Over and over I hear people say, "traps that just boil down

>>52955720
Describe environment.
Let each player pick a few things they focus on at a glance.

Let them roll perception if there is anything to notice (under the drawer is some kind of lever, there is a little bit of dried blood on one of the books, one of the tiles seem to be slightly elevated).

Let the players interact with the environment, allow the character with the appropriate skills somewhat easily disarm the trap. Unless they're being really stupid. If nobody present has the proper skills, they may be able to circumvent the trap (try not to step on the wrong tiles, jump over the fake carpet).

Lots of fun.

>>52955720
Players get an automatic perception roll to notice EVIDENCE of a nearby trap. If they notice it, they can discover the trap's function/bypass/disarm it by roleplaying (backed by checks when reasonable).

>If that's the case though, what does a GOOD trap look like?
In all honesty a fabbled good GM you're not going to find so it's not going to have any real world descriptions we can give here.

Traps do just boil down to a few rolls or a big bad effect. When dice aren't rolled it's like puzzles, it becomes a game of guess what your GM thinks is clever today.

>>52955720
Don't tell them that 'the trap is in the middle of the room', describe what the room fucking looks like, sounds like, the temperature, et cetera, if any of them play into the trap. Hidden wires, where they are, if there seems to be a mirror, all that jazz. Add up the party's perception modifiers, roll one d20, then give them (X-5)/5 pieces of information where X is the roll total, up to some total.

File: dragon 366 traps.jpg (260KB, 1210x911px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1210x911px

Here's a good image on trap use

I have a few ideas:

If you want traps, have a fair number of them. Try to include some twists so that even a specialized trap-finder won't always be able to catch them. Make the party feel nervous about the traps.

Alternatively, make the traps relatively simple and allow the players to use them to their advantage. Goad monsters into traps meant to slice up the PCs, trick a lich into falling into a pit of acid he revealed earlier.

One that can't work by purely numbers. Logical traps, emotional ones.

You need to be careful with the emotional traps though, because if you don't put enough thought into the issue it becomes the Prisoner's Dilemma and if you go too far it's suddenly the Trolley Problem.

File: qt trap.jpg (120KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1280x720px

>>52955720
This is what a good trap looks like.
:^)

>>52955720
>If that's the case though, what does a GOOD trap look like?

There are always clues for a trap. It's not "what your gm thinks its clever" it's "what do these clues typically mean".
I don't understand why /tg/ has so much trouble thinking of how traps work outside of "roll perception, roll disarm". I mean there are books and books all explaining how traps are meant to be used, from the fucking 1980s to today, how do you guys still fuck this up.

>>52955720

Buy a cheap puzzle at a toy store. Hide it somewhere near your game table, like in a drawer or something.

Lock their characters in a room and say a complex mechanism prevents their escape.

Give them the puzzle, set a timer. They are allowed to work together.

File: Bridget (GUILTY GEAR).jpg (587KB, 1152x1536px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1152x1536px

>>52955720
>what does a GOOD trap look like?

Thinking of handling them like I handle stealth - basically a one-strike-then-roll system, where a character notices setting off a trap/getting spotted and gets to do one simple, immediate action before they're full spotted/the trap requires a saving throw.

Sort of like "you feel the stone under your foot shift as you step on it, and an audible click sounds through the room do you stay still, jump away, drop to the floor, raise you shield etc...?"

>>52956516
Because basically nobody has read those books.

>>52957435
maybe they should do so if they want to know more about traps

>>52957471
Agreed.

But most people have never even seen a book like grim tooth's (for example) so they have no idea how to do it well.

I've only ever skimmed them, but I almost never include traps, and don't run dungeon crawls.

>>52955720
The "complex traps" in this 5e article are pretty decent, I think.
http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/0227_UATraps.pdf

I think traps are a shitty outdated meme from oldschool d&d.
>lol this 800 year old castle still has a functioning trap
>lol these badguys just evidently live in a house with a fucking spike trap in their hallway and manage to not trigger it by accident just doing house stuff

It's one thing if you're in the woods and find things like hunters traps or tripwires hooked to bells but I think needing to look for bullshit pressure plates in ancient-ass ruins is just a needless chore for no result but
>lol failed your save, enjoy your lost HP

>>52957814
>Guerilla warfare
>Why would these kobolds have all these death traps
>>/Vietnam war history book/

>>52956515
>doesn't even wear a dress

He's just a gay twink for homos.

>>52955720
>what does a GOOD trap look like?
A good trap is one that doesn't reveal itself by mechanics (which isn't the trap's fault, but the system's or the DM's). The players should search by asking and doing. It should be freeform. There should be a way to turn it off or bypass it. There should be a way to trigger it. The trap should be logical (unless it's magic in which case whatever).

>>52957814
I've only used traps in a handful of locations. A bad dude who knew he was being pursued hastily tossed one down, a less than legit business had some around as security measures in addition to rotating guards, but ancient ruins? Some legit lord's castle? The fucking infested lake? It's like Legend of Zelda treasure chests, you don't just find those lying around for no reason and it'd be weird if the adventures all always somehow fit some oddly specific formula or context that makes those old staples believable.
Environmental hazards are a step up but need a lot more variety and system support than they tend to get.

>>52956008
saved

>>52955875
Hey look, it's That Guy

>>52958067
Mimics that pretend to be traps?

>>52958162
If that makes it a Reverse Trap, count me in.

>>52955720
Generally you want to specify some sort of clear mechanism of action and then allow players to take actions to negate the trap. Stuffing arrow holes with some sort of sealant, or deftly swapping a weight for the treasure keeping the pressure plate down, for example.

If your system has a discrete traps skill, consider allowing such disarming methods to either bypass the roll or provide a large bonus to it.

>>52957893
That falls under the purview of "in the woods, hunters traps". Kobolds make traps, its their schtick. Im talking mostly about arbitrary traps in locations it makes 0 goddamn sense just because the DM couldnt think of anything better for that hallway.

File: YOU WHO DARED TO VIOLATE MY BUNGALOW NOW PAY THE PRICE.jpg (145KB, 500x503px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 500x503px

>>52955720

That sarcophagus kinda looks like a grand piano

>>52957435
>nobody has read those books.
This is the defining difference between someone with a serious interest in this hobby, and a fucking tourist.

>>52958499
Been gaming for 17 years. I'm aware of those books. I've yet to ever actually use them or read through them in depth. I have never needed them.

I've only really used traps in a published dungeon crawl beer and pretzels campaign. Many games dont use traps at all, or it might come up once in a year, and it's more puzzle than trap.

>>52955720
A good trap needs a pretty dress.

>>52955720
Most traps are shit, because traps are an extension of combat, not security.

>>52958240
o-oh my

>>52955720
Good traps can be interacted with by the players

>>52955812
This is why perception is garbage. There is information that you want the players to know, information that you don't want the players to know, and information the players can come to know by interacting with key features in the environment.

Obfuscating that with a roll is dumb. It's also why a dissociated surprise mechanic is a good idea.

>>52957697
Well yes, D&D ostensibly a game about dungeon crawling, doesn't tell you much about how to run a dungeon crawl anymore. It's no wonder you have to go a bit far afield when the game doesn't give practical tips about running a dungeon.

>>52961138
D&D is really more of a bootstrapped high fantasy adventures game now.

Bootstrapped as in it's become more and more its own thing as weird d&d quirks move more front and center to what the game is about.

>>52955720
Good traps are the ones when your players are on a time limit of some kind. And not just the '24 hours before the ritual is complete' kind. I mean 'actively running out of a collapsing temple' or 'fighting angry monsters'.

It's boring if your players just go inch by inch looking for traps and take 20 minutes to pick each one clean.

It's exciting when that pitfall trap shows up at a bad moment when they need to hurry or do something, and it isn't just a simple amount of damage to heal away.

If a trap isn't going to be in a stressful situation, then it needs to be a piece of a larger puzzle

>>52957697
Grimtooth's is a bad example, because the traps are overtly convoluted and rarely make any sense. They're more comical reliefs that kill you than actual traps.

Most of the time I run perception like a saving throw. It applies for things you aren't looking at, or details that go beyond simple examination.

If you're looking at a specific thing, you notice whatever's there, no roll required. If you half-ass a glance about the room, that's a perception check. If you specifically look under the rug, the key that's there is always found. If there's an orc a hundred yards out that you aren't really looking at, a perception check might notice it anyway.

Traps and locks have some sort of cues. Sometimes they're red herrings, so the player doesn't automatically know that detail = trap. A perception check won't tell you how to solve it, but might give you more information.

>>52961222
Say it with me, random encounters.

>>52958240
Perception rolls folks
>DC 10, there's a gold trimmed chest in the back of the shadowy hidey-hole
>DC 20, it's trapped! The cracks in the stone below show hints of some kind of pressure activated mechanism
>DC 30 (CR 4 mimic disguise), it's not a trap at all! The trap is a mimic disguised as a trap. He knows the chest is too obvious, but if you think there's a trap you will come close and try a disarm roll
>DC 40 That mimic is hiding a "chest" of her own

File: bronze.jpg (85KB, 427x490px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 427x490px

>>52955720
For me the actual gameplay and atmosphere are way more important than the mechanics. At the end of the day rolling plastic dice is a poor substitute for goblins anyway. Traps make me feel like I'm back in the days of yor when used as they would be logically in the game world. Everything doesn't need to follow the logic of a modern movie. I like that sometimes shit just happens and someone gets pendulemed in a barrow because the fighter was too brash. That's what barrows are for. I want my players to feel like real adventurers in another physical world not like they're trapped in some clockwork world that ebbs and flows due to game mechanics and media conventions.

>>52961396
Doesn't help. You roll once per hour for them to fight something if they're taking too long, but all that means is they'll just have the fighter walk in front and then take 10 seconds to heal him if he trips something bad.

It still doesn't make the traps themselves interesting or anything, and now you've added a bunch of uninteresting encounters on top of that.

You've taken one bad thing and added another bad thing and just made everything worse.

>>52961527
>Once per hour

Try 3 times per hour.

>and then take 10 seconds to heal him

Which is why it's helpful to abstract out of combat stuff into 10 minute turns which count down to the possibility of another random encounter.

>>52961633
>What? You guys are being careful and taking your time
>No! You've got to fight 2d6 goblins every hour!
>Too easy? Every twenty minutes!
>And all your spells that take 6 seconds normally take 10 minutes now!

Yeah, you're right. That seems like a lot of fun and not fucking garbage tedious bullshit.

>>52961138
D&D has moved away from a dungeon crawler thing a long time ago

It's more like you're creating a fantasy novel full of people for your players to ruin because they always seem to ignore plot hooks

Boils down to storytelling and how rewarded the players feel after investing in it.
>They are warned beforehand that there are traps.
Signs, corpses or warnings from the village outside should mentally prepare them.
>Never do the route of traps as multiple arbitrary obstacles.
Leave that shit in video games, where it's already sickening enough.
>Consistent small traps at the start, like an entire corridor of spike walls, are resolved as a single trap so players can quickly get into the mood.
>Disarming traps requires the skills of several players and for them to work together.
Each player is catered to and no single player should feel idle or useless for the entire trap encounter, even if they're just reading a book trying to figure another plot point out. For economy of storytelling, every character should have the chance to be affected by a trap encounter.
>Failing a trap results in a change of choices or a consolation rather than outright penalties
Change of route, loot, combat encounters or motivations. There should always be a way for a good and creative player to overcome the odds or turn a bad situation to their advantage.
>Traps can become a help in fucking over enemies
Leading enemies into a dungeon trap or hijacking one to turn against the dungeon boss is rewarding and will feel like a Chekov's gun to the players later.

As a DM, I don't allow traps to be disarmed by roll.
They have to figure out how to either turn it off or bypass it or similar.
This may involve jamming it in some way, or disarming it through roleplay.
For instance, my party came into an area with a dart firing trap, they took a table from another room and blocked it with the table

>>52961275
Fair.

The only ones I've really looked at are grimtooths, dungeonscape, and 3.0 book of challenges.

What book would you suggest for good traps?

>>52961687
>What? You guys are being careful and taking your time
>No! You've got to fight 2d6 goblins every hour!
>Too easy? Every twenty minutes!

Yes, because the point of random encounters in a dungeon is to put the players in a time crunch so they can't be perfectly cautious 100% of the time. And furthermore, you're doing your game a disservice if you aren't using reaction tables so that you can interact with monsters outside of hitting them with your sword.

>And all your spells that take 6 seconds normally take 10 minutes now!

They have a casting time. So just mark it off as something you do along with examination, moving, etc during the turn; it's the party's resources to spend as they see fit. Or whatever conversion factor you like for your game.

The turn isn't a strict timeframe; it's just a way of doing exploration stuff (eg. the crawl) more conveniently outside of the combat round structure.

>>52955720
Ask the OSR General. >>52955971

>>52961806
>using reaction tables so that you can interact with monsters outside of hitting them with your sword.

Great, so now the party just pays the goblins some money to tell them where all the traps are and how to avoid them, since they've been wandering around this place without triggering anything.

All you're doing is piling on more and more pointless stuff in order to make random pitfall traps in hallways work.

Instead of having a bunch of goblins show up randomly while the party is searching or recovering from the damage of that pitfall trap, why not make it an actual battle, and have the goblins plan an ambush around the pitfall trap in the first place?

>>52961785
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.cz/p/trick-trap-index.html

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-set-design.html

I love Courtney's stuff about encounter design and how to write a room in a way that's more useful in play

>>52961832
Bookmarked. Thanks Anon.

>>52957101
Wow, she's pretty cute!

>>52961827
>Great, so now the party just pays the goblins some money to tell them where all the traps are and how to avoid them, since they've been wandering around this place without triggering anything.
>Players trying to haggle with the goblins to get intelligence about the dungeon
>A fun roleplaying opportunity
>bad

Alternately, the goblins are explicitly supernatural, and the way they move around the dungeon isn't the way the party can do so.

>Instead of having a bunch of goblins show up randomly while the party is searching or recovering from the damage of that pitfall trap, why not make it an actual battle, and have the goblins plan an ambush around the pitfall trap in the first place?

That would be a keyed encounter, not a random encounter. If you want to go to all the work of setting up sentry patrols, paths, and layers, that's cool.

>All you're doing is piling on more and more pointless stuff in order to make random pitfall traps in hallways work.

I'm trying to play a game. I'm willing to sacrifice realism for playability.

If it bothers you so much, make your wandering monsters things that don't really fit into the factions of your dungeon ecology, so lone powerful monsters, things like gelatinous cubes, etc.

>>52961912
OR, I just won't have wandering monsters and random traps, and I'll set up my dungeon in a way that encourages the players to move forward and be challenged in less tedious ways.

>>52961934
>random traps

When did I ever mention that.

> I'll set up my dungeon in a way that encourages the players to move forward and be challenged in less tedious ways.

You can only search a given area in a turn. Do you search exhaustively and potentially run into a wandering monster (which you really don't want to fight because their XP is a pittance versus getting the treasure - this is why Gold-for-XP is a good mechanic) or do you risk the possibility of a trap?

That's an interesting decision.

>>52961976
>When did I ever mention that.

Sorry, it was implied when you replied to my original post that was all about only including traps in places where they would mean something, and then you show up and suggest random encounters as a way to make traps in places that don't mean anything mean something.

It comes across as a little condescending.

>That's an interesting decision.

No it isn't, and you've taken steps to ensure it's even less interesting by removing options.

No point in talking to the random monsters because they teleport past the traps.

No going balls to the wall and just running through all the traps to not waste time, because healing wastes even more time when you're not in a fight.

The options are 'take your time and take damage, or hurry up and take damage'

That's not interesting.

>>52962028
>suggest random encounters as a way to make traps in places that don't mean anything mean something.

You place the traps when you design the dungeon. What is there to say?

>It comes across as a little condescending.
What? Because I'm not calling you a faggot and trying to just explain my point of view? I can be more antagonistic if that makes you feel better.

>No point in talking to the random monsters because they teleport past the traps.

So? Sacrificing realism for playability is a handwave I'm happy to make, as I stated. Actually read my posts.

>No it isn't, and you've taken steps to ensure it's even less interesting by removing options.

Read that fucking post again. You use reaction tables so that you have options besides take damage slow and take damage fast.

How about you stop constructing this ridiculous strawman

> because healing wastes even more time when you're not in a fight.

Eat a dick. I fucking told you to tweak that to whatever level you like.

It's obvious that you have no interest in any sort of constructive discussion since all you do interpret things in the most uncharitable manner without actually reading the all the times where I encourage you to play with things to your preference.

It's your game at the end of the day, so run it how you like.

>>52961104
>There is information that you want the players to know, information that you don't want the players to know, and information the players can come to know by interacting with key features in the environment.
I find this issue a lot with mental skill rolls.
>"I go to the local priest to ask him about how to deal with the vampire spawn in the area" becomes "I roll religion to figure out what vamprie spawn are weak to."
>"I carefully use my 10 ft. pole to prod at the strange looking mark in the floor" becomes "I roll perception to search for traps."
>"I pull out some amber that I found and offer it to the shopkeep as a bonus while asking for another 15% added onto the selling price" becomes "I roll persuasion/diplomacy/barter/etc. to convince the shopkeep to give us more money.
The problem is, you can't get rid of them because casters need these stats to use their spells too, so you're just kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place.

File: 1463282241391.png (374KB, 699x492px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 699x492px

>>52957101
Best trap

>>52955720
The whole goddamned dungeon should be the trap. Forget the pitfalls and acid drops, those are just there to distract people from the fact that they are standing in one goddamned giant kill box. A guy I work with is DM'ing a group of relatively new players and was asking me for suggestions and feed back on a quest they were going to undertake.

He said he always wanted to do a labyrinth kind of thing but was having trouble with getting it all together. With a little encouragement I got him to homebrew up a race of rat people that reside in the maze that use it to lure adventurers in so they can steal their food and starve them to death, thus leaving their equipment free for the looting. It was an important lesson to the green players as well since 10 days of rations is no where near enough food for a 10 day adventure.

In the end they learned a powerful lesson, and they killed and ate the party barbarian to survive.

>>52955720
I've found the best thing is you can't make a trap, the whole of an encounter. Use them to complicate other situations.

You're not just dealing with a couple hidden pits, where you can smack at the floor with a ten foot pole. You're doing that while fighting a floating elemental that won't trigger the pits, and you have to be wary of the traps as you fight. Even combine them with other traps. You're in a long hallway that has a door slowly closing on the other end, and also has a bunch of traps down it. You can only disarm so many before you run out of time, so which ones are you going to disarm, and which ones are you going to try your luck with?

>>52963413
>Casters need them for spells
There's an easy fix for that:
"Spellcraft" is now a skill. It is the skill used any time a magical ability calls for one of the skills which has been removed.

>>52963413
Why does someone who might already know what vampires are weak to need to go find someone else to tell them?

Why does spotting a trap prevent a player from activating it from a distance using their 10 ft pole?

Why does offering to sweeten the pot not simply modify the barter check rather than override it entirely?

These sound like GM/player problems, not system problems.

File: images-2.jpg (6KB, 274x184px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 274x184px

>>52963413
I have a player that, anytime he comes across something magical, immediately rolls arcana and acts like it's a detect magic spell. If I ask him how he's performing that he shrugs, goes "iunno" and then gets buttmad at me.

>>52964269
>the problem is shit players
>the system is never the problem
I'm getting really fucking sick of this meme.
Yes, a good GM can make any system play well, and a shit GM can make every system suck. But regression to the mean is a thing.

If a system actively encourages a certain style of play, and all the rules are built around a stupid style of play, and the system actively inconveniences anyone who tries to go around that style of play. Guess what? It's the system's fault that most people play that way.

The style of D20 D&D is "roll first, ask questions later". It actively discourages people from engaging with the game world in a meaningful way. It encourages murderhoboism, it encourages minmaxing and statcdunching, and it encourages rolling over exploration. Look at this thread. How many people here are favouring 'Roll perception, 35' over any sort of meaningful exploration because exploring "wastes game time"?

Finally, if system doesn't matter, why play anything besides GURPS or FATE? /tg/ goes on and on about how important system is for flavor. If the system matters then the problem CAN be the system.
QED.

>>52965355
>The style of D20 D&D is "roll first, ask questions later"
No, it isn't. That's simply the style most GM's use. And this is true regardless of the system.

I think DnD is terrible. None of the issues you described are related to the rules, as written.

>>52964269
You're missing the point slim, the point was that what would've been roleplay interactions between the players and how they interact with the world to gain boons and information is now relegated to a single roll where either they get what they want or they don't, leading to them spinning their wheels until you just give them an out to move the story along.

It's the difference between acting out an interaction between your cleric and the local priest in the midst of Strahd's rule and going "I roll religion" to get the same information while ignoring the world around you, which makes the world feel less substantial and makes it harder to immerse yourself into the game.
>>52965411
Adding to this, within the CRB of most WotC era D&D games, it boils skill rolls down to a binary outcome and anything more that you could do only gives you circumstantial modifiers (or [dis]advantage) towards your success on the roll. You're encouraged to roll first and ask questions later.

>>52957435
Maybe they should stop being such casuals then.

>>52965459
How does playing a cleric with proficiency in religion who doesn't know a thing about the undead such that he always needs to seek outside help better immerse a player in the world? Are player characters not a part of the world?

>You're encouraged to roll first and ask questions later.
This doesn't follow at all. Explain what binary outcomes has to do with this at all. Explain what you mean by binary outcomes when official campaigns often include multiple DCs with the explicit intention of providing a greater or lesser degree of success depending on the role.

>>52956064
>Trolley problem trap

Who's strapped to the rails? NPCs or PCs?

Traps are trash that are literally designed to penalize the team by forcing one of the characters to play a less fun character just so they can disarm traps.

Best way to do traps is to not.

>>52963413
Roleplaying every moment of the negotiating process makes you about one-quarter as bad as hitler.

>tfw wasting half the session listening to the GM and a player arguing in-character over the in-game price of marbles
>i just came here to adventure

>>52965411
>>52965591
So every single cleric out there knows every single thing about every single undead in the world, whether or not they've encoubtered them AND to such an extent that they understand the problem better than the loval priests who have been dealing with the issue for months, from first level on up?

Immersion comes from exploration of a universe. You sound like the type person that likes to run mindless hack and slash games, and that's fine, but I want my players to feel invested in the world around them. That can't happen if they know everything from the word go.

Immersion is a process of discovery. Try it out sometime. You might like it

>>52965591
>How does playing a cleric with proficiency in religion who doesn't know a thing about the undead such that he always needs to seek outside help better immerse a player in the world?
Because while the Cleric might know how undead work in, say, Forgotten Realms, they won't know how undead work in planes such as Barovia.
>Explain what binary outcomes has to do with this at all.
Either the PC in question passes their roll and gets information from the requisite knowledge check (meaning that they bypass a lot of the roleplay opportunities that could come about by putting in the research themselves) or they don't, causing the GM to either let them reroll or risking a potential TPK as they move forward without having the information required to progress in the story.

Even if multiple DCs are used, the outcome more or less boils down to whether or not you passed the DC or not, which would be time focusing on rolling rather than on actually interacting with the world.

>>52965907
>Calling roleplay a waste of time
I think you're in the wrong place kiddo, this place feels like more your speed.
>>>/v/

>>52966264
>So every single cleric out there knows every single thing about every single undead in the world
No, that's why you roll for it. I'm not understanding what you're having trouble with. Your solution is instead to make it such that no cleric ever knows how to deal with undead because somehow a character actually making use of his in-universe abilities can only serve to divorce the player from that universe.

>Immersion comes from exploration of a universe.
Part of that is exploring where they as characters fit in that universe. You're advocating a system in which players essentially play themselves, and all knowledge must be delivered through NPCs as though they were in game google searches.

>Immersion is a process of discovery
For someone so concerned with binary results you seem very eager to attach binary concepts to something as nebulous as immersion.

>>52966279
>Because while the Cleric might know how undead work in, say, Forgotten Realms, they won't know how undead work in planes such as Barovia.
Then you factor that into the difficulty check or into the information provided. If the cleric rolls especially well, they might have explored information on the differences between undead on various planes. If they roll acceptably, the might only recall information from their plane of origin. Given that vampires still have many common characteristics regardless of the plane they reside on, this would still provide useful information.

>meaning that they bypass a lot of the roleplay opportunities that could come about by putting in the research themselves
Yes, and sometimes combat doesn't require hours of planning because the PCs are fully capable of handling the challenge before them head on.

>or they don't, causing the GM to either let them reroll
Or the GM doesn't let them reroll and they are forced to seek information in the manner you prefer. As I said before, that's a problem with the GM, not the system.

>>52965459
>>52965591
Oh, almost forgot. As an add in to >>52966264.
Almost as if to prove my point >>52965907 comes out of the woodwork. This is what the D20 system encourages people. Binary solutions, no rp, no interest in doing anything beyond rolling dice and attacking the first thing they see
Imagine if we were like this with music
>ugh, this Hendrix guy spends way too much time on the guitar, just start singing again
>ugh, I hate how much time this Eminem guy wastes on rapping, why don't they just get back to the chorus so I can hear Rihanna again
>god, this vivaldi guy blows, there's not even any words on this album
The build up is what makes something worthwhile

>>52966627
What role do you see knowledge skills/abilities playing in that case?

>Binary solutions
You keep saying this, but as I've already said, you can set as many variable DCs as you want. This is specifically what they do in many official books. The system can be as binary or granular as you want it to be. As such, it falls on the GM, and any deficiencies are on them, not the system.

>>52966559
>Your solution is instead to make it such that no cleric ever knows how to deal with undead because somehow a character actually making use of his in-universe abilities can only serve to divorce the player from that universe.
Well just because you live in America doesn't mean that you know everything there is to know about Europe. Taking things further, just because you live in NJ doesn't mean that you know how life goes in NY either.
>You're advocating a system in which players essentially play themselves, and all knowledge must be delivered through NPCs as though they were in game google searches.
No, I'm advocating a system in which players actually go through prepwork to figure out how the local area works, rather than abstracting several minutes of roleplay to a single die roll that effectively allows every character ever to know everything about everything, even in situations where that wouldn't be the case.
1/2

>>52966559
>If the cleric rolls especially well, they might have explored information on the differences between undead on various planes.
Even if the plane that they're in is something like Dark Sun or Barovia, where inter-planar travel is either barred or made virtually impossible due to the nature of how the setting works?
> Given that vampires still have many common characteristics regardless of the plane they reside on, this would still provide useful information.
Unless you discover that vampires can potentially wander during daylight hours due to the sky of Barovia being under a constant overcast or you discover that vampires like Strahd have the power to control the souls of the dead.
>Yes, and sometimes combat doesn't require hours of planning because the PCs are fully capable of handling the challenge before them head on.
Even if we're talking about uncommon threats that aren't going to be well documented, like an Aboloth or a Kraken?

>>52966791
>Well just because you live in America doesn't mean that you know everything there is to know about Europe. Taking things further, just because you live in NJ doesn't mean that you know how life goes in NY either.
I fully agree. That's why you roll. The result of the roll will tell you the depth of the character's knowledge. Again, I don't understand what you're having trouble with.

>rather than abstracting several minutes of roleplay to a single die roll that effectively allows every character ever to know everything about everything
Do you think that every DC must be achievable by every character? If the character has no way of knowing, then they fail the roll. That's why characters can't just make an intelligence check to instantly divine the precise plot of their primary antagonist.

But that isn't the situation you were describing. You were describing a scenario in which a cleric recalls information about a fairly common undead monster that he would have a good chance of knowing about on account of his studies or past experiences.

You're saying that knowledge skills don't do anything. Somehow a character knowing things about the world in which the exist is an affront to immersion. This is a baffling position to take. You seem to think that every character must be in some sort of fish out of water scenario and completely oblivious to everything around them.

>>52966559
3/3
>Or the GM doesn't let them reroll and they are forced to seek information in the manner you prefer.
Because players are conditioned b the system to roll first and ask questions later, they're not going to go out of their way to search for the answers, they're just going to sit around with their thumb up their butt until the GM either gives them an answer or let's them reroll.
>As I said before, that's a problem with the GM, not the system.
The way that a system works inspires players to perform certain actions as those actions are the most optimum strategy to not dying. In CoC for example, players are conditioned to avoid any and all eldritch bullshit as they can to avoid losing sanity but the game also creates situations where players HAVE to confront these elements in order to complete their investigation, either because of survival or because the eldritch shit is the cause of the investigation itself.

The system determines the way you play, not the GM.

>>52966734
Even if you have multiple DC's to cover multiple proficiencies, it still boils down to rolling and gaining more info from a success than you would by roleplaying the situation and figuring out what's up through play.

It doesn't matter if the DC to climb a wall is 15 or 20, because the outcome will still be the same, either you climb the wall or you don't.

>>52956008
Some of those suggestions are painfully dumb.
>the portcullis has a map of the dungeon on it!
>Because the first thing you want any invader to see is the exact lay out of your defenses!

or
>All the green stuff is trapped and dangerous
>We color coded it so that invaders know what to avoid!

>>52966862
>Even if the plane that they're in is something like Dark Sun or Barovia, where inter-planar travel is either barred or made virtually impossible due to the nature of how the setting works?
Vampires in Barovia share almost all of the same characteristics as vampires not in Barovia. Ergo, they'd still recall useful information. If you want to withhold Barovia specific information you, as the GM, are more than free to do so. Or you could set a higher DC if you want to give them a chance of having that rarer knowledge.

Again, this is something the GM decides, not the system.

>Unless you discover that vampires can potentially wander during daylight hours due to the sky of Barovia being under a constant overcast or you discover that vampires like Strahd have the power to control the souls of the dead.
Different checks might reveal this information, absolutely. A religion check will tell you about vampires, not necessarily the unique characteristics of any given plane. Again, this is simply a matter of setting an appropriate DC. If there is no way for the character to know, then the DC is sufficiently high enough that they'll always fail the roll.

>Even if we're talking about uncommon threats that aren't going to be well documented, like an Aboloth or a Kraken?
Higher DC. Though it depends on the character. You might make it easier for a sailor/pirate to recall information about a Kraken, for example.

None of this is describing a problem with the system, though.

>>52966882
>That's why you roll.
No, that's why you should do some research and figure out how things work in that particular area of the world/plane/whatever. Think about it, I know that NYC is called "The Big Apple," is densely populated, and is generally a cornerstone of American commerce but I wouldn't be able to tell you which areas are safe to go at night, the local cuisine, or how the people are unless I do the legwork and look up that shit online.

In a fantasy setting, this is where you'd go to ask the local tavern owner for jobs before going to the local priest to talk about the local vampire spawn situation.
>You're saying that knowledge skills don't do anything.
No, that's not what I'm saying, don't put words in my mouth.

>>52955720
The best traps are ones that make sense for the setting.

If it's in an inhabited place, it has to have an easy way of getting around it. Like a key, or remembering to skip the first step.

>>52967018
>Again, this is something the GM decides, not the system.
Yet your solution to every other one of my questions is "just raise the DC so they can never know" or something to that effect. If it were up to the GM, wouldn't that generally mean that the GM could choose how to give that information beyond just artificially inflating the numbers so they couldn't theorhetically know everything about everything?

>>52966934
>Because players are conditioned b the system to roll first and ask questions later
You haven't demonstrated this. You still haven't even answered what you think knowledge skills ought to do.

> they're just going to sit around with their thumb up their butt until the GM either gives them an answer or let's them reroll.
So you're admitting the problem is with the players and the GM, then. As again, the system says nothing about giving players whatever they want for free.

>The way that a system works inspires players to perform certain actions as those actions are the most optimum strategy to not dying.
What does that have to do with knowledge rolls? There's no risk of death from rolling to see if you know something versus seeking out the local priest and asking them for the information. Each are equally benign. You've simply decided that players cannot have any foreknowledge of what they might face, which seems highly arbitrary.

File: GT02.jpg (55KB, 267x393px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 267x393px

The Grimtooth's Traps books have some pretty good traps. They aren't presented with stats, just diagrams and descriptions, so it's up to the GM to adapt it to whatever system they're using.

>>52966977
>it still boils down to rolling and gaining more info from a success than you would by roleplaying the situation and figuring out what's up through play.
A character having knowledge of things is roleplaying. Do you believe every adventurer enters a campaign blind? They have no history? No prior experience? No training? Failure to reflect this is failure to roleplay that character. Roleplay encompasses for more than planning and NPC interaction and you've decided to cut all that out because it isn't interactive enough for you. If that's your only source of interaction, then it would seem the problem very much is with the GM.

>It doesn't matter if the DC to climb a wall is 15 or 20, because the outcome will still be the same, either you climb the wall or you don't.
Or it takes you longer to climb the wall. Or you fail, but manage to land well enough that you don't twist your ankle. Or you supplement your poor climbing with better gear or a helping boost from an ally. Not to mention that it's trivially true that different DCs absolutely do matter for success rate.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with what we were talking about. That being, knowledge. Unless you also have problems with hits and misses, I don't see the point in bringing up every single instance in which failure can exist.

>>52967151
I honestly really like that trap. It's pretty easy to work around, You just have to pull with enough force to get the rope taught in the right place.

Bonus points if a small halfling/kobold party member swings across first, no problems.

>>52967050
>but I wouldn't be able to tell you which areas are safe to go at night, the local cuisine, or how the people are unless I do the legwork and look up that shit online.
Yes, I see now. Saying, "I search the internet," is far more dynamic than a character possibly ever knowing anything useful about New York city.

Regardless, this isn't what we're talking about. You gave a specific example of a cleric rolling to see if he knew anything about vampires and said this shouldn't be allowed. As if a cleric knowing basic undead information is a bridge too far. Either defend that position or admit that it holds no water. Your constant shifting of the goal posts to completely unrelated scenarios is irrelevant. I have absolutely zero problem with a GM ruling that something is impossible for a character to know if that's truly the case. But that isn't what you're doing. You're saying it shouldn't happen because of some extremely narrow and arbitrary definition of immersion.

>No, that's not what I'm saying, don't put words in my mouth.
Then what should they do? You still haven't answered this. If you can't rely on a knowledge check to recall useful information than what possible purpose does a knowledge skill serve?

>>52967122
>If it were up to the GM, wouldn't that generally mean that the GM could choose how to give that information beyond just artificially inflating the numbers so they couldn't theorhetically know everything about everything?
The GM can do anything they want. That doesn't mean it's a good choice or an appropriate ruling. I don't think I've been unclear on this. If something can't be known, then it can't be known. If it can, but the knowledge is rare, then you set a high DC. That DC might be high enough that no character in the party would be able to roll well enough to succeed. But that isn't the scenario described above, and that's the one I was responding to.

>>52967130
>You haven't demonstrated this.
It's pretty self-evident the moment you spend an hour playing with randos on roll20. Players will either roll until they succeed and know what they need to know or they'll fail and bitch about not knowing how to do anything or trying to coax out extra rolls from the GM. If you don't believe me, try running a campaign for 3.PF with randos and seeing how they'll always gravitate towards rolling before actually interacting with the world around them. For posterity, record these sessions as well.
>As again, the system says nothing about giving players whatever they want for free.
It does say that if they pass a knowledge check by a certain amount, they know a piece of information relating to the question asked.
>http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm
So if they pumped knowledge up by enough, they could even know abilities for monsters that are older than recorded history.
>3
If they don't know to bring magic for vamp spawn, they'll die.

File: 23a8faa5e74c70ec551c3efc592944393ae26d7b4141adb0c8b9448836261a5d.gif (25KB, 631x516px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 631x516px

>>52967238
Grimtooth's books had a lot of great stuff.

Take, for example, this seemingly abandoned fishing rod, line still in the water, enticing delvers to take a break and fish...

>>52967195
>A character having knowledge of things is roleplaying.
A character having knowledge, even when they have no means of knowing that knowledge, is not roleplaying, it's just another means to game the system due to how poorly written the RAW is. There's no reason for a character to ever go to a library or consult with specialists or even bring along a lexicon anymore because anything they know is either known the moment they roll the die or it isn't.
>Not to mention that it's trivially true that different DCs absolutely do matter for success rate.
What's the difference between passing on a DC 15 check and passing on a DC 20 check? More to the point, what's the difference between passing a DC 20 check because you rolled 20+0 on your roll and passing because you rolled 10+10?

Nothing, because as long as you pass, it doesn't matter how proficient you actually are at doing the skill.

>>52967254
>Yes, I see now. Saying, "I search the internet," is far more dynamic than a character possibly ever knowing anything useful about New York city.
Way to totally miss the entire point of the argument.
>Either defend that position or admit that it holds no water.
I've been defending it, you've just been doing everything in your power to try deflecting from the actual argument itself just to pull the focus back on your assertion that the system is blameless in how the GM/Players approach the way that knowledge is gained.

If you want to continue this argument civilly, you're going to need to take a step back, reread what I, and the other anon, have said, and be a bit more open-minded to positions that aren't your own.

>>52967352
haha. Pretty goofy but I like it.

Sort of reminds me of the barbecue sauce trap. It doesn't do anything. It just makes you taste better for the next encounter.

>>52967301
>It's pretty self-evident the moment you spend an hour playing with randos on roll20
So, it's the players. Yes, that's what I've been saying. Arguing that you must be correct because you only ever play with shitty people is an effective argument. Tell me more about your dysfunctional play groups and I'm sure I'll be convinced.

>It does say that if they pass a knowledge check by a certain amount, they know a piece of information relating to the question asked.
And? Why wouldn't passing a knowledge check result in recalling some piece of information? The check required to pass is still dependent on what's being sought.

>So if they pumped knowledge up by enough, they could even know abilities for monsters that are older than recorded history.
Not necessarily. It depends on the specifics. Look, are you going to continue concocting ever more outlandish scenarios or are you going to stick to the one I responded to? I don't see any point in this discussion if ever response is just going to be, "B-but what if this extremely unlikely thing were to happen?"

File: TRAP.jpg (31KB, 558x465px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 558x465px

>>52955720
>>52955847
>>52956008
>>52957728

Sometimes simplicity is the key.
.

>>52967296
>The GM can do anything they want. That doesn't mean it's a good choice or an appropriate ruling.
So doing something aside from artificially inflating the DC isn't "a good choice or an appropriate ruling?"
>That DC might be high enough that no character in the party would be able to roll well enough to succeed.
Thing is, is that your call as a GM or is that the call of the system itself? Because if a character somehow came in with a +30 to their knowledge checks, it's going to be pretty fucking difficult to hide that sort of information from them as the book states that knowing something about monsters is generally 10+CR.

>>52967370
>A character having knowledge, even when they have no means of knowing that knowledge
And clerics can't have any knowledge of vampires because, why?


>what's the difference between passing a DC 20 check because you rolled 20+0 on your roll and passing because you rolled 10+10?
This is true of literally any system. Unless it is entirely without rules, existing solely in the theatre of the mind, sometimes people who are better at certain things might do worse than people who aren't as good at those things. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

>Nothing, because as long as you pass, it doesn't matter how proficient you actually are at doing the skill.
Yes, and certain things will be difficult enough that characters with a given skill level will be unable to pass them. Just like in literally every system.

File: Disarm.png (2MB, 1744x1297px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1744x1297px

>>52955720
>>52956515
>>52957912
>>52959938
Take your pick...

File: Suprises.jpg (315KB, 690x2709px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 690x2709px

>>52961878
>>52960569
>>52958240
>>52955720
>>52956515
>>52957912
>>52959938
Nobody could have seen this one coming.

>>52967426
>So, it's the players.
It's also the system and the GM too, even then, you can't have a group without players, a GM, and a system (unless you're just going to go straight freeform or something).
>Why wouldn't passing a knowledge check result in recalling some piece of information?
Because if we're talking about something that's generally rare or uncommon, it wouldn't make sense about how this guy knows enough about this subject to give an accurate account on how the thing works when even nowadays, information that you learned could end up being false, doctored, out of date, or only cover a specific portion but not the whole picture.
>Not necessarily.
No, according to the RAW, if you pass the DC, you know "a piece of useful information relating to that character" and every 5 points you beat it by, you know another piece of information.

It's not even that unlikely, 3.PF has several means to pump one's knowledge skills, look it up.

>>52967416
>I've been defending it
No, you haven't. You've been doing almost nothing except talking about other things.

Why can't a cleric know anything about vampires? This is the scenario you were talking about. Since then there's been talk of krakens, Europe, and New York City safety. Very little on the point I took issue with.

>>52967456
>So doing something aside from artificially inflating the DC isn't "a good choice or an appropriate ruling?"
What's artificial about it? If something is difficult to know than a difficult check is appropriate. If something is impossible to know, than an impossible check is appropriate.

I feel like I keep agreeing with you on this, but you insist on repeating it over and over. What I disagree with is the insistence that a character recalling basic undead monster information when their job is to kill undead is somehow inappropriate.

>Because if a character somehow came in with a +30 to their knowledge checks
Yes, if a character "somehow" did this, they would likely be able to recall all sorts of information. I don't see how this is relevant. But being as, in 5E at least, the max I'm aware you can have to a skill check is something like 17 at level 20, I don't think it'd be that terrible to let someone who rolls a 33 or higher to recall information about a Kraken.

File: Screen-Shot-2016-05-13-at-4.30.14-PM.png (194KB, 474x651px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 474x651px

Some traps, of course, are potential TPKs.

>>52967468
>And clerics can't have any knowledge of vampires because, why?
They can have information about vampires, just not vampires outside of their area.
>This is true of literally any system.
>Yes, and certain things will be difficult enough that characters with a given skill level will be unable to pass them.
Not necessarily to this extent though, because of the way that the D20 system works, the largest contributor to your success will generally end up being the die, outside of situations where your bonus is actually equal to or greater than the results that you roll on the D20.

>>52967605
DCs are always set by the GM. The DMG gives general guidelines, but obviously can't account for every single possible situation. If the DMG is suggesting a lower DC than you think appropriate, you can change it. The system explicitly empowers you, as the GM, to do this.

>>52967682
And so when they roll to see what they know about vampires, you tell them everything they know about vampires in their area. I don't see what's so hard about this.

>Not necessarily to this extent though, because of the way that the D20 system works, the largest contributor to your success will generally end up being the die, outside of situations where your bonus is actually equal to or greater than the results that you roll on the D20.
That's a problem with DnD's dice mechanics, not with the manner in which it handles knowledge checks. Rolling the appropriate skill to see what you know is how virtually every role playing game works. Some are simply better at producing an average curve.

Even so, nothing is stopping you from setting a DC well above 20 if you truly believe that would be the appropriate difficulty.

>>52967615
>You've been doing almost nothing except talking about other things.
Because you're not paying attention and have already decided that you were right, that much has already been made apparent through my limited interactions with you.
>What's artificial about it?
If you're raising the DC beyond what the book states the DC should be just so a party member doesn't pass it as easily, it's artificial inflation.
>But being as, in 5E at least, the max I'm aware you can have to a skill check is something like 17 at level 20, I don't think it'd be that terrible to let someone who rolls a 33 or higher to recall information about a Kraken.
In 5e, you can theorhetically beat an "impossible" DC of 30 just by rolling a 20 and having expertise in the skill (which doubles your prof. bonus).

I had a Bard that had a +11 in religion and arcana by level 10, and if we continued playing that campaign, he'd most likely be able to beat an impossible DC even harder.

>>52963413
>>"I go to the local priest to ask him about how to deal with the vampire spawn in the area" becomes "I roll religion to figure out what vamprie spawn are weak to."

Do you really expect a player to pretend to not know what a vampire is when they encounter one in a subsequent campaign?

>>52967740
>And so when they roll to see what they know about vampires, you tell them everything they know about vampires in their area.
Why would you make someone roll just to recall information that they'd already have?
>That's a problem with DnD's dice mechanics, not with the manner in which it handles knowledge checks.
If your dice mechanics are fucked, anything that uses the dice to resolve situations is going to get equally fucked as well.
>Even so, nothing is stopping you from setting a DC well above 20 if you truly believe that would be the appropriate difficulty.
But then what exactly does that improve? The people who went all in will still be able to pass the checks more often than not and anyone else trying to use the skill will just end up becoming even more irrelevant due to the inflation making lesser modifiers worthless.

Also, I love how you're like "it's all the players/GM's fault" but then most of your answers are "just house rule it brah if it bothers you so much."

>>52967684
>DCs are always set by the GM.
Okay, but how exactly do you justify failing the dude with +30 in a skill while still making the rest of the party feel like they have a say in what actions they can take? Also, if you lower the DC for one party member but not the other, someone's going to notice and now that trust that they had in you, as the GM, is broken, possibly irreparably.

You also have to remember, the devs for 3.PF were individuals who did not know how the system worked, so the DMG might not take into account how possible it is for a player to have obnoxiously high bonuses for a skill check.

>>52967804
>Do you really expect a player to pretend to not know what a vampire is when they encounter one in a subsequent campaign?
I expect their characters to know how vampires work in their home town but not how they work in other areas. There are several different variants of vampires across several different cultures, many of which might not even share the same strengths and weaknesses as one another.

>>52967752
>Because you're not paying attention and have already decided that you were right, that much has already been made apparent through my limited interactions with you.
You have yet to explain why a cleric wouldn't have knowledge of vampires and yet to explain what you see knowledge skills doing. Instead you've brought up any number of unrelated scenarios in which you're already assuming the person in question doesn't know anything. But that isn't the situation we were talking about. We were talking about whether a cleric should know about undead. You said they shouldn't. You haven't provided any rationale for this.

>If you're raising the DC beyond what the book states the DC should be just so a party member doesn't pass it as easily, it's artificial inflation.
No artificial inflation would be raising the DC beyond what's appropriate simply because you don't want your players to know something, even if they rightly would have a chance at knowing it, at least. Again, the book cannot account for every scenario or every setting and how that might impact difficulty checks.

>I had a Bard that had a +11 in religion and arcana by level 10, and if we continued playing that campaign, he'd most likely be able to beat an impossible DC even harder.
So you invested in the ability to do that then. Ergo, your character was extraordinarily knowledgeable in religion and arcana. Why, then, would it be wrong for him to leverage those skills?

File: 62d7ecc2a02aa1412f33d1ec279f9336.png (361KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 640x480px

Wow, this conversation has degenerated.

You retards have let this autist drag you off topic. The original contention wasn't that rolling was unrealistic, or that it was nonbinary, or any of that shit. It was that roleplaying the aquisition of information was more engaging than reducing everything to a die roll.

>>52965411
>>52965591
>>52966882
>>52967130
>>52967195
>>52967254
>>52967426
>>52967468
>>52967615
>>52967740
This autist is saying that players should never have to do research or conduct an investigation, or even consult with someone more familar on a topic, so long as they pass their knowledge (whatever) check.

And to head your retort off at the pass, because you've made it 3 or 4 times now: the role of knowledge skills should be APPLICATION. If a character knows something I'll just tell it to them. You should only have to roll when you're trying to accomplish something, not to recall a fact about the universe.

>>52967151
>>52967352
>>52967652
>literally encouraging the very fucking problem in the OP

I hope you like the players taking thirty IRL minutes per five-foot square traversed, because that's the inevitable result of a "clever" GM jerking themselves off.

>>52967934
That doesn't answer the question of how you do deal with player knowledge.

>>52967839
>Why would you make someone roll just to recall information that they'd already have?
So as not to metagame. Otherwise more experienced players would simply know things by default and less experienced players wouldn't know what they didn't know and would therefore always be at a disadvantage.

>If your dice mechanics are fucked, anything that uses the dice to resolve situations is going to get equally fucked as well.
So play a different system. That's what I do. Again, this isn't what you were arguing before. You were arguing that it was wrong, not because the dice system was goofy, but because it bypassed too much of your preferred player activities. Those being, talking to local priests rather than simply possessing certain knowledge out of hand.

Are you changing your argument? Because I fully agree that DnD is a shitty system. But this doesn't change the fact that in virtually every system you will have knowledge skills that would allow a player to simply recall basic information rather than go searching for it.

>The people who went all in will still be able to pass the checks more often than not and anyone else trying to use the skill will just end up becoming even more irrelevant due to the inflation making lesser modifiers worthless.
Good. Players who invested a lot should get a lot out. Players who invested little will get a little out. There's nothing wrong with this. The characters with less skill can still contribute equally to less difficult checks.

File: 1349905432283.png (46KB, 662x459px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 662x459px

>>52968040
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, but it may provide some solace to know that not all traps need to be location based. Trapped items are perfectly good too, and won't reduce the party to inching along cautiously!

>>52968021
>This autist is saying that players should never have to do research or conduct an investigation
Actually, I explicitly said the opposite. If the characters cannot recall the necessary information, they are free to pursue it through investigation. The people I am talking to, however, are arguing that players should only get information through investigation, and that characters should never know things because of who they are and what they've trained in.

>You should only have to roll when you're trying to accomplish something, not to recall a fact about the universe.
That's perfectly acceptable. That's essentially what passive perception is and I'd be totally fine with implementing knowledge checks in a similar fashion.

But again, this isn't what was being argued. Instead, it was said that giving knowledge to a player outright was damaging to roleplaying because then they wouldn't have to go out and investigate or question NPCs to find that knowledge. That's what I was objecting to, the notion that characters should never know things ahead of time.

>>52967994
>You have yet to explain why a cleric wouldn't have knowledge of vampires and yet to explain what you see knowledge skills doing.
Even from the beginning, I was talking about a Cleric not knowing how vamps worked in an area that they have neither been to or have any reason to know about. You'd know this if you'd actually paid attention to my argument.
>Again, the book cannot account for every scenario or every setting and how that might impact difficulty checks.
In most games, knowledge checks are generally scaled based on how likely it is for a character to know a thing. If that's not the case, that's an issue with the system, not the GM or their Players.
>Why, then, would it be wrong for him to leverage those skills?
Let's say I'm an individual who knows a shitload about undead. The GM makes it clear that liches don't exist in his setting. If we were to encounter a lich for one reason or another, should I automatically know what they are just because I passed the roll?

>>52968068
I don't give a damn about player knowledge, I'm just saying that just because a character knows how vampires work in FG doesn't mean that they should know how shit works in Barovia.

>>52968133
Another thirty minutes per item discovered, no matter how mundane.

Give it a few months of play and maybe they'll actually face a monster (or, y'know, just go back to video games instead, and if that's your objective then there are substantially less retarded ways to go about it then passive-aggressive trapping of random things until they quit out of frustration with your terrible GMing skills).

>>52968077
>So as not to metagame.
Do you really think that making players roll for something they already know is going to stop them from meta-gaming?
>So play a different system.
So you're admitting that it is a fault in the system, not just an issue caused by the GM or their Players?
> The characters with less skill can still contribute equally to less difficult checks.
If you're raising the DC above 20, they're not going to be able to contribute anything to game unless they somehow roll max on their skill checks.

>>52968187
>Even from the beginning, I was talking about a Cleric not knowing how vamps worked in an area that they have neither been to or have any reason to know about.
Nope, you didn't say that at all:

>>52963413
>"I go to the local priest to ask him about how to deal with the vampire spawn in the area" becomes "I roll religion to figure out what vamprie spawn are weak to."

No mention of area specific knowledge at all. Only several posts later did you say, "But what if the vampires are different." To which I said, "Then the check might be more difficult, or they might only recall information about vampires they are familiar with." Regardless, a check to see if the character knows anything about vampires would still be in order.

From the beginning, you were very clear that you were strictly upset that certain events were being bypassed.

>In most games, knowledge checks are generally scaled based on how likely it is for a character to know a thing.
Yep, and the system will generalize that for you. But it's still up to the GM to make individual rulings when appropriate.

>If we were to encounter a lich for one reason or another, should I automatically know what they are just because I passed the roll?
If you passed the roll, absolutely. Though in that scenario, the check would obviously be very difficult being as this is apparently an extraordinarily rare monster.

>>52968213
Are you one of those types who views every dungeon as a straight forward crawl? Because if so, you're the one who'd do better playing vidya since that's where you'd feel more at home.

>>52968213
>ugh, all of this investigation and intrigue sucks
>I just want to fight monsters!
>the other guy wants to play vidya
M8

>>52968310
>From the beginning, you were very clear that you were strictly upset that certain events were being bypassed.
Only because thanks to the way that knowledge checks work in modern D&D, you can learn theoretically anything about everything in the world, even if the knowledge you're rolling for should be unknown within the setting and how easily you can break knowledge skills using certain builds.
>If you passed the roll, absolutely.
Even if I've a) never encountered a lich before, b) have no reason to believe that this creature exists, and c) would have no way of learning about this creature beforehand?

>>52968310
If its a key clue, give them that information
If you don't want them to know about the vampire tweaks, don't give it to them
If you want them to talk to the local priest, mention the local priest in scene description as someone they can interact with.

Obfuscating these fundamental decisions behind, "Well, I want the players to know this, so I'll give it a trivial DC. I don't want them to know it, so I'll give it a really high DC. It's information they could do without, so I'll give it a challenging DC" makes no sense to me.

The easy stuff can be solved by straight up giving the players the info when they ask what the characters know about vampires, because you wanted them to know it anyway. You don't tell them what you don't want them to know.

>>52968275
>Do you really think that making players roll for something they already know is going to stop them from meta-gaming?
Our group doesn't meta game. Are you saying that your players are the problem? Because that's what I've been telling you for awhile now.

>So you're admitting that it is a fault in the system, not just an issue caused by the GM or their Players?
I already said DnD was a shitty system, though not for the reasons you were describing. Knowledge checks work identically in every system, it's just different math. You were objecting to the notion of knowledge checks entirely.

>If you're raising the DC above 20, they're not going to be able to contribute anything to game unless they somehow roll max on their skill checks.
Right, they won't contribute to higher checks. They'll still contribute on less difficult checks. Do you think everyone has to contribute equally in all areas? That there's no room for specialization?

>>52968392
>Even if I've a) never encountered a lich before, b) have no reason to believe that this creature exists, and c) would have no way of learning about this creature beforehand?

If the challenge of your encounters are predicated on the players knowing nothing about D&D and fantasy tropes, you've made a bad encounter.

>>52968392
>Only because thanks to the way that knowledge checks work in modern D&D, you can learn theoretically anything about everything in the world, even if the knowledge you're rolling for should be unknown within the setting and how easily you can break knowledge skills using certain builds.
If you can't know something, you can't know something. The generalized DCs laid out in the book are predicated on the notion that you can know these things. Again, that's why the system explicitly instructs the GM to adjust things when necessary.

>Even if I've a) never encountered a lich before, b) have no reason to believe that this creature exists, and c) would have no way of learning about this creature beforehand?
Then you couldn't have passed the role. Your premise was such that you did pass the roll. Again, I've already stated the GM can decide a check is impossible if appropriate.

File: lobstertrap.jpg (39KB, 625x352px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 625x352px

>>52968213
Aw, I'm sorry, here's one that might be fucking obvious enough for you that it won't take up too much of your precious, precious, precious time.

>>52968312
>>52968384
Oh, you LIKE the games where the rogue takes 20 to check every single thing for traps while the other players sit around with their thumbs up their asses until the all-clear is given. Wouldn't it be better to experiment with anal stimulation in private? You can bust out the interesting toys then - assuming you've spent the requisite time to make sure they won't launch a barbed spear into your intestines, anyway.

>>52968421
You're not obfuscating anything. The players always have the option to investigate anything. This choice is never hidden from the players, it's inherent to table top role playing games. Setting an appropriate DC for when a player wants to know if his character knows something does nothing to change this.

>>52968534
You're obfuscating bottom line decisions about information that you make as a GM.

>This choice is never hidden from the players, it's inherent to table top role playing games. Setting an appropriate DC for when a player wants to know if his character knows something does nothing to change this.

There's an easy counterexample: GUMSHOE

>>52968449
This isn't like an adventuring party bringing fire to a troll hunt though, the question is whether or not someone should know about a creature that they have no reference for just because they passed the relevant knowledge check.

If you can learn about any creatures, even if you've never seen it before and have no reason to know about its existence, then why the fuck even pretend that anything in the world isn't known at this point? Just give the dude who pumped knowledge checks the monster manual and let them read off everything they know and call it a day without rolling.

>>52968520
The last time I had a player like you in my group, the group unanimously voted to kick him because he was an asshole with no patience for any challenge he couldn't hit with a sword, and was a complete dick to people who actually enjoyed parts of the game that weren't combat before steering every encounter directly into combat.

Go play a fucking fighting game, you're clearly not interested in tabletop.

File: 1492314593447.jpg (32KB, 450x350px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x350px

>>52955720
>Oh, you LIKE the games where the rogue takes 20
No, I play non shit systems, where in universe exploration is rewarded over masturbatory die rolling

>>52968562
Can you clarify? I'm not really following you.

That GMs decide what players know is trivial. The game can only ever be played because the GM is telling players what the know. That means the GM is making decisions about what the players know. Sometimes the GM will call for a roll when he isn't sure what the players should know.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to here.

>>52968474
>If you can't know something, you can't know something.
But then, what's the criteria for that? Is it truly impossible because the GM said it was so or is it impossible because it's something that's a DC that even my +30 knowledge character can't beat? Also, it doesn't fix the problem, it just kinda shuffles it under the rug and boils knowledge checks down to DM fiat.
>Then you couldn't have passed the role.
Going by RAW, I beat the DC based on the lich's CR and I've beaten it by several magnitudes as well. Should I not know about this creature in spite of passing the roll or should I know what this creature is even though I really shouldn't?

>>52968520
I've played with people like you, not anymore.

>>52957814
Retard

>>52968661
>But then, what's the criteria for that?
The criteria is whether you can know it. It's a tautology. I thought that would have been clear.

>Is it truly impossible because the GM said it was so or is it impossible because it's something that's a DC that even my +30 knowledge character can't beat?
It depends on what we're talking about. Sometimes it might be outright impossible, other times it might be difficult such that no one can succeed. Again, this is where the GM decides what an appropriate check would be.

>Also, it doesn't fix the problem, it just kinda shuffles it under the rug and boils knowledge checks down to DM fiat.
Duh, it's a role playing game. Virtually everything comes down to GM fiat. Christ, you're in favor of GM fiat. You are literally arguing that players shouldn't have information you've deemed off limits. That's GM fiat. What are you even saying?

>Going by RAW, I beat the DC based on the lich's CR and I've beaten it by several magnitudes as well
The rules as written are predicated on a setting in which Lich's do exist and are common enough that it's believable for a sufficiently knowledgeable/experienced adventurer could know about them. If you change the setting to one in which Lich's have never, ever been seen before and the party encounters the only one in existence, then obviously it would be impossible to know things about it without actively investigating.

I don't know why you need me to explain this to you. This is all pretty trivial.

>>52968620
>he doesn't like Check For Traps: The Game
>must only be in it for the combat!
Do you think before you type?

>>52968682
I haven't played with people like you, because I'm fortunate enough to have a group that isn't retarded. Plenty of variety in systems, genres, characters, and gameplay. No idiot trying to ham-fistedly shove in nonsensical traps every eight seconds because dungeons should have traps. It's pretty great, I'd suggest you try it but I doubt you'd see the appeal.

File: 1449211070017.jpg (3MB, 2376x3032px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2376x3032px

>>52968805
Yet another anon speaking about shit that never happened because he dislikes something.

>>52968646
GUMSHOE is a system for investigative games which bases itself around the idea that key clues are automatically given to the party by virtue of walking onto the scene. The challenge becomes how they interpret them.

>The game can only ever be played because the GM is telling players what the know. That means the GM is making decisions about what the players know.
So why obfuscate your decision as a DM behind making the players roll for it?

>Sometimes the GM will call for a roll when he isn't sure what the players should know.
Such as?

>>52968805
>He wants to play a dungeon crawler where you're not actually dungeon crawling
>Gets butthurt when people tell him to play vidya.
I'm just saying man, what are you here for if you don't like dungeon crawling but aren't just here for the combat?
>>52968805
>I'm fortunate enough to have a group that isn't retarded.
>That's why we make each dungeon crawl a straight shot with nothing to get in the way of combat.
I don't know what to say anon, even darkest dungeon had traps that you'd need to avoid. Maybe you should just roll dice and descibe how awesome you are, maybe make the DC checks a -10 so you'll always be able to pass no matter what or something?

>>52968805
>No idiot trying to ham-fistedly shove in nonsensical traps every eight seconds because dungeons should have traps.

Nice strawman bud, nobody ever said to do that. You can include traps in a game without it turning into a slog, and if your DM can't manage that then he may be more retarded than you're recognizing.

>Khumba solo
>Support Ravana

This thread turned into a brawl real fast.

>>52968929
>GUMSHOE is a system for investigative games which bases itself around the idea that key clues are automatically given to the party by virtue of walking onto the scene. The challenge becomes how they interpret them.
That's fine. I don't know what it has to do with what I'm arguing, though.

>So why obfuscate your decision as a DM behind making the players roll for it?
I never said you had to make your players roll for an impossible check. I was responding to people who said players should never be able to roll even for a basic knowledge check.

>Such as?
Anytime a given piece of knowledge might be borderline. Again, I'm fine with a passive knowledge check. If you want to just decide what's appropriate for your players to know and what isn't. That's fine. I don't mind less dice chucking.

But again, I was responding specifically to posters who didn't want players to have information, not because it wasn't believable for them to have it, but because they felt it bypassed too much investigation.

File: door trap.jpg (651KB, 1324x2048px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1324x2048px

>>52969086

File: weight trap.jpg (558KB, 1360x2054px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 1360x2054px

>>52969099

>>52969099
>The acid damaage can only be healed by a Wish or other greater spell
>Using a Wish to restore 3 Charisma

Why would you do this

>>52969261
Because dungeoncrawling is tabletop rogue-like. This one's done, roll up another dungeoneer-dude.

>>52969099
>how to explain this trap most elegantly? I know! I'll bury the explanation in 3 paragraphs of bullshit
Also
>maim, burn
>and demoralize
Clearly the most important factor here
>>52969113
>oh shit, my sword just got really heavy! I'm going to hold onto it like a retard and fall in the pool of water!
Not even close to what would happen. You might be thrown off balance a little, but you absolutely would not get yanked in.
>>52969086
Ok, this one is actually kind of clever

>>52967446
Manlets win again

>>52968133
Such a boring way of making items trapped.

Tying the trap or curse to the story is such an easy way to make things directly -interesting- to the players.

>>52969740
>Not even close to what would happen
They say you can pass a test to let go of the sword you retard. And if you don't let go in time (presumably it pulls down really fast) your hand is now heavier, and now your arm, and now it'd be very difficult to get out even if you weren't being pulled further in.

>>52968312
>>52968384
"""investigation"""
"""intrigue"""
Yeah nah he's right, this shit is the kind of boring filler I'd put in my games to cover for not preparing anything, if it weren't for the fact that even I'm not that lazy.
>>52968622
Then these traps are terrible for your system.
>>52968620
And you haven't played much tabletop if you think "dungeoncrawl chaff" is all it amounts to.

>>52972247
Not them but the dice is the worst mechanic tabletop could even adopt.

It's a shit meme mechanic that refuses to go away.

>>52972874
No I agree, that's the main reason I think the traps are bad (although looking at it it seems I actually misread what traps were linked in the post; the fishing rod one could be done pretty well).

>>52969113
>not putting glue on the handle of the sword
3/10

>>52968068

You don't. The onus is on them not to metagame. If they can't resist then they are a shit player and need to improve themselves.

>>52968068
>I know how guns work so my character makes a gun
if your players are shit, and they are shit if they can't tell "in character knowledge" from "out of character knowledge".
you call the monster a vampire, but give it the ability's and weakness of a chupacabra.

>>52955720

There is no especially good trap. Traps are tools. What makes a trap good is the placement. Put traps where it makes sense for traps to be.

Not every ten or twenty feet at random in an empty hallway.

>>52967652
This is probably the most ridiculously over-engineered bullshit I've ever seen.

>>52955720
Traps are 3 red herring, can't be solved by dice rolls.

Done.

>>52977154
>I dont get this trap, it's just three fish sitting on a table
>Maybe it's a metaphor

>>52968133
A trap easily thwarted by playing a Warforged, a being with no sexual attraction to speak of! Obviously your standard gay character will just get one with a same-sex picture, despite the unnecessarily specific wording of the item.

>>52955720

>what does a GOOD trap look like?

It doesn't.

File: kobolds.jpg (58KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x600px

>>52955720
A good trap is an encounter, or part of one. It tests the player's reasoning, sense of tactics, and creativity.
It's a challenge, not an invisible luck-based screwjob.

>>52977314
>there's a small string with a hook attatched near a fishing bowl
>if you grab the string the room explodes
>the ghost of the bastard who built this room comes up to mock you, then leave.