Fail Forward, Traps, Investigation Ability Checks

Unlike all my other posts, this one is applicable to any game of D&D, Pathfinder and various other RPGs and not just our system.

Running my own campaign of 5E D&D has led to me thinking of how to run the game better. I've been thinking about traps and ambushes in particular. So I've been researching how to let PCs detect traps in an engaging manner yet satisfies players who want a bit more simulation in their RPGs.

Angry DM's opinion how traps are normally run in D&D is that "Traps suck". Basically because how players interact with them. Traps are not engaging, he argues: 

"If your character has a high enough passive Perception, the GM tells you “there’s a trap over there.” But what if you don’t? Because that process doesn’t actually involve you making any decisions. That’s just the GM telling you that your character was alert enough to spot a trap..."
"...Either way, though, in most games, there’s really only two strategies to searching for traps. First, there’s guessing blindly....
...The second strategy is to search absolutely everything that could reasonably be trapped..."

R20 has a video on how traps in D&D are often the Dungeon Master "cheating":

"The problem here? YOU, as the Dungeon Master, are your player's eyes, ears and senses. You are also the person who put the trap there. If you set a deadly trap and then have it kill a PC, they're gonna feel cheated. And having your players feel like their choices don't matter is perhaps the worse thing that can happen in your game."

Both of them recommend foreshadowing as the main solution to make traps feel fair. Angry DM also suggests the "Click" rule; when the trap is triggered, there is an audible click and in that split-second the PC can respond to the trap.

----

On the sort-of-related-but-not-really note, I contributed to a discussion about "Fail Forward"-like rules in my local RPG facebook group. Heavy metal GM explains what Fail Forward (from 13th Age) is:

The idea of this mechanic is that a character never really fails something, whether it be picking a lock or climbing a cliff face. Rather than outright not being able to do it, there’s an added complication upon your success. 

Not everyone is a fan of the Fail Forward rule. The reasoning being that always succeeding in "robs the players of the chance to be creative and figure out a way around an obstacle". Which can be a lot of the fun in RPGs.

There are quite a few systems with something similar. The Gumshoe system has on rules on "giving out clues": 

"If the consequence of failure is that a character fails to get a piece of crucial information, success should be automatic provided that the character has the ability in question, and the player thinks to ask for it. However, any credible attempt to get information that would yield a given clue yields that clue, whether or not this is the ability you’ve specified in the scenario."

Doesn't that sound extreme? But Gumshoe is a narrative RPG system; the system is meant to facilitate investigation and mystery.

I've been in a game where players failed a single roll to gain information. Without that information, players didn't know what to do next. So week after week, the players tried various ways to figure out what to do next to complete their objective but to no avail. Essentially progress in the game had halted and could not progress. 

The Dungeon Master in this game was a firm believer in running his games as a simulation rather than a narrative. The universe isn't going to bend backward to feed the PCs clues if the players can't find them. Even if the adventure comes to a screeching halt.

I talked about foreshadowing traps to the same Dungeon Master. He hated the idea. He argued that traps are made by enemies to kill the players. Players shouldn't get a deus ex machina to foreshadow that there is a trap. The universe doesn't bend over backwards to give PCs a fighting chance, so niether should the DM/GM.

I've heard this argument elsewhere as well. Puffin Forest for instance calls out the act of DMs helping the players as cheating. He's talking about the DM/GM fudging rolls to help the players. He doesn't approve. He argues it can undermine player choices (if they cannot make bad choices and suffer for it).

"Because if the players feel like their decisions aren't having an impact on the game they stop taking the game seriously."

I kind of see where they're coming from. If you use too much DM fiat to break the universe in order to help the players, the immersion in the game world is broken and player decisions and victories matter less. However, I'm concerned about instances when the players get stuck and the adventure has ground to a halt. What do you guys think?

At least for the traps, I've tried to find a compromise that will satisfy both the simulationist and the narrative player.

-------

1) Special Rule: Investigation Ability Check

First, I have written an new rule about resolving ability checks to uncover information. Long story short, there is a simple failing in the system used in D&D which I wanted to correct and it is relevant in the discussion of the next two points.

2) Optional Game Practice: Free Plot-critical information

Next I talk about some optional game practices inspired by "Fail Forward" that help keep the adventure going.

3) Recommendation: Signs of Danger and Red Herrings

Finally I've written a recommendation how PCs should detect dangers such as ambushes and traps considering that I hope is both fun to play and satisfies the simulationists.

-------

Special Rule: Investigation Ability Check

For the purpose of this rule, “Investigation Ability Checks” are ability checks where the PC is attempting to find clues or glean additional information in the current situation, but it is uncertain if the PC will determine these clues or uncover this information correctly. Investigation Ability Checks include actions such as noticing ambushes, detecting traps, discerning lies, identifying the true nature of magic items, spotting hidden treasures, researching a topic or remembering weaknesses of a monster.

When resolving Investigation Ability Checks, the player does not roll the dice for their PC. Instead, the player tells her GM the modifier bonuses/penalty their PC has for the roll, and the GM makes the roll on behalf of the PC out of sight of all the players. Players do not see the rolled result and do not know if the PC passed or failed the roll. Based on the results, the GM will tell the players what information the PC thinks she has uncovered. The GM usually does not tell the players if the information is correct or not; just the impressions that the PC has based on the results of the roll.

Usually, the results of an information gathering roll can be ruled as follows;

-       Passed roll: PC uncovers information correctly

-       Failed roll by less than 5: PC uncovers no information or does not know

-       Failed roll by more than 5: PC uncovers WRONG information instead

Optional Game Practice: Free Plot-critical information

Sometimes Investigation Ability Checks are made to uncover information which is important to move the narrative forward: the adventure cannot continue if players are unsuccessful in uncovering this information or clue. If the adventure prepared by the GM or the adventuring content in a module is only accessible if the PCs glean specific clues and information accurately, then these clues and information may be “Plot-critical”.

For example, For example, finding a hidden door which leads to a treasure hoard may not be considered “Plot-critical” since the only consequence to the PCs is reduced treasure. This may change drastically if the treasure hoard includes a treasure map which leads to more adventure that the GM has planned; finding the hidden door may now be “Plot-critical”. As you can see, how far information is “Plot-critical” can be rather subjective.

In regards to information that is "Plot-critical", GM may find it helpful to allow the PCs to uncover Plot-critical information even on failed Investigation Ability Checks so that players can continue playing the game content. Instead, a failed roll may introduce additional complications that the PCs will need to overcome, such as alerting their enemies to their position or needing to provide a favor to an NPC. Alternatively, the Investigative ability check may be ruled to be trivial enough not to need a roll so that the PCs will always gain "Plot-critical" information.

Take note that most Investigation Ability Checks are used to uncover information that may not be critical to continuing to access further game content. This information may be important in other ways, but the adventure can continue even if the PCs fail to uncover the information. Discovering traps, identifying magic items, monster weaknesses, and discerning lies are some examples of information that are generally not plot-critical because the adventure can continue or even become more interesting if the PCs fail to uncover the information.

Ultimately, how “plot-critical” information is depends on the needs of the GM to keep the game going and engage the players with campaign content. It may not be necessary to invoke this practice in some situations:
a) The GM can think of ways to keep the adventure going even when players find themselves stuck due to failed rolls.
b) The GMs can create additional avenues for players to uncover the information on the fly.
c) The GM can prepare new adventure content on the fly even if the players never discover the adventure content the GM had planned.
d) The players themselves are resourceful enough to think of solutions around the problem.

Players, please be understanding: GMs cannot always anticipate what will happen in a campaign and may need to use some tricks to keep the game going. If the GM is honest with you and says she's stuck because she needed something to happen, try to think of a solution together with with her. Talk about it, take a break to think about it, figure out what works best for your group.

Update: (I think it's better written like this)
GMs, it may be worthwhile to be honest with your players when things don't go as planned and you're not sure how to keep the adventure going. Discuss solutions with your players, take a break, then come back to the game. Expect to make some compromises and ask the players to make some compromises.
Players, it is okay to ask for advice from the GM sometimes if you're not sure what to do. Sometimes the GM will encourage you to think harder and only give a subtle hint. That's okay too; that's one way of teaching. At least by asking, you are communicating to your GM what your situation is and that you don't mind getting some help. Communicating your issues and expectations in a polite manner can improve the game for everyone.

------------

Savvy folk may realize that I've set up Investigation Ability Checks so that the GM can fudge rolls without his players' knowledge very easily. That's a side benefit; the main aim is to make actions for gathering information more interesting. Having the option to fudge important rolls is a good side benefit though, haha.

----------

Recommendation: Signs of Danger and Red Herrings

When describing an environment which holds a hidden danger to players, GMs will always include descriptions that suggests there are dangerous elements (traps, ambushes, etc.). However, the GM will also sometimes include descriptions that suggests danger when there is actually no danger. The GM does not have to explicitly tell the players that there are signs of danger in the environment; The GM may just describe an extra detail in the environment. It may be up to the players to realize that the description made by the GM sounds dangerous. 

Some examples of signs of danger include seeing a body with an arrow in its side, a small hole in the wall, differently colored stone tiles on the floor, birds are hooting around the party, a small rustling in the bushes, and a fallen tree blocking the path. Possible signs of danger may be for a once specific source of danger (egs. An ambush in the road ahead) for all the dangers of the same type in the area (a traps in a dungeon that follows a set pattern).

Players may ask for an Investigation Ability Check to help recognize if the signs of danger are genuine or not. An Investigation Ability Check result may inform players (correctly or wrongly) that there is a trap, ambush or some other danger. If the players ask for an Investigation Ability Check when none was called for (as there were in fact no possible signs of danger in the GM's description), the Investigation Ability Check may be considered trivial and so the GM immediately inform the player it’s safe. (This is generally recommended)

Etiquette: Players should try to let the GM finish their description before asking for an Investigation Ability Check. Asking for an Investigation Ability check for every mundane description by the GM is bad manners: save it for when you really think something truly sounds amiss.

Pragmatics: If a GM find that players too often misread their descriptions of the environment as suggestive of danger when that was not the GM's intention, the GM may consider making their descriptions of possible danger more obvious to players.

Players are not compelled to take any action based on the results of the Investigate Ability Check. For example, if the PC thinks that the crack in the wall isn’t really a trap due to their Investigation Ability Check, the player can still decide to play it safe and have their PC take another path further away from that crack in the wall.

To confirm their suspicions, even after an Investigative Ability Check is made, players may ask the GM’s to describe the immediate environment in more detail. Players may need tell the GM which part of the environment their PC examines more closely and how they examine it (egs. prodding the ground with a long pole).

As usual, if a PC attempts actions of which it is uncertain if the PC would be successful (egs. jumping over a wide floor trap), ability check rolls may be used to resolve the action. It is in the player’s interest to role-play out actions which are trivial enough not to require an ability check roll (egs. dropping a heavy bag on the floor).

Why should the GM always describe signs of danger when danger is present?
The GM acts as the eyes and ears of the PC by describing the environment to the players. The GM is also responsible for placing dangers that threaten the PCs in the environment. Since both describing the environment and placing dangers in the environment is the GM's responsibility, we think it is only fair for the GM to include of signs of dangers she had placed when she describes the environment.

False alarms are used to create uncertainty so that players never know for sure if the danger is genuine or not. It is up to the PCs to determine the signs of danger are genuine or even realize that the GM just described something in the environment that may be dangerous. This method gives players agency and the responsibility to be alert to possible dangers in the environment themselves.

---------

So those are my thoughts. Does anyone have any input? Ideas how to do it better? Better advice for players and GMs?