D&D 5E What actions by a PC Don't need to be stated?

[Fanaelialae]

In general, if there is something that might be reasonably assumed but that they didn't say, I will either assume they did so or prompt the player myself. Doing otherwise is, IMO, 'gotcha' DMing which is not a style of game that my table enjoys. It's like saying that a PC dies of renal failure because the player didn't explicitly state that he would periodically take bathroom breaks. Or like a player forgetting to state that his character picks up his cherished holy avenger, which he dropped to draw his long bow, and therefore leaving behind one of his character's most precious items (which is right there in plain sight of the entire party, but might be overlooked in the imaginations of your players).

I'm sure it works for some tables, but I view it as a very antagonistic style of DMing, so it's definitely something I think everyone at the table needs to agree to beforehand.

There was a time when my group had a DM who ran that way. IMO, never again. It was the least fun I've ever had playing D&D.

So last session me and one of my players got into a minor argument a couple of times about what his character was doing.For the purpose of this post we'll call him Morath (his PC's name). I want the your guy's opinion on whether I made the right calls in the specific situations and also on how other DM's handle the idea of what actions by a PC don't need to be stated . Skip to the Bold if you want to just get to the general question and skip the specifics scenarios.

1) Morath rushed through a cloudkill spell to reach the rest of the party on the other side. I had him roll his con save and another player asked if he holding your breath when going through the cloud allowed you to make the save with advantage. Morath says that of course he was holding his breath when he ran through the cloudkill. I inform him that he would have had to state that before running into the cloud and Morath argues that he thought it went without saying that he did so.

On this issue my thinking is that if you want to try for some sort of mechanical advantage, such as getting advantage on a save, you HAVE to tell me your doing something. I'm not going to assume it.
Also I never actually made a call during the session, since I established that he wasn't holding his breath, but I would have ruled that holding your breath does nothing to help. It's more an issue of the PC's having to state they are doing any action they are hoping to grant them a mechanical advantage, whether or not the action actually helps at all.

It's reasonable to assume that if you are charging through a cloud of gas that you know or suspect to be poisonous (Cloudkill is described as yellowish green vapors) then you are holding your breath unless otherwise stated.

That said, Cloudkill says it functions on targets even if they're holding their breath or not breathing, so a quick look at the spell description would have rendered this argument moot.

2)Morath and another PC are sleeping inside of a statue that has stairs leading to the top. The stairs are collapsed partway up and the only way to the top of the statue is by climbing a rope. The next morning the party has left the area, comes back, and finds a wizard at the top of the statue with the rope curled around his feet. When talking about it Morath claims that of course he would have pulled the rope up after him when climbing the tower, he thought it didn't need to be stated that he would do so. I again said that he would have had to of told me he did so the night before when they were making the camp.

On this issue my thinking is that I'm not going to make assumptions about the parties preparations that they don't state. During the previous scenario the other half of the party described how the tied off doors to secure their camp and what watch order they took. Morath and his companion described how they climbed the tower and set up a guardian of faith at the top of the tower. If they didn't also state "we also pull up the rope after us" then the rope is still hanging down.

So my general style of DMing, as you may have guessed by my answers above, is that if you don't tell me about something it didn't happen. I try and be fair about this. If the party makes a plan I will generally ask if that is all they are doing and then repeat the plan back to them, to clear up any misunderstandings. If the party says something like "we make camp for the night" I don't just assume they fall over asleep on the spot, I'll prod them about watch order and any defenses they want to erect.

My question to you playground is what do you think it is reasonable to just assume a PC is doing even if they don't state it? in a dungeon are they closing doors behind them? Are they collecting rope used in exploring? If they sleep in a dungeon is it assumed the door is barricaded? If they sleep in an inn is it assumed the door is locked? Where do you draw the line?

P.S. if curious my answer to the above is no, no, no, and yes.

It's also reasonable to assume that if the PCs took pains to camp in a difficult to reach location, they pulled the rope up behind them. Now, if there are reasons to leave the rope down (the rogue is still downstairs doing a bit of scouting) then, again, it's best to simply ask.


Requiring the players to state things that can be reasonably assumed is fine if everyone involved wants to play that style of game.

Otherwise, it is antagonistic and mires the game in nonsensical tedium, as the players learn to specify all manner of meaningless minutia lest the DM pull a 'gotcha' on them.

 

[outsider]

Requiring the players to state things that can be reasonably assumed is fine if everyone involved wants to play that style of game.

Otherwise, it is antagonistic and mires the game in nonsensical tedium, as the players learn to specify all manner of meaningless minutia lest the DM pull a 'gotcha' on them.

Yeah, that type of game isn't inherently bad or anything(some people clearly really enjoy it), it's just not the type of game I want to play in. I've done it(even semi-successfully), it's just not my kind of fun. And it sounds like the player in question has a similar distaste for it.

 

[iserith]

I think a good policy is for the DM to not assume what the PCs are doing or to narrate what they do, even when describing the result of the adventurers' actions. The players describe what they want the characters to do, not the DM. The players should be reasonably specific as to their goal and approach so that the DM has enough information to determine if mechanics need to come into play and to adjudicate a result without making assumptions about what the characters are doing. The exception will be assumptions that are agreed upon beforehand such as stating that a character is assumed to be keeping watch for danger while traveling provided they do not state some other ongoing task, for example.

At the same time, players cannot be expected to detail every single thing, hence why I say the players must be reasonably specific. This means in some cases being okay with the players retroactively saying they did a thing, provided that seems like a logical thing for the character to have done and does not contradict something that has already been established in the fiction. Typically, they will say something like this in my experience because the DM is setting up some kind of problem or challenge related to a thing they did not say. Therefore, if the DM avoids doing that, there should be very few instances of it occurring.

The boundaries are not clear on situations like this and will vary from group to group, even situation to situation. The best way to deal with it is upfront by having a discussion about it with the players to figure out what works for everyone and then everyone holding to that agreement consistently going forward.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] Your points are well received. I don't recommend SOPs for every group. They take time. They're imperfect.

I do recommend them for the OP's group given when he shared about several occasions of "so now that..." "wait a minute, we did this of course" "but you didn't say" "but it's obvious" etc.

 

[Satyrn]

. . . Why would the PCs shut the doors behind them in a dungeon? That's crazy idiocy.

It'd just block their escape when they stumble on a dragon and must flee for their lives.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

. . . Why would the PCs shut the doors behind them in a dungeon? That's crazy idiocy.

It'd just block their escape when they stumble on a dragon and must flee for their lives.

On the other hand, shutting the door prevents black puddings from silently following you through the door and feasting on you while the party is asleep.

Choices, choices.

 

[SkidAce]

"I did, I totally cast Mordenkaine's Faithfull Watchdog"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vChEPj0dXXk

 

[Satyrn]

On the other hand, shutting the door prevents black puddings from silently following you through the door and feasting on you while the party is asleep.

Choices, choices.

Well that's just evil of you! You're trying to make everyone think closing a door will keep them safe them feel safe from a critter that can just slide right on underneath it

 

[Shiroiken]

1) of course he held his breath... otherwise he would have died instantly!

Seriously, there is no benefit for holding your breath, for a multitude of reasons besides the fact that the spell doesn't say it. Part of the save is to determine how quickly you can stop breathing in the fumes and how well you can hold your breath during the exposure. Also, the poison could enter through his eyes and any open wounds, so breathing isn't mandatory.

2) This is a non-obvious action to me. Since they jumped down, how did they expect to get back up there? Of course, I'm not sure why they'd jump down if they could just use the rope. This is something that required clarification from the player, but you could have asked for reasoning to help. If there's an obvious reason to jump down, rather than use the rope (such as to drop into a battle quicker), then it's on the player. If there's no obvious reason, you probably should have asked.

 

[robus]

I would say that if they are hoping for a mechanical advantage then they need to say before hand. "I climb the cliff." <fail roll> "oh btw I was using my rope and pitons" does sound gamey to me. " I unsling my pack, take out my climbing gear and climb the cliff." makes for better RP IMO, though this can go too far if the players get carried away with paranoia and detail every minute action - "I take out my rope and tie it around my waist. Climb 10 feet then hammer in a piton before continuing anther 10 feet..."

This is why it's good to clarify the approach as well as the goal. If the player just says "I climb the wall" that's not enough information to adjudicate the result if the wall has a particular DC. So the immediate response from the DM should be "and how are you going about that?" The player then clarifies the approach and then the DM can adjudicate, either deciding they fail, succeed or need to roll.