I agree with your friend Matt to a point. There's nothing less exciting than going square by square, searching for traps. I don't care how intricate, or cool your trap is, every single trap essentially boils down to two actions:
1) I try to find the trap.
2) I try to disable the trap.On the other hand, I think traps don't have to be that boring. I think traps can even be fun. The thing you have to consider is placement. A random pit trap in the middle of a hallway, while realistic, isn't terribly exciting. A trap that summons monsters, or gives the PCs penalties in combat, or makes it more difficult for the PCs to get to a particular monster, can be pretty cool.
To give you an example, take a look at the Face in Darkness trap from the Age of Worms Campaign. I don't think there's anyone who would say that trap is boring. On the contrary, I would say it's one of the most clever and entertaining traps ever designed.
I would also argue that one of the biggest problems with traps is that they are part of the "player vs the DM" fallacy that holds gaming back in general. Searching square by square is one of the ways to remove an arrow that could be used against the party from the DMs quiver before he gets a chance to fire it, but it also results in boredom.
I really see it as a means of killing the adversarial style of play. When the DM stops thinking of himself as the GOD OF THE BOARD and the PLAYERS' OVERMIND, and rightfully thinks of himself as "another player," then he stops buying into the crappy DM vs the Players mindset and goes with "hey, how about we all have fun"
I can dig that. I've never really played with a power-tripping DM so I guess my point of view is informed by that.
Zo
Don't get me wrong, I love settings with depth. My own setting has a lot of depth that I doubt my players have really bothered reading into (I'm making a wiki for it, :SHAME)
That said, I did it mostly for my own enjoyment. If my players don't care, then they don't care. I won't whinge at them or yell at them or get mad because I spent x amount of time coming up with it all - and I think that's the important thing. You don't need to spend hours on end doing this stuff. If you want to, if you enjoy it, then that's awesome! Go for it! But don't take it out on your players.
You know, I wonder if the "old school" thinking on how to check for traps is still infecting how players and GMs run this currently. If you think there are traps randomly hidden in a hallway (and to be fair, I think some times that does make sense, but sometimes its a pain, and its situational), then it makes much more sense to me to say "okay, everyone is moving at quarter speed and I'm taking 10 on my perception checks to search for traps unless we say otherwise" than to describe hallways and squares and frescoes and ornaments that might cause someone to assume something is trapped.
I fall into this as well. There are plenty of times when I could just ask everyone what their take 10 on perception if they are keeping watch at night, and instead I ask for rolls when I might be throwing something at them, as if their watch just means they might have equipment instead of the fact that they are actually, you know, watching.
Sometimes I don't think its the "old school" events that are the problem, its the old school way of adjudicating the event.
Oh, and I agree, I hate puzzles that force player knowledge to win the day instead of PC knowledge. Its great if a player has an innovative idea, but to bring the game crashing down because the writer is sure that everyone will see X as a simple puzzle and yet the whole table sits there for a whole four hour session beating their heads against a table is annoying.
Oh, and I agree, I hate puzzles that force player knowledge to win the day instead of PC knowledge. Its great if a player has an innovative idea, but to bring the game crashing down because the writer is sure that everyone will see X as a simple puzzle and yet the whole table sits there for a whole four hour session beating their heads against a table is annoying.
You know, I wonder if the "old school" thinking on how to check for traps is still infecting how players and GMs run this currently. If you think there are traps randomly hidden in a hallway (and to be fair, I think some times that does make sense, but sometimes its a pain, and its situational), then it makes much more sense to me to say "okay, everyone is moving at quarter speed and I'm taking 10 on my perception checks to search for traps unless we say otherwise" than to describe hallways and squares and frescoes and ornaments that might cause someone to assume something is trapped.
I fall into this as well. There are plenty of times when I could just ask everyone what their take 10 on perception if they are keeping watch at night, and instead I ask for rolls when I might be throwing something at them, as if their watch just means they might have equipment instead of the fact that they are actually, you know, watching.
Sometimes I don't think its the "old school" events that are the problem, its the old school way of adjudicating the event.
I don't think its old school players that are the problem. I just taught four complete newbs to play and, if anything, they are worse then vets. Unable to use years of gaming experience to discern where there is some likelihood of traps they check constantly just to be on the safe side.
At least once a session I mention that chances are there won't be a trap 'just out of the blue' so you don't need to check every square.
The problem is that they fall for pretty much every trap I put in the game - there is usually something interesting going on in any encounter where I stick a trap (because the random hall with a pit trap is generally considered bad dungeon design these days). Well whatever it is that's out of the ordinary invariably distracts them and blammo - they get blind sided by the trap.
Of course this only reinforces their desire to check every square for traps 'just in case'.
Traps should not be on main passageways I agree. a trap on a vault in a thieves guild serves more than one purpose. It keeps adventurers out and it slows down thieves that are trying to steal from the thieves guild.
There could be an in character explanation for searching for traps everywhere; the PCs father was an adventurer that died from a trap. This is sort of a metagaming background. Or if the rouge is paranoid.
I have gotten a party also to argue on a pbp game to the point the game died with an npc elf boy in a pit trap.
It strikes me that Matt's original post really isn't about traps being bad (although he may feel differently :) ).
What's bad is substituting traps for storytelling.
I agree with the essence of most of his points, though not necessarily the letter:
- If a trap does not amp up the suspense in the game or provide an interesting challenge to players, it should not be used.
- If finding and dealing with a single trap takes up the majority of time in a single session, the GM is doing an insanely poor job of pacing (and this is true really of any particular element in a game--I don't want to be spending two hours in a single combat or two hours disarming a trap or two hours talking to Elminster, etc.).
- If a trap is more dangerous than the foes the party is facing, and it is nearly impossible to deal with, the trap is poorly designed.
(As a GM, I have made all three of these mistakes, I entirely admit. And recently, too.)
Traps, just like any other RPG adventure element, should be used WHEN THEY MAKE SENSE (as already mentioned by TOZ and others) and judiciously. A wizard SHOULD trap the door to the place where he stores his Staff of the ArchMagi--he doesn't want people just walking in and taking it. A wizard should not trap his herb garden (unless he's just a jerk, or he just weeded it and doesn't want anyone mussing it up).
Traps when well described and used not over-much, can help make a scene more exciting. They can also help be used as clues for adventurers--"This guy laid three traps here, obviously he doesn't want people to go here for some reason." (And alternately, "Maybe all these traps are here to make us think something's important, but maybe we should go double check that broom closet again.")
I use traps as a GM, but I also have been learning--the hard and long way--to just put the big ones in where they make sense.
And as a GM, the thing I hate most is a player just looking at me blandly with a d20 in hand saying, "I check for traps." I want to know WHERE you are checking for traps, how you are checking for traps, what you are touching and what you are not. I don't need a 20 minute long description (see Matt's complaint) but when trap seeking does happen, it SHOULD be something more than a blank stare and a die roll.
Maybe that's the thing about traps--they can be cheap and easy ways to make things a little tougher, but are very hard to run well.
|
Well, I'm not surprised that many of you hate traps, since a large majority of the board showed in another thread that they think that you should be able to take 20 searching for traps. When the only thing that traps can really possibly do is make the party move intensely slowly through the dungeon, then yeah, they suck.
Well, I'm not surprised that many of you hate traps, since a large majority of the board showed in another thread that they think that you should be able to take 20 searching for traps. When the only thing that traps can really possibly do is make the party move intensely slowly through the dungeon, then yeah, they suck.
Well, the other option is that traps just aimlessly murder half the party.
And let's not pretend we didn't do a more archaic form of taking twenty back in the old days when we prodded every cobblestone with a ten foot pole.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It makes sense, Matt, but I suspect that part of the contention lies in Different Kinds of Fun.
I admit to being a pro-trap guy, under the right circumstances, and I also admit that the move from 2nd Edition (letting the player describe what her character is doing to find the traps) to 3rd Edition (rolling Search, then Disable Device) has struck me as a retrograde innovation.
And that's because I like to read mysteries and figure out the clues before Poirot or Lord Peter. I like to work puzzles. I went through 6 years of graduate school in Mathematics, and one of the driving forces was the visceral "AHA!" moment when I'd figured out the secret move of a proof or realized that two seemingly disparate classes of objects were really one and the same.
When I describe how my PC is fooling around with the lime-encrusted skeleton immersed in the freezing stream, and I am rewarded by finding the key to Room 25, that's a feeling of real success. If I roll a d20 and either succeed (rolled an 18!) or fail (rolled a 4.), I don't have the same feeling of accomplishment.
Old-school D&D had a level of skill and mastery.
But, as I say, you don't need to like my kind of fun.
Edit: And, just now, a colleague emailed me this site. CIA Games
It makes sense, Matt, but I suspect that part of the contention lies in Different Kinds of Fun.
I admit to being a pro-trap guy, under the right circumstances, and I also admit that the move from 2nd Edition (letting the player describe what her character is doing to find the traps) to 3rd Edition (rolling Search, then Disable Device) has struck me as a retrograde innovation.
And that's because I like to read mysteries and figure out the clues before Poirot or Lord Peter. I like to work puzzles. I went through 6 years of graduate school in Mathematics, and one of the driving forces was the visceral "AHA!" moment when I'd figured out the secret move of a proof or realized that two seemingly disparate classes of objects were really one and the same.
When I describe how my PC is fooling around with the lime-encrusted skeleton immersed in the freezing stream, and I am rewarded by finding the key to Room 25, that's a feeling of real success. If I roll a d20 and either succeed (rolled an 18!) or fail (rolled a 4.), I don't have the same feeling of accomplishment.
Old-school D&D had a level of skill and mastery.
But, as I say, you don't need to like my kind of fun.
There has to be some type of happy medium we can find here.
One thing I've noticed seems to work in my games is having traps do ability score damage(NOT DRAIN) as opposed to hit point damage. This way there is some danger there, but not so much that people feel a TPK will occur if they do not find every trap in existance. I've also modified that damage rules a bit so that they're a little more "fun"(read damage does not last as long) than normal.
|
I'm not good at visualizing imaginary environments, and therefore I don't enjoy having to interact with them.
I have to ask...
This is not to be rude or snarky, just honest curiosity...
If the above is true, why do you play table-top RPGs? I mean, they are by definition, "visualizing imaginary environments"...
Like I said, honest curiosity, nothing more...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, let's say that I like chess, and you like Boggle (where success is entirely dependent on luck). Is there any way to set up a challenge where both skill and luck play a part? Sure, it's called "Magic". So we could set up a challenge where the more skillful I am, the better my chances, but the old "Search and Disable" rolls still apply. In a contest, a less skillful player might get lucky and win, but over the long run, the skillful player will have an advantage.
For example, if I mention a particular place to examine, I could earn a +6 or +8 on my Search check.
It makes sense, Matt, but I suspect that part of the contention lies in Different Kinds of Fun.
I admit to being a pro-trap guy, under the right circumstances, and I also admit that the move from 2nd Edition (letting the player describe what her character is doing to find the traps) to 3rd Edition (rolling Search, then Disable Device) has struck me as a retrograde innovation.
Chris, in AD&D you still had a skill called "Find and Remove Traps" (emphasis mine). So instead of rolling dice to find a trap, you would have to describe what you're doing and yet still you'd have to roll dice to the trap. That's worse, not better, in my book.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
True, hogarth, but only Theives have that ability. Everybody else needs to use common sense.
Player: My ranger pours water on the floor.
GM: It pools in a number of places, but seems to drain down a crevice about two feet ahead of you, cunningly wrought among the flagstones. It suggests the outline of a trap-door in the floor.
"Find and Remove Traps" is the back-up roll, once being clever goes as far as it can. I recommend Through Dungeons Deep, written in 1981, when Old School was the only school. Pay particular attention to Chapter 6, which details the over-the-top prcedures Plamondon's group had cobbled together to get treasure without triggering the traps they knew were there. (Why subject the loot to high heat after you take it out of the dungeon? To remove the contact poison smeared on the coins, of course.)
Well, let's say that I like chess, and you like Boggle (where success is entirely dependent on luck). Is there any way to set up a challenge where both skill and luck play a part? Sure, it's called "Magic". So we could set up a challenge where the more skillful I am, the better my chances, but the old "Search and Disable" rolls still apply. In a contest, a less skillful player might get lucky and win, but over the long run, the skillful player will have an advantage.
For example, if I mention a particular place to examine, I could earn a +6 or +8 on my Search check.
I've been doing that last part for ages.
True, hogarth, but only Theives have that ability. Everybody else needs to use common sense.
Player: My ranger pours water on the floor.
GM: It pools in a number of places, but seems to drain down a crevice about two feet ahead of you, cunningly wrought among the flagstones. It suggests the outline of a trap-door in the floor."Find and Remove Traps" is the back-up roll, once being clever goes as far as it can.
I honestly don't think anything has changed between AD&D and 3.X D&D other than your personal play style, perhaps. In my experience, either you roll to find a trap or you find it using logic and experimentation, in either edition.
|
|
The only time I've ever visualized something useful in an RPG context was my description for "The Complete Guide to Rakshasas," which turned out like a much cooler version of what I wanted. Too bad nobody bought it.
Thank you for answering my question...
And if it's any consolation, I have all the DragonMech books you helped write! :-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It strikes me that Matt's original post really isn't about traps being bad (although he may feel differently :) ).
What's bad is substituting traps for storytelling.
Yes and no. That's an astute observation - I like the storytelling aspect. I like the *roleplaying* part more than I like the *game* part. Personally, I don't like to have traps around unless they further the story.
I also don't like to have them around even if they do further the story. That's a matter of personal preference, rather than aesthetic judgement. I happen to find traps boring and annoying all on their own, especially the old-school Tomb Of Horrors style. That's partly because I find dungeons boring and annoying, which is a whole separate set of issues...
And as a GM, the thing I hate most is a player just looking at me blandly with a d20 in hand saying, "I check for traps." I want to know WHERE you are checking for traps, how you are checking for traps, what you are touching and what you are not. I don't need a 20 minute long description (see Matt's complaint) but when trap seeking does happen, it SHOULD be something more than a blank stare and a die roll.Again, mileage varies. I'd much rather give you a blank stare and die roll. I'm not good at visualizing imaginary environments, and therefore I don't enjoy having to interact with them. I'll have more fun if I can get past the trap by relying on my character's skills rather than my own. If I could find traps in real life, I'd be a crimefighting archaeologist. And although I might play a crimefighting archaeologist in a game, I'm not doing it so that I can practice that skill set, but so that I can gloss over that skill set with a few die rolls. In this case, the dice are serving as a proxy for the things my character can do but that I can't and don't want to. If that makes sense.
Thanks for the direct response, I'm honored. :)
I see what you're saying but I have to say I'm a little confused: in response to part the first, you say you prefer story over game.
And then you say you prefer to sit and roll a die rather than do a little in character description?
I realize there is a balance to be had here--if we all sit around describing every tiny thing we do that's boring, and if all we do is throw dice and push around minis, we may as well be playing Talisman or something.
But I'd like to know where you see the sweet spot is between narrative quality and mechanical efficiency.
I'd also like to know--okay, I agree to a point, traps can be boring. And I definitely think they need to be applied well to be interesting and effective.
So what would you replace traps with? That is to say, what challenges would you present to the party that both make sense narratively and wouldn't be all-combat, all the time? I also know you don't like puzzles, so what else would you use?
Some example questions, for scenarios that might easily pop up in various adventures (and there ARE answers to them, I want to see yours!):
- If a party has found the national treasure and need to steal it, what precautions has the king taken to protect the treasure that do not involve traps? Is it just a lot of guards? What else could he use?
- How do the savages in the forest keep unwanted creatures and visitors from approaching?
- What precautions are used to prevent robbers from raiding tombs?
How is a robot or golem different than a trap in the context of this discussion?
It's a non-sentient hunk of material designed to hurt the players that cannot be interacted with socially. Is there really much of a difference story-wise if the pole-ax is in the hands of an animated suit of armor or triggered by a pressure plate? Or is the difference that the golem creates a more interesting tactical challenge?
Players vs traps also doesn't have to be thought of as players vs environment. Some character created those traps, and they are an extension of his personality...his way of solving problems. Especially in a case where the players will get to face the person who actually made the traps, there are some things that can be learned about the trapbuilder.
If the players are invading a wizard's stronghold, how is it ultimately different whether the wizard throws a fireball at the party or uses a fire trapped door? The end result is the same: the party has (hopefully, from the wizard's standpoint) been burned to a crisp. The only real difference is the personality of the wizard. Same goes for crossbow trap/hand-held crossbow in a thief's lair, for example.
Just for the record, I agree that traps are boring. I'm just playing Devil's advocate here.
How is a robot or golem different than a trap in the context of this discussion?
Because everyone in the party can participate in fighting a golem (usually), but a trap usually involves one (in the case of disarming) or zero (in the case of activating) PCs playing an active role.
There are exceptions, of course.
This might be late since I skipped a lot of post but:
A player should not have to describe how he is searching for a trap. The character is the expert, not the player. I mean nobody makes wizards explain spellcraft checks. Either the DM can accept the dice roll or he can make up his own fluff as to how the trap was found. If a DM made me describe how I was searching every square we would have serious issues. I normally do one perception check per room for traps, unless it is a large room, but my players know how many checks a room takes once I draw it on the battlemat.
I for one have never rigorously searched for traps. My DM basically let's us do a perception to see if there are any traps within our perception. Our party tends to be rougeless, but even so all the traps have been in sensible places and some have even had sensible visual cues (such as a trap that's already been set off) Not that we don't run into traps, but they're never drag anything down in our games and they often give cues to what's important. (For example, some of the drow we were fighting had trapped the entrances to the rooms where they placed mutilated hostages)
Traps are a certain type of challenge that some people like, some people don't. Some people don't like having to track their spells, so they don't play spell casters. Some people don't like having to track down mysteries through diplomacy or searching locales. Traps are a certain type of challenge that can add to a game if used right, but even then, there will be people who still don't like it. (Same as other challenges, such as mystery, mazes, diplomacy, fights, etc) Though I think that's what I like about RolePlaying Games, it can bend into many different types of games depending on the GM and players. It's more about the flavor, because if you take out the flavor it just becomes abstract simulation rules.
One of my favorite table top quotes is "traps are solidified 'no fun' zones -- they are what the world looks like when all the fun leaks out."
In service,
Rich
Go to The Original Dr. Games Site.
For me puzzles, riddles, traps, etc. can be great, IF you use them sparingly and sensibly.
They have to be interesting and add something to game. Which I have seen a number of times.
I don't use them much, but when I do I think they have made the game more interesting.