I’m not a DM, but I think the common advice is “randomly roll dice for no reason occasionally so the players can’t rely on dice rolls being significant.”
Unfortunately, if a trap goes off or they do spot one, players will tend to question why they didn’t get to roll anything and you have to explain that you were rolling for them behind the screen. Less the fact I’m rolling and more that they didn’t get to roll at all.
My players took great offense to that when it happened, unfortunately, as the rules at the time didn’t really support the DM having that authority.
So, I’m happy PF2e now has it baked in so that DMs are officially able to utilize that method of secret rolls.
Traps are puzzles. Even if they didn’t roll high enough, you should still describe enough about their environment that they could reasonably deduce that a trap was there.
Who advocated for removing dice rolls? There’s still plenty of room for dice rolls here, but it makes traps more interesting and engaging instead of a boring save-or-suck you blindside players with.
You’re not removing the rolls themselves but you’re removing the point of rolling with how you described doing it.
The way you stated to do it, you have them roll for perception first then you are narrating the area and having players say what they want to do afterwards. That’s backwards. This sets up subconscious metagaming because now their actions are going to be influenced by their low perception roll.
Instead, I narrate the scene first, (where during this time, yes, we as DM’s 100% have the obligation of setting the tone and hinting that players might want to try searching for the traps. That I do entirely agree with) then the players all tell their actions. Once I call for checks, that’s it. The scene now plays and there is no taking back action because of a failed roll.
With this as the order of events, it still keeps traps engaging, as it is just as much part of the storytelling as everything else they are doing when exploring an area, but now rolls come after the declaration of actions so they won’t have an influence on the decision making process.
See, traps are supposed to blindside the players if they fail their check. That’s what makes them traps. The thing about BAD traps versus a GOOD trap, though, is ensuring the players have the opportunity to try avoiding it. You don’t have to ensure their success, that’s up to the roll of the dice.
Traps can be part of puzzle design if you want your puzzle to have lethal consequences and not just story related, sure nothing wrong with that, but to say all your traps have to themselves be puzzles is a convoluted solution to a simple problem.
I’m not a DM, but I think the common advice is “randomly roll dice for no reason occasionally so the players can’t rely on dice rolls being significant.”
Unfortunately, if a trap goes off or they do spot one, players will tend to question why they didn’t get to roll anything and you have to explain that you were rolling for them behind the screen. Less the fact I’m rolling and more that they didn’t get to roll at all.
My players took great offense to that when it happened, unfortunately, as the rules at the time didn’t really support the DM having that authority.
So, I’m happy PF2e now has it baked in so that DMs are officially able to utilize that method of secret rolls.
Traps are puzzles. Even if they didn’t roll high enough, you should still describe enough about their environment that they could reasonably deduce that a trap was there.
https://theangrygm.com/traps-suck/
(I don’t always agree with everything this guy says - especially when he strays away from the topic of games - but he’s absolutely right about traps.)
Disagree. that just erases the point of using dice and having consequences for missing the checks.
I’ll continue to use my system as described above for traps.
Who advocated for removing dice rolls? There’s still plenty of room for dice rolls here, but it makes traps more interesting and engaging instead of a boring save-or-suck you blindside players with.
You’re not removing the rolls themselves but you’re removing the point of rolling with how you described doing it.
The way you stated to do it, you have them roll for perception first then you are narrating the area and having players say what they want to do afterwards. That’s backwards. This sets up subconscious metagaming because now their actions are going to be influenced by their low perception roll.
Instead, I narrate the scene first, (where during this time, yes, we as DM’s 100% have the obligation of setting the tone and hinting that players might want to try searching for the traps. That I do entirely agree with) then the players all tell their actions. Once I call for checks, that’s it. The scene now plays and there is no taking back action because of a failed roll.
With this as the order of events, it still keeps traps engaging, as it is just as much part of the storytelling as everything else they are doing when exploring an area, but now rolls come after the declaration of actions so they won’t have an influence on the decision making process.
See, traps are supposed to blindside the players if they fail their check. That’s what makes them traps. The thing about BAD traps versus a GOOD trap, though, is ensuring the players have the opportunity to try avoiding it. You don’t have to ensure their success, that’s up to the roll of the dice.
Traps can be part of puzzle design if you want your puzzle to have lethal consequences and not just story related, sure nothing wrong with that, but to say all your traps have to themselves be puzzles is a convoluted solution to a simple problem.