Quote from: Omega;954057Im imagining this D&D-esque Rube Goldberg trap where there is a string attached to the beer which when pulled opens a cage with a mouse. The mouse scampers to some cheese and triggers a mouse trap. The trap propels a d20 onto a player piano which plays barroom brawl music. The music alerts Gronan to beer thievery who then punches said libation snatcher in the shnozz.

"Mouse Trap!"

Quote from: Opaopajr;953995As to your example, since I always tell players they think they did fabulous! on their hide and sneak rolls -- because we always think we do great until proven otherwise -- telling them they found nothing and then showing the contrary is rather a non-starter.

Why is that?  How is "you think you were fabulously sneaky... but you were actually seen by the enemy" any different than "you didn't find any traps... but there's one you didn't find" (or, if you prefer a more parallel construction, "you think there aren't any traps... but there was actually one you missed")?

Quote from: nDervish;954118Why is that?  How is "you think you were fabulously sneaky... but you were actually seen by the enemy" any different than "you didn't find any traps... but there's one you didn't find" (or, if you prefer a more parallel construction, "you think there aren't any traps... but there was actually one you missed")?

Yes, you read it right, they are not different. Ergo the OOC "Truth!" of the situation is not information I would privvy my players OOC during resolution. They would only know of it IC after the fact. (Ideally, yet table circumstances & social grace for crises can cause exceptions.)

(OOC/IC = out of character & in character, respectively.)

In my games, I don't let thieves be substitute-fighters.  I mean, they can fight, but not nearly as well as a fighter would.

So they need to be very good at their particular niche specialties.  Aside from backstabbing, something they only get to do when they have the right opportunity of total surprise, their main purpose is stuff like detecting traps. So I tend to use a very broad brush in just what they have a chance of detecting.

Quote from: nDervish;953952I agree with your preference, but your example seems to contradict it.  If your brake line is broken at the same point in both cases, I fail to see any objective rationale for why you would use Detect Traps to notice the problem if it was cut intentionally, but Car Mechanic to notice if it were due to poor maintenance.

Detecting traps, the character notices that someone slid under the car on their back at one exact point, and there's a small amount of brake fluid on the ground there, and concludes that the car was sabotaged (maybe that's still not a trap). But if the issue is poor maintenance, the mechanic character looks over the car and correctly decides from unrelated clues that the car is probably not safe to drive, and notices the small amount of brake fluid in the course of confirming that impression. (Mind you, I have no particular knowledge of how one would sabotage brakes on a car, so it's probably a bad example.)

QuoteMy personal resolution is to interpret the "Traps" abilities to apply to mechanical devices in general, so "Detect Traps" allows you to detect concealed mechanisms and "Disarm Traps" allows you to sabotage them.  The purpose, intent, or effect of the mechanism don't enter in to it.

Outside of magical detection, I don't think I want to consider purpose or intent. But I'm not so sure that the effect wouldn't have a bearing on my judgement in a particular case.

Quote from: Naburimannu;953957Wow, that sounds like a screw-the-players response. Unless you're going to tell the cleric up front that because they're devoted to the god of war, their idiosyncratic version of Detect Traps has been nerfed?

I can see a game structured like this, but think I'd strongly prefer to run "Because you're devoted to the god of war, you're granted this variant spell list, which happens not to include detect traps or ...

The spell should be "Detect Possible Harm" if it finds anything that may be harmful to the character; if the cleric is calling on the god's power to decide something, then the decision should be made from the point of view of the god, shouldn't it? It's OK if a cleric's spells only heal other characters who follow the same god, but that should be made clear before players decide on a character, and that should be the case with things like Detect Traps as well. It could also help the players; the war god might well consider various undetectable magic as traps, and so detect things that a thief's ability or another god's Detect Traps spell would not. A spell by a more pacifist god would probably reveal traps that might lead to combat, but might be indifferent to spells that reduce the target's combat ability, believing that worshipers should not want improved combat abilities.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;953979And then you get into definitional Bingo with "what's the difference between a trap, an ambush, misdirection, and deception?"  If you steal my beer I'm going to punch you in the nose, does that mean my beer is a trap?

Are you sitting there with the beer? No, not a trap. Did you leave the room, discover upon your return that the beer is gone, and attack whomever you conclude stole it? No, not a trap. Did you set up some mechanism* that would alert you to the theft of the beer? Yes, that's a trap.

* Assuming that mechanism is not someone guarding your beer. I think a security guard watching for thieves is not a trap, but a burglar alarm is. If you can negotiate with it, it's not a trap.

Quote from: Opaopajr;953995As to your example, since I always tell players they think they did fabulous! on their hide and sneak rolls -- because we always think we do great until proven otherwise -- telling them they found nothing and then showing the contrary is rather a non-starter.

Quote from: nDervish;954118Why is that?  How is "you think you were fabulously sneaky... but you were actually seen by the enemy" any different than "you didn't find any traps... but there's one you didn't find" (or, if you prefer a more parallel construction, "you think there aren't any traps... but there was actually one you missed")?

Quote from: Opaopajr;954129 Yes, you read it right, they are not different. Ergo the OOC "Truth!" of the situation is not information I would privvy my players OOC during resolution. They would only know of it IC after the fact. (Ideally, yet table circumstances & social grace for crises can cause exceptions.)

(OOC/IC = out of character & in character, respectively.)

Isn't telling them they found nothing when there's something there the same as telling them they did fabulous! on their detect traps roll? What would you want to tell them in response to their statement that they look for traps? Specifically, how would it vary depending on the roll and the actual presence of a trap?

Quote from: Technomancer;953639Assume you are playing a game where there is some mechanic (skill, thief ability, etc) for detecting traps. What do you think actually constitutes a trap? How far does that mechanical ability stretch.

For an example: There is a bell hung on the inside of the lid of a treasure chest. Opening the chest will cause the bell to ring, which will cause a monster (who has been trained to come when it hears the bell) to come and attack whoever is opening the chest.

Is the bell a trap for the purpose of detecting traps?  Would your players be pissed if they used their thief skill to examine the chest for traps, you told them they found nothing, and they then opened the chest and got attacked by the monster?

I'd say yes it would. Trap in that context implies "any deliberately set up security measure intended to detect or harm an intruder."