Making Traps Fun Again

[DragonBaneDM]

Hey guys,

In my last dungeon I tried to follow some of the advice in this (http://theangrygm.com/traps-suck/) Angry DM Post. Love the guy, his advice has done me well in the past.

The TLDR of that is that traps can come out of nowhere and ruin fun. Either players get paranoid and check everywhere and the game grinds to a halt, or they never check, get blasted, and feel cheated. Getting around traps shouldn't always require a Perception check, just paying close attention.

So what I developed for my last dungeon was a sort of "tell". It was an old dungeon with new inhabitants. Old tunnels were safe, but new locations had traps built into the dungeon walls. The players found a dead halfling in the first new tunnel and caught on real quick. They did great and only triggered one trap (the bolt bounced off Paladin's shield). I was overjoyed to see it work. I want to get good at this strategy and have a number of "tells" or hints/themes that my players can eventually catch on and enjoy playing around.

Problem is: I've done this once. I'm not good at the strategy once and I could use a hand thinking up new tells for my next dungeon and stuff in the future.

My next dungeon is called the Subterra Fortress (Working title that ACCIDENTALLY got spoilered at a party...by me...while I was drunk bragging...my players like it well enough). It's built by a mad hobgoblin artificer and on top of a big magma vein.

Any ideas for subtle clues showing players where potential traps might be in my new dungeon and dungeons moving forward?

[MeeposFire]

scorch marks on the walls would be classic.

If it involves arrows or darts maybe their should be spent arrows or darts stuck in a wall or lying on the ground.

Have a small critter accidentally set a trap off that tells the players how the trap works so they can attempt to avoid it.

[Safety Sword]

Your players are supposed to be paranoid wrecks.

How else do you know you're a good DM? :smallamused:

[FreddyNoNose]

There are traps, and there are traps and there are TRAPS. But there are also things that might be designed to look like those other traps but are actually meant to be traveled through in order to reach a goal. BTW, that way is also trapped.

[Safety Sword]

There are traps, and there are traps and there are TRAPS. But there are also things that might be designed to look like those other traps but are actually meant to be traveled through in order to reach a goal. BTW, that way is also trapped.

Freddy gets it.

[Kane0]

Torches in sconces are put out or have been removed.

Doors open the other way (open inwards or hinges on other side) or made of different material

turns are at right angles instead of steadily curved

room ceilings are square instead of arched

flooring is cleaned or covered

echo sounds aren't right (because there something on the other side of the wall)

everything in a room is mounted a little higher off the floor or lower from the ceiling

obvious lack of sleeping/living arrangements

incorrect use of color

incorrect air flow

odd smell

change in temperature

change in wall/floor texture

[Townopolis]

The hobgoblin pipes lava into fire traps. The pipes may also provide heating for the whole complex, or they may not. Either way, whenever the players approach a fire trap, the floor or wall will begin to get just a little hotter as the lava pipes must come much closer to the traversable area to connect with the trap outlet.
Because cleaning a trapped section of hallway is never fun, the hobgoblin's minions are less vigilant about those areas. Cobwebs, dust, and the like can be used to signal that an area is less well-traveled by the natives (because traps).
The walls are covered in myriad weird carvings--eyes, beasts, monsters, people, strange mathematical proofs, and this one recipe for gumbo repeated over and over. The hobgoblin uses these to help keep track of where he's going and where the traps are. Eyes could point toward entrances and exits. Monsters could always be facing the direction of the nearest bathroom. And the people, or at least depictions of certain people he doesn't like or feels betrayed by, could indicate where the traps are.
The halls and rooms could have column-like protrusions, either decorative or structural, every so often (I know there's a word for these things, but I can't think of it). In some places, these protrusions are closer together... because they're being used to obfuscate the presence of a trap.

[thereaper]

Hey guys,

In my last dungeon I tried to follow some of the advice in this (http://theangrygm.com/traps-suck/) Angry DM Post. Love the guy, his advice has done me well in the past.

The TLDR of that is that traps can come out of nowhere and ruin fun. Either players get paranoid and check everywhere and the game grinds to a halt, or they never check, get blasted, and feel cheated. Getting around traps shouldn't always require a Perception check, just paying close attention.

So what I developed for my last dungeon was a sort of "tell". It was an old dungeon with new inhabitants. Old tunnels were safe, but new locations had traps built into the dungeon walls. The players found a dead halfling in the first new tunnel and caught on real quick. They did great and only triggered one trap (the bolt bounced off Paladin's shield). I was overjoyed to see it work. I want to get good at this strategy and have a number of "tells" or hints/themes that my players can eventually catch on and enjoy playing around.

Problem is: I've done this once. I'm not good at the strategy once and I could use a hand thinking up new tells for my next dungeon and stuff in the future.

My next dungeon is called the Subterra Fortress (Working title that ACCIDENTALLY got spoilered at a party...by me...while I was drunk bragging...my players like it well enough). It's built by a mad hobgoblin artificer and on top of a big magma vein.

Any ideas for subtle clues showing players where potential traps might be in my new dungeon and dungeons moving forward?

Or you could assume they're always rolling perception checks (which you should probably be doing anyway, because passive perception is inferior to rolling constantly), and just call for the checks (or make them in secret) when necessary.

[Safety Sword]

Or you could assume they're always rolling perception checks (which you should probably be doing anyway, because passive perception is inferior to rolling constantly), and just call for the checks (or make them in secret) when necessary.

The idea of passive perception checks is to average the checks out so you don't have to roll. If you roll all he time you get good ones and bad ones. But, same with hide checks I guess.

Its the interaction of the check with the trap DC that is important. If you always set traps that are above the average perception check of the party's most perceptive character than they're going to miss some of them. You don't want the roll to be too high of you might as well give no chance to detect the trap.

I find the better way to set the DC is to know what roll I want the party to make on the d20 and set accordingly.

[thereaper]

That's the thing, though. Passive Perception fails at its goal. 10+Perception mod is lower than the average you would get from rolling (10.5+perception mod). More importantly, passive perception is incapable of ever spotting something harder than 10+perception mod, whereas rolling constantly means that you'll eventually get a 20.

Literally the only reason anyone ever bothers with passive perception is to avoid slowing the game down (in other words, metagaming). That's why it's better for the DM to assume they're always rolling (or do the rolls for them secretly).

[Safety Sword]

That's the thing, though. Passive Perception fails at its goal. 10+Perception mod is lower than the average you would get from rolling (10.5+perception mod). More importantly, passive perception is incapable of ever spotting something harder than 10+perception mod, whereas rolling constantly means that you'll eventually get a 20.

Literally the only reason anyone ever bothers with passive perception is to avoid slowing the game down (in other words, metagaming). That's why it's better for the DM to assume they're always rolling (or do the rolls for them secretly).

I bother with passive perception because it's just that. Passive. There is no roll. It's for times that there is no roll.

Also, don't know about you, but once a character tries to accomplish something (noticing a thing with a perception roll for example) and fails, I do not allow any other attempts to succeed unless the circumstances change and warrant a new roll.

Otherwise you may as well have a take 20 rule. Which is really just another higher rolling passive perception...

[thereaper]

Even when they're not under stress?

Well, all right, but even if you rule that way, rolling constantly (or as often as you allow) is still better, because passive perception rolls a 10 every time, which is less than the average 10.5, and that's before considering things like guidance or reliable talent (which don't apply to passive perception). No matter how you slice it, passive perception as written is a poor tactical choice.

[EvilAnagram]

I bother with passive perception because it's just that. Passive. There is no roll. It's for times that there is no roll.

Also, don't know about you, but once a character tries to accomplish something (noticing a thing with a perception roll for example) and fails, I do not allow any other attempts to succeed unless the circumstances change and warrant a new roll.

Otherwise you may as well have a take 20 rule. Which is really just another higher rolling passive perception...

My players struggle with this sometimes. They try to bust a door open and fail, then say, "Well, let's roll again." I've explained to them three times that the roll represents their cumulative efforts to accomplish that specific action, but they just want to roll until they succeed.

[MeeposFire]

My players struggle with this sometimes. They try to bist a door pen and fail, then say, "Well, let's roll again." I've explained to them three times that the roll represents their cumulative efforts to accomplish that specific action, but they just want to roll until they succeed.

That was often true in pre 3e D&D and I think it was the paradigm change found in 3e and continued in 4e that gives the issue (issue being relative to different people) of people wanting to roll constantly until getting it.

[Easy_Lee]

As a general rule, any sort of warning is generally good game design. Like the others have said, if you point out one or two unusual things then that should cue your players to start investigating. Train them to look for traps in response to key words like "unusual," "odor," or "gazebo." They should be conditioned after five sessions or fewer.

[N810]

Have a few successfully triggered traps at the beginning of the dungeon,
with the skeletal remains of their victims.

[Safety Sword]

My players struggle with this sometimes. They try to bust a door pen and fail, then say, "Well, let's roll again." I've explained to them three times that the roll represents their cumulative efforts to accomplish that specific action, but they just want to roll until they succeed.

I think the key is to tell them that they need to change the method or circumstance before a new roll is allowed. If you describe it as "You push as hard as you can but for some reason it doesn't budge" then you can ask what they're doing differently the next time they want to roll.

You'll then start having players think outside the box or trying something one way and then trying again with magic aid, etc.

I mean really, that's what you'd try, right?

Force the door. Doesn't move. OK, magic me. Try again. Door open. Satisfaction.

[Nidgit]

In response to the original question, don't underestimate suspicious sounds or noises. Maybe a distant twang as a careless lackey is skewered, or the low hum of grinding stone and gears. In a volcanic dungeon, the occasional roar of flame and magma as it shoots through a cavern.

When you're mixing in unaffiliated surprise monster attacks, don't forget to note the damage of past conflicts. Slime covered stairs, chewed up ground, scorch marks and broken stonework. Maybe the damage has even revealed a trap found elsewhere.

[Chugger]

I like how the DM handled his main trap in the first episode of High Rollers (youtube). They were in an elvish tomb and decoded a poem on the wall. And the poem spoke of the danger of crossed swords and shields - or something like that.

A few rooms later they get a lavish description of a big tomb room that is covered with a mosaic showing Giants fighting elves, both sides using swords and blah blah. One of the party just heads across unthinkingly - and steps on a pair of crossed swords on the floor, which triggers a dart trap that hits him.

The elves, being basically nice, had left a warning for anyone who could decipher it (and also the party had "fair warning" but failed to make the connection).

That's something that bugs me about a lot of traps - they can be so arbitrary and not in any way shape or form "fit" the dungeon. If it's an orc lair there would be tripwires and xbows or false tunnels leading to hidden pits - things the orcs could remember not to trigger - but not some sophisticated magic-riddle which their tech level in no way supports. There should be an inherent "logic" to traps based on the kinds of things that live there. Really good traps are part of the place and story and feel connected, even if they're a pain in the you know what.

Honestly some traps aren't deadly enough. If I lived for real in such a dangerous world and had a lair, I would probably trap the you know what out of it. And if I messed up ... yeah ... but I'd be "safe" at least (sardonicism intended).

[TrinculoLives]

Hm... Well, hobgoblins are a martial race, yeah? So perhaps the traps could be designed to activate if a person stands in one place for too long. So the only safe place to stand still for more than several minutes would be at specific guard locations outside rooms (like those little guard-post things) and inside resting or working chambers.

I imagine this would do wonders in keeping any goblins employed by the hobgoblins from slacking off.

[Chugger]

Try to make the clues natural to the lair's set-up.

Why did this guy make traps? To kill anything coming in to get him or steal his stuff? To test his own minions?

One clue could be heat. There's a room that's quite hot but hard to tell where the heat source is coming from. And there's a big tank of water with a trap door in the bottom of it that can be seen. And there's an obvious lever that will open a large drain (not the trap door) and drain the vat. But if they do water will go down the drains (which they can see) and go down to a place they can't see and get super-heated by sheets of lava-heated metal - and the water will come back up at them through pipes in the form of steam and force them to save Dex or take lots of damage, half if they save - but why would a mad hobgoblin artificer go to all the trouble to make such a trap? It doesn't really make any sense. There is a clue (the heat and the pipes maybe) but no compelling reason for such a trap, unless the hobgoblin wanted the steam to protect his trapdoor. Or what's on the other side of it. (edit, the solution is not to drain it - to hold your breath and pick the lock on the trap door and open it, which leads to a small watery chamber with a box in it - or a trapped water creature they need to rescue (his enemy) who has clues they need for other critical points - something like that).

That's why really good traps are hard.

What about an encounter that's not exactly a fight and is not exactly a fight but is cool. The AL modules have encounters that are skill check driven. In this case the party is driven by a golem or magic attack machine of some sort they can't possibly kill into the mad hobgoblin's lab, where it just so happens work is nearly finished on a golem or some similar machine. The party happens to have a "thing" needed to finish it from an earlier encounter.

They have x turns before the unkillable monster breaks down the heavy, magic but ultimately breakable door. If they can trick or delay it they get x + y turns. Maybe they have two goals to accomplish to get the machine built and fighting for them. One might involve INT checks, like scanning the instruction booklet that is on the bench and knowing what to do. The other task is maybe a Dex check which is putting the right things on the machine or golem to finish it. Maybe the more int checks they make, the easier the Dex checks get. They have to figure out who is best at doing the checks, who should assist or help, who should cast guidance, when to use inspiration, and who can best delay the monster at the door.

If they pull it off their monster comes to life and obeys them as the door bursts in, and the two monsters fight each other, killing each other. That's not so much a trap, but it's a dynamic and exiting encounter where they have to use their brains and figure out how to maximize skill checks to survive. And it's cool because they have a sense of doing something that's different from just another pit or poison dart or magical zap trap - or just another fight.

Another "trap" is a really obvious one. There's a big magical door that's locked with a complex magic lock. They've got to figure out how it works (perhaps interrogate or trick or rescue someone in the place who can tell them) - and then they might have to hunt down 3 devices that function as keys when plugged into it. You can make this as complex as you want. If they interrogate the guy the right way he tells them the fourth thing that also disarms the really nasty trap on the door. If not he only tells them the 3 things and the trap gets them - I dunno. This one at least seems to fit more naturally into this place, at least to me. Hope that helps.

[DragonBaneDM]

Sorry I haven't been replying to my own thread!



The hobgoblin pipes lava into fire traps. The pipes may also provide heating for the whole complex, or they may not. Either way, whenever the players approach a fire trap, the floor or wall will begin to get just a little hotter as the lava pipes must come much closer to the traversable area to connect with the trap outlet.
Because cleaning a trapped section of hallway is never fun, the hobgoblin's minions are less vigilant about those areas. Cobwebs, dust, and the like can be used to signal that an area is less well-traveled by the natives (because traps).
The walls are covered in myriad weird carvings--eyes, beasts, monsters, people, strange mathematical proofs, and this one recipe for gumbo repeated over and over. The hobgoblin uses these to help keep track of where he's going and where the traps are. Eyes could point toward entrances and exits. Monsters could always be facing the direction of the nearest bathroom. And the people, or at least depictions of certain people he doesn't like or feels betrayed by, could indicate where the traps are.
The halls and rooms could have column-like protrusions, either decorative or structural, every so often (I know there's a word for these things, but I can't think of it). In some places, these protrusions are closer together... because they're being used to obfuscate the presence of a trap.


Really digging these ideas! I think the drawings might be my favorite.


That's the thing, though. Passive Perception fails at its goal. 10+Perception mod is lower than the average you would get from rolling (10.5+perception mod). More importantly, passive perception is incapable of ever spotting something harder than 10+perception mod, whereas rolling constantly means that you'll eventually get a 20.

Literally the only reason anyone ever bothers with passive perception is to avoid slowing the game down (in other words, metagaming). That's why it's better for the DM to assume they're always rolling (or do the rolls for them secretly).

I agree. That's why I like taking this more complex route when looking at and designing traps. I want to make the first one or two traps obvious/more of a setback so that players can learn what to watch for, and then have listening skills, careful questioning, or heck, even different colored markers on my battlemap help them to identify the schema I'm using to "hide" my traps. More fun than just arbitrarily moving a number so that the high Wis character can only see some of the traps in Passive and has to actually roll for the rest.


As a general rule, any sort of warning is generally good game design. Like the others have said, if you point out one or two unusual things then that should cue your players to start investigating. Train them to look for traps in response to key words like "unusual," "odor," or "gazebo." They should be conditioned after five sessions or fewer.

Dude, nice gazebo reference.


Have a few successfully triggered traps at the beginning of the dungeon,
with the skeletal remains of their victims.

Did this last time. Might run it back, but I think I'll skip a dungeon. Thank you!


Hm... Well, hobgoblins are a martial race, yeah? So perhaps the traps could be designed to activate if a person stands in one place for too long. So the only safe place to stand still for more than several minutes would be at specific guard locations outside rooms (like those little guard-post things) and inside resting or working chambers.

I imagine this would do wonders in keeping any goblins employed by the hobgoblins from slacking off.

This is getting used. I'm not gonna lie: my first instinct is to use traps like this early in the dungeon to punish the party for trying to rest way too early into it.


Try to make the clues natural to the lair's set-up.

Why did this guy make traps? To kill anything coming in to get him or steal his stuff? To test his own minions?

One clue could be heat. There's a room that's quite hot but hard to tell where the heat source is coming from. And there's a big tank of water with a trap door in the bottom of it that can be seen. And there's an obvious lever that will open a large drain (not the trap door) and drain the vat. But if they do water will go down the drains (which they can see) and go down to a place they can't see and get super-heated by sheets of lava-heated metal - and the water will come back up at them through pipes in the form of steam and force them to save Dex or take lots of damage, half if they save - but why would a mad hobgoblin artificer go to all the trouble to make such a trap? It doesn't really make any sense. There is a clue (the heat and the pipes maybe) but no compelling reason for such a trap, unless the hobgoblin wanted the steam to protect his trapdoor. Or what's on the other side of it. (edit, the solution is not to drain it - to hold your breath and pick the lock on the trap door and open it, which leads to a small watery chamber with a box in it - or a trapped water creature they need to rescue (his enemy) who has clues they need for other critical points - something like that).

That's why really good traps are hard.

What about an encounter that's not exactly a fight and is not exactly a fight but is cool. The AL modules have encounters that are skill check driven. In this case the party is driven by a golem or magic attack machine of some sort they can't possibly kill into the mad hobgoblin's lab, where it just so happens work is nearly finished on a golem or some similar machine. The party happens to have a "thing" needed to finish it from an earlier encounter.

They have x turns before the unkillable monster breaks down the heavy, magic but ultimately breakable door. If they can trick or delay it they get x + y turns. Maybe they have two goals to accomplish to get the machine built and fighting for them. One might involve INT checks, like scanning the instruction booklet that is on the bench and knowing what to do. The other task is maybe a Dex check which is putting the right things on the machine or golem to finish it. Maybe the more int checks they make, the easier the Dex checks get. They have to figure out who is best at doing the checks, who should assist or help, who should cast guidance, when to use inspiration, and who can best delay the monster at the door.

If they pull it off their monster comes to life and obeys them as the door bursts in, and the two monsters fight each other, killing each other. That's not so much a trap, but it's a dynamic and exiting encounter where they have to use their brains and figure out how to maximize skill checks to survive. And it's cool because they have a sense of doing something that's different from just another pit or poison dart or magical zap trap - or just another fight.

Another "trap" is a really obvious one. There's a big magical door that's locked with a complex magic lock. They've got to figure out how it works (perhaps interrogate or trick or rescue someone in the place who can tell them) - and then they might have to hunt down 3 devices that function as keys when plugged into it. You can make this as complex as you want. If they interrogate the guy the right way he tells them the fourth thing that also disarms the really nasty trap on the door. If not he only tells them the 3 things and the trap gets them - I dunno. This one at least seems to fit more naturally into this place, at least to me. Hope that helps.

It does! And I dig it. I've already got a big bad invention that the artificer is working on, but that doesn't mean he's left his other Contraption beast behind. This might be a really cool encounter to use! Thanks!

As for the pipe heating, I think you're onto something, but like you said, it's all about figuring out how the hobgoblin and his mooks are able to move around the dungeon without getting blown up. He's an inventor, he builds and uses traps, and he doesn't (particularly) enjoy frying his own employees. So anything I make has gotta have a bypass system built in.

[Pex]

My players struggle with this sometimes. They try to bust a door open and fail, then say, "Well, let's roll again." I've explained to them three times that the roll represents their cumulative efforts to accomplish that specific action, but they just want to roll until they succeed.

Why is it bothering you they want to open the door? They're spending rounds doing it and making noise. If how long and how noisy is irrelevant what difference does it make? Why bother having a roll? If time and/or noise is relevant make note of it. If the DC is You Can Never Open The Door Without The Key, why bother having a roll? If the DC is You Can Never, Ever Open The Door, why is the door there?

[Easy_Lee]

Why is it bothering you they want to open the door? They're spending rounds doing it and making noise. If how long and how noisy is irrelevant what difference does it make? Why bother having a roll? If time and/or noise is relevant make note of it. If the DC is You Can Never Open The Door Without The Key, why bother having a roll? If the DC is You Can Never, Ever Open The Door, why is the door there?

It's an often unspoken rule of D&D that you generally don't roll to attempt the same thing twice. If you fail, it's because you failed to do it and should find another way. A lot of DMs use this rule.

That said, DMs should notify their players of this at some point. And I'm a fan of allowing players to take checks "carefully," spending extra time to guarantee a roll of 10.

[Talderas]

Your players are supposed to be paranoid wrecks.

How else do you know you're a good DM? :smallamused:

By making them think they're playing D&D when they're actually playing Paranoia.

[MeeposFire]

It's an often unspoken rule of D&D that you generally don't roll to attempt the same thing twice. If you fail, it's because you failed to do it and should find another way. A lot of DMs use this rule.

That said, DMs should notify their players of this at some point. And I'm a fan of allowing players to take checks "carefully," spending extra time to guarantee a roll of 10.

In some editions that is true in others not so much. For example the concept of "take 20" in 3e was exactly that trying over and over again until you get a 20 with it being boiled down to taking 20 times as long instead of rolling.

That being said it is a good rule if you do not want players to roll constantly until success on an activity.

[Zorku]

After the party has become aware that somebody has placed traps in the area (somewhere between seeing the first one go off and starting to ask questions about traps, depending on how much hand holding you tend to do,) you can reasonably assume that they're going to notice every hole in the wall, places where cobwebs are heavier, scorch marks, and all of the mess that comes from mechanized murder traps. Most ruins are old places so if the trap was built into it then it's been triggered lots of times (or at least the ones near the entrance have,) and if the trap is newer it has to be hidden, and probably doesn't reset itself over and over. HIDING-hiding stuff requires clutter or some other way of obscuring what people are seeing, so either you make them suspicious of all the rubble like in the article or they can recognize most of the kinds of traps that will shoot/stab at them and roughly where that's going to happen, but they've still gotta interact with that somehow to find out exactly what the trap does and then make themselves safe as they pass it.

That interaction is the only part you're really interested in in the first place, so tell them that they see weird skid marks on the stone ground if there's a big battering ram that releases and swings forward to knock them into last week, and then tell them that they see more weird skid marks on the stone ground where the floor releases and turns into a chute that drops people into someplace unpleasant. Party's gotta stop and try to investigate the things they see or else they just have a clue instead of the solution.

And just tripping the pressure plate to see what happens is gonna be real nasty when there's a drop away panel and some poisoned bolts shooting them all in the back, or the pressure plate opens up the dead dog kennels. When there's an obvious tell for them to investigate you're free from so much of this having to justify traps stuff. The trap hurts because some a**hole meant for it to, and the party knew it was there but didn't choose a great way to deal with it if they got hurt. Instead of random zaps it's a puzzle they didn't solve, and that's exactly what's cool about traps in the first place.


The idea of passive perception checks is to average the checks out so you don't have to roll. If you roll all he time you get good ones and bad ones. But, same with hide checks I guess.

Its the interaction of the check with the trap DC that is important. If you always set traps that are above the average perception check of the party's most perceptive character than they're going to miss some of them. You don't want the roll to be too high of you might as well give no chance to detect the trap.

I find the better way to set the DC is to know what roll I want the party to make on the d20 and set accordingly.
If you want to keep yourself from just abusing the numbers for designing traps that will screw passive perception, then choose a target DC exactly like you always would, subtract 10 from that to get the bonus, then roll a d20 to find out how good this one actually was. Swap the d20 out for a d12 and d8 if you want a bell curve, but honestly the party is never gonna see that so they don't need to know if they beat a trap by a lot of a little.


My players struggle with this sometimes. They try to bust a door open and fail, then say, "Well, let's roll again." I've explained to them three times that the roll represents their cumulative efforts to accomplish that specific action, but they just want to roll until they succeed.

DMG has actually got a little throwaway line that if the party spends 10x the normal time to try a reasonable task they just take 10 and consider it done.

That kind of sucks if you don't have anything for tracking time, but Angry came up with a nice thing for that too. The Time Pool fills up with dice as the party does stuff. 1 dice per "dungeon room" type space they explore (so basically the time spent on passive perception,) then another any time people wanna stop for a bit and do skill checks. d4s in dangerous spaces, d6s in slightly dangerous spaces, or d8s for relatively nonthreatening spaces. When the pool is full you roll it, and then switch to just rolling it instead of adding dice thereafter. If any dice rolls a 1 then "bad stuff" happens, so usually you roll on an encounter chart, but you can also progress any kind of doomsday counter you've got going. Party sees the pool and knows that they've spent 1 hour when the bad stuff happens and the pool empties.

I think 2nd edition just flat out told you that parties spend 10 minutes in a room of a dungeon, so this is pretty close to that old idea, but the party is actively choosing to push closer to bad stuff happening if they sit around performing checks over and over.

*Oh, and the usual forum advice applies: you can reasonably have 2 people working on some roll as per the help action, but if everyone wants to roll then it's a group check, because they can get in the way just as much as they can help.



That's something that bugs me about a lot of traps - they can be so arbitrary and not in any way shape or form "fit" the dungeon. If it's an orc lair there would be tripwires and xbows or false tunnels leading to hidden pits - things the orcs could remember not to trigger - but not some sophisticated magic-riddle which their tech level in no way supports. There should be an inherent "logic" to traps based on the kinds of things that live there. Really good traps are part of the place and story and feel connected, even if they're a pain in the you know what.

Yeah,but the goal of a trap maker is for their traps to be arbitrary, if these are really meant to kill intruders. Dungeons are old places and they've had lots of different occupants over the years. If the current occupants put up the traps then they have ways to avoid them, but as often as not they aren't the ones that built this trap. What you're less likely to see if a full section of functional traps that the same people made but then the new guys bothered to mix a whole bunch of traps in with those. Maybe there's an ancient hallway full of heavily engineered dwarvish traps that still mostly work, but then the orcs that currently occupy the place stuck a tripwire at the end so they'd know if anyone cleared the hallway.

Having the traps alternate and a couple of elvish runes that explode in there somewhere would have been weird and inexplicable.


They have to figure out... who should cast guidance,
Are we playing the same game?

[Chugger]

It's an often unspoken rule of D&D that you generally don't roll to attempt the same thing twice. If you fail, it's because you failed to do it and should find another way. A lot of DMs use this rule.

That said, DMs should notify their players of this at some point. And I'm a fan of allowing players to take checks "carefully," spending extra time to guarantee a roll of 10.

This is true. And it's a rule I've always hated. (edit, but it has reasons - I'm not being stupid here)

I think it should (edit, or "could") be broken down. (edit, in the long run what I'm saying probably won't work, I'm advancing it just for the sake of argument - this is a toughie)

Since you only have one chance to make a first impression, that is a kind of a roll you get to make once. You can try to change this other guy's mind if you blow it and he doesn't like you, but you can't change that first impression.

But to try to pick a lock and - oh well you rolled a six, you failed and you can't pick it - that's silly. Yes, dnd is not a reality emulator, but when rulings go offensively against what you can do in reality...it strains things a lot. In reality, you can try 30,000 times if you want to pick the lock and maybe finally do it. Such restrictions are silly imho. But one roll per player per attempt (and that's it) accomplishes many things - mostly keeping us from rolling dadgum DCs all night and going insane from the tedium! :D So there's no easy answer to this.

[Chugger]

It does! And I dig it. I've already got a big bad invention that the artificer is working on, but that doesn't mean he's left his other Contraption beast behind. This might be a really cool encounter to use! Thanks!

As for the pipe heating, I think you're onto something, but like you said, it's all about figuring out how the hobgoblin and his mooks are able to move around the dungeon without getting blown up. He's an inventor, he builds and uses traps, and he doesn't (particularly) enjoy frying his own employees. So anything I make has gotta have a bypass system built in.

Play test it first, if you've never used this game mechanic before. Just jot down some stats that are like your party's stats and try making rolls and see if - with dice - it actually works - or is way too easy - or is way too hard. Have in mind what it is they gotta do to survive this encounter - like is it as simple as realizing they gotta put the high-Int guy on the Int-based rolls - and the high-dex gal on the dex rolls -and make sure to spam guidance? If a failed DC 10 = an actual set-back, say with the mechanism, like you slightly damaged it instead of progressing toward it being finished - that can make for a very tense and omg omg omg encounter.

Have fall-backs in mind if there is a chance your party just won't "get" this encounter - like does the party have a talking familiar who can give them a hint? Something like that. You don't want this to be so hard that it just crushes them and they never want you to use this kind of thing again. Anyway, I hope you figure it out and that it works brilliantly.

[Easy_Lee]

A clever DM can generally think of some reason why you can't just try again.

Pick lock - pick broke, or lock broke, lock now stuck and requires maintenance
Knock down door - injured your foot / arm, impaired ability to try again
Persuade check - he's no longer listening
Climb - fingers / hands temporarily injured

And so on. Since I think we can agree that players trying just once is better for pacing, and we can conceive reasons why a character couldn't retry a check, I think it's best to use the rule that you may generally only attempt things one time. But like I said, I also am fond of letting careful players take 10 for extra time, similar to Reliable Talent but not immediate and no chance to roll higher

[Chugger]

A clever DM can generally think of some reason why you can't just try again.

Pick lock - pick broke, or lock broke, lock now stuck and requires maintenance
Knock down door - injured your foot / arm, impaired ability to try again
Persuade check - he's no longer listening
Climb - fingers / hands temporarily injured

And so on. Since I think we can agree that players trying just once is better for pacing, and we can conceive reasons why a character couldn't retry a check, I think it's best to use the rule that you may generally only attempt things one time. But like I said, I also am fond of letting careful players take 10 for extra time, similar to Reliable Talent but not immediate and no chance to roll higher

But again the list you've suggested is offensive to an average player's "notion of reality" (especially if it's used too much or too bizarrely, which happens all the time). That doesn't break the game, but it hurts the experience. I think it's even _worse_ to, after trying to pick a lock, say that you broke the pick. Then they carry duplicate picks. So you say the pick broke off and jammed the lock shut. But how often does that happen? It can, but almost never. So it it really just fuggs up the thing even worse, as far as "notion of reality" goes.

And yes, Dnd is not a reality emulator. Of course. But decisions that offend players' basic sense of reality do hurt the game experience.

It's imho far far more honest to just say "folks, this is a game and it has to have limits" and then ask yourself "do you really want to give them this much hell over a simple wooden door with a dumb lock on it?"

As far as smashing down doors goes, yes you can hurt yourself doing this, but you're less likely to do so if you're armored - and in reality simple barricaded wooden doors generally get opened after being smashed, rammed, kicked multiple times! The one-time-limit is silly and absurd and offensive here - or do we pile on more dice rolling to see if they dislocate a shoulder or hurt their foot? No of course we don't.

I'm just saying let's not pretend we've "solved" this here. It's a problem. It's not really solvable (edit, from a hard-rule perspective - it might be from a winging it perspective). Being too lenient = one set of problems, and being too hardcore also creates another set of problems. Just take a moment, step back, and ask yourself as a DM if you really want them held up here cuz Ted rolled a 2? If so, enforce the rule one way. If not, let them open the dang door. Try to get a sense in your head what the right, balanced approach is and wing it - being too rule-bound is often deadly (and yes it's a subjective thing I'm arguing that requires talent to properly assess, which is why I'm advocating going that route and not mindlessly adhering all the time to a rather silly but sometimes needed rule). I'm not really arguing with anyone here or saying anyone is wrong - I'm saying that what I'm attempting to convey here is what I see as the best common sense solution.

[Pex]

It's an often unspoken rule of D&D that you generally don't roll to attempt the same thing twice. If you fail, it's because you failed to do it and should find another way. A lot of DMs use this rule.

That said, DMs should notify their players of this at some point. And I'm a fan of allowing players to take checks "carefully," spending extra time to guarantee a roll of 10.

3E did away with that with Take 10/20. Take 10 is for basic competency and Take 20 is for keep trying until you succeed if success is possible and failure doesn't negate the possibility of success. If it's possible for the door lock to jam then you can't Take 20. You can Take 10 for basic competency. If you make the DC you can open the lock, great, it's done with no roll needed. If the lock is harder then you roll. If you fail but don't jam the lock there's no reason you can't keep trying and hope you succeed before you jam it. The only cost is time and noise possibly alerting nearby guards.

What 5E did was get rid of Take 10/20, to my personal dismay. Instead, the DM decides if the player can autosucceed or not. If not, set the DC. There's no rule that says he may only try once. You can rule failure by X amount means the lock jams. You can rule a player may only try once. That's your personal view but not the game's fault it allows retries nor are players being greedy (my word not yours) wanting to try again.

The player's ability to open the lock depends on if you are DM or someone else is. Hmm. that sounds familiar.

Strike-out edit: There is the Passive score concept, so it exists in some form if more limited. I'm used to it only applying to Perception, but there's no harm applying it to other checks. Passive 10 + Dex modifier + Proficiency With Thieves' Tools is all you need. DM needs to set lock DC. If the passive score is greater or equal to it the player doesn't roll. He just opens it. Otherwise he needs to roll. Whether he can try again or if the lock can jam still depends on who is DM that day. Whether passive score can apply to things other than Perception also depends on who is DM that day.

[Safety Sword]

In some editions that is true in others not so much. For example the concept of "take 20" in 3e was exactly that trying over and over again until you get a 20 with it being boiled down to taking 20 times as long instead of rolling.

That being said it is a good rule if you do not want players to roll constantly until success on an activity.

So now I have to make 20 perception checks for my bad guys to hear this 2 minute door-open-athon? Or do I get to take 20 on that too?

Why bother having dice?

[Pex]

So now I have to make 20 perception checks for my bad guys to hear this 2 minute door-open-athon? Or do I get to take 20 on that too?

Why bother having dice?

Can't Take 20 on opposed rolls. Instead the DM would ask the player to roll a Stealth check vs the guards Perception. A DM might ask for a Stealth check even if there was no one to hear the lock picking attempt and fake roll behind the DM screen.

[Safety Sword]

Can't Take 20 on opposed rolls. Instead the DM would ask the player to roll a Stealth check vs the guards Perception. A DM might ask for a Stealth check even if there was no one to hear the lock picking attempt and fake roll behind the DM screen.

You're getting a Stealth check to cover the noise of bashing a door down because you decided to take 2 minutes smashing at it to be sure you broke it down?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Chugger]

3E did away with that with Take 10/20. Take 10 is for basic competency and Take 20 is for keep trying until you succeed if success is possible and failure doesn't negate the possibility of success. If it's possible for the door lock to jam then you can't Take 20. You can Take 10 for basic competency. If you make the DC you can open the lock, great, it's done with no roll needed. If the lock is harder then you roll. If you fail but don't jam the lock there's no reason you can't keep trying and hope you succeed before you jam it. The only cost is time and noise possibly alerting nearby guards.

What 5E did was get rid of Take 10/20, to my personal dismay. Instead, the DM decides if the player can autosucceed or not. If not, set the DC. There's no rule that says he may only try once. You can rule failure by X amount means the lock jams. You can rule a player may only try once. That's your personal view but not the game's fault it allows retries nor are players being greedy (my word not yours) wanting to try again.

The player's ability to open the lock depends on if you are DM or someone else is. Hmm. that sounds familiar.

Strike-out edit: There is the Passive score concept, so it exists in some form if more limited. I'm used to it only applying to Perception, but there's no harm applying it to other checks. Passive 10 + Dex modifier + Proficiency With Thieves' Tools is all you need. DM needs to set lock DC. If the passive score is greater or equal to it the player doesn't roll. He just opens it. Otherwise he needs to roll. Whether he can try again or if the lock can jam still depends on who is DM that day. Whether passive score can apply to things other than Perception also depends on who is DM that day.

Thanks Pex - excellent.

Good DMs avoid rolls all the time - too much rolling is silly. I believe in just letting things happen - if they're persuasive with the peasant, why wouldn't the peasant (who is an ordinary peasant with no other part in the story) just tell them if he's seen a giant go by or not? Why make them roll for that - unless there's a reason?

In module gaming where time is an issue - DMs will rarely but appropriately just call fights and say "they're down to one guy - you beat him - and we move on..." Again it's rare - but so far every called fight has been a good call on the DM's part (that I've seen).

[Chugger]

You're getting a Stealth check to cover the noise of bashing a door down because you decided to take 2 minutes smashing at it to be sure you broke it down?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Sorry but you need to re-read what he said. He didn't say bashing, he said pick. And what he was talking about was a deceptive roll to keep the party guessing as to what might be on the other side - a common and often effective tactic.

(I'm actually not against that tactic - what I'm against is the proclivity to (1) go for too rigid an adherence to rigid rules and ask the party to pretend it's logical when it isn't and (2) to be proud of ourselves and act like we actually solved something in a meaningful way - when in reality we succumbed to a massive (and stinky) bout of mental methane. It is sometimes a very fine line - except for the question of opening the window to let the odor out - yes for goodness sakes please!)

[Easy_Lee]

Good DMs avoid rolls all the time - too much rolling is silly. I believe in just letting things happen - if they're persuasive with the peasant, why wouldn't the peasant (who is an ordinary peasant with no other part in the story) just tell them if he's seen a giant go by or not? Why make them roll for that - unless there's a reason?

Thanks, I was just about to add this. I don't think it's reasonable to ask a fighter to roll to kick down a wooden door, or to ask a rogue to roll to pick the lock on a commoner's room. You make the player roll when it's a reinforced door or a noble's mansion. Players won't feel cheated if they fail those rolls.

[Chugger]

Thanks, I was just about to add this. I don't think it's reasonable to ask a fighter to roll to kick down a wooden door, or to ask a rogue to roll to pick the lock on a commoner's room. You make the player roll when it's a reinforced door or a noble's mansion. Players won't feel cheated if they fail those rolls.

That's a good call, yes. At some point the game's gotta move.

But with that said there are players who are quite happy in a roll-heavy game and are cool with all the stuff that irks me. It's a game - it's flexible - if pepole are having fun I'll try not to drop nasty things in their Cheerios - I'll try to keep my mouth shut and let them enjoy things. Life is short.

[Mjolnirbear]

I'm gonna argue against lava. Because it requires exceptional engineering to control, is almost impossible to clean up, and very hard to reset... Unless the traps are, say, traps doors into lava instead of, say, metal pipes of flowing lava.

Metals may melt if full of lava. Also, metals conduct heat very well which means metal pipes will cool the lava, and clog. Stone will be corroded and melted by lava. Now, you could magic that stuff up, magically project the pipes, or something else, but that's less practical.

Lava does produce heat and poisonous gas,both easy to move around and easier to control.

So.. Floor trap doors. The tell could be sulfur in the air. Or as someone suggested, visible heat waves.

Poisonous gas piped into a room. The tell could be pock marks caused by acidic fumes or scorch marks used to burn off the fumes or fresh mortar to cover damage. The tell could also be the massive sliding portcullises hidden in the ceiling which can seal off a room.

Superheated air. Tiles marked black on the floor have glass balls of water under them, which break. The water soaks metal pipes and cause jets of superheated steam. Resettable.

[Safety Sword]

Sorry but you need to re-read what he said. He didn't say bashing, he said pick. And what he was talking about was a deceptive roll to keep the party guessing as to what might be on the other side - a common and often effective tactic.

(I'm actually not against that tactic - what I'm against is the proclivity to (1) go for too rigid an adherence to rigid rules and ask the party to pretend it's logical when it isn't and (2) to be proud of ourselves and act like we actually solved something in a meaningful way - when in reality we succumbed to a massive (and stinky) bout of mental methane. It is sometimes a very fine line - except for the question of opening the window to let the odor out - yes for goodness sakes please!)

This has veered a bit from topic but my comment on the bashing the door etc. was more a comment on passive perception being a failure, and that you should get multiple rolls at the same task to just keep repeating the same action until you succeed.

I also agree that you should only be rolling for things that matter. But it's exactly because they matter that there should be some way to fail, and not just get 20 tries at it until you "roll high enough". If you're setting DCs appropriately it works fine. Then the one dice roll you get matters.

[Chugger]

This has veered a bit from topic but my comment on the bashing the door etc. was more a comment on passive perception being a failure, and that you should get multiple rolls at the same task to just keep repeating the same action until you succeed.

I also agree that you should only be rolling for things that matter. But it's exactly because they matter that there should be some way to fail, and not jut get 20 tries at it until you "roll high enough". If you're setting DCs appropriately it works fine. Then the one dice roll you get matters.

Ah, fair enough then.

[smcmike]

If anyone commenting on this thread didn't read the AngryDM link in the original post, they should. It's good, and some people seem to simply be restating it without noticing.

My only suggestion is to include layers of history. Maybe the mad hobgoblin artificer built his crazy dungeon in the ruins of an ancient dwarven magna mine. Maybe some other group of adventurers got lost in there and trapped a section of the dungeon for self defense. The traps should tell a story, and stories should have layers.

Edit - Yes, I realize I repeated some of what Angry said. Ha.

[EvilAnagram]

Why is it bothering you they want to open the door? They're spending rounds doing it and making noise. If how long and how noisy is irrelevant what difference does it make? Why bother having a roll? If time and/or noise is relevant make note of it. If the DC is You Can Never Open The Door Without The Key, why bother having a roll? If the DC is You Can Never, Ever Open The Door, why is the door there?

I don't let them roll if there is no chance of failure, and I like to encourage them to think creatively. If there are no consequences for failure, what's the point of making it a game?

[Pex]

You're getting a Stealth check to cover the noise of bashing a door down because you decided to take 2 minutes smashing at it to be sure you broke it down?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

No, it's two minutes of trying to open the lock.

[DragonBaneDM]

I'm gonna argue against lava. Because it requires exceptional engineering to control, is almost impossible to clean up, and very hard to reset... Unless the traps are, say, traps doors into lava instead of, say, metal pipes of flowing lava.

Metals may melt if full of lava. Also, metals conduct heat very well which means metal pipes will cool the lava, and clog. Stone will be corroded and melted by lava. Now, you could magic that stuff up, magically project the pipes, or something else, but that's less practical.

Lava does produce heat and poisonous gas,both easy to move around and easier to control.

So.. Floor trap doors. The tell could be sulfur in the air. Or as someone suggested, visible heat waves.

Poisonous gas piped into a room. The tell could be pock marks caused by acidic fumes or scorch marks used to burn off the fumes or fresh mortar to cover damage. The tell could also be the massive sliding portcullises hidden in the ceiling which can seal off a room.

Superheated air. Tiles marked black on the floor have glass balls of water under them, which break. The water soaks metal pipes and cause jets of superheated steam. Resettable.

Y'know, that's a great point. I teach about lava and molten rock a good bit, so I should know better than to just start throwing it into pipes and on the other sides of walls willy nilly. I'll save the lava pit for the boss battle where my PCs won't have to get close to it and leave it at that.

Sulfur and fire magic is what I'll stick to. Poison and fire damage, seems artificer-y themed. Throw in some constructs to the monsters I know this guy's already cooperating with and I'll have a dungeon!

[Gurifu]

There's another class of traps that I don't think have been mentioned here, but which fits the theme of 'traps you can sort of see coming'.

Bring-Your-Daughter-To-Work Day Traps! These traps aren't going to jump out from nowhere and murder unsuspecting passers-by. Nobody who's supposed to be there ever needs to worry about setting them off by accident. If the princess gets loose, she's not going to vaporize herself before you can get her back to the tower. The plumber isn't going to end up impaled if he checks behind the wrong sink. Varieties and examples follow.

Hazards that are found in a restricted area, are hard to bypass with improvised methods, and are designed to be bypassed easily with a code, combination, or password.
The vault is, of course, behind a locked door. It has a slotted floor and is suspended over a pool of water filled with piranhas. As soon as you enter the vault, it starts descending towards the water. To the left of the door is a bank of ten switches, each currently in the "down" position. It takes five seconds to set one combination and you're going to be swimming with the fishes in less than a minute, so there's no way you'll guess the combination in time. Setting the correct combination (or figuring out another way to disable the mechanism) stops and reverses the descent.

Traps that are disabled when you unlock the door with the key (or with sufficient grace with your lockpicks check), but go off if you try to force it.
A chain is bracketed to the doorframe over the deadbolt. It loops through an eyelet, a daisy chain of flasks of Alchemist's Fire and Acid, another eyelet, and then down to one of the hinges. Kick the door off its hinges or smash the deadbolt through the frame and the chain will come loose, sending the whole contraption crashing down on the intruder's head.

Hidden traps that are hard to bypass and require the consent of a person on the other side of the trap.
The kobolds have dug a spike-filled pit trap in a ten foot square in front of their gate. They have covered it with sticks and leaves because it wouldn't be that hard for an enemy to cut down a tree and make a bridge, and adventurers with strengths of 10 or more have been known to simply vault 10 foot gaps without so much as rolling Athletics, but they have a drawbridge that they can lower for anybody they recognize.

Traps that are activated manually by a minion looking from a safe vantage (periscope, video camera scrying orb, grate in the wall, slot in the door). The trap may not be immediately visible, but the viewing mechanism may be.
The way into the secret hideout is blocked by a reinforced door with a slot in it that a person can open and look through. The 5ft square in front of the door is actually a trap door over a 20-foot drop into the hideout's jail cell, which is opened by tugging on a rope and pulley system inside the door.

[Tetrasodium]

That's the thing, though. Passive Perception fails at its goal. 10+Perception mod is lower than the average you would get from rolling (10.5+perception mod). More importantly, passive perception is incapable of ever spotting something harder than 10+perception mod, whereas rolling constantly means that you'll eventually get a 20.

Literally the only reason anyone ever bothers with passive perception is to avoid slowing the game down (in other words, metagaming). That's why it's better for the DM to assume they're always rolling (or do the rolls for them secretly).

I use more magical traps than mechanical ones. This us the difference between passive & active perception checks

Passive: Alice & Bob, while the group is making their way down the hallway, you can feel the subtle thrim of powerful magic bound up somewhere ahead
Alice & bob... Hey guys waitwaitwait I feel something magic
Alice, perception roll of ... crap four plus... roll of seven
Alice , you start reaching out with your senses towards those arcane energies & can see right where the web of power takes shape up ahead; but you are having trouble tracking some of the obfuscations built into the ward
Alice: I'm going to try to tell everyone that
Bob: Can I get advantage on my perception check since I know a bit tanks to alice & am kinda working with her?
dm:sure
nine and... ooh seventeen for... 25 not natural
You start tracking the energies through their winding array bound across the various points in the hallway ahead & think you can even see a weaker gap, but you are certain that the trap would disintegrate anyone who was unfortunate enough to trigger it
crap guys it's a disintegration field, but Chuck I found a weak spot in it right over there
Chuck: can I get advantage if I try to exploit that weakness?
dm:yep
chuck: lol 12 & a 2, 28 with thieve's tools
everyone's there watching chuck unroll his lead wire & thread it through the gap Bob found, all it would take is just one little twitch and the field will surely activate on you all. The nightwater drop falls from the glass vial to travel down the wire's length inch by inch until Chuck twitches a little *roll meaningless die &bang table -> group jumps* with a sudden pop, the web of power shatters as the nightwater makes contact to disrupt the whole web in a way that sends it crumbling in on itself as the droplet is expertly flung from the wire's tip to where it needs to be.


Passive perception just lets you know that you notice there is [I]"something["/I] worth stopping to look at

[Saeviomage]

There's another class of traps that I don't think have been mentioned here, but which fits the theme of 'traps you can sort of see coming'.


You skipped "traps that are blatantly deadly". Start down the corridor and it fills with fire. Turn back, and you are fine. Keep going, get burned.

Also you can just have traps that can't be avoided. If it's no problem to have a monster that can't be negotiated with and which might surprise you or simply win initiative, why is a trap that hurts you without a chance to avoid it unfair?

[Mjolnirbear]

You skipped "traps that are blatantly deadly". Start down the corridor and it fills with fire. Turn back, and you are fine. Keep going, get burned.

Also you can just have traps that can't be avoided. If it's no problem to have a monster that can't be negotiated with and which might surprise you or simply win initiative, why is a trap that hurts you without a chance to avoid it unfair?

If you'd read the article you'd know why. Because it takes away player choice.

That monster? The players can choose to fight, to run away, to sneak past, to deceive, to manipulate, to bribe, to Charm, to control, or more. They can go a different route or bring backup or do a million things with.

A trap they can't avoid? There is no choice. No strategy. No learning. It also enforces bad behaviour: now they search everywhere, constantly, non-stop, and your game becomes pointless.

A trap is useful when you treat it like and encounter; they can figure out it's there, learn to avoid or disarm it. Occasionally yes they'll spring a trap just like a monster might spring an ambush, but it should be a consequence of player choice. They got ambushed by the kobolds because their light gave away their positions or their voices carried too far. They got hit by the trap because they recklessly rushed forward or failed to notice how the room is different or realise what it meant.

[Easy_Lee]

Game elements are only interesting when the players can make choices. Too many DMs get caught in the trap (see what I did there?) of rolling a D20 every few seconds to see what happens. Resolving conflict with a D20 roll is fine, but only when player choice had something to do with it.

This doesn't just apply to traps. If you tell your players that they're going to have to sneak, have them roll stealth, and then force them into a hard fight because they failed, you screwed up. Your error was telling them they had to sneak.

Don't create game elements that require something specific from the players. If a problem can only be solved one way, it's not an interesting problem. Especially when that solution is a D20 roll and is therefore outside of the players' control.

Traps are just one obvious symptom of this general problem.

[mephnick]

Ben Robbins said it best a decade ago: Traps are best when they're easily found.

I've barely set Perception DC's for traps for years. I let anyone slightly paying attention realize there's something wrong with the corridor ahead. Then the party starts making decisions and decisions are what's fun. Then Investigation and Int checks comes in. Then Acrobatics or Athletics checks to avoid something they ****ed up. Sometimes multiple of all these if it's a big complex trap. Being hidden isn't what's fun about traps and it never has been. Figuring out what the triggers and safeguard of the trap are and avoiding or manipulation them are what's fun. Also, perception is good enough that it doesn't need "master trapfinder" added to it's list of benefits, that should have always been Investigation's game. Perception lets you know something is weird, but if you don't have Investigation or good planning (or both) you're probably ****ed.

[Vogie]

I like the "Click"-"What do you do?" method. However, here's an idea - make traps that are actually short encounters, taking the form of a quicktime-style reveal like you'd see in a video game. The "Click" means "roll initiative" for people who are in the trap zone (other party members that were ahead or behind can run in to assist, but only after a round... or two). As a GM, the "attacks" would be really simple - Rolling boulders, falling portcullis, firing arrows, et cetera. The reason for this is to make it a bit more dynamic, allowing time to "slow down" and everyone to act or react in various stat-based or storytelling manners.

Instead of using a Passive Perception manner to have the party find the trap, you tie the traps to a clue, such as the left-handed statues or debris in the AngryGM article, you set a DC for the Trap, having it almost act like an attacking creature, or a 4e mini skill challenge.

If it's an arrow/magic missile trap with a DC of 12, for example:

If you roll an initiative above 12, you act before the trap goes off, attempting to jam, redirect, or break the trap, or push a bumbling NPC (or PC!) out of the way
Those PCs can avoid getting Darted or arrowed with a 12+ Acrobatics check, or Dexterity to bring up the shield, or arcana to summon your ability Shield, et cetera.
If you roll below a 12, you're going to get shot with an arrow. Your AC might deflect it, it may not.
As long as there's people in the trap zone, the trap will continue going off until it runs out of arrows.

[Easy_Lee]

If it's an arrow/magic missile trap with a DC of 12, for example:

If you roll an initiative above 12, you act before the trap goes off, attempting to jam, redirect, or break the trap, or push a bumbling NPC (or PC!) out of the way
Those PCs can avoid getting Darted or arrowed with a 12+ Acrobatics check, or Dexterity to bring up the shield, or arcana to summon your ability Shield, et cetera.
If you roll below a 12, you're going to get shot with an arrow. Your AC might deflect it, it may not.
As long as there's people in the trap zone, the trap will continue going off until it runs out of arrows.


I would simplify this. If the DC is 12, an applicable save or check of 12 will negate the effect. Otherwise the player takes the effect. Whether what the player attempts to do is applicable and the skill or saving throw involved are up to the DM.

[Zorku]

But again the list you've suggested is offensive to an average player's "notion of reality" (especially if it's used too much or too bizarrely, which happens all the time). If that's your primary concern then the time pool thing I mentioned earlier seems like the kind of thing you're looking for.

But if that's not your cup of tea, a lot of the dungeonworld type games will just do the degrees of success thing in the general shape of "you succeed completely, you technically succeed but here's some bad thing that comes with it (fail forward,) or you do not succeed and something actively bad has happened." In the case of locks, the bad stuff is mostly making noise that attracts guards, but you can get creative with that kind of stuff.



[S]What 5E did was get rid of Take 10/20, to my personal dismay.

Strike-out edit: There is the Passive score concept, so it exists in some form if more limited. I'm used to it only applying to Perception, but there's no harm applying it to other checks. Passive 10 + Dex modifier + Proficiency With Thieves' Tools is all you need. DM needs to set lock DC. If the passive score is greater or equal to it the player doesn't roll. He just opens it. Otherwise he needs to roll. Whether he can try again or if the lock can jam still depends on who is DM that day. Whether passive score can apply to things other than Perception also depends on who is DM that day.

Naw dawg, DMG has a header for "multiple ability checks." The relevant text from it reads:

With enough and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task.

The section continues and covers a lot of the sanity limitations that you just wrote about from earlier editions.


You're getting a Stealth check to cover the noise of bashing a door down because you decided to take 2 minutes smashing at it to be sure you broke it down?

That doesn't make any sense to me.So far as I can tell, there's no section covering ability checks that so much as implies that impossible outcomes should result from these dice rolls. As a DM it's you're job to decide if some plan can possibly work, if there's enough uncertainty in the outcome to even roll dice, and only after all of that do the players roll and you tell them how it all went.

[Saeviomage]

If you'd read the article you'd know why. Because it takes away player choice.

Rubbish. Player choice doesn't have to include the possibility of zero resource usage.


That monster? The players can choose to fight, to run away, to sneak past, to deceive, to manipulate, to bribe, to Charm, to control, or more. They can go a different route or bring backup or do a million things with.

A trap they can't avoid? There is no choice. No strategy. No learning. It also enforces bad behaviour: now they search everywhere, constantly, non-stop, and your game becomes pointless.

Occasionally using ambush monsters hasn't got my players being paranoid about ambushes. Mainly because constantly searching spends time, and time should always be valuable. If you spend a week travelling because you're moving slowly and avoiding chokepoints, then that's a week the villain has to progress his evil plans.

Occasionally having a trap that reveals it's presence by hurting someone won't have them constantly searching unless the traps' alpha strike is super deadly or you treat time as an infinite resource.

Furthermore, unless the trap is a one-shot that delivers all of it's damage in a single hit, the characters still have plenty of choices after getting hurt. They have to decide whether and how to get past it. They can choose to make use of it against the dungeon denizens. They can choose to disable it, disarm it, repurpose it, avoid it.

Traps are only boring if... they're boring. Unfortunately the default trap model of "it's a damage dealing thingy that requires a DC to disable" takes them a long way down the path to being boring. Even their more recent attempts at traps are far too light on descriptions and far too heavy on prescriptive behaviour. "disable aspect X by being at position y and making roll z" instead of more general descriptions of what the trap is capable of that might help answer the question "what if I put a statue from the previous room in front of the blades?" or "what if I hang from the ceiling?" or "if I shatter the far wall, why does the magic sigil still work?"

[Mjolnirbear]

*snip*

Almost everything you mentioned was already addressed in the article.

As for your problem with players spending zero resources, do you refuse to let your players run away from the ogre? Do you tell them they can't sneak past the goblin camp? What about if they try to negotiate with the beholder, does it always fail? Can they not attempt to bluff the guard, frighten away sewer rats with a lit torch, distract the orc with a thrown pebble or hide from the terrifying dragon as it flies overhead? Do all these fail unless someone uses a resource?

Traps as a resource tax are, it should be noted, *also* discussed in the article.

[Saeviomage]

As for your problem with players spending zero resources, do you refuse to let your players run away from the ogre? Do you tell them they can't sneak past the goblin camp? What about if they try to negotiate with the beholder, does it always fail? Can they not attempt to bluff the guard, frighten away sewer rats with a lit torch, distract the orc with a thrown pebble or hide from the terrifying dragon as it flies overhead? Do all these fail unless someone uses a resource?
Now you're just strawmanning. I said that player choice does not have to include the possibility of zero resource expenditure, not that it must always exclude it.

I'm also not advocating traps that are a resource tax. I'm saying that any trap that is actually well described has value beyond inconveniencing characters.

[Mjolnirbear]

Now you're just strawmanning. I said that player choice does not have to include the possibility of zero resource expenditure, not that it must always exclude it.

I'm also not advocating traps that are a resource tax. I'm saying that any trap that is actually well described has value beyond inconveniencing characters.

Player choice has to include the possibility of zero resource expenditure, because you don't know everything your players will come up with. By not including the *possibility* of zero resource expenditure, you are denying non-resource choices.

At least that is how I parsed your sentence. You can see the reason for my confusion. Had you said "Player choice doesn't always need to include non-resource expenditure options" I would still have disagreed but it would have been a different argument entirely.

At any rate, my point was GO READ THE ARTICLE.

[DragonBaneDM]

The article is good stuff, and I'm also glad to have sparked a discussion about how passive rolls, DM streamlining, and player agency all interact, and I'm happy to have that discussion in this thread.

However, here's what's going into my adventure next week, and I'd love to have it proofchecked. I think you guys will enjoy what I came up with and thanks for the advice so far!

Foreword: Marakus is the hobgoblin artificer who directed the building of the Subterra Fortress, and now leads the war effort to lay siege to Roon, the dwarven town, above.


Area 1: First Hallway:
Read Aloud:
Almost every singly flat surface of the Fortress's black walls is covered in manic diagrams, notes, and mechanical or alchemical formulas. All of them seem to have been made manically and urgently, and the language of the writing seems to change randomly, sometimes mid word.

This is the work of Marakus the artificer, who has used the Fortress's black walls as a sort of chalkboard to keep track of construction, magical theories, and logistics.

Marakus is a mad genius. It is difficult to make sense of his notes, indeed a large majority of them are complete nonsense, however they serve an important purpose within the Fortress. Hidden within the scrawls and mechanical breakdowns of golems, flumph anatomy, and war machines are hints and clues that allow the players to navigate the dungeon safely.

When the players first encounter Marakus' drawings in the entrance hall, have each of them make an Intelligence check. Players who speak three or more languages have advantage on the check (Our dwarf rogue took the Mastermind subclass and Linguist, so I really want to use codes to reward that instead of punish it).

9 or lower: You decide that these scribbles were clearly made by someone insane.
10 or higher: You're able to determine that though the majority of notes and drawing are for ludicrous ideas such as a lava powered clock or a formula converting goblin feces into gold, there are still some equations or building schematics that seem perfectly sane.
15 or higher: You'd wager that if you look for patterns, you could find some sort of cypher in these mad ravings. It feels like you should keep an eye out for any significant changes to the content or style of the notes.
18 or higher: The majority of these drawings relate back to inventions that deal with warfare and torture. However, you notice that there's no notes on enemy defenses. This strikes you as odd.




Area 2: Entrance Hall
“The mad scrawlings take up the entirety of the high wall in front of you. At the very top, you see a list of crossed out names ranging from “Dreadhope Dungeon” to “Marakus' Madhouse”, eventually settling on “SUBTERRA FORTRESS” in intimidating blood red paint. The north gives way to a lies a complicated map of Roon's sewers that gives way to possible combinations of sewer rats and explosives near the stairs. To the south you see the same recipe for jumbo repeated over and over with slight variations each time.”

A DC 12 Investigation on the sewer diagram reveals that the word “rat” is repeated in a different language each time it's used, denoting some significance to the word.

Area 3: Laboratory Alpha
“Turning the corner past the maps of Roon's sewers, you see a large, open laboratory laid out in front of you. There are half finished mechanical inventions and spilled alchemical components all over the workbenches and sawtables here, along with more everpresent notes. A big wooden sign hanging over the largest labbench reads 'Laboratory Alpha'”

Hidden at the threshold of the hallway and the first of Marakus' laboratories is a Rune of Confusion:

Rune of Confusion: DC 10 to find, DC 15 to disable; affects all targets within 10 ft., DC 11 save or become confused (phb 224) for 1d4 rounds; heroic tier, setback

It triggers whenever any creature crosses over the threshold without speaking the command word, “rat” in any language. It also triggers if a character attempts to disable it and fails. The rune is a one-time trap that is more used to keep new or brash cronies out of the artificer's rarely used first laboratory than anything else.This is traditionally how rune-traps work, right? If it's able to reset, I'd love that


So what I ended up doing is kind of stealing and modifying the idea that Townopolis gave me (thanks fam). Any time the characters find depictions of how Marakus has planned (whether it's insane or not) to break through an enemy's defenses, they've also found a trap. Each trap also has a command word to bypass that can get more and more difficult depending on who should have access to that area. I'm starting with a really easy to detect one that doesn't do much damage to begin with.

I plan on expanding this to beyond just traps. Maybe that recipe for gumbo is a warning that there's an encounter coming up? With this, the players can be trained to look for patterns even if they didn't do well on the initial Intelligence check. I'll make sure that Perception checks done at key points are rewarded along with telltale signs such as scorch marks or pressure plates as I move on: each trap is still going to have a DC to spot and disable it, it's just kind of a "secondary" way for players to figure it out.

It's a well maintained dungeon, and I used this tell last time, so I don't want to do "body on the first trap" again. Definitely in the future, though!

[Mjolnirbear]

If you want it to reset, then let it reset. He's an Artificer. His whole premise is 'see a problem, invent a solution'.

I'm not sure about how you've presented the password. Is he forgetful enough to need a reminder? I would have made a slightly raised platform or a coloured tile, but that just may be a difference in style.

The attack plans are unique though. I like them.

[DragonBaneDM]

If you want it to reset, then let it reset. He's an Artificer. His whole premise is 'see a problem, invent a solution'.

I'm not sure about how you've presented the password. Is he forgetful enough to need a reminder? I would have made a slightly raised platform or a coloured tile, but that just may be a difference in style.

The attack plans are unique though. I like them.

Okay, then I'll have it reset!

So the password is presented through the fact that the word "rat" is repeated several times on the incriminating wall drawings. It'll take an Investigation check to spot, maybe I'll let Perception see it too? The password is more so that his second and thirds in commands won't accidentally walk into the roon. I'll do both! It's DC 10 to spot, so EVERYONE is going to see the raised tile or the slightly glimmering ambience.

And finally thanks! I got inspiration largely from others, though.

[Mjolnirbear]

It was the reason for showing the password that didn't make sense. If he has flunkies, then it makes perfect sense. You can even have it be his hiring challenge: if you're too dumb to figure out how to get in, you're relegated to garbage boy or acid cleanup or owl bear feeding. More intelligent flunkies can attempt to rise in ranks

[DragonBaneDM]

It was the reason for showing the password that didn't make sense. If he has flunkies, then it makes perfect sense. You can even have it be his hiring challenge: if you're too dumb to figure out how to get in, you're relegated to garbage boy or acid cleanup or owl bear feeding. More intelligent flunkies can attempt to rise in ranks

I...really freaking like that. He's an intellectual who managed to thrive in a martial caste system. I'm sticking this in his personal journals littered around the dungeon. Which I need to finish! Thank you!

[Mjolnirbear]

Day one: Dale figured out the fourth trap.

(look! Find Dale and if you can't figure it out, you know someone who has!)

Day 13: Martok helped Liel figure out the second puzzle. Can no one remember the bloody rules? Note: find a replacement for Martok and Liel. Note 2: no need to feed the ooze for a while

Day 24: Alliette has figured out everything she's seen. Might be too smart. Oh well. The price of competent thugs, I guess.

[Saeviomage]

Player choice has to include the possibility of zero resource expenditure, because you don't know everything your players will come up with. By not including the *possibility* of zero resource expenditure, you are denying non-resource choices.

And? If I present a raging forest fire, and the players set foot in it, do I have to explicitly plan out ways that they can avoid taking damage without effort? If my players decide to cross a barren desert, is the onus on me to make sure they can do so without expense? Why do I have to do so when they enter a tomb of deadly traps? The players have already made the choice to dice with death. There are precautions that can be taken, and doing nothing shouldn't be the way to make it through unharmed.


At least that is how I parsed your sentence. You can see the reason for my confusion. Had you said "Player choice doesn't always need to include non-resource expenditure options" I would still have disagreed but it would have been a different argument entirely.

At any rate, my point was GO READ THE ARTICLE.

I read the article, and it specifically says "traps suck because they are all or nothing". What I'm proposing is a trap that isn't - you take that first little bit of damage or resource drain or even just trigger something that looks menacing, and then the trap isn't over.

The trap makes more sense (because it's not instantly fatal and therefore doesn't instantly kill minions, does warn people away from places they shouldn't be, and WILL be fatal if not negotiated correctly), and at the same time provides an ongoing and more interesting engagement.

[Zorku]

The resetting trap rune seems fine, but it sounds like the party is only going to recognize that there's a keyword by virtue of your having pointed it out? Might work fine at your table, but I could see a lot of groups brute forcing their way through five runes without realizing that they've been plucking keywords out of the mad scribbles.

Confusion is a decent effect for slowing the party, but the way that works in 5e doesn't necessitate that the effect would wear off with a creature back on the starting side of the rune. Maybe there's a slope or something to encourage the clumsy of... confused back the way they came?

You could switch up the default confusion table to include some mousey behaviors and have some ridiculous looking scribbled cheese on the back wall that they find themselves compelled to approach on some of the rolls. With a group someone's likely to just say the right word by describing what the afflicted character is doing and you can have whatever glowing field of light dim and fade out for 10 seconds or so when they do. At that point you've sufficiently beat the party over the head with what the hint was, and you've got lots of elements to whittle away at as the advanced traps require them to really put their finger on what's happening.

I'm thinking three runes in you stop giving them the actual word and instead they're getting simple word puzzles, and soon after they're seeing the words for the 6 standard colors minus the one that's the key word, and then real late in the process they've got some cryptic mention of learning from your failures, and wouldn't you know it, you wrote down the first word that each player guessed that wasn't a correct solution to one of these runes (10 seconds should be long enough that just one person can get everyone through, but the right person has to speak their word.)

Eventually the raised tile and shimmering light drop off from the runes, and you can have the effects on them get pretty nasty (flash of light, no memory for the next 10 seconds, and a trap door drops you into a different hallway. They recognize rooms well enough and recognize the soreness, but you track damage invisibly unless they actually stop and examine themselves.)

And of course, at some point they should get a chance to watch some hench try and earn a promotion, giving a hilariously bad answer to whatever puzzle was on the walls. Maybe later they see something very similar, but the hench gives what looks like the correct answer and they have to figure out why that was wrong- this rune is naturally one of the more lethal ones.

[UrielAwakened]

But again the list you've suggested is offensive to an average player's "notion of reality" (especially if it's used too much or too bizarrely, which happens all the time). That doesn't break the game, but it hurts the experience. I think it's even _worse_ to, after trying to pick a lock, say that you broke the pick. Then they carry duplicate picks. So you say the pick broke off and jammed the lock shut. But how often does that happen? It can, but almost never. So it it really just fuggs up the thing even worse, as far as "notion of reality" goes.

And yes, Dnd is not a reality emulator. Of course. But decisions that offend players' basic sense of reality do hurt the game experience.

It's imho far far more honest to just say "folks, this is a game and it has to have limits" and then ask yourself "do you really want to give them this much hell over a simple wooden door with a dumb lock on it?"

As far as smashing down doors goes, yes you can hurt yourself doing this, but you're less likely to do so if you're armored - and in reality simple barricaded wooden doors generally get opened after being smashed, rammed, kicked multiple times! The one-time-limit is silly and absurd and offensive here - or do we pile on more dice rolling to see if they dislocate a shoulder or hurt their foot? No of course we don't.

I'm just saying let's not pretend we've "solved" this here. It's a problem. It's not really solvable (edit, from a hard-rule perspective - it might be from a winging it perspective). Being too lenient = one set of problems, and being too hardcore also creates another set of problems. Just take a moment, step back, and ask yourself as a DM if you really want them held up here cuz Ted rolled a 2? If so, enforce the rule one way. If not, let them open the dang door. Try to get a sense in your head what the right, balanced approach is and wing it - being too rule-bound is often deadly (and yes it's a subjective thing I'm arguing that requires talent to properly assess, which is why I'm advocating going that route and not mindlessly adhering all the time to a rather silly but sometimes needed rule). I'm not really arguing with anyone here or saying anyone is wrong - I'm saying that what I'm attempting to convey here is what I see as the best common sense solution.

It's not a hard problem to solve. Other systems solved it a long time ago, D&D just refuses to adapt.

You don't make the outcomes of the d20 roll binary, such as either "Pass: You get through the door," or "Fail: The door stays locked."

You allow for outcomes like "Fail: The door opens but because it takes you so long to open it, three hobgoblins on the other side have gotten into position and bombard you with arrows."

Too many DMs don't allow an outcome like that because they didn't have any hobgoblins planned to be there. They want their D&D game to be a simulation of a working dungeon or something. But D&D isn't a simulation, and your players didn't know that you didn't have any hobgoblins there before they failed that check. Anything offscreen is exactly wherever you need it to be at all times. This is a narrative solution to failed checks that every other major Roleplaying system implemented like a decade ago but for some reason D&D can't adapt.

It's a basic tenant of improv. Always be saying yes. And it makes D&D games a truckload better.

[Pex]

It's not a hard problem to solve. Other systems solved it a long time ago, D&D just refuses to adapt.

You don't make the outcomes of the d20 roll binary, such as either "Pass: You get through the door," or "Fail: The door stays locked."

You allow for outcomes like "Fail: The door opens but because it takes you so long to open it, three hobgoblins on the other side have gotten into position and bombard you with arrows."

Too many DMs don't allow an outcome like that because they didn't have any hobgoblins planned to be there. They want their D&D game to be a simulation of a working dungeon or something. But D&D isn't a simulation, and your players didn't know that you didn't have any hobgoblins there before they failed that check. Anything offscreen is exactly wherever you need it to be at all times. This is a narrative solution to failed checks that every other major Roleplaying system implemented like a decade ago but for some reason D&D can't adapt.

It's a basic tenant of improv. Always be saying yes. And it makes D&D games a truckload better.

That's not a superior solution. It's a solution, not a horrible solution, just not a superior solution to blame D&D/DMs upon for not using. Now having to fight the hobgoblins that didn't exist means the party has less resources to fight the DM planned combat later. A later combat becomes harder than it should have been. Harder is not autobad, but it's not autogood either. The extra combat also eats up real world playing time delaying getting things done. It interferes with XP calculations of the adventure.

It's a different matter if the hobgoblins already existed but were down the hall. The long time it took to open the door meant the regular hobgoblin guard patrol arrived or the noise alerted them so they prepared. The DM planned for the possibility.

Maybe it's just a random encounter.

Maybe DMs always did this, and some of the "too many" who don't always had but you never noticed.

Maybe the scenario is about adventure design which D&D leaves it up to the DM to determine, so it's not D&D's fault at all. Maybe the scenario is in a published adventure giving a percentage chance hobgoblins appear or autoappear depending on how soon the door is opened.

[UrielAwakened]

That's not a superior solution. It's a solution, not a horrible solution, just not a superior solution to blame D&D/DMs upon for not using. Now having to fight the hobgoblins that didn't exist means the party has less resources to fight the DM planned combat later. A later combat becomes harder than it should have been. Harder is not autobad, but it's not autogood either. The extra combat also eats up real world playing time delaying getting things done. It interferes with XP calculations of the adventure.

It's a different matter if the hobgoblins already existed but were down the hall. The long time it took to open the door meant the regular hobgoblin guard patrol arrived or the noise alerted them so they prepared. The DM planned for the possibility.

Maybe it's just a random encounter.

Maybe DMs always did this, and some of the "too many" who don't always had but you never noticed.

Maybe the scenario is about adventure design which D&D leaves it up to the DM to determine, so it's not D&D's fault at all. Maybe the scenario is in a published adventure giving a percentage chance hobgoblins appear or autoappear depending on how soon the door is opened.

The point of a die roll is to have consequences for the outcome. Meaningful ones that advance the story, not ones that bog down gameplay.

A failed check should still progress the story forward, but it should make the story harder for the PCs. It should add things to overcome. A door that takes longer to get through is none of those things.

And it's precisely D&D's fault because D&D refuses to write rules for narrative progression, which is a staple of every other major rulebook. It has rules for classes and races and combat and spells and how to hire troops and how to buy castles and how to perform for money or do a job in your downtime.

And zero rules for narrative progression.

"Not having rules" for the most important thing in a group storytelling session is precisely the fault of the system. I mean, really. "Percentage chance Hobgoblins appear?" What is that? Who needs that? They appear if it makes sense narratively and they don't if it doesn't. And it's the job of the rulebook to help a DM determine when that is.

[Saeviomage]

"Not having rules" for the most important thing in a group storytelling session is precisely the fault of the system. I mean, really. "Percentage chance Hobgoblins appear?" What is that? Who needs that? They appear if it makes sense narratively and they don't if it doesn't. And it's the job of the rulebook to help a DM determine when that is.

If you're just doing it narratively, why do you need rules for it? As you said - the rule is they appear if it makes sense, and don't if it doesn't.

The reason for rules is to create a game. If, for instance, every time players do something loud or disruptive within the dungeon, I hand them a token, and then once they've accumulated some number of tokens (preferably with a random element added in for some risk) I have a patrol show up, my players now have a game to interact with. My own choices stop being "should the patrol show up now? Now? now?" and come down to "was that disruptive or loud?" My players can argue amongst themselves about whether an action is worth accepting a token for.

Subsystems like that are fun to a lot of people. It is, after all, why 90% of the rules for D&D exist. They're not simulating reality, they're creating a game.

Now, should D&D detail things like the mini-game I created above? Probably. Why don't they? Because the writers this edition were preoccupied with duplicating prior editions, and aren't that great when it comes to creating game systems.

[Pex]

Hadn't 4E dealt with failing forward, to go with "Yes, and" or "Yes, but"? There were also skill challenges which had its origins in 3E Unearthed Arcana.

[UrielAwakened]

They made mention of the concept but never bothered to codify rules.

Compare that with, say, Dungeon World that not only has rules for how to set up your first session to enable worldbuilding but actually gives you a list of ways to handle failures to progress the story. Read enough other systems and D&D's dungeon masters guide looks pointless and filled with useless information by comparison.

Topically, like traps for instance. There should be real rules traps. How to design them, place them, handle them in a way that's fun for players. And there aren't.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

In some editions that is true in others not so much. For example the concept of "take 20" in 3e was exactly that trying over and over again until you get a 20 with it being boiled down to taking 20 times as long instead of rolling.

That being said it is a good rule if you do not want players to roll constantly until success on an activity.

Exactly. As a Paramedic I've had to break into more than one home. We tend to try not to break things, because we are usually there because of false trips of those damnable medic alert bracelets


Usually we have to roll more than once to get in.


My players struggle with this sometimes. They try to bust a door open and fail, then say, "Well, let's roll again." I've explained to them three times that the roll represents their cumulative efforts to accomplish that specific action, but they just want to roll until they succeed.



Except that it doesn't. Repeated rolls show both the passage of time, as well as different attempts or techniques.

Roll one might be Pulling.
Roll two pushing.
Roll three kicking the door.
And so on.

[Zorku]

That's not a superior solution. It's a solution, not a horrible solution, just not a superior solution to blame D&D/DMs upon for not using. Now having to fight the hobgoblins that didn't exist means the party has less resources to fight the DM planned combat later. A later combat becomes harder than it should have been. Harder is not autobad, but it's not autogood either. The extra combat also eats up real world playing time delaying getting things done. It interferes with XP calculations of the adventure.

It's a different matter if the hobgoblins already existed but were down the hall. The long time it took to open the door meant the regular hobgoblin guard patrol arrived or the noise alerted them so they prepared. The DM planned for the possibility.Just a minor thing here: if you're married to the xp budget, you can just spring the next combat that you had planned on the party instead of some on the spot encounter. Maybe it's worse by virtue of the party not getting to decide the terms of the combat, or maybe you just lie and let them think that it's worse than it would have been. If you wanna be real lazy about it, maybe some lackey sees them and then runs back to the combat that they were already a part of, but you play it up like they've sounded some kind of alarm.

If you want the consequences for a failed check to be 5 Arbitrary Badness Units then make it that bad. If you want the consequences to be 20 ABUs then make it that bad.


Maybe the scenario is about adventure design which D&D leaves it up to the DM to determine, so it's not D&D's fault at all.
I haven't read every system that's come out in the last 10 years, but if nearly as many of them do this as he's saying, then that's a pretty good hint that it's worth mentioning the idea of failing forward and giving even slightly priming new DMs with the idea. The DMG basically lists a handful of ideas that weren't tested and were barely better than "made up on the spot," so it's not like there's a high barrier of entry for ideas there. What did we get for repeating ability checks? "Take 10 unless you already planned that something bad happens to prevent them from trying over and over, like a poison spike that sticks em in the finger when they try to pick the lock." If that section said "Take 10 unless there's a guard nearby that might catch you or the lock is trapped with a poison needle" THEN I'd credit 5e with this, but it never says anything like that. The system is merely flexible enough that you can use solutions like this... if you're smart enough to see when the rules as written are kind of ****.



Topically, like traps for instance. There should be real rules traps. How to design them, place them, handle them in a way that's fun for players. And there aren't.
They finally got (roughly) there a few months back with a UA that attempts some of that. It wastes a lot of time on details that are not important, but it's still a step in a better direction than anything in the core books.


Repeated rolls show both the passage of time, as well as different attempts or techniques.

Roll one might be Pulling.
Roll two pushing.
Roll three kicking the door.
And so on.
That sounds a bit inane, but I agree with the general concept. One roll for 2-7 minutes worth of attempting a thing seems like roughly the right amount. Anybody that understand how lock picks work and has actually ever practiced with them isn't going to accept 2 minutes as the minimum, but most lockpicking is more about already knowing what you're dealing with than actually performing the skill anyway.