Just because a rogue finds a trap does not mean that he found the point where the trap can be disabled.
Sure a simple tripwire style trap can be be disabled on the spot, but a complex crushing room trap might have the disable point hidden around the room in another place. (like on the ceiling).
Think about each trap and who built it..most trapmakers would make traps that they can shut down to safely pass, but they may make it a trick that if you don't know how to get to the disable point safely, then you may set off the trap anyway.
Most trapmakers who make an expensive trap don't build it so any lucky rogue can walk up and take it out with a pair of wire clippers!
If the trap builder can fly or has mage hand, he may put the disable switch on the other side of the trap. In that case, the rogue may need to make a spot check to see it, or find a way safely over the trap to search for the disarm point.
Besides, from a game stand point, just letting the rogue roll dice and say "CLICK! I disarm the trap." is boring and not very good role-playing. Letting the player work for the disable of the trap is much more dramatic and a better chance at role playing than reducing him to a simple 1 to 2 roll game mechanic. It also makes him more valuable to the party and lets the rogue actually shine for once.
If you have watched RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, when Indiana Jones tries to get the golden idol off a trapped pedestal by using a bag of sand to try to fool the weight trigger, it takes long , tense moments to see if he will make it...Thats what rogue skills should role play like!
Reducing it to: "Ok, Indy rolled a 5 and set off the trap" is just sad.
Remember, Role playing , not Roll playing.
or I'll just add to my check to disable it from the other side of the room, messing with the wall so if the ceiling tries to drop it gets stuck. If i cant make a heightened check as a rogue then i don't need to be one, let the ranger with a few ranks in disable device do all that roleplaying stuff cause then after the trap I'll have a much more competent character.
Traps being "fun" only works if everyone can get involved, no other situation requires a side quest for explicitly one character. I'd rather move on and let everyone else get to play again
A class shouldn't be good because the DM caters to them, no other class requires this, even paladins can contribute without meeting evil and demons. Not to mention my PC's already level up too fast because I don't tailor for or against them. Everyone standing around getting more xp because I need to make the rogue feel useful doesn't do anything but cause more downtime
Who said anything about catering to them?
I said it was another option to increase the number of traps, and to descriptively celebrate each trap because you have a player interested in traps. You may not agree with that, but it certainly isn't mandatory.
If your PCs are advancing too fast for any reason, that's something you have to deal with. I wouldn't think twice about switching to the slow track. Personally, I've kicked XP altogether, but that's not for everyone, I understand.
I think the GM frustration that stems from a great trapfinder is that it feels like the traps are there for no reason. Instead of just "You hit the DC", being ready with some description, and getting through it fast enough to not bog down the whole game can make a huge difference.
There is nothing wrong with pre-rolling Perception for all the traps in a dungeon session, and giving a second roll if the rogue player singles something out during play to inspect. That way, players can power through really quickly instead of bogged down trap play, but things that set off alarms for the the players can still be inspected more carefully.
There's no magic bullet for this guys, it is very much a style of play issue. We all know it.
Yes there are things a character will know a player won't, but that doesn't mean they should be able to violate basic conceptual logic, without the universe working different in that area.
For example: how does "disable device" serve to disable a net, dirt, adn leaves over a hole style pit trap? There's not even a trapdoor to jam shut. Sure, you can IDENTIFY it, but short of boarding it up or filling it in, it's not getting DISABLED.
Disable device should NOT be universal, because sometimes there isn't a "Device" in the traditional sense.
I re-knot the net so it is walkable if you dont rush it. It is universal because your supposed to be soooooo clever with traps that no solution escapes you. This is all the rogue has going for it, don't take that away
or I'll just add to my check to disable it from the other side of the room, messing with the wall so if the ceiling tries to drop it gets stuck. If i cant make a heightened check as a rogue then i don't need to be one, let the ranger with a few ranks in disable device do all that...
You can't just add to your check to do something that is out of reach. Thats like saying that a bad guy hiding behind a 5 ft thick stone wall can still be hit, it just adds to his AC. Maybe you should not be a rogue..try a paladin.
If you want to mess with the wall then role play it!
The DM should ask what you are trying to jam the trap with...and decide if it breaks under the weight of the trap. (" the 10 ft pole you braced the ceiling with begins to crack..")
You can try to be a rules lawyer all you want, the rules are just guidelines, what matters is role playing and everyone having fun.
Rule zero comes first.
Who said anything about catering to them?
I said it was another option to increase the number of traps, and to descriptively celebrate each trap because you have a player interested in traps. You may not agree with that, but it certainly isn't mandatory.
If your PCs are advancing too fast for any reason, that's something you have to deal with. I wouldn't think twice about switching to the slow track. Personally, I've kicked XP altogether, but that's not for everyone, I understand.
I think the GM frustration that stems from a great trapfinder is that it feels like the traps are there for no reason. Instead of just "You hit the DC", being ready with some description, and getting through it fast enough to not bog down the whole game can make a huge difference.
There is nothing wrong with pre-rolling Perception for all the traps in a dungeon session, and giving a second roll if the rogue player singles something out during play to inspect. That way, players can power through really quickly instead of bogged down trap play, but things that set off alarms for the the players can still be inspected more carefully.
There's no magic bullet for this guys, it is very much a style of play issue. We all know it.
adding more traps because someone made a trapfinding rogue is catering, pretty much the definition.
trap for no reason = quick(ish) boring free xp
Complicated very thematic trap = okay fighter, wizard, cleric go make a snack run while the rogue and I keep playing, I know I let him participate when your guys specialties came up but his ability gives him special treatment.
and Pre-rolling is very anti-immersive
You can't just add to your check to do something that is out of reach. Thats like saying that a bad guy hiding behind a 5 ft thick stone wall can still be hit, it just adds to his AC. Maybe you should not be a rogue..try a paladin.If you want to mess with the wall then role play it!
The DM should ask what you are trying to jam the trap with...and decide if it breaks under the weight of the trap. (" the 10 ft pole you braced the ceiling with begins to crack..")You can try to be a rules lawyer all you want, the rules are just guidelines, what matters is role playing and everyone having fun.
Rule zero comes first.
the trap is in reach.... the whole ceiling is the trap last I checked. If in your games I can just roleplay it then why in the world do I need to be a rogue for that? hell my barbarian can do that.
and your right about the fun, its too bad the trap-finder is the only one having any
the trap is in reach.... the whole ceiling is the trap last I checked. If in your games I can just roleplay it then why in the world do I need to be a rogue for that? hell my barbarian can do that.and your right about the fun, its too bad the trap-finder is the only one having any
Do you whine this much when you are playing?
You can just roleplay much of it. The rolls are there for the times when a question of pass or fail needs to be answered.Yes, your Barbarian can try it! The Rogue is better at it, much better.
Everyone in the party can pitch in to help..it just requires a little imagination to determine how. The DM's job is to determine if it has a chance of success. Think outside the box. This is Pathfinder, not World of Warcraft. You can attempt anything you want. If you will be successful is another matter.
Do you whine this much when you are playing?
You can just roleplay much of it. The rolls are there for the times when a question of pass or fail needs to be answered.
Yes, your Barbarian can try it! The Rogue is better at it, much better.Everyone in the party can pitch in to help..it just requires a little imagination to determine how. The DM's job is to determine if it has a chance of success. Think outside the box. This is Pathfinder, not World of Warcraft. You can attempt anything you want. If you will be successful is another matter.
I am failing to understand how the rogue is better at it in your games, if it isn't a roll then it is player based and not character based. (hence the clever barbarian player is better at it then the slower rogue player) Roleplaying should not stomp on the players that built fun flavorful abilities into their character.
This forces one of three situations: (a) GM simply removes most traps from the equation, or (b) the GM has to escalate the DC to find the trap to a level that actually threatens the Uber Trapfinder, or (c) both a and b. (This is my current campaign.)
This is simply wrong.
Your DM should not be metagaming like this, and shame on him if he is.
Did every enemy caster suddenly decide to take resist energy when the party sorcerer elected to learn fireball? Even when they didn't know anything about the sorcerer? If the sorcerer is elemental and casting cold fireballs did they select resist energy (cold) instead of fire??
Unless the enemy is planning against the party specifically they are going to use tactics that work against what they might expect to encounter. While an enemy cleric might expect a fireball from their opposition they won't expect to deal against cold damage unless they have prior warning as you typically don't see cold damage until cone of cold which is much later on...
Likewise some traps could be found and bypassed by the bad guys and incorporated into their defenses. These traps could be centuries older than the oldest PC, and certainly did not take into account their rogue's current ability to find it...
If the rogue autofinds the trap and can autodisable it (and even bypass it) so what? Do you suddenly have antimagic zones over chasms when the party gets a fly item?
This sadly is a very bad and perhaps even common mentality.
-James
No, as the GM in question I use traps when they are called for. Most of them are "by the book". However, when the situation calls for a trap that can and should be a legitimate threat, I will adjust the trap as I deem fit. If the villains themselves craft the trap, the DCs will fall within their realm of expertise to install. If Ye Olde Ancient Semi-gawds crafted the traps, then the sky is the limit .
An example of this is the trap in the cairn found in an early Kingmaker adventure. I set the DC without foreknowledge of the rogue's functioning bonus, I only knew that the bonus available to the rogue was far in excess of "as written". Thus, the DC was reached by figuring out what a determined caster / trapsmith would attain in the attempt to ward intruders from disturbing the remains of the one honored within.
I don't meta-game the villains beyond their capabilities, so that accusation can go back whence it came into the void between the stars.
If the villains are able, inclined and possess the ability to reconnoiter the player characters, they will. Most villains are not able to do so for one reason or another, so they don't. Some have a predetermined list of what they prepare and in what order when the alarm is sounded - so that is what they do. Sometimes it means a seriously "buffed" villain, some times it back fires on the villain, whether from exhausting his "buffs" for the day or from spending too much time "buffing" and getting caught in the latrine with his breeches around his ankles and a wad of wiping paper in hand by the characters.
If a rogue trapfinder wants to hit the "almost guaranteed" range, there is "by the book" absolutely no need for a Disable Device bonus in excess of a +32 (higher if there is a penalty that can be taken to speed up the process), meaning a 9th level spell-based magical trap is disabled on anything but a natural 1 on the d20. When you hear that the bonus is higher than that by half again, what's the gut reaction ? Put yourself in the GMs footwear.
The flip side of this is the rogue designed to find each and every trap, automatically, at the moment the trap spotter advanced talent is selected.
Telling such a player that his "trap-dar" is pinging at (square x or item y or whatever) is as bad or worse than crummy traps.
This forces one of three situations: (a) GM simply removes most traps from the equation, or (b) the GM has to escalate the DC to find the trap to a level that actually threatens the Uber Trapfinder, or (c) both a and b. (This is my current campaign.)
D is another option.
Option D: obviously, your player who made the trapspringer is interested in traps, so you can and should use more traps than usual. Sheer numbers will allow that occasionally he'll blow his luck and miss a tough one now and then, but for the most part, letting this player make his rolls and describing in detail the traps he disarms and how he disarms them should be quite satisfying. He did give up other competencies to be Mr. Trapspringer, after all.
Your job as GM is to let him enjoy that role, and by increasing the number of traps you not only accomplish that, but you add to the challenge.
Meanwhile, the rest of the party (if you're doing it right) will be very grateful to Mr. Trapspringer. Of course it gets boring if it slows gameplay to a crawl, but if you use auto perception the presence of Mr. Trapspringer can speed up play! Put the rest of your effort into making the disarming memorable.
Actually, the rogue is a cohort of a player, so far zero interest has been expressed in playing up the cool factor of dealing with a trap in heroic fashion. To quote or paraphrase the player: I just want to deal with traps automatically. Not much fun to be had there, IMO.
Now, were a "main character" the rogue trap finder, that would be radically different, as you have so eloquently pointed out.
Two things here.
First you are metagaming pure and simple, just as much as when you decide that all the enemies will be resistant to cold because the blasting sorcerer always deals cold damage. That it 'makes it a challenge' isn't a defense; it's a cop-out.
Second, when I hear that a rogue can tap traps I figure that he's around 8th level or higher. I don't freak out. Anymore than I'd freak out when the wizard gets much higher than that on a knowledge check. It's part of the game. This isn't some system where levels don't matter. High level rogues don't need to get caught by traps.
Traps do serve a purpose. But when you metagame the party as the DM then they fail. They fail because you have failed.
-James
my players would love if i did this actually, lvl 5 rogue has a %50 chance to either level up (high DC means high CR which means high exp) or fall unconscious? I'll take 5 of those please
adding more traps because someone made a trapfinding rogue is catering, pretty much the definition.
trap for no reason = quick(ish) boring free xp
Complicated very thematic trap = okay fighter, wizard, cleric go make a snack run while the rogue and I keep playing, I know I let him participate when your guys specialties came up but his ability gives him special treatment.
I think you're missing his point. He's saying add some more traps, not make it a trap adventure. If someone put a lot of ranks into Diplomacy, would you stop throwing NPCs at the party? If someone put a lot of ranks into Perception, would you stop having stealthy opponents? If someone is playing a paladin, would you decide that the only enemies are Neutral or Good? Do you never use undead simply because the cleric has a channeling ability? No. So why not throw the player a bone and let him have a few extras?
You don't have to have traps be boring either. You could spice it up. Put the players in a position where they are dealing with multiple traps and opponents at the same time. Have the trap itself be trapped. Trap disarming isn't a 1-round skill unless it's simple, in which case it doesn't matter anyway. What if the rogue needs to spend 5 rounds disabling the trap. During this time, he's also having to deal with other issues. Now those 5 rounds get extended because some rounds he's fighting or having to puzzle something else out.
Traps don't have to be set to be two die rolls and we move on. You can make them interesting if you want.
I think you're missing his point. He's saying add some more traps, not make it a trap adventure. If someone put a lot of ranks into Diplomacy, would you stop throwing NPCs at the party? If someone put a lot of ranks into Perception, would you stop having stealthy opponents? If someone is playing a paladin, would you decide that the only enemies are Neutral or Good? Do you never use undead simply because the cleric has a channeling ability? No. So why not throw the player a bone and let him have a few extras?You don't have to have traps be boring either. You could spice it up. Put the players in a position where they are dealing with multiple traps and opponents at the same time. Have the trap itself be trapped. Trap disarming isn't a 1-round skill unless it's simple, in which case it doesn't matter anyway. What if the rogue needs to spend 5 rounds disabling the trap. During this time, he's also having to deal with other issues. Now those 5 rounds get extended because some rounds he's fighting or having to puzzle something else out.
Traps don't have to be set to be two die rolls and we move on. You can make them interesting if you want.
I can see that going over quickly, either TPK or the bad guys are forced to suffer the deadly trap, one or the other, or it goes off no one dies and it is a regular battle, with extra trap exp
And he is not saying add some traps he is saying if their is a trap-finding rogue add more traps. With things like high perception or the paladin smite, either way everyone participates in the fight and the finding, with the traps it's here's a trap and some other things to keep the rest of you busy. Not very group friendly
No, as the GM in question I use traps when they are called for. Most of them are "by the book". However, when the situation calls for a trap that can and should be a legitimate threat, I will adjust the trap as I deem fit.When you hear that the bonus is higher than that by half again, what's the gut reaction ? Put yourself in the GMs footwear.
Two things here.
First you are metagaming pure and simple, just as much as when you decide that all the enemies will be resistant to cold because the blasting sorcerer always deals cold damage. That it 'makes it a challenge' isn't a defense; it's a cop-out.
Second, when I hear that a rogue can tap traps I figure that he's around 8th level or higher. I don't freak out. Anymore than I'd freak out when the wizard gets much higher than that on a knowledge check. It's part of the game. This isn't some system where levels don't matter. High level rogues don't need to get caught by traps.
Traps do serve a purpose. But when you metagame the party as the DM then they fail. They fail because you have failed.
-James
I disagree with your accusation of meta-gaming, both (a) in that I have done the " all villains have [energy] resistance/immunity 'cause the sorcerer does " statement - which I have not except as previously explained as regards villainous capacity to do so; and (b) that you are comparing apples to oranges (combat encounters to traps).
My reason for stating the "WTF" regarding the stuper-rogue is very simple.
An 11th level rogue can be expected to field no more than a +39 Disable Device bonus at the absolute most . Generally, that bonus will not be that high.
Y'know, 'cause the rogue might actually want to meaningfully contribute to combat encounters rather than hide in a sock drawer.
Instead, I hear a bonus of +48 at the table so yes, I am indeed going to meta-game. Otherwise using a trap to actually challenge that rogue - and thus award them XP for that challenge - is not going to happen otherwise. Not all traps will remotely challenge the +39, let alone the +48. I doubt there will be more than a literal handful of them at most throughout the remaining 7 or 8 levels of the campaign.
The +48 bonus tripped my long-held "Too Much is Too Much" rule of thumb, adapted from TFOS (Teenagers From Outer Space).
If the desire to challenge the rogue a few times throughout the last half or third of a campaign is metagaming, then I concede to your accusation. I would rather meta-game and provide the players memorable encounters and traps. Some times meta-gaming is vital to creating those memorable encounters.
At 8th level, presuming a +7 INT bonus , both disable device feats, masterwork tools and maximum ranks the bonus is a +29 . This is not "auto detect" for the higher-ish CR traps, but it is very very reliable and a bonus I can live with as a GM even as early as 8th level.
Now, in response to the "you meta-game by kitting out all the bad guys with Resist Cold 30 and/or Protection from Cold 120". Well, since Her Majesty is renown for the cold motif and devastating cold-power in word and deed, I do believe that villains knowledgeable and capable of preparing for that power are going to. Only a moron that has such knowledge and the ability to act upon it fails to do so.
This is not meta-gaming, this is "Her Majesty is known for chucking freezing balls of power, let us prepare accordingly before we go to try and stab her in the face".
Cold is also the #3 energy type encountered, perhaps even tied for 2nd with electricity, so defenses prepared accordingly are not unwarranted for those that can do so, whether player or critter. Oh, don't forget ... that virtually all of these defensive measures can be wiped out by dispelling. Problem solved, just takes a round or two longer. What a shame, the fight lasts longer than 3 seconds...
I think you're missing his point. He's saying add some more traps, not make it a trap adventure. If someone put a lot of ranks into Diplomacy, would you stop throwing NPCs at the party? If someone put a lot of ranks into Perception, would you stop having stealthy opponents? If someone is playing a paladin, would you decide that the only enemies are Neutral or Good? Do you never use undead simply because the cleric has a channeling ability? No. So why not throw the player a bone and let him have a few extras?You don't have to have traps be boring either. You could spice it up. Put the players in a position where they are dealing with multiple traps and opponents at the same time. Have the trap itself be trapped. Trap disarming isn't a 1-round skill unless it's simple, in which case it doesn't matter anyway. What if the rogue needs to spend 5 rounds disabling the trap. During this time, he's also having to deal with other issues. Now those 5 rounds get extended because some rounds he's fighting or having to puzzle something else out.
Traps don't have to be set to be two die rolls and we move on. You can make them interesting if you want.
I can see that going over quickly, either TPK or the bad guys are forced to suffer the deadly trap, one or the other, or it goes off no one dies and it is a regular battle, with extra trap exp
And he is not saying add some traps he is saying if their is a trap-finding rogue add more traps. With things like high perception or the paladin smite, either way everyone participates in the fight and the finding, with the traps it's here's a trap and some other things to keep the rest of you busy. Not very group friendly
You're missing the point completely. He is simply saying to add some more traps. You are making it sound like he is saying that the only types of adventures the GM should write are 100% trap with opponents as an oversight.
Let's also make sure that it is known that he is not saying that you should be putting in traps that are lethal every time. Traps serve many purposes, lethality is only one. Delay is another. Capture is yet another. Complicating an encounter is still another. A room with traps that throw fireballs into a room with iron golems can make for a more interesting encounter with the rogue having to deal with the traps while the party is dealing with these golems that are healing. What about a room with several pit traps and flying creatures that lower level characters have to deal with?
One of the responsibilities of the GM is to make sure that players can use their abilities. They don't have to use them all the time but how hard is it to throw a trap or two in there every now and then to spice up an encounter?
I didnt say no combat either but my homebrew campaigns aren't just wingin it, I am not going to add more traps then planned just because a rogue wants to feel useful. Throwing monsters in with those traps goes with exactly what I said earlier, theres a trap so here are some things (monsters) to keep you all busy while the rogue does his thing (rogues don't like to share)
An 11th level rogue can be expected to field no more than a +39 Disable Device bonus at the absolute most . Generally, that bonus will not be that high.
Y'know, 'cause the rogue might actually want to meaningfully contribute to combat encounters rather than hide in a sock drawer.
At 8th level, presuming a +7 INT bonus (20 base INT +2 level +2 item for a 24 INT), both disable device feats, masterwork tools and maximum ranks the bonus is a +29 (8 ranks +3 class +7 INT +5 feats +2 tools +4 trapfinding bonus). This is not "auto detect" for the higher-ish CR traps, but it is very very reliable and a bonus I can live with as a GM even as early as 8th level.
First off, good lord your rogues have high Intelligence scores. Level 8 and the rogue focused on Intelligence to get it up to 24? Sure he can, but he's putting a lot into that. I don't see that as very likely. I can get the check high but I think you're showcasing non-standard builds.
Also, if you want the rogue to contribute to combat, maybe some focus on Dex or Str would be in order instead of Int. Just a thought.
In the adventures I have seen and run, the rogues have always been able to contribute meaningfully to the combat. He has plenty of options, many of which don't require much in the way of skill checks.
I didnt say no combat either but my homebrew campaigns aren't just wingin it, I am not going to add more traps then planned just because a rogue wants to feel useful. Throwing monsters in with those traps goes with exactly what I said earlier, theres a trap so here are some things (monsters) to keep you all busy while the rogue does his thing (rogues don't like to share)
This is the exact reason why people say rogues can't contribute. The GM doesn't let them.
]
This is the exact reason why people say rogues can't contribute. The GM doesn't let them.
pick any other class and the DM can't stop you (within the rules anyway)
I was recommending a tactic for GMs with a very specific player type: a trap focused rogue.
I said one option was to increase the number but not the CR of traps. I stand by that advice, in its context.
It is trivial to think up situations where that advice doesn't hold. It being a style of play issue, it appears shadow doesn't see it as one that works for him. That's fine by me.
What I have found to work for trapspringers is to increase the number of traps (thereby ensuring that traps sometimes work without increasing thier lethality). Secondly, give some glory to disarmed traps so players know what hell they avoided. I know that's good advice for some GM somewhere, because it works for me.
Only you can decide if it works for you.
I do think there are things a character will know that the player won't, and it stops a really resource GM from killing the party by putting the trigger for a trap in a huge place. I think any trap should be able to be disabled. Each DM just has to be able to come up with acceptable fluff for it.I think part of the reason trap-finding is so hated is anyone can do it with another check. It makes it less "Exclusive" than it used to be, even if your class is better.
To say nothing of the changes to traps in 3.0/3.5 that made it so traps and finding them was just a die-roll tax (Roll to find it, roll to disable, every trap) It used to be you had to figure out how to circumvent a trap once found. Personally, I like that method, at least in the part, because there are plenty of traps that shouldn't be "Disable device" fodder.
Yes there are things a character will know a player won't, but that doesn't mean they should be able to violate basic conceptual logic, without the universe working different in that area.
For example: how does "disable device" serve to disable a net, dirt, adn leaves over a hole style pit trap? There's not even a trapdoor to jam shut. Sure, you can IDENTIFY it, but short of boarding it up or filling it in, it's not getting DISABLED.
Disable device should NOT be universal, because sometimes there isn't a "Device" in the traditional sense.
I was thinking in terms of devices. I never thought about pits.
Two things here.First you are metagaming pure and simple, just as much as when you decide that all the enemies will be resistant to cold because the blasting sorcerer always deals cold damage. That it 'makes it a challenge' isn't a defense; it's a cop-out.
Second, when I hear that a rogue can tap traps I figure that he's around 8th level or higher. I don't freak out. Anymore than I'd freak out when the wizard gets much higher than that on a knowledge check. It's part of the game. This isn't some system where levels don't matter. High level rogues don't need to get caught by traps.
Traps do serve a purpose. But when you metagame the party as the DM then they fail. They fail because you have failed.
-James
The DM really can't metagame since he's an integral part of the game's structure, not a piece within it having a limited perspective. I would hold a DM who adjusts his game to include balanced spotlight time for all his players as an example of DMing with the right goals in mind.
pick any other class and the DM can't stop you (within the rules anyway)]
This is the exact reason why people say rogues can't contribute. The GM doesn't let them.
Sure he can. For example - Fighter, the DM can make a campaign based almost entirely on roleplaying and social interaction and the fighter will be useless. Wizard, the DM can have almost all encounters take place in anti-magic zones. Cleric, the DM can have all encounters take place on alternate planes where access to their deity is cut off. You get the point?
If the DM wants to be a jerk and marginalize one character or type of character, he has an infinite number of tools to do so. Bob, I think, is just saying DMs seem to do it to rogues more often than other classes.
Frankly, your posts come off to me as "let's skip all the stuff I don't like so that we can get to the stuff I like, like combat". Please correct me if I'm misreading you. And that's all fine if everyone in the group feels the same way. But if someone in the group likes trapfinding, or roleplaying social encounters in detail, aren't you willing to give them their time in the spotlight, or do you insist they have fun your way? I'll grant you that if this goes overboard and one or more players is totally dominating long periods of play that's bad, but I firmly believe that every party member should be given his opportunity to "do what he does best".
The DM really can't metagame since he's an integral part of the game's structure, not a piece within it having a limited perspective. I would hold a DM who adjusts his game to include balanced spotlight time for all his players as an example of DMing with the right goals in mind.
Two things here.First you are metagaming pure and simple, just as much as when you decide that all the enemies will be resistant to cold because the blasting sorcerer always deals cold damage. That it 'makes it a challenge' isn't a defense; it's a cop-out.
Second, when I hear that a rogue can tap traps I figure that he's around 8th level or higher. I don't freak out. Anymore than I'd freak out when the wizard gets much higher than that on a knowledge check. It's part of the game. This isn't some system where levels don't matter. High level rogues don't need to get caught by traps.
Traps do serve a purpose. But when you metagame the party as the DM then they fail. They fail because you have failed.
-James
I agree with the second part of your post, Bill, but not the first. Balanced spotlight is great, but I think DMs can achieve that without metagaming.
DMs can indeed metagame and when they do, it can be even more damaging to a campaign than when the players do, leaving hard feelings that a DM is deliberately slanting the game against a particular player. Taken to its worst extreme, it leads to a DM vs players mentality.
The key to me is maintaining consistent in-game logic by constantly asking yourself what knowledge the bad guys can reasonably be expected to have, what their level of cunning and intelligence is, and then playing them accordingly. I don't think you need to metagame, for example by giving every opposing spellcaster Resist Elements-Fire to provide more challenge to a fire elemental bloodlien sorcerer, unless of course, there is a logical reason that spellacaster knows what they will be facing.
Ooh, I just remembered my other favorite trick, along the lines of giving glory-time to disarmed traps:
Sometimes I have a trap "disarmed" by "triggering harmlessly". This can still be as exciting as a trap going off for the whole party and GM. "Alright everybody, climb up on these plinths, the whole room is gonna fill with acid shortly..." Basically, the rogue "disarms" an otherwise difficult trap by (making his disable roll and) triggering the trap intentionally while the party is safe.
GM descriptive tactics can really solve the complacency problems without changing the rules, in many cases. Good luck!
I agree with the second part of your post, Bill, but not the first. Balanced spotlight is great, but I think DMs can achieve that without metagaming.
DMs can indeed metagame and when they do, it can be even more damaging to a campaign than when the players do, leaving hard feelings that a DM is deliberately slanting the game against a particular player. Taken to its worst extreme, it leads to a DM vs players mentality.
The key to me is maintaining consistent in-game logic by constantly asking yourself what knowledge the bad guys can reasonably be expected to have, what their level of cunning and intelligence is, and then playing them accordingly. I don't think you need to metagame, for example by giving every opposing spellcaster Resist Elements-Fire to provide more challenge to a fire elemental bloodlien sorcerer, unless of course, there is a logical reason that spellacaster knows what they will be facing.
Slanting a game against a player unfairly is simply being a bad DM, regardless of whether his NPCs are using out-of-character knowledge or not. But when I say that a DM can't metagame, I'm saying that a DM has an omniscient perspective in the game and control over the mechanical levers behind it. Decisions made by a DM to make his game appropriately challenging and fair to all of his players cannot be considered metagaming because it's part and parcel of what the DM is supposed to do. I suppose one could argue that metagaming is exactly what the DM does all the time. The term simply doesn't apply as it does to players.
I agree with the second part of your post, Bill, but not the first. Balanced spotlight is great, but I think DMs can achieve that without metagaming.
DMs can indeed metagame and when they do, it can be even more damaging to a campaign than when the players do, leaving hard feelings that a DM is deliberately slanting the game against a particular player. Taken to its worst extreme, it leads to a DM vs players mentality.
The key to me is maintaining consistent in-game logic by constantly asking yourself what knowledge the bad guys can reasonably be expected to have, what their level of cunning and intelligence is, and then playing them accordingly. I don't think you need to metagame, for example by giving every opposing spellcaster Resist Elements-Fire to provide more challenge to a fire elemental bloodlien sorcerer, unless of course, there is a logical reason that spellacaster knows what they will be facing.
Slanting a game against a player unfairly is simply being a bad DM, regardless of whether his NPCs are using out-of-character knowledge or not. But when I say that a DM can't metagame, I'm saying that a DM has an omniscient perspective in the game and control over the mechanical levers behind it. Decisions made by a DM to make his game appropriately challenging and fair to all of his players cannot be considered metagaming because it's part and parcel of what the DM is supposed to do. I suppose one could argue that metagaming is exactly what the DM does all the time. The term simply doesn't apply as it does to players.
I don't think we are really in disagreement, except perhaps in how we would define metagaming. I agree the DM, as the DM, has editorial control, and can't really metagame when doing things like generally adjusting challenge level and designing advaentures and encounters to be rewarding and challenging for the whole party.
However, the DM, when playing the roles of various NPCs and enemies, certainly can metagame, if he uses his DM's knowledge to allow them to know things they otherwise wouldn't, for example to counter threats from the PCs that he shouldn't logically know even exist. That's not good, IMHO, and all the point I was trying to make.
pick any other class and the DM can't stop you (within the rules anyway)]
This is the exact reason why people say rogues can't contribute. The GM doesn't let them.Sure he can. For example - Fighter, the DM can make a campaign based almost entirely on roleplaying and social interaction and the fighter will be useless. Wizard, the DM can have almost all encounters take place in anti-magic zones. Cleric, the DM can have all encounters take place on alternate planes where access to their deity is cut off. You get the point?
If the DM wants to be a jerk and marginalize one character or type of character, he has an infinite number of tools to do so. Bob, I think, is just saying DMs seem to do it to rogues more often than other classes.
Frankly, your posts come off to me as "let's skip all the stuff I don't like so that we can get to the stuff I like, like combat". Please correct me if I'm misreading you. And that's all fine if everyone in the group feels the same way. But if someone in the group likes trapfinding, or roleplaying social encounters in detail, aren't you willing to give them their time in the spotlight, or do you insist they have fun your way? I'll grant you that if this goes overboard and one or more players is totally dominating long periods of play that's bad, but I firmly believe that every party member should be given his opportunity to "do what he does best".
That's pretty much what I was saying. The DM has control over the encounters and can determine which classes are the most effective. There is nothing inherently wrong with it so long as everyone in the group agrees that this is the type of game they want to play. There are styles of play that I don't enjoy, even if the GM is awesome otherwise. I enjoy giving everyone a chance to be in the spotlight, if it's something they like.
There is something coming up in the current campaign that I'm running that the archer is going to just love since he is probably going to be the MVP for that encounter. Everyone else will still have things to do, but it's the archer who is going to be the one who contributes the most in that encounter. Earlier in the campaign, there was a trap that the party needed to disarm because it had captured an important NPC they needed to talk to. There was another trap that the rogue chose not to disarm, even though he had found it, thinking that he could use it to his advantage in an expected combat (he was wrong, but it wasn't a bad tactical decision).
I removed some posts. Also, since this thread is clearly no longer serving a purpose, it is locked.