one is to be, in the opinion of many voting on this poll, too paranoid to be reasonably expected.

They put plenty of thought into it -- it took thought to search for a trap, and thought to place the likely survivor at the head. We aren't told about what they did prior to reaching the lever, so you're assuming they didn't capture a prisoner -- I can just as easily assume they did, and the prisoner said nothing. Using a rope and detecting magic on something that poses no precievable threat would be, I and much of this poll agree, acting far too paranoid to be expected.

The idea that they were dumb roll-players who couldn't be bothered to think is an idea I very much fight against in this thread, because it is an extraordinary and irrational requirement for the DM to assume that they will be very affraid of a lever in a room.

Not every group will have such courage when confronted with a lever. But their display of trust was not stupid or rash, merely based on what their characters could precieve.



> And there's much subsequent whining about playstyles in which you CAN'T rely on the d20 in this thread - and indeed much sneering about those playstyles. All hail the holy d20.




I will state once and for all that I am not a fan of a style that requires me to get out of character to solve a problem. Ever, in any capacity.

This doesn't mean I use a d20 to solve all my problems either.

And even though I don't use a d20 to solve all my problems, those who do are playing it in a valid and entertaining way.

And judging by this poll, at least (and, I'd argue, by the success of 3.x in general), the perspective is that those who think all players should play characters that are affraid of levers in dungeon rooms are a fringe minority.

I think a poll that tested whether people ever used Diplomacy checks without acting out the scene before or along with rolling the dice would find that the idea of just rolling the check and moving on is in a fringe minority, too.

What is there to gain by insulting, belittling, and condemning those who play different from you? Saying they don't use their brains, that they worship at the altar of d20, that they are crybabys whining without their security blanket...what do you gain from this? It's obviously untrue, it poses that there is some sort of battle going on for the Badwrongfun Police to investigate. People can play differently from you (and, it seems, most do) and LOVE their playstyle while still thinking in complex, challenging fashions and facing true danger to their character's well-being. 

Your way of playing is not the right way. It is not the one true way, the best way, or the only way. It is your way, it is best for you. That doesn't mean that all other ways are scared of a true challenge, but rather that they find it in a different capacity. Your playstyle has no monopoly on smart players.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 28, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Have you actually read the rest of the thread?   :\
> 
> There are numerous instances of people declaring this trap "undetectable" as a result of the Rogue not find it and saying that is unfair.  There are numerous instances of people declaring that "taking 20" should reveal the presence of any reasonable trap as long as the Rogue is looking in the correct spot.



Well, to me, an "undetectable" trap is not unfair as long as the party has a good chance of surviving or avoiding it. Even the death of a single character is not too bad as long as the party has a way to reverse it. What some people are upset about is an apparently undetectable, practically unsurvivable trap that might* only be avoided by extraordinary means that would not occur to some (if not most) players.

* I use "might" since there did not seem to be anything stopping the party from leaving the lever alone and just going out the way they came in.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 28, 2006)

> There are numerous instances of people declaring this trap "undetectable" as a result of the Rogue not find it and saying that is unfair. There are numerous instances of people declaring that "taking 20" should reveal the presence of any reasonable trap as long as the Rogue is looking in the correct spot.




Are pink unicorns invisible, or are they just "undetectable" as a result of us not being pyschic enough to precieve them? After all, sometimes people die after going into dungeons, and it's unexplained, and some people think it's pink unicorns behind it all.

Is this trap invisible, or is it just "undetectable" as a result of the characters not being skilled enough to precieve it? After all, somtimes people die after going into dungeons, and it's unexplained, and some people think it's traps behind it all. 

In either case, would it be reasonable to head into danger with an EKG meter because undetectable pink unicorns may suddenly manifest and kill you? Would it be reasonable to approach each lever with a rope or a patsy because undetectable traps may jump out from  under the bed and get you?

The unfairness doesn't JUST result from the lack of being detected. As others have pointed out, there's many things that converge on this trap to create an unfair situation. And, for me, there's no requirement that the trap be reasonable, merely that the chance to overcome or avoid the trap is reasonable. 

One of the ways in which the chance to avoid or overcome the trap is made reasonable is by making the trap's presence evident. This would make the situation, according to "numerous people," much more fair.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 28, 2006)

I am all for a good puzzle. Kamikazea and I have been on the oppositte side of this issue before and we still are. But during one discussion we had it was brought up that the puzzle should be at least fair.

The way I see puzzles in games is that the actual puzzle I give the player is probably not as decryptic as the one that it is the game. Afterall characters with an intelligence of 18 would probably solve the easy puzzles found or written in most dand d games. The puzzles provided should be easy enough for a high school student to solve. Nascrag, the d and d fun tournament at gencon, does a great job of writing up puzzles like this, where the actual puzzle you solve is only a mijnor invisoioning of what is really there. 

My problem with the eample is that there was no reasonable evidence that this was a puzzle. Plus the puzzle seems ot want to circumvent the rules of d and d. No matter what you do, whether you're like Kami and don't like puzzles or like me and love them, you should never have a puzzle blow off the rules of d and d.  If there's a trap there it should have a CR, a Trigger and a DC for the thief to find it that is within the design of the trap. If its a simple glypgh trap it should be realitively fair to find. A good search may not reveal that its a trap but the dm should provide a good descriptoin of the lever that may lead to to figuring out that it could e a trap. Buti f all the DM does is say "nope no traps" he's diserviced his game by being undescriptive in waht the thief did find.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 28, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Red herring nonetheless.




How can it be a "red herring" if other posters have, in fact, taken the exact position that Papers&Paychecks is addressing?



> If a Sorceror pulled that lever, rolled low, and then vaporized, we would not be having this discussion would we?




This doesn't have anything to do with the point Papers&Paychecks was making.  If you want to make this point, make this point.  The fact that Papers&Paychecks post doesn't somehow respond to the subject YOU believe is important in this thread doesn't render the subject he is addressing moot or misleading.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The unfairness doesn't JUST result from the lack of being detected. As others have pointed out, there's many things that converge on this trap to create an unfair situation. And, for me, there's no requirement that the trap be reasonable, merely that the chance to overcome or avoid the trap is reasonable.




Are you disagreeing with what I said (i.e. that numerous people in the thread have specifically said that since the Rogue couldn't detect the trap on the lever by taking 20 that it was reasonable to assume there was no trap on the lever and that, as a result, Papers&Paychecks post was not a "red herring") or are you simply using my post as a launchpoint for a reiteration of your own opinions?  I'm confused, because nothing in your post is in any way responding to what I said in the post you quoted.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 28, 2006)

> simply using my post as a launchpoint for a reiteration of your own opinions?




Definately this. Clarifying why undetectability is a problem, and showing that undetectability isn't the only problem.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 28, 2006)

Original poll question leaves out some background regarding the lever: 

 - do the PC's have reason to believe there's any more to the dungeon (e.g. suspicious holes in the map)?
 - has the same adventure already had killer traps?
 - has there been any prior warning here or elsewhere about the Lever of Doom?
 - does this hypothetical game have the old spell "Find Traps" available and if yes, why was it not cast?

Regardless, I voted that it's fair.

Lanefan


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 28, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> How can it be a "red herring" if other posters have, in fact, taken the exact position that Papers&Paychecks is addressing?




It can be a red herring if "entitled" is misleading, by accident or on purpose.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 28, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Original poll question leaves out some background regarding the lever:
> 
> - do the PC's have reason to believe there's any more to the dungeon (e.g. suspicious holes in the map)?
> - has the same adventure already had killer traps?
> ...



I"m going to go on a limb and say we got everything. If the PCs had more warning about this thing the author would have mentioned it (if only to save face for his argument). If there were killer trapslikethis around that were undetectable and had previously killed party members I doubht any of them would be pulling levers ever again. 

YOu did ring up agood point and this goes to my earlier comment that the DM failed in his description. Why werent there any indications that osmething was dangerious. Scorch marks, bones, blood spatter, left over equpement. Something should have been revealed during the thorough take 20 on search 20 minute investigation of the lever. 

The DM seems to take for granted exactly whathappens during a take 20. this is not a quick glance. When someone takes 20 on a search they are investigating every area of that square or squares. The plus is it will at least reveal a clue if not the actual trap. At worst it wastes time.  A trap allegedly that dangerious would leave some marks


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 28, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> How can it be a "red herring" if other posters have, in fact, taken the exact position that Papers&Paychecks is addressing?




Are you sure anyone has said that? I don't think anyone has.

It's the undetectability of the trap with the insanely high save that goes with it that is the problem. It isn't just one thing, its how everything works in concert in order to kill the PC. There are three main problems: search with high DC, save with high DC, no in-character warning. If one of these things were different, then it might be fair. If two were different then it probably would be. 

I don't think anyone has been arguing otherwise. In fact, most people have not complained about the Search DC but of the save DC instead!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 28, 2006)

From either a role-playing (ala Kamikaze Midget) or meta-gaming standpoint, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  When our rogue takes 20 on his Search check, all he knows is that, if there is a trap, it is beyond his skill to discover.  At that point, the questions ought to be (again, from either perspective) "What is this lever here for?" and "Should we pull it?"

Now some meta-gaming questions enter the mix perforce:  

"Is it safe to assume that any trap we encounter can be detected?"  Not an assumption I'd make, and certainly not an assumption that a being living in an rpg world would make (unless those beings assume also that the world is devised for their benefit).  

"Is it safe to assume that any trap we set off can be survived?"  Again, the answer must be _No_.  Either, from a role-playing standpoint, we remember that the world is not designed for our survival, or, from a meta-gaming standpoint, we remember that a certain percentage of encounters are _supposed to be_ overwhelming.

So, we have good reason _not to_ pull the lever.  OTOH, fortune favors the bold, and sometimes so does the DM (or gods, if role-playing).  So, should we pull the lever or not?

Well, it would certainly be simpler if there was some means in the game to "read the DM's mind," as it were.  Some kind of spells to gain information, perhaps.  Divination, we could call them.  If there was some sort of low-level spell that could determine if an action would cause weal or woe in the near future, then life would be so much easier.  But, alas, there is only one way to approach any challenge in the game......    

(Needless to say, any lever protected against divination spells should be treated with great caution, even if the rogue finds nothing.)

RC


----------



## delericho (Aug 28, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> There are numerous instances of people declaring this trap "undetectable" as a result of the Rogue not find it and saying that is unfair.




Undetectable is an exaggeration and/or shorthand. Would you prefer "undetectable by the normally accepted means by which traps are generally detected within the game"?

In any event, I don;t recall seeing anyone claim the trap is unfair simply because the Rogue failed to find it by taking 20 on a Search. It's when you combine this with an extreme DC save and the insta-kill nature of the trap (that prevents Raise Dead, no less!) that we have problems.



> There are numerous instances of people declaring that "taking 20" should reveal the presence of any reasonable trap as long as the Rogue is looking in the correct spot.




One person. Specifically me. And I placed the caveat on it "in a level-appropriate dungeon". I further noted that if the PCs were not in a level-appropriate dungeon then they should be aware (from their past experience in the dungeon) that they were not in a level-appropriate dungeon.

It's these little caveats that seem to keep getting missed, and they turn the "unfair" crowd from a bunch of extremist whiners into a reasonable position.


----------



## delericho (Aug 28, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Ayup, and that's a common attitude.  What it leads to, inevitably, is the expectation that all obstables can be overcome by rolling d20's.  I think that's detrimental to the fun of the game.




Question: what is the Search DC of the trap?

If it has a DC, no matter how high, then the trap can be detected by rolling d20. In which case, that's not an unreasonable assumption - we're quibbling about the details, not the principle.

If the trap has no DC, and so cannot be detected by rolling d20, then we have another problem. There is no mechanism in the current edition for producing a trap that simply cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier, and for good reason.

Which means that in producing this trap the DM has deliberately stepped beyond the rules in order to adversely affect (some might prefer 'challenge') the PCs. I would have thought expecting the DM to play by the rules of the game was a reasonable assumption to make, wouldn't you?


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 28, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Question: what is the Search DC of the trap?
> 
> If it has a DC, no matter how high, then the trap can be detected by rolling d20.



Provided the searcher has enough skill; otherwise, it's still undetectable...no big deal.


> If the trap has no DC, and so cannot be detected by rolling d20, then we have another problem. There is no mechanism in the current edition for producing a trap that simply cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier, and for good reason.



That's a whole other debate, whether such a mechanism should exist.  For example, a trap might exist that is undetectable by any rogue (say, DC = 1000, or infinity), but a simple _Detect Magic _ will reveal something is fishy about that area...or lever...

Lane-"I find traps the old-fashioned way: I break 'em!"-fan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 28, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Question: what is the Search DC of the trap?
> 
> If it has a DC, no matter how high, then the trap can be detected by rolling d20. In which case, that's not an unreasonable assumption - we're quibbling about the details, not the principle.




Although PapersAndPaychecks may have said "What it leads to, inevitably, is the expectation that all obstables can be overcome by rolling d20's." I imagine that it's pretty reasonable to assume that he meant that it leads to the expectation that all obstacles can be overcome *by the PCs* by rolling d20s.  His statement that "I think that's detrimental to the fun of the game" seems to be far more principle than details, to me.  YMMV.



> If the trap has no DC, and so cannot be detected by rolling d20, then we have another problem. There is no mechanism in the current edition for producing a trap that simply cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier, and for good reason.
> 
> Which means that in producing this trap the DM has deliberately stepped beyond the rules in order to adversely affect (some might prefer 'challenge') the PCs. I would have thought expecting the DM to play by the rules of the game was a reasonable assumption to make, wouldn't you?




You are incorrect in your base assumption, sir.  Rule 0 does, indeed, allow the DM to produce a trap that cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier.  Moreover, so would creative use of magic.  

However, the simple expedient of setting the DC beyond the PC rogue's ability to detect it via Search accomplishes the same thing for all practical purposes.  That Harry the Hypothetical Wonder Rogue can detect the trap is immaterial.  If the rogue has a maximum bonus of, say, +8 to his check, then a Search DC 29 trap is undetectable by that rogue at that time.  The DM presumably knows what the rogue's bonuses are, and thus can make any trap undetectable that she desires.

Which leads again into my earlier post.  Neither the players nor their characters should automatically assume that a trap does not exist simply because they can't detect it.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It's the undetectability of the trap with the insanely high save that goes with it that is the problem. It isn't just one thing, its how everything works in concert in order to kill the PC. There are three main problems: search with high DC, save with high DC, no in-character warning. If one of these things were different, then it might be fair. If two were different then it probably would be.




If the trap were simply a square on the floor somewhere, then there would be no in-character warning.  It is not.  It is a big honking lever.  You don't have to Search for the trap mechanism -- there it is!  You have to activate it yourself to make it work.  Searching for a trap using mundane means reveals nothing, _but does that actually mean it's safe to pull the lever?_

To me, the fact that it's a big lever that you have to pull removes completely "no in-character warning" and ameliorates almost completely the high Search DC.  After those problems are removed, if you still need to worry about the save DC you're more than a bit naive.  See previous post.

Me, I don't generally use these types of traps, but I have fallen victim to them from time to time.  Does that make them unfair?  Not at all.

RC


----------



## delericho (Aug 28, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Provided the searcher has enough skill; otherwise, it's still undetectable...no big deal.




That's the very point I'm getting at, though. The poster I quoted seemed to be suggesting that there were (or should be) some problems that simply could not be solved with a d20. That suggests a trap that could not ever be found with a Search check, no matter how skilled the Rogue.

In practice, there is no difference between a Search DC of 21 + Rogue's Search modifier and a trap that has no DC at all. Philosophically, there's a world of difference, and I wish to know which it is.

The thing is, either there is a (too high) Search DC, in which case the problem can be solved by rolling a d20, or it cannot, in which case...



> That's a whole other debate, whether such a mechanism should exist.  For example, a trap might exist that is undetectable by any rogue (say, DC = 1000, or infinity), but a simple _Detect Magic _ will reveal something is fishy about that area...or lever...




For the purposes of the matter at hand, it's irrelevant whether there should be such a mechanism or not. There currently is no such mechanism, and for good reason. By introducing such, the DM has stepped beyond the parameters of the rules.

And I'm inclined to feel that it is not unreasonable for the players to assume that the DM will stick to the rules.

I'm not suggesting that the DM must, or even should, stick rigidly to the letter of the rules - I'm a DM myself and would hold that to be absurd. However, I do stick within the bounds of what the rules would allow (so, I add new monsters, but I don't rule that all NPCs always hit, for example). And if I'm going to step beyond the limits of what the rules would allow (eg magic items giving Dodge bonuses) then I'll tell the players about the changes at the start of the campaign. And I would hold that it is unfair to do otherwise, since doing otherwise essentially means "the rules are for players only".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 28, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> For the purposes of the matter at hand, it's irrelevant whether there should be such a mechanism or not. There currently is no such mechanism, and for good reason. By introducing such, the DM has stepped beyond the parameters of the rules.




Rule 0 does, indeed, allow the DM to produce a trap that cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier. Moreover, so would creative use of magic.  Easy example:  "I wish that this trap can never be found by non-magical means."


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 28, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the trap were simply a square on the floor somewhere, then there would be no in-character warning.  It is not.  It is a big honking lever.  You don't have to Search for the trap mechanism -- there it is!  You have to activate it yourself to make it work.  Searching for a trap using mundane means reveals nothing, _but does that actually mean it's safe to pull the lever?_




There is a base asssumptions that is conflicting here, where the general danger of a lever is a scale from 1 (never dangerous) to 10 (always dangerous). Games I've always played in have fallen between 2-3. Obviously, you have a different take.

Problem is, we have no idea where the scenario presented falls. I came into the thread with the assumption that it falls somewhere around where my experiences lie. Since the poll seems to fall more into the "unfair" votes, I'm not particularly inclined to change that assumption.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 28, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Rule 0 does, indeed, allow the DM to produce a trap that cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier.




According to Rule 0, it would have to be stated _during character creation_ that this were possible.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 28, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> According to Rule 0, it would have to be stated _during character creation_ that this were possible.




 Quote that one for me, friend.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 28, 2006)

That is one thought, if the lever is the trap then they found it without a roll.  How would they know it is a trap though?  All the mechanisms for it are buried in the wall, so the thief cannot see it.  If one lever dispensed puppies, and the one next to it despensed death, how would a thief detect that one is a trap?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 28, 2006)

> From either a role-playing (ala Kamikaze Midget) or meta-gaming standpoint, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.




Once again, using a point to launch into a codification of my own:

What I would hope to accomplish by the "invisible pink unicorns" example is to show that assuming things exist when evidence suggests that they do not is a level of paranoia that is unrealistic to expect from players.

If townsfolk mention invisible pink unicorns killing people in the dungeon, but there is no evidence for such, one must take be prepared to go through rather extreme precautions against invisible pink unicorns?

It's not that it's assured. It can't be assured safety. The PC's did not treat it as assured safety -- they took into account the idea that the rogue may not detect the trap. 

So they did not conclude that there must be no trap. They may have concluded that there probably isn't a trap, which is a reasonable and realistic expectation for the players and characters to have. Just like it would be reasonable to conclude that invisible pink unicorns are not killing adventurers who go into the dungeon, either. Heck, this is a fantasy world, the PC's may have even been walking around with _see invisibility_ active and having the animal companion constantly use Scent to sniff for unicorns (comprable to having the rogue check for traps and the monk pull the lever). 

It's not the existence of the trap in general that is unfair. It is the existence of the invisible nonsensical inevitable death trap that is specifically unfair. Just like it would be unfair to have invisible (and also scentless and unable to be precieved via _see invisibility_) pink unicorns that then killed the characters. Would you then blame the characters for not, say, recruiting an NPC to go into the dungeon first while they stayed away? Or for being stupid to act as if the invisible pink unicorns were not an immediate and deadly threat?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 28, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Quote that one for me, friend.




Okay.



			
				PH 3.0 pg 4 said:
			
		

> 0. Check with the Dungeon Master
> 
> Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.




This is located under the Character Creation Basics. Rule 1 is Ability Scores, Rule 2 is choose a class and race, etc. Rule 0 is checking with the DM to learn how his or her game differs from the RAW.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 28, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> That is one thought, if the lever is the trap then they found it without a roll.  How would they know it is a trap though?  All the mechanisms for it are buried in the wall, so the thief cannot see it.  If one lever dispensed puppies, and the one next to it despensed death, how would a thief detect that one is a trap?




If it is a magical trap it needs line of effect to the PC to be affected. Rogues can find magical traps. The rogue should be able to find that a magical trap is present.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 28, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There is a base asssumptions that is conflicting here, where the general danger of a lever is a scale from 1 (never dangerous) to 10 (always dangerous). Games I've always played in have fallen between 2-3. Obviously, you have a different take.
> 
> Problem is, we have no idea where the scenario presented falls. I came into the thread with the assumption that it falls somewhere around where my experiences lie. Since the poll seems to fall more into the "unfair" votes, I'm not particularly inclined to change that assumption.




I agree that there is a conflict of base assumptions.  

The base assumptions were brought up previously:

"Is it safe to assume that any trap we encounter can be detected?" Not an assumption I'd make, and certainly not an assumption that a being living in an rpg world would make (_*unless those beings assume also that the world is devised for their benefit*_).  (emphasis added)

"Is it safe to assume that any trap we set off can be survived?" Again, the answer must be _No_. Either, from a role-playing standpoint, we remember that the world is not designed for our survival, or, from a meta-gaming standpoint, we remember that a certain percentage of encounters are _supposed to be_ overwhelming.

Now, obviously, you might not include traps as encounters, or you might not include those encounters into the percentage that are overwhelming.  But, _in terms of fairness_, the base guidelines in the rules _assume_ a certain number of encounters that should be avoided.  You can, of course, claim that these are always combat encounters, and never obvious pull-the-lever-type traps or magical wards that you cannot bypass, but this assumes again a world built for the convenience of the PCs, and resultantly defines as unfair _anything which is not built for the convenience of the PCs_.

Remember, we are talking about _fair_, not _ideal_.

Is it fair that the PCs can assume that any trap in an area which seems reasonably obviously trapped is detectable by said PCs?

Is it fair that the PCs can assume that any trap they encounter, if they set it off, is liable to be survived by the person setting it off?

I would say that neither of these assumptions is fair to make, and that claiming something is unfair because those assumptions fail is, itself, grossly unfair.  

Despite delericho's postings, the game has ample means to create traps that _*your particular group* of PCs cannot find by Searching_.  Your experience may lead you to believe that levers are unlikely to be dangerous _within the context of a particular world, DM, or subset of DMs_, but it would be unwise to assume the same of every game you might ever become involved in.

If I was trying to prevent people from stealing my Doodad of Awesome Might, I could well throw in a final gambit to catch the lucky but foolish.  If my PC got caught by such a trap (and, oh, I have been in the past) I would accept it as my fault rather than the DM's.  Of course, I don't expect the DM to mollycoddle me or hold my hand, either.....


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 28, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> This is located under the Character Creation Basics. Rule 1 is Ability Scores, Rule 2 is choose a class and race, etc. Rule 0 is checking with the DM to learn how his or her game differs from the RAW.




Please note that players are to check with the Dungeon Master during character creation.  It notes that "Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules" but it does not state that these rules have to be supplied to you, nor does it state that the DM must tell you all house rules at the time of character creation.

(New monsters are house rules, for example, and you'd hardly expect the DM to tell you about those.)

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 28, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What I would hope to accomplish by the "invisible pink unicorns" example is to show that assuming things exist when evidence suggests that they do not is a level of paranoia that is unrealistic to expect from players.




Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; neither is it evidence of presence.  Imagine that the townfolk mention invisible pink unicorns killing people in the dungeon.  In the town, there is no evidence of such.  In the wilderness leading to the dungeon, there is no evidence of such.  On the first level of the dungeon, there is no evidence of such.

Perhaps there are no invisible pink unicorns, but having been warned of the same only a fool would not at least keep an eye out for evidence of said critters.  A few bags of sand, say, to strew in rooms (allowing you to watch out for hoofprints) might not be too extreme.  Nor would having the ranger occasionally look for tracks.

In the trap example, there is a lever.  The lever is there for some reason.  They detect no trap using the easiest, most mundane means available.  But, so far as they know, they've cleared the dungeon and got the MacGuffin.  So, what's the lever for?

It might be good.  It might be bad.  I'd give it a 50/50 chance of each.  As with the invisible pink unicorns, this is a pretty good point to seek more information.  Divination spells -- low, low level divination spells -- can tell you whether or not there really are invisible pink unicorns in the dungeon.  They can also tell you whether or not pulling that lever is a good idea.  That is what they are in the game for.

Simply put, this is not an invisible nonsensical inevitable death trap.  It is neither nonsensical nor inevitable.  The lever _seems_ nonsensical until you start asking what it is there for.  It is hardly inevitable.  Use an _augury_, don't pull the lever, take the MacGuffin, and go.

You had to make your pink unicorns "also scentless and unable to be precieved via _see invisibility_" to make your point seem valid.  This trap has a scent (stinks to high heaven and practically screams potential trouble) and is permeable to all sorts of simple, low-level magic.  Not even close to the same thing.

RC


(And, btw, yes, if you are told something strange about an area you are venturing into, and you make no effort to determine the veracity of that something strange, and take no precautions against it, in a game where _literally anything can happen_, then you only have yourself to blame.)


----------



## Slife (Aug 28, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> To me, the fact that it's a big lever that you have to pull removes completely "no in-character warning" and ameliorates almost completely the high Search DC.




So... people should always be on gaurd against levers?  Why?  What makes levers special?  They are, if anything, one of the least useful places to put a trap in.  Why is a lever a warning?

Is there some god of traps whose holy symbol is the lever?

I suppose it's just like Archimedes said, give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I'll scare off the PCs.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 28, 2006)

> "Is it safe to assume that any trap we encounter can be detected?" Not an assumption I'd make, and certainly not an assumption that a being living in an rpg world would make (unless those beings assume also that the world is devised for their benefit). (emphasis added)
> 
> "Is it safe to assume that any trap we set off can be survived?" Again, the answer must be No. Either, from a role-playing standpoint, we remember that the world is not designed for our survival, or, from a meta-gaming standpoint, we remember that a certain percentage of encounters are supposed to be overwhelming.




While both accurate, this boils into the metagame consideration of what kind of characters you want to encourage.

If their deaths can come out of left field, undetectable and unsurvivable (or virutally so), you breed paranoid characters who will use elaborate survival tactics on seemingly inoccuous things as well as on truly dangerous things because they cannot reliably tell the difference.

If they can reliably detect and/or survive traps, you breed characters for whom traps are a threat but not a game-breaking one. They will take chances based on their information, and those chances may pay off or they may not, but they feel confident in taking those chances.

When faced with an adventure, I would much rather my PC's GO ADVENTURE than stay on the dirt farm for another year.

When faced with a challence, I would much rather my PC's ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE than shy away from it.

When faced with a lever, I would much rather my PC'S PULL THE LEVER than leave it alone.

Because that is part of what hereos do, and I feel that it very much encourages a heroic game when the PC's go on adventures, face challenges, and pull levers. That's why their heroes and adventurers and not dirt farmers. That's why they're a cut above the NPC's. 

This doesn't mean that they will always win their adventures, succeed in their challenges, or not activate traps by pulling levers, but it does mean that they won't fear defeat from every adventure, every challenge, or every lever -- they will *BRAVE* the unknown, not *FEAR* it. And to me, that is a very strong way to support a heroic game. I'm under the impression that most D&D games strive for a heroic feel (hence the d20 mechanic and alignment and feats and 4d6-drop-the-lowest ability score generation and level advancement), rather than a feel of constant fear and suspicion. 

While it is not safe to assume that what you can't see is not there or won't kill you, the descision to face the fear anyway is what makes D&D worth playing to me, and, I would argue, to the majority of players (given the way the game's rules encourage it). Thus, punishing someone for being a brave hero by killing them and calling them rash and roll-playing and proposing that they want to steamroll the BBEG seems unfair in most circumstances.

It also comes to the "absurdly paranoid of invisible pink unicorns" scenario. Fear of invisible pink unicorns is no more rational than fear of levers, but you can easily make PC's deathly affraid of both by making them undetectable and deadly.



> (And, btw, yes, if you are told something strange about an area you are venturing into, and you make no effort to determine the veracity of that something strange, and take no precautions against it, in a game where literally anything can happen, then you only have yourself to blame.)




Once again the PC's in the above scenario DID take precautions against the trap.

These precautions were just ineffective.

Like scentless, _SI_-immune deadly pink unicorns.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 28, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please note that players are to check with the Dungeon Master during character creation.  It notes that "Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules" but it does not state that these rules have to be supplied to you, nor does it state that the DM must tell you all house rules at the time of character creation.




Okay, you got me there.

But, back on topic, I just can't think its fair to have a trap that the PCs can't detect that will kill the PCs on any roll but a 20. In my mind there are limits to what a DM should do, and this goes beyond that line.

For example, if the PCs in question didn't take a 20 (ie the rogue just casually glanced the lever over) before declaring it wasn't trapped, but he could have detected it if he had taken some time, then yes, I'd probably call it fair.

If the PCs were 15th levle or higher, I would also consider the trap fair. Beause the consequences of a death trap are different at that level.

Way back in the thread I posted one of my death trapped doors. That's the kind of death traps I generally like to use against PCs.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 28, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I do believe that this is probably a minority style, and not a style that I would consider very fair. Because, as a Role Playing Game, part of playing the role is in having your character accomplish things that you as a player are incapable of, which not only includes physical feats (fighting dragons and running around in full plate), but also mental feats (solving puzzles and forcing information out of the reticent prince). The way these feats are accomplished is by rolling a d20.




I think you're still not understanding me, and I think that's partly my fault for not being clear.   

Let me try to illustrate my point through examples.

*Sample dialogue 1:*

PLAYER:  I bribe the customs man not to look in the wagons.
DM:  Okay, roll your d20.
PLAYER:  A 13.
DM:  You succeed.
PLAYER:  We go into the city and I fence the painting we found.
DM:  Okay, roll your d20.
PLAYER:  A 7.
DM:  You're offered 500 gold pieces for it.
PLAYER:  Bah.  I'll take the offer.  (Amends character sheet.)
DM:  What now?
PLAYER:  We'll head back to the dungeon.
DM:  Okay (rolls dice)... you get there without incident.

*Sample dialogue 2:*

PLAYER:  I bribe the customs man not to look in the wagons.
DM:  What do you say, exactly?
PLAYER:  (Slipping into character):  "That looks like dull work, good sir.  And I'll bet the pay's none too good, either."
DM:  (Playing the customs man):  "Aye, that's true enough."
PLAYER:  "Perhaps a contribution from some well-meaning citizen, as a token of our appreciation for your selfless devotion to duty, might be welcome?"
DM:  "Perhaps it would!"
PLAYER:  I pass him a handful of gold pieces.
DM:  The customs man grins as he waves you past.
PLAYER:  I'll try to fence the painting.
DM:  How do you go about it, exactly?
PLAYER:  Well, I'll pop back to the Cup & Blade Tavern and look to see if Hakil's around.
DM:  A little later on, after stabling your horses, you make your way into the tavern.  There are about fifteen people in the bar, even though it's before sunset.  Hakil isn't anywhere around.
PLAYER:  I approach the barman and greet him, and ask him where Hakil is.
DM:  What do you say?

...

Dialogue 1 depends on dice rolls; dialogue 2 doesn't involve any dice rolling at all.  Dialogue 1 is quickly resolved, a lot happening in a short period of time; dialogue 2 zooms in on the details, and eats up a lot more time.

I think that every DM uses a combination of those techniques to determine what happens. There's always an element of dice rolling and an element of skipping over the details.  There's also always an element of DM judgment based on the actions that the players declare.  That's the game.

I'm not saying that dice should never have relevance.  Likewise, you're not saying that DM judgment calls have no place.  I also do NOT think you're saying that player skill should be irrelevant, although perhaps you're in a little danger of painting yourself into that corner.

The question, I think, is whether this lever trap should be resolved along the lines of Dialogue 1 or Dialogue 2.

Personally, my bias is this:  I find the "dialogue 1" style where you just roll over the details (pun intended) very dull and totally inappropriate for dungeoneering.  At the end of the day dungeoneering needs to be high adventure with plenty of tension and I think it needs to be treated "dialogue 2" style.

*Roll-playing approach to this trap:*

PLAYER:  I search for traps.
DM:  Roll away.
PLAYER:  Err, actually I take 20.
DM:  K.  You don't find a trap.
PLAYER:  The monk pulls the lever.
DM:  Roll a saving throw.
PLAYER:  A 19.
DM:  You fail and crumble to dust.

I agree, this is a crappy approach to gaming and no fun for anyone.

*My approach to this trap:*

PLAYER:  I search for traps.
DM:  How do you go about it, exactly?

Answer 1:  "Hey, am I a thief in real life?  Just give me the d20."
Answer 2:  "Hmm.  Describe this lever in more detail."

If your reaction is to come back with answer 1, you're not going to survive a game I run.  It's really that simple.  But I think most gamers would come back with answer 2, and maybe we'd have a game going.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 28, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> PLAYER:  I search for traps.
> DM:  How do you go about it, exactly?
> 
> Answer 1:  "Hey, am I a thief in real life?  Just give me the d20."
> ...




At the risk of sounding cliched:

PLAYER: I take a swing at the ogre with my great axe!
DM: How do you go about it, exactly?
PLAYER: Erm... what?

I think most players would come back with answer: "Why can't I make a search check?" personally.

EDIT: There is a middle ground. Here's my post from before.

The PCs were in a tower controlled by an illithid and a negoi working together. They were brain, slave, and soul traders. They had a treasure vault where they kept the money they made through these lucrative transactions. The door leading to the room was behind an illusionary wall and had a reseting _destruction_ trap on it.

The trap, however, had a way to bypass it. Each of the two inhabitants, the illithid and the negoi, had an Amulet of Nondetection. The door to the room also had two indentions in the same strange shape that these amulets were in, and putting the amulets in the indentions disabled the trap. Thus, both of them together were required to get inside, since neither trusted the other. It made perfect logical sense and it was a way for the PCs to think their way past the trap, regardless of rolls.

Of course, the trap was Searchable and Disarmable as well, and the PCs were 10th level. It was a difficult trap for them, but it wasn't too far out there. They had multiple ways to get by, and being that it was a door behind an illusionary wall and in a deep part of the dungeon, they had reason to be suspicious beyond it just being a door.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 28, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Personally, my bias is this:  I find the "dialogue 1" style where you just roll over the details (pun intended) very dull and totally inappropriate for dungeoneering.  At the end of the day dungeoneering needs to be high adventure with plenty of tension and I think it needs to be treated "dialogue 2" style.
> 
> *Roll-playing approach to this trap:*
> 
> ...



Oddly enough, whilst I do indeed use something in between the two extremes of the examples you provided, I'd be far more prone to veer towards Method 2 in social situations, and far more prone to veer towards Method 1 in a dungeon situation.

Frankly, there's a limit - a fairly sharp limit - to how interesting and tension-filled searching for traps can be, especially for those not directly involved in the process. At the end of the day, there's no character interaction going on - the only interaction is between a rogue and a stick. I have no desire to build that up or play it out any further than strictly necessary, and neither, I think, do my players. They'd far rather move on to something a little more interactive, like a nice big battle.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 28, 2006)

The Rogue "spending a few minutes" carefully checking for traps would hardly make it certainly safe to pull that lever in my book.  Even if, for the sake of argument, we could have absolute confidence the Rogue's skills to search for such things, the lever could easily be extremely dangerous.

It could release the Kraken.  It could open a Gate into the 7th level of Hell and something horrific might slither in.  It could open a rift to the Negative Energy Plane and blast everyone within LoS with Negative Energy.

But those are interesting dangers that (1) are not traps, because (2) it is so easy to imagine why a BBEG would create such an effect for reasons other that killing PCs.  If the lever has a clear and obvious purpose that makes sense then fairness is not an issue.

IMNSHO the instadeath lever reeks of the DM abusing Rule 0 for what seem most likely to be very poor reasons.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 29, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The Rogue "spending a few minutes" carefully checking for traps would hardly make it certainly safe to pull that lever in my book.  Even if, for the sake of argument, we could have absolute confidence the Rogue's skills to search for such things, the lever could easily be extremely dangerous.
> 
> It could release the Kraken.  It could open a Gate into the 7th level of Hell and something horrific might slither in.  It could open a rift to the Negative Energy Plane and blast everyone within LoS with Negative Energy.
> 
> ...



I think we miss the point of what exactly does this rogue's search do. Does it simply look at an area and  a bell goes off that says trap or no trap, or does he carefully inspect the area looking for anything odd or any hint that there is more to the mechanism. Why was there no other dust on the floor I asked earlier? Thats not a hint, thats logic. They couldnt have been the first to fall victim to the trap.


----------



## Virel (Aug 29, 2006)

As mentioned many times a lot depends on the details around the situation. 

For an experienced group of players the trap isn't unfair. Normally, most of folks I DM for are smart enough to have more than one thief check for traps as counting on a single die roll even if your odds are good will eventually catch up. Likewise, remote activation is a reasonable approach.

Papers and Paychecks makes an excellent point that the discussion involved in the encounter can be very important to the way something like that plays out.


----------



## delericho (Aug 29, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> *Roll-playing approach to this trap:*
> 
> PLAYER:  I search for traps.
> DM:  Roll away.
> ...




I agree, somewhat.



> *My approach to this trap:*
> 
> PLAYER:  I search for traps.
> DM:  How do you go about it, exactly?
> ...




So, how exactly would you go about searching the lever for traps?

Oh, and since you'll just come back with "describe it in more detail"...

It's a three-foot iron pole with a red rubber moulded top, designed for easy grasp. There pole is slightly rusted along its length, but not excessively so, and there is some grease at the bottom of the pole, where it enters the main mechanism (that's a lubricant, nothing more). The mechanism itself can be seen somewhat, and consists of several large interlocking cogwheels.

So, how do you go about searching the lever for traps?


----------



## delericho (Aug 29, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Rule 0 does, indeed, allow the DM to produce a trap that cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier.




Introducing such a thing alters the way the Rogue's trapfinding skill works. Players have a right to know if it's possible. In theory, the player of the Rogue might decide to choose to play something else if he knows that, no matter how high he raises his modifier, there will exist traps that he simply cannot detect. (That might be an extreme reaction, but it's a possible one. And, since the character is the only thing the player controls in the game, it is a choice the player has a right to make.) To be fair, the DM has to tell the player that this is a possibility.



> Moreover, so would creative use of magic.  Easy example:  "I wish that this trap can never be found by non-magical means."




I would doubt very much that that is within the scope of the powers of the Wish spell. What you're suggesting is a trap that the God of Rogues cannot detect via Search. Would you allow a wish "I wish I can never be harmed by non-magical means"?

Additionally, is it clear that the Search skill includes only non-magical means? Isn't it more reasonable to think that, in a magical universe, the Rogue picks up bits and pieces about detecting glyphs and wards, and unravelling such things? I don't know exactly how it would work (since magic is not perfectly defined), but perhaps he uses special crystals to focus the lines of power, or marks the level with runes of detection, or something.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

Slife said:
			
		

> So... people should always be on gaurd against levers?  Why?  What makes levers special?  They are, if anything, one of the least useful places to put a trap in.  Why is a lever a warning?
> 
> Is there some god of traps whose holy symbol is the lever?
> 
> I suppose it's just like Archimedes said, give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I'll scare off the PCs.




If the lever is part of a slot machine, you should be on guard.    

If the lever is part of a moat house assembly to ratchet up the drawbridge, you can probably assume it is safe.    

If the lever is a large lever located in the back corner of the dungeon in a room with nothing else but a secret door in one wall, you might want to consider that no one goes to the effort of hiding the door while making the way to open it so bloody obvious.    

This doesn't require a god of traps whose holy symbol is the lever.  It requires nothing more than a little insight and some common sense.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> While both accurate, this boils into the metagame consideration of what kind of characters you want to encourage.
> 
> If their deaths can come out of left field, undetectable and unsurvivable (or virutally so), you breed paranoid characters who will use elaborate survival tactics on seemingly inoccuous things as well as on truly dangerous things because they cannot reliably tell the difference.




The question is not whether or not they can reliably detect traps; the question is whether or not they can detect all traps _*using the dice alone*_ with a _*reasonable degree*_ of reliability.

Asking for the dice to provide absolute reliability is unfair.    



> Once again the PC's in the above scenario DID take precautions against the trap.
> 
> These precautions were just ineffective.
> 
> Like scentless, _SI_-immune deadly pink unicorns.




My response to Slife more than adequately covers that.  If the DM tells you that there are deadly pink unicorns, and then lets you see a pink horse with a horn sticking out of its head, and you demand that you also need a Knowledge check, you are simply failing to use the information provided.


----------



## Slife (Aug 29, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the lever is a large lever located in the back corner of the dungeon in a room with nothing else but a secret door in one wall, you might want to consider that no one goes to the effort of hiding the door while making the way to open it so bloody obvious.




And nobody would go to the effort of concealing a trap if the trigger is so "bloody obvious".

I mean, if you're designing a very powerful and costly trap, what are you going to do with it?  Put it on a switch and hope someone decides to flip it?  

You also have to assume that the secret door was designed to be secret.  In such a case, what's the point of having a big trapped lever in the middle of the room?  It would only make people suspicious that there was something worth protecting there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I think we miss the point of what exactly does this rogue's search do. Does it simply look at an area and  a bell goes off that says trap or no trap, or does he carefully inspect the area looking for anything odd or any hint that there is more to the mechanism. Why was there no other dust on the floor I asked earlier? Thats not a hint, thats logic. They couldnt have been the first to fall victim to the trap.





Why not?  IMC, PCs tread where others have not walked in centuries all the time.

If the purpose of the dungeon is to hide the McGuffin, as seems likely from the original question, then there is an obvious purpose to the lever trap:  kill the curious but skilled who got past the guards.  A last-ditch attempt to protect the McGuffin.  An expensive one, sure, but no more expensive really than digging out the dungeon in the first place.

Why is it that so many people are quick to claim that there would be continual flame streetlights in major kingdoms, but assume that the BBEG who built the dungeon couldn't predict that adventurers might try their hand there one day?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Introducing such a thing alters the way the Rogue's trapfinding skill works. Players have a right to know if it's possible.




Really?

From where is this "right" derived?  What book is it in?  What law, what bill, what charter?  Players have the right not to play in the game you're running; they have no right to tell you how to run it.  Must you tell the wizard that some creatures might be immune to magic missile?  Must you tell the fighter that some creatures might be immune to damage from edged weapons?  

Bullocks, says I, to that entire line of reasoning.

You must tell the players what their characters _*should reasonably know about the world*_, no more and no less.



> I would doubt very much that that is within the scope of the powers of the Wish spell. What you're suggesting is a trap that the God of Rogues cannot detect via Search. Would you allow a wish "I wish I can never be harmed by non-magical means"?




If, in your world, the God of Rogues is both mundane and subject to mortal Wishes, then I suppose so.    



> Additionally, is it clear that the Search skill includes only non-magical means? Isn't it more reasonable to think that, in a magical universe, the Rogue picks up bits and pieces about detecting glyphs and wards, and unravelling such things? I don't know exactly how it would work (since magic is not perfectly defined), but perhaps he uses special crystals to focus the lines of power, or marks the level with runes of detection, or something.




Is the Search skill then treated as a supernatural ability?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

Slife said:
			
		

> And nobody would go to the effort of concealing a trap if the trigger is so "bloody obvious".




Excepting, in this case, that the *point* of the trigger is to be bloody obvious...and enticing to boot.  Judging by the number of people who are claiming this trap would be unfair, it would apparently be bloody effective, as well.


----------



## wayne62682 (Aug 29, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> From where is this "right" derived?  What book is it in?  What law, what bill, what charter?  Players have the right not to play in the game you're running; they have no right to tell you how to run it.  Must you tell the wizard that some creatures might be immune to magic missile?  Must you tell the fighter that some creatures might be immune to damage from edged weapons?
> 
> ...




The right of fairness, perhaps?  The DM has omnipotent power as it stands and by right doesn't NEED to play by any of the same rules the player does (i.e. Rule 0).  IMO it's only fair to NOT be a complete jerk and deliberately put something that you know nobody in the group can find (or has a chance of finding) and then wonder why they're upset if it kills them.  Is that such a hard concept to grasp?  (don't mean that last comment to be offensive)

The game, after all, is supposed to be about the player characters, not the DM or how sneakily he can kill them by throwing unfindable, unavoidable death traps at them.  If your group enjoys that, then more power to you.  For me, however, I would leave that DM's table if I felt they were on a power trip and thought nothing of placing DC 1000000 traps in places.


----------



## delericho (Aug 29, 2006)

Actually, never mind.

I'm done with this thread. My opinion is not going to be changed, and I don't think yours will either, so I see no point in continuing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> The right of fairness, perhaps?  The DM has omnipotent power as it stands and by right doesn't NEED to play by any of the same rules the player does (i.e. Rule 0).  IMO it's only fair to NOT be a complete jerk and deliberately put something that you know nobody in the group can find (or has a chance of finding) and then wonder why they're upset if it kills them.  Is that such a hard concept to grasp?  (don't mean that last comment to be offensive)




There is a big difference between (A) not informing players about each specific thing that might occur/effect that might exist that trumps skill use and (B) being a complete jerk.  Again, You must tell the players what their characters *should reasonably know* about the world, no more and no less.  The Emperor of Ptolomy might hate bluggyfruits, and that might affect your Diplomacy skill use if you offer some to him, but that isn't something that the villagers from Plundering Falls should know without travel and/or investigation.

The logical result of claiming that deliberately putting something in the game that you know nobody in the group can find or has a chance to find makes you a "complete jerk" is that no DC can ever exceed what the PCs can make by Taking 20...or by Taking 10 if you know that the situation will not allow them to Take 20...or by Taking 1 if you know that the situation will not allow them to Take 10.  No challenge should ever be beyond the PCs.  The PCs should never return to a place where they once were and discover something they did not know at the time.

In short, the growth of the world, of the PCs, all verisimilitude, and all requirement for the _*players*_ (as opposed to the characters) to use their judgment should be thrown out of the window.  The game is about the PCs.  It should be structured to meet their needs.

Except, of course, that the game *isn't* about the PCs.

It is about the players..._*all*_ of the players, including the DM.  And while, on the surface, the players might want an unending string of ego-gratifying victories, deep down knowing that you cannot fail makes it all hollow.  A good DM challenges not only the characters, but the players as well.  A good DM makes the best of those moments of ego gratification _*earned*_ so that the players know that they have value, and can take pride in their accomplishments.

That the PCs must trigger the trap in the example is not a foregone conclusion.  That they cannot Search to determine it is a trap is true, but they should have other means to determine whether or not they should pull the lever, and the _*players*_ are given ample reason to use those means.  Divination spells exist for a reason, folks, and they are actually the most potent spells in the game.  Fail to use them at your own peril.

If the DM's world follows any kind of logic, the lever should not automatically be assumed to open the secret door (why hide the door but make the lever so obvious?), and the players should be suspicious.  If the DM's world does not follow any kind of logic, then they should automatically be suspicious of the lever.  In neither case is this the IPUs that Kamikaze Midget wants them to be.  The whole set-up screams "Trap"!

Imagine that the poll had read:  "You find yourself in the back corner of the dungeon.  There is a big, obvious lever and your Searching reveals a secret door.  You cannot find a way to open the secret door.  Your rogue Searches the lever for traps, and finds none.  You have what you came into the dungeon for.  Do you pull the lever?"  Options given are Yes, No, and Maybe (explain below).  How many people do you think would say "Yes"?

RC


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 29, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between (A) not informing players about each specific thing that might occur/effect that might exist that trumps skill use and (B) being a complete jerk.  Again, You must tell the players what their characters *should reasonably know* about the world, no more and no less.  The Emperor of Ptolomy might hate bluggyfruits, and that might affect your Diplomacy skill use if you offer some to him, but that isn't something that the villagers from Plundering Falls should know without travel and/or investigation.
> 
> The logical result of claiming that deliberately putting something in the game that you know nobody in the group can find or has a chance to find makes you a "complete jerk" is that no DC can ever exceed what the PCs can make by Taking 20...or by Taking 10 if you know that the situation will not allow them to Take 20...or by Taking 1 if you know that the situation will not allow them to Take 10.  No challenge should ever be beyond the PCs.  The PCs should never return to a place where they once were and discover something they did not know at the time.
> 
> ...




I think you should include that everyone took 20 on the search of the room and found nothing, also provide what level the characters are at.  Those are very important factors in this. If we havedone everything within our possiblities to determine theres no trap it should be reasonable to believe there isnt one or even a hint of one. 

The type of trap described might work in a slow plodding dungeon crawl where every 10 ft. actually has a roll associated wit hit but not in a traditional campaign.


----------



## wayne62682 (Aug 29, 2006)

Raven Crowking, I see your points.  In your example though, I'm not saying the PCs should know if the Emperor of Ptolomy hates bluggyfruits if they come from the town of Plundering Falls.  The original example (the lever) was more along the lines of "The Emperor of Ptolomy is going to have you executed unless you roll a natural 20 on your Diplomacy check".  In other words, there's barely any chance of success.  Nor am I saying that every challenge should be conquerable for the PCs, but there should be a decent chance of success and failure for the encounters the DM cooks up, NOT something that barring exceptional luck is going to result in someone being killed.  It's not fair, and it certainly isn't fun.



> A good DM challenges not only the characters, but the players as well




Now this, I don't agree with because you shouldn't require the players to use THEIR knowledge of a situation, you should require them to use their CHARACTER'S knowledge.  But then again I've been jumped on too many times for metagaming (not to open that can of worms again, there's another thread for just that) and doing exactly what you're saying.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I think you should include that everyone took 20 on the search of the room and found nothing, also provide what level the characters are at.  Those are very important factors in this. If we havedone everything within our possiblities to determine theres no trap it should be reasonable to believe there isnt one or even a hint of one.




Not actually true.  Even if everyone Takes 20, that isn't all that you have the possibility to do.  It is simply all that the dice make easy for you, and all that you can do without committing other resources (such as spells).  OTOH, there is a big honking lever, a secret door with no way to open it, and every reason in the world to be suspicious.  In other words, if there is ever a reason to think that a divination spell is needed, this is it. 



> The type of trap described might work in a slow plodding dungeon crawl where every 10 ft. actually has a roll associated wit hit but not in a traditional campaign.




BIG...HONKING...LEVER.  SECRET DOOR.  Add rationality and stir.

If the trap was just a 10-foot square, zap!, then I would agree with you.  However, in this case, the players are given ample means to determine that pulling the lever _*without getting more information first*_ is a bad idea.  Moreover, the game offers _*ample methods at low levels*_ to gain the required information.

If you ignore the situation, and you ignore divination spells, then the trap seems unfair.  Sure.  If you look at the situation, and the capabilities written into the game as a whole, it is fair.

Easy as that.  At least, IMHO.  YMMV.    

RC


----------



## Slife (Aug 29, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, in this case, the players are given ample means to determine that pulling the lever _*without getting more information first*_ is a bad idea.  Moreover, the game offers _*ample methods at low levels*_ to gain the required information.




How do you know that you need more information?  Because it's a lever in an otherwise empty room?  Why is a lever in an otherwise empty room dangerous?  Is a raised dias in an otherwise empty room also dangerous?  A table?  A switch?  A torch?  A statue? 

Is any object all alone sinister?

Is any object alone in a room with a "secret" door sinister?

What if there were two levers?  Or if the lever was next to a bookcase?  Next to a cauldron?  Next to a sleeping troll?  Between an orc and a pie?


----------



## Falkus (Aug 29, 2006)

> BIG...HONKING...LEVER. SECRET DOOR. Add rationality and stir.




Question: Why do you automatically assume that the lever is associated with the secret door? I can think of any number of reasons for a lever to be in a room, none of which involve the secret door in the same room. An alarm, for instance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Question: Why do you automatically assume that the lever is associated with the secret door? I can think of any number of reasons for a lever to be in a room, none of which involve the secret door in the same room. An alarm, for instance.




By its very nature, a lever implies that, by changing its position, you cause something to happen.  This makes a lever very different from, say, a raised dias, a table, a torch, or a statue.  All of those things _might_ do something; it is a far more reasonable (and obvious) assumption that a lever or a switch _will_ do something.

(It might not, of course.  It could be a red herring.  The mechanism could be broken.  However, even if you see no obvious result, it is safe to assume that throwing the switch/lever has had some effect that you should, thereafter, keep your eye out for.)

In the example room, there is a secret door.  A secret door implies both a space beyond (although this may not be true; it may be a false secret door leading to a stone wall) and a means to open it (again, this implication may not be true; the secret door could be built in such a way that it has no regular means to open it, especially if it is intended as bait rather than as a door).  

In the example room, we have a secret door with no means to open it, and a lever that does something that we do not know.  So here we have two objects.  One does something, the other needs the means to do something.  The easiest solution to the problem is that the one object does the something for the other object.  We do not think any further, throw the lever, and roll a saving throw.

But...hold on.  Naturally, the lever could do a lot of other things.  Moreover, the means to open the secret door _might not be in this room_.  If you were going to the effort to hide a door, would you place the lever in plain sight?  Probably not.  Logic therefore dictates that the lever _probably does not_ open the secret door.  A moment's thought takes us past the simple "throw the lever, and roll a saving throw" result.

By this point, perhaps, the idea that the secret door is bait to cause us to pull the lever might appear.  Certainly, we search the lever for traps, Taking 20 to do our best job.  We find nothing.  That still doesn't mean that pulling the lever is a good idea.  _*It is possible to make a trap that we cannot find.*_  After all, the DC has to be no more than 1 beyond our maximum result, and _*we know as a fact that this is possible*_.

So, what now?  

We have the McGuffin.  We could just leave.  If we are on a tight schedule, this is probably the best option.

We could cast a simple divination spell to determine whether or not throwing the lever is a good idea.  The more we think about this, the better it sounds....even if it means having to rest up first, so long as we are not on a tight schedule.  If we have the time for it, this is the best option.

If we don't have access to the best divination spells for the job, we could possibly use _detect magic_.  That would at least give us some more information.  Not a bad option.  It might, in fact, give us reason to investigate further before doing anything rash.  

We could also consider using a summoned creature to do the dirty work.

As a final option, we could just pull the lever.  Doing so, after all, might grant the person doing the pulling a _wish_.  Probably not.  For all kinds of reasons, this is simply the worst option to take.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking, I see your points.  In your example though, I'm not saying the PCs should know if the Emperor of Ptolomy hates bluggyfruits if they come from the town of Plundering Falls.  The original example (the lever) was more along the lines of "The Emperor of Ptolomy is going to have you executed unless you roll a natural 20 on your Diplomacy check".  In other words, there's barely any chance of success.




I don't buy that there is barely any chance of success.  I think that there is sufficient information to allow the players to bypass the trap despite the failure of the Search check.  It requires only minimal thinking about the situation, IMHO.  YMMV.  Certainly, in some 27 years of gaming, I have never had a group which would have fallen for this trap without at least having tried to gain more information via spells first.  OTOH, _*I*_ have fallen for abyssmally obvious traps.  Of course, I don't claim to be half as clever as half the players I have run games for.    



> Nor am I saying that every challenge should be conquerable for the PCs, but there should be a decent chance of success and failure for the encounters the DM cooks up, NOT something that barring exceptional luck is going to result in someone being killed.  It's not fair, and it certainly isn't fun.




What requirement exists to pull the lever?  The question clearly states that you have the thing you went into the dungeon for.  

Again, if the trap was just a 10-foot square, zap!, then I would agree with you. However, in this case, the players are given ample means to determine that pulling the lever without getting more information first is a bad idea. Moreover, the game offers ample methods at low levels to gain the required information.

And, again, imagine that the poll had read: "You find yourself in the back corner of the dungeon. There is a big, obvious lever and your Searching reveals a secret door. You cannot find a way to open the secret door. Your rogue Searches the lever for traps, and finds none. You have what you came into the dungeon for. Do you pull the lever?" Options given are Yes, No, and Maybe (explain below). How many people do you think would say "Yes"?



> Now this, I don't agree with because you shouldn't require the players to use THEIR knowledge of a situation, you should require them to use their CHARACTER'S knowledge.  But then again I've been jumped on too many times for metagaming (not to open that can of worms again, there's another thread for just that) and doing exactly what you're saying.




To some degree, the player's knowledge of a situation and a player's knowledge of a situation converge.  This is an absolute necessity, and it would certainly be fair here.  The character knows that he found no traps; the character does not know that there are no traps.  Both player and character have more than adequate reason to be suspicious.

This is very different than, say, acting on (A) that Bob killed your last character or (B) knowledge of modern chemistry.

RC


----------



## Ourph (Aug 29, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Now this, I don't agree with because you shouldn't require the players to use THEIR knowledge of a situation, you should require them to use their CHARACTER'S knowledge.  But then again I've been jumped on too many times for metagaming (not to open that can of worms again, there's another thread for just that) and doing exactly what you're saying.




Challenging the players doesn't require metagaming.  The characters cannot think.  The intelligence, creativity and problem solving skills involved in playing RPGs are all provided by the players.  Using in character knowledge as a basis for rational thought is not metagaming, it's gaming.

When the idea that challenging the players to exert their problem solving skills at the table is tantamount to the DM forcing the players to cheat becomes the cultural norm, what exactly is the point of having players involved in the game in the first place?  If their purpose is just to run the numbers on their character sheet and roll the dice when it's called for while letting the DM provide all of the answers on a successful roll the players are doing a job that any $5 calculator could do just as easily.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 29, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Frankly, there's a limit - a fairly sharp limit - to how interesting and tension-filled searching for traps can be, especially for those not directly involved in the process. At the end of the day, there's no character interaction going on - the only interaction is between a rogue and a stick. I have no desire to build that up or play it out any further than strictly necessary, and neither, I think, do my players. They'd far rather move on to something a little more interactive, like a nice big battle.




With a DM who skips over the traps but concentrates on the battles, it would strike me that a fighter would be a lot more fun to play than a rogue.

If there were a party of six characters, and one was a rogue, then it seems fair that about one in six situations should focus around the rogue -- not necessarily always a trap, but we're in a dungeon here.  And the situation focusing on the rogue's abilities should be given the same amount of time spent and dramatic tension as an average fight.

Am I missing something, or does this attitude give the rogue a really raw deal?


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 29, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> So, how exactly would you go about searching the lever for traps?




PLAYER:  I search the lever for traps.
DM:  How do you go about it, exactly?
PLAYER:  Hmm.  Describe this lever.
DM:  It's a three-foot iron pole with a red rubber moulded top, designed for easy grasp. There pole is slightly rusted along its length, but not excessively so, and there is some grease at the bottom of the pole, where it enters the main mechanism (that's a lubricant, nothing more). The mechanism itself can be seen somewhat, and consists of several large interlocking cogwheels.
PLAYER:  Without touching the lever, I examine it minutely.
DM:  Your inspection reveals nothing new.
PLAYER:  Using a wooden stick, I touch one of the cogwheels, but not enough to make it rotate.
DM:  Nothing seems to happen.
PLAYER:  Hmm.  Okay, I carefully loop a piece of rope around the lever, still being careful not to touch it.  I warn the party to move back.
DM:  Go on then, warn them.
PLAYER:  I give the party a courteous bow, then twirl my moustaches.  I'm looking particularly debonair.  "Ladies and gentlemen, I invite you to retreat some goodly distance.  It's possible that I'm being overcautious, but it's also possible that there might be a nasty surprise rigged for whoever touches this lever."
(The other players retreat.)
DM:  What now?
PLAYER:  I think I'll pay out the rope a good ten feet and retreat around the corner in the corridor, so if there's an explosion, the corner will shelter me.  Then I put on my thick leather gauntlets before taking hold of the rope.
DM:  And?
PLAYER:  Very gently, very tentatively, I pull the lever -- just enough to make it move slightly...


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 29, 2006)

Lets look at this in a broader perspective.

Should every little piece of the dungeon be investigated before the PCs interact with it?  That's just a bit too paranoid for most campaigns. Once you start supertrapping typical objects where does it end. Yoou'll blow through 4 hours of game play with the pcs just checking out one room. And why? 
So the DM can say he scored a PC kill by carefully hiding a trap and using his power of DM Fiat. 

Puzzles are only fun if the PCs think they can solve it and can't. They are even more fun when the PCs are aware of it. 

There is only one instance I can see this trap, as it is being fair. If the dungeon was built to test the greed of the players. But the only thing that would make it cool if there was some wierd riddle, hint or clue that hinted that greed was bad. 

The trap as is just lacks the kinda tack that seperates good DMs from great ones.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Aug 29, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> PLAYER:  I search the lever for traps.
> DM:  How do you go about it, exactly?
> PLAYER:  Hmm.  Describe this lever.
> DM:  It's a three-foot iron pole with a red rubber moulded top, designed for easy grasp. There pole is slightly rusted along its length, but not excessively so, and there is some grease at the bottom of the pole, where it enters the main mechanism (that's a lubricant, nothing more). The mechanism itself can be seen somewhat, and consists of several large interlocking cogwheels.
> ...



And, yet, there is not a single shred of useful knowledge or logic to say that this has less of a chance of disintegrating you than actually just using your hands to pull the lever. Or is it a known fact in this campaign world that magical effects are blocked by rope or thick gloves?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 29, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> PLAYER:  I search the lever for traps.
> DM:  How do you go about it, exactly?
> PLAYER:  Hmm.  Describe this lever.
> DM:  It's a three-foot iron pole with a red rubber moulded top, designed for easy grasp. There pole is slightly rusted along its length, but not excessively so, and there is some grease at the bottom of the pole, where it enters the main mechanism (that's a lubricant, nothing more). The mechanism itself can be seen somewhat, and consists of several large interlocking cogwheels.
> ...




Then repeat for every single doorknob encountered. 

And thus 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours of gaming is born.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 29, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> With a DM who skips over the traps but concentrates on the battles, it would strike me that a fighter would be a lot more fun to play than a rogue.
> 
> If there were a party of six characters, and one was a rogue, then it seems fair that about one in six situations should focus around the rogue -- not necessarily always a trap, but we're in a dungeon here.  And the situation focusing on the rogue's abilities should be given the same amount of time spent and dramatic tension as an average fight.
> 
> Am I missing something, or does this attitude give the rogue a really raw deal?



Only if the rogue's player really _wants_ to roleplay an extended "searching a lever" scene. If not - if, to quote an earlier post, his attitude is "just hand me the d20" - then requiring him to play out a simple scene in fine detail is boring him as much as anyone else.

I've played rogues, and played games where others were playing rogues, and DM'd players playing rogues, and the spotlight time for them lies in sneaking, and scouting, and finding ways to get their sneak attacks, and breaking & entering, and - for some builds - social interaction. I've yet to see one who got a great deal out of extended role-playing of searching a door or lever.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 29, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> PLAYER:  I search the lever for traps.
> DM:  How do you go about it, exactly?
> PLAYER:  Hmm.  Describe this lever.
> DM:  It's a three-foot iron pole with a red rubber moulded top, designed for easy grasp. There pole is slightly rusted along its length, but not excessively so, and there is some grease at the bottom of the pole, where it enters the main mechanism (that's a lubricant, nothing more). The mechanism itself can be seen somewhat, and consists of several large interlocking cogwheels.
> ...



This sounds good on the outside looking in, but again I ask if you didnt know that this thread exists do you really do this for every mundane objects. I doubt it. I doubt most parties want to waste the time playing CSI for every room. 

There's just no bait to make this level more than what it is and without bait its just pointless DM fiat.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 29, 2006)

And none of this addresses why someone would spend 50k or more to death trap a lever that can be bypassed by a simple rope. The point of a trap is not to allow "smart" playing to get them by it. The point of a trap is to _kill people_.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 29, 2006)

In one game where I had a PC, we encountered a room known to be the “lair” of a necromancer we had previously killed. The room was filled with blackness we could not see through. We had no need or reason to go into the room other than sheer curiosity and/or greed to loot. The rogue searched the doorway and found no trap. The mage used _detect magic_ and saw the darkness was magical, and he saw an unknown abjuration inside the room.

After much discussion, the rogue said he would enter the room. We tied a rope around him in case we needed to pull him out. We gave the rogue a _potion of protection from evil_, and he drank it before entering the darkness.

The rogue jumped in passed his save (because of the potion bonus). He fell to the floor and we dragged him back out. Prompt healing prevented his death.

We knew it was magically trapped. We *knew* it. We took precautions (rope and potion) to help the rogue survive the trap. Letting the rogue go in was stupid. Darwin Awards stupid.

None of us thought the scenario was unfair. Was it?

Quasqueton


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Should every little piece of the dungeon be investigated before the PCs interact with it?  That's just a bit too paranoid for most campaigns. Once you start supertrapping typical objects where does it end.




Um, do you have empty rooms strewn with levers as typical objects in your dungeons?

I have already given the (much ignored) complete line of reasoning as to why this _is not_ "every little piece of the dungeon" and ought to be investigated.  I can cut & paste if you like, but there's an obvious reason why those posts are not being responded to by the "Oh no! Unfair DM!" crowd.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Then repeat for every single doorknob encountered.
> 
> And thus 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours of gaming is born.




I have already given the (much ignored) complete line of reasoning as to why this is not "every little piece of the dungeon" and ought to be investigated. I can cut & paste if you like, but there's an obvious reason why those posts are not being responded to by the "Oh no! Unfair DM!" crowd.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> This sounds good on the outside looking in, but again I ask if you didnt know that this thread exists do you really do this for every mundane objects. I doubt it. I doubt most parties want to waste the time playing CSI for every room.
> 
> There's just no bait to make this level more than what it is and without bait its just pointless DM fiat.




By its very nature, a lever implies that, by changing its position, you cause something to happen. This makes a lever very different from, say, a raised dias, a table, a torch, or a statue. All of those things might do something; it is a far more reasonable (and obvious) assumption that a lever or a switch will do something.

(It might not, of course. It could be a red herring. The mechanism could be broken. However, even if you see no obvious result, it is safe to assume that throwing the switch/lever has had some effect that you should, thereafter, keep your eye out for.)

In the example room, there is a secret door. A secret door implies both a space beyond (although this may not be true; it may be a false secret door leading to a stone wall) and a means to open it (again, this implication may not be true; the secret door could be built in such a way that it has no regular means to open it, especially if it is intended as bait rather than as a door). 

In the example room, we have a secret door with no means to open it, and a lever that does something that we do not know. So here we have two objects. One does something, the other needs the means to do something. The easiest solution to the problem is that the one object does the something for the other object. We do not think any further, throw the lever, and roll a saving throw.

But...hold on. Naturally, the lever could do a lot of other things. Moreover, the means to open the secret door might not be in this room. If you were going to the effort to hide a door, would you place the lever in plain sight? Probably not. Logic therefore dictates that the lever probably does not open the secret door. A moment's thought takes us past the simple "throw the lever, and roll a saving throw" result.

By this point, perhaps, the idea that the secret door is bait to cause us to pull the lever might appear. Certainly, we search the lever for traps, Taking 20 to do our best job. We find nothing. That still doesn't mean that pulling the lever is a good idea. It is possible to make a trap that we cannot find. After all, the DC has to be no more than 1 beyond our maximum result, and we know as a fact that this is possible.

So, what now? 

We have the McGuffin. We could just leave. If we are on a tight schedule, this is probably the best option.

We could cast a simple divination spell to determine whether or not throwing the lever is a good idea. The more we think about this, the better it sounds....even if it means having to rest up first, so long as we are not on a tight schedule. If we have the time for it, this is the best option.

If we don't have access to the best divination spells for the job, we could possibly use detect magic. That would at least give us some more information. Not a bad option. It might, in fact, give us reason to investigate further before doing anything rash. 

We could also consider using a summoned creature to do the dirty work.

As a final option, we could just pull the lever. Doing so, after all, might grant the person doing the pulling a wish. Probably not. For all kinds of reasons, this is simply the worst option to take.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> And none of this addresses why someone would spend 50k or more to death trap a lever that can be bypassed by a simple rope. The point of a trap is not to allow "smart" playing to get them by it. The point of a trap is to _kill people_.




I think that the answer is obvious -- something like 55-56% of all adventurers would have pulled the lever, thus safeguarding the McGuffin for another day.  If this thread has shown nothing else, it is that this is a _*very, very*_ good trap design that will kill more people than it fails to kill.

In fact, it is a much better trap design that the ones that would have been "fair" according to some.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Letting the rogue go in was stupid. Darwin Awards stupid.
> 
> None of us thought the scenario was unfair. Was it?




Absolutely not.

BTW, this thread ought to add some ideas to your "old school/new school" thread.  These scenarios are absolutely fair in an "old school" game.  To me, "new school" implies whininess.   

(The 3.X rules are not inherently "new school" to this way of thinking, but they could sure do with some of the advice from the 1e books!)

RC


----------



## Someone (Aug 29, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Then repeat for every single doorknob encountered.
> 
> And thus 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours of gaming is born.




It reminds me of an adventure I played once! It was the closest thing to Hell I know, after perhaps a lifetime sentence in a Brazilian jail.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 29, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Then repeat for every single doorknob encountered.
> 
> And thus 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours of gaming is born.




Different strokes, etc.  I often find other peoples' gaming styles unbearably dull, so it's not really surprising that you have a similar reaction to mine.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2006)

> But...hold on. Naturally, the lever could do a lot of other things. Moreover, the means to open the secret door might not be in this room. If you were going to the effort to hide a door, would you place the lever in plain sight? Probably not. Logic therefore dictates that the lever probably does not open the secret door. A moment's thought takes us past the simple "throw the lever, and roll a saving throw" result.




That was my train of thought, hence my "Fair" vote.

Of course, there is always "The-obvious-lever-in-the-secret-door-room-is-trapped?-That's-just-what-he-WANTS-us-to-think" counterpoint...


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Aug 29, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> And, yet, there is not a single shred of useful knowledge or logic to say that this has less of a chance of disintegrating you than actually just using your hands to pull the lever. Or is it a known fact in this campaign world that magical effects are blocked by rope or thick gloves?




Were I the rogue's player, I'd have no idea.  These are merely the minimum logical precautions I'd take before pulling the lever.

(Assuming that I were a good-aligned rogue, of course.  Actually when I play rogues, I tend to play them as selfish neutrals on the border with evil, or as straight evil characters; what I'd do in that case is go and take a prisoner and make _them_ pull the lever while I watched from several dozen feet away...)


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 29, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Different strokes, etc.  I often find other peoples' gaming styles unbearably dull, so it's not really surprising that you have a similar reaction to mine.



Perhaps your style better suits a CSI team, but I can't seen a typical d and d group getting a kick out of dusting for prints in every room. Its just too tedious. 

This argument is far to the extreme. I've seen this argument lower on the more "how often hsoudl traps be looked for scale" but suggesting every object be inspected like a fine tooth comb sounds dull.


----------



## Falkus (Aug 29, 2006)

> By its very nature, a lever implies that, by changing its position, you cause something to happen.




You're also forgetting that traps usually don't require the participant to play an active role in his own destruction, by the very nature of a trap. A trap should be set off by stepping onto a hidden trigger, or a tripwire, or hooked to a door, not a lever that the target has to pull.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 30, 2006)

I find it amusing that 10+ pages into this thread we still have people jumping to the illogical conclusion that lever is likely to be trapped because there is a secret door in the same room.

In game knowledge of magic and metagame knowledge of the rules both strongly suggest that this trap is an effect cranked up into the realm of a 9th or 10th level spell.  While I agree that pulling the lever so quickly was unwise, to suggest that ropes, low level divinations, or summoned monsters would afford any protection against magic of this potency is pure speculation not supported (nor disproven) by any evidence presented in the scenario.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 30, 2006)

Raven Crowking has pretty much said, but more eloquently, many things I would have.  A few points, however:

1. While "take 10" is fine, "take 20"...where you automatically assume you're going to do the best possible job regardless of luck and if anything's there you *will* find it...is a ludicrous rule idea.  I could live with "take 18"; this tells me you're going to spend enough time to give it a really good look but there's still some unknown-quantity headroom left in case whatever the challenge is is simply beyond your ability.

2.  There was a long involved thread last month (which might have spawned this one; I've been away for a few weeks) about what rights DM's have vs. what rights players have, mostly to do with campaign-level expectations and railroading...I see a number of the same issues arising here from a different angle.

3.  Adventurers are curious.  It goes with the job.  Put a stray lever somewhere it doesn't belong and they're gonna play with it, pure and simple.

Now, remind me again what curiosity did to the cat?    

Lanefan


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 30, 2006)

> I find it amusing that 10+ pages into this thread we still have people jumping to the illogical conclusion that lever is likely to be trapped because there is a secret door in the same room.




This is key. There is nothing about the lever to suggest "trap." The lever doesn't even have to be conencted to something in the same room, or to something in the same dungeon. Likewise, the secret door may not be a secret from a different side, or maybe is not really there (what better way to get the rubes to pull the lever than an illusory door?).

There's a million and one different possible reasons for a lever to be in a room with a secret door. Only a small percentage of the suspicious and paranoid would say "obvious trap."

It's NOT an obvious trap. If it was, this wouldn't be unfair.

But this thread doesn't seem to be about fairness anymore, but about what is "obvious," which is going to vary greatly from campaign to campaign and from player to player. 

And just because others don't see it as obvious is absolutely no excuse to insult their intelligence or imply somehow that they don't have common sense. It's unwarranted, condescending, and insulting to somehow suggest that desiring a different experience or having a different expectation in any way makes the players or the DMs in such games inferior to your clever challenging games of wit and wiles.

And I have seen far, far too much of that in the last few pages to make it wise for me to continue posting in this thread [though perhaps it warrants a new thread].

But to answer the OP's next, related question:



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> In one game where I had a PC, we encountered a room known to be the “lair” of a necromancer we had previously killed. The room was filled with blackness we could not see through. We had no need or reason to go into the room other than sheer curiosity and/or greed to loot. The rogue searched the doorway and found no trap. The mage used detect magic and saw the darkness was magical, and he saw an unknown abjuration inside the room.
> 
> After much discussion, the rogue said he would enter the room. We tied a rope around him in case we needed to pull him out. We gave the rogue a potion of protection from evil, and he drank it before entering the darkness.
> 
> ...




Not nearly as much. An ominous black cloud in a necromancer's home is MUCH more suspicious than a lever in a room, and the fact that you "knew" (somehow) that it was trapped indicates that you were well aware of what you were doing rather than unwitting.


----------



## Slife (Aug 30, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This makes a lever very different from, say, a raised dias, a table, a torch, or a statue.  All of those things _might_ do something; it is a far more reasonable (and obvious) assumption that a lever or a switch _will_ do something.




In the type of game that has randomly trapped levers that can kill virtually anything, I'd expect about every statue I encountered to do something.  As would I expect every tablecloth, table, and dias to do something.  

If the BBEG has so much cash to burn, surely he could afford some permanent Animate Objects spells.  It's a mere 3,000 xp and 2200 gp to get 20 small objects.   Spend a bit more to put on some symbols of death and you're good to go.  The symbols don't even need to be permanent - and as a plus they're autotriggered when the constructs are destroyed.  No worries about friendly fire, and it costs less than a third of a single lever.


Couldn't the lever, you know, be a lightswitch, or something?  If a lever is supposed to "do something", why is the conclusion immediately that it does something negative to the person who pulled it?  How many are there IRL, including battlefields and maximum security areas?  If you can give me three verifiable real examples I'll withdraw my complaints.

I wouldn't be suprised if the PCs stole the lever and used it as a weapon of their own later.  Or just sold it for cash to pay for the monk's ressurection.  A trap like that is worth a lot more than a rez spell.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 30, 2006)

As we see in the initial post, the party had "cleared the dungeon" and the only things they could find in the room were a secret door and an obvious lever.  There is no place else for them to go except through the door.

To my mind, this is like when Captain Kirk asked "Excuse me, why does God need a starship?"  The answer was that the being he was talking to was not God, was lying, and was quite dangerous.

So, why does a room (near the end of a dungeon) containing a secret door have an obvious lever as its only other feature?

1) its a trap
2) it triggers something they've already passed
3) it triggers something beyond the secret door
4) it does nothing
5) it triggers the door

I don't like most of the choices I see there.  I'll leave the lever alone, and keep looking for other ways to trigger the door.



> Couldn't the lever, you know, be a lightswitch, or something? If a lever is supposed to "do something", why is the conclusion immediately that it does something negative to the person who pulled it? How many are there IRL, including battlefields and maximum security areas? If you can give me three verifiable real examples I'll withdraw my complaints.




IRL, what would you do if you found a toy on the battlefield?  LEAVE IT ALONE- its probably not booby trapped, but the consequences of it being so are lethal.

IRL, what would you do if you entered a room in a secure area of a military base that had an unlabled phone on the wall?  LEAVE IT ALONE- if it were meant for your use, there would be a sign and/or you would have been told going in what the phone's purpose was.

IRL, what would you do if you were in a maximum security prison (just visiting) and you were left unattended in a room with a lever on the wall?  LEAVE IT ALONE- you don't know what it does- it could be a power switch, but it could also open barred doors meant to be closed, or close those meant to be open.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

I call shanngins on this thread!


----------



## GSHamster (Aug 30, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As we see in the initial post, the party had "cleared the dungeon" and the only things they could find in the room were a secret door and an obvious lever.  There is no place else for them to go except through the door.
> 
> To my mind, this is like when Captain Kirk asked "Excuse me, why does God need a starship?"  The answer was that the being he was talking to was not God, was lying, and was quite dangerous.
> 
> So, why does a room (near the end of a dungeon) containing a secret door have an obvious lever as its only other feature?




How do you know when you've cleared a dungeon?  Maybe this was meant to be a plot hook for the DM to introduce the next adventure.

"We descended into the crypts and slew the lich. However, in an older section of the crypts we found a strange secret room. Inside we found ..."

That's just as likely as a Save or Die trap.  Secondly, Save or Die traps don't exist in a vacuum. They guard things.  The party had not cleared the dungeon because they didn't find whatever the trap guarded.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Shannagins!!


----------



## delericho (Aug 30, 2006)

I thought I was out. Guess not. Something I need to address:



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> 1. While "take 10" is fine, "take 20"...where you automatically assume you're going to do the best possible job regardless of luck and if anything's there you *will* find it...is a ludicrous rule idea.  I could live with "take 18"; this tells me you're going to spend enough time to give it a really good look but there's still some unknown-quantity headroom left in case whatever the challenge is is simply beyond your ability.




When I first stated this, I put on it the caveat "in a level appropriate dungeon". I later repeated that position. Allow me to state it again:

In a level-appropriate dungeon, a rogue who searches for traps in the correct place should find them. Certainly, it is unacceptable for him to miss a trap that the character with the best saves in the group cannot make the save against, and which kills said character outright.

Furthermore, having cleared the dungeon and recovered the McGuffin, the party should know whether they are in a level-appropriate dungeon or not. Either they've handled the challenges so far without inordinate difficulty (in which case they are), or they have been in over their heads and have survived by luck alone (in which case they're not).

By removing all the caveats, details and exeptions from what I said, you're moving my position from the realm of the reasonable to some absurd stance that the PCs should never be at risk of failure or death.


----------



## delericho (Aug 30, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that the answer is obvious -- something like 55-56% of all adventurers would have pulled the lever, thus safeguarding the McGuffin for another day.  If this thread has shown nothing else, it is that this is a _*very, very*_ good trap design that will kill more people than it fails to kill.
> 
> In fact, it is a much better trap design that the ones that would have been "fair" according to some.




No, it's just stupid.

If you want to protect something by placing it behind a secret door, you don't tip intruders off to the existence of the secret door by putting a honking great lever in the same room as the door, with nothing else in the room to be controlled by the lever.

If you must have the door opened by this lever, and absolutely must have the lever in the same room, then you have the lever take three positions, only two of which are obvious. The two 'known' positions control some other mechanism that is also present in the room (I'm sure the designer could think of something), and have the third position control the door. That way, the explorer may not associate the existence of the lever with the likely existence of the door. (And, if you really must, you can still put a trap on that third position.) The key is, to protect your secret door, your first aim should be to avoid people from looking for it in the first place.

If you really want it to be safe, you put the secret door in the back of a storeroom that you fill with shelves. Basically, put the secret door somewhere that it is unlikely to be looked for. Hence 'secret'.

Furthermore, if you have the ability to build undetectable traps, you don't invest the money in an undetectable trap on the lever - you spend the money on an undetectable door. That way, your McGuffin remains safe.

Now, assuming for some bizarre reason you have the ability to construct undetectable traps, but not undetectable doors, and you absolutely must have the lever control the door, and you absolutely must have the lever in the same room as the door, and you absolutely cannot have any other mechanism in the same room, you still don't put your undetectable trap on the honking great lever.

You put it on the door. And you have it disabled by a code word that only you know, which you select such that it cannot be guessed but which you can easily remember. And you don't write it down. If you absolutely require that others be able to access the door, you choose some sort of secret tattoo for your order and require your followers all get it. Better still, have them get six, or choose one they already have. And don't tell them about the trap, or the significance of the tattoo. That way, if the intruders do manage to pull the lever using some clever mechanism that you didn't think of (like using a rope? Really, you didn't think of that?), the McGuffin is still protected, because they still can't get through the door.

Honestly, the only reason you would design the encounter described as it has been, and put that trap on the lever, is if the purpose of the secret door is for no other reason than to have the party pull the lever and be killed. Which is an entirely backwards way of designing a lair.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 30, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> 1. While "take 10" is fine, "take 20"...where you automatically assume you're going to do the best possible job regardless of luck and if anything's there you *will* find it...is a ludicrous rule idea.  I could live with "take 18"; this tells me you're going to spend enough time to give it a really good look but there's still some unknown-quantity headroom left in case whatever the challenge is is simply beyond your ability.



A 20 is not an automatic success on skill checks. If it really is beyond your ability, you'll still fail.

And since it takes 20 times as long as a normal check, there's a significant penalty for it in any dungeon that is not merely a static environment.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 30, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> I thought I was out. Guess not. Something I need to address:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is actually a good point that I don't believe has been brought up in this 13 page thread. These discussions  are so funny becuase we're all going form different thought patterns. The level of the dungeon is quite important.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> You're also forgetting that traps usually don't require the participant to play an active role in his own destruction, by the very nature of a trap. A trap should be set off by stepping onto a hidden trigger, or a tripwire, or hooked to a door, not a lever that the target has to pull.




Every trap that has ever existed has required the target to play an active role in his own destruction.  Even a bucket of water balanced on a door ajar requires the target to try to walk through the door.  Are you seriously telling me that there are no trap triggers that involve opening doors, opening chests, etc?

If a trap requires you to step in a particular spot, you must step in that spot to set the trap off.

If a trap requires you to pull a tripwire, you must move in the area where the tripwire is located.

If a trap is hooked to a door, you must try to open the door.

If a trap requires you to pull a lever, you must pull the lever.

All traps, regardless of their actual mechanism, require some lure to make the being to be trapped enter the trap.  A mousetrap is baited, and by eating the bait the mouse causes the trap to release.  A sliding chute trap is hidden down a corridor, and by traversing the corridor a character causes the trap to spring open, sending him down to the garbage pit where the otyugh lives.  

Smart trap-setters use a lure that will entice the desired target to engage the trap.  Hence, you bait your mousetrap with cheese or peanut butter and not fluff from under your couch.  A roach motel or fly strip offers a scent that roaches or flies are likely to investigate.  A kobold puts an obvious "treasure" beyond the area with the spiked pit.  In one dungeon, two identically dressed goblins wait, one to duck into a secret door around the corner, and one to duck around the corner when the party approaches, luring them into the spiked pit between the two locations.

Every trap  everywhere.  Mechanism and lure.  Even when the trap is in an otherwise deserted hallway, traversing the hallway acts as a lure to a trap.  Traps do not go out seeking adventurers.  Traps do not wander the halls waiting to slide under people's feet.  Traps are not creatures.  If they were, they'd be monsters.  Or hazards, like green slime and brown mold.  Every trap that has ever existed has required the target to play an active role in his own destruction.

By its very nature, a lever implies that, by changing its position, you cause something to happen. This makes a lever very different from, say, a raised dias, a table, a torch, or a statue. All of those things might do something; it is a far more reasonable (and obvious) assumption that a lever or a switch will do something.  

(It might not, of course. It could be a red herring. The mechanism could be broken. However, even if you see no obvious result, it is safe to assume that throwing the switch/lever has had some effect that you should, thereafter, keep your eye out for.)

In other words, a lever is automatically and (with very, very few exceptions) always a MECHANISM.

In the example room, there is a secret door. A secret door implies both a space beyond (although this may not be true; it may be a false secret door leading to a stone wall) and a means to open it (again, this implication may not be true; the secret door could be built in such a way that it has no regular means to open it, especially if it is intended as bait rather than as a door). 

In the example room, we have a secret door with no means to open it, and a lever that does something that we do not know. So here we have two objects. One does something, the other needs the means to do something. The easiest solution to the problem is that the one object does the something for the other object. We do not think any further, throw the lever, and roll a saving throw.

In other words, the secret door is a LURE.

If you cannot put together MECHANISM + LURE = PROBABLY TRAP then _*it is your own fault*_, not the fault of the DM.

Some might say that there's a million and one different possible reasons for a lever to be in a room with a secret door.  They might claim that only a small percentage of the suspicious and paranoid would say "obvious trap."  However, to say so means you simply do not understand the nature of traps, in real life or the game.  MECHANISM + LURE = TRAP.

You open the door.  Beyond the door is a 30 x 30 room, empty except a big pile of gold coins in the middle of the floor.  What do you do?  Hmm.  Can't see the mechanism, but that sure looks like a lure.

You see a big lever and find a secret door that you cannot find the way to open.  Mechanism and lure.  Hmm.

You are crawling along the kitchen floor when you find that someone has kindly left out a big piece of cheese for you.  Hey, nothing suspicious here......

If one can say that the scenario in the original post wouldn't be unfair if it was an obvious trap, then let's see someone at least attempt to show where my reasoning falls down.

RC


----------



## Falkus (Aug 30, 2006)

> Every trap that has ever existed has required the target to play an active role in his own destruction. Even a bucket of water balanced on a door ajar requires the target to try to walk through the door. Are you seriously telling me that there are no trap triggers that involve opening doors, opening chests, etc?




There is a rather large difference between setting off a trap by opening a door its connected to, and having the target have to pull a lever to turn it on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2006)

Falkus said:
			
		

> There is a rather large difference between setting off a trap by opening a door its connected to, and having the target have to pull a lever to turn it on.




Please explain the difference.

Better, explain the difference between the lever and the mousetrap.  I think, were 55-56% of all gamers on this thread mice, they'd be dead mice by now.    

RC


----------



## Ourph (Aug 30, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This is key. There is nothing about the lever to suggest "trap."




Then why did the Rogue search for traps on the lever in the first place?

This is why this argument (that there's no reason to believe the lever is trapped) is ultimately flawed.  The party is already taking precautions based on the suspicion that there IS a trap.  They have the Rogue search.  They have the person with the best saves pull the lever.  Both of these actions have been lauded as "appropriate" in this thread.

I don't think the argument that "there's no reason to suspect a trap" meets the _a priori_ conditions of the OP's post.  It's obvious that the PCs already suspect a trap because they are taking precautions against the presence of one.  As soon as the Rogue declares that he is searching for traps, the hurdle of suspicion has already been cleared and the question of whether the PCs should suspect a trap on the lever is moot.  It's obvious they DO suspect a trap on the lever by the actions that are described in the OP.

The real question is "Did the PCs do a good job of investigating their suspicions?".  IMO, having a single character make a single skill check isn't "adequate" by any means.  Especially when that single skill check is meant to oppose the potential of a trap that could seriously harm or kill a PC.  A trap is an "encounter" just like any other encounter.  It has a CR and you get XP for overcoming it.  A level appropriate encounter is, on average, supposed to consume 1/5 of the party's daily resources.  A CR appropriate trap which is automatically detectable by the Rogue character taking 20 consumes close to 0 of the party's resources.  It consumes time, but only a fractional amount of the time the party has available to them and nowhere NEAR enough to account for 1/5 of their daily resources.  However, a party who does an adequate job of checking out THIS trap will almost assuredly consume somewhere around 1/5 of their daily resources avoiding the consequences of the trap.  An _Augury_ followed up by _Mage Hand_, _Unseen Servant_ or _Summon Monster I_ would be much more in line with consuming the appropriate amount of resources.

I have refrained from commenting on whether the "unfair" camp in this thread is arguing for a game that is "too easy", but having followed this line of reasoning to it's logical and numerical conclusion I will say that those arguing the "unfair" side are certainly arguing for a game in which traps do not present the same amount of challenge to a party that a monster encounter of similar CR would present.  IMO the challenge level guidelines, at the very least, support the idea that traps which are undetectable by taking 20 are well within the range of level appropriate encounters for a group of PCs.  After all, a creature of CR equal to the party's average level will almost never be defeated by a single action of a single character which receives the benefit of an automatic maximum on the die roll, so why should traps be any different?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 30, 2006)

With such a marvelous trap, why not just put it on a regular looking doorknob?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 30, 2006)

No, Ourph.  You are thinking too narrowly.

Even if it were completely and unassailably correct that pulling the level is not a trap:
(1) The level may do some other useful thing, and there is a separate trap added to it to protect access to that useful thing.
(2) The lever may do some useful thing that could be dangerous to a normal humanoid adventurer who happens to be in the room.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Shannagins! Shannagins! Shannagins!

*Officer Barbrady* What's this about shannagins?

This thread has gone on and on...and no one seems to notice it!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 30, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I have refrained from commenting on whether the "unfair" camp in this thread is arguing for a game that is "too easy", but having followed this line of reasoning to it's logical and numerical conclusion I will say that those arguing the "unfair" side are certainly arguing for a game in which traps do not present the same amount of challenge to a party that a monster encounter of similar CR would present.  IMO the challenge level guidelines, at the very least, support the idea that traps which are undetectable by taking 20 are well within the range of level appropriate encounters for a group of PCs.  After all, a creature of CR equal to the party's average level will almost never be defeated by a single action of a single character which receives the benefit of an automatic maximum on the die roll, so why should traps be any different?




You are presupposing things that may not be true.  Such as a trap being detected is effectively "defeated".

There are numerous reasons why Taking 20 may be impractical for a particular trap.  There are numerous reasons why a detected trap, even one whose precise nature has been diagnosed accurately (something that may take a lot more effort than a simple Search), could still be a substantial obstacle.

And if we are bringing the "what is this thing's CR really" kind of argument, we must discuss the DC of the save in the context of the guidelines provided by the RAW -- that is not going to strengthen your position.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Shannagins! 

(Hey it's better than me pimping Scarred Lands right? Oh wait, Scarred Lands rules! There it's out of my system for a week.  )


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 30, 2006)

Shannagins!


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Yay!  I got another follower!


----------



## Ourph (Aug 30, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> No, Ourph.  You are thinking too narrowly.
> 
> Even if it were completely and unassailably correct that pulling the level is not a trap:
> (1) The level may do some other useful thing, and there is a separate trap added to it to protect access to that useful thing.
> (2) The lever may do some useful thing that could be dangerous to a normal humanoid adventurer who happens to be in the room.




Ummm... I'm not trying to be rude here, but as far as I can see this response has absolutely nothing to do with the post I just made.  It seems to miss the point of the post completely and address another issue altogether (one to which I was not speaking).  Care to clarify?


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Shannigans!


----------



## Someone (Aug 30, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please explain the difference.
> 
> Better, explain the difference between the lever and the mousetrap.  I think, were 55-56% of all gamers on this thread mice, they'd be dead mice by now.
> 
> RC




The difference in point of view, I think, relies in considering the setiign room-lever-door in itself, as opposed to considring the dungeon (or heck, the world) as whole.

The adventurers got the McGuffing. They killed the BBEG, solved the puzzles, rescued the villagers, and got the treasure. And did it all without even seeing the lever, so we can reasonably conclude that said room and lever was located in a part of the dungeon that is not vital, nor frequently traversed, and by the look of it, just a backward room. Even the secret door, judging by the OP wasn´t particulary difficult to discover (at least compared with the DC to find the trap!).

What, I wonder is the reason to put a deadly and difficult to discover trap in that location? I mean, it was one of the BBEG´s best assets. The adventuring party has kicked asses and taken names along all the dungeon and stolen the McGuffin. Probably, the reason to live or build that dungeon (Imagine living in a cold, dark, damp and humid place) is for defense. The BBEG´s purpose was to aviod intrusion, and in that case, eliminate the intruders in the most efficient, cruel and painful way possible. However, while in the rest of the dungeon´s vital areas there are only "level appropiate" challenges (we know that because the adventurers are not dead), he maybe found that there was an excess of several hundred thousand gold coins in the coffers, so why the heck, we´ll just live once, let´s build a complex, rogue-proof, state-of-the-art trap tied with that lever.

Those adventurers will see! When they kill me, and by any chance they stumble into the room, I´ll laugh from the infernal plane where I shall be seeing how they are disintegrated.

The difference between the lever and the mousetrap is that you don´t put the mousetrap on the roof and put a large, nontrapped cheese in the kitchen. The reason the trap lever is unfair is because it exist to punish players who pull levers.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 30, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And if we are bringing the "what is this thing's CR really" kind of argument, we must discuss the DC of the save in the context of the guidelines provided by the RAW -- that is not going to strengthen your position.




That's not necessarily true.  As you say, the way DCs relate to CR is only a guideline.  If the trap has a very high Search DC and a very high Save DC but is easily detectable and easily defeatable by means other than rolling a d20 then it shouldn't necessarily have a high CR.  If detection and defeat of the trap is possible with low level magic (_Detect Magic_, _Augury_) or with use of another skill (Knowledge: History, Bardic Knowledge) or through taking simple actions (reading a sign saying "Don't pull the lever" written on the wall in the next room) then it's reasonable for the CR to be low even though the save DCs are high.  Those are called "circumstantial modifiers" and the rulebooks regularly encourage DMs to use them at their discretion when applying the normal guidelines.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Shannagins! Shannagins! Shannagins! 

I call Shannagins!

Shannagins!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 30, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Care to clarify?




Sure.

You asserted the fact that PCs were Searching at all or that they chose a Monk to pull the lever as supporting your position that they should have been more suspicious.

My counterargument is that there were other sound reasons to do exactly those, even if we subtract the lever-as-trap from the scenario entirely (for the sake of argument).  Therefore the Searching and choice of a Monk is non-evidence for your position.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Shannagins!

I must call Shannagins! 

This thread is going on too much! Shannagins!


----------



## Ourph (Aug 30, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> What, I wonder is the reason to put a deadly and difficult to discover trap in that location? I mean, it was one of the BBEG´s best assets. The adventuring party has kicked asses and taken names along all the dungeon and stolen the McGuffin. Probably, the reason to live or build that dungeon (Imagine living in a cold, dark, damp and humid place) is for defense. The BBEG´s purpose was to aviod intrusion, and in that case, eliminate the intruders in the most efficient, cruel and painful way possible. However, while in the rest of the dungeon´s vital areas there are only "level appropiate" challenges (we know that because the adventurers are not dad), he maybe found that there was an excess of several hundred thousand gold coins in the coffers, so why the heck, we´ll just live once, let´s build a complex, rogue-proof, state-of-the-art trap tied with that lever.




You're assuming the creatures populating the dungeon at the time the PCs entered and took the MacGuffin were the ones that placed the trap.  It is entirely possible that the trap was constructed long ago by other inhabitants of the dungeon and that the very reason the trap is located in an out-of-the-way, unused portion of the dungeon is because the current inhabitants know about the trap, do not know how to defeat it, haven't figured out a way to open the secret door without turning to dust and simply avoid that area because it is very dangerous.  

This is also a very, very good reason not to assume that because the rest of the dungeon is level appropriate this one particular area must be also.

In fact, I would argue that since the MacGuffin WAS NOT kept behind this very effective, very expensive trapped area that the current inhabitants (owners of said MacGuffin) were in exactly the position I describe.  If they created the trap they should have been using this area.  The fact that the area is unused and the important objects were on the PC's side of the secret door indicates the current occupants were leaving this area alone.  This is yet another reason for the PCs to be suspicious.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Shannagins! Shannagins! Shannagins!


----------



## Ourph (Aug 30, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Sure.
> 
> You asserted the fact that PCs were Searching at all or that they chose a Monk to pull the lever as supporting your position that they should have been more suspicious.




Actually, you were missing the point of my post.

I asserted that those facts indicate that the PCs were already suspicious and that other people's assertions that there was no reason to be suspicious are off-point, because _a priori_ the PCs in this scenario are suspicious because they are stated to be so in the OP.

I then went on to state that the PCs did a poor job of ascertaining whether their suspicions were correct because they relied on a single action by a single character and assumed that the inconclusive results of that action were actually conclusively negative.



> My counterargument is that there were other sound reasons to do exactly those, even if we subtract the lever-as-trap from the scenario entirely (for the sake of argument).  Therefore the Searching and choice of a Monk is non-evidence for your position.




First, the OP specifically says the Rogue was searching the secret door and the lever for traps.  Therefore it's an _a priori_ condition, established in the opening post, that the PCs suspect the lever could be trapped.  Second, the idea that there could be other dangerous things that might result from pulling the lever besides a direct trap seems to be even more of an argument for examining the lever further (i.e. - expending more resources) before making the decision to pull it, which seems to support my point that the PCs did a poor job of exploring their suspicions, not nullify it.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 30, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> That's not necessarily true.  As you say, the way DCs relate to CR is only a guideline.  If the trap has a very high Search DC and a very high Save DC but is easily detectable and easily defeatable by means other than rolling a d20 then it shouldn't necessarily have a high CR.  If detection and defeat of the trap is possible with low level magic (_Detect Magic_, _Augury_) or with use of another skill (Knowledge: History, Bardic Knowledge) or through taking simple actions (reading a sign saying "Don't pull the lever" written on the wall in the next room) then it's reasonable for the CR to be low even though the save DCs are high.  Those are called "circumstantial modifiers" and the rulebooks regularly encourage DMs to use them at their discretion when applying the normal guidelines.





I agree, to a point.  But beyond that point this leaps off into the realm of pure speculation.

You could say that _if_ you were DM "this trap is nasty, but Augury, a summoned monster, or a rope would have helped here so it is not so bad if the PCs are careful".  

And I could say that _if_ I were DM "a trap this nasty always means business, so low level divinations, most summoned monsters, and rope will afford zero protections, and I am placing this on a doorknob to maximize the chances of catching someone because that is how my BBEGs think".

Who is right?  Neither of us.  Both of us.  Who cares?  Shannagins!


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Thank you!!! You finally get my point Ridley!  

Let's call Shannagins! and get this thread to die finally...


----------



## Someone (Aug 30, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> It is entirely possible that the trap was constructed long ago by other inhabitants of the dungeon and that the very reason the trap is located in an out-of-the-way, unused portion of the dungeon is because the current inhabitants know about the trap, do not know how to defeat it, haven't figured out a way to open the secret door without turning to dust and simply avoid that area because it is very dangerous.




OK. After losing several minions to the disintegrating trap, and unfortunately not having a rope (Ye olde Rope Shoppe was too far away), they decided to carefully sweep the dust of their former companions and clean the charred imprints of their hands on the lever. After that, they did not put any danger mark on the wall. Won´t anyone think of the children!?



> In fact, I would argue that since the MacGuffin WAS NOT kept behind this very effective, very expensive trapped area that the current inhabitants (owners of said MacGuffin) were in exactly the position I describe.




You mean short of a rope?



> If they created the trap they should have been using this area.  The fact that the area is unused and the important objects were on the PC's side of the secret door indicates the current occupants were leaving this area alone.  This is yet another reason for the PCs to be suspicious.




I concede that I assumed the fact that the dungeon owners either built the trap or knew, maybe by trial and error, how to bypass it and thus could have been used to protect the McGuffin.

You however, have to propose the existence of the builder and the rope impaired dungeon squatters; that the current inhabitants found no way either to figure out how to the trap works, or to break down the secret door -or even that they found it, despite he existence of the lever; that they just left that lethal danger there, doing nothing to prevent any possible accident, and also that there´s no evidence of the trap´s deadly effects or existence despite the fact that the lever has been operated. I consider my assumption far more likely.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

Shannagins!


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 30, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Shannagins!



It doesn't work if you don't spell it correctly.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 30, 2006)

So far it's not hurting anything either.  

Shannagins!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> The difference between the lever and the mousetrap is that you don´t put the mousetrap on the roof and put a large, nontrapped cheese in the kitchen. The reason the trap lever is unfair is because it exist to punish players who pull levers.





So, let me see if I understand.

First, the idea was that the trap was unfair because it was unreasonable to assume that it was a trap.  Pretty well answered.

Second, traps shouldn't be levers and you shouldn't have to do something to interact with the trap.  Pretty well answered.

Now, the trap is unfair because it is in the wrong room, or isn't a doorknob.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 30, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Now, the trap is unfair because it is in the wrong room, or isn't a doorknob.



No, it's unfair because it was designed and built _by_ a doorknob, and that's why it's in the wrong room. 

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> You however, have to propose the existence of the builder and the rope impaired dungeon squatters; that the current inhabitants found no way either to figure out how to the trap works, or to break down the secret door -or even that they found it, despite he existence of the lever; that they just left that lethal danger there, doing nothing to prevent any possible accident, and also that there´s no evidence of the trap´s deadly effects or existence despite the fact that the lever has been operated. I consider my assumption far more likely.




Or maybe they can cast 1st level spells, have at least the minimum wariness of a successful mouse, know how to warn each other orally, and just stay away?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or maybe they can cast 1st level spells, have at least the minimum wariness of a successful mouse, know how to warn each other orally, and just stay away?




The theory this trap was designed by a doorknob seems vastly more likely.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The theory this trap was designed by a doorknob seems vastly more likely.




It also seems vastly more likely that the trap was designed by a doorknob than that the trap is unfair.  

RC


----------



## Someone (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, let me see if I understand.
> 
> First, the idea was that the trap was unfair because it was unreasonable to assume that it was a trap.  Pretty well answered.
> 
> ...




*sigh* Let´s try again. Suppose you can install a trap. Choose between those options:

Location:

a) A place or room where intruders are likely or obligued to pass before they kill you or steal your things
b) A room your enemies are either unlikely to discover, or they´ll discover after killing and/or stealing from you.

Trap trigger: 

a) Something seemingly innocuous your enemies are likely or obligued to interact with but not likely not investigate in the first place, like a doorknob like all other doorknobs, a rug, or even a corridor section. 
b) Something your enemies are going to be either suspicious or curious about it´s working, like a lever, and likely going to investigate.

Priority:

a) You´ll trap important things before non-important ones.
b) You´ll leave important thing untrapped and trap unimportant things.

In this case, the dungeon denizens always choose option B.



> Or maybe they can cast 1st level spells, have at least the minimum wariness of a successful mouse, know how to warn each other orally, and just stay away?




I bow before your ad-hoc hypothesis creating-fu. Should we suppose that the rogue had no ranks in Search and a Intelligence of 9, and the monk character had only 1 hit point? A DC 20 search trap that deals 1 point of Disintegrating damage is quite fair. Case closed!


----------



## Someone (Aug 31, 2006)

nvm.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It also seems vastly more likely that the trap was designed by a doorknob than that the trap is unfair.




While I can easily tolerate the occasional situation that is unfair in a campaign because such is life, wasting my valuable gaming time on things designed by a doorknob is not acceptable to me.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If one can say that the scenario in the original post wouldn't be unfair if it was an obvious trap, then let's see someone at least attempt to show where my reasoning falls down.



I think the main problem is not so much that the trap was not "obvious", but that the means of detecting or circumventing it are not "obvious" to any but players who are used to a particular style of play, and the consequences seemed rather harsh.

Really, how had the DM handled traps previously? If he had allowed the standard approaches of detecting and avoiding traps to work before this, thereby getting his players used to a particular style of play, suddenly requiring extraordinary measures (and yes, "leave it alone" is an extraordinary measure to players used to the idea of "something fun - perhaps risky and dangerous, but still fun - will happen if I pull the lever") to avoid character death seems unfair.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> *sigh* Let´s try again. Suppose you can install a trap. Choose between those options:
> 
> Location:
> 
> ...




You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds none. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.​
a) We are not told where the McGuffin is, but it is not in this room.  So, it is reasonable to assume that the trap does not protect the McGuffin.

b) There is a secret door, which the trap could be designed to protect.

c) Clever creatures do not lay traps in the places they intend to go frequently; they lay traps in out-of-the-way areas tangential to those areas, or areas that they frequent infrequently.

d) If you have stupid servants, it is easier to tell them not to pull levers than to come up with a code for every doorknob in the dungeon complex so that the minions can tell which are safe and which are not.

e) If this trap was on the doorknob, and the door was not secret, would that make it fair?



> Trap trigger:
> 
> a) Something seemingly innocuous your enemies are likely or obligued to interact with but not likely not investigate in the first place, like a doorknob like all other doorknobs, a rug, or even a corridor section.
> b) Something your enemies are going to be either suspicious or curious about it´s working, like a lever, and likely going to investigate.




The only important criteria for a good trap are (a) it will be interacted with and (b) the interacting party will not know it is a trap first.  

I agree that this is not an _ideal_ trap -- it is _*way*_ too obvious -- but the question posed is not "Is this trap ideal?"  The question is "Is this trap fair?"  The fact that the trap is more obvious than would be ideal, IMHO, makes it _fairer_, not less fair.  A lot of people have demonstrated why one might think this was a trap.  No one yet has come up with a logical line of thinking that concludes "This must be safe."



> Priority:
> 
> a) You´ll trap important things before non-important ones.
> b) You´ll leave important thing untrapped and trap unimportant things.
> ...




The area behind your fridge is not all that important, but you trap it because you understand mouse behavior.  Or maybe you build a mousetrap into your TV remote because you use it more.....   

People trap areas based upon several factors:

(a)  Convenience:  Is this trap going to hamper me?  Should I put hidden pits in the areas used by my warriors?
(b)  Purpose:  I am trying to protect my vault; I am trying to kill intruders; I am trying to direct intruders to the killing pit; I am trying to make people believe that another area is more important than it is; I want revenge.

also

(c)  Cost Effectiveness:  How do I get the best bang for my buck?  This is what I think you are complaining about, but it is far less important than (a) and (b) when making initial determinations.  Since we have no other data about the dungeon, we have no idea how much or how little the creator could afford.  However, the cost of this trap is so minimal compared to the cost of digging a dungeon complex in the first place, that one can assume that this is not an issue.  Or, to put it another way, would the trap become fair if it were _cheaper_?

and

[d]  Style:  The creator's sense of personal style and preferences.



> I bow before your ad-hoc hypothesis creating-fu. Should we suppose that the rogue had no ranks in Search and a Intelligence of 9, and the monk character had only 1 hit point? A DC 20 search trap that deals 1 point of Disintegrating damage is quite fair. Case closed!




What here is hard to believe?

They can cast 1st level spells?  That requires, what, an Adept?  If we postulate more than one being ("Think of the children" _remember_) living in a place where such traps are possible, it is somehow ad-hoc hypothesis creating-fu to think they might have at least one spellcaster?

That they have at least the minimum wariness of a successful mouse?  Should we assume that, having watched the monk fry, the rest of the PCs pull the lever one-by-one, or can't we take this as a given?  What communal creatures are you imagining here that would be able to make a mark to warn of the trap, yet cannot understand that the trap is there?

That they know how to warn each other orally?  How many sentient creatures in the game don't have this capacity?

That they just stay away?  We are told that (a) the room is located in the back corner of the dungeon, making it easy to avoid, and (b) that it is otherwise empty, so no one is using it to, say, store things.  No trash from sleeping there, no gnawed bones, nothing.

If this is "ad-hoc hypothesis creating-fu" exactly how hard to you have to work to come up with an alternate, equally rational theory?  If no intelligent beings currently dwell here, the "No mark to warn us; think of the children" line of reasoning doesn't live here either.

You are stretching so far to claim that this isn't fair that you're in danger of toppling over.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think the main problem is not so much that the trap was not "obvious", but that the means of detecting or circumventing it are not "obvious" to any but players who are used to a particular style of play, and the consequences seemed rather harsh.
> 
> Really, how had the DM handled traps previously? If he had allowed the standard approaches of detecting and avoiding traps to work before this, thereby getting his players used to a particular style of play, suddenly requiring extraordinary measures (and yes, "leave it alone" is an extraordinary measure to players used to the idea of "something fun - perhaps risky and dangerous, but still fun - will happen if I pull the lever") to avoid character death seems unfair.




The DM setting you up to think that trolls are cuddly, and then using them to kill you, isn't fair, either.  However, that doesn't make trolls unfair.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The DM setting you up to think that trolls are cuddly, and then using them to kill you, isn't fair, either.  However, that doesn't make trolls unfair.



It's not exactly a case of misleading the players. Rather, the point I was trying to make is: if the DM suddenly demands different things of his players, and imposes significant consequences for failing to live up to the new expectations, the situation starts to look unfair.

A comparable scenario might be camping out for the night in the wilderness. The party is used to taking basic precautions such as having a sentry and sleeping in light armor. The DM usually calls for Spot and Listen checks for the sentry. Sometimes, the sentry succeeds on the checks and manages to alert the party before the threat arrives. Sometimes, the sentry fails the checks and the party gets surprised by a monster. Sometimes, the party finds itself outmatched and has to run.

Given this set-up, a situation comparable to the OP's trap might be: the DM calls for Spot and Listen checks from the sentry, and despite the fact that the sentry is a ranger with decent Wisdom, maxed out Spot and Listen, and made good rolls (19 each), he fails to notice the threat. The monster surprises the sentry, rolls a 2 on its attack roll and manages to hit him anyway. The DM rolls damage and declares that the sentry is dead.

An observer who is used to a different style of play would state that the encounter is "fair" because the party's wizard did not cast _alarm_, the party did not search for a cave with a single entrance that could be trapped (perhaps with a rope) or camouflaged, did not search for signs or ask about rumors of dangerous creatures in the area before making camp, and probably list many other simple precautions that the party did not take that might have prevented this outcome.

None of this takes into account the fact that the DM previously had not required his players to take such extensive precautions before camping for the night, and has now decided to make them necessary to prevent the likely death of a character. It's the gaming equivalent of smuggling a gun into a school, shooting a student and saying it is fair because it could have been prevented if the school decided to search your bag before allowing you in.


----------



## Slife (Aug 31, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> IRL, what would you do if you found a toy on the battlefield?  LEAVE IT ALONE- its probably not booby trapped, but the consequences of it being so are lethal.
> 
> IRL, what would you do if you entered a room in a secure area of a military base that had an unlabled phone on the wall?  LEAVE IT ALONE- if it were meant for your use, there would be a sign and/or you would have been told going in what the phone's purpose was.
> 
> IRL, what would you do if you were in a maximum security prison (just visiting) and you were left unattended in a room with a lever on the wall?  LEAVE IT ALONE- you don't know what it does- it could be a power switch, but it could also open barred doors meant to be closed, or close those meant to be open.





Case 1
Land mines are way too small to fit into toys.  I'd be more worried about things that I know could be dangerous (like a mound of recently tilled soil, or that patch of leaves that's been strewn all the way across the road in an otherwise unwooded area.)  That stated, while a toy may be unusual on a battlefield (depending on where the battle is taking place, of course.  Urban combat, anyone?), a lever is certainly not too unusual in dungeons.  

Case 2
If I'm invading the base?  Probably leave it alone - but only because it's only possible to use as a communications device.  Even then I might smash it just on the off chance someone coming behind me might use it.  If it were a computer I'd use it, and if it were a big ol' switch or lever I'd use it.  

Case 3
Well, if I'm supposed to be invading the prison and killing the guards, I'll go for it.  The more chaos the better!
But seriously, how many switches that could release prisoners wouldn't have... I don't know, a key, or a pass code, or a fingerprint scanner, or a retinal identification...

====================


> A lot of people have demonstrated why one might think this was a trap. No one yet has come up with a logical line of thinking that concludes "This must be safe."



Propositions
1) There exists a room in a side branch of a dungeon with a secret door in it
2) Whomever designed the dungeon had a finite amount of resources
3) The designer of a dungeon would try to deploy these resources in the most effective way possible
4) There is a lever in the room with the secret door in it
5) Making a trap undetectable costs a lot of cash
6) Making a trap deadly costs a lot of cash
7) Stupid people don't tend to have a lot of disposeable income, or the abilites to design dungeons.  Other people will kill them and take their stuff if they're dumb, and skill points are based on int.  Therefore, we may conclude that the trap/dungeon designer is of at least above average intelligence.  

If you're smart, which of these choices will you pick for your expensive, magical, undetectable, deadly, alignment targetable trap?  Remember, you want to get the most out of your investment.  You could buy a small country for the amount you paid
a) A freaking lever in the middle of a room
b) An otherwise normal floor tile
c) The door to get into your dungeon in the first place
d) The secret door itself
e) The floor around whatever you're protecting (IE, the Macguffin)

Since it has been established by the law of the jungle (and skill point mechanics) that the designer can't be stupid, the lever is not trapped with a deadly, undetectable trap.  
====================
Here's another question.  Would you consider having three half-red-dragon celestial paragon hydras in the same 10x10 room fair if they attacked as soon as the door was opened?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It's not exactly a case of misleading the players. Rather, the point I was trying to make is: if the DM suddenly demands different things of his players, and imposes significant consequences for failing to live up to the new expectations, the situation starts to look unfair.




I would say a more comparable situation would be:

The party is used to taking basic precautions such as having a sentry and sleeping in light armor when camping in the wilderness. The DM usually calls for Spot and Listen checks for the sentry. Sometimes, the sentry succeeds on the checks and manages to alert the party before the threat arrives. Sometimes, the sentry fails the checks and the party gets surprised by a monster. Sometimes, the party finds itself outmatched and has to run.

Given this set-up, a situation comparable to the OP's trap might be: 

The PCs enter the dungeon, slay lots of monsters (but not all) and leave.  They then camp several yards from the dungeon entrance.  The DM calls for Spot and Listen checks from the sentry, and despite the fact that the sentry is a ranger with decent Wisdom, maxed out Spot and Listen, and made good rolls (19 each), he fails to notice the threat. The monster surprises the sentry, rolls a 2 on its attack roll and manages to hit him anyway. The DM rolls damage and declares that the sentry is dead.

55-56% of the players protest because they were camped out in the "wilderness" same as before.

An observer states that the encounter is "fair" because the proximity of the dungeon means that the PCs should have taken greater precautions.  Someone claims that the monsters should have used the time, instead, to plan an ambush _within_ the dungeon.  Someone else claims that the encounter is unfair because the monster was an X instead of a Y, but when asked if the encounter would be fair if the monster was Y instead claims that it is unfair for some other reason.  Yet another person claims that this means the party must always take elaborate precautions whenever they sleep, regardless of situation, because he is unable to tell the difference between sleeping next to the dungeon entrance and sleeping in a reputable inn.

One player claims that the DM previously had not required his players to take such extensive precautions before camping for the night, and has now decided to make them necessary to prevent the likely death of a character.   The DM points out that the necessities haven't changed; the PCs have simply never camped in such a mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous place before.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Slife said:
			
		

> Propositions
> 1) There exists a room in a side branch of a dungeon with a secret door in it
> 2) Whomever designed the dungeon had a finite amount of resources
> 3) The designer of a dungeon would try to deploy these resources in the most effective way possible
> ...




You were doing well until you hit #5.  After all, presumably, making the door mechanism or the trap hard to detect costs the same amount.  Moreover, if you take #5 to heart, why are you building underground anyway?  Way more expensive than building above-ground.  

Actually, you were doing well until you hit #3, which should really read:  The designer of a dungeon would try to deploy these resources in the most effective way possible _to achieve the goals that the dungeon was created for._



> If you're smart, which of these choices will you pick for your expensive, magical, undetectable, deadly, alignment targetable trap?  Remember, you want to get the most out of your investment.  You could buy a small country for the amount you paid




But you still paid significantly more to create the dungeon in the first place.



> a) A freaking lever in the middle of a room




Sure to catch at least 55-56% of the mice.



> b) An otherwise normal floor tile
> c) The door to get into your dungeon in the first place
> d) The secret door itself




All of these things are likely to catch my less-intelligent servitors....and even me if I haven't had my morning coffee.



> e) The floor around whatever you're protecting (IE, the Macguffin)




Who says that wasn't trapped too?  Or does the location of the trap in the OP somehow preclude the existence of other traps in this dungeon?



> Since it has been established by the law of the jungle (and skill point mechanics) that the designer can't be stupid, the lever is not trapped with a deadly, undetectable trap.




#7 does not logically follow from the previous points.  The conclusion is invalid.  Consequently, the monk is dead.

_Stupid people don't tend to have a lot of disposeable income:_  Unsupported.  Do PCs have Wealth by Intelligence caps?  Do NPCs?  Do the treasure tables bear this out?

_Other people will kill them and take their stuff if they're dumb:_  Unsupported.  Is CR based on Intelligence?

_Skill points are based on intelligence: _ True.  But, since my fighter just commissioned a magic sword that he doesn't have the skill to make, also irrelevant.

_Therefore, we may conclude that the trap/dungeon designer is of at least above average intelligence: _ Probably true, but there is nothing that logically links the designer's intelligence to this being or not being a trap.  In other words, there is no chain of logic saying that because of the previous statements, the lever must not be a trap.

Faulty logic or faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions.  A lot of people have demonstrated why one might think this was a trap. No one yet has come up with a logical line of thinking that concludes "This must be safe."



> Here's another question.  Would you consider having three half-red-dragon celestial paragon hydras in the same 10x10 room fair if they attacked as soon as the door was opened?




No.  But, then again, the question is irrelevant.  The trap isn't going to eat me when I open the door.  Nor is it unable to fit where it is placed.  Nor is it likely to destroy itself.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The PCs enter the dungeon, slay lots of monsters (but not all) and leave.  They then camp several yards from the dungeon entrance.  The DM calls for Spot and Listen checks from the sentry, and despite the fact that the sentry is a ranger with decent Wisdom, maxed out Spot and Listen, and made good rolls (19 each), he fails to notice the threat. The monster surprises the sentry, rolls a 2 on its attack roll and manages to hit him anyway. The DM rolls damage and declares that the sentry is dead.




It's nowhere near that. You're missing the analogy:

DM is giving a setup the PCs have seen hundreds of times that was relatively safe with a few precautions.
PCs approach situation just like all the other times and someone dies.
DM wonders why the PCs didn't see the "obvious" way around the problem.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> One player claims that the DM previously had not required his players to take such extensive precautions before camping for the night, and has now decided to make them necessary to prevent the likely death of a character.   The DM points out that the necessities haven't changed; the PCs have simply never camped in such a mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous place before.



Again, you're making a playstyle assumption. What makes the wilderness close to a dungeon that the party has partly cleared a "mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous" place, or a lever a "mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous" object? Some players may have been conditioned by their DMs to view them as such, but it is certainly not the case for everyone.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 31, 2006)

I think this whole thread is one big doornob.  

Shannagins!


----------



## Melan (Aug 31, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I think this whole thread is one big doornob.
> 
> Shannagins!



Just for the record - it is spelled _shenanigans_.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 31, 2006)

Melan,

Thank you. shenanigans!

shenanigans! 

And for good measure...


*shenanigans!*


----------



## Someone (Aug 31, 2006)

Amazing, we´re building a module here. From the initial OP, we deduced now that the bad guys that got the McGuffin didn´t build the dungeon, but ocupied it after the original inhabitants left it. The bad guys group found a room with a lever, but before doing anything else, they called the group´s spellcaster (they had an spellcaster) who using his mojo determined that the level could be problematic, and left without interacting with the lever, investigating the room at all, or leave any trace of doing any of the above. Then proceeded to just forget the room. 

These people apparently live in a world where a trap´s purpose isn´t to protect your things, but to have your revenge on intruders, and built where it´s difficult to find them (Raven, you can´t seriously believe that)

Anyway, it´s clear for me that the trap is illogical, even leaving aside the issue of fairness. _Deadly, random, illogical, trapped levers without warning signals_ strongly reward two playing styles: the one that seeing a lever metagames that, since it´s a lever and can be interacted, it´s a test to see how smart the players -who can choose to pull or not, and how to pull- are, or the paranoid playing style, who treats _everything_ as a deadly trap. You may like either style, but seems that the majority doesn´t.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 31, 2006)

shenanigans! 

A whole host of doornobbish shenanigans!


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Then why did the Rogue search for traps on the lever in the first place?




I must agree - it's entirely reasonable that there's a trap on the lever. (Well, except that building that trap in that location, under those conditions is itself just utterly stupid - see my post at the bottom of page 12 for a long explanation of just why that is.)



> A trap is an "encounter" just like any other encounter.  It has a CR and you get XP for overcoming it.  A level appropriate encounter is, on average, supposed to consume 1/5 of the party's daily resources.




It's supposed to have that potential, but it's not a given. If the party successfully sneaks past the Ogres guarding the prison, they've used 0 of their daily resources but have defeated the challenge, so get XP. If they trick the Ogres into thinking they're needed elsewhere, they've used 0 of their daily resources but have defeated the challenge, so get XP. If they somehow persuade the Ogres to betray their employers, they have not only used 0 of their daily resources but have actually added to them, and have defeated the challenge, and so gain XP.

If the Rogue detects a trap and disarms it, the party have used 0 of their daily resources, it is true, but they have defeated the encounter, and should gain XP for it. A trap that, if triggered, will kill a PC 95% of the time is of a CR at least Average Party Level +2... even if it is detected at DC 10.



> A CR appropriate trap which is automatically detectable by the Rogue character taking 20 consumes close to 0 of the party's resources.




That's why you put your traps in places the Rogue is unlikely to look for traps, so that using the character's ability becomes a matter of good play, rather than a cheap and easy way to gain XP. The trick is to put the traps in places where the Rogue is unlikely to think to look but which, in hindsight, are obvious. A big lever in an otherwise empty room with a secret door is not such a location.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 31, 2006)

shenanigans! shenanigans! shenanigans! shenanigans!


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> You're assuming the creatures populating the dungeon at the time the PCs entered and took the MacGuffin were the ones that placed the trap.




I dealt with this about 10 pages ago.

It is highly unlikely that the original builders of this dungeon placed only this one trap in the whole complex. It is further extremely unlikely that this trap is so significantly more difficult than any of the others that they placed.

Therefore, it is highly likely that the entire dungeon contains traps such that this is a very dangerous place to live. If the place is dangerous to live, it is further unlikely that creatures to whom the dungeon is so deadly will live there. If they have a choice, they will live somewhere else. If they have no choice, they will probably die.

As far as I can see, the only possible reason you would see low-CR creatures living in a dungeon with high-CR traps is if some special immunity comes into play (perhaps the BBEG who built the place used a tattoo to protect his followers, and that has become part of the traditional tribal markings of the Orcs who now live there; perhaps the trap only affects the living, and the inhabitants are all undead. But that's contextual information we just do not have. Furthermore, it should be a strong exception, and far from the norm.)

Furthermore, if the dungeon has more than one high-CR trap, the party will know that they are not dealing with a level-appropriate dungeon. And, as I've said about a dozen times, I have no problem with this trap in a non-level-appropriate dungeon... PROVIDED THE PCS KNOW ABOUT IT.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> It is entirely possible that the trap was constructed long ago by other inhabitants of the dungeon and that the very reason the trap is located in an out-of-the-way, unused portion of the dungeon is because the current inhabitants know about the trap, do not know how to defeat it, haven't figured out a way to open the secret door without turning to dust and simply avoid that area because it is very dangerous.




Then the inhabitants would have marked the room somehow (perhaps a honking big skull and crossbones in red paint?) to remind themselves not to pull the lever by mistake or when drunk.

I can see the possibility that the current inhabitants didn't know about the room, perhaps because they haven't gotten this far into the dungeon, or it was behind secret doors that they haven't found yet. In which case it's true that such a marking would not exist. However, in that case I _still_ think that this trap is out of place. It makes absolutely no logical sense to have nice easy traps in one part of your dungeon and then to suddenly rank up the deadliness of the traps in one area. If you can build that sort of a trap, you really should be using it in all key locations, not just one.

And, finally, I refer you again to my post at the bottom of page 12, which explains at length that only a damn fool would build this trap in this location.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> shenanigans! shenanigans! shenanigans! shenanigans!




Um, why do you care if this thread has reached 14 pages without a conclusion? Surely if you don't like it, you don't have to read it?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Again, you're making a playstyle assumption. What makes the wilderness close to a dungeon that the party has partly cleared a "mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous" place, or a lever a "mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous" object? Some players may have been conditioned by their DMs to view them as such, but it is certainly not the case for everyone.




Not at all.  When asking if something is unfair, one assumes that we are talking about some form of _*objective analysis*_.  The OP does not ask, "Is this unfair _in your campaign_?  One can easily imagine that something is unfair _within the context of a particular group dynamic_ but this does not make it _unfair in and of itself_.

"DM is giving a setup the PCs have seen hundreds of times that was relatively safe with a few precautions" is a playstyle assumption.  There is no assumption inherent in the OP, and it is safer therefore to follow the assumption _that you do not know the playstyle_ and act accordingly.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> Amazing, we´re building a module here. From the initial OP, we deduced now that the bad guys that got the McGuffin didn´t build the dungeon, but ocupied it after the original inhabitants left it. The bad guys group found a room with a lever, but before doing anything else, they called the group´s spellcaster (they had an spellcaster) who using his mojo determined that the level could be problematic, and left without interacting with the lever, investigating the room at all, or leave any trace of doing any of the above. Then proceeded to just forget the room.




_IF_ the bad guys with the McGuffin didn't build the dungeon, _THEN_ they migrated to it.  This assumes a reasonably large number of bad guys, such as a splinter of an orc tribe.  It is not unreasonable to assume that said orcs had some form of adept, witchdoctor, or (un)holy person with them.  There is not requirement for a PC class character, nor really any requirement for the character to be over 1st level.

_IF_ one of our hypothetical orcs pulled the lever, _THEN_ they presumably learned it was bad mojo soon enough.  However, we may also assume that these orcs (used to dwelling in such places) were capable of following the line of reasoning that I and others demonstrated.  Oddly enough, there are some who would have us believe that the bad guys are wise enough and clever enough to use traps in all kinds of fiendish ways, but neither wise nor clever enough to leave a known trap alone.

_IF_ this investigation took place, _THEN_ it could well have taken place long enough ago that the ashes mingled with the general dust of the place.  Or, even, it might be true that the orcs collected the ash both (a) to preserve the trap for unwary adventurers that get so far -- "I know where there's a secret door that leads to untold riches!  Come this way!" -- and/or (b) for proper disposal of the dead.  Although PCs seem content to leave thier corpses strewn about (unless they are planning on restoring them to life), that isn't the norm for intelligent beings.  Somewhere, some orc has a sack with Grandpa's ashes (which the PCs earlier mistook for a magical dust, and are still wearing in their hair).



> These people apparently live in a world where a trap´s purpose isn´t to protect your things, but to have your revenge on intruders, and built where it´s difficult to find them (Raven, you can´t seriously believe that)




Again, I'd hate to walk barefoot in your house, or try to make a midnight snack.  Mousetraps are left in the middle of oft-used walkways and the pantry doors are electrified.  The alternative (putting the mousetraps where mice are likely to go, but you are not; using the mousetraps to entice and kill mice instead of simply trying to defend the food) is apparently a foreign concept.

We are also setting aside, apparently, the fact of the secret door.  Since this room seems to be a portal from one complex to another (or one area to another), it could be what is beyond the secret door (if anything) that the trap protects.

Again, no evidence whatsoever that the trap is illogical, and the only issue is fairness.  I would say that a trap which catches over half the intended victims is, perforce of its effectiveness, logical.  

Moreover, crying on one hand that the trap is ineffective because of placement or components, while crying on the other hand that the trap is unfair because it is too effective, is self-contradictory and throws both premises (ineffective and unfair) out, at least insofar as the reasons given go.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> It is highly unlikely that the original builders of this dungeon placed only this one trap in the whole complex. It is further extremely unlikely that this trap is so significantly more difficult than any of the others that they placed.




Agreed.

What this means is that any creatures colonizing the area are either somehow immune to the traps (vermin, for example, do not pull levers) or smart enough to discover/disable/work around what traps there are.  Or, as you say, they would probably die.  In fact, the PCs should eventually be able to tell which areas are likely to still contain traps simply because the current inhabitants do not use those areas.  An otherwise empty room would be a dead giveaway (pun) well before the dungeon was cleared.

Even goblins could survive in such a place, if there were safe areas and paths (which seems likely), they had the numbers to withstand initial losses of exploring the place (and the rewards were high enough), and the inhabitants have enough intelligence to memorize the safe places/routes by adulthood.  Canny inhabitants would intentionally lure invaders toward the deadlier traps.  Careful observation of the inhabitants would, in fact, allow the PCs to bypass most (if not all) of the traps.

It is logical, following this reasoning, to assume that the party will know _or should know_ that they are not dealing with a level-appropriate dungeon (depending, of course, on what you view as level-appropriate   ).

However, the assumption that the inhabitants would have marked the room somehow to remind themselves not to pull the lever by mistake or when drunk is not well founded IMHO.  The likelihood is higher that they would confine drunkeness to certain safe areas.  After all, presumably you accepted the dangers of those traps initially because they afforded you a certain level of security.  Any system that would warn invaders removes this benefit.  Placing warnings on traps is only advantageous if the "trap" is intended as a warning itself, to modify or prevent certain behavior (as a security camera does, or the note that an alarm will ring if you use the fire exit).

It is also true, in real life, that people can, have, and do live in all sorts of dangerous situations where knowledge of the dangers renders the inhabitants to take a fairly casual attitude about them.  People cross the road in traffic all of the time.  When I roamed the woods as a young kid in bear, lynx, and timber rattler country, the admonitions I received were all verbal, and this was an area where there were bears living quite near.

Pre-literate and early-literate peoples often can demonstrate impressive oral memory.  Admonitions about the traps would probably take the form of a system of taboos:  Do not pull levers, stay away from the Room of the Howling Jackal, in the Hall of the Dead God, you must take three steps to the left for every three steps forward, then three steps to the right for the next three steps, and so on.  In some cases, the common inhabitants may no longer know what the taboo safeguards them against.

Taken in isolation, the trap is obvious.  If you assume, instead, that the trap is part of a "fair" complex (rather than simply assuming it is there for no reason, which is a condition not existent in the OP), then it is perhaps even more obvious.  Which, agreed, makes this less than _ideal_ as a trap...but a trap which, I would argue, as a direct result of being less ideal is also more fair.

RC


----------



## dragonhead (Aug 31, 2006)

if you roll 19 and fail that bad, then depends on the lvl, if they are above 6, then yes, death is a part of the game, if below that, then no, that trap was too advanced for a low lvl party.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

dragonhead said:
			
		

> if you roll 19 and fail that bad, then depends on the lvl, if they are above 6, then yes, death is a part of the game, if below that, then no, that trap was too advanced for a low lvl party.




Out of curiosity, why is this OK above 6th level, but not below?  Is death not part of the game at, say, 3rd level?

RC


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, why is this OK above 6th level, but not below?  Is death not part of the game at, say, 3rd level?




Yeah, I would have put the level significantly higher - there comes a point where character death changes from a matter of a new character to a matter of getting a ressurrection, which is an inconvenience, and which hurts, but where it is a much smaller issue than previously.

The would make the 'fair' level what? A PC cleric can cast Ressurrection at 13th level, but I would expect the party to have access to that sort of magic rather earlier. Perhaps 11th or so would be my changeover point.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "DM is giving a setup the PCs have seen hundreds of times that was relatively safe with a few precautions" is a playstyle assumption.  There is no assumption inherent in the OP, and it is safer therefore to follow the assumption _that you do not know the playstyle_ and act accordingly.




Lever being an obvious place to put a trap is a playstyle assumption that you are making, though.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2006)

I agree with virtually everything you said. In particular, your point about verbal-only warnings is especially well made.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Even goblins could survive in such a place, if there were safe areas and paths (which seems likely), they had the numbers to withstand initial losses of exploring the place (and the rewards were high enough), and the inhabitants have enough intelligence to memorize the safe places/routes by adulthood.  Canny inhabitants would intentionally lure invaders toward the deadlier traps.  Careful observation of the inhabitants would, in fact, allow the PCs to bypass most (if not all) of the traps.




Indeed. This would constitute the clues I felt were missing from the example as presented. If the PCs miss those clues... well, sucks to be them.



> It is logical, following this reasoning, to assume that the party will know _or should know_ that they are not dealing with a level-appropriate dungeon (depending, of course, on what you view as level-appropriate   ).
> 
> However, the assumption that the inhabitants would have marked the room somehow to remind themselves not to pull the lever by mistake or when drunk is not well founded IMHO.  The likelihood is higher that they would confine drunkeness to certain safe areas.  After all, presumably you accepted the dangers of those traps initially because they afforded you a certain level of security.  Any system that would warn invaders removes this benefit.




If they were raising children, I would expect more forceful measures be used. Of course, here I wouldn't consider a big "Danger!" sign appropriate - I would expect the door in to be blocked, or the lever to be jammed, or something.

However, that's predicated on them raising children, and on the assumption that goblin parents would care to do such things, neither of which is certain. In any event, you're right that it wouldn't necessarily be marked.



> Taken in isolation, the trap is obvious.  If you assume, instead, that the trap is part of a "fair" complex (rather than simply assuming it is there for no reason, which is a condition not existent in the OP), then it is perhaps even more obvious.  Which, agreed, makes this less than _ideal_ as a trap...but a trap which, I would argue, as a direct result of being less ideal is also more fair.




Agreed. And with that, I think we've reached agreement.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 31, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> It is highly unlikely that the original builders of this dungeon placed only this one trap in the whole complex.



I agree.



> It is further extremely unlikely that this trap is so significantly more difficult than any of the others that they placed.



Again, I agree.

However, your reasoning has one fatal flaw.  You're assuming the PCs have explored the entire dungeon when they encounter this trap.  That's an inappropriate assumption because it's obvious that they have not yet explored at least one portion of the dungeon, the portion that lies beyond the secret door. Perhaps the secret door marks the beginning of the trap laden portion of the dungeon. Consider, for example, the following scenario.  

Acerak constructs a a dungeon headquarters for himself as a young, wannabe demi-lich.  The "front rooms" (only a small portion of this dungeon) are constructed with the convenience of his servants in mind.  He places no traps in these areas because his servants will need to move about freely to do their work and it's cheaper to buy new slaves than it is to construct effective traps anyway.  However, at the entrance to his private rooms Acerak constructs a very expensive trap, it is very nearly undetectable and seriously deadly to everyone but him.  He does so to prevent both his servants and his enemies from penetrating into his domicile (understanding the evil nature of his servants, he knows he must protect himself no matter how much he pays them or how many members of their family he holds hostage).  He places it on a lever because he wants to kill only those who actually attempt to enter his area, not just anyone who enters the room.  His servants know that if they require his attention they may enter the room and wait safely for him to appear, but shouldn't pull the lever.  Everything beyond the secret door is filled with deadly traps that are tuned to leave Acerak and Acerak alone unharmed.

Eventually, Acerak shuffles off his mortal coil and takes up residence in his tomb as a demilich.  His servants wander off and his HQ lies abandoned.  Several generations of squatters make use of the front area of his dungeon (one displacing the next in various power struggles between humanoid tribes, evil cultists, etc.) but none have the means to get past his fiendish trap and enter his private sanctum.

Then the PCs happen along.  They clear out the "safe" servants area of Acerak's abandoned dungeon.  The portion which was constructed with no traps and, like many of the previous occupants before them, encounter the trapped lever and lose one of their number before discovering that the trapless nature of the rest of the dungeon ends in this room.

IMO, a perfectly reasonable and common setup for a D&D dungeon that fully explains the presence of a very deadly trap at one point of the dungeon even though the portion of the dungeon the PCs have already explored contained no traps or traps of a very different nature.




> Then the inhabitants would have marked the room somehow (perhaps a honking big skull and crossbones in red paint?) to remind themselves not to pull the lever by mistake or when drunk.



Maybe if your dungeon is populated by the Swiss that would be true.  I wasn't aware that Orc or Kobold society had advanced far enough in the D&D world that they had developed OSHA inspectors.     IMO the chaotic humanoid races are no more likely to leave warning signs for others than they are to establish a Social Security system.  Chaotic humanoids are self-centered and uncaring by nature.  When an Orc sees his companion get dusted by the trap his thoughts are "Now I know never to pull that lever." not "Poor Og, I'll miss him.  I'd better put up a warning sign before any of my other friends die."  IMO most Orcs who saw a drunken companion pull the lever on a dare and turn to dust would laugh their a***s off because they're selfish and evil and that's just how Orcs are.

And we're both assuming that the dungeon has been populated by sentient humanoid beings.  If the dungeon is known to the locals as the Dungeon of Skeletons and Slimes I think a big warning sign is highly unlikely (unless Pedro the Pudding has developed the ability to write "Cuidado" with his own slime trail   ).



> And, finally, I refer you again to my post at the bottom of page 12, which explains at length that only a damn fool would build this trap in this location.



Which is all subjective opinion based on (what I would call) a number of unfounded assumptions.  If my scenario above doesn't convince you that the trap is, in fact, entirely reasonable under certain circumstances, then Raven Crowking does an excellent job of explaining a number of different, additional, reasons why the trap not only makes sense but is, in fact, fiendishly clever.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Lever being an obvious place to put a trap is a playstyle assumption that you are making, though.




Not at all.  

(A)  That the players believe that the lever is potentially trapped enough to check using Search is an _a priori_ assumption of the original post.

(B)  That the lever is potentially dangerous is based upon a rational train of thought that only requires real-world considerations to be taken into account.

(C)  The (exhaustive) discussion of the nature of traps requires only real-world considerations to be taken into account.

(D)  That the lever can be trapped, and that the trap might not be found by our particular rogue Taking 20, are both inherent assumptions of the Core Rules, requiring no adjudication of play style to be true.

A given playstyle may ameliorate the foregoing considerations, but unless you take playstyle into account, that is what you are left with.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Yeah, I would have put the level significantly higher - there comes a point where character death changes from a matter of a new character to a matter of getting a ressurrection, which is an inconvenience, and which hurts, but where it is a much smaller issue than previously.
> 
> The would make the 'fair' level what? A PC cleric can cast Ressurrection at 13th level, but I would expect the party to have access to that sort of magic rather earlier. Perhaps 11th or so would be my changeover point.




So, the argument now boils down to irreversable PC death being unfair?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> If they were raising children, I would expect more forceful measures be used. Of course, here I wouldn't consider a big "Danger!" sign appropriate - I would expect the door in to be blocked, or the lever to be jammed, or something.
> 
> However, that's predicated on them raising children, and on the assumption that goblin parents would care to do such things, neither of which is certain. In any event, you're right that it wouldn't necessarily be marked.




Modern cultures are in many ways incredibly lenient in the raising of children compared to even those that existed 100 years ago.  (Of course, in other ways they are more strict.)  When the goblin young are not working at the mines (and "if you can walk, you can work" has been the rule over the vast majority of human existence) they need only be confined to a certain range of freedom to be kept safe.


----------



## Someone (Aug 31, 2006)

> IF the bad guys with the McGuffin didn't build the dungeon, THEN they migrated to it. [snip] (which the PCs earlier mistook for a magical dust, and are still wearing in their hair).




I mentioned ad-hoc hypothesis earlier, and this is a good example of one. You´re inventing scenarios about how your theory could work;  while they are not logical impossibilities on themselves, I notice they become more and more far fetched with each page. Considering how Nightfall´s posts are one third of the thread by now, this makes the rate even faster. 

I need a moronic original builder to explain the OP. You need the original builder (wich wasn´t also very bright, for what it seems), and a tribe of orcs doing all kind of progressively bizarre things designed to keep the trap as the OP describes. Guess which one is more likely or parsimonious.



> Again, I'd hate to walk barefoot in your house, or try to make a midnight snack. Mousetraps are left in the middle of oft-used walkways and the pantry doors are electrified. The alternative (putting the mousetraps where mice are likely to go, but you are not; using the mousetraps to entice and kill mice instead of simply trying to defend the food) is apparently a foreign concept.
> 
> We are also setting aside, apparently, the fact of the secret door. Since this room seems to be a portal from one complex to another (or one area to another), it could be what is beyond the secret door (if anything) that the trap protects.
> 
> ...




I think I start to see your position. Adventurers are mice to you. If you like to put them in a maze to measure their IQ or just to amuse yourself, I don´t know yet. No, you shouldn´t compare adventurers to mice, but to intruders to your home. In this case, you´re putting the alarm not on the windows or the main door, but connected to a bathroom you rarely use. You see, if a robber enters your home, he _could_ want to take a shower!

But you still to miss the point, despite having repeated it several times. Given how the dungeon is built there´s absolutely no reason to suspect that such a trap could be present –and please, spare us the speculations on orc burial customs-. The only reason to suspect that the trap could hold such a trap, beyond the ability of the rogue and more advanced than whatever else they’ve found in the dungeon, is to metagame that, since it´s a lever, it´s likely that it has a very dangerous trap and/or proceed with paranoid care. 

The scenario also has no gaming redeeming qualities: it requires caution for it´s own sake; it´s not innovative in any way, or rewards the adventurers for thinking logically but to approach new situations with a mechanic, algorithmic, slow approach and discard their assumed personalities instead of acting in character, act dynamically or use logic. It´s, in a nutshell, designed to keep the mice dancing.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not at all.
> 
> (A)  That the players believe that the lever is potentially trapped enough to check using Search is an _a priori_ assumption of the original post.




So, if they didn't look for traps, then it would be unfair? It's fair because they searched for traps?


----------



## BeauNiddle (Aug 31, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> PLAYER:  I search the lever for traps.
> DM:  How do you go about it, exactly?
> PLAYER:  Hmm.  Describe this lever.
> DM:  It's a three-foot iron pole with a red rubber moulded top, designed for easy grasp. There pole is slightly rusted along its length, but not excessively so, and there is some grease at the bottom of the pole, where it enters the main mechanism (that's a lubricant, nothing more). The mechanism itself can be seen somewhat, and consists of several large interlocking cogwheels.
> ...




Okay I have to ask - what possible reason would anybody have for playing the rogue class in your game?

If player intellect (and descriptive skills) replace character skill and if you intend to use a level 1 spell to double check my results then what reason is there for anybody to play a rogue (or at least a trap based rogue).

Then again I like the social skills added in 3.X so maybe it's just yet another play style thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> I mentioned ad-hoc hypothesis earlier, and this is a good example of one.




Either the current inhabitants were the original inhabitants or they were not.  This is simply tautologically true.  Yet for you this is somehow "more and more far fetched"?

In any event, what you are calling "ad-hoc hypothesis" are examples that demonstrate the flaws of your initial assumption (that the builder must be moronic).  There are, literally, thousands of ways in which the complex could logically contain the trap as described -- and your line of reasoning works only if _*all*_ of them are untrue.



> I need a moronic original builder to explain the OP. You need the original builder (wich wasn´t also very bright, for what it seems), and a tribe of orcs doing all kind of progressively bizarre things designed to keep the trap as the OP describes. Guess which one is more likely or parsimonious.




A moronic builder is not necessary.  Not only have you failed to demonstrate a rational train of thought that leads to that concludion, but the evidence is conclusive -- the trap worked.  What percentage of people do you think find the trap unfair because they _wouldn't_ have pulled the lever?



> I think I start to see your position. Adventurers are mice to you.




No.  Adventurers should be smarter, and/or wiser, than mice.  On the other hand, if you expect the dice to do your thinking for you, you might as well be a mouse.  D&D, IMHO, should require the participants to be actively involved in the adventure.  It is not TV.  The DM is not telling you a story.  A game that doesn't challenge me to think is not a game I would want to play in.  Period.



> No, you shouldn´t compare adventurers to mice, but to intruders to your home.




Sure, but you are presupposing that the purpose of every trap is to alert you to intruders or to kill intruders as they enter your home.  Not only is this a dangerous assumption (as the monk learned in the OP), but it is an incorrect assumption (as mousetraps, bear traps, wiretaps, and all sorts of other security measures demonstrate more than amply).  



> But you still to miss the point, despite having repeated it several times. Given how the dungeon is built there´s absolutely no reason to suspect that such a trap could be present




Please quote from the OP how the dungeon is built.

Taken in isolation, the trap is obvious. If you assume, instead, that the trap is part of a "fair" complex (rather than simply assuming it is there for no reason, which is a condition not existent in the OP), then it is perhaps even more obvious. Which, agreed, makes this less than ideal as a trap...but a trap which, I would argue, as a direct result of being less ideal is also more fair. 

Your argument works only if the asumption is made that the dungeon complex itself is unfair.

Ad hoc hypothesis, indeed!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So, if they didn't look for traps, then it would be unfair? It's fair because they searched for traps?




No.  That they looked for traps establishes _a priori_ that there were conditions in the dungeon which led the group to believe that a trap was either possible or likely.  Therefore, any posit which requires that the dungeon complex somehow does not get the PCs to the point of thinking a trap possible or likely fails to meet the requirements of the OP.

In other words, if your argument relies _a priori_ on the idea that a trap in this room is preposterous, it fails to meet the minimal standards of the original post.  

This is exactly the same, btw, as if I claimed that the trap was fair because it teleported, rather than killed, the monk.  We are told that the monk was killed; we are told that the rogue checked for traps.  

The fact that the rogue checked for traps means one of the following was true:

(A)  The PCs had sufficient information to suspect that there was a trap.  Since all real-world analysis suggests this, and since it requires no play style assumptions, this is a pretty solid possibility.

(B)  The PCs had sufficient information to suspect that anything might be a trap based upon play style.  This is possible, but (1) requires play style assumptions, and (2) still means that the likelihood of a trap was high enough to warrent further investigation.

(C)  This rogue just randomly checks things for traps.  This is possible, but again requires play style assumptions.  That the OP states that the monk (presumably the character with the highest saves in most or all categories) pulls the lever indicates the unliklihood of this.  In fact, that the PCs choose this character to pull the lever indicates that _*they knew it was likely that they missed a trap*_.  Again, even so, the fact that the rogue checks the lever for traps is sufficient evidence that the possibility has occurred to the PCs (even if from random chance).

It would, of course, help if Quas clarified this matter.  Again, though, the only scenarios which are absolutely thrown out by the series of events described in the OP are those in which it never occurs to the players that the lever might be trapped or be a trap.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

So, then, to rephrase it. If the rogue didn't check for traps, we wouldn't know if it were fair or not?

I still say you are making the assumption that the party has experience with traps that aren't going to be bypassed by Search/Disable, the main methods of adventurers to bypass traps given in the RAW. If the party isn't used to traps that require extra-ordinary means to bypass, then there is absolutely no reason for them to tie a rope to it. The thought simply will not occur to them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So, then, to rephrase it. If the rogue didn't check for traps, we wouldn't know if it were fair or not?




No.

Of course, if we ignore enough of the original post, sooner or later we'll get to a point where the trap becomes unfair because the monk simply dies.  I avoided mentioning the a priori assumption earlier because it isn't needed.  The only reason I mentioned it at all was to demonstrate the level of reaching Someone was doing to ignore the conditions of the OP, and that the playstyle assumptions being made by Someone simply didn't apply.



> I still say you are making the assumption that the party has experience with traps that aren't going to be bypassed by Search/Disable, the main methods of adventurers to bypass traps given in the RAW. If the party isn't used to traps that require extra-ordinary means to bypass, then there is absolutely no reason for them to tie a rope to it. The thought simply will not occur to them.




I didn't suggest the rope; I suggested 1st level divination spells.  Which exist for a reason.

Removing the _a priori_ considerations:

(A) That the lever is potentially dangerous is based upon a rational train of thought that only requires real-world considerations to be taken into account.

(B) The (exhaustive) discussion of the nature of traps requires only real-world considerations to be taken into account.

(C) That the lever can be trapped, and that the trap might not be found by our particular rogue Taking 20, are both inherent assumptions of the Core Rules, requiring no adjudication of play style to be true.

and let's add:

(D) While Search/Disable are presented in the Core Rules, and may even be presented in the Core Rules as "the main methods of adventurers to bypass traps" they are certainly not presented as the only means, nor are they presented as infallible.  In fact, spells like _find traps_ explicitly exist for just this purpose.

A given playstyle may ameliorate the foregoing considerations, but unless you take playstyle into account, that is what you are left with.  Which explains very clearly why every theory that results in this being unfair requires some other unfair condition to exist _a priori_.


----------



## Someone (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Either the current inhabitants were the original inhabitants or they were not.  This is simply tautologically true.  Yet for you this is somehow "more and more far fetched"?




Yes, because it requires additional assumptions. _Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem_; if the milk in a dish dissapeared and you have a cat, there´s no need to posit the existence of a second cat or a milk fairy. In the same way, a moronic builder´s existence is simpler than the existence of said moronic builder _and_ a tribe of orcs who go great lenghts to make the trapped room appear as they are.



> In any event, what you are calling "ad-hoc hypothesis" are examples that demonstrate the flaws of your initial assumption (that the builder must be moronic).  There are, literally, thousands of ways in which the complex could logically contain the trap as described -- and your line of reasoning works only if _*all*_ of them are untrue.




Since you obviously don´t know what an ad-hoc hypothesis is, and this thread´s purpose isn´t to enlighten anyone, I´ll abstain from further commenting on that, at least until I replace the keyboard.



> A moronic builder is not necessary.




It´s the most likely and rational explanation in abscense of more evidence, though, the same way that if you see IRL hoof tracks you think on horses, not centaurs.



> Not only have you failed to demonstrate a rational train of thought that leads to that concludion, but the evidence is conclusive -- the trap worked.




How can you possibly think that? _The party got the McGuffin!_ 



> A game that doesn't challenge me to think is not a game I would want to play in.  Period.




This game isn´t challenging: It just requires spending a lot of time testing every possible danger in any possible way. It´s as challenging and boring as putting a puzzle together by brute force: does this piece fit? No, next piece. Fits? No, next piece...



> Sure, but you are presupposing that the purpose of every trap is to alert you to intruders or to kill intruders as they enter your home. Not only is this a dangerous assumption (as the monk learned in the OP), but it is an incorrect assumption (as mousetraps, bear traps, wiretaps, and all sorts of other security measures demonstrate more than amply).




Mousetraps don´t kill mice? You must have sturdy mice over there. And for god´s sake, the lever disintegrated the monk. I think that´s quite aggresive; even nasty, if you allow me. I´d say that the trap´s purpose was to kill, judging by what was left of the monk.



> Please quote from the OP how the dungeon is built.




The party got the McGuffing before finding the lever. Therefore they didn´t have the opportunity to interact with the lever before accomplishing their goal.



> Taken in isolation, the trap is obvious. If you assume, instead, that the trap is part of a "fair" complex (rather than simply assuming it is there for no reason, which is a condition not existent in the OP), then it is perhaps even more obvious.




They cleared the dungeon, and the lever-pulling monk is alive. Big clue that says us that the dungeon wasn´t so tough after all, in fact less tougher than the deadly lever.



> Which, agreed, makes this less than ideal as a trap...but a trap which, I would argue, as a direct result of being less ideal is also more fair.




Great insight on your way of thinking. But, have you even read what I´ve been writing in this thread?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not at all.  When asking if something is unfair, one assumes that we are talking about some form of _*objective analysis*_.  The OP does not ask, "Is this unfair _in your campaign_?  One can easily imagine that something is unfair _within the context of a particular group dynamic_ but this does not make it _unfair in and of itself_.
> 
> "DM is giving a setup the PCs have seen hundreds of times that was relatively safe with a few precautions" is a playstyle assumption.  There is no assumption inherent in the OP, and it is safer therefore to follow the assumption _that you do not know the playstyle_ and act accordingly.




The quality of your arguments have descended from presumption built upon subjective personal opinion and pure speculation...to utter gibberish.

So it is the old One True Way of gaming argument, not merely because your style is better, but because it is _objectively correct_.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A given playstyle may ameliorate the foregoing considerations, but unless you take playstyle into account, that is what you are left with.  Which explains very clearly why every theory that results in this being unfair requires some other unfair condition to exist _a priori_.




Nope. Your oppinion is obviously biased by your previous experiences in gaming. I see no way to debate with you if you will not agree with me on this point.


----------



## Someone (Aug 31, 2006)

I just remembered a great quote from Wulf´s story hour:



> "Ach... right. Right." Wulf blinked. "Look, see, I'm havin' trouble thinking of so much as one possible reason that we would want to open up a sealed pit in the middle of a vampire's tower."
> 
> "You know. Treasure?"
> 
> ...


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 31, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> I think I start to see your position. Adventurers are mice to you. If you like to put them in a maze to measure their IQ or just to amuse yourself, I don´t know yet. No, you shouldn´t compare adventurers to mice, but to intruders to your home. In this case, you´re putting the alarm not on the windows or the main door, but connected to a bathroom you rarely use. You see, if a robber enters your home, he _could_ want to take a shower!
> 
> But you still to miss the point, despite having repeated it several times. Given how the dungeon is built there´s absolutely no reason to suspect that such a trap could be present –and please, spare us the speculations on orc burial customs-. The only reason to suspect that the trap could hold such a trap, beyond the ability of the rogue and more advanced than whatever else they’ve found in the dungeon, is to metagame that, since it´s a lever, it´s likely that it has a very dangerous trap and/or proceed with paranoid care.
> 
> The scenario also has no gaming redeeming qualities: it requires caution for it´s own sake; it´s not innovative in any way, or rewards the adventurers for thinking logically but to approach new situations with a mechanic, algorithmic, slow approach and discard their assumed personalities instead of acting in character, act dynamically or use logic. It´s, in a nutshell, designed to keep the mice dancing.



You need to play through some old modules - A1-A4, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Lost Temple of Tharizdun, Quest for the Heartstone, White Plume Mtn. - and learn that yes indeed, death *does* wait in the most unlikely of places and for the most unlikely of reasons...and just get used to it. 

The lever trap sounds like it could easily have come from any of those adventures, though I suspect that in fact it did not.

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> Yes, because it requires additional assumptions. _Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem_; if the milk in a dish dissapeared and you have a cat, there´s no need to posit the existence of a second cat or a milk fairy.




You have a builder.  That you assume the builder is "moronic" is a non sequitur, an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it.

I would also say that several of your previous statements fall under the ad hoc fallacy:

If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.  The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument.​
Until you have established that you have a cat, said cat has no power as evidence.  Until you establish that the builder is moronic, you are simply adjusting the facts to meet your ad hoc assumption.

1.  You assume the trap is moronic,
2.  Therefore, whoever built the trap was moronic.

Without a line of rational thinking that demonstrates (1), (2) is meaningless.

OTOH, the examples I am providing are not necessary cases for the trap to not be moronic.  They are simply examples that demonstate that the first premise (1) is not conclusive.  It is as though you were claiming that you had the cat without any evidence that the cat exists.

Your argument for the builder being a moron requires that a previous assumption (the trap is moronic) be true.  Your argument is, in effect, "It is unproven that there is a good reason for this trap to exist, therefore no good reason exists."

In other words, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.​
The existence of A is simpler than the existence of A + B, so long as circumstances do not make A + B necessary, in accordance with Occam's Razor, but there are again two things we must guard against:

(1)  The presumption of A.  We know that a _builder_ exists.  By making the claim that the existence of a builder implies the existence of a _moronic_ builder, you hide and attempt to confuse your base assumptions.  

The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly.  It's not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of your assumptions; however, it's often viewed with suspicion.​
(2)  Mistaking Occam's Razor for proof.  Simply because you have a cat, one cannot conclude definitely that your cat drank the milk.

You conclude that the trap cannot be effective because "_The party got the McGuffin!_" but again your logic fails on two points:

(1)  The assumption that the purpose of the trap was to prevent the party from getting the McGuffin, and

(2)  The assumption that, when the lever was pulled, the monk's death _was the only thing that happened_.

Neither one of these assumptions can be rationally inferred from the original post.

You are also guilty of Argumentum ad hominem, literally "argument directed at the man,"

If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem.

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.​
and shifting the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.​
The assertation is that the trap is unfair, made long before I posted.  I simply deny the assertation, and point out the flaws with the "proofs" thus far offered.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The quality of your arguments have descended from presumption built upon subjective personal opinion and pure speculation...to utter gibberish.
> 
> So it is the old One True Way of gaming argument, not merely because your style is better, but because it is _objectively correct_.




Argumentum ad hominem, literally "argument directed at the man,"

If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem.

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.​


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Nope. Your oppinion is obviously biased by your previous experiences in gaming. I see no way to debate with you if you will not agree with me on this point.




(A) That the lever is potentially dangerous is based upon a rational train of thought that only requires real-world considerations to be taken into account.  Does this require me to take play style into account?  If so, how?

(B) The (exhaustive) discussion of the nature of traps requires only real-world considerations to be taken into account.  Does this require me to take play style into account?  If so, how?

(C) That the lever can be trapped, and that the trap might not be found by our particular rogue Taking 20, are both inherent assumptions of the Core Rules, requiring no adjudication of play style to be true.  Does this require me to take play style into account?  If so, how?

(D) While Search/Disable are presented in the Core Rules, and may even be presented in the Core Rules as "the main methods of adventurers to bypass traps" they are certainly not presented as the only means, nor are they presented as infallible. In fact, spells like find traps explicitly exist for just this purpose.   Does this require me to take play style into account?  If so, how?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

RC, this is substantially simpler than you are making it out to be. The DM has introduced a trap that he knows the PCs cannot detect with Search and that will kill any PC who pulls it unless they roll a 20 on a saving throw and has given no hints to the PCs that it is dangerous.

The only way to consider this fair is if you expect PCs to always check every object that they think might be traped through multiple means before interacting with them. This is a playstyle decision, and one I do not believe to be common. If you think that the lever is obviously trapped moreso than other objects which the PCs have previously trusted Search checks on, then that is also a playstyle decision.

Therefore: unfair.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard, having given it some additional thought, I agree that there is one place where my opinion obviously biased by my previous experiences in gaming:

I take it as a given that an in-game situation is fair unless demonstrably otherwise.  Moreover, as a related bias, I believe that any game where I cannot take this as a given is not worth playing.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Moreover, as a related bias, I believe that any game where I cannot take this as a given is not worth playing.




Likewise. I just consider this situation being from a game which I would not find worth playing, if this is an accurate sampling of what the game would be like.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> RC, this is substantially simpler than you are making it out to be. The DM has introduced a trap that he knows the PCs cannot detect with Search and that will kill any PC who pulls it unless they roll a 20 on a saving throw and has given no hints to the PCs that it is dangerous.




If I agreed with all the foregoing assumptions, I would agree with you that this was unfair.  However, it requires _*all*_ of those assumptions to be true for the trap to be unfair.  If any one of those assumptions is untrue, then the trap is fair.  The assumption that the DM "has given no hints to the PCs that it is dangerous" is refutable, and has been refuted ad infinitum ad nauseum.

If there is an error in my refutation (and not that you simply do not like the conclusions drawn from it) please point it out.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

Name one hint.

EDIT: Perhaps my definition of "hint" is different than yours...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Likewise. I just consider this situation being from a game which I would not find worth playing, if this is an accurate sampling of what the game would be like.




We're cross-posting here.    

I agree that this is not the kind of trap I would particularly use (I think I said that somewhere upthread as well), but, again, my preferences have nothing to do with whether or not the encounter is fair.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Name one hint.
> 
> EDIT: Perhaps my definition of "hint" is different than yours...




By its very nature, a lever implies that, by changing its position, you cause something to happen. This makes a lever very different from, say, a raised dias, a table, a torch, or a statue. All of those things might do something; it is a far more reasonable (and obvious) assumption that a lever or a switch will do something.

(It might not, of course. It could be a red herring. The mechanism could be broken. However, even if you see no obvious result, it is safe to assume that throwing the switch/lever has had some effect that you should, thereafter, keep your eye out for.)

In the example room, there is a secret door. A secret door implies both a space beyond (although this may not be true; it may be a false secret door leading to a stone wall) and a means to open it (again, this implication may not be true; the secret door could be built in such a way that it has no regular means to open it, especially if it is intended as bait rather than as a door). 

In the example room, we have a secret door with no means to open it, and a lever that does something that we do not know. So here we have two objects. One does something, the other needs the means to do something. The easiest solution to the problem is that the one object does the something for the other object. We do not think any further, throw the lever, and roll a saving throw.

But...hold on. Naturally, the lever could do a lot of other things. Moreover, the means to open the secret door might not be in this room. If you were going to the effort to hide a door, would you place the lever in plain sight? Probably not. Logic therefore dictates that the lever probably does not open the secret door. A moment's thought takes us past the simple "throw the lever, and roll a saving throw" result.

By this point, perhaps, the idea that the secret door is bait to cause us to pull the lever might appear. Certainly, we search the lever for traps, Taking 20 to do our best job. We find nothing. That still doesn't mean that pulling the lever is a good idea. It is possible to make a trap that we cannot find. After all, the DC has to be no more than 1 beyond our maximum result, and we know as a fact that this is possible.

So, what now? 

We have the McGuffin. We could just leave. If we are on a tight schedule, this is probably the best option.

We could cast a simple divination spell to determine whether or not throwing the lever is a good idea. The more we think about this, the better it sounds....even if it means having to rest up first, so long as we are not on a tight schedule. If we have the time for it, this is the best option.

If we don't have access to the best divination spells for the job, we could possibly use detect magic. That would at least give us some more information. Not a bad option. It might, in fact, give us reason to investigate further before doing anything rash. 

We could also consider using a summoned creature to do the dirty work.

As a final option, we could just pull the lever. Doing so, after all, might grant the person doing the pulling a wish. Probably not. For all kinds of reasons, this is simply the worst option to take.

RC


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If I agreed with all the foregoing assumptions, I would agree with you that this was unfair.  However, it requires _*all*_ of those assumptions to be true for the trap to be unfair.




And in the absence of the tiniest most minute iota of evidence that any of these assumptions is untrue, the logical conclusion(s) is which of the following?

(1) In my game, it would be fair because of the style of the campaign.
(2) I do not know.
(3) I can imagine it would be unfair in some campaigns.
(4) It is objectively provable that it is fair.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

RC, that isn't a hint.

That is a _supposition_ based on your previous experiences playing D&D. Essentially, the lever itself is what you are considering the hint.

A hint would be something more in the room that would make the PCs think that the lever is more than it is. A pile of dust beside it, a warning sign in orcish (which the PCs may or may not be able to read), a bit of rope tied to the lever left there by previous adventurers.

These are hint. The lever is not a hint.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> That is a _supposition_ based on your previous experiences playing D&D. Essentially, the lever itself is what you are considering the hint.
> 
> A hint would be something more in the room that would make the PCs think that the lever is more than it is. A pile of dust beside it, a warning sign in orcish (which the PCs may or may not be able to read), a bit of rope tied to the lever left there by previous adventurers.
> 
> These are hint. The lever is not a hint.



And if the occupants keep the place clean, the hints disappear.  However, one hint might be dust in the slot the lever moves up and down through; if there's lots of dust, that shows the lever never gets used...hmmm, wonder why...

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And in the absence of the tiniest most minute iota of evidence that any of these assumptions is untrue, the logical conclusion(s) is which of the following?
> 
> (1) In my game, it would be fair because of the style of the campaign.
> (2) I do not know.
> ...




_IF_ you accept the assumptions are true, _THEN_ the logical conclusion is that the trap is unfair.

_IF_ you do not accept that the assumptions are all true, but do not aver that the assumptions are false, _THEN_ the logical conclusion is that the trap may or may not be fair, and that more information is required to make a statement that the trap is fair or unfair.

_IF_ you believe that one or more of the assumptions is not true, _THEN_ the logical conclusion is that the trap is fair.

The assumptions in question are:

(1)  The DM has introduced a trap that he knows the PCs cannot detect with Search.

(2)  That the trap will kill any PC who activates it unless they roll a 20 on a saving throw.

(3)  That the DM has given no hints to the PCs that it is dangerous.

Do we agree on this much?

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> And if the occupants keep the place clean, the hints disappear.  However, one hint might be dust in the slot the lever moves up and down through; if there's lots of dust, that shows the lever never gets used...hmmm, wonder why...




I agree, with one caveat.

The importance of how often the lever is used is going to depend on the dungeon in which it is found. If this is an ancient crypt full of incorporeal undead, then lack of use will mean nothing, but if it is a well kept lair that is currently used by some group then lack of use might be an important clue.

In either case, the Search check would reveal its lack of use. It didn't. Perhaps this is merely an oversight on the case of the OP however.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 31, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> You need to play through some old modules - A1-A4, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Lost Temple of Tharizdun, Quest for the Heartstone, White Plume Mtn. - and learn that yes indeed, death *does* wait in the most unlikely of places and for the most unlikely of reasons...and just get used to it.
> 
> The lever trap sounds like it could easily have come from any of those adventures, though I suspect that in fact it did not.



Of course in a number of those old adventures there were also random levers (among other things) that rewarded the PC that monkeyed with them.


----------



## Someone (Aug 31, 2006)

RC, I don´t know to whom are you responding, because your posts are becoming increasigly bizarre and ceratinly have little to do with my posts. I´ll keep som pearls, however:



> (2) Mistaking Occam's Razor for proof. Simply because you have a cat, one cannot conclude definitely that your cat drank the milk.




Of course not, and I´m quite surprised you even wrote that. If you can definitely conclude anything you don´t need the Razor, but those rare circumstances are usually related with the world of mathematics. Occam´s Razor usually works in the normal life, however, and we use it lots of times every day.



> You conclude that the trap cannot be effective because "The party got the McGuffin!" but again your logic fails on two points:
> 
> (1) The assumption that the purpose of the trap was to prevent the party from getting the McGuffin, and
> 
> ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> RC, that isn't a hint.
> 
> That is a _supposition_ based on your previous experiences playing D&D. Essentially, the lever itself is what you are considering the hint.
> 
> ...




Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new! 
hint  /hɪnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hint] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 

–noun 1. an indirect, covert, or helpful suggestion; clue: Give me a hint as to his identity.  
2. a very slight or hardly noticeable amount; soupçon: a hint of garlic in the salad dressing.  
3. perceived indication or suggestion; note; intimation: a hint of spring in the air.  
4. Obsolete. an occasion or opportunity.  
–verb (used with object) 5. to give a hint of: gray skies hinting a possible snowfall.  
–verb (used without object) 6. to make indirect suggestion or allusion; subtly imply (usually fol. by at): The article hinted at corruption in the mayor's office.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1595–1605; (n.) orig., opportunity, occasion, appar. var. of obs. hent grasp, act of seizing, deriv. of the v.: to grasp, take, ME henten, OE hentan; (v.) deriv. of the n.] 

—Related forms
hinter, noun 

—Synonyms 1. allusion, insinuation, innuendo; memorandum, reminder; inkling. 5. imply. Hint, intimate, insinuate, suggest denote the conveying of an idea to the mind indirectly or without full or explicit statement. To hint is to convey an idea covertly or indirectly, but intelligibly: to hint that one would like a certain present; to hint that bits of gossip might be true. To intimate is to give a barely perceptible hint, often with the purpose of influencing action: to intimate that something may be possible. To insinuate is to hint artfully, often at what one would not dare to say directly: to insinuate something against someone's reputation. Suggest denotes particularly recalling something to the mind or starting a new train of thought by means of association of ideas: The name doesn't suggest anything to me. 
—Antonyms 5. express, declare.​
I suggest that you are using definition (1) and I am using definition (3), above.

When I examine the assumption, _(3) That the DM has given no hints to the PCs that it is dangerous_ I am assuming that, if enough intimation exists that the PCs know _or should reasonably have known_ that something is dangerous, perforce this knowledge arises out of "hints".  

For example, a bridge over a river "hints" that the river can be crossed.  Nothing else is required, because the meaning of the term "bridge" is fairly universal.  The implications inherent in an object can be hints.  Indeed, all the hints you mentioned are based on the implications inherent in objects.  Well, except the warning written in orcish.    

Likewise, that a pulling a lever inherently causes something to happen is more than just an inference gained through isolated and special circumstances -- it is inherent in the meaning of the object itself.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> RC, I don´t know to whom are you responding, because your posts are becoming increasigly bizarre and ceratinly have little to do with my posts.




More _argumentum ad hominem_?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Likewise, that a pulling a lever inherently causes something to happen is more than just an inference gained through isolated and special circumstances -- it is inherent in the meaning of the object itself.




There's about as much indication that a PC will die pulling the lever as walking over a bridge, though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There's about as much indication that a PC will die pulling the lever as walking over a bridge, though.




Would you agree with Post 572?

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3040113&postcount=572


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Would you agree with Post 572?
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3040113&postcount=572




I do.

EDIT: Although I would worry about the saving throw, depending on the abilty of the rogue to disarm it. Most Search checks are the same as the Disarm check, correct? If the rogue will probably kill himself trying to disarm it, that would be an extraneous circumstance in which I would probably call it "unfair."


----------



## Slife (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You were doing well until you hit #5.  After all, presumably, making the door mechanism or the trap hard to detect costs the same amount.  Moreover, if you take #5 to heart, why are you building underground anyway?  Way more expensive than building above-ground.




Just pointing out here, that by RAW it's many times easier to build underground.  There was a post a while ago about someone wanting to make a tower for their wizard, and the general consensus was that it would be more practical to make an underground complex.  Mostly because of spells like mud to rock and stoneshape.

More to the point, where in the OP is the dungeon listed as underground?


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not at all.  When asking if something is unfair, one assumes that we are talking about some form of _*objective analysis*_.  The OP does not ask, "Is this unfair _in your campaign_?  One can easily imagine that something is unfair _within the context of a particular group dynamic_ but this does not make it _unfair in and of itself_.
> 
> "DM is giving a setup the PCs have seen hundreds of times that was relatively safe with a few precautions" is a playstyle assumption.  There is no assumption inherent in the OP, and it is safer therefore to follow the assumption _that you do not know the playstyle_ and act accordingly.



Well first off, I don't think the question of fairness lends itself very well to objective analysis. Such questions either relate to a specific scenario, in which case the circumstances of the situation (however unique or unlikely) become important, or relate to a general scenario, in which case the analysis centers around "the most likely case" or "the average man", which still contains an element of subjectivity.

Since the discussion in the thread has got around to, "Is it fair for the players to expect that activating the lever will set off a trap that will result in almost certain death for the PC pulling the lever?" (as of the time I started writing this post, anyway), I would say that for the general case, the answer is still no. The "average player" might expect a trap, but not such a lethal one. Perhaps this is a reflection of how player expectations have changed since the earlier days of the game - what was considered "fair" then is now considered "unfair" by the majority of players.

As for the specific case, I infer from the fact that the players have taken no special precautions that encountering such a lethal trap is something that they are not used to and hence, do not expect. The OP did not state that the players were being more reckless than normal, and perhaps it is bias on my part that I consider that scenario less likely than the scenario in which the DM simply decided to change the way in which he challenged the players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Silfe, good observations.

Firelance, my terminology is unfortunate.  What I mean to imply is that the analysis should be as objective as possible.  Ultimately, nothing is subject to actual objective analysis.

ThirdWizard, I am heading out of town, and will jump back on this when I return.  

As a starter, I will ask, assuming you agree with Post 572, do you also agree that the three potential conclusions in that post correspond with the possible choices on this poll?  See below:

IF you accept the assumptions are true, THEN the logical conclusion is that the trap is unfair.  You should therefore answer NO.

IF you do not accept that the assumptions are all true, but do not aver that the assumptions are false, THEN the logical conclusion is that the trap may or may not be fair, and that more information is required to make a statement that the trap is fair or unfair.  You should therefore answer OTHER.

IF you believe that one or more of the assumptions is not true, THEN the logical conclusion is that the trap is fair.  You should therefore answer YES.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 31, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> Um, why do you care if this thread has reached 14 pages without a conclusion? Surely if you don't like it, you don't have to read it?




No but I keep seeing it on my screen (the thread) when people post on it.  So if keeps going...Shennigans! 


Shennigans!


Shennigans!

And for good measure....

*Shennigans!*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> No but I keep seeing it on my screen (the thread) when people post on it.  So if keeps going...Shennigans!




Ah, my favourie word!  I keep posting just so you keep using it!

    

RC


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 31, 2006)

Raven,

Hey what ever floats your boat man.   It's all good by me. 

Shennagins! 

There. That should make you happy.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 31, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *Shennigans!*



Doo doo dee-doo-doo


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 31, 2006)

Works for me Mark.

And yes: Shennagins! 

*figures this is working better than yelling Scarred Lands every 30 seconds...*


----------



## Scarbonac (Sep 1, 2006)

The word is "Shenanigans".   



Fun thread.

Trap is fair; it's practically the first law of dungeoneering:

"For Hastur's sake, _don't pull the lever_!"

Levers are there to seperate the wheat from the chaff. The monk in the OP, sadly, was chaff.

My favorite lever-based trap involved a rune-carved staff, set in the floor like the OP's lever. There was a sign nearby to the effect that the person who pulled the staff would receive one million gold pieces. Nobody wantd to pull it, until one greedy feckless sod essentially said "Screw this!", yanked on the staff...and the ceiling opened up and a million GP buried the puller, leaving only his hand, still gripping the staff, visible.  


The sad part was that the party didn't have the means to carry off more than a small portion of the gold.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *Me*
> IRL, what would you do if you found a toy on the battlefield? LEAVE IT ALONE- its probably not booby trapped, but the consequences of it being so are lethal.
> 
> IRL, what would you do if you entered a room in a secure area of a military base that had an unlabled phone on the wall? LEAVE IT ALONE- if it were meant for your use, there would be a sign and/or you would have been told going in what the phone's purpose was.
> ...






> *Slife*Case 1
> Land mines are way too small to fit into toys. I'd be more worried about things that I know could be dangerous (like a mound of recently tilled soil, or that patch of leaves that's been strewn all the way across the road in an otherwise unwooded area.) That stated, while a toy may be unusual on a battlefield (depending on where the battle is taking place, of course. Urban combat, anyone?), a lever is certainly not too unusual in dungeons.




Actually, you're dead wrong on this.  Booby trapped toys are pretty common in some of the dirtier wars.  The majority of the victims obviously being children, and they're meant to be- in those wars, children commonly scavenge fields for scrap metal from destroyed machines and weapons and whatever else they can find.  The equation is simple- harm the children, terrorize the villagers.

Typically, the toy is meant to maim, not kill, so the explosives are typically what we would call IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices).  However, some are cunningly placed on the triggers of landmines- the toy is removed, the mine detonates.  A child's doll is quite sufficient to cover up most of a mine, the surrounding dirt, debris, and flora do the rest.

BTW, this was one of the major facts behind Princess Diana's getting involved with trying to get landmines outlawed.



> *Slife*Case 2
> If I'm invading the base? Probably leave it alone - but only because it's only possible to use as a communications device. Even then I might smash it just on the off chance someone coming behind me might use it. If it were a computer I'd use it, and if it were a big ol' switch or lever I'd use it.




And invading the base is analagous to what the PCs are doing in an adventure.  IOW, you might try to disable the device, but you probably wouldn't try to use it as it seems to be intended to be used.



> *Slife*Case 3
> Well, if I'm supposed to be invading the prison and killing the guards, I'll go for it. The more chaos the better!
> But seriously, how many switches that could release prisoners wouldn't have... I don't know, a key, or a pass code, or a fingerprint scanner, or a retinal identification...




In a modern prison (or certain other kinds of similar institutions, like Hospitals for the Criminally Insane), most (not all) such controls are centralized (I spent a little time as an intern in the Dallas Public Defender's office, so I got to visit all of the jails in the city at least once).  I accidentally triggered at least one control I wasn't supposed to, and that was in the newest of our jails, the Lew Sterrit Justice Center.

In older prisons, where electronic technology was not available, no such safeguards exist.  The only thing preventing you from working a control is whatever guard is in the vicinity.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 1, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> ThirdWizard, I am heading out of town, and will jump back on this when I return.
> 
> As a starter, I will ask, assuming you agree with Post 572, do you also agree that the three potential conclusions in that post correspond with the possible choices on this poll?




I don't know. It depends on how many people fall into various more extreme camps like "all traps that can possibly be bypassed in some way are fair" and for which case, no matter what if there was some way that the DM had for the PCs to bypass, no matter how difficult for a Player to think of, they will say fair.

Then there's the opposite camp that think that there shouldn't be instant death traps in a dungeon and that don't want PCs to die unless its for "story purposes" and will be completely against the trap on those grounds.

Then there are the less extreme views that still wouldn't think along the lines of those choices, but would have a leaning toward fairness and unfairness because either "death traps are good" or "death traps are bad" in which case their oppinions on fairness are based on those qualities.

I don't think anyone is wrong. I think that in the end, the fairness is going to be pretty much based on what you expect out of the game. I do think that several posters who have stated their oppinions on the side of unfair have taken the list to heart as a reason, but I can't be sure what the percentages are.


I think that since over 50% have voted it unfair we can, at the very least, assume that the majority of voters in this poll do not run games in which the PCs would have thought of any extranuous excersises in bypassing the trap, and would have had a PC casualty to the trap, my game included.


----------



## delericho (Sep 1, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, the argument now boils down to irreversable PC death being unfair?




Oh no. I was merely commenting on the fact that, in D&D, death changes in significance at a particular level. And death by disintegration changes status much later (since you can't be Resurrected). So, rather than the arbitrary figure of 6th level, I would have gone for, probably, 10th level.

However, I have no problem with character death, even irreversible character death, in the right circumstances.


----------



## delericho (Sep 1, 2006)

Me said:
			
		

> And, finally, I refer you again to my post at the bottom of page 12, which explains at length that only a damn fool would build this trap in this location.




Referring to this post, where I wrote:



> No, it's just stupid.
> 
> If you want to protect something by placing it behind a secret door, you don't tip intruders off to the existence of the secret door by putting a honking great lever in the same room as the door, with nothing else in the room to be controlled by the lever.
> 
> ...




Note: I have edited the above post, replacing the word "McGuffin" with the phrase "<whatever you want to protect>". I have done this because the OP uses the word "McGuffin" to refer to whatever the party went into the dungeon to retrieve, which is not the same thing as lies behind the secret door. Nonetheless, since it is a secret door, something lies behind it, and is being 'protected' by the door. So, the edits are to reduce confusion, but they do not alter the meaning of the post. (And this paragraph is to clarify the changes, so I'm not accused of trying to weasel out of what I said.)

The response to which was:



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Which is all subjective opinion based on (what I would call) a number of unfounded assumptions.  If my scenario above doesn't convince you that the trap is, in fact, entirely reasonable under certain circumstances, then Raven Crowking does an excellent job of explaining a number of different, additional, reasons why the trap not only makes sense but is, in fact, fiendishly clever.




You say that, but you haven't named one unfounded assumption. Nor have you (or anyone else) provided a single reason why the original builder of the trap and the secret door would build these devices in the configuration given. I'm not talking about "how can there be no warnings?", or "how do the current inhabitants of the dungeon survive?"

What I am asking is why the ORIGINAL builder of the complex would build THAT trap beside THAT door in THAT configuration, without thinking, just once, that it's a really bad idea to place a lever in an otherwise empty room to protect a 'secret' door.

I can think of precisely one explanation: the entire complex was designed as some sort of twisted test of adventurers (indeed, the "Fighting Fantasy" gamebook "Deathtrap Dungeon" is about a complex of this very type). However, that can hardly be considered the norm. Surely, the default assumption has to be that a secret door exists to protect something, and you would therefore want to build in such a way as to provide the best possible protection?

So, working from the assumption that you actually do want to protect whatever lies behind the secret door (rather than issue some sort of sick test to intruders), why would you believe that that was the best way to go, as opposed to any of the available (or even just the listed) alternatives?


----------



## delericho (Sep 1, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> However, your reasoning has one fatal flaw.  You're assuming the PCs have explored the entire dungeon when they encounter this trap.  That's an inappropriate assumption because it's obvious that they have not yet explored at least one portion of the dungeon, the portion that lies beyond the secret door. Perhaps the secret door marks the beginning of the trap laden portion of the dungeon. Consider, for example, the following scenario.
> 
> Acerak constructs a a dungeon headquarters for himself as a young, wannabe demi-lich.  The "front rooms" (only a small portion of this dungeon) are constructed with the convenience of his servants in mind.  He places no traps in these areas because his servants will need to move about freely to do their work and it's cheaper to buy new slaves than it is to construct effective traps anyway.  However, at the entrance to his private rooms Acerak constructs a very expensive trap, it is very nearly undetectable and seriously deadly to everyone but him.  He does so to prevent both his servants and his enemies from penetrating into his domicile (understanding the evil nature of his servants, he knows he must protect himself no matter how much he pays them or how many members of their family he holds hostage).




Okay, that makes sense. I would still expect some traps, at the very least at the entrances to the 'public' parts of the dungeon. In general, one would expect there to be three categories of people in the dungeon: the inner circle, the servants, and intruders. One would therefore expect some sort of defences against the third group even in the main part of the dungeon. These traps, however, would need to be designed to be easily bypassed by the servants, and so would be relatively easy for a skilled Rogue to deal with.

Alternatively, since we're postulating that he would set up traps in the secret areas keyed to himself alone, there's no reason he wouldn't have traps in the public areas keyed to his servants alone. However, since the identities of those servants is not fixed, he would have to do it using some sort of key (as I've mentioned before). Probably the best way is to have all his servants tattooed with a particular symbol. And a particularly devious wannabe demilich might think to have the traps keyed not to a particular tattoo, but rather to a particular tattoo made with ink containing certain uncommon ingredients.



> He places it on a lever because he wants to kill only those who actually attempt to enter his area, not just anyone who enters the room.  His servants know that if they require his attention they may enter the room and wait safely for him to appear, but shouldn't pull the lever.




It still makes far more sense to put the trap on the secret door (or, since it's a magical trap, on the boundary between the two areas). That way, anyone who bashes down the secret door, or uses passwall or similar spells is still affected by the trap, rather than requiring the lever to do its job.

Furthermore, under that arrangement there is absolutely no point in using a secret door - the existence of the lever clearly marks the existence of _something_ in the room, rendering the door non-secret. Just have a door.

Oh, and under that scheme there would probably be some means for his servants to alert Acerak in case of emergency. If the lair is invaded by marauding paladins, he would probably want to know about it, to take defensive measures (or perhaps flee). A giant gong, perhaps? (Of course, that could have been removed by those same paladins after Acerak moved on.)



> IMO, a perfectly reasonable and common setup for a D&D dungeon that fully explains the presence of a very deadly trap at one point of the dungeon even though the portion of the dungeon the PCs have already explored contained no traps or traps of a very different nature.




Okay, I can accept that. It's still a _really_ bad trap design.



> IMO the chaotic humanoid races are no more likely to leave warning signs for others than they are to establish a Social Security system.  Chaotic humanoids are self-centered and uncaring by nature.  When an Orc sees his companion get dusted by the trap his thoughts are "Now I know never to pull that lever." not "Poor Og, I'll miss him.  I'd better put up a warning sign before any of my other friends die."  IMO most Orcs who saw a drunken companion pull the lever on a dare and turn to dust would laugh their a***s off because they're selfish and evil and that's just how Orcs are.




A society that divisive wouldn't last for long. Either they'd pull apart fairly quickly or, more likely, they'd lose many of their number to the traps, and then be wiped out by a more agressive and cohesive group. Natural selection applies.

Honestly, Raven Crowking's argument that they might choose to leave the traps unmarked so they could lure intruders into them was far more compelling.



> And we're both assuming that the dungeon has been populated by sentient humanoid beings.  If the dungeon is known to the locals as the Dungeon of Skeletons and Slimes I think a big warning sign is highly unlikely (unless Pedro the Pudding has developed the ability to write "Cuidado" with his own slime trail   ).




I did make note of the "unless some special immunity applies" clause. I omitted to include dungeon inhabitants such as oozes and vermin that have no use for levers.


----------



## delericho (Sep 1, 2006)

Note: What I say in the text below the quoted section applies to the context provided by the quoted section, and not to the out-of-context example provided by the OP.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Acerak constructs a a dungeon headquarters for himself as a young, wannabe demi-lich.  The "front rooms" (only a small portion of this dungeon) are constructed with the convenience of his servants in mind.  He places no traps in these areas because his servants will need to move about freely to do their work and it's cheaper to buy new slaves than it is to construct effective traps anyway.  However, at the entrance to his private rooms Acerak constructs a very expensive trap, it is very nearly undetectable and seriously deadly to everyone but him.  He does so to prevent both his servants and his enemies from penetrating into his domicile (understanding the evil nature of his servants, he knows he must protect himself no matter how much he pays them or how many members of their family he holds hostage).  He places it on a lever because he wants to kill only those who actually attempt to enter his area, not just anyone who enters the room.  His servants know that if they require his attention they may enter the room and wait safely for him to appear, but shouldn't pull the lever.  Everything beyond the secret door is filled with deadly traps that are tuned to leave Acerak and Acerak alone unharmed.
> 
> Eventually, Acerak shuffles off his mortal coil and takes up residence in his tomb as a demilich.  His servants wander off and his HQ lies abandoned.  Several generations of squatters make use of the front area of his dungeon (one displacing the next in various power struggles between humanoid tribes, evil cultists, etc.) but none have the means to get past his fiendish trap and enter his private sanctum.
> 
> ...




I've been thinking about this scenario some more. I will agree that it is a reasonable set-up for a dungeon, but there was something that was just bugging me about it. I've finally figured it out...

Under this scenario, a party could work their way carefully through the entirety of the 'public' parts of the dungeon. They carefully check every lever, every door, and anything else that looks suspicious, for traps, and find none. In every single case, this is because there is no trap.

And now they come to this room. They carefully search the room, and find the secret door, which wasn't that secret because the lever tipped us off. Still, a Search check was sufficient.

They then apply the Rogue's Search skill to the lever. They find no traps. Now, in EVERY PREVIOUS INSTANCE in this dungeon, this has been because there have been no traps. Suddenly, it's looking a lot more reasonable to assume that in this case there probably are no traps, isn't it?

Still, the party has a standard operating procedure with such things: the person with the best saves handles levers just in case. So, the same happens again here. And, despite having the best saves in the group, and having a really good roll, he still blows his save.

And, what's more, he is then insta-killed with no body, preventing an easy Raise Dead.

Basically, the DM has just inserted a MASSIVE jump in difficulty that has come out of nowhere (from the player's perspective), and which has had HUGE consequences.

And 'good play' can't even save you here. Unless the party has been extremely paranoid with every lever, every doorway, and every other thing that has looked suspicious, they have no reason to do so here. Do you really expect the party to use rope to pull every lever, to summon creatures to open every door, and to cast Augury every time the Rogue detects no traps?

It just reads like far too much of an intentional 'gotcha!' from the DM to be fair. And it certainly wouldn't be fun.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 1, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> _IF_ you accept the assumptions are true, _THEN_ the logical conclusion is that the trap is unfair.
> 
> _IF_ you do not accept that the assumptions are all true, but do not aver that the assumptions are false, _THEN_ the logical conclusion is that the trap may or may not be fair, and that more information is required to make a statement that the trap is fair or unfair.
> 
> ...




No, not quite.

Re: (1): For _my_ playing style, being able to detect a trap with Take 20 is sufficient to make the scenario close enough to fair.  But even would be untrue for some playing styles, and the effect of failing the save can matter.

And I am making some assumptions here as well.  IME usually a Search by a Rogue will determine something about the nature of a trap.  For me, the nature of the trap is sufficient information to know that I need to pull out every dungeon crawling survival trick in the book, and mysteriously _failing_ to determine the nature of a trap is also clue we may be in over our heads so I should act in a similar manner.

Re: (2): No, a trap that is truly undetectable or unforeseeable and also deadly could be unfair even if it were DC 12 or DC 2.  Is a completely and totally out of the blue 5% chance of instant death always fair in even your campaign style?  I find it unlikely.  

Player: "I enter the rundown little tavern of this nondescript town before me."
DM: "Roll a save."
Player: "Damn!  A natural 1."
DM: "You crumble into dust."

Re: (3): Yes, if I the hints sufficient for the playstyle of the group in question.  The difference between "no hints" and "weak hints" is entirely subjective.  What is sufficient for one play style may not be sufficient for another.  

Some posters in this thread have asserted that the existence of a secret door in the same room is a clear hint.  I find it illogical to make any connection whatsoever between the two based on the information provided in the OP, and so far I have heard nothing but pure speculation to support this allegedly logical connection.

If you will not concede there is a significant component of personal playstyle in determining whether this proposition is true or untrue, you will need to formulate very clear standards and justify them.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 1, 2006)

The problem with the Acerak scenario is it is illogical on a number of levels.

First of all, one should expect numerous clues that this room or this section of the dungeon is very different from the others in terms of construction, original usage, and recent usage.  Assuming such clues existed is not supported by the scenario provided by the OP.

Second of all, the lever is one of the least logical options of a large number similar tests.  The lever might have some value.  A doorknob would have even more.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 1, 2006)

The talk here seems to be much about why the dungeon's designer would put the trap there.  One definition of "old school" would, I think, include _things in a module do not always have, and do not always need to have, any reason whatsoever for being what or where they are_.

This lever trap is 100% old school.

I've either forgotten or missed it, but was it ever made clear what was behind the secret door this trap was guarding?

Lanefan


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 1, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I've either forgotten or missed it, but was it ever made clear what was behind the secret door this trap was guarding?




Hee  "Guarding." A stone golem would cost less than this trap to create and would make a much better "guardian" methinks. 

But, no, it hasn't been mentioned what's behind the secret door.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 2, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> This lever trap is 100% old school.




Not quite 100%.  Maybe 80% old school.

A more typical super duper nasty old school trap of this style would either (1) forego the save altogether, or (2) give you the save vs Death Magic or -4 on the save vs. Death Magic variety.

It is hard to say for sure, but this looks rather like a -15 vs. Death Magic saving throw.  Why bother?  Saving throws like that are for DMs who are too cowardly to take responsibility for murdering the PC in cold blood for what the DM judges to be a mistake.  What kind of pansy old school DM would do that?

In my personal opinion, one of the troubling aspect of this trap is that it gives a save that I presume happens to have a save DC in the stratosphere.  That smells like some poorly conceived half-baked mix of old school and 3e.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 2, 2006)

Okay, I'm back.

ThirdWizard,

I doubt that any form of reasoning will change the minds of some people on this thread, although there are others who's arguments do not rely on the "cowardice" of the DM in question.

Previously, you had agreed with Post 572, to wit:

F you accept the assumptions are true, THEN the logical conclusion is that the trap is unfair.

IF you do not accept that the assumptions are all true, but do not aver that the assumptions are false, THEN the logical conclusion is that the trap may or may not be fair, and that more information is required to make a statement that the trap is fair or unfair.

IF you believe that one or more of the assumptions is not true, THEN the logical conclusion is that the trap is fair.

The assumptions in question are:

(1) The DM has introduced a trap that he knows the PCs cannot detect with Search.

(2) That the trap will kill any PC who activates it unless they roll a 20 on a saving throw.

(3) That the DM has given no hints to the PCs that it is dangerous.​
As an aside, Ridley's Cohort suggests that "a trap that is truly undetectable or unforeseeable and also deadly could be unfair even if it were DC 12 or DC 2."  I admit that I waffle on whether or not I accept this.  If we were discussing creatures, for example, a monstrous spider might be able to hide in such a way as to be undetectable by the party's average (or even best) Spot check, resulting in a potentially dangerous, or even deadly poisoning (depending upon what other challenges the poisoned character must then face).  

This would also make nearly any trap unfair to a group that does not contain a rogue....in other words, the DM becomes responsible for the players' lack of party balance or foresight.  This is a really nasty conclusion, IMHO, and leads back into those "player entitlement" and "sense of wonder" threads that were so despised some time ago.  On those threads, largely due to the arguments of Hussar, I was eventually convinced that "player entitlement" was a phantom created by a vocal minority on the Internet.  Threads like this, where there are clear numbers and percentages, make me begin to think that the reasoning which convinced me earlier was wrong.  Aside over.

ThirdWizard, oddly enough, while we agree that there can be a logical conclusion that the trap is unfair, fair, or that the fairness cannot be determined, we do not agree that the three potential conclusions in that post correspond with the possible choices on this poll, which are also YES (that the trap is unfair), NO (that the trap is not unfair; i.e., that it is fair), and MAYBE (that the trap may or may not be fair, depending upon circumstances we do not know).

I'm not really sure how to proceed with that.  In effect, you are arguing that we can, say, logically determine that the trap is fair, but that our conclusion should not be that someone who voted "unfair" is not being illogical, but rather that we need to alter the logical conclusion to meet the subjective needs of the person who voted "unfair".

So, I'll ignore the poll question/responses for the moment being, and look at just what you and I agree upon.

The OP states:

You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds none. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.​
From this, I make a number of assumptions:

(1)  That the word useage indicates that there is only one rogue and one monk in the party.

(2)  The party members are all the same level.

(3)  The monk has the highest saves in the party.

(4)  None of the characters has multi-classes and has rogue or monk levels.

(5)  Motivation enough exists to cause the rogue to search for traps on the secret door and the lever.

(6)  The above mentioned motivation can be due to a number of factors, including (but not limited to) knowledge of play style, previous encounters in this complex, knowledge of real world traps, knowledge of the real world implications of levers, previous encounters in the campaign, etc.

So, before examining the three assumptions required to make this trap unfair (or, if you are Ridley's Cohort, you only require #1 and #3 to be valid), let us examine the hypothetical scenario given, and determine what information we can derive therefrom.

So, given the six assumptions derived from the OP, what do you agree with, and what do you disagree with, and why?

RC


----------



## Delta (Sep 2, 2006)

Here's a question: Would you consider "fair" a dungeon that has an 83% death rate among even top-notch, expert D&D players? 

Like the Goodman Games tournament at 2005 Gen Con?


----------



## Someone (Sep 2, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> From this, I make a number of assumptions:
> 
> (1)  That the word useage indicates that there is only one rogue and one monk in the party.
> 
> ...




This is very interesting. How´s that you think those assumptions are valid or not, or more valid than other possible assumptions, yet when I posted mine they weren´t valid for the argument because they were assumptions and not logical neccesities?


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Sep 2, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Here's a question: Would you consider "fair" a dungeon that has an 83% death rate among even top-notch, expert D&D players?
> 
> Like the Goodman Games tournament at 2005 Gen Con?




In a tournement setting with throwaway character that you have no connection with, where the intent is to game the module in the most tactical situation and "win" then yes.

In a home campaign, where characters are cherished adnd the intent is to enjoy challenges that you character can overcome with thought and planning, but you aren't trying to "win" you are trying to have a good time, then no.


----------



## Delta (Sep 2, 2006)

So, following the brevity of the original post in this thread, is that a vote for "other"?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 2, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> This is very interesting. How´s that you think those assumptions are valid or not, or more valid than other possible assumptions, yet when I posted mine they weren´t valid for the argument because they were assumptions and not logical neccesities?




No argument can proceed without some assumptions.  However, there is a very big difference between base assumptions and reasoning derived from base assumptions.  Stating your base assumptions allows others to determine whether or not any reasoning built upon those assumptions is going to be of any value whatsoever.

A chain of logical reasoning requires steps between the base assumptions and the conclusions drawn.

In the case of your assumptions, "The builder was a moron" is an assumption that is actually built on other, unstated, assumptions that could not be derived from the original post.  In fact, it is an assumption that pre-supposes the condition that you wish to prove through the use of that assumption.

Examine the assumptions that I bring up (and I note that you do not say whether or not you think that they are valid):

(1) That the word useage indicates that there is only one rogue and one monk in the party.

I am assuming that when the OP says _the[/] rogue and the[/] monk, that this usage is designed to imply that there is only one rogue and only one monk.  Is this a valid assumption?

(2) The party members are all the same level.

I am assuming this because it is a staple in the 3.X rules.  If, OTOH, the example was using 1e or 2e, I would not make this assumption.  Is this a valid assumption?

(3) The monk has the highest saves in the party.

Again, I am assuming the Core Mechanics, and the default assumptions of the Core Mechanics, are being used.  If this is not the case, then it will be impossible to say anything about the fairness or unfairness of the trap simply because it is impossible that we have enough information available to us at this time.  Is this a valid assumption?

(4) None of the characters has multi-classes and has rogue or monk levels.

Again, I am basing this on the OP's use of the monk and the rogue.  Is this a valid assumption?

(5) Motivation enough exists to cause the rogue to search for traps on the secret door and the lever.

I am following the basic rule that suggests that any action has a cause.  Is this a valid assumption?

(6) The above mentioned motivation can be due to a number of factors, including (but not limited to) knowledge of play style, previous encounters in this complex, knowledge of real world traps, knowledge of the real world implications of levers, previous encounters in the campaign, etc.

I am refining the previous assumption, and asserting that any action has a cause which can be known or reasonably inferred if there is enough data presented.  Basically, I am making the assumption that the players in the example are not insane.  Either the players react to the environment that the DM presents, or they do not.  If the former is the case, then their actions allow us some insight into the environment that the DM presents.  If not, then there can be no valid assessment of the relative value of what the DM presents.  Is this a valid assumption?

So, given the six assumptions derived from the OP, what do you agree with, and what do you disagree with, and why?_


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 3, 2006)

Shenanigans! I have to say it again, Shenanigans!

And with feeling... Shenanigans!


----------



## Screaming Monkey (Sep 3, 2006)

I don't think it's either fair or unfair. I would however say it's just a bit harsh, but that's just me - a nice DM.


----------



## Someone (Sep 3, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No argument can proceed without some assumptions.  However, there is a very big difference between base assumptions and reasoning derived from base assumptions.  Stating your base assumptions allows others to determine whether or not any reasoning built upon those assumptions is going to be of any value whatsoever.
> 
> 
> A chain of logical reasoning requires steps between the base assumptions and the conclusions drawn.




That´s OK



> In the case of your assumptions, "The builder was a moron" is an assumption that is actually built on other, unstated, assumptions that could not be derived from the original post.  In fact, it is an assumption that pre-supposes the condition that you wish to prove through the use of that assumption.




That´s false. That was derived logically from the OP and or course some base assumptions, assumptions that were in my opinion more reasonable that your own counter-assumptions. Since you didn´t try to demonstrate that your assumtions were more reasonable, I understand you conceded it. You tried instead to refute my argument stating that, since my assumptions were, well, assumptions, they were not a neccesity and therefore dismissable, wich I took for a joke from your part until you insisted.



> So, given the six assumptions derived from the OP, what do you agree with, and what do you disagree with, and why?




First, I´ll say that I pretty much agree with your assumptions, and that you´re making a lot more than the ones you´re posting here; that the rogue´Search skill was relatively high; that they didn´t need desperately a escape route; that the monk´s health was good, that the party indeed had a rope and other means to operate the lever other than manually... I could go on. However, I´ll refute you using your own arguments. You can´t use those assumtions because there are other logical possibilities; some of them:



> I am assuming that when the OP says _the_ rogue and _the_ monk, that this usage is designed to imply that there is only one rogue and only one monk. Is this a valid assumption?




No since he could use "the" to indicate one particular rogue. English is a flexible language and the original poster had no obligation to use "one of the rogues" or "one of the monks" and still be correct. Maybe he´s no so fluent in English after all, or was late, and he       didn´t thought that using "the" he could be inducing confusion. You can´t _assume_ there were only one rogue and one monk.



> I am assuming this because it is a staple in the 3.X rules.




It´s a extended practice, but not obligatory. The rules do not force anyone to play characters of the same level, and circumstances like level draining, dieing and being raised, dieing and creating another character, and spending XP on spells and item creation will create parties with characters of different level. You can´t _assume_ they all were of the same level.



> Again, I am assuming the Core Mechanics, and the default assumptions of the Core Mechanics, are being used. If this is not the case, then it will be impossible to say anything about the fairness or unfairness of the trap simply because it is impossible that we have enough information available to us at this time. Is this a valid assumption?




No, from your point of view. The monk could have been _cursed_, or have very low abilities, or just be of lower level, which all are common circumstances. You can´t _assume_ he had the highest saves.



> (4) None of the characters has multi-classes and has rogue or monk levels.
> 
> Again, I am basing this on the OP's use of _the monk and the rogue. Is this a valid assumption?_



_

See above.




			(5) Motivation enough exists to cause the rogue to search for traps on the secret door and the lever.

I am following the basic rule that suggests that any action has a cause. Is this a valid assumption?
		
Click to expand...



Non sequitur. From the premises a) every action has a cause and b) searching for traps is an action, you can just conclude conclude that searching from traps had a cause, not anything about what that cause was. Surely, if as you told me many times, installing a killer trap must not have the purpose of killing, searching for traps must have a large number of causes other than the desire of finding traps.




			Basically, I am making the assumption that the players in the example are not insane. Either the players react to the environment that the DM presents, or they do not. If the former is the case, then their actions allow us some insight into the environment that the DM presents. If not, then there can be no valid assessment of the relative value of what the DM presents. Is this a valid assumption?
		
Click to expand...



As I´ve demonstrated, there are a number of other logical possibilities (I mean they are not impossible a priory, not that they are more plausible than your assumptions) which you´ve used to infer if that player´s playstile is right or wrong and therefore they theserved to die or not. Which is a red herring since the OP asked if the trap was fair, not if the players did well.

Yet, when I did exactly the same and also used a number of assumptions, also the most plausible based on the OP, about the DM's playstyle and how he designed the dungeon, you dismissed it saying I was basing my case on assumptions. I´d like to know if you changed your mind, or just want to win the argument no matter what._


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 3, 2006)

Shenanigans!

There. I'm done for now.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 4, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> ThirdWizard, oddly enough, while we agree that there can be a logical conclusion that the trap is unfair, fair, or that the fairness cannot be determined, we do not agree that the three potential conclusions in that post correspond with the possible choices on this poll, which are also YES (that the trap is unfair), NO (that the trap is not unfair; i.e., that it is fair), and MAYBE (that the trap may or may not be fair, depending upon circumstances we do not know).




Ahh, see, I don't agree that it can be judged objectively fair. I agree with those criterium on a subjective level for judging fairness of my own game. In other words, for me to think something is fair, it would definately have to conform to those rules.

I think the most objective way to look at fairness has to look at an individual group. I think that the easiest way to indicate fairness is to determine the likelihood of a trap being bypassed. And, that will vary from group to group.

For example, in my group, there is almost a 100% chance that someone would die to this trap. That means that the trap is unfair by my standards. If one of those criterium were changed, say the rogue could find the trap present with a Take 20, then a PC will not definately die from the trap, and I can once again look at it to see if it is fair.

Groups will also have different levels of what they'll accept. Some might accept an 80% chance of PC death, while others would accept a 20% chance of PC death on traps. So, I do think you really have to take the group into consideration. A trap that has a low chance of killing a PC in your game would be fair, but place that same trap in my game for a 100% PC death chance, and suddenly it doesn't look so fair.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 4, 2006)

I reiterate- this trap is _more_ fair than the 50'+ spiked pit trap that almost claimed one of our party in RttToEE...and I think THAT was a fair trap as well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 4, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Ahh, see, I don't agree that it can be judged objectively fair. I agree with those criterium on a subjective level for judging fairness of my own game. In other words, for me to think something is fair, it would definately have to conform to those rules.
> 
> I think the most objective way to look at fairness has to look at an individual group. I think that the easiest way to indicate fairness is to determine the likelihood of a trap being bypassed. And, that will vary from group to group.
> 
> ...





I would certainly agree with you that the dynamic of any individual group can include a spoken or unspoken social contract, and that a violation of that social contract can be unfair, even if the thing which is therefore unfair is not intrinsically unfair in and of itself.  Drinking Diet Root Beer while gaming is not intrinsically unfair, but a social contract could be imagined wherein drinking Diet Root Beer could become unfair in context.

Because a thing can be placed in a context where it becomes unfair does not make that thing unfair in and of itself.  A combination of A + B can be unfair, where neither A nor B are unfair on their own.

I would say that fairness/unfairness exists within the individual group more as a construct of A + B than as a question of intrinsic fairness or unfairness.  Before you had agreed to three conditions that, if existing, would mean that the trap was unfair in the context of the OP.  You seem to be backing away from that agreement, and you haven't yet told me whether or not you find the assumptions I am making acceptable for discussing those conditions.

Maybe, before we can even discuss whether or not this trap is fair, we should come up with some working definition of what fairness is?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 4, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> First, I´ll say that I pretty much agree with your assumptions, and that you´re making a lot more than the ones you´re posting here; that the rogue´Search skill was relatively high; that they didn´t need desperately a escape route; that the monk´s health was good, that the party indeed had a rope and other means to operate the lever other than manually... I could go on. However, I´ll refute you using your own arguments. You can´t use those assumtions because there are other logical possibilities; some of them:




It doesn't matter whether or not the rogue's Search skill was relatively high.

The OP states that the dungeon was otherwise cleared, so it requires no assumption that they didn't desperately need an escape route.

It doesn't matter whether or not the monk's health was good.

It doesn't matter whether or not the party has a rope.



> No since he could use "the" to indicate one particular rogue. English is a flexible language and the original poster had no obligation to use "one of the rogues" or "one of the monks" and still be correct. Maybe he´s no so fluent in English after all, or was late, and he       didn´t thought that using "the" he could be inducing confusion. You can´t _assume_ there were only one rogue and one monk.




I made that assumption as the Devil's Advocate to my own position.    

IF there was more than one rogue, THEN having "the rogue" Take 20 while Searching for traps and fail _does not_ mean that the party cannot find the trap through the use of Search, _unless and until_ all additional characters perform the Aid Another action while the rogue Takes 20.

_*If it is possible that there were other rogues in the party, we can no longer say that trap meets our first condition for unfairness.*_  It must be either Fair or Maybe/Other.

Likewise, if we are free to assume that the monk was cursed with 1 hp, then the trap cannot be said to meet condition 2.



> Non sequitur. From the premises a) every action has a cause and b) searching for traps is an action, you can just conclude conclude that searching from traps had a cause, not anything about what that cause was. Surely, if as you told me many times, installing a killer trap must not have the purpose of killing, searching for traps must have a large number of causes other than the desire of finding traps.




When did I say that installing a killer trap doesn't have the purpose of killing?   

I did say that installing a killer trap doesn't necessarily have the purpose of protecting your valuables (i.e., you cannot always presume that the appearance of a trap means that you are going the right way to reach the monsters or their stuff), and that you wouldn't want to install it where you were likely to trigger it yourself.  Pretty obvious, in my book.     



> As I´ve demonstrated, there are a number of other logical possibilities (I mean they are not impossible a priory, not that they are more plausible than your assumptions) which you´ve used to infer if that player´s playstile is right or wrong and therefore they theserved to die or not. Which is a red herring since the OP asked if the trap was fair, not if the players did well.




Again, you mistake an assumption meant to establish a proposition with an example meant to demonstrate that the initial assumption might not be valid.  Secondarily, you conflate the idea that a player's playstyle might be inappropriate for a given game with the idea that their playstyle is objectively or absolutely right or wrong.  There is nothing wrong with, say, wanting to play the game as an unpaid thespian, however, playing in that style will not always produce the desired result in all scenarios.  

An inability to react to the environment rationally is not a good thing for anyone, IMHO, and in the game (as in real life) we must frequently deal with how things _are_ rather than how we _would like them to be[/b].

Sarah:  It's not fair!
Goblin King:  You keep saying that.  I wonder what your basis of comparison is?​

RC_


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 4, 2006)

Fairness is basically equallity. Sometimes it means that both sides are playing by the same rules (baseball). Sometimes it means one side must give an advantage to the other (golf). It is generally used in competitions between people, from one's chance for a promotion (a fair shake) to the price of car that is trying to be sold/bought (a fair price).

Fairness _in my game_ can be figured out by those three things. I never intended to imply otherwise.

If we're looking for objective fairness (which I don't think exists in the context of RPGs) then the only way you're going to get any real data to work with is a sample group and see what they think. Since over 50% of the people in this poll voted unfair, I think we can safely assume that this would be deemed unfair in a majority of games on ENWorld. How much more objective can you get than that? Double the people voted unfair as voted fair.

The idea that you can throw something perfectly fair at a party of PCs and have a 100% chance to  kill one of them is just strange to me. If its going to kill 100% of them, how is it fair? If you give me a sword and someone else a sword and tell us to fight, is it fair because we both have swords? Not if he's been practicing kendo for 20 years and I've been practicing judo for 20 years.


----------



## Someone (Sep 4, 2006)

> The OP states that the dungeon was otherwise cleared, so it requires no assumption that they didn't desperately need an escape route




_"The whole place is gonna blow! wee ned to get outta here!"_

_"If the king doesn´t get the McGuffin soon... he´ll DIE!!"_

Sorry, I couldn´t help it. You _assume_ they tried the level out of curiosity or greed. Continuing with this all would be very amusing, but better if we go to the meat of the question



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, you mistake an assumption meant to establish a proposition with an example meant to demonstrate that the initial assumption might not be valid.




Thank you. You finally got it; I kindly direct you to the history of the orcs that found the lever and what happened then.



> Secondarily, you conflate the idea that a player's playstyle might be inappropriate for a given game with the idea that their playstyle is objectively or absolutely right or wrong.  There is nothing wrong with, say, wanting to play the game as an unpaid thespian, however, playing in that style will not always produce the desired result in all scenarios.
> 
> An inability to react to the environment rationally is not a good thing for anyone, IMHO, and in the game (as in real life) we must frequently deal with how things _are_ rather than how we _would like them to be_.
> 
> ...




So, I understand that, from your point of view, the trap is fair no matter what?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 4, 2006)

Okay.  Try this:

There is an encounter.

Is your default that the encounter is fair unless there is reason to believe otherwise, or that it is unfair unless there is reason to believe otherwise?


----------



## Someone (Sep 4, 2006)

None of those two options: the default is "I don´t have enough information."

I see your point, though; you think that in doubt, the DM is "innocent". The move is also quite astute: if I respond "fair", then you can easily point that there´s no enough evidence to condemn the encounter; if I say "unfair" you accuse me of being biased. 

I don´t think however this is what we´re discussing; what you posted is similar to this:

"There is a man.

Is your default that the man is tall unless there is reason to believe otherwise, or that it is short unless there is reason to believe otherwise?"

I have a set of parameters on what is fair and unfair the same way as I have a set of parameters on when is a parson tall, and compare the information presented in the OP, filling the gaps with the most reasonable (IMO) assumptions (assumptions we all have to make). 

This has two problems, as I´m the first admiting: my take on what´s fair and unfair is subjective, the same way that the opinion of at what exact height is a man tall or short varies from person to person, and even can vary depending on the circumstances; the trap may be perfectly fine in a campaing where people play characters called "Ted the fighter XVI", and part of the fun is that everyone dies at least twice per session, but won´t fit the standard of "fair" in most of the campaings.

Also, my assumptions and the logical construction built on them may either not be the most reasonable (though I still think they are, not having been shown otherwise) or I could have misinterpreted the OP (but I don´t think so)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Okay.  Try this:
> 
> There is an encounter.
> 
> Is your default that the encounter is fair unless there is reason to believe otherwise, or that it is unfair unless there is reason to believe otherwise?




What's the party level, and do they have the default wealth? What's the CR? Is this an end boss encounter or is it a random encounter? Did the PCs have ample opportunity to avoid the encounter, or was it thrown against them without their ability to avoid it? Is the battle stacked against them in some way beyond the usual assumptions (things like in an antimagic field or underwater)? Does the party have some kind of advantage against the enemy (bane weapons, etc)?

There are so many options available in this game that there is no default.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Sep 5, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> That's why the equipment list has ROPE!
> 
> Fair ball.




The Wizard/Sorcerer spell Mage Hand works great for situations like this.

However...

Somehow I think we are missing part of the story.  If that really is what happened I'd have a problem if the Rogue successfully checked for traps.  However, if the DM is like me he/she would never let the Rogue player (or the party for that matter) know if the Rogue succeeded or not... I make detection rolls for my players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> What's the party level, and do they have the default wealth? What's the CR? Is this an end boss encounter or is it a random encounter? Did the PCs have ample opportunity to avoid the encounter, or was it thrown against them without their ability to avoid it? Is the battle stacked against them in some way beyond the usual assumptions (things like in an antimagic field or underwater)? Does the party have some kind of advantage against the enemy (bane weapons, etc)?
> 
> There are so many options available in this game that there is no default.





See, I guess here is where we differ.  I thought it was quite clearly indicated in the game rules that there is a default.  I was under the perhaps misguided belief that the DM was running the game, setting up the encounters, etc., and that the DM had the authority to do this.  I was not under the impression that the DM was forced to design by committee.  In fact, the rules seem to me to be rather clear that the DM adjudicates.

Hence, presumption of fairness would seem to me to be rather like presumption of innocence in law.  You, on the other hand, seem to want innocence to be proven.  Unfairness can be proven, assuming some reasonable standard of fairness.  How can fairness be proven, though, given that the other side will say "Ah, but what if....?" "Ah, but did you take into account that.....?"  This line of reasoning almost always falls into _circulus in demonstrando_, as this thread demonstrates more than amply.

ThirdWizard, you suggest that fairness can be determined by popular vote.  I.e., if enough people vote that the encounter is unfair, then it is unfair.  This is known as "argumentum ad numerum":

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. For example:

"All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it."​
"Enough people say it" is simply not a sufficient means to determine that something is unfair.

In fact, that is a big problem with this thread, isn't it?  We have a lot of people who will say that the encounter as described is unfair.  They will then say why they think it is unfair.  They will then be shown that this isn't the case/isn't necessarily the case, and they'll instead pick some new reason why it is unfair.  The same thing happens repeatedly, and the ground keeps shifting.  Conditions for it being unfair are agreed upon, then the side that thinks the encounter is unfair ditches those conditions when it is obvious that the encounter cannot be said to meet them.

Such a shifting morass doesn't demonstrate that the encounter is unfair.  One might say that "There are so many options available in this game that there is no default", but this isn't true.  The authority of the DM _*is*_ the default.  As a result, any encounter is fair _unless there is reason to believe otherwise_.  

We are not given reason to believe otherwise in the OP.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> None of those two options: the default is "I don´t have enough information."
> 
> I see your point, though; you think that in doubt, the DM is "innocent". The move is also quite astute: if I respond "fair", then you can easily point that there´s no enough evidence to condemn the encounter; if I say "unfair" you accuse me of being biased.




Please describe the conditions that would make this encounter unfair, so that we can examine them in light of the OP.

I take it from your reply that you voted OTHER?


----------



## Someone (Sep 5, 2006)

I would have voted other to your hypothetical two liner scenario. As for the conditions that would make me think a encounter is unfair, they are thoroughly repeated along the thread once and again and I see no need to bore the personnel.

Specially as your standards are impossible to meet by definition: you first suppose the encounter is fair and then demand 100% proof, not merely good evidence, that it´s unfair. _No encounter would be unfair by that way of reasoning, because 100% proof is impossible outside math_. I don´t see the need to bash my head against that particular wall.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

In this particular case, I offered three conditions that, if met, would render the encounter unfair.  I then began working with a set of assumptions that, if accepted, would mean that the first two conditions were automatically met.

How this becomes "you first suppose the encounter is fair and then demand 100% proof, not merely good evidence" I'm not certain.  Perhaps you would care to rephrase that?

As for the reasons you think the encounter unfair, I suggest that your reasons do not meet even the slightest criteria of evidence, unless one presumes _a priori_ that the encounter is unfair.  Which, yes, is a bias, and one that is contra-indicated by the Core Rules.

Just as one can prove guilt, but cannot prove innocence, one can prove unfairness, but cannot prove fairness.  A presumtion of fairness is the only framework from which one can derive a rational -- or, for that matter, fair -- conclusion.

RC


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The authority of the DM _*is*_ the default.  As a result, any encounter is fair _unless there is reason to believe otherwise_.




Even if I accept this premise, meeting any single one of your 3 conditions to prove unfairness qualifies as a reason, even if it is not yet proof.

Are you arguing there is absolutely no reason to believe that the encounter is unfair or that there is not sufficient reason to believe the encounter unfair?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Even if I accept this premise, meeting any single one of your 3 conditions to prove unfairness qualifies as a reason, even if it is not yet proof.
> 
> Are you arguing there is absolutely no reason to believe that the encounter is unfair or that there is not sufficient reason to believe the encounter unfair?




I am arguing that there is not sufficient reason the believe the encounter unfair.

Specifically, while A + B + C offers sufficient reason to believe the encounter unfair, the components taken alone are not unfair, nor are two of the components taken together without the third.

(Each of these components has been examined exhaustively in this thread, and when a claim that the encounter is unfair has been made on the basis of these components, it was always the synthesis of these components that the claimant relied upon.  No one, or even two, of these components is unfair in and of itself.)

I would also agree that there could be many components D, E, F, etc., that could take the place of one or all of the components that I listed which could make an encounter unfiar, but that there is insufficient reason to believe that there is any such additional component in the scenario described in the OP.

There are many, many ways to be unfair.  All of them leave, IMHO, sufficient information to come to the rational and demonstrable conclusion that something is unfair.  If something is unfair, that it is unfair can be demonstrated.  We can certainly say, for example, that X as presented is fair, but if we later discover that critical components were missing from the presentation, we must change our mind and determine that X is not fair.  

Since the OP described a hypothetical situation, there are no critical components that we will later discover (though the conditions of the situation may be altered to create a new hypothetical situation).

RC


----------



## Someone (Sep 5, 2006)

> How this becomes "you first suppose the encounter is fair and then demand 100% proof, not merely good evidence" I'm not certain. Perhaps you would care to rephrase that?




Huh? Two recent examples: 



> presumption of fairness would seem to me to be rather like presumption of innocence in law




((Hint: not in this case, not even more than somebody is tall until proven short))



> ...We have a lot of people who will say that the encounter as described is unfair. They will then say why they think it is unfair. They will then be shown that this isn't the case/isn't *necessarily* the case...




Emphasis mine. You don´t require evidence: you want proof. It´s an impossible standard to meet; the scenario won´t ever proven unfair, short of the DM appearing and saying "Yes, I designed the scenario so it was unfair", and even in that case.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> See, I guess here is where we differ.  I thought it was quite clearly indicated in the game rules that there is a default.  I was under the perhaps misguided belief that the DM was running the game, setting up the encounters, etc., and that the DM had the authority to do this.  I was not under the impression that the DM was forced to design by committee.  In fact, the rules seem to me to be rather clear that the DM adjudicates.




Okay, so by your reasoning here, there's no such thing as unfairness. The DM is God and all he does cannot be wrong. Because, that's what you sound like here, and if that's what you think, then your bias in this thread is going to make this debate impossible.



> Hence, presumption of fairness would seem to me to be rather like presumption of innocence in law.  You, on the other hand, seem to want innocence to be proven.




Totally unfounded and horrible analogy. Fairness isn't like following the law. Fairness is something the DM watches as he designs obstacles for the PCs to overcome.

Second you see my "I can't determine fairness one way or the other without more information" to mean "I think the DM is acting unfairly unless otherwise proven." You do realize, dont you, that you could just as well say my stance was "I think the DM is acting fairly unless otherwise proven?" And, just for the record, those are _both_ wrong.

When dealing in hypotheticals, I need information to make an informed oppinion. I find this _highly_ better than your way of dealing with it in which everything is fair unless somene can prove to you that it isn't. 

Again, your bias in this matter is showing through. How can you expect to debate when you are so clearly biased toward "fair" being the default, even when no information is given whatsoever? That is like a scientist declaring his hypothesis to be proven correct because his experiment was inconclusive.



> Unfairness can be proven, assuming some reasonable standard of fairness.  How can fairness be proven, though, given that the other side will say "Ah, but what if....?" "Ah, but did you take into account that.....?"  This line of reasoning almost always falls into _circulus in demonstrando_, as this thread demonstrates more than amply.




Okay here it is for you again:

*Fairness is like fun. It is subjective.*

Fairness must be applied to context. See the sword duel example above. Give a judo master and a kendo master swords and tell them to fight. That's not fair. You can't just take everything out of context.

You surely cannot believe that there is a 100% objectively fair trap scenario that would be fair for all groups everywhere. Surely! Because that's what objectively means, by definition.



> ThirdWizard, you suggest that fairness can be determined by popular vote.  I.e., if enough people vote that the encounter is unfair, then it is unfair. This is known as "argumentum ad numerum":




It isn't a falacy.

Raven, its like you're trying to prove what is objectively fun. I'm sorry, there is no formula to follow. But, if you want to know what is fun, you can poll a large number of people. If a lot of people find it fun, then you can be safe claiming it to be fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

Someone, since I can state my criteria for tall (over X inches, for example), please state your criteria for fair.

ThirdWizard, nowhere did I say "there's no such thing as unfairness. The DM is God and all he does cannot be wrong."  As a statement of fact, I agreed that the trap/encounter would be unfair if three conditions were met, and then determined that the wording of the OP supported reasonable assumptions that met at least two of those three conditions.

You use a scientist making a hypothesis in your example.  As you know, within the sciences no hypothesis is valuable unless it can be disproven.  "Frogs can move mountains, but choose not to" is not a scientific hypothesis because it is a hypothesis that cannot be disproven.  There is no way to supply evidence against.

"This scenario is unfair even if we cannot say why" is similarly flawed.  If the scenario is unfair, you ought to be able to say why.  Then your reasoning ought to be subject to analysis.  If the analysis shows that your reasoning is flawed, it does not automatically mean that your conclusion is _wrong_, but it does mean that your conclusion is not correct for the reasons given, and ought to be re-examined.

(As an example, you could say "Because herring are fish, the sky is blue."  Even though the reasoning is wrong, the conclusion is not.  Still, the entire argument must be re-examined at that point if one desires to claim rationality.)



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> *Fairness is like fun. It is subjective.*
> 
> Fairness must be applied to context. See the sword duel example above. Give a judo master and a kendo master swords and tell them to fight. That's not fair. You can't just take everything out of context.
> 
> You surely cannot believe that there is a 100% objectively fair trap scenario that would be fair for all groups everywhere. Surely! Because that's what objectively means, by definition.




Presumably, when we are talking about fairness we mean (from dictionary.com):

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.  
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.​
Of these definitions, (2) is granted by the Core Rules.  You could have a social contract within your own gaming group that alters the Core Rules (i.e., would this be fair _in my game_), and in that way fairness is like fun.  Not everything would be fair in every game, nor would everything be fun in every game.  However, this is an "A (event) + B (special case social contract) = unfair" situation, where neither A nor B are unfair alone.

As far as bias, dishonesty, and injustice -- surely if we are claiming any of these we can make a supportable, rational argument?  In this way the question of fairness is exactly like that of innocence.  A condition (guilt, bias, dishonesty, and/or injustice) is claimed to exist.  Placing the burden of proof on the accused (prove that this condition does not exist) is bad reasoning, poor logic (it is actually a specific logical fallacy called _shifting the burden_) and grossly unfair.

BTW, _argumentum ad numerum_ certainly is a fallacy.  Research it if you don't believe me.  

So is attempting to conflate one position (a claim of unfairness must be rationally supported to be considered true) with another, easily refuted position not taken by the person you claim (you're trying to prove what is objectively fun).  That fallacy is called "the straw man".

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2006)

By those two definitions, anything is fair so long as it doesn't deviate from RAW because it is proper under the rules and the DM isn't being dishonest with the group.

But, surely you don't believe that, because you admit that there can be unfair traps, even though you can follow the two definitions and still fail on the 3 point definition given above.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> BTW, argumentum ad numerum certainly is a fallacy. Research it if you don't believe me.




Then you're guilty of arguing your oppinion as fact.

Logical fallacy has no place in a debate on oppinion, which is what this is.


Here's the most important thing you're going to need to explain to me:

You keep saying that there it is possible to build an objectively fair trap. However, you admit that some would find this objectively fair trap to be unfair. How can you resolve these two seemingly contradictory statements?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 5, 2006)

Here is some information regarding a hypothetical encounter to look at:

According to Raven Crowking, I have provided all the information necessary for us to come to a consensus that the encounter is fair.

While I certainly agree that it is good gaming practice to always give the DM the benefit of the doubt, I think Raven Crowking in taking this sentiment to the absolute most over the top extreme.

I, for one, when presented with such a description would go out on a limb and say "I do not know".  I am just crazy that way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> By those two definitions, anything is fair so long as it doesn't deviate from RAW because it is proper under the rules and the DM isn't being dishonest with the group.
> 
> But, surely you don't believe that, because you admit that there can be unfair traps, even though you can follow the two definitions and still fail on the 3 point definition given above.




Ah, how funny.  You truncated the definitions in order to remove where it is possible for a trap to be funny.  Woo hoo for you!

"Free from *bias*, dishonesty, or *injustice*."  Not exactly the same thing as free from dishonesty alone.



> Here's the most important thing you're going to need to explain to me:
> 
> You keep saying that there it is possible to build an objectively fair trap. However, you admit that some would find this objectively fair trap to be unfair. How can you resolve these two seemingly contradictory statements?




That something has an objective quality A, and that others would claim that it instead has the objectively converse quality B, should come as no surprise to anyone.  It is certainly not contradictory.

There are three possibilities:

(1)  The person finding the objectively fair trap unfair is actually reacting to an internal bias, such as being upset that his monk died.  Or a false sense of entitlement.  

(2)  The objectively fair trap is part of a larger complex which is objectively unfair.

(3)  A combination of the above two.

Certainly you must have had experiences wherein one person claimed something was unfair when it was patently obvious that it was the person making the claim who was being unfair and/or unreasonable.  This is not something that happens only on rare occasions; it would be the work of a lifetime to catalogue all of the frivilous lawsuits going on right now, let alone those which are over and those that are yet to be.

In addition, there are many ways the OP could be modified to make it unfair:



> You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds none. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.




Not unfair.  In fact, no evidence that the rogue even Took 20.  



> You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds none. The DM tells you that there is no trap.  The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.




Unfair because of dishonesty and bias.  The DM told you that there was no trap, while knowing that there was a trap.  Had the DM said, "You search and find no trap" this would be different.  It would also be a lot closer to the uncertainty that the rogue would be feeling.

(Note:  There is a difference between "dishonesty of belief" and actual dishonesty.  If you are calling the troglodytes "lizard men" and the DM picks up on that and begins using the same terminology, he is not being dishonest...even though you may be unpleasantly surprised.  The DM is not required to tell you that a room with an invisible occupant is not empty.  However, and especially in matters of life and death, the DM has an obligation to be clear and reasonably precise.  This is not a problem in the OP.)



> You have talked things over with your group.  Everyone hates traps, so you've decided as a group to never use traps.  The DM is part of, and knows about, that decision.  Later, you’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.




Unfair.  Violates social contract of group (DM does not have legitimate authority).



> You’ve in a dungeon seeking the McGuffin.  You have cleared out all of the dungeon up to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall.  The rogue searches for traps.  However, the act of searching for traps triggers a trap.  The rogue has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.




Unfair.  The encounter is unjust.  There is, simply put, no way to win.



> You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. The rogue searches the entrance for traps, Taking 20, and finding nothing.  In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door.  You talk it over, and decide that the lever is probably trapped.  As you go to leave the room, the DM tells you that a stone door slides from the ceiling, blocking this room off.  The mage decides to use several spells to transform the stone, or bypass the wall, or teleport out of the room without using the lever.  The DM tells you that the spells don't work.  After a while, he tells you that each time the mage casts a spell he'll age 10 years.  You decide to rest before dealing with the lever, to regain your divination, protection, and healing spells.  Every ten minutes a monster teleports into the room to prevent your rest.  Eventually, the monk agrees to pull the lever.  He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save.  He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.




Unfair.  The encounter is both biased and unjust.  



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Here is some information regarding a hypothetical encounter to look at:




Interesting.  You are basically putting the sum total of the reasons that the OP's encounter should be considered unfair into one encounter?       Or is it just another straw man?

RC


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 5, 2006)

Allow me, please, to lob another pebble in the pond here...

Would this be fair:

Same scenario as OP except that while the party sees the lever-puller crumble to dust, the lever-puller has in fact been teleported to a whole other part of the adventure that nobody previously knew was there. (I've used "traps" like this on occasioon)  Now, lever-puller is in trouble, alone in a dangerous place unless someone else pulls the lever - not likely! - and joins her, and will have to be either very good or very lucky to survive...but if she does survive, the chance exists to return to somewhere that the party can find her.

Lever-puller's player is best left in the dark until after the session (if possible, failing that, pass a note if the player can be trusted not to give anything away); you'd run an off-cycle session with that player to see how lever-puller fares...

Thing is, from the party's perspective the result is exactly the same as the OP.

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

This reminds me all too much of "Railroading is whatever any player says it is".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Then you're guilty of arguing your oppinion as fact.
> 
> Logical fallacy has no place in a debate on oppinion, which is what this is.




Logical fallacy has no place in _any_ debate.    

It is certainly possible that I am arguing my opinion as fact.  It wouldn't be the first time; I can't imagine that it'd be the last time.  It is probably my worst trait as a debator, and one that I am often unconscious of until it is pointed out.  (You would think that I would learn, but I am apparently Mr. Thick Thick Thickity Thick from Thicktown, Thicksylvania...and so's my dad.)  So, as I said, it is certainly possible.  

Which opinion(s) do you mean, specifically?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ah, how funny.  You truncated the definitions in order to remove where it is possible for a trap to be funny.  Woo hoo for you!
> 
> "Free from *bias*, dishonesty, or *injustice*."  Not exactly the same thing as free from dishonesty alone.




Fine, add those both in, I was going for brevity.

Suffice to say that it could include all those things and still be unfair.



> That something has an objective quality A, and that others would claim that it instead has the objectively converse quality B, should come as no surprise to anyone.  It is certainly not contradictory.




So basically, your oppinion on what is or is not fair is correct and they are wrong? Why can it not be that you are wrong and they are correct, and your definition has failed to take into consideration something?

You keep seeing DMs as the good guys and the Players as the bad guys in these scenarios. You need to provide some kind of reason for convincing me that there exists an objective fair, but I warn you it might be about as easy as convincing me that there is an objective fun.

This is important for you to realize:

For me to accept that there is an objective "fair" you will have to convince me that it is fair for a DM to use an encounter that he knows will have a 100% chance of killing one of the PCs. Because, in the example provided in the OP, one of the PCs in my game _would_ die. I can almost gurantee you that I would die in that trap. 



> Interesting. You are basically putting the sum total of the reasons that the OP's encounter should be considered unfair into one encounter? Or is it just another straw man?




Not a strawman at all. You said:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hence, presumption of fairness would seem to me to be rather like presumption of innocence in law.




If you're saying fairness/unfairness is like innocence/guilt, and we are operating with an understanding of fairness until proven unfair, then in fact, you would consider that fair. Now, you're free to retract your previous statements, since as far as I can see they make no sense, but you might find it difficult to condemn others for wanting information to determine fairness or unfairness.

Thus, no default actually exists, because if it did, you would find the blank statement fair.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Which opinion(s) do you mean, specifically?




The fairness of a situation is purely dependant on the context of the situation. Fairness is an oppinion, not a fact. Debating whether you think something is fair or unfair is fine. Debating whether it is objectively so instead of subjectively so is like debating whether something is objectively fun. In other words, it is impossible and trying to so can't end well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Raven, its like you're trying to prove what is objectively fun. I'm sorry, there is no formula to follow. But, if you want to know what is fun, you can poll a large number of people. If a lot of people find it fun, then you can be safe claiming it to be fun.




BTW, I find that this bothers me somewhat, and seems to resound with the problems that we are having in this discussion.  Because, deep down, I tend to believe that you are a reasonable sort of person.

When we are talking about "fun" we are talking about an emotive response to some stimulus or stimuli.  "Fun" can act as a motive, causing us to take an action that might seem to have a rational motive, such as an action that results in the propogation of the species.  However, emotions are by their very nature irrational.  Our motives in playing games, propogation, etc., are driven by our emotive needs, which are themselves irrational.  If anything, our rationality serves to grant us the ability to determine which (if any) of our emotive needs is paramount at any given time, at to figure out how best to fulfill them.

Because we know that our motives and emotions are irrational, and because we know that we can best fulfill those needs through some form of cooperation, we create normative standards that allow us to make rational determinations about our behavior.  The concept of "fairness" is one such normative standard, with the desired end result being that we can see where our emotions (irrational drives) impinge upon our reactions toward each other.  Thus, we are able to sublimate portions of our needs in order to allow the needs of others to be fulfilled and, ultimately, the greater portions of our own needs.

At least in theory.

However, if we drop the normative (rational) standard, as you seem to declare necessary,  we are left with an irrational standard; to wit, "Fairness is what best suits my needs now."  The problem that I have with this is exactly the same as the problem I have with "Railroading is whatever the player says it is" and similar statments specifically intended to remove the normative standards from our interactions.  Hence the idea of a "false sense of entitlement"; i.e., a sense of entitlement which is not tied into any normative standard.

In my opinion, this is just a really bad road to be walking down.


RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2006)

How can your objectively fair trap have a 100% chance to kill my PC and still be objectively fair?

EDIT: Further, how can the OP's trap kill 55.74% of the participants in this poll and still be fair at all?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So basically, your oppinion on what is or is not fair is correct and they are wrong? Why can it not be that you are wrong and they are correct, and your definition has failed to take into consideration something?




An opinion of fairness which meets the normative standard is correct; one which does not is incorrect, regardless of who makes it.  



> For me to accept that there is an objective "fair" you will have to convince me that it is fair for a DM to use an encounter that he knows will have a 100% chance of killing one of the PCs. Because, in the example provided in the OP, one of the PCs in my game _would_ die. I can almost gurantee you that I would die in that trap.




Yeah, I'd probably die in that trap, too.

OTOH, I would die in that trap because, knowing that I'd probably die in that trap, I would still probably pull the lever.  Or else the monk would die, because I convinced him to pull the lever instead.  And I have to be honest in saying that the players I have run games for probably _wouldn't_ die in that trap.  They are, perhaps, wiser than I am.

If you know that there is a 100% chance that at least 1 PC will die from an encounter, that is probably sufficient to say that the encounter is unfair, _if_ the encounter is unavoidable _and_ the encounter is not so deadly merely due to mismanagement on the part of the PCs.  So, on one hand, it is fair for you to say that the trap would be unfair _for your group_, but this is an "A (trap) + B (your group) = unfair" thing, where neither A nor B is necessarily unfair in and of itself.

If there was a series of encounters that was perfectly fair, by the book, easy even when you wrote it, and then by bungling and bad luck I was in far worse condition than you expected, and you saw that the final encounter would surely end my PC's life, I would still find it unfair for you to change that encounter or fudge your rolls.  That violates the social contract of any game that I would find enjoyable.  That doesn't mean that changing the encounter or fudging rolls is objectively unfair, but it is another "A + B = unfair" situation.



> If you're saying fairness/unfairness is like innocence/guilt, and we are operating with an understanding of fairness until proven unfair, then in fact, you would consider that fair.




Here's a situation:


Is the man guilty?

If the man is not guilty, then Ridley's Cohort's statement is not a strawman, and the encounter he "describes" is fair.  If the correct response is WTF? then Ridley's Cohort's statement is a strawman.

Fair enough?


RC


----------



## Someone (Sep 5, 2006)

> Someone, since I can state my criteria for tall (over X inches, for example), please state your criteria for fair.




I´f you don´t mind running in circles chasing the ever shifting argument is quickly losing it´s charm, so if you don´t mind I won´t (again)

Just one slightly off topic comment:



> BTW, argumentum ad numerum certainly is a fallacy. Research it if you don't believe me




Normally yes, but there are circumstances where it´s not: specifically when it´s the general consensus what defines if a thing is true or not. One example is language: is true that "chair" means what it means because the vast majority of the english speakers agree on that.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2006)

Here's an encounter. 

The PCs have obtained the McGuffin. They come across a doorway and if anyone walks through it forward then they save or die. If they walk through it backward then they bypass the trap. There are no clues to how to walk through it. The trap search DC is too high for the rogue in the party but exists. The person in the group with the highest save can only make it on a 20.

Fair or unfair?

AFAIC this is basically the same trap as the OP's. If the PCs do some arbitrary thing that will be obvious to anyone who is used to arbitrary traps (like levers that must be pulled by ropes) but to most people it will just kill them. They also didn't have to walk through the door. 



> If there was a series of encounters that was perfectly fair, by the book, easy even when you wrote it, and then by bungling and bad luck I was in far worse condition than you expected, and you saw that the final encounter would surely end my PC's life, I would still find it unfair for you to change that encounter or fudge your rolls.  That violates the social contract of any game that I would find enjoyable.  That doesn't mean that changing the encounter or fudging rolls is objectively unfair, but it is another "A + B = unfair" situation.




Rolling a 19 on a save and checking for traps are neither bad luck nor bungling. In fact, the party did everything right but _still_ died to the trap. This is due to some arbitrary idea the DM had about pulling the lever with a rope or just leaving it alone. Or are we now assuming that it wasn't a death trap and that the monk was low on hp, and suffered because he didn't get healed after the last battle?

No, a party at full power with all their spells and all the options available to them would still have a fatality to this encounter because there was no recourse to react to the situation. The monk died, and there wasn't a thing they could do to prevent it short of knowing that the lever was trapped and how to bypass it.

This isn't like a combat where if they roll low for a while things can go bad. I know that. PCs die. It's unavoidable. But, that isn't the case here.



> Is the man guilty?




You started the whole "There's an encounter, is it fair or unfair?" Then said that you consider it fair and proceded to claim that because I said I needed more information that I was somehow saying it was unfair. And, just in case you disagree:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Okay. Try this:
> 
> There is an encounter.
> 
> Is your default that the encounter is fair unless there is reason to believe otherwise, or that it is unfair unless there is reason to believe otherwise?






			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There are so many options available in this game that there is no default.






			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> See, I guess here is where we differ. I thought it was quite clearly indicated in the game rules that there is a default. I was under the perhaps misguided belief that the DM was running the game, setting up the encounters, etc., and that the DM had the authority to do this. I was not under the impression that the DM was forced to design by committee. In fact, the rules seem to me to be rather clear that the DM adjudicates.




The only way to interpriet this is that you believe that your null encounter was fair. So if your null encounter is fair, why isn't null situation fair as well? Or are only your null situations fair? How can you even pretend to judge the null situation at all? But, you did. And, you have to defend that claim or give it up for the absurd statement that it is.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 5, 2006)

So what if my dungeon is judged "unfair" by the Council of Fairness?  So what?  The important part of the "fairness" debate to me would be the part that is useful.  I know that my "unfair" dungeon has been judged "fun" by the players involved.  So then what good is someone else's opinion about fairness?

I can't go to some player and say "you should have had fun because I submitted my dungeon to the Council of Fairness and they have it a gold star rating".  Neither can some player tell me that the reason that he didn't have fun was because something was wrong with my dungeon.  

The "child-like" reaction to a situation is to say "that's not fair", which is a left-over habit from dealing with omnipotent parent figures all of the time.  IMO what this is really needs to be about is negotiating expectations with the other adults (or quasi-adults) that you deal with in the game, and doing your best to make sure folks are having a good time and at the same time trying to accomplish your own creative goals.

What fatality % is acceptable?  What if you're 100% likely to be raised from the dead after being 100% likely to die?  Especially in high level games (but probably all) there are so many variables and possible player actions (divinations, wish, raise dead) that I only have a hazy notion of what the "% survival" rate is IMC for any given encounter, and I don't think I'll ever be submitting it to the Council of Fairness for approval.

I think "fairness" is a useful thing to discuss subjectively - as long as it remains subjective and respective of various DMs styles.  I know that I'm bothered as a player when things are too easy and the DM fudges and keeps my player alive.  That doesn't mean the game is "unfair".  It's just using a "% survival" that I don't care for.  A DM should understand that there are different players out there with different preferences.  But I don't think anyone should dictate to a DM what his survival rate ought to be.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 5, 2006)

gizmo33, I agree with everything you just said.

Some groups might find anything acceptable so long as it isn't a 100% chance of a TPK. Others might find something acceptable only if all the PCs have a chance to survive. As levels rise in D&D, I find myself shifting from the latter to the former. Once _true ressurection_ is readily available, then death is just an inconvenience, after all. The PCs shrug, toss some diamond dust around and move on.


----------



## Harlekin (Sep 5, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So what if my dungeon is judged "unfair" by the Council of Fairness?  So what?  The important part of the "fairness" debate to me would be the part that is useful.  I know that my "unfair" dungeon has been judged "fun" by the players involved.  So then what good is someone else's opinion about fairness?
> 
> I can't go to some player and say "you should have had fun because I submitted my dungeon to the Council of Fairness and they have it a gold star rating".  Neither can some player tell me that the reason that he didn't have fun was because something was wrong with my dungeon.
> 
> ...




It should provide you with an idea on how to improve as a GM. After all, your group probably considered the game fun although there was an unfair trap at the end, not because there was a pointless fatality. Furthermore it will also give you an idea what players other than your regular group might think of your style of adventure design.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 5, 2006)

Harlekin said:
			
		

> It should provide you with an idea on how to improve as a GM. After all, your group probably considered the game fun although there was an unfair trap at the end, not because there was a pointless fatality. Furthermore it will also give you an idea what players other than your regular group might think of your style of adventure design.




My "regular group"?  How many regular groups do you think I've DMed over the last 25 years?  Would it be unfair if your character was eaten by a sphinx for not guessing correctly?

In my time I've used many unfair traps, but there have been no pointless fatalities.  

Ok, seriously though, we agree.  Other people's opinions about what makes for a good DnD game and what doesn't are good to know (it can't hurt).  That's why I come to the message boards.  However IME the opinions and attitudes that I see on the internet about DnD doesn't 100% match the players that I've DMed over the years.  People (myself included) tend to make too much of hypothetical situations where all factors cannot be taken into account.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Here's an encounter.
> 
> The PCs have obtained the McGuffin. They come across a doorway and if anyone walks through it forward then they save or die. If they walk through it backward then they bypass the trap. There are no clues to how to walk through it. The trap search DC is too high for the rogue in the party but exists. The person in the group with the highest save can only make it on a 20.
> 
> ...




Unfair.  But then, this is not the same trap as the OP's.

Tell me specifically why you believe the OP's trap to be unfair, and then those claims can be rationally examined.  The idea that something -- anything -- is unfair because of some whim you may have is simply....unfair.



> Rolling a 19 on a save and checking for traps are neither bad luck nor bungling. In fact, the party did everything right but _still_ died to the trap.




They did everything right?  The rogue didn't maximize his chances of finding traps, did he?  In fact, although it is clear that the party suspected a trap, they did almost nothing to prevent falling victim to it.

RC

P.S.:  In my encounter example, you know an encounter took place.  There is something to be judged fair or unfair.  Lacking futher evidence, we should consider it fair.  In Ridley's Cohort's example, there is no encounter to be judged, so there is nothing to be said to be fair or unfair.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Unfair.  But then, this is not the same trap as the OP's.




So, the DM's arbitrary decision to make them use rope to pull a lever is different than his arbitrary decision to make them walk through a door backwards? I don't think so. In a game where the playstyle has encouraged the use of rope to pull levers in the past, this might be correct, but that is a particular playstyle, not something that is prevalent among all gamers. Most gamers wouldn't even _think_ to pull the lever with a rope.

Just like most gamers wouldn't think to walk through the door backwards. But, in a game where the DM makes the PCs walk through doors funny, they'll use _augury_ to figure out how to walk through every door in a dungeon correctly. Thus, it is just as fair as the lever.



> Tell me specifically why you believe the OP's trap to be unfair, and then those claims can be rationally examined.  The idea that something -- anything -- is unfair because of some whim you may have is simply....unfair.




Because it will kill a PC in my game.



> They did everything right?  The rogue didn't maximize his chances of finding traps, did he?  In fact, although it is clear that the party suspected a trap, they did almost nothing to prevent falling victim to it.




Yes. They did everything right.

See, your belief that they should have taken extra precautions is purely based on your past experiences with your own style of gaming. It is a playstyle choice that you have chosen. In order to believe that there is an objectively fair trap, you have to believe that there is an objectively correct way to approach traps. In order to believe that there is an objectively correct way to approach traps, you have to believe that there is an objectively better way to play the game.

Your belief that they did almost nothing to prevent falling victim to it approaches insulting to my playstyle. Why does _your_ playstyle get to be the objectively correct one, but mine doesn't? Why is _your_ method of dealing with possible traps the objectively correct one while mine is inferior? Especially when your playstyle is in the minority!

The answer is that there is no objectively correct playstyle and thus there are no objectively fair traps.



> P.S.:  In my encounter example, you know an encounter took place.  There is something to be judged fair or unfair.  Lacking futher evidence, we should consider it fair.  In Ridley's Cohort's example, there is no encounter to be judged, so there is nothing to be said to be fair or unfair.




Hardly. Here's everything you told us about your null encounter:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is an encounter.




Here's everything he told us about his encounter:



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Here is some information regarding a hypothetical encounter to look at:




In both, we know that an encounter exists, and that's it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard, 

There is no decision to make the PCs use a rope to pull a lever.  There is a lever, and it is trapped.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Your belief that they did almost nothing to prevent falling victim to it approaches insulting to my playstyle. Why does _your_ playstyle get to be the objectively correct one, but mine doesn't? Why is _your_ method of dealing with possible traps the objectively correct one while mine is inferior? Especially when your playstyle is in the minority!




A few things:

(1) They did almost nothing.  The rogue Searched.  That is all they did.  The rogue didn't even Take 10 or Take 20 to normalize or maximize his chance of success.  If this is somehow not "almost nothing" then I have to ask what could they have done that would have been both some form of action, and yet closer to nothing?  Have the monk Search?  And if they did have the monk Search instead, I imagine that you would still find the observation insulting to your playstyle.

(2)  Objectively fair and objectively correct are not co-equal.  Just as all salmon are fish, but not all fish are salmon, all playstyles have the potential to be objectively fair, but not everything that is objectively fair is part of one particular playstyle.  The set of encounters which is objectively fair is greater than the set of encounters that make up normal within the context of any playstyle.

Thus, when you say things like "The answer is that there is no objectively correct playstyle and thus there are no objectively fair traps", the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

(3)  That the aforementioned observations approach insulting _*any*_ playstyle is ludicrous.

(4)  You obviously missed the several times that I said I would not personally use a trap like this as a DM.  We are not talking about my playstyle vs. your playstyle.  The encounter in the OP is not in my preferred playstyle.  It is, nonetheless, fair.  Fair is not fair simply because I like it.  Nor is unfair simply unfair because you don't like it.



> In both, we know that an encounter exists, and that's it.




Then both should be considered fair until/unless we have reason to believe otherwise.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is no decision to make the PCs use a rope to pull a lever. There is a lever, and it is trapped.




There is no decision to make the PCs walk through the doorway backwards. There is a doorway and it is trapped. The PCs can walk through the doorway forward if they want. They'll just die. Just like the PCs can pull the lever if they want. They'll just die.



> (1) They did almost nothing.  The rogue Searched.  That is all they did.  The rogue didn't even Take 10 or Take 20 to normalize or maximize his chance of success.




That's an assumption. We know the rogue used the Search skill, we do not know how. It could be that he spent 1 round. It could be that he spent 20. There is no way for us to know either way.



> (2)  Objectively fair and objectively correct are not co-equal.  Just as all salmon are fish, but not all fish are salmon, all playstyles have the potential to be objectively fair, but not everything that is objectively fair is part of one particular playstyle.  The set of encounters which is objectively fair is greater than the set of encounters that make up normal within the context of any playstyle.




I disagree. For a trap to be objectively fair, there has to be an objectively correct way to to handle traps.

How about this? The objectively correct way to check for traps is to make a Search check and assume you are correct in your check. Therefore, the only objectively fair traps are those which can be detected with the search skill of the PC with the highest possible Search check. Therefore, the trap in question is objecively unfair.

QED

Can you prove that wrong? If it is objective, you can provide a proof to the contrary.



> (3)  That the aforementioned observations approach insulting _*any*_ playstyle is ludicrous.




No, it isn't. And it is insulting. If there is an objectively fair way to handle traps, then there _has to be_ an objectively correct way to approach traps as a PC. Otherwise, the trap wouldn't be objectively fair. If there weren't an objectively fair way to approach traps in game as a PC then it would be impossible to know if a trap were fair or not unless we know the group's playstyle.

Which is what I've been saying all along. Fairness is completely determined by the group dynamic. There is no objectively fair trap that is independant of the group its attached to. There is no control group that completely lacks a playstyle which we can examine to determiine what is fair or unfair.

This trap in particular is indicative of a playstyle that practically died out in the larger gaming community about a decade and a half ago. If ENWorld weren't made up of so many old school gamers who started in OD&D and 1e D&D then I would imagine that the numbers would be skewed even further toward unfair. That a community made up of so many old schoolers _still_ has a majority that says its unfair should indicate this to us.



> (4)  You obviously missed the several times that I said I would not personally use a trap like this as a DM.  We are not talking about my playstyle vs. your playstyle.  The encounter in the OP is not in my preferred playstyle.  It is, nonetheless, fair.  Fair is not fair simply because I like it.  Nor is unfair simply unfair because you don't like it.




That's exactly how it works. You keep saying that there is an objective fairness. That just isn't true unless you start preaching the One True Way, which I know you won't do. There is no magical group out there who can determine whether something is fair or not, because there is no context that you are putting it in other than "all games everywhere."

There can probably be an objective fair in tournament modules designed for a particular group. There can probably be an objective fair in Living campaigns in the RPGA. There can probably be objective fair in a particular DM's given home game. There cannot be an objective fair that has any validity in all games everywhere.



> Then both should be considered fair until/unless we have reason to believe otherwise.




I disagree. There isn't enough information for me to make a decision.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 6, 2006)

Raven Crowking, ThirdWizard-
I can't tell exactly what you guys are disagreeing over but I'm starting to suspect that there's not as much of a disagreement as it seems.  I agree with both of your posts (the parts I understand) so how can you disagree so much with each other?  Maybe there are just a few (minor) points to be ironed out.

RC - From what I gather, you would want "fairness" to be objective and universal.  This IMO is sensible.  A term like "fairness" implies something universal, because it really only has context in agreements between people.  It makes no sense to use subjective personal standards in those cases.  By nature, "fairness" has to be something that parties have a chance to agree to.  Defining it as "whatever an individual wants" defeats the purpose.  No one wants to be called "unfair" based on someones personal standard, because "unfair/fair" has connotations of a universal opinion from society.  In other words, it strongly implies that most/all others would have the same opinion (about your trap, or whatever).

Therefore, it makes sense that you would want to choose the most inclusive definition of fairness.  If some possible play-style deems a trap "fair", then it serves no purpose to call the trap otherwise.

ThirdWizard - I think the problem here is the use of the word "fair".  You agreed with me that campaign standards were reasonably set by individual DMs.  Equating "not suitable for my campaign" with "unfair" IMO is mixing the personal with the universal.  When you're making a comment that you intend to be taken in the context of your own campaign and preferences, the use of the word "unfair" may be construed by some to be meant as a universal comment, ie. a comment on their play style, or a universal comment.  Using "fair" with your gaming group is easier because they understand the context.

*If* there were to be a universal standard, judged by some Council of Fairness, I believe that RCs recommendation (as I understand it) that it be a liberal definition is sensible - even if that renders the definition pretty much useless to any DM that's not a psychopath.  The individual DM would still have to decide, with no input from the Council, whether or not a particular trap was appropriate for his gaming group.  This is the kind of environment that I believe ThirdWizard is arguing for, and it's the kind of environment that RCs recommendations create - so where's the dispute?  

So if anything I've written has been a clarification, maybe you two can agree that you don't disagree that much.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I disagree.




Obviously.



> For a trap to be objectively fair, there has to be an objectively correct way to to handle traps.




Now I disagree.  For a deadly trap to be objectively fair, there has to exist the means to handle the trap, and there have to be sufficient clues to denote a trap.  A nusiance trap would not have the same standards.



> How about this? The objectively correct way to check for traps is to make a Search check and assume you are correct in your check. Therefore, the only objectively fair traps are those which can be detected with the search skill of the PC with the highest possible Search check. Therefore, the trap in question is objecively unfair.




Not remotely.

(1)  How is making a Search check objectively better than Taking 10 or Taking 20?

(2)  By what means do you determine that one should be able to assume that the check will locate any trap that might be within the area searched?

(3)  If you don't bother to maximize your check, why would it make any difference who makes the check in regards to the highest possible Search check?

(4)  Should the Aid Another action be performed?

(5)  What if the person with the highest possible Search check is not a rogue?  In this case, the individual cannot detect certain traps.



> Can you prove that wrong? If it is objective, you can provide a proof to the contrary.




Done.

(Though, of course, you will say not done.    )



> No, it isn't. And it is insulting. If there is an objectively fair way to handle traps, then there _has to be_ an objectively correct way to approach traps as a PC. Otherwise, the trap wouldn't be objectively fair. If there weren't an objectively fair way to approach traps in game as a PC then it would be impossible to know if a trap were fair or not unless we know the group's playstyle.




Not at all.

You are essentially claiming that fairness only exists within the context of a certain playstyle.  In other words, you must have A + B to determine whether or not A is fair.  I do not believe your proposition is true.  

You seem to draw this conclusion because a given thing that I might say is fair would not be fair within the context of your playstyle.  Nonetheless, it is obvious that A can be fair, and B can be fair, without A + B being fair.  

You are, essentially, making the claim that if A + B is not fair, A (trap/incident) cannot be fair....but somehow B (playstyle/context) can be (or else what could be the source of your feelings of insult?).

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> RC - From what I gather, you would want "fairness" to be objective and universal.  This IMO is sensible.  A term like "fairness" implies something universal, because it really only has context in agreements between people.  It makes no sense to use subjective personal standards in those cases.  By nature, "fairness" has to be something that parties have a chance to agree to.  Defining it as "whatever an individual wants" defeats the purpose.  No one wants to be called "unfair" based on someones personal standard, because "unfair/fair" has connotations of a universal opinion from society.  In other words, it strongly implies that most/all others would have the same opinion (about your trap, or whatever).




Mostly correct.  The value of the idea of normative behavior, particularly in something like the philosophy of ethics, is that one can attempt to achieve some degree of objectivity.  An ethical philosophy mandates that the general opinions of societies related to ethics are accountable to rational examination in the same way that the opinions of individuals are.  In other words, something isn't unethical or unfair simply because most people think it is; some demonstrable and abnormal disparity must exist.

This is not altogether dissimilar from the "reasonable man" test in law.  It is not enough to say that the general opinion might be X, but rather one tries to determine if, in a given situation, a reasonable person would agree and/or believe X.

One does not have to disprove all possibilities to find someone guilty of a crime; one needs merely to remove believable possibilities until guilt is established "beyond the shadow of a doubt".  In this case, whether or not the trap is fair is not as consequential as determining guilt related to a crime, and the determinant of unfairness can therefore be reduced accordingly....let us say "beyond reasonable doubt".

IMHO, the "proofs" offered that this trap is unfair, in this case, fall far below a reasonable standard.

So, rather than promoting "the most inclusive definition of fairness....even if that renders the definition pretty much useless to any DM that's not a psychopath" I am promoting a _reasonably inclusive_ definition of fairness, that recognizes that there is a difference between _intrinsic fairness_ and whether or not something is fair _within a particular subset of context_.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Now I disagree.  For a deadly trap to be objectively fair, there has to exist the means to handle the trap, and there have to be sufficient clues to denote a trap.  A nusiance trap would not have the same standards.




_In your oppinion._

That's what you keep missing. That is your oppinion. That is not fact. That is not objective truth. That is a logical conclusion based on what you've come to learn playing the game of D&D. Someone else's logical conclusion could be completely different but that doesn't make it illogical or less objective than yours. You can't proclaim that you are correct and expect me to just accept that.



> (1)  How is making a Search check objectively better than Taking 10 or Taking 20?




I never said they weren't taking 20.



> (2)  By what means do you determine that one should be able to assume that the check will locate any trap that might be within the area searched?




By the RAW.



> (3)  If you don't bother to maximize your check, why would it make any difference who makes the check in regards to the highest possible Search check?




It doesn't. But, then, you can't prove that that is a bad thing, can you?



> (4)  Should the Aid Another action be performed?




No.



> (5)  What if the person with the highest possible Search check is not a rogue?  In this case, the individual cannot detect certain traps.




Then you can't use those certain traps.



> Done.
> 
> (Though, of course, you will say not done.    )




You are correct, not done. 

All you've done is submit reasons that this style of play wouldn't work for you. You haven't submitted any proof that this is a not _objective_. For example, expecting that the majority of D&D players have an above average intelligence shouldn't be done, so we have to conclude that the Search skill should be all that is necessary for the vast majority of D&D games out there. To say otherwise would be to penalize gamers of average intelligence. Thus, we can't assume any creative thought whatsoever.



> Not at all.
> 
> You are essentially claiming that fairness only exists within the context of a certain playstyle.  In other words, you must have A + B to determine whether or not A is fair.  I do not believe your proposition is true.




There is no "absense of B." B is always present. Always. Even if you don't know it is. You have a B that you are using to form what you believe is fair. Same for me. We can't remove ourselves from these contexts. 

If you had played in only my games your whole life, then do you not think that your oppinion on what is fair and what is not fair would be closer to mine?

You seem to be claiming some kind of objectivity that is above other people's. Where do these credentials come from? What makes you the final arbiter in what is fair and what is not fair more than I? You are making the claim that you are a better judge of what is and is not fair than the majority of ENWorld itself!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Someone else's logical conclusion could be completely different but that doesn't make it illogical or less objective than yours.




No...but someone else's _logical_ opinion wouldn't have an ever-shifting burden of proof, either.  A logical opinion does not rely upon logical fallacy.  Moreover, a _logical_ opinion can be examined, and examing that opinion is not an insult to the person who promoted it.



> I never said they weren't taking 20.




"Using Search =/= to "Taking 20 while using Search".



> By the RAW.




Please tell me where in the RAW it states that one should be able to assume that one's Search check will locate any trap that might be within the area searched?  If not, please tell me which statements you infer this from.



> All you've done is submit reasons that this style of play wouldn't work for you. You haven't submitted any proof that this is a not _objective_. For example, expecting that the majority of D&D players have an above average intelligence shouldn't be done, so we have to conclude that the Search skill should be all that is necessary for the vast majority of D&D games out there. To say otherwise would be to penalize gamers of average intelligence. Thus, we can't assume any creative thought whatsoever.




You don't really believe that, do you?

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No...but someone else's _logical_ opinion wouldn't have an ever-shifting burden of proof, either.  A logical opinion does not rely upon logical fallacy.  Moreover, a _logical_ opinion can be examined, and examing that opinion is not an insult to the person who promoted it.




I don't know what ever-shifting burden of proof you're referring to. And, relying on logical fallacy? What are you talking about? I gave a reason for the trap to be unfair just as objective as your reason for it to be fair. And, yet you can give no proof that it isn't objective.



> "Using Search =/= to "Taking 20 while using Search".




Fine, it doesn't matter. They should be able to roll a 1 and find any trap. Prove that is "wrong."



> Please tell me where in the RAW it states that one should be able to assume that one's Search check will locate any trap that might be within the area searched?  If not, please tell me which statements you infer this from.




The RAW doesn't state that, but it does state that all traps can be found with a Search check. The playstyle indicates that all traps should be able to be found by a party if it is to be used against that party. This isn't my playstyle, but I don't claim that it is a less objective playstyle than my own. To do so would be... insulting.



> You don't really believe that, do you?




Actually, you would have to if you were going to establish some kind of objective standard for what is and what is not fair. You would have to establish the lowest common denominator. If most D&D players are not of above average intelligence, then an objective trap cannot require an above average intelligence to bypass. That wouldn't be fair.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> By the RAW.



So if it's there to be found, and you take 20, you *have* to find it?  More evidence why "take-20" is a bad rule...



> Then you can't use those certain traps.



What?! Are you telling me that as a DM I can't design a trap into a module that can only be found the hard way?  Poppycock, says this old curmudgeon!

Lanefan


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> So if it's there to be found, and you take 20, you *have* to find it?  More evidence why "take-20" is a bad rule...
> 
> What?! Are you telling me that as a DM I can't design a trap into a module that can only be found the hard way?  Poppycock, says this old curmudgeon!
> 
> Lanefan




Not at all. I'm saying that if someone has that certain playstyle, you can't tell them that they are playing the game objectively wrong. I'm saying that they aren't having wrongbadfun, and they are just as entitled to play the way they think is best as you are entitled to play the way you think is best.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There is no "absense of B." B is always present. Always. Even if you don't know it is. You have a B that you are using to form what you believe is fair. Same for me. We can't remove ourselves from these contexts.




Is your playstyle the only playstyle which is fair?

If you believe so, then we are obviously not going to agree.  If not, then you must believe that there are other playstyles which are fair.

These things form a set.  Let us call it "Fair Playstyles".  

If you do not believe that there are unfair playstyles, then the set is inclusive of all playstyles.  However, even if the set is empty or contains only one playstyle, we can create another set called "Unfair Playstyles".

Now, I would argue that a playstyle in which the DM tries to kill the PCs, or a playstyle in which the DM tries to force the PCs to take actions he directs, are automatically part of the set of Unfair Playstyles.  In essence, I would argue that the set of Unfair Playstyles consists of those playstyles in which the intent is not to play fair.  YMMV.

I would then argue that something which falls into the set of "Fair Playstyles" is either fair or an aberration (because anyone can make a mistake, even if their intent is to be fair).

A thing can be unfair because it is not intended to be fair in the first place, or a thing can be unfair because it doesn't live up to the intent to be fair.  However, the context of fairness itself is the set of Fair Playstyles, not the subset of My Favorite Playstyle.



> If you had played in only my games your whole life, then do you not think that your oppinion on what is fair and what is not fair would be closer to mine?




I don't know.  Does the question mean that I never played in any other games, or that I was never given the opportunity to study logic, philosophy, and ethics?  If it means only the first, then I would imagine not.  _It does not follow that because your game is fair, games that are not like yours are unfair._  One does not have to have experience of multiple playstyles to recognize the logical fallacy involved here:

If my game is fair, then games unlike mine must be unfair.

If a salmon is a fish, then things unlike salmon must not be fish.​
The problem is not that the statement is _wrong_ per se.  The problem is that, because what makes a salmon a fish is not determined, you do not know how something must vary from a salmon in order to not be a fish.  Using this reasoning, one could easily conclude that sharks, skates, rays, eels, and even trout are not fish.  Yet they are all fish.

As a salmon is an object in the set Fish, your fair game is part of the set Fair Playstyles.  If you define fairness _in an example outside your game_ using the standard of your game rather the the standard of the set to which your game belongs, you are in the same position as the person who determines that eels are not fish because eels are in some ways dissimilar to salmon.



> You seem to be claiming some kind of objectivity that is above other people's. Where do these credentials come from? What makes you the final arbiter in what is fair and what is not fair more than I? You are making the claim that you are a better judge of what is and is not fair than the majority of ENWorld itself!




Please.  If logic, study of ethics, and objectivity were more widespread, every advertising agency in the world would go bankrupt.  There is a reason why corrupt governments discourage and/or cut funding to education, you know.  

I am hardly the final arbiter as to what is fair or not.  Anyone who bothers to examine the situation logically, and uses that examination to create a logical argument, is presumably capable of being objective.  OTOH, am I hardly likely to agree that you are right simply because you are strident.

You claim, in effect, that the only determinant of fairness is "Because it will kill a PC in my game."  This is the very definition of subjectivity, and the antithesis of objectivity.  In other words, within this debate I am more objective than you simply because you choose to argue from a basis which is as strongly subjective as possible.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Fine, it doesn't matter. They should be able to roll a 1 and find any trap. Prove that is "wrong."




That is an example of the ever-shifting burden of proof.  At one point, we actually agreed on a burden of proof.  What made you change your mind?  I submit that it was that, as the consequences of that burden of proof became apparent, they did not support your position.

BTW, what you are doing above is also a combination of several logical fallacies, including the ubiquitous strawman and red herring techniques.  



> The RAW doesn't state that, but it does state that all traps can be found with a Search check. The playstyle indicates that all traps should be able to be found by a party if it is to be used against that party.




Quote, please.



> Actually, you would have to if you were going to establish some kind of objective standard for what is and what is not fair. You would have to establish the lowest common denominator. If most D&D players are not of above average intelligence, then an objective trap cannot require an above average intelligence to bypass. That wouldn't be fair.




No.  You must establish the lowest common denominator if, and only if, the basis for "fairness" is in relationship to each individual.  Which might be why you find the "difficult" trap of the OP unfair, while I find it fair.  I am saying that the trap is fair if it falls within the set of "Fair Playstyles" while you are saying that it is fair only if it falls within the lowest common denominator of that set.  

That also explains "They should be able to roll a 1 and find any trap."


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Not at all. I'm saying that if someone has that certain playstyle, you can't tell them that they are playing the game objectively wrong. I'm saying that they aren't having wrongbadfun, and they are just as entitled to play the way they think is best as you are entitled to play the way you think is best.




Does that mean that the trap in the OP is fair?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2006)

No no no. You have missed it.

"Because it will kill a PC in my game" is how I determine fairness for purposes in this poll. That is how I determine if I should use something in my game. If it will kill a PC in my game, then I can't use it because it would be unfair.

That doesn't mean it holds anything for games other than mine. Let me quote myself before:



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Some groups might find anything acceptable so long as it isn't a 100% chance of a TPK. Others might find something acceptable only if all the PCs have a chance to survive.




Fair and unfair are merely subjective qualities. There is no such thing as a fair game. There is no such thing as an unfair game. There are only fair and unfair encounters that depend completely on the social contract of the game in question. In one game, this trap might very well be fair. It isn't in mine, and that's the only way I know to vote besides Other, which I think is a cop out.

I'm not the one claiming that there is an objective fair out there, _you are_. You're the one claiming that there is a way to determine if something is fair or not and if it doesn't conform to what you believe to be fair then it isn't fair. You're the one claiming that if it does conform to what you believe to be fair then it is fair. Not me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> "Because it will kill a PC in my game" is how I determine fairness for purposes in this poll. That is how I determine if I should use something in my game. If it will kill a PC in my game, then I can't use it because it would be unfair.




Okay.  But the OP _isn't in your game_.

Is it fair or not?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That is an example of the ever-shifting burden of proof.  At one point, we actually agreed on a burden of proof.  What made you change your mind?  I submit that it was that, as the consequences of that burden of proof became apparent, they did not support your position.




So, you can proclaim something as true, I have to prove it wrong, but if I want to proclaim something as truth, you don't have to prove it wrong is what you're saying.

I never said that that the thing we agreed on before applies to all people everywhere. I can't even begin to comprehend how that would be possible. It works _for my game_. But, that doesn't mean it can work for all games everywhere. There's a huge difference. And as soon as you started saying that it was objective, then the implication is that it should be universal, and that is just not true.



> Quote, please.




Seriously?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Search And Disable Device DCs
> 
> The builder sets the Search and Disable Device DCs for a mechanical trap. For a magic trap, the values depend on the highest-level spell used.
> Mechanical Trap
> ...






> No.  You must establish the lowest common denominator if, and only if, the basis for "fairness" is in relationship to each individual.  Which might be why you find the "difficult" trap of the OP unfair, while I find it fair.  I am saying that the trap is fair if it falls within the set of "Fair Playstyles" while you are saying that it is fair only if it falls within the lowest common denominator of that set.




You're trying to determine a universal objective fairness correct? Well, if you want to determine a universal objective fairness, you have to take into considerations groups other than your own.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Okay.  But the OP _isn't in your game_.
> 
> Is it fair or not?




It isn't in your game either.

Honestly, I can't determine if it is fair or unfair based on the OP because I don't know what the context of the game is in question. I belive I've admitted that somewhere back on page 3 or 4 or something. 

But, that isn't the _point_ of the poll. The point of the poll is to determine what people think of the trap in question, and I have to say that I find it unfair in the context of what I think is and is not fair based on what I find and do not find fun and appealing in a game of Dungeons and Dragons.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 6, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> "Because it will kill a PC in my game" is how I determine fairness for purposes in this poll. That is how I determine if I should use something in my game. If it will kill a PC in my game, then I can't use it because it would be unfair.



That solves traps, but how about monsters?  Do you ever run anything against your PC's that exceeds their ability to deal with it, such that their only option is to *leave it alone*; or that the party will most likely only be able to kill if they take casualties in the process?  Do you ever run assassins against the party, well enough that if the target PC standing watch fails one spot/listen check (and if the Assassin is good enough, that'd be a right hard check) that PC is auto-dead if the Assassin hits?  If yes, then the discussion returns to this trap.  If no, then I suspect in general you're rather easy on your PC's...

As a DM, it's your *job* to try and kill the PC's.  Furthermore, it's your job to succeed once in a while so the players know the threat is real and will play their characters accordingly...   

Lanefan


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> That solves traps, but how about monsters?  Do you ever run anything against your PC's that exceeds their ability to deal with it, such that their only option is to *leave it alone*; or that the party will most likely only be able to kill if they take casualties in the process?




It depends on what you mean. The PCs know about a green dragon that is poweful (though they don't know its exact age category). It would slaughter them right now, and they could go fight it if they wished. There are also a pair of axiomatic illithids that they can go attack if they want, but if they do, they'll definately suffer at least one casualty.

Also, as they go up in levels they are facing more save or die situations in combat encounters, but _raise dead_ and _ressurection_ become more easily available as those get more difficult. I've had a 2 PC deaths over the last 3 sessions because of a string of bad rolls. In all these cases, though, they've had what I consider a fair chance, based on what I consider acceptable die roll requirements (hey, its a random game).

I don't drop encounters on them that are 100% lethal to one PC without giving them an opportunity to avoid it, however. I recently had a PC die in a surprise round due to bad rolls in an assassin attack, and he's been complaining about it endlessly, but I stand by my actions. He had a Spot roll, there were three attack rolls, and there was a saving throw involved. That's enough for my book to make it fair.



> Do you ever run assassins against the party, well enough that if the target PC standing watch fails one spot/listen check (and if the Assassin is good enough, that'd be a right hard check) that PC is auto-dead if the Assassin hits? If yes, then the discussion returns to this trap. If no, then I suspect in general you're rather easy on your PC's...




I suppose I would, but that would be an insanely difficult check considering Death Attack has to be used with a melee attack. The PCs in my game use Leomund's Tiny Hut, though, when traveling. I also run more urban games, and the PCs know to spend their money on hired guards, and have outfitted their guard captain with magical items.

Their enemy actually had a contract taken out against them with an assassin's guild. They would be randomly attacked, and that resulted in two PC fatalities before they did anything about it, finally.



> As a DM, it's your *job* to try and kill the PC's.  Furthermore, it's your job to succeed once in a while so the players know the threat is real and will play their characters accordingly...




I disagree. My job is to challenge the PCs in a way that the group deems fair in order to maximize fun.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 6, 2006)

> So, rather than promoting "the most inclusive definition of fairness....even if that renders the definition pretty much useless to any DM that's not a psychopath" I am promoting a _reasonably inclusive_ definition of fairness, that recognizes that there is a difference between _intrinsic fairness_ and whether or not something is fair _within a particular subset of context_.




"Reasonably inclusive" seems subjective to me.  "Reasonableness" is not objective.  If it were, we wouldn't need a jury of people to vote their opinion on what constituted reasonable, but that's exactly what they do.  I would be very skeptical of someone who claims to be able to define reasonable in a way that excludes cultural and personal idiosyncracies and still resembles what people's working definition of the word means.  "Reasonable" is just another subjective word, and so would be of little help.

What the law establishes is a set of procedures and definitions that are used to judge a situation.  It attempts to remove layers of subjectivity in terms of definitions, but not results.  So if the difference of degrees in murder is clearly defined as differences in premeditation, it helps to clarify that, even if in the end it comes down to the subjective opinions of the jury as to what happened.  

_That_ premeditation _is_ an important factor in how a murder should be punished is _not_ objective.  It is entirely derived from custom and habit.  It's what "feels" right to the majority and it was decided based on consensus.  _That_ a trap should allow a chance of survival is equally subjective and based on custom and habit.

In the world of DnD and judging traps, we're in a very primitive situation (and also in a situation that you would be hard pressed to say is a matter of "the common good").  Nobody (AFAIK) has even agreed on what the % fatality of a trap ought to be, much less what a given traps % fatality is.  IMO people are never going to agree on the former (differences in old-school and new-school, for example) and there's no Council to vote on the latter.  

In the case of traps:
1.  is the rogue responsible for maxing out his ranks in search, and does he deserve to die if he takes fewer ranks (or puts a sub-optimal score in int, etc.)
2.  is it unfair if one person dies and everyone else lives? (cf. Survivor)
3.  is it unfair if one person lives and everyone else dies?  (cf. Monopoly)
4.  is it unfair if everyone eventually dies (cf. Pac Man, real life)
5.  is the chance of survival to include the use of augury?
6.  is the chance of survival to include not having discovered the trap (ie. not gone down that passage, not pulled the lever) to begin with?

That's off the top of my head.  Those are _all_ subjective issues AFAICT and I really don't think much is to be gained by assuming the answers (as people often do) and then arguing at cross-purposes with someone else who has a different set of answers.  

If two people agree on the basics (which can be an involved process to identify/define to begin with) then maybe there's some use in ferreting out inconsistencies.  For example, if I believe that a "fair" game is one where the PCs survive all of the time, then pointing out that a trap might kill my PCs would be useful.  

One thing that could help would be defining a set of criteria.  The "Raven Seal of Trap Approval" for example (sounds grim).  Then you could say, according to that defined standard, how a given trap rates (which reduces the level of subjectivity by one).  Calling such a standard "reasonable and universal" (and by implication, those who do not agree are marginalized and unreasonable) is somewhat risky (to put it nicely).  It amounts to telling people how to play RPGs and I don't think the industry (consensus) really has the stomach for it, for what that's worth.  So why should we?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2006)

gizmo makes the words better than me


----------



## Crust (Sep 6, 2006)

Looks like a classic _Tomb of Horrors _ insta-death.

I suppose if the PCs knew they were trespassing through some awful sanctum, they might expect devious traps set to bar intruders.

If it that lever were placed someplace where people or other creatures traveled, where anyone might grab the lever and risk disintegration, that would be ridiculous on the DM's part.  

Taken all by itself, it seems unfair, but I see a _Tomb of Horrors _ situation there, where peril clearly lurks around every corner.  An anti-magic field might have helped there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

ThirdWizard,

Maybe I'm not seeing what you're getting at with the part of the RAW you quoted.  The RAW states that all traps have a Search DC, and one can take that to mean that all traps can be found with a Seach check (by a qualified searcher), but I am still waiting for where you got "The playstyle indicates that all traps should be able to be found by a party if it is to be used against that party." in the RAW.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> ThirdWizard,
> 
> Maybe I'm not seeing what you're getting at with the part of the RAW you quoted.  The RAW states that all traps have a Search DC, and one can take that to mean that all traps can be found with a Seach check (by a qualified searcher), but I am still waiting for where you got "The playstyle indicates that all traps should be able to be found by a party if it is to be used against that party." in the RAW.




I thought you were questioning "All traps have a search DC"

Afterall, we don't know that the OP example trap had one, unless we assume the scenario followed the RAW.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> "Reasonably inclusive" seems subjective to me.




I don't disagree with you.  However, while we cannot ever be certain that we are being as objective, or as reasonable, as possible, we can certainly strive to be as objective and reasonable as we can.  We cannot always be certain that we are determining guilt and innocence justly, but that is not an excuse for simply throwing up our hands and declaring the entire thing to fall within the bounds of subjectivity.



> In the case of traps:
> 1. is the rogue responsible for maxing out his ranks in search, and does he deserve to die if he takes fewer ranks (or puts a sub-optimal score in int, etc.)
> 2. is it unfair if one person dies and everyone else lives? (cf. Survivor)
> 3. is it unfair if one person lives and everyone else dies? (cf. Monopoly)
> ...




My answers would be:

1.  No.  However, netiher should the rogue expect all traps to fall within his ability to Search (whether he has maximized ranks or not) unless this is an implicit or explicit part of the group social contract.

2.  That would not be an unfair game setup, but it would be nasty and probably unfair to spring on a party _unless_ it was set up by NPCs or PCs in game and the PCs had some options or ability to figure a way out of the "Survivor" game.  That they fail to do so does not make it unfair, however.

3.  As #2.

4.  No, unless this is an implicit or explicit part of your group social contract, especially if real life is the model and there is a mechanism to change the campaign world/grant legacies to your progeny.  

5.  Sometimes, specifically if one can reason out the probability of a trap without resorting to the mechanics of the game, and augury (or similar magics/mechanics) are used to confirm or deny the result of that reasoning process.

6.  No, unless the chance of discover is 0%, in which case it is a moot point.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> My answers would be:




_Your_ answers.

If someone has different answers than you, do you consider it brought on by some kind of bias that is imparing their objectivity, or do you think their answers have as much merit as your own? Do you consider answers that differ from yours as being subjective answers based on their own playstyle?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> _Your_ answers.




That must be why I said "My answers".....  



> If someone has different answers than you, do you consider it brought on by some kind of bias that is imparing their objectivity, or do you think their answers have as much merit as your own?




Depends.

Example:

(1)  Ketchup.

Not as much merit as my answer.



> Do you consider answers that differ from yours as being subjective answers based on their own playstyle?




Depends.

Example:

(2)  It would kill a PC in my game, therefore is unfair.

Not as objective.  However, it would be equally objective were the reply "It would kill a PC in my game, therefore is unfair _in my game_.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 7, 2006)

Isn't that the definition of an oppinion then? Not a fact?


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with you.  However, while we cannot ever be certain that we are being as objective, or as reasonable, as possible, we can certainly strive to be as objective and reasonable as we can.  We cannot always be certain that we are determining guilt and innocence justly, but that is not an excuse for simply throwing up our hands and declaring the entire thing to fall within the bounds of subjectivity.




"Throwing up our hands" IMO is not the logical result of recognizing the subjectivity in an issue.  People collaborate on creative, subjective issues all of time - I really don't think that talking only about the subset of issues that can be made objective (and can they?) is the only option - or is as useful.  More than one person could not write a song (and they do all of the time) if they confined their activities to just what was "provable".  I think if people are going to talk about setting up an interesting adventure for an RPG, it's a similar situation.  I think that recognizing the subjectivity makes for a more respectful environment.   That doesn't mean that I won't have opinions and express them (ex. "killing PCs once in a while is good for them") it's just that I don't want to forget that they're opinions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Isn't that the definition of an oppinion then? Not a fact?




I refer you to Post 583.

BTW, are you still of the opinion that this is a "simple" matter, and that the DM simply created a trap that he knew the PCs had no chance of surviving?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> "Throwing up our hands" IMO is not the logical result of recognizing the subjectivity in an issue.




No, but claiming that the most objective one can be in determining fairness is to examine a thing in light of one's one preferences _*is*_ IMHO "throwing up our hands".  While we cannot ever be certain that we are being as objective, or as reasonable, as possible, we can certainly strive to be as objective and reasonable as we can.

The claim that promoting a reasonably inclusive definition of fairness, that recognizes that there is a difference between intrinsic fairness and whether or not something is fair within a particular subset of context is equivilent to promoting "the most inclusive definition of fairness....even if that renders the definition pretty much useless to any DM that's not a psychopath" is also, IMHO "throwing up our hands" because it denies that we can ever rise above a contextual subset.

I am certainly not alone in this thread in declaring that, while I might not use the trap, the trap is not unfair....in other words, _despite my contextual subset_ the trap remains fair.  Contrast this with a response that declares _the trap is fair only if it is fair within my contextual subset_.

These are not co-equal positions.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 7, 2006)

Post 583 does nothing to confirm or deny whether or not you see your position as the "correct" position. One problem is that the only proof you've given to your own objectivity is that you are claiming to be objective. This is mostly because one can't prove that one is being objective. But, I still don't see any reason to believe that your oppinion is more objective than my own. Indeed, I need some kind of reasonable proof that my oppinion is wrong if I'm going to accept it.

And while your desire for there to be an objective intrinsic fair value is admirable, I think it is an unreachable goal, especially with the approach you are taking. For example, you were appalled by the idea that a trap should not include creative thought. This is an example of your playstyle showing bias in your results. If you were truly being objective, then you would consider the possibility that it is a correct assessment.

If the average D&D player's IQ is 110 (mainly because D&D has many more high IQ players than low IQ players so the average goes up), then a ubiquitously fair trap would have to take that into consideration. You would have to do a study on the average IQ of the D&D player and add a rule that says that as the trap difficulty begins requiring IQs higher than this average (though we should probably use mode), then the lethality must go down.

Surley you can't believe that requiring a population made up of 110 IQ players to have 120 IQs be fair, correct? You can't require a 2nd grade class to pass a 4th grade test after all, and call it a fair test. So, we have to discover what these numbers actually are, and then build off of that.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Do _you_ think/feel the above scenario is fair?




Fair? Yes.

Fun? No.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> And while your desire for there to be an objective intrinsic fair value is admirable, I think it is an unreachable goal, especially with the approach you are taking. For example, you were appalled by the idea that a trap should not include creative thought. This is an example of your playstyle showing bias in your results.




That "a trap should not include creative thought" in order to be determined fair is, indeed, appalling.  Please note, however, that this is not the same as claiming that a trap _must_ include creative thought to be either fair or fun.

Of course, my view in general is that something does not need to fall within the lowest common denominator to be fair, so that a trap might be fair even though it is too clever for me in particular.  YMMV, and obviously does.

As an aside, I brought up this thread to my 15-year-old son last night.  I used the wording of the OP.  He's played some D&D with others, but most of his experience comes from my home campaign (and you can read what I've managed to write of the campaign logs by following the link in my sig).  I've never used a trapped lever, and, in fact, seldom use traps.  Certainly I have never used a trap as fiendish as the one in the OP.

I got no farther than mentioning the lever when he stated that it was probably trapped.

Asked why, his answer was "It's obvious.  It's an obvious set-up."

RC

P.S.:  I think Storm Raven's analysis is fairly accurate.  Yes, the trap is fair.  No, the trap would not be fun for most players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

BTW, ThirdWizard, just to be clear, is the following a true statement?

If something is unfair, then using it would also be unfair


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 7, 2006)

*re*

Never done this as a DM. There is no point to setting up a trap like this. I wouldn't even play with a DM who used traps like this.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That "a trap should not include creative thought" in order to be determined fair is, indeed, appalling. Please note, however, that this is not the same as claiming that a trap must include creative thought to be either fair or fun.




Of course not. But, how about the reverse? If it requires creative thought, then it isn't objectively fair? If you dismiss this out of hand, then you are not being objective, and your own playstyle is interfering with your definition of fairness.



> Of course, my view in general is that something does not need to fall within the lowest common denominator to be fair, so that a trap might be fair even though it is too clever for me in particular.  YMMV, and obviously does.




I don't understand. Are you saying that in a group composed of 100 IQ people, it is fair to require them to have 120 IQs or die? That's _fair_?

What, exactly, will your definition of fair be useful for, if it isn't useful for the majority of the D&D playing population? How can something be unfair for the majority of the D&D playing population but still be objectively fair? Are you going to have to add a note for your "objective" fairness standard that says that you have to have an IQ of at least 120 for it to apply to them?

EDIT: Here's an example.

Say Person A is designing the standards that will be used in the fairness of testing 2nd grade students. Person A believes adamantly that it is fair for there to be trick questions on tests. He believes that trick questions are some of the best way to make sure the person knows the material well. A collegue, Person B, thinks that trick questions are bad, and that 2nd graders probably don't have the capacity to understand the concepts of trick questions.

Would it be prudent for Person A to:

1) Decide that he is right, and that trick questions are fair. The ability of 2nd graders to answer trick questions isn't of consequence.

2) Decide that he is right, and that trick questions are intrisinctly fair. 2nd graders should be abe to answer trick questions well enough for it to be fair, because trick questions are intrisinctly fair.

3) Do studies on whether or not 2nd graders are capable of answering trick questions with enough ability for these questions to be deemed fair.



> I got no farther than mentioning the lever when he stated that it was probably trapped.
> 
> Asked why, his answer was "It's obvious.  It's an obvious set-up."




Yeah... ENWorld message boards poll right above your post. I think over 300 responding individuals is going to trump the one person that you polled.



> BTW, ThirdWizard, just to be clear, is the following a true statement?
> 
> If something is unfair, then using it would also be unfair




That isn't quite right. Nothing is unfair without being used. In other words, without the context of its use, it is neither fair, nor unfair, it simply is. When it is used, then we can determine its fairness or unfairness.


----------



## Barak (Sep 7, 2006)

Where the trap is, and even how obvious it might be, to me, is sorta irrelevant.  A trap that kills someone who springs it despite the fact that they roll a 19 on a "good" save is a tad overkill for me, unless it guards something extremely important, and it's obvious that it does.  By the OP, this trap guards absolutely nothing, and so is just dumb and overkill.

And I don't even get to "Is it fair" before it fails the "does it make sense" test.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> That isn't quite right. Nothing is unfair without being used. In other words, without the context of its use, it is neither fair, nor unfair, it simply is. When it is used, then we can determine its fairness or unfairness.




So, are you saying that the trap in the OP is _not_ unfair?

Or, if you claim that the trap in the OP _is_ unfair, is it unfair to use it?

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, are you saying that the trap in the OP is _not_ unfair?
> 
> Or, if you claim that the trap in the OP _is_ unfair, is it unfair to use it?




In and of itself, it is neither fair not unfair. I've said that multiple times.

However, I don't think that the OP was concerned with whether it is absolutely fair or absolutely unfair (because that doesn't exist). I don't think the question in and of itself was the important part. The question, I think, is what our games consider fair and unfair, and in my game, this trap would be completely unfair.

By the way, check out my edit in my post above. I think your answer might help to shed some light for me on your oppinion here.


----------



## Barak (Sep 7, 2006)

Here's a trap.  DC 25 to find/disarm, 2d6+12 damage, Reflex save for half (DC 28)

Is that fair or unfair?


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Here's a trap.  DC 25 to find/disarm, 2d6+12 damage, Reflex save for half (DC 28)
> 
> Is that fair or unfair?



 Not enough information.  It's unfair at 1st level, but would be fair at 10th level.  "Fairness" scales as the PCs do.  However in the OP's scenario, the only thing to go on was that presumably the party searched, found nothing, and the character with the best saves failed on a natural 19.  That just screams "unbeatable trap" to me, which is why I feel it was unfair.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Sep 7, 2006)

>Oh man.

>I hate players who have 'end of of the world' syndrome. Come on. God forbid that there is something in the Dm's world that the pcs cant handle. That just unfair and unrealistic.    Its only fun if every chalange can be meet with a dice roll. Please. 

>Its one thing if the Dm is dumb sack of crap and sends first level parties agianst epic wizards and dragon's layer, but a single chalange, which can be solved by role playing instead of roll play. 

>But Not everything should be thesisable for the pc (but not nessasrly overwelming, like a army of 20th level wizards)  so they should travel with a sence of conservity, or else things like this happen. 

Sorry for any typos in advance.

---Rusty


----------



## Sound of Azure (Sep 7, 2006)

I think we all know what the real trap here was.  :\ 


Darn Mind-affecting traps.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> In and of itself, it is neither fair not unfair. I've said that multiple times.
> 
> However, I don't think that the OP was concerned with whether it is absolutely fair or absolutely unfair (because that doesn't exist). I don't think the question in and of itself was the important part. The question, I think, is what our games consider fair and unfair, and in my game, this trap would be completely unfair.




Well, then, that is fair.    

In fact, the only difference between the above statements and my opinion is that I make a presumption of fairness where you do not.  I view fair/unfair as an either/or state.  Something is either fair or it is not.  When one adds components to form a complex system, all of those components must be fair for the situation to be fair, but even fair components can be compounded to create an unfair whole.

I suppose, in a way, you are applying a Schrödinger's cat-type logic to the problem of ethics:  for you, the thing is neither fair nor unfair until it is "observed" in the context of a game.  (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat)  Of course, while ethics are not physics, I would argue (paraphrasing from the Wikpedia article) that the rules of ethics are no different for an act of observation than for other situations.

Celtavian's post, above, seems to suggest that he neither views the trap as fair, nor as part of any fair playstyle.  I could be wrong, of course, about what he means, but if this is what he is implying, then I would say that this is a fairly objective statement.  In fact, if this is what he is implying, then where we differ would be on our ideas as to what constitutes a _reasonable_ standard regarding what is, and is not, a fair playstyle.

It is what seems to me to be wishy-washy about your statements that I disagree with.  When you say "This Trap + My Playstyle = Unfair" I do not object.  But you apparently also mean to claim that "This Trap + Other Playstyle X = Fair".  Yet, how can this be if the trap itself is not fair?

I imagine that this might be because I see "unfairness" as an additive quality.  A situation or thing is fair until enough circumstances are added to make it unfair.  If you were somehow able to express circumstancial elements mathematically, adding up those elements would give you a threshold number over which the entire complex would cease to be fair.  As a result of this viewpoint, anything which, in and of itself, exceeds this threshold is unfair and would not normally be part of a "fair" complex...no matter who was the DM or what playstyle is involved.

Of course, there are circumstances in real life, such as self defence in the case of killing or harming another person, or even a handicap in a sport, where a circumstance might have a "subtractive" value that renders a thing which would be intrinsicaly unfair part of a fair complex.  I would agree that such a "subtractive" circumstance might occur in the context of a D&D game/playstyle, especially if you were catering to the lowest common denominator (i.e., handicapping one or more players in the same way that one might have a golf handicap).  OTOH, I cannot think of any way in which such a consideration would apply to make the trap in the OP part of a fair complex/playstyle were it not already below the "fair" threshold.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Here's a trap.  DC 25 to find/disarm, 2d6+12 damage, Reflex save for half (DC 28)
> 
> Is that fair or unfair?




The trap is fair.  That does not imply that using it under any circumstance is fair.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> That just screams "unbeatable trap" to me, which is why I feel it was unfair.




See, though, that is a rational observation, and it is subject to test.

The three criteria that I posted earlier, that ThirdWizard accepted (and then rejected), were designed to test _exactly that_ premise.

RC


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> See, though, that is a rational observation, and it is subject to test.
> 
> The three criteria that I posted earlier, that ThirdWizard accepted (and then rejected), were designed to test _exactly that_ premise.
> 
> RC



 You'll forgive me for not reading your critiera.. do you happen to remember what post number it was so I can see what you have to say?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Celtavian's post, above, seems to suggest that he neither views the trap as fair, nor as part of any fair playstyle.




I read it more as him saying he could never enjoy that playstyle, since he didn't use the terms fair or unfair in his response.



> It is what seems to me to be wishy-washy about your statements that I disagree with. When you say "This Trap + My Playstyle = Unfair" I do not object. But you apparently also mean to claim that "This Trap + Other Playstyle X = Fair". Yet, how can this be if the trap itself is not fair?




I don't see how a trap can, itself, be fair or unfair, without a context. How can you tell if there is a lack of bias if you don't know the context? How can you tell if the trap is impartial without the context?

Any trap, no matter what, can be fair or unfair given a proper context for the trap. Do you agree with that?

If you agree with that, then how do you determine where to draw the line? How can a trap be contextless?

If you disagree with that do you think that there is an intrisinctly unfair trap? Can people enjoy an unfair game?



> The three criteria that I posted earlier, that ThirdWizard accepted (and then rejected), were designed to test _exactly that_ premise.




Nah, the three criteria are perfect for my game. I'm just not going to say that they are perfect for all games. I'm perfectly willing to use those criteria in my own game. It isn't my place, though, to say that they apply to, say, Quasqueton's game.

EDIT: I accepted them before I realized you were trying to create an objective fairness.

I'm still curious about how you would answer this: 

Person A is designing the standards that will be used in the fairness of testing 2nd grade students. Person A believes adamantly that it is fair for there to be trick questions on tests. He believes that trick questions are some of the best way to make sure the person knows the material well. A collegue, Person B, thinks that trick questions are bad, and that 2nd graders probably don't have the capacity to understand the concepts of trick questions.

Would it be prudent for Person A to:

1) Decide that he is right, and that trick questions are fair. The ability of 2nd graders to answer trick questions isn't of consequence.

2) Decide that he is right, and that trick questions are intrisinctly fair. 2nd graders should be abe to answer trick questions well enough for it to be fair, because trick questions are intrisinctly fair.

3) Do studies on whether or not 2nd graders are capable of answering trick questions with enough ability for these questions to be deemed fair.


----------



## Barak (Sep 7, 2006)

RC, just to verify..  You are saying that, basically, virtually any trap is fair (bearing the extreme crazy stuff), but it might not be fair to put them in certain places.  For example, the OP's trap is fair, but it might not have been fair to put it there.


----------



## Slife (Sep 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> RC, just to verify..  You are saying that, basically, virtually any trap is fair (bearing the extreme crazy stuff), but it might not be fair to put them in certain places.  For example, the OP's trap is fair, but it might not have been fair to put it there.




I'll agree with that.  For example, the sun is a instakill save-or-vaporize trap, but it's so far off that it doesn't matter.

But a GM who put the sun in 10x10 room wouldn't be playing fair at all (barring divine intervention, of course)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Nah, the three criteria are perfect for my game. I'm just not going to say that they are perfect for all games. I'm perfectly willing to use those criteria in my own game. It isn't my place, though, to say that they apply to, say, Quasqueton's game.




Well, I would certainly agree with that.



> I'm still curious about how you would answer this:
> 
> Person A is designing the standards that will be used in the fairness of testing 2nd grade students. Person A believes adamantly that it is fair for there to be trick questions on tests. He believes that trick questions are some of the best way to make sure the person knows the material well. A collegue, Person B, thinks that trick questions are bad, and that 2nd graders probably don't have the capacity to understand the concepts of trick questions.
> 
> ...




What are the tests supposed to do?

If the tests are supposed to measure the knowledge and capabilities of 2nd grade students, then (1) and (2) would seem to be part of (3).

If the tests are designed to measure understanding of particular material, then I would say any of the above would work if you were measuring on a curve, and (3) would be the best choice if you were not.  It might be true that "trick questions are intrinsicly fair" but that does not make them appropriate for all contexts.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> RC, just to verify..  You are saying that, basically, virtually any trap is fair (bearing the extreme crazy stuff), but it might not be fair to put them in certain places.  For example, the OP's trap is fair, but it might not have been fair to put it there.





Absolutely, assuming that by "the extreme crazy stuff" you mean "the stuff that would be unfair in virtually any fair context imaginable".

I also agree with Slife's response to your post.


----------



## Barak (Sep 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Absolutely, assuming that by "the extreme crazy stuff" you mean "the stuff that would be unfair in virtually any fair context imaginable".
> 
> I also agree with Slife's response to your post.



Well I think we agree on the extreme crazy stuff.  IE Slife's example.

So, going on that, and given the info we got from the OP, would you agree that while perhaps fair, it wasn't fair to put the trap there, given the fact that the monk missed his save with a 19?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> You'll forgive me for not reading your critiera.. do you happen to remember what post number it was so I can see what you have to say?




I think it was 535.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

Barak said:
			
		

> Well I think we agree on the extreme crazy stuff.  IE Slife's example.
> 
> So, going on that, and given the info we got from the OP, would you agree that while perhaps fair, it wasn't fair to put the trap there, given the fact that the monk missed his save with a 19?




Not in this case, no.  I don't think that the OP is in league with the sun being in a 10 x 10 room.    

I note that the party thought that there was a trap, they had cleared the dungeon but did not take time to Take 10 or Take 20 (within the wording of the OP), they then simply pulled the lever, and they seemed to believe that there was still reasonable grounds to believe that a trap was there (which is why the monk pulled the lever).

We don't know what grounds there were to believe that there was a trap there, but I and others have written out painstaking lines of reasoning that would apply to any situation where a trap was at all likely.

The objection to this trap, therefore, seems to lie on:

(1)  A Search check didn't find it.  This is not sufficient reason in my book for a trap to be unfair.

(2)  It required a very high save.  Again, this is not sufficient reason in my book for a trap to be unfair.

and

(3)  Failure to make that save was lethal.

The combination of (2) and (3) could certainly contribute to a trap being unfair if there was reason to believe that a party had no way to discern that a trap was probably there (not so in this case) and it was demonstrable that reasonable prudence could not locate/disarm the trap (again, not so in this case).

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, I would certainly agree with that.




You would? Now I'm confused again. 

Wouldn't an objective criteria apply to all games?



> What are the tests supposed to do?
> 
> If the tests are supposed to measure the knowledge and capabilities of 2nd grade students, then (1) and (2) would seem to be part of (3).
> 
> If the tests are designed to measure understanding of particular material, then I would say any of the above would work if you were measuring on a curve, and (3) would be the best choice if you were not.  It might be true that "trick questions are intrinsicly fair" but that does not make them appropriate for all contexts.




Interesting. See, the problem I have is the assumption that trick questions are intrinsically fair not being tested, so to me 1 and 2 are opposite to 3. He's made a choice about what is and what is not fair without actually finding out what is and what is not actually fair objectively (scientifically).

On the curve, I disagree. What if he finds that the main result of the trick questions is that it lowers the results of the students who know the material best and raises the scores of the students who know the material the worst? That would make using trick questions on 2nd grade tests unfair and nullify the results of any test that was to use trick questions, even on a curve.

However, by not doing any research, he is unable to realize that he is actually allowing his bias to show through and that he has accidently approved a very unfair test practice thinking it is actually fair. By not doing the research to back up how his claim works in pracitice, he has failed to achieve his goals of defining what is fair.

I'm sure my analogy is very transparent.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I note that the party thought that there was a trap, they had cleared the dungeon but did not take time to Take 10 or Take 20 (within the wording of the OP), they then simply pulled the lever, and they seemed to believe that there was still reasonable grounds to believe that a trap was there (which is why the monk pulled the lever).




I still don't see how "The rogue searches the door and lever for traps" means he didn't take 10 or 20...


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I still don't see how "The rogue searches the door and lever for traps" means he didn't take 10 or 20...



 Sorry to diver the topic but:  Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you couldn't take 20 when searching for traps, because there's a penalty for failure (namely, setting off the trap).  Or was that only for Disable and you technically cannot trigger a trap while looking for it?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You would? Now I'm confused again.
> 
> Wouldn't an objective criteria apply to all games?




Well, yes, but only in the broadest possible sense.  The Core Rules, for example, create objective criteria for all D&D 3.X games, but not every game will use all of the Core Rules, and many games will use additional rules.  Objective criteria apply to all games as a basis of comparison.

Each individual game or group of games is a subset of the whole.  Each subset may have special conditions that need to be taken into account, just as each game may have special rules that need to be taken into account.  Without some object of comparison (such as the RAW in terms of individual games and house rules), there is no way to talk intelligently from one subset to another.

(This is actually a common, albeit IMHO fallicious, complaint about earlier editions.)



> Interesting. See, the problem I have is the assumption that trick questions are intrinsically fair not being tested, so to me 1 and 2 are opposite to 3. He's made a choice about what is and what is not fair without actually finding out what is and what is not actually fair objectively (scientifically).




Without actually trying trick questions (i.e., experimenting), how do you know whether or not your subset group (2nd graders) will be capable of understanding them?



> On the curve, I disagree. What if he finds that the main result of the trick questions is that it lowers the results of the students who know the material best and raises the scores of the students who know the material the worst? That would make using trick questions on 2nd grade tests unfair and nullify the results of any test that was to use trick questions, even on a curve.




All right.  I can see your point here.  Granted.



> However, by not doing any research, he is unable to realize that he is actually allowing his bias to show through and that he has accidently approved a very unfair test practice thinking it is actually fair. By not doing the research to back up how his claim works in pracitice, he has failed to achieve his goals of defining what is fair.
> 
> I'm sure my analogy is very transparent.




However, it does not apply, because your hypothetical tester  believes that because something is objectively fair it is therefore fair in relation to each subjective subset, and does not take the needs of that subset into account.  I am saying, and have said repeatedly, that even two things that are objectively fair can, in combination, become unfair, as an objectively fair encounter (T Rex) can become unfair when combined with an objectively fair scenario (1st level dungeon....or room full of 2nd graders   ).

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Sorry to diver the topic but:  Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you couldn't take 20 when searching for traps, because there's a penalty for failure (namely, setting off the trap).  Or was that only for Disable and you technically cannot trigger a trap while looking for it?




I believe that's only disable....and then, of course, you can be reasonably sure you failed or succeeded after Taking 10.  (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.)

ThirdWizard, the use of a skill does not imply that one has Taken 10 or Taken 20, therefore "The rogue searches the door and lever for traps" does not mean Took 10 or 20.  You can say that it doesn't mean he didn't (_sophistry_, I cry!), but then I would have to ask:  If you agreed that the OP stated explicitly that the rogue did not Take 10 or Take 20, would it alter your opinion at all?

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Sorry to diver the topic but:  Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you couldn't take 20 when searching for traps, because there's a penalty for failure (namely, setting off the trap).  Or was that only for Disable and you technically cannot trigger a trap while looking for it?




That's just Disable Device. You can't set off a trap by rolling poorly on a Search check. Thank goodness, because that would be a lot more dead PCs in my game, I think!

If you roll, the DM makes the check without you seeing the result, so that's why most people will take 20 on these things. If you roll at the wrong time and get a 2 or 3, then things can go bad fast.

You never know if you fail a search check based on the check alone.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, it does not apply, because your hypothetical tester believes that because something is objectively fair it is therefore fair in relation to each subjective subset, and does not take the needs of that subset into account.




Hmmm...

What group of gamers does your trap fairness test fall into?



> ThirdWizard, the use of a skill does not imply that one has Taken 10 or Taken 20, therefore "The rogue searches the door and lever for traps" does not mean Took 10 or 20. You can say that it doesn't mean he didn't (sophistry, I cry!),




I can claim that he did take 10 or 20 just as well as you can make claim that he didn't. In the end, we just don't know, and that's what I'm pointing out. 



> but then I would have to ask: If you agreed that the OP stated explicitly that the rogue did not Take 10 or Take 20, would it alter your opinion at all?




A fair question. Given that the save DC was so high, I don't think it would. Any trap with a DC high enough to kill a character outright with a roll of 19 will almost assuradly have a Search DC above what an equal level rogue can find, because they scale at the same rate.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2006)

Honestly, it's that last bit of Thirdwizard's that gets me.  The fact that the trap is instant death.  Pull the lever, die.  (Ok, you might live if you roll a 20, but, that's bit of a cop out IMO).  Even if the rogue discovered the trap, he still has a fairly high chance of dying since failing a disarm roll by 5 or more sets off the trap.

The trap is unfair since the party could do everything right and still die.  We shouldn't be punishing parties for doing the right things should we?

If the save DC was standard, then I would have no beefs with this trap.  The fact that this is instant death makes it unfair.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> A fair question. Given that the save DC was so high, I don't think it would. Any trap with a DC high enough to kill a character outright with a roll of 19 will almost assuradly have a Search DC above what an equal level rogue can find, because they scale at the same rate.




Therefore, it is not true that the criteria I suggested earlier would be sufficient to determine fairness in your campaign.  You do not believe that the ability to find the trap by Taking 10 or Taking 20 is sufficient to falsify a claim of unfairness.

The next question would be, if there were sufficient clues to cause you to Search, and you could find the trap by Taking 10 or Taking 20, would the high save DC and insta-kill on failure still render the trap unfair?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Honestly, it's that last bit of Thirdwizard's that gets me.  The fact that the trap is instant death.  Pull the lever, die.  (Ok, you might live if you roll a 20, but, that's bit of a cop out IMO).  Even if the rogue discovered the trap, he still has a fairly high chance of dying since failing a disarm roll by 5 or more sets off the trap.
> 
> The trap is unfair since the party could do everything right and still die.  We shouldn't be punishing parties for doing the right things should we?
> 
> If the save DC was standard, then I would have no beefs with this trap.  The fact that this is instant death makes it unfair.




Hussar, I agree with you that a save which requires a natural 20 to succeed is, for nearly all intents and purposes, equivilent to having no saving throw at all.  In fact, I think that this is actually the reason that most of the people on this thread found the trap unfair.

I think that the objection is not to "Save or Die" traps (so long as it is possible to save) so much as "Think or Die" traps where simply rolling a die is insufficient to ensure a reasonable chance of survival.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hussar, I agree with you that a save which requires a natural 20 to succeed is, for nearly all intents and purposes, equivilent to having no saving throw at all.  In fact, I think that this is actually the reason that most of the people on this thread found the trap unfair.
> 
> I think that the objection is not to "Save or Die" traps (so long as it is possible to save) so much as "Think or Die" traps where simply rolling a die is insufficient to ensure a reasonable chance of survival.
> 
> RC




I'll mostly buy that.  Although, really, how much thinking here is up for grabs.  Like I said, if the rogue spotted the trap, he could easily fail the disarm check (assuming it's similar to the save DC) and instantly die.  Sure, the players could have been smarter and used other ideas to set off the trap.  However, the fact that they did everything right and died leads me to call this an unfair trap.  They checked for traps, they let the guy with the best saves test the potentially dangerous lever.  That's doing the right thing as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Barak (Sep 8, 2006)

I never thought the trap was crazy unfair, like the Sun in the room thing.  

The problem is that we have too little information, really, to know if the trap was fair for those characters.  Here's what we know..

-There's a secret door in the room and an obvious lever
-The characters looked for and failed to find a way to open the secret door.
-The characters don't -have- to open the door/touch the lever to successfully complete the adventure.
-The rogue searched for traps on the lever and didn't find any.
-The monk pulled the lever, had to make a save, rolled a 19, and was disintegrated.

That's pretty much it.  We don't know if they heard rumors/whatever that may lead them to believe something else important but not vital is in the dungeon.  We don't know what the rogue rolled on his search, or wether or not he took 10/20.  We also don't know if, assuming he hadn't, taking 20 would have enabled him to actually find the trap.  And, had he found it, if a reasonably good roll on his Disable Device would have disabled it or not.  

We also don't know what the lever actually does, if anything.  We don't know if the rope on the lever thing would have worked to bypass the trap or not.  We don't know the level of the characters in question.  We don't know who built the dungeon, how many traps the group encountered before, how many levers, if all previous levers were trapped or not.  We don't know if they encountered many secret doors opened by levers (it -seems- dumb to have an obvious lever open a secret door, unless you figure that maybe that door is an exit/entrance, and is only supposed to be hard to find from the other side).  

Depending on which choices one makes when determining all those unknowns, I can easily see the trap be unfair.  I can also see it be fair, to be honest.  But if I answer (for myself) all those questions using an "average" response (that the rogue took 10 or rolled 10 on his search, for example), I end up on the side of unfair, which is why I said so.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

Barak, if you examine your post, above, and then examine the numbers on the poll, what conclusions do you draw?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

Okay, I'll tell you what I infer.

If a PC died, someone made a mistake.  That someone was either the DM or one or more of the players.

You say



			
				Barak said:
			
		

> Depending on which choices one makes when determining all those unknowns, I can easily see the trap be unfair. I can also see it be fair, to be honest. But if I answer (for myself) all those questions using an "average" response (that the rogue took 10 or rolled 10 on his search, for example), I end up on the side of unfair, which is why I said so.




I say

Yes, it seems dumb for a secret door to be opened by an obvious lever, and that alone is a fair indication that this is a trap.  

When you were making a determination based on average responses, the problem that you perforce encounter is that "Take 10/20 should work to locate the trap" and "Rogue should Take 10/20 when searching for the trap" are both average responses based upon the same criteria.  Obviously, they cannot both be true here -- either Take 10/20 doesn't work, or the rogue didn't Take 10/20.  Either the DM screwed up or the player(s) screwed up.  

And, frankly, because the DM could have simply told the monk that the save succeeded regardless of what was written in his notes, we must assume that if the DM screwed up here he was simply not playing fair.  He upped the save DC, or didn't drop the clues, or was mad at the monk's player.  The only alternative is that, even when it came to the moment, the DM somehow failed to realize that his trap design was deadlier than he intended _even though_ (as some argue) _the players did everything right_.

In other words, this seems to me to be a choice between (1) the players screwed up and the DM let the dice fall where they may, or (2) the DM decided to kill the monk.  

Which of these two seems more likely, on "average"?

I argue that, given this situation, _unless we have compelling reason to believe otherwise_ it is necessary to assume that the DM played fair.  This is because, _if for no other reason_, the game absolutely sucks if you spend it blaming every PC failure on the DM.

Frankly, I find the numbers in this poll somewhat disturbing.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Therefore, it is not true that the criteria I suggested earlier would be sufficient to determine fairness in your campaign. You do not believe that the ability to find the trap by Taking 10 or Taking 20 is sufficient to falsify a claim of unfairness.




IIRC the criteria wasn't that the rogue take 10 or 20, it was that it was easily searchable, within the limits of what the PC can reasonably do. Take a level 10 rogue with a 14 Int and a +5 item to search and disable device. He has a search and disable device of around +20. He can find a trap with a DC of 30 50% of the time with a single roll or all the time with a Take 10, and he can disable it easily with a Take 10.



> The next question would be, if there were sufficient clues to cause you to Search, and you could find the trap by Taking 10 or Taking 20, would the high save DC and insta-kill on failure still render the trap unfair?




Clues to cause you to search, or clues to cause you to believe the lever is trapped? 

If you mean the latter, lets say a charred corpse still clutching the lever (it doesn't leave dust anymore), then I would say that it depends on how well non-rogue trap methods work. If a _dispel magic_ won't suppress it, then we're back to unfair, for example. 



> Yes, it seems dumb for a secret door to be opened by an obvious lever, and that alone is a fair indication that this is a trap.




What if the PCs hadn't found the secret door?

Wouldn't you find it strange if the PCs had searched the entire wall painstakingly (search DCs to find a secret door start at 20), but just decided to glance over the lever (roll once).

Why the connection between the two? This was debated pages and pages back, but there is _no_ indication that the lever opens the secret door. None at all. And, throughout this thread it seems to be that the people who think that the trap is fair believe that the lever obviously opens the secret door. The people on the unfair side don't make that assumption. 



> In other words, this seems to me to be a choice between (1) the players screwed up and the DM let the dice fall where they may, or (2) the DM decided to kill the monk.




There is a (3). The DM didn't think it was a difficult trap, and didn't pull his punches when the monk pulled the lever. Good DMs do this all the time. They design a puzzle thinking the puzzle has an obvious solution, but what they don't realize is that other people won't see it as so obvious. Then they wonder why the Players are having such a hard time with it. This DM foolishly added in a death effect, thinking it wouldn't be too bad, because he didn't think anyone would pull the lever.

I find that option most likely.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There is a (3). The DM didn't think it was a difficult trap, and didn't pull his punches when the monk pulled the lever. Good DMs do this all the time. They design a puzzle thinking the puzzle has an obvious solution, but what they don't realize is that other people won't see it as so obvious. Then they wonder why the Players are having such a hard time with it. This DM foolishly added in a death effect, thinking it wouldn't be too bad, because he didn't think anyone would pull the lever.
> 
> I find that option most likely.





And, frankly, because the DM could have simply told the monk that the save succeeded regardless of what was written in his notes, we must assume that if the DM screwed up here he was simply not playing fair. He upped the save DC, or didn't drop the clues, or was mad at the monk's player. The only alternative is that, even when it came to the moment, the DM somehow failed to realize that his trap design was deadlier than he intended even though (as some argue) the players did everything right.

Surely, you are not arguing that the DM foolishly didn't think it would be too bad even after the monk pulled the lever and rolled the 19?

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

> The only alternative is that, even when it came to the moment, the DM somehow failed to realize that his trap design was deadlier than he intended even though (as some argue) the players did everything right.




I find it highly unlikely that the DM didn't realize that the PCs couldn't make the save before putting the trap there. That would be DM incompetance in my book. So unless we assume the DM is a moron, he put that save DC above the PCs' ability knowing that if they pulled the lever, someone would die.

My only idea for that is he thought that the PCs wouldn't pull it, so the save DC didn't matter.



> Surely, you are not arguing that the DM foolishly didn't think it would be too bad even after the monk pulled the lever and rolled the 19?




Many DMs don't change something just becuase the PCs do something unexpected. Does the mysterious wizard informant suddenly drop 5 levels because the PCs attacked him? I don't play that way. I wouldn't have ever made this trap, though, so I wouldn't need to change it on the fly in the first place. 

Why would the DM purposely set the DC so that they PCs couldn't make it then at the last minute change it to save one of them? A change of heart?



Once I was playing a PC fighter named Cal. We beat down a veritable horde of undead and found ourselves in the basement of the keep of an ancient castle. In this room was a swirling pool of earth: rock, dirt, and all assortments of the element.

Cal put his finger into it.

It was actually an Earth Weird (MMII), and Cal had to make a saving throw or be turned to stone, fall into the rolling earth, and be crushed into a thousand pieces never to be seen again. The save DC was so high that Cal had to roll an 18 or better (I looked it up later, those Weirds are insane). 

The DM never thought I would do something like that. I didn't expect the consequences of my actions to be so dire. But, he played them out exactly like the book said. Now, I rolled a natural 20, so I didn't get to test that, but I do believe that he would have killed my character.

Now a swirling pool of earth is a whole lot more of a hint of DO NOT TOUCH!!! than a lever on the floor. I realize that I shouldn't have touched the earthen pool that was sitting at the bottom of an undead infested keep. But, at the time it seemed like a good idea for some reason. Hey, hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Now a swirling pool of earth is a whole lot more of a hint of DO NOT TOUCH!!! than a lever on the floor.




That's funny because "pulling levers" among my players is proverbial for "acting carelessly".  A lever, or any other object in a dungeon is as capable as being enchanted/trapped as any other object.  

In fact, in choosing to trap either a pile of swirling dirt or a lever, the smart money says to trap the lever because you know that people are more likely to pull it than they are to touch the dirt.  By that reasoning, the lever is actually _more_ dangerous than the dirt.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> That's funny because "pulling levers" among my players is proverbial for "acting carelessly".  A lever, or any other object in a dungeon is as capable as being enchanted/trapped as any other object.




I can't possibly see how pulling a lever would be more dangerous than walking through a doorway.



> In fact, in choosing to trap either a pile of swirling dirt or a lever, the smart money says to trap the lever because you know that people are more likely to pull it than they are to touch the dirt.  By that reasoning, the lever is actually _more_ dangerous than the dirt.




The swirling dirt wasn't a trap... And, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. You're saying a lever is more suspicious than an elemental supernatural effect? What? What if it were a swirling pool of black energy? Would a lever be more frightening than that?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Many DMs don't change something just becuase the PCs do something unexpected. Does the mysterious wizard informant suddenly drop 5 levels because the PCs attacked him? I don't play that way.




If this trap is equivilent, is not dropping the wizard 5 levels unfair?



> Once I was playing a PC fighter named Cal. We beat down a veritable horde of undead and found ourselves in the basement of the keep of an ancient castle. In this room was a swirling pool of earth: rock, dirt, and all assortments of the element.
> 
> Cal put his finger into it.
> 
> ...




Wait a second here....Was this unfair or wasn't it?

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If this trap is equivilent, is not dropping the wizard 5 levels unfair?




My point is that the DM might see it as the equivalent. If this is the case the DM and Players aren't on the same page and need to discuss what they expect out of a campaign. If we assume that the DM and Players are both competant, then there is a playstyle clash that needs to be discussed.

Otherwise, the DM has thrown a trap out of nowhere in order to kill a PC. (or his pride wouldn't let him go back on a mistake)

OR

The Players have suddenly stopped being as cautious as they have been previously for no reason.

OR

A bunch of other reasons, I'm sure. I'm not a psychologist, after all.



> Wait a second here....Was this unfair or wasn't it?




It's pretty borderline. But, its more fair than the trap example, that's for sure.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I can't possibly see how pulling a lever would be more dangerous than walking through a doorway.




A doorway implies a transition from one place to another.  In general, it implies that one will transit from one area on one side of the doorway to the area on the other side, but it is this implication of transition that has made so many teleports operate in doorways/portals through the years.  However, passing through a doorway does not inherently imply that something other than passage through the doorway will occur.

A lever _inherently implies_ that something is going to happen when you pull it _other than the lever simply moving_.  This could be something good, or something bad.  _If you don't know, you shouldn't pull the lever._  This is as true in real life as it is in the game.

RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I can't possibly see how pulling a lever would be more dangerous than walking through a doorway.




Because a monster has to live in his own dungeon.  Granted, the DM can just handwave away the issue.  But in terms of realism, if you trap a doorway in your house, one time you're going to forget and walk through it and get blasted by your own trap.  It's a lot easier to remember not to pull a lever.  So if you look at what's best to trap from a dungeon-dwellers perspective, IMO it tells you what's most dangerous.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The swirling dirt wasn't a trap... And, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. You're saying a lever is more suspicious than an elemental supernatural effect? What? What if it were a swirling pool of black energy? Would a lever be more frightening than that?




In a dungeon, a lever fits a number of purposes, some of them can be flat out harmful.  The difference between a swirling pile of dirt and a lever is that you know that pulling the lever has to have _some_ effect (or it's broken - which can also be bad).  Levers do things.  A swirling pile of dirt can just be some left-over telekinesis, or the outer-part of a gate to the Elemental Plane of Earth.  In fact, touching earth pretty much has no harmful effect in the standard rules in terms of monsters and such.  Meeting gazes, breathing in green gas, those things are a heck of a lot more likely to petrify you from a core rules perspective.  And the "black energy" thing is another matter obviously.  Touching fire burns, obviously, I'm sorry if I didn't acknowledge that before but I didn't know it was one of the situations under consideration. 

And really, I wouldn't touch anything with my hands in a dungeon.  I don't actually want to know what stuff feels like in a dungeon (except for gold).  That's what they make 10 ft poles for.  Or I'll find the arm of a skeleton of someone who didn't follow this advice further back in the dungeon and use that.   I'm serious, I don't come from the "heroic" school of fantasy adventuring.

List of senses least likely to be used by me in a dungeon on purpose: touch, taste, smell.

Secondly, if you're dealing with intelligent dungeon inhabitants, you know that they know that people pull levers.  If you're going to put a magical trap on something, you trap the lever, not the dirt.  It's only when the inhabitants of the dungeon don't know I'm coming, and the lever is part of an obvious mechanism that the dungeon inhabitants use regularly that I'd feel comfortable in pulling a lever.  Otherwise I'm ready to make a save, even if it's just to jump out of the way of a portcullis because the lever mechanism is broken.  I'd probably use a rope, because even if the save is fair, I don't want to find out.  I don't even like fair saving throws.  

Neither do my players, using a rope or summoned monster to pull a lever is pretty standard operating procedure in my campaign.

So in terms of ranking the following:
>  touching swirling pile of dirt
>  touching a greenish colored slime
>  breathing in a colored gas
>  freeing an NPC captive in a dungeon
>  kissing an attractive female met in a dungeon who has wings
>  pulling a lever
>  drinking/eating something you found in a dungeon
>  walking into a room full of skeletons just "laying there"
>  sleeping in a room of statues

I'd put the swirling dirt at the bottom of the list of risks.  YMMV of course, but I just think it's the particulars of my experiences.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A lever _inherently implies_ that something is going to happen when you pull it _other than the lever simply moving_.  This could be something good, or something bad.  _If you don't know, you shouldn't pull the lever._  This is as true in real life as it is in the game.




Suffice to say that I disagree with you here. A doorway is more likely to be trapped than a lever, so much so that expecting something bad to happen when pulling a lever moreso than when walking through the doorway to get to the lever is crazy.


By the way, I find the concept of the 10 foot pole abhorrent. It is the antithesis of everything I think adventuring should be.

EDIT: Nothing anyone can say is going to convince me to be more afraid of levers than doorways. Your attempts are doomed to failure, so you might as well not bother with that particular line of debate.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The Players have suddenly stopped being as cautious as they have been previously for no reason.




I have seen these players....and been this player...._*way*_ too many times to think there is anything strange about that possiblity.



> It's pretty borderline. But, its more fair than the trap example, that's for sure.




For what reason, exactly?  Was it because the Save DC was 1 less?  Was it because you made the save?  Clearly it was no more obvious to you that you shouldn't touch than it was obvious to the monk.....


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> For what reason, exactly?  Was it because the Save DC was 1 less?  Was it because you made the save?  Clearly it was no more obvious to you that you shouldn't touch than it was obvious to the monk.....




Because levers are innoculous objects that my PC is familiar with. There is little reason to worry about pulling it.

Supernatural effects are unknowns. Sticking your finger in it might not be a good idea.

EDIT: Stick a dead corpse grasping the lever, and the two scenarios start to look about equal to me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Suffice to say that I disagree with you here. A doorway is more likely to be trapped than a lever, so much so that expecting something bad to happen when pulling a lever moreso than when walking through the doorway to get to the lever is crazy.




Even if no trap is involved, the lever is inherently more dangerous than the doorway.  But as you say, "Nothing anyone can say is going to convince me to be more afraid of levers than doorways. Your attempts are doomed to failure, so you might as well not bother with that particular line of debate.", so I won't assume you have any illusions that your position is even remotely objective here.



> By the way, I find the concept of the 10 foot pole abhorrent. It is the antithesis of everything I think adventuring should be.




Wrongbadfun?

 

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Because levers are innoculous objects that my PC is familiar with. There is little reason to worry about pulling it.
> 
> Supernatural effects are unknowns. Sticking your finger in it might not be a good idea.
> 
> EDIT: Stick a dead corpse grasping the lever, and the two scenarios start to look about equal to me.




So, in other words, the reason that the trap is unfair is because it isn't designed specifically with you in mind?  I.e., no matter what anyone says about levers, no matter what the real world implications of levers are, no matter what, levers are inherently innoculous, so any trap that assumes a different viewpoint is unfair?

I submit that the trap in the OP is nearly the same in terms of fairness as the earth weird encounter you described.  

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Even if no trap is involved, the lever is inherently more dangerous than the doorway.  But as you say, "Nothing anyone can say is going to convince me to be more afraid of levers than doorways. Your attempts are doomed to failure, so you might as well not bother with that particular line of debate.", so I won't assume you have any illusions that your position is even remotely objective here.




The problem is that this was debated ad nausiem earlier, and no one could say anything to support the position of levers being innately dangerous. I don't want to have the same debate again. I doubt you can bring up anything that hasn't already been refuted in this thread.



> Wrongbadfun?




Yes!

No.  But, it holds about as much value to me as a hack and slash game, or heaven forbid a puzzle game. *shudder* I'd run screaming from these kinds of games, hoping to keep my sanity in tact.

YMMV


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 8, 2006)

Dungeons though, are not innocuous objects.  So a bowl of cereal sitting in my kitchen is innocuous, and something with which I am familiar.  The same does not apply to a dungeon.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> By the way, I find the concept of the 10 foot pole abhorrent.




Me too - any but the most impoverished PC could afford to upgrade to a halberd or something with the same reach that could also double as a weapon.  The hook end of a typical polearm could probably be used to pull a lever too.  That's just common sense.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> EDIT: Nothing anyone can say is going to convince me to be more afraid of levers than doorways. Your attempts are doomed to failure, so you might as well not bother with that particular line of debate.




I'm not trying to convince you at all!  Cripes, if your DM never traps levers, then it makes no sense to be afraid of them.  I can say that I'd be really afraid of swirling dirt after watching your PC get pentrified by it.  It all depends on experience.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, in other words, the reason that the trap is unfair is because it isn't designed specifically with you in mind?  I.e., no matter what anyone says about levers, no matter what the real world implications of levers are, no matter what, levers are inherently innoculous, so any trap that assumes a different viewpoint is unfair?




Your playstyle indicates that levers are dangerous. I have no reason to accept your playstyle as fact.



> I submit that the trap in the OP is nearly the same in terms of fairness as the earth weird encounter you described.




Submission examined and declined.


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, in other words, the reason that the trap is unfair is because it isn't designed specifically with you in mind?




Yes, the Stay-Puff Marshmellow Man could never hurt anyone!     Therefore, it would be unfair if a giant-sized one of those tried to kill you.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Dungeons though, are not innocuous objects.  So a bowl of cereal sitting in my kitchen is innocuous, and something with which I am familiar.  The same does not apply to a dungeon.




Okay... no less innoculous than the doorway then, or the doorknob on it. We search the doorway and door for traps, after which they open it or walk through. The rogue searched the lever for traps, after which they pulled the lever.



> Me too - any but the most impoverished PC could afford to upgrade to a halberd or something with the same reach that could also double as a weapon.  The hook end of a typical polearm could probably be used to pull a lever too.  That's just common sense.




The concept of the 10 foot pole is all about, IMO, the "thinking man's dungeon" which involves no real thinking but instead coming to every situation going down a checklist of things to do like its deadly, interacting with nothing unless you have to, and spending 20 minutes of play time trying to figure out if opening the door will end in a TPK.

And, no, using anything but your hands to pull the lever isn't "common sense" its a trained conditioned response for those who played through old 1e modules that had traps like this.



> I'm not trying to convince you at all!  Cripes, if your DM never traps levers, then it makes no sense to be afraid of them.  I can say that I'd be really afraid of swirling dirt after watching your PC get pentrified by it.  It all depends on experience.




I believe RC disagrees, and is trying to convince me. He thinks levers are _objectively_ dangerous, I think.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The problem is that this was debated ad nausiem earlier, and no one could say anything to support the position of levers being innately dangerous. I don't want to have the same debate again. I doubt you can bring up anything that hasn't already been refuted in this thread.




By the Bloody Beard of Crom, there hasn't been a single refutation yet!

"Doorways are as dangerous as levers; prove that they're not!" isn't a refutation, nor is "I simply refuse to accept that pulling a lever implies that the lever will cause something to happen."

You can say you refuse to follow the consequences of the blantantly obvious "pulling levers implies something is being caused to happen" -- and doing so is, at least, honest -- but please don't claim that this is somehow a refutation.    



> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You can say you refuse to follow the consequences of the blantantly obvious "pulling levers implies something is being caused to happen" -- and doing so is, at least, honest -- but please don't claim that this is somehow a refutation.




Sure something will happen. The question is how likely do you think something _bad_ will happen? Odds just aren't high enough that something bad will happen that it should be of concern to a PC pulling the lever. You have given no reason to think something bad will happen other than you seem to think it is likely, which isn't an actual reason.

Basically, all of your "reason" for levers being dangerous come down to your playstyle.

It seems to me that the majority of ENWorld does not share your concern for levers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I believe RC disagrees, and is trying to convince me. He thinks levers are _objectively_ dangerous, I think.





No, RC believes that levers _inherently_ imply that moving the lever does something.  Do you disagree with that?  Is your life filled with levers and switches and buttons that do nothing?

RC believes that making something happen can make something _good_ happen, something _bad_ happen, some of each, or something which is neither good or bad.  Do you disagree with that?  I would say that this is objectively true because it is tautological.

RC believes that, within the concept of dungeons promulgated by the Core Rules, the history of the game, and within similar settings in the history of literature, film, and television, "making something happen" in a dungeon-like setting has a disproprtionate chance that the "something" is going to be bad.  Do you disagree with this?

RC believes that, in an unfamiliar setting where you cannot intuit what a lever/switch/button will do -- such as the cockpit of an F14, a room in a prison, the main building of a hydroelectric plant -- it is often a good idea to leave it alone.  Do you disagree with this?

RC believes that pulling a lever in a dungeon without at least attempting to ensure that one knows what it does is the equivilent of entering a new room blindfolded.  I won't even ask -- I _know_ you disagree with this.  But, if you agree with any or all of the above, what I do not know is _why_.

RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> And, no, using anything but your hands to pull the lever isn't "common sense" its a trained conditioned response for those who played through old 1e modules that had traps like this.




It involves a little more thought than you're implying since I'm actually not there (it's my character).  The conditioned response is me throwing my arms over my head and saying "oh, god, a lever."  The thoughtful response is telling the DM that my player summons an orc, hands him the halberd, and goes in the next room while the orc pulls the lever.  It's not all that unconscious, it's very conscious.  It's not really trained, I might do something completely different the next time (hobgoblin with a lasso and a tower-shield).  Mixing it up adds some zest.

It probably is an old school thing.  Nowadays an adventurer is a mo-hawk sporting half-shirt wearing pretty-boy that wants to look good trading one-liners and fireballs with the BBEG.  He certainly wouldn't be caught dead fishing around in an otyugh's trash-pile looking for loose coins or picking ear seekers out of his ears (ear seekers:  you want to talk about unfair!)  That stuff's a waste of time to him, not very cinematic or heroic.

In my day, adventurers were rather plain-looking Joes that wore conical helms with a nose-piece and bulky suits of chainmail.  A train of miserable looking peasants usually followed him carrying his treasure (this was before there was a rules mandate that your character be awarded a bag of holding by 3rd level).  He just didn't have the abs for a half-shirt.  Success was measured in surviving and building a castle at 9th level.  He didn't have the luxury of the DM's proxy NPC teleporting in to tell him what a good job he was doing or giving him his next mission.  Monsters tried to kill him _all_ of the time, not just when the music was scarey.  He wore his paranoia as a badge of honor.  The DM was an impartial bastard.

My comical reminiscings are not objective.  Clearly I consider the pretty-boy a bigger success.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I believe RC disagrees, and is trying to convince me. He thinks levers are _objectively_ dangerous, I think.




Yea, I think it's campaign specific.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> RC believes that, within the concept of dungeons promulgated by the Core Rules, the history of the game, and within similar settings in the history of literature, film, and television, "making something happen" in a dungeon-like setting has a disproprtionate chance that the "something" is going to be bad.  Do you disagree with this?




That I do disagree with.

It's a playstyle decision that you have made. Why do you think it is universal?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2006)

Wow, gizmo, you didn't use the word anime or video gamey once!  I kid, I kid. I can see the humor in the newer style, even if I prefer it. I mean, I've been known to characture old school gmes once or twice in my time. 

Besides, mohawks are out. It's all about the long flowing hair now. Or dreads.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 8, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> That I do disagree with.
> 
> It's a playstyle decision that you have made. Why do you think it is universal?



I disagree with that too. If this statement were true, there would be a lot less adventurers. Who wants to adventure where every door was trapped. In that type of world, thieves would be far more abudnant than warriors and fighters are.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

What does the SRD tell us?

Trap Floors

Some floors are designed to become suddenly dangerous. With the application of just the right amount of weight, or the pull of a lever somewhere nearby, spikes protrude from the floor, gouts of steam or flame shoot up from hidden holes, or the entire floor tilts. These strange floors are sometimes found in an arena, designed to make combats more exciting and deadly. Construct these floors as you would any other trap.​
This is an example of a lever doing something bad.  Heck, this is an example of a whole lot of bad things levers can do.

A special door (see below for examples) might have a lock with no key, instead requiring that the right combination of nearby levers must be manipulated or the right symbols must be pressed on a keypad in the correct sequence to open the door.​
Hmmm.  Here a lever does something good.  This may, perhaps, supply a reason why the PCs in the OP might think that the lever and secret door are a combination?

Shifting Stone or Wall

These features can cut off access to a passage or room, trapping adventurers in a dead end or preventing escape out of the dungeon. Shifting walls can force explorers to go down a dangerous path or prevent them from entering a special area. Not all shifting walls need be traps. For example, stones controlled by pressure plates, counterweights, or a secret lever can shift out of a wall to become a staircase leading to a hidden upper room or secret ledge. 

Shifting stones and walls are generally constructed as traps with triggers and Search and Disable Device DCs. However they don’t have Challenge Ratings because they’re inconveniences, not deadly in and of themselves.​
Hmmm...another bad thing that levers can do.

Apparatus of the Crab

This item appears to be a large, sealed iron barrel, but it has a secret catch (Search DC 20 to locate) that opens a hatch in one end. Anyone who crawls inside finds ten (unlabeled) levers: The device has the following characteristics: hp 200; hardness 15; Spd 20 ft., swim 20 ft.; AC 20 (-1 size, +11 natural); Atk +12 melee (2d8, 2 pincers).​
OK, this is a good thing that levers can do....but in this case they are part of something very specific.

Crossbow, Light

You draw a light crossbow back by pulling a lever. Loading a light crossbow is a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity. 

Crossbow, Repeating

The repeating crossbow (whether heavy or light) holds 5 crossbow bolts. As long as it holds bolts, you can reload it by pulling the reloading lever (a free action). Loading a new case of 5 bolts is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. 

You can fire a repeating crossbow with one hand or fire a repeating crossbow in each hand in the same manner as you would a normal crossbow of the same size. However, you must fire the weapon with two hands in order to use the reloading lever, and you must use two hands to load a new case of bolts.​
Again, pretty item specific.

"Lever" also shows up in the spell, telekinesis, which can specifically be used to operate a lever.

So, if we exclude ourselves to what is in the SRD, and if we know the lever is not part of a crossbow or an apparatus of the crab:

Good possibilities:  Open a door, shift a wall to open a door.

Bad possibilities:  Make spikes protrude from the floor, make gouts of steam or flame shoot up from hidden holes, make the entire floor tilt, trap you in a dead end, prevent escape out of the dungeon, force you to go down a dangerous path, or prevent you from entering a special area.

Do still you disagree that, within the concept of dungeons promulgated by the Core Rules, pulling a lever (unless it is part of your equipment) in a dungeon-like setting has a disproprtionate chance to make something bad happen?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I disagree with that too. If this statement were true, there would be a lot less adventurers. Who wants to adventure where every door was trapped. In that type of world, thieves would be far more abudnant than warriors and fighters are.




I didn't say that "every door was trapped".  Actually, if you read my posts, you will see that I say repeatedly that there is a great deal of difference between the implications of levers and doors, and what one should expect from either.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 9, 2006)

Even though the poll you made is biased, it seems that the "yes" votes have stayed slightly ahead of the "no" votes. 

Just imagine what the poll would have been like had the vote you preferred had been the absolute.

Or if the poll had had an Other option, since all Others were naturally directed toward the No vote.

Or if you had stated that the rogue had found no traps on the lever.

Or if the question were "Should you leave a lever alone that you find in a dungeon?"

Ah well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Even though the poll you made is biased, it seems that the "yes" votes have stayed slightly ahead of the "no" votes.




Thank you.  I learned poll design from the tobacco industry.    

I do note that, of the respondents who posted further, there are a number who view it likely that the lever is trapped/something bad will happen, but that the lever should still be pulled.  Since I admitted earlier that I probably would have pulled the lever, although I knew it was probably trapped, this opens up all kinds of new and interesting questions.

(1)  Is it a good thing to avoid traps?  Or should you just let the trap be sprung?

(2)  If you do pull the lever, knowing that it's probably a trap, and the trap kills you, is it your fault or the DM's?

After trying to answer those questions, we could look at the fairness question again in their light.  But it is certainly true that a slim majority claim they would pull the lever, even if they knew it to be trapped.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2006)

If I am to take what we are seeing here, combined with the poll about pulling levers, I would note how very close the numbers are between those who view the OP trap as being unfair, and those who said "Yes, pull the lever".....and there are numerous comments to the effect that you should pull the lever _even if you know that it is likely to be trapped_.

This then begs the question:  Do people view this trap as unfair because it punishes pulling a lever?  In other words, are lethal levers unfair?

RC


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 14, 2006)

> In other words, are lethal levers unfair?



Without any fair warning prior to seeing the lever? Yes. It's unfair. 
Now, the whole question is IMO what constitutes a fair warning, and that will vary with each gaming groups and their capabilities in terms of deductions and style of play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Now, the whole question is IMO what constitutes a fair warning, and that will vary with each gaming groups and their capabilities in terms of deductions and style of play.





Now, this I can certainly agree with.

RC


----------

