D&D General Want to use traps? Make them obvious

[Tonguez]

This is a good idea Traps as puzzles does make for better player engagement instead of the old gotcha 6 damage! Ive always wanted to run big puzzle traps that require backtracking and exploration but in practice have yet to find a great way to do it organically without railroading.

These days I tend to only use traps as parts of lair actions, triggered 'special' attacks that let monsters create difficult terrain, drop PCs down holes or hit them with a barrage of rocks etc

 

[James Gasik]

I wonder how they fit such a large chamber inside such a rickety door. And then I proceed into the actual room. Could you describe what we see beyond the weird chamber-inside-a-door?

The same way they haul solid gold statues and mithril doors down into the dungeon, naturally. Via the service elevator.

 

[Reynard]

One of the many things tabletop RPGs should learn from video games.

While that's true, there is also danger in it. Video games just do some stuff better.there is no tabletop equivalent, IMO, of Bethesda RPG exploration. It is built for the way we play video games and doesn't translate well to tabletop.

 

[Steampunkette]

It's my number one advice on anything trap-related: reverse psychology. Common sense tells us the players are after the loot, and it's secured by well-hidden traps. Well, if you spring a trap you only got the one moment of discovery. Suspense is a much better dynamic at a gaming table. Put the traps out in the open. Make them big and elaborate. Avoid hiding them behind spot-checks, just tell the players what the obstacles are so that they can start racking their brains at it. Then you start getting the character interactions, the in-game anecdotes about how "it's just like when we were under Waterdeep", the Rube-Goldberg disarming schemes, people volunteering for crazy experiments. You don't even need much of an incentive or none at all. You can hide the loot. If anything, they will assume that an elaborate trap means that there's something important it's protecting, making them want it more than if it's out in the open. All you gotta make sure is that you honor that assumption. Even if it isn't loot, it should be worth the effort.

Now, of course that doesn't mean you can't have your trip wire or rolling boulder trap from time to time to mix things up. But in general I've found it much more rewarding to think of traps as obstacles that are to be investigated than surprises to be sprung on the party. Think more heist movie and less Tom & Jerry.

I'll see this and raise it another level:

Make Passive Perception DCs low enough for your players to find the hidden traps.

Whether you use the Delving system from the GPG or not, you're probably going to have someone with a decent passive perception in the group. Probably the trapfinder. Let them find traps off their passive perception.

If it is too low, let them know if they move at half speed through the dungeon environment they can get a +5 to passive perception and set some DCs there.

Now you've got out in the open elaborate traps that are huge fun to play with, and hidden traps that get found quickly but may provide problems in figuring out what they do!

 

[Charlaquin]

While that's true, there is also danger in it. Video games just do some stuff better.there is no tabletop equivalent, IMO, of Bethesda RPG exploration. It is built for the way we play video games and doesn't translate well to tabletop.

I disagree. The tabletop equivalent is a hex-crawl or point-crawl, which the compas or minimap of PoI markers was itself originally imitating. Obviously the mediums do have different strengths and limitations, and a game designer or GM ignores them at their peril. But a well-done map-crawl can absolutely create a similar effect in a tabletop context.Even if you’re not doing a map-crawl, you can find ways to incorporate that digression-based feeling of exploration. For example, use random encounters, but instead of having the encounters come the PCs, invite the PCs to come to them. For example, you roll an encounter with orcs while traveling through the woods? Instead of having the orcs jump out and attack the party, simply describe signs of the orcs nearby - smoke from their campfire, the smell of cooking meat, the distant sound of voices arguing in orcish, etc. Let the players make the choice to go investigate those cues, or just as importantly, to ignore them.

 

[grimmgoose]

This boils down to one of those gameplay vs realism debates.

I’m generally on the side of “whatever makes for better gameplay”, and this idea fits that.

If you have a trap as it would likely be in reality (single use, simple, “you see it or you don’t”) that deals damage or casts a spell, the experience is tepid, because the trap won’t do what it in-world is expected to do: kill.

“you step on the unseen pressure plate, and a heavy axe swings down towards you! You take…17 points of slashing damage.”

“Uh…ow. Alright, I’m still above half health. Anybody got a potion?”

The juice isn’t worth the squeeze. There’s no drama AND no realism, so it’s lose/lose (unless you actually have the trap cast Power Word Kill, in which case we’re having another conversation altogether )

 

[Quickleaf]

I'll see this and raise it another level:

Make Passive Perception DCs low enough for your players to find the hidden traps.

Whether you use the Delving system from the GPG or not, you're probably going to have someone with a decent passive perception in the group. Probably the trapfinder. Let them find traps off their passive perception.

If it is too low, let them know if they move at half speed through the dungeon environment they can get a +5 to passive perception and set some DCs there.

Now you've got out in the open elaborate traps that are huge fun to play with, and hidden traps that get found quickly but may provide problems in figuring out what they do!

I'll see this and challenge a little. And it may be you are perfectly aware of all this, and are just working within the confines of existing 5e because it's the big gorilla and such - in which case just laugh at my soapbox?

🌶🌶🌶

In my humble opinion, the way D&D5e uses Perception and traps sucks – it boils down to the de facto "gotta have someone high in passive Perception" has become de rigueur for play – because it is has no context to the type of trap / game use of the trap.

For example, big obstacle obvious puzzle-traps should not involve Perception at all. The GM just needs to say what they need to say.

But there are less obvious situations where this is equally true, for example if it's a trap that might be detected a certain way but is otherwise completely undetectable otherwise – and there is a clear game precedent in 5e monsters with False Appearance traits (at least the original pre-MMotM version) requiring things like detect thoughts or interaction to detect – the GM move should be to foreshadow, not fall back on Perception. Example from game: I put a warding glyph that was under a rug. The spell describes Investigation detecting it, and that felt stupid. Instead my narrative foreshadowed that these glyphs glowed in pitch darkness, so there was a gameplay element of "do we risk snuffing our torches/extinguishing our magical light when searching for glyphs?"

I have a bone to pick with the Perception skill more broadly, it's true, I am biased. However, I'm limiting my disagreement here specifically in the way in which Perception interacts with traps as a "one size fits all super-duper detector."

The counter-argument I typically hear at this point is: "Well, Quickleaf, you don't say there's a trap if their passive Perception is high enough, you describe context clues." To which I have 3 responses:
1. Actually, the adventures and DMG itself give advice & examples that aer contrary to this. So it may be best practice, but it's not what the 5e game books currently demonstrate.
2. At that point, what purpose did the roll / maths check serve? Couldn't you have delivered the context clues from the get-go? Did you really gain that much from the Perception ordeal?
3. Without well-written clues, it's not obvious to all GMs how to deliver good context clues. It's a skill GMs develop through lots and lots of experience – old hands like me don't need to be told this because we are already doing it and have been for a while.

There are certain traps – typically the "gotcha" that is prevalent – where the whole Perception ordeal becomes necessary for fair play. But that's far from the only way to skin the cat...

For example, I house ruled 5e Perception – it's now explicitly Danger Awareness and functions more like a saving throw when the PCs are ambushed or trigger a trap. Are your surprised? Perception roll vs. the enemy's Stealth. Are you caught off guard by the trap? Perception roll vs. its DC, and if you succeed you can take a quick reaction (like diving 5 feet, dropping prone, dropping an item, shouting, using a reaction ability, raising a backpack in front of your face, etc) in response to the GM's description of the trigger going off. I've only tested a little, and struggling to get players to remember the house rule, but it has done wonders for cutting down on the lazy: "I search the room for stuff like traps or anything interesting. My Perception check is 17." No, no, no. Instead, if they want to learn about the room they've got to use their heads and their mouth-boxes and start interacting with stuff. Unless they have X-Ray Vision, they do not get x-ray vision.

To which iserith arrives and says: "That's not the 5e rule. The GM calls for the check!"

And my response will continue to be: "Yeah man tell me about. Players with habits are so hard to break. But I'm optimistic that my Perception house rule will help with that...or flat out deter habituated lazy players."

🌶🌶🌶

 

[DrJawaPhD]

We have had this discussion a number of times recently and it usually boils down to a couple opposing viewpoints.

There are those that want their traps to make sense in the fiction, which has a whole lot of cascading consequences but usually lands on "traps should kill intruders and secure locations."

Then there are folks who think traps are there for the game more than the fiction. This usually leads to "make them.dynamic and complex and encounters in their own right."

The other "school" usually can be summed up as "traps are dumb and/or unfun and don't belong in the game."

In the end, the discussion usually ends up being a proxy argument about agency and fairness.

This is a perfect summary of traps in DnD. I would argue though that your 2nd and 3rd schools are the same thing, and would be where I fall.

I'm mostly in the 3rd viewpoint of traps being dumb and not fun, but can quickly find myself squarely in the 2nd viewpoint for a trap/puzzle that is well designed from a "making the game more fun" perspective and not from a "realism" standpoint. Basically if the trap is designed well (for my tastes), then it's not even a trap it's just a puzzle.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree. The tabletop equivalent is a hex-crawl or point-crawl, which the compas or minimap of PoI markers was itself originally imitating.

Hexploration doesn't have PoI markers. That's the whole pointm

 

[overgeeked]

A second bite at the apple…

I think the Indiana Jones franchise handles traps perfectly. Watch the opening scene of Raiders and the grail scene from Last Crusade. In both you have traps that are obviously present, we know they’re there because of the corpses, and yet the mere fact that the characters are aware of the danger is not enough to make those traps safe or easily circumvented.

In Raiders, the first already sprung trap a signal that danger’s ahead and for Indy to be on guard. But he still has to overcome the rest of the traps somehow. He only knows the traps exist and has no clues to how they work or how to overcome them.

In Last Crusade, the Nazis forcing endless streams of “disposable” henchmen to their deaths is a signal of just how dangerous these traps are. Indy has the diary with the clues, but it’s still up to him to figure out how to survive. Again, cross the “room” safely and get “the idol.”

Movie magic and scripted entertainment, obviously. But it’s interesting that they’re both confined narrative spaces where the only obstacles ahead are the traps and there’s a clear goal at the end. In 4E terms, these are skill challenges to cross the room safely and get the MacGuffin.

If you want traps as a gamey challenge or spectacle, try doing them like this.

If you want traps as a deadly deterrent, try doing them as full-on old-school fantasy Vietnam.