TRAPS

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
I've been thinking about traps recently. Traps should be exciting...in fact, I enjoy watching tomb raider type movies because I enjoy watching the characters deal with the traps. I also like seeing those old trap books that have pictures depicting what's happening. But with complicated traps is also the 'trap' of writing too much about the trap and clogging up things if its too complicated.

This got me thinking about the classic pit trap in a corridor and the discussion of how it slows down play. I got in a discussion about it with someone, who basically said--wouldn't the corridor and hallways be areas where you would place traps? Wouldn't you want to protect your lair as best you can?"
And sure...yes...that makes sense, and I like things to make some sense....but the gameplay does slow to a crawl when PCs get over-cautious.

And some areas make sense to have some corridor traps. For example, in Vermilion, I got a thieves' hideout with a 'challenge' area for new thieves. So, I made it pretty obvious in the beginning that this particular area probably has traps. Sign the book if you want to be a challenger...etc. But I found myself still trying to write something for interest for the players in those corridor area traps. Because interaction is key and they should have a chance to dismantle it? right? It feels like a cheap-shot to just say you are walking along and fall into a trap without a chance to interact. But...is it? Like wandering encounters, traps can be used to whittle away resources...sometimes PCs can just have bad luck? But yeah--the slowing down the game part is a consequence...hmm.

So I guess corridor traps would be ok--if the area is keyed with a description so that there is a possibility for interaction (even though reading a description while they are in a hallways is sorta a dead giveaway that there will either be a trap, trick, or encounter). Is that something people agree on? Somewhat like a Wandering Encounter table--they are much better when the monster is actually doing something rather than a DM just rolling up 6 orcs and say 6 orcs come around the corner and attack. So since a trap in a corridor can't be doing anything--there should be some sort of description of the area to give that interaction.

Or, maybe random corridor traps are ok and can be hand-waved if characters are carrying a 10' pole or other pre-cautionary gear? This would force them to carry (encumbrance) that stuff in order to hand-wave corridor traps, and make choices (do I ditch this gear for more loot?). Or maybe if the party has a thief in the party, they can just roll their find/remove trap automatically if coming upon a undescribed area that has a pit trap...then if successful, could be like a 6th sense and they could warn the party then they could roll another find/remove trap?

Sorta rambling, but I did want to ask--what were some your favorite traps, either that you created or read about?
 

TerribleSorcery

Should be playing D&D instead
As usual, instead of voicing my dumb opinion, I will link to some good articles I like. This guy pretty much singlehandedly change the way I do traps now.
 

TerribleSorcery

Should be playing D&D instead
(oops, I pressed Enter too fast)


 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
but the gameplay does slow to a crawl when PCs get over-cautious.
Only if over-cautious behavior is rewarded. If players only avoid trap damage and suffer no other setback by taking an inordinate amount of time analyzing every square inch in front of them, they will do so. Players are not characters. They may have a fantasy they're playing out, that they're not the IT guy with 13 backup drives but instead the dashing adventurer, but the reality is the guy with 13 backup drives is the one in your dungeon. And they keep 13 backup drives because the chance of someone crashing through their window and hitting them over the head while they're backing up their data is zero.

The key to good traps is they are half divided between: 1) nuisance traps that should only be cost-effective to avoid via spells handing the discovery-notification process with zero real time cost, but that aren't themselves likely to crush adventure progress; and 2) situations the players know by context is sketchy and the question is "my suspicions - paranoia or intuition?"

#1 traps should be placed where you would put them if you were the builder. About half of these should also have some context that at least seems obvious in retrospect - train-the-player traps. The other half are expected to be blundered through and the costs of that blundering are built in to the overall difficulty

#2 traps should be built as the risk to obtain something desired. They reveal even as they extract their price, or when defeated without damage.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
This is the general procedure that I follow for hall traps (there are exceptions I may get into later, but I have limited to write just now). Most hall traps are automatically discovered is a general procedure is adopted whereby one member of the party is responsible for probing the floor ahead. This procedure has a significant impact on the frequency of wandering monster checks, because movement slows right down (to otherwise difficult to justify 1e levels). In the absence of such probing, I set the DC well above what the best person in the party is likely to have as a passive check (ie. automatic detection if probing, unlikely to detect if not probing). So you have a choice between risking traps or risking wandering monster checks.

I make detection by probing automatic (rather than 2/6, which is common in some circles - I think Bryce uses this) because I want traps to be found, because I think the process of circumventing found traps is interesting.

Note this also makes running away into uncharted territory risky. Clever players will always think about their path of retreat before engaging a monster.

I also make mapping a slow process (if someone is mapping, someone else may as well be probing for traps, and vice versa), and allow elves an automatic active check for secret doors if they take on the role of looking for them while exploring (something I imported to 4e from 1e - I believe there is language in the 1e DMG that suggests that they need to take on the active role in order for the ability to work, but I don't have a copy with me to check). I generally make finding secret doors relatively easy and not very time consuming, but the process of figuring out how to open them is harder and takes 10 minutes.

One thing to note in editions that care about action economy. The guy carrying the 10' pole does not have a weapon drawn (unless he is probing with a spear or similar weapon - really you can probe with anything, the question is how close do you want to be if you accidentally set the thing off). Nor does the guy drawing a map (although a wizard in 4e can use his spellbook as a focus, if he is writing in that).

EDIT: to be clear, I am not advocating a procedure where every 10' the player declares that he is probing a floor, which the DM then adjudicates. I am advocating a procedure where the player declares that he is taking on the role of probing the floor, and the DM only adjudicates the results when a trap actually occurs.
 
Last edited:

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
two words: Take. 20.

Take20

and then if you want it to be a thing, tell them they found something (because of the Take20 or Take10) and drop down to granular mode where they can figure the Trap/Trick out using their brains instead of the dice.

Take20. "It takes you 20 min. to reach the end of the corridor. You find no traps." or "After 10 min. of searching you find what looks like a Secret Door behind the tapestry in the NW corner of the room. You're not sure how to open it."

"but then no one ever trips my cunningly/painstakingly designed traps!" you wail and pull out great clumps of hair. To which I reply "good". But also, players get sloppy in a million different ways without you needing to beat them over the head with DM fiat. Don't be afraid to Take20 my friends.

Don't ask me how you're supposed to do that with those not-great 1e Thief tables, but I'm sure you can come up with a way.
 

Two orcs

Officially better than you, according to PoN
The cost of meticulous search is wandering monsters. I think traps can be fine as basically unavoidable resource drains, as a cost to exploration, but with a function of setting the mood and making the real dangers (monsters, big telegraphed traps and hazards) more dangerous. In one case a "stupid" pit trap paid off great in gameplay, enemy humanoid capable of flight used a dungeon section as a passage to the surface and the players were finding their way down it. They managed to capture one of said humanoids and force him to show the shortest path through the dungeon. Did but lead them over a pit trap (which casual examination would have revealed to be covered in undisturbed dust but "jumping off" foot prints before it) that sprung and allowed their captive to escape.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
two words: Take. 20.

Take20

and then if you want it to be a thing, tell them they found something (because of the Take20 or Take10) and drop down to granular mode where they can figure the Trap/Trick out using their brains instead of the dice.

Take20. "It takes you 20 min. to reach the end of the corridor. You find no traps." or "After 10 min. of searching you find what looks like a Secret Door behind the tapestry in the NW corner of the room. You're not sure how to open it."

"but then no one ever trips my cunningly/painstakingly designed traps!" you wail and pull out great clumps of hair. To which I reply "good". But also, players get sloppy in a million different ways without you needing to beat them over the head with DM fiat. Don't be afraid to Take20 my friends.

Don't ask me how you're supposed to do that with those not-great 1e Thief tables, but I'm sure you can come up with a way.
Take 20 is functionally identical to automatic detection using a meticulous procedure. 1e speed for an unarmored party that is presumed to be mapping, probing, and checking for secret doors as they go is 12' per minute, or 120' per ten minute turn, which I expect is meticulous enough to trigger take 20 rules if your system has them.

The reason I prefer to phrase it as "automatic discovery if you investigate in this fashion" is because I want to encourage narrative investigation in a game with a skill system. Probing with a 10' pole is only one example, but it is part of setting the tone; to find other sorts of traps or hidden things I like to keep in mind a way that the party can automatically find them with proper investigation. Rolling a perception check is really a safety net, something to do if you can't think how to investigate.

So the procedure works like this:

1. DM describes the environment. Description includes some clue, however small, that further investigation might be fruitful. This step is necessary (and your players need to know how you apply it) to avoid pixel-bitching.

2. Players may choose to investigate. Proper investigation automatically discovers something about the hidden object (but not necessarily its full nature, figuring that out is part of the puzzle).

3. If players don't bother to investigate, or make the wrong choices in investigating and don't learn anything, then they can fall back on the system's version of a perception check.

If using a perception check, the DC should be high enough that the passive perceptions of high-perception characters aren't good enough. If you want to encourage narrative exploration, then choosing to rely only on skill checks needs to carry a risk with it. This is, BTW, the way I think the early game was supposed to work; low level thieves are poor at checking for traps because this is not supposed to be the default method of finding traps.

A word on secret doors. The standard method of detecting secret doors is to tap on the walls and listen for hollow sound. This makes a distinct noise, which effectively alerts anyone in the tunnels that someone is looking for secret doors (probably an adventurer). So trigger more frequent wanderer checks. My interpretation of 1e rules, and application of them to later edition play, is that elves get to make active perception checks for secret doors as they are wandering along (ie not tapping), provided that they are concentrating on the activity. Compare p. 16 of the 1e PHB to pp. 96-97 of the DMG.

The reason you might care about this is that, unlike hall traps which are gotchas if not found using reasonable exploration techniques, you often want at least some secret doors to be missable without special investigation. You may have parts of the dungeon that are hidden because they are a reward for good play, which is a lot different from hall traps which represent a risk if you choose to move quickly (and thereby circumvent wandering monster checks).

In other words, these two features have different functions and therefore require different approaches to placement and discovery. I know that can be hard to grok if you are using 3e and like the design goal that like procedures should be applied to like things, and that it is why it is important to treat these as unlike in particular ways, partly by how you assign DCs and what activities allow for take 10 or take 20, but also by narrative differences (checking for secret doors is noisy so taking 20 results in more wandering monster checks).
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
I always thought of spotting secret doors as spotting seems, out-of-place decorations, that sort of thing, but that's an interesting way to differentiate.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I always thought of spotting secret doors as spotting seems, out-of-place decorations, that sort of thing, but that's an interesting way to differentiate.
That makes sense for secret doors in a room, but most hallways are pretty featureless. You could look for cracks in the masonry (in a hallway with masonry), but finding one would just reveal the possibility of a secret door (as opposed to being just a crack in the masonry).

Of course, it also begs the question of how many party members you have devoted to particular activities. In a party with no elves or dwarves, if you have one person probing the path ahead, and one person mapping, and one person watching ahead, and another watching behind, then you will need one person looking for signs of secret doors on each wall - making the minimum effective party size six, unless someone takes on two roles, in which case you move half as fast/take twice as many wandering monster checks.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Yeah, so this is what we're doing with Barrowmaze. We're used to 3e, so that's the rules backbone we're falling back on, but I'm running the game with Dr. Gillespie's instructions in mind; ie keep it old school. He's got a lot of traps (so much so, that the majority are not detailed at all other than a random table at the end of the product that can be used to spice things up), but the diligent time-keeping and constant checking for wandering monsters is forcing the PC's to choose a trade off between Take20 and expedience. So far there has been no pixel-bitching paralysis or if there is, it has been extremely efficient. Like if the room bears serious investigation they'll put guards on the door and the thief will say he's taking 20 on the walls, floors, ceilings, alter, chest. Which allows me to say with very little hesitation that they take 10 min. poking around the room; I very obviously roll an encounter dice behind my screen; the players grit their teeth; we move on from there. If the author put some love into whatever's hidden in the room. I make them figure it out rather than hand-wave it with dice. This has the added benefit of taking things out of the hands of the Thief and lets everyone get in on the problem solving.

As a side design note: This is an important dimension to Barrowmaze and it's something that it shares with a number of the other top 'OSR' adventures that I can think of and maybe part of what draws myself, a practitioner of a latter-day edition, to these oldschool adventures; is the way it subtly coaxes/trains the DM to a certain style of play that definitely originated with but no longer necessarily needs to have anything to do with any particular rules-chassis.
You can play it old school without the old school rules is what I'm saying. I feel like there's a lot of confusion about that around here. I know I'm preaching to the choir for a couple of you 4 and 5e guys.
 
Top