[Donjon] Question

[jshaffstall]

First, let me say that I love what I've read of Donjon.  The abstraction of wealth and provisions is inspired, and the level of player involvement looks to be quite fun.  

I'm probably missing something basic, though.  In a GM set encounter, how do you handle, for example, a trap that characters can detect?  I can see describing the encounter, and then asking for a discernment roll.  But on a success, the player describes what's found by stating facts, right?  How does the detection of the GM laid trap work?  

I think an example of this would help me immensely.

Thanks,
Jay

[tetsujin28]

I've only just gotten the book, myself. But lessee.

Pre-set encounters always occur, if I get it right. And traps are represented just like anything else, so a certain #of dice + Donjon Level vs. the character's discernment + anything that would apply. If the DM is victorious, then the trap goes off, but the player narrates the facts that have been decided by the DM's number of successes. And vice versa.

[jshaffstall]

I guess I need to elaborate a bit on what I'm having trouble with...I'm okay with the mechanices of deciding if the character finds the trap or not.  I think I'm mentally dividing the situation into two possibilities:

1) Character doesn't find the trap, it goes off
2) Character finds the trap, possibly avoids it

The first possibility is straightforward...the player fails the roll, and the GM states some facts and there's a damage test.

The second possibility is what stretches my mind a bit...on a successful roll, the player states the facts, which could very well be something like, "my character detects nothing", or at the very least is highly unlikely to be, "my character detects a deadfall trap" (or whatever trap the GM had put in there).  

So, does the player success remove the trap from play entirely?  Possibly replacing it with another trap the player states as a fact?  

Jay

[tetsujin28]

Well, it seems to me to depend on the circumstances.

If it's a DM-set encounter, then the trap is there, just waiting for the PCs to discover it at some point or another. If the player makes a successful discernment roll, the DM will say, "It's a spike trap", and the player will get to narrate the facts of how the PC escapes it. Examples of this kind of trap are on pgs. 63 and 64.

If it's a trap that the player finds, then it wasn't there before. If successful, well, the trap's basically avoided - few players will narrate themselves into a trap ;) Basically, it ends up a storytelling device: "Well, see, there was this really nasty pit trap, but 'cause I rule, none of you idiots fell into it, and we continued safely on our way".

Another way to use the same idea is if you're in combat, and you're fleeing from an orc. But you declare, "I'm looking for traps!" If successful, the player found a trap...but the orc probably didn't. And the player gets to narrate how bad the trap is based on how many successes he got. Too bad, orc. And don't forget: the DM can do the same thing!

And of course, you can combine the two. Say that the second time that the player looks for traps, he finds the encounter, moving the story along. Or worse: if the player hadn't unsuccessfully looked for traps, there never would have been a trap. But now there is...heh-heh!

 Remember: players are the enemy (says so right on pg. 4)!

[jshaffstall]

If it's a DM-set encounter, then the trap is there, just waiting for the PCs to discover it at some point or another. If the player makes a successful discernment roll, the DM will say, "It's a spike trap", and the player will get to narrate the facts of how the PC escapes it. Examples of this kind of trap are on pgs. 63 and 64.

Oh...yes!  I was completely missing the idea where the GM could specify what was found, *before* the player states their facts, and then player facts would be used to specify how it was avoided.  

Although, I suppose that knowing what is coming might give players quite an advantage in specifying their facts (e.g. GM, "you see a dozen orcs trying to ambush you", Player: "Behind the orcs is a group of cavalry").

For a game that tries to capture the DM versus the players feel of old-school DnD, there's an awful lot of agreement needed to keep the game enjoyable for everyone and avoid an arms race (GM: "behind the group of calvalry is the ogre army the orcs are scouts for").  

Anyway, thanks for the insight!  That helps immensely.

Jay

[tetsujin28]

You're welcome!

As far as the cavalry thing goes, remember they'd have to have an approriate ability, like, "Followed around by the cavalry", or something like that. And I'd set the difficulty mighty high ;)

[Bob McNamee]

Remember too...
If the Player just states "behind the orcs is a group of cavalry"...the Donjon Master is quite in his rights too add "Orc Cavalry, riding Wargs"