Assume 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?
Yes. That is very much a trap of the alarm sort.
Similar to some remote traps. You trip it and elsewhere something is happening.
The main thing with detecting traps is detecting the trigger or delivery system. The pressure place, the needle in the lock, the bell attached to the chest, the snakes in the chest, the tripwire across the hall. The explosive runes on the floor. and so on...
Yes, an alarm bell triggered by opening a chest with the bell inside would count as a trap in my book.
I don't know. If there was no trigger (such as if the bell is attached under the lid without a string, latch or mechanism) I wouldn't let them detect it unless they have some magical ability. I would rule that a regular thieves ability (such as that in D&D) wouldn't be enough.
Quote from: Technomancer;953639Is 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?
Yes and yes, particularly if their method of examination would give them a reasonable chance to notice it.
Quote from: CanBeOnlyOne;953647I don't know. If there was no trigger (such as if the bell is attached under the lid without a string, latch or mechanism) I wouldn't let them detect it unless they have some magical ability. I would rule that a regular thieves ability (such as that in D&D) wouldn't be enough.
Actually Id assume this is covered by thief abilities. Checking as they go for telltale signs. Pressure plates in front of or under, things concealed in the chest as open, etc.
Yep, that's a trap a thief could detect. Presumably, a thief would open a chest lid slowly, very slowly. Depending on his skill, he'd open the lid slowly enough so as not t set off the trap...once the lid is opened enough, he'd see the bell and go "hey guys, this chest has a bell alarm trap, prolly shouldn't ring it." Not all traps are of the "detect is one thing, disarming it is another" variety. Some traps (eg, the ol' 10' pit) are in some sense disarmed simply via detection.
Yes, Techno, this is an awesome trap.
If you're the GM, you must be congratulated for this trap.
If you're the players, you should be pissed--and pleased. A game isn't a game if it doesn't result in some unexpected surprises.
What, for that matter, counts as a trap for purposes of disarming?
If you have a rope bridge lined with bells and chimes (so that walking across it alerts the guards) should you be able to disarm it?
Quote from: Doom;953654Yep, that's a trap a thief could detect. Presumably, a thief would open a chest lid slowly, very slowly. Depending on his skill, he'd open the lid slowly enough so as not t set off the trap...once the lid is opened enough, he'd see the bell and go "hey guys, this chest has a bell alarm trap, prolly shouldn't ring it." Not all traps are of the "detect is one thing, disarming it is another" variety. Some traps (eg, the ol' 10' pit) are in some sense disarmed simply via detection.
What causes me to wonder is, unlike with most other traps, the cause isn't connected (physically or intuitively) to the effect; no wires, switches, gears, etc. The thief may find the bell, but there is no obvious indication it has anything to do with the monster, especially if it is made to look like something ornamental. Thief wouldn't automatically know it was an alarm.
So it's something I wouldn't begrudge them finding, but I don't think they should automatically know it is a trap.
I'd run it like this (assuming successful check):
"You slowly crack the lid of the chest and peek in. You notice a bell hanging from the lid of the chest that would have rung had you opened the lid quickly."
Most players will figure out that's an alarm, but I wouldn't tell them that.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;953693I'd run it like this (assuming successful check):
"You slowly crack the lid of the chest and peek in. You notice a bell hanging from the lid of the chest that would have rung had you opened the lid quickly."
Most players will figure out that's an alarm, but I wouldn't tell them that.
That's what I'd say. Except I'd make the character describe what he is doing.
I still follow the thinking of In The Labyrinth on trap detection. No trap is impossible to detect, but it may be very very difficult / unikely to detect.
But the fact something is thought of as a trap is different from the actual thing.
Also, the fact someone is thinking of searching for a trap is different from what they actually perceive.
So when someone says they are searching for a trap, they are searching for signs of a trap, and they get told what they see, which may or may not be something that is a trap.
Someone with a skill that gives an extra ability to detect traps will have a broader mindset of what to look for, and will get their perceptions described differently.
So I think about the actual situation in deciding how to set the chances of detection, and how to describe what the PC notices. Thinking of the bell trap, someone could maybe discover it either by looking from below through the crack with enough light while slowly opening the lid, or by maybe hearing or feeling an extremely faint sound or vibration of the bell moving before it rang, if it's very quiet and they can concentrate and aren't wearing gloves or a helmet or whatever. It also might be a very appropriate time to ask exactly what the PC does and give them a hard chance if they're peeking the right way, and a nearly-impossible chance of the other way unless they're extremely sensitive and the conditions are right. But even if they do detect it, what they detect is just a sense of something else moving or making sound other than the lid, unless they're actually seeing the bell (but they might only see part of the bell first if they're being careful, and not able to see what it is without opening it more.
Usually with traps, people are going to see something of the mechanism, something that could be or seems like a mechanism, and not "oh you can tell it's a trap that will do X if you do Y". And they may also get a lot of false positives, but people with trap detection skills may also be skilled at testing them more safely, though all of that will tend to take some time, too.
It is a trap if the referee decides it is a trap.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;953764It is a trap if the referee decides it is a trap.
GM" Gronan... Your answer is a trap..." :D
Quote from: fearsomepirate;953693I'd run it like this (assuming successful check):
"You slowly crack the lid of the chest and peek in. You notice a bell hanging from the lid of the chest that would have rung had you opened the lid quickly."
Most players will figure out that's an alarm, but I wouldn't tell them that.
My players would proceed to ring it, just to see what happens. :D
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;953764It is a trap if the referee decides it is a trap.
Tautologically true, unless the referee lacks even that minimal authority.
But at the extreme the referee could declare almost any danger a trap: an ambush, a natural hazard, the fine print in a contract, a clever chess gambit, unexpectedly high trans fats in a banquet entree, and so on. I don't care for games where play involves persuading the referee to make an advantageous interpretation rather than characters actually doing things based on reasonably objective criteria. I would rather expect a trap to be some concealed contrivance intended to expose its target to harm. So, a car with its brake line damaged is more likely a trap than a car that's simply poorly maintained-the latter falls to someone with skill as a car mechanic to detect.
And the referee should consider the rationale for the ability to detect: if a cleric casts a spell to detect traps, then it's what the god decides is a trap -- a war god might not view a bell that attracts an enemy to fight or that exposes stealthy characters as a trap.
Quote from: Tod13;953910My players would proceed to ring it, just to see what happens. :D
But first you find cover to hide behind, ring a bell from a distance with a well placed arrow then wait for the guards to come. Once the guards are dead, it's safe to cross the bridge.
Quote from: rawma;953920I don't care for games where play involves persuading the referee to make an advantageous interpretation rather than characters actually doing things based on reasonably objective criteria. I would rather expect a trap to be some concealed contrivance intended to expose its target to harm. So, a car with its brake line damaged is more likely a trap than a car that's simply poorly maintained-the latter falls to someone with skill as a car mechanic to detect.
I 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.
My 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.
Quote from: Technomancer;953692What causes me to wonder is, unlike with most other traps, the cause isn't connected (physically or intuitively) to the effect; no wires, switches, gears, etc. The thief may find the bell, but there is no obvious indication it has anything to do with the monster, especially if it is made to look like something ornamental. Thief wouldn't automatically know it was an alarm.
So it's something I wouldn't begrudge them finding, but I don't think they should automatically know it is a trap.
The mechanical/technical skill involved in finding the trap in no way allows the character to suddenly know the significance of any device part that is discovered. The bell may be detected and the player may deduce that it is an alarm of some kind. Knowing that a specific monster is trained to respond to the bell is knowledge that wouldn't be gained by simple discovery of the device.
Quote from: rawma;953920And the referee should consider the rationale for the ability to detect: if a cleric casts a spell to detect traps, then it's what the god decides is a trap -- a war god might not view a bell that attracts an enemy to fight or that exposes stealthy characters as a trap.
Wow, 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 ...
I definitely prefer the idea of a 'mundane' trap detection skill to simply be an acute awareness to threats, particularly of the mechanical variety. Magic, OTOH can separate out things that are 'intended as traps' from things that simply are dangerous. Each would have their own benefits. Mundane skill would be useless against magical/fantasy traps with no mechanisms involved -- "the wizard cast a spell (that leaves no runes or anything) saying, 'if this door is opened, a dozen demons are summoned and will devour the opener'"). However, it would occasionally be useful in detecting mechanical things that aren't actually traps -- a secret button on the altar causes a hidden compartment to open and reveal the secret treasure.
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 ...
Sure, and instead this god grants the spell 'detect threats' which may be better or worse ("you're in a dungeon, the whole place glows"). :D
Quote from: Krimson;953921But first you find cover to hide behind, ring a bell from a distance with a well placed arrow then wait for the guards to come. Once the guards are dead, it's safe to cross the bridge.
Based on recent events, mine would set up catering tables (Cave Catering) with food dosed with sleeping powder, and ring the bell shouting "dinner's ready!" (Pun intended.) But then try to charge the monsters a gold piece each. (Is that a trap?)
This thread highlights why some systems fall back on "Detect Traps" skills and why I don't care for them. It's generally easier (more clear-cut, objectively understandable for everyone at the table, etc) to have a blanket x% chance of spotting any trap, but I don't find that nearly as fun as actually figuring out the presence and nature of a trap.
You might as well just tell the players where the traps are and then let them roll to spot them - it would speed up the game.
"You see a chest. It's trapped. Your thief has a 65% chance of noticing the trap." "I rolled a 70." "Ok, you didn't see it, so you open the trapped chest and take 2d6 damage."
That's a practical approach, and would probably be more serviceable in an environment with lots of traps.
The problem of "player skill" trap detection (which a lot of answers to the OP's trap rely upon) is that, while I find it more satisfying, can really bring a game to a crawl. Literally, as PCs crawl, wiggle, tap, etc. carefully around everything.
Yeah, the counter to that are wandering monster checks, torch/food/other resource limits, but as a DM you really need to be sparing in your use of traps to prevent games from grinding down to lengthy descriptive checks of every single object.
And 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?
Quote from: darthfozzywig;953978The problem of "player skill" trap detection (which a lot of answers to the OP's trap rely upon) is that, while I find it more satisfying, can really bring a game to a crawl. Literally, as PCs crawl, wiggle, tap, etc. carefully around everything.
Yeah, the counter to that are wandering monster checks, torch/food/other resource limits, but as a DM you really need to be sparing in your use of traps to prevent games from grinding down to lengthy descriptive checks of every single object.
I agree with this. I remember in some old dungeon crawls when we would exhaustively ask questions about everything, "What does the floor look like?" , "What does the ceiling look like?" etc. That's because if we didn't say we were specifically looking at things, then we wouldn't get the description. In one game, we came up with a written "Standard Operating Procedure" document that would go over how we would handle halls, doors, chests, etc. Things that would take seconds for our characters (like looking around at each part of the room) would take minutes in the game.
I think for player skill issues, it works much better to have specified puzzles/enigmas. i.e. "Here's the puzzle. Now solve it without setting off traps."
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?
It doesn't require much beyond malicious sapient intent (and, usually, passive). Mechanical complexity and directness are essentially moot to the equation.
For example, a simple bit of shiny discreetly peeking from debris across a quicksand feature can be a trap. As can be deliberate obfuscation of a path hazard. As can be deliberate creation of a well worn path into a natural wilderness hazard.
What you described is an alarm, one of the most basic uses for a trap there is. The point being 'a Trap is a sapient intent trying to induce a response that triggers a negative circumstance'. A bit technical and wordy, but basically what it is; an alarm is a trap to induce the negative circumstance of defender's awareness.
As 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: Tod13;953969Based on recent events, mine would set up catering tables (Cave Catering) with food dosed with sleeping powder, and ring the bell shouting "dinner's ready!" (Pun intended.) But then try to charge the monsters a gold piece each. (Is that a trap?)
When Pundit's new OSR is done you could totally run a Black Adder game. :D
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?
"Pull my finger..."
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?
Im 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.
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."