How to make traps fun

[Fero]

I realized today that, when designing dungeons, I often include traps with little thought as to whether or not they will be fun. Paradoxically, I have often felt that dungeon crawls become tedious when the DM makes heavy use of traps and the rogue needs to check every door and 5' steps. As such, I am wondering what people have done to make traps actually fun. What do you do/ what have you seen to make traps a fun part of encounter design?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I realized today that, when designing dungeons, I often include traps with little thought as to whether or not they will be fun. Paradoxically, I have often felt that dungeon crawls become tedious when the DM makes heavy use of traps and the rogue needs to check every door and 5' steps. As such, I am wondering what people have done to make traps actually fun. What do you do/ what have you seen to make traps a fun part of encounter design?

Take a note from Tucker's Kobolds and make the traps interactive with the inhabitants of the dungeons?

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...olds-PEACH-3-5 (Check the suggestions later in the thread.)

[Saintheart]

Traps I think come in two forms: the annoyance and the encounter. It's the second that needs more work.

A trap as an annoyance is just there for the same reason a DM puts in things like weather, encumbrance, tracking rations, interrupting the mage's 8 hours of sleep with a late night visit from a shrieking bat, and so on. It's there to provide the sort of minor but irritating inconvenience that crops up in ordinary life and chips away at people's resources. It lends verisimilitude and it leaves a certain degree of randomness in the game which means you can't quite accurately predict where your resources will be an hour, a day, or whatever from now. Annoyances/inconveniences shouldn't be overtly fun, they're pains in the @$$, that's what they're designed to be and that's how they operate as part of the wider game experience. Also, annoyances are more significant in games at low levels, since an inconvenience that you can handle without spending any finite resource on it isn't an inconvenience at all, and high level 3.5 gives a panoply of options to address food, water, shelter, and other finite problems.

A trap as an encounter is different. Unless you do a little work on it, a trap isn't an encounter at all, because the players (as opposed to the PCs) have no influence upon it. With a trap, assuming no other work by the DM, the dice roll determines everything. Either the rogue finds the trap and/or the fighter gets half damage when he steps on the trap ... or they don't. Just rolling a dice is not making a choice; no decision has to be made, no consideration has to be made of pros and cons, no alternatives are available.

In my view this misapprehension comes about partially because traps are given a CR value as if they were a monster ready to drop into a room without anything else -- as if they were a combat encounter. They're not. In combat there are usually a host of decisions for a player to make in resolving the fight: which spell, what movement, attack/not attack, and a hundred others, even at high levels the wizard has to decide what encounter-ending option he'll use to end the fearsome lump of hitpoints in front of him.

Making traps encounters, and fun encounters at that, requires work on three other questions:
(1) What are the consequences for searching for traps; and
(2) What can the players do if they detect the trap, and what are the consequences; and
(3) What can the players do if they trigger the trap, whether because they walk right into it or because the rogue gets fixing the trap wrong.

Searching for traps is time-consuming. It's meant to be. In older iterations of D&D, making a thorough search of an area consumed 'dungeon turns', passages of time in which the chance of a random encounter was X or Y. The dungeon turn IIRC was about 10 minutes. (You can still see vestiges of this in 3.5's scales for spell durations: 1 round, 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour). The point being: if the party is searching every 5 foot square, what are the consequences of that? How long is it taking to do that? Does this approach bring on more random encounters, give more time for the dead god's cult to finish its world-ending ritual, more inconveniences, alter the dungeon's structure (it could be on a timer), another adventuring party gets closer to the treasure, or what? Maybe what seem to be random encounters become more focused and targeted as the dungeon's denizens realise lots of their patrols are going missing in the same area? Whatever you pick, make sure your players are aware of it so they can at least consider and absorb the consequences of a slow march 5x5 through the dungeon. (This is also why you have dungeons in isolated areas and have your party work on finite amounts of rations too.)

Let's say the rogue actually detects a trap. Okay, so what does that look like? It's not like he gets Joel's Last of Us Sonar vision telling him the precise dimensions of the trap, does it just mean he knows there's a pit trap somewhere in the next 10 feet -- but it's hard to tell exactly where, say, without another hour to carefully pace out the edges of the pit? Or does the rogue detect signs consistent with a trap, but can't tell whether it's already been triggered or is still primed? What are some possible methods for dealing with the trap, as the rogue's experience tells him, and how might the party be able to influence success with those methods? Are there secondary traps designed to stop rogues tampering with the primary mechanism, and can they be avoided?

Or let's say the players do trigger a trap, or the rogue's Disable check fails. The simplest way to make a trap more interesting, or more fun, is, when the roll goes the wrong way for the party, say the following: "You hear a loud 'click' as Percival The Heavyfooted steps onto that painted flagstone on the right. What do you do?"

Whatever the answer, you then have an actual encounter rather than just an annoyance. Even if the opportunity to react is only for a split-second, you give them a chance to react nonetheless. Because you then have a player choosing what they might want to try -- whether it's attempt a roll forward, ducking, trying to scramble backward, raise their shield against a fireball, whatever. (Or maybe even throwing their hands up to the sky and shouting 'Oh come on' in-character!)

And you then have the opportunity as a DM to adjudicate what effect - if any - their action has on the situation. Maybe it's successful; maybe it isn't; maybe it mitigates the harm; maybe it doesn't. Maybe it has no effect on the problem entirely, or maybe you give the player a +2 on his Reflex roll if you're feeling the measure would have an effect on the result. But start having your players describe what they do in response to a stimulus, and you have an encounter to resolve.

[SangoProduction]

Traps I think come in two forms: the annoyance and the encounter. It's the second that needs more work.

A trap as an annoyance is just there for the same reason a DM puts in things like weather, encumbrance, tracking rations, breaking the mage's 8 hours of sleep because of a late night visit from a shrieking bat, and so on. It's there to provide the sort of minor but irritating inconvenience that crops up in ordinary life and chips away at people's resources, so it forms both a sense of verisimilitude and it leaves a certain degree of randomness in the game which means you can't quite accurately predict where your resources will be an hour, a day, or whatever from now. This is more significant in games at low levels, since an inconvenience that you can handle without spending any finite resource on it isn't an inconvenience at all, and high level 3.5 gives a panoply of options to address food, water, shelter, and other finite problems. But this isn't necessarily a problem if you're just using a trap as an inconvenience. Annoyances/inconveniences shouldn't be overtly fun, they're pains in the @$$, that's what they're designed to be and that's how they operate as part of the wider game experience.

A trap as an encounter is different. Unless you do a little work on it, it's actually not an encounter at all, because it's something the players (as opposed to the PCs) have no influence upon. In my view this misapprehension comes about partially because traps are given a CR value as if they were a combat encounter. They're not and they shouldn't. With a simple trap, assuming no other work by the DM, the dice roll determines everything. Either the rogue finds the trap and/or the partymember makes a Reflex save when the trap fires, or they don't. Just the action of rolling a dice is not making a choice; no actual choice is involved in an interaction with a trap being resolved, no decision has to be made, no consideration has to be made of pros and cons is needed.

Compare combat where there are usually a host of decisions for a player to make in resolving the fight: which spell, what movement, attack/not attack, and a hundred others, even at high levels the wizard has to decide what encounter-ending option he'll use to end the fearsome lump of hitpoints in front of him.

Making traps encounters, and fun encounters at that, requires work on three other questions:
(1) What are the consequences for searching for traps; and
(2) What can the players do if they detect the trap, and what are the consequences; and
(3) What can the players do if they trigger the trap, whether because they walk right into it or because the rogue gets fixing the trap wrong.

Searching for traps is time-consuming. It's meant to be. In older iterations of D&D there was actual consumption of 'dungeon turns', passages of time in which the chance of a random encounter was X or Y. You can still see elements of this in the different timescales for how long spells operate: 1 round, 1 minute, 10 minutes, hours. The dungeon turn IIRC was about 10 minutes. The important part being: if the party is searching every 5 feet square, what are the consequences of that? How long is it taking to do that? Does this approach bring on more random encounters, more time for the cult of the dead god to finish its world-ending ritual, more inconveniences, the dungeon's structure alters, another adventuring party gets closer to the treasure, what? Maybe what seem to be random encounters become more focused and targeted as the denizens of the dungeon realise lots of their patrols are going missing in the same area? And then make sure your players are aware of it so they can at least consider and absorb the consequences of a slow march 5x5 through the dungeon. (This is also why you have dungeons in isolated areas and have your party work on finite amounts of rations too.)

Let's say the rogue actually detects a trap. Okay, so what does that look like? It's not like he gets Joel's Last of Us Sonar vision telling him the precise dimensions of the trap, does it just mean he knows there's a pit trap somewhere in the next 10 feet but it's hard to tell, say, without another hour or so to carefully pace out the edges of the pit? Or does the rogue detect signs consistent with a trap, but he can't tell whether it's been fired already or is still primed? What are some possible methods for dealing with the trap, as the rogue's experience tells him, and how might the party be able to influence it? Are there secondary traps designed to stop rogues tampering with the primary mechanism, and can they be avoided?

And let's say the players do trigger a trap. The simplest way to make a trap more interesting, or more fun, is, when the roll goes the wrong way for the party, say the following: "You hear a loud 'click' as Percival The Heavyfooted steps onto that painted flagstone on the right. What do you do?"

Whatever the answer, you then have an actual encounter rather than just an annoyance. Even if it's a split-second, you give them a chance to react. You have a player being able to decide what they might want to do, whether it's try and roll forward, duck, try and scramble backward, raise their shield against a fireball, or whatever. And you then have the opportunity as a DM to adjudicate what - if anything - that action has on the situation. Maybe it's successful; maybe it isn't; maybe it mitigates the harm; maybe it doesn't. Maybe you give the player a +2 on his Reflex roll if you're feeling the measure would have an effect on the result. But start having your players describe what they do in response to a stimulus, and you have an encounter to resolve.

Good stuff.

[Chronos]

I always try to think of traps from the narrative angle. Who set this trap? Whom are they trying to keep out (or if that's not the intention, then whom are they trying to target with whatever it is the trap does)? What are they protecting? How do the trap-setter and their allies avoid or bypass the trap? How long has it been since the trap was created-- Hours, years, centuries? Is the purpose of the trap even still relevant?

Quoth Saintheart:

A trap as an encounter is different. Unless you do a little work on it, it's actually not an encounter at all, because it's something the players (as opposed to the PCs) have no influence upon.

Yes and no... If a trap fits in properly with the world, the players (regardless of their rolls) have a chance to anticipate where traps will be, and something about how they work. We've all seen cases where the rogue has failed to find a trap, but is still confident that there's one there anyway, and taken special measures to trip it from around a corner, or gone around a different way, or whatever, and other situations where they haven't even bothered to try finding one, since they know it'll be safe. Play a rogue enough, and you start to get an instinctive sense of this: "I'm searching the floor in this square here on the map." "Why are you only searching there?" "Because that's where the trap would be."

[Drakevarg]

I always try to think of traps from the narrative angle. Who set this trap? Whom are they trying to keep out (or if that's not the intention, then whom are they trying to target with whatever it is the trap does)? What are they protecting? How do the trap-setter and their allies avoid or bypass the trap? How long has it been since the trap was created-- Hours, years, centuries? Is the purpose of the trap even still relevant?

This part is why I rarely use traps, because making random patches of your hallway murder intruders is way more work and a lot less efficient than just... hiring guards (for short-term security) or burying it (for long-term security). So traps are usually in place when "hurt someone" is the primary intent rather than "keep people out." Bandit ambushes and such. But that kind of thing doesn't scale too well, because while it's easy to imagine someone squatting in the wilderness to set up pitfalls and such, it's less likely that they'd create the bespoke Indiana Jones-style multi-phase death courses that dungeon traps are generally known for.

[Fero]

This has been a great discussion. Thank you! To synthesize what I have heard thus far, traps are useful to DMs:

1- in conjunction with other encounters (kobold, etc ) where the trap adds depth to what may otherwise be a simple combat encounter;

2- As a source of annoyance to drain resources and keep players on their toes; and

3- when the players can make meaningful decisions about to interact with a trap/possibility of a trap. Examples include: (a) some timing restriction makes it so the players cannot/do not want to search every door, chest, etc.; (b) the scenery clearly indicates the possibility of a trap; (c) players have options on how to disarm/deal with the trap; and (d) you give the players an opportunity to make a split second decision of how to respond to the triggering of a trap; and

4- to give narrative context to a location.

Please let me know if you have any more great advice.

[Saintheart]

This part is why I rarely use traps, because making random patches of your hallway murder intruders is way more work and a lot less efficient than just... hiring guards (for short-term security) or burying it (for long-term security). So traps are usually in place when "hurt someone" is the primary intent rather than "keep people out." Bandit ambushes and such. But that kind of thing doesn't scale too well, because while it's easy to imagine someone squatting in the wilderness to set up pitfalls and such, it's less likely that they'd create the bespoke Indiana Jones-style multi-phase death courses that dungeon traps are generally known for.

Part of the solution might be to find other purposes -- or additional purposes beyond damage -- for traps. The 'use a trap to deepen a combat encounter' has already been mentioned, but there are others.

For example, traps designed as alarm systems for the dungeon's inhabitants get around "wai u put deadly arrow trap in high traffic area" issues and can be interesting encounters. A plain old tripwire attached to some cowbells set to fall over with a carillon of clanging down the echoing, quiet corridors: it does no damage to the party whatsoever but serves as a nice decision point for the party to play with: do you cut the wire, carefully step over the wire, or cast a Silence on the cowbells while crashing through the wire?

Another might be that the trap outright cuts off access to a given area of a dungeon rather than does any damage: step on a plate, the corridor ahead slams shut. Do you avoid the plate or try and put a chock in to stop the door from closing? That sort of thing. Traps don't always have to create harm for the party, they can deny access or make later encounters harder.

[Venger]

In addition to what's been said, this is an evergreen and even system agnostic approach to the idea of incorporating traps into gameplay, whether it should be done, and how to make it more engaging vs an arbitrary hp tax.