Beginner's Traps Thread

After ...let's say talking with a couple of friends, I found out they didn't share my hatred of beginners traps. I want to know your thoughts on them. ...the beginners traps I mean, not my friends.

A beginners trap is a form of trial and error in which the player is punished (often with a Game Over) for something that there was little to no way of knowing would happen in advance. For example-

-If I try to open a door and it's locked, that's reasonable because a door being locked is a reasonable assumption to make.
-If I try to open a door, and I'm instantally eaten by a dragon, that would be a beginners trap.
-If there was a clue warning me that trying to open the door would get me eaten by a dragon, that's fine.
-If to get that clue, I have approach the door backwards, spin round 3 times counter clockwise, and knock twice, would that be a beginners trap?

I'd say yes, because the actions are so cryptic that no one is going to reasonabley guess that, and even if they did, there's no rational reason to do that.

Now for some practical examples.
There's no way to know going down the first ladder would get you killed.
Youtu.be
And here's a bunch from Dark Souls 2, a game series that fans insist is "tough but fair".
Youtu.be

The point that my friends seem to disagree with me on is the "reasonable" part. Looking at Dark Souls again, the mimics (fake chests) can kill you in 1 hit (or at least do heavy damage) if you try to open them. The way to tell if it's a chest or a mimic? A chain on the side lies straight on one, and curved on the other. Even knowing what to look for (which a new player wouldn't) that still doesn't give a clue to which chest would be the fake without opening one first. If you've not played the game, I'd like to know your guess.

And in case you think I'm exagerating, here's a link showing both. (And the answer)
Darksouls.wdfiles.com

I don't like beginner's traps for a number of reasons. As a dev I think they are bad design, and as a player I find them frustrating because I had no (reasonable) way of knowing. I'd like your thoughts, if you have any.

They seem to be part of bad design - however, on the other hand, they kind of force players to open their eyes and to be watchful and more immersed (or immediately rage quit) and be ready for surprises (especially those nasty ones).

- if you open a door and you are instantly eaten by a dragon, but you are not digested right away and you can slash your way out of his stomach, that would not count as a beginner's trap either

- if you got a clear plot follow-up, and you knew a dragon can appear out of nowhere, any minute (not really a clue or warning; yet something entirely devisable from the distinct game world/story), that would not be a beginner's trap either but would count as a trap because you would have to pay attention to the not so obvious info about the world of the game or die repeatedly because of e.g. missing "details" in books/notes found throughout the game <- clues not so clear, but not so obscure either

Also the problem is if you make some things too obvious (mimics and true chests too different), there is a possibility that will cut out all unknowns from the game - which in turn leads to boredom caused by everything made too predictable, too easily outwitted by the player. The true designer's skill is to make game challenging, logical enough and yet still passable/playable.

I'd heard that's part of the "fun" of playing Dark souls.

But I can't stand those kind of things. They ruin the fun for me. I consider it cheap. I agree there's a difference between a lazy player and a "screw you" to the player.

I've seen them in several popular games and it drives me crazy that it's not pointed out but hey, I'm just one person.

Here's my view, since i'm neither you nor a friend.

-If I try to open a door and it's locked, that's reasonable because a door being locked is a reasonable assumption to make.

No, actually it isn't. Let's put it this way: In video games most doors are fake doors, that can be neither opened or closed because they aren't actually doors. Seems like a petty thing to differentiate but think how often you can climb out windows. A game contains as much reason as was explicitly put into it.

-If I try to open a door, and I'm instantally eaten by a dragon, that would be a beginners trap.

This is irrelevant on it's own, only to set up the next question. Err. The example is awful. Mimics fit well into dork seuls, i think, never played.

-If there was a clue warning me that trying to open the door would get me eaten by a dragon, that's fine.

So are you talking about? An action -> failstate mechanic or that it wasn't telegraphed to a degree at some time prior to the execution? I'm assuming it's the latter, which is a perceived problem with "narrative", not mechanical design that you talked about. I'll also note the linguistic paradox of a bad "beginner (lack of knowledge)" trap and a "good ( known, predictable )" trap.

-If to get that clue, I have approach the door backwards, spin round 3 times counter clockwise, and knock twice, would that be a beginners trap?

No, that would be an "easter egg," early form of copy protection, or a way of making you purchase complimentary products like official magazines/guides.

- Resident crazy person

Edited by: somonels

They seem to be part of bad design - however, on the other hand, they kind of force players to open their eyes and to be watchful and more immersed (or immediately rage quit) and be ready for surprises (especially those nasty ones).

- if you open a door and you are instantly eaten by a dragon, but you are not digested right away and you can slash your way out of his stomach, that would not count as a beginner's trap either

- if you got a clear plot follow-up, and you knew a dragon can appear out of nowhere, any minute (not really a clue or warning; yet something entirely devisable from the distinct game world/story), that would not be a beginner's trap either but would count as a trap because you would have to pay attention to the not so obvious info about the world of the game or die repeatedly because of e.g. missing "details" in books/notes found throughout the game <- clues not so clear, but not so obscure either

Also the problem is if you make some things too obvious (mimics and true chests too different), there is a possibility that will cut out all unknowns from the game - which in turn leads to boredom caused by everything made too predictable, too easily outwitted by the player. The true designer's skill is to make game challenging, logical enough and yet still passable/playable.

Your last line "The true designer's skill is to make game challenging, logical enough and yet still passable/playable." is correct, the problem being is that these are not passable until the player has failed once. A locked door makes sense, you don't lose anything for trying the door, and since many doors can be locked (I assume you have at least 1 stopping people from entering your house) then walking up to a door and having it be locked makes sense. The clues can be difficult or obscure, but they have to be reasonable.

I've seen them in several popular games and it drives me crazy that it's not pointed out but hey, I'm just one person.

Likewise.

I'd heard that's part of the "fun" of playing Dark souls.

And that's why I don't want to play it.

Mimics fit well into dork seuls, i think, never played.

The creature itself, maybe. The reason I'm using them as an example is that Dark Souls is constantly held up as being tough but fair, that every death is the fault of the player not paying attention. And yet I have yet to hear of a player making it through the game first time without dying because they payed attention. Also, there's the link in the original post that shows some examples of unfair deaths.