I've never done much with traps in my fantasy games. If I'm running D&D, there will be a few. Probably because I'm running a published module. But if I'm running another system, the adventure is something I've created, and there won't be any traps. I just don't find them interesting.  To be fair, I tell my players this at the start of the game, so no one wastes points buying the "traps" skill.

But maybe I've overlooked something. Do you like traps? If so, how do you use them in your game?

I put them in places where they would likely be, and don't usually otherwise.  Not in well-traveled areas unless there is a way to temporarily disarm or avoid them.  Dusty, less traveled corridors are much more likely to have them.  They tend to come in bunches that way.  I also telegraph some traps, with a few already gone off, or rusty, or dried blood on the walls.  So players paying attention can make educated guesses when it makes sense to search and be careful versus when that's a waste of time.  Since I use wandering monsters and they provide relatively little reward, then traps give the players another decision point.  In fact, I don't think traps are usually very interesting except when used in an operational game where resources matter, and time is one of those resources.

Every now and then I'll throw in a hard to spot, less obvious trap, just to keep the players guessing a little, but that's not a well I draw from very often.  My general idea is the same as my approach to travel encounters:  Going by some "per day" formula is boring, useless, and you might as well not bother.  Travel with nothing happening for days followed by a day of two of real danger plays better, and also usually makes more sense in the context of the setting.  Traps are often the same way.  When the setting naturally drives this sort of thing, players can make meaningful decisions.

I love traps. What I don't enjoy is hiding traps that jump out and get you. A trap that is just a 1-in-6 (or whatever) chance of something bad randomly happening to a character doesn't really make a better game for me.

A good example of the sort of trap I like: a transparent impenetrable room with a shiny treasure visible in it, that somehow prevents spellcasting from the inside. Like a fishhook: it's obviously a trap, and the characters' job is to figure out how to bypass it.

I like to put traps where they might logically be in most games. Places such as on treasure hoards that are infrequently or not visited by the owner, in forgotten hidden tombs or caves, and places like that. Places where intelligent enemies have a lair or base may have alarm traps that simply alert guards if triggered and these are much more common than any other type. The last thing a group of bandits who are often drinking in their hideout want is a nice lethal trap in the hallway that they might forget about while stumbling outside drunk to drain the lizard.

I don't like them the way they're normally used in RPGs. Skills in traps can be used for other things though: like trapping animals or monsters.

I like running traps in a way that the players know it's a trap.  Essentially, it's a game of Russian Roulette for them for a prize of dubious value.  Some players are risk averse and will bypass them and others just have to know what's in the box.

I use traps all the time. Love em.

A good trap has a reason to exist. However some traps are just there and the reason is lost to time. If the trap is old and forgotten, it will likely show signs of age or even malfunction. Malfunction could make the trap more dangerous or less. Or it could make a set of traps unpredictable.

Telegraphing traps is essential. Otherwise they are just a resource tax.

And most important to me: a good trap makes the players want to mess with it. Because it's blocking something important or valuable. Or because it's a puzzle that stimulates curiosity.

Finally a trap doesn't have to be a one-off encounter. A whole section of a dungeon could be one big trap. Think sand or water filling rooms or doors locking and unlocking automatically.

So yeah, traps can be so much better than 1-in-6, save, take 2d6 damage.

So reading others' comments and thinking on it a bit, I'd say there's two main types of trap in traditional D&D and related games (mechanical traps, that is. I'm not counting ambushes or other ways NPCs might "lay a trap" for the PCs). This construction is based on the premise that RPGs are about giving players' engaging decisions to make.

1. Traps where the the players are given a reasonable means of knowing that the trap is there ahead of time; and the choice comes down to whether and how to try and disarm it. So in classic D&D, this is most likely to be either a door or treasure chest trap, where a thief player has succeeded on a "detect-traps" type roll. In newer D&D, this could be any trap found via Perception skill. In any edition, this would include traps that are clearly signposted by the DM and found via roleplay. In the case of the standard D&D door or treasure chest trap, the only decision to be made here is whether the risk of failing the "disarm" check is worth the potential reward. I think this kind of trap works best when it's of a kind where the DM can describe the mechanics of the trap to the players and have them think of a solution. That adds a puzzle element to the decision making, in addition to the pure risk-reward calculation.

2. Traps where the player is not given a reasonable means of spotting them, and instead is tasked with surviving them. This would be your "unmarked pressure plate in the floor" trap. These traps generally suck, as there's no decision to be made. It's just "make your saving throw or take damage", which is boring. Generally it's better to avoid these kind of traps, but I do think they can be made to work, particularly if instead of just triggering a "save or die" scenario, the trap instead places the PC in a new situation.

An Example: In the "Shadow on the Mist" module for Dragon Warriors, there is a trap where an NPC tries to get a player to cross a river by using a series of stepping stones which are actually illusory. The module gives the player a percentage chance of noticing that the water in the river does not eddy around the stones as it should, but the odds are very low. If the player steps on one of the stones, they are plunged into rushing icy water, and are in immediate danger of drowning. What I like about this is that it is entirely possible for a PC to trigger the trap and still come out unharmed, but it requires fast decisions and action from the players, and depending on how they approach the situation, the odds of survival for the trapped PC can improve or decline.

P.S. There's a common OSR rejoinder to the complaint about "pressure plate in the floor" type traps, which is "That's what the 10-foot pole is for". I don't buy this. Personally, I suspect the image of old school players laboriously describing how they meticulously tap every surface in the dungeon with their pole is mostly post-hoc mythmaking. That would make for an incredibly tedious and boring session, and I doubt many people ever did it. The alternative, which would be establishing in advance that the PCs do this and then not restating it, I find to be a bit more plausible, but then it's just another player choice being removed.

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 08, 2023, 09:56:44 AM
I use traps all the time. Love em.

A good trap has a reason to exist. However some traps are just there and the reason is lost to time. If the trap is old and forgotten, it will likely show signs of age or even malfunction. Malfunction could make the trap more dangerous or less. Or it could make a set of traps unpredictable.

Telegraphing traps is essential. Otherwise they are just a resource tax.

And most important to me: a good trap makes the players want to mess with it. Because it's blocking something important or valuable. Or because it's a puzzle that stimulates curiosity.

Finally a trap doesn't have to be a one-off encounter. A whole section of a dungeon could be one big trap. Think sand or water filling rooms or doors locking and unlocking automatically.

So yeah, traps can be so much better than 1-in-6, save, take 2d6 damage.

I can get behind this.  I love the idea of traps as puzzles rather than traps as "whoops, you got hurt."

Quote from: BadApple on November 08, 2023, 11:10:11 AM
I can get behind this.  I love the idea of traps as puzzles rather than traps as "whoops, you got hurt."

It's analogous though not exactly like monsters.  Does the GM have a dragon show up at the inn where the 1st level characters are getting their mission, and have it burn the whole thing down, roasting everyone before they can make any decisions?  No, absolutely not.  Does the GM let the players know through rumors, dead bodies, ominous silence, singed vegetation, and eventually maybe even a glimpse of a large reptilian winged creature?  Then if they keep going and don't use any caution at all, yeah, all outcomes are on the table.

Pressure plate in random corridor for no good reason is boring.  Pressure plate that is difficult to detect and may even do serious harm, but you had reasons to think something was up, is a much better plan. 

I don't think of these decisions as "puzzles" because puzzles can also be pushed too hard and too far, especially with players that don't like playing that game.  They are "unknowns" where paying attention to what is happening in the world is helpful.

Quote from: BadApple on November 08, 2023, 11:10:11 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 08, 2023, 09:56:44 AM
I use traps all the time. Love em.

A good trap has a reason to exist. However some traps are just there and the reason is lost to time. If the trap is old and forgotten, it will likely show signs of age or even malfunction. Malfunction could make the trap more dangerous or less. Or it could make a set of traps unpredictable.

Telegraphing traps is essential. Otherwise they are just a resource tax.

And most important to me: a good trap makes the players want to mess with it. Because it's blocking something important or valuable. Or because it's a puzzle that stimulates curiosity.

Finally a trap doesn't have to be a one-off encounter. A whole section of a dungeon could be one big trap. Think sand or water filling rooms or doors locking and unlocking automatically.

So yeah, traps can be so much better than 1-in-6, save, take 2d6 damage.

I can get behind this.  I love the idea of traps as puzzles rather than traps as "whoops, you got hurt."

Puzzle traps are the most fun because they are something else to interact with. They can be encounters all on their own. As a player it is very satisfying to solve a puzzle trap, and fun too.

Traps that can only be game mechaniced suck, while traps that are solved through roleplay backed by mechanics if needed are awesome.

A trap needs to have an in world reason to exist, such that the players can anticipate it. It must have clues to it's existence that can be found such as uneven floor wear, scorch marks, or arrow slits that suggest its nature. This way a player can be given a chance to intelligently react based on the rooms description when the tap is sprung. Ducking under the arrow slits, jumping out the way of a deadfall, or shielding against a fire blast. Next its workings need to be developed enough so that the trigger or effect mechanism could be disabled or bypassed by describing how the character attempts to do so. Plug the dart holes, cut the trip wire, set off the trap from a distance, or mark the pressure plate and walk around it. This pairs well with wandering monsters that can turn up if the player loiter on the trap too long, or the tap could be used against the pursuers. Lead the monsters back to the trip wire room and have the players jump over the trigger while the pursuing monsters activate it for full damage.

I'll just add that I completely disagree about pressure plates -- they are awesome. Just make them landmine-style: the character knows as soon as they step on the plate, but it doesn't trigger until they let up again. My players have always loved it.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 08, 2023, 10:39:47 AM
P.S. There's a common OSR rejoinder to the complaint about "pressure plate in the floor" type traps, which is "That's what the 10-foot pole is for". I don't buy this. Personally, I suspect the image of old school players laboriously describing how they meticulously tap every surface in the dungeon with their pole is mostly post-hoc mythmaking. That would make for an incredibly tedious and boring session, and I doubt many people ever did it. The alternative, which would be establishing in advance that the PCs do this and then not restating it, I find to be a bit more plausible, but then it's just another player choice being removed.

So close yet so far.

Yeah, you wouldn't tap every surface with a 10-foot pole. If you did that, you'd suck up too much game time (and possibly make too much noise) and you'd get hosed by wandering monsters.

It's a losing strategy to check everything.

It's also a losing strategy to check nothing.

What that means you need to be judicious in searching for traps. You have to pick and choose. Choose. That was your standard for good traps, right?

And the thing is, most of the time it's really not even that hard to do. Party walking down a long corridor, 30' in the characters in the lead fall into a pit. Guess what players do next 9 times out of 10? Start tapping the floor in case there's more pits. Then one of two things happen. Either they find some more pit traps and are sure to keep on tapping. Or they find no others and eventually realize they're taking up too much time searching so they go back to not searching.

Now that's just one example I can provide that anyone can do, doesn't take brains of experience, and it's doable even without context clues that would likely be there were this an actual adventure. There's no reason you can't avoid (or at least get a fair chance at avoiding) somewhere around 80% of traps searching just 20% of the dungeon.