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

[Sword of Spirit]

5e Cloudkill text says:

"Creatures are affected even if they hold their breath or don't need to breathe."

But in general, if the effect did not state that, then sure, assume that "of course I try to hold my breath". And also assume that the saving throw already takes into account that "of course a character is going to try to hold their breath". Otherwise you might as well grant advantage on the Dex save if someone says they tried to dodge the fireball.

I agree with your rulings. I welcome players giving me standard procedures that I should assume. If actions are game relevant, they probably need to tell me that they do it as a matter of course (before it becomes relevant) or they need to tell me each time.

Examples of things they wouldn't need to tell me:
-Eating
-Relieving themselves
-Making some sort of effort at personal hygiene
-Locking an inn door that comes with a lock
-Picking up ammo after a fight, where feasible
-Trying to speak with an appropriate accent while in disguise (assuming reasonable intelligence or experience with disguise)

Examples of things they would need to tell me, but that I'd probably prompt them for if they neglected to mention it:
-Having watches while they sleep
-Trying to be quiet
-Using a light source in the dark (this one is hard to miss, because those without darkvision can't see anything without it)
-Avoiding speaking Common

Examples of things they would need to tell me, and I wouldn't prompt them:
-Avoiding touching something with your skin when you pick it up (ie, using gloves or something)
-Listening at a door
-Closing doors behind them
-Pulling a rope up behind them

 

[pming]

Hiya.

That's not accurate. I've known plenty of what you would call NS players who would honestly assess what their character would do, regardless of whether it was beneficial or harmful to them. Similarly, the DM will ask the player what they do rather than assume that they turned off their brain.

Plenty of NS players play in sandbox, no story, games. As such there is no story to continue. We have no issue at my table with killing characters, or letting the dice fall as they may, we just have no interest in cheap kills.

I shouldn't have to say this, but..."not every yadda yadda yadda". I was simply stating the two major camps. I would guess most groups are some of OS, some of NS, but all groups lean towards one side or the other. Sometimes extreme, sometimes not. The ones that fall in/around the 25-percentile mark are probably the best games (3:1 OS:NS, or 1:3 OS:NS)...those are the ones where a group rarely argues about what 'would have been done or not'. It's when you have a 3:1 DM trying to DM a 1:3 player where things can get...messy. Every group is different, basically.

Killing PCs is easy enough without saying that the PC dies of dehydration because the player didn't specifically say he was drinking from his full waterskin.

I'm guessing you are being silly/extreme to make a point...because if a DM is requiring a player to state his PC is drinking water should also be requiring a player to state his character is: sleeping, eating, going to the bathroom, getting dressed, putting on shoes, walking down the right side of the street, looking for potholes, stray dogs, oncoming traffic, etc, etc, etc. That's a level of minutia that nobody in their right mind would stand for. If you don't drink, you die. If you don't lock your door, you...well...nothing unless someone wants to sneak in a murder you in your sleep.

OS 'style' is about players specifically taking precautions against the obvious dangers in the situation...with failure to do so possibly resulting in death...and players using their own brains to keep their characters alive as opposed to relying on the DM to ask them for checks/saves (e.g., "Make a Wisdom save everyone...[rolls]...ok, Nivez made it. Nivez, you feel uneasy about trying to sleep in this dungeon room without taking some kind of precautions against wandering monsters coming in or other such potential dangers.")

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Fanaelialae]

Hiya.



I shouldn't have to say this, but..."not every yadda yadda yadda". I was simply stating the two major camps. I would guess most groups are some of OS, some of NS, but all groups lean towards one side or the other. Sometimes extreme, sometimes not. The ones that fall in/around the 25-percentile mark are probably the best games (3:1 OS:NS, or 1:3 OS:NS)...those are the ones where a group rarely argues about what 'would have been done or not'. It's when you have a 3:1 DM trying to DM a 1:3 player where things can get...messy. Every group is different, basically.

Sure, every group is different, but I still think you completely missed the point of NS play. It's not about "the players can never fail for the sake of a story". It's about eliminating the tedious and boring elements of the game and trying to maximize fun at the table. I suppose it's possible that for some the possibility of failure is unfun, and therefore would be excised, but such a group would be the outlier, not the norm.

I'm guessing you are being silly/extreme to make a point...because if a DM is requiring a player to state his PC is drinking water should also be requiring a player to state his character is: sleeping, eating, going to the bathroom, getting dressed, putting on shoes, walking down the right side of the street, looking for potholes, stray dogs, oncoming traffic, etc, etc, etc. That's a level of minutia that nobody in their right mind would stand for. If you don't drink, you die. If you don't lock your door, you...well...nothing unless someone wants to sneak in a murder you in your sleep.

OS 'style' is about players specifically taking precautions against the obvious dangers in the situation...with failure to do so possibly resulting in death...and players using their own brains to keep their characters alive as opposed to relying on the DM to ask them for checks/saves (e.g., "Make a Wisdom save everyone...[rolls]...ok, Nivez made it. Nivez, you feel uneasy about trying to sleep in this dungeon room without taking some kind of precautions against wandering monsters coming in or other such potential dangers.")

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Yes, it was a slightly exaggerated example for the sake of illustration. That said, not a massive stretch based on my experiences. When I had an OS DM we were constantly getting caught on inane technicalities that should have been blatant to our characters but weren't to us (because we are limited by experiencing the setting through the GM's descriptions and our own imaginations). As I said above, anyone intending to run in this style ought to have a talk with their players first.

As always, I'm not saying it's bad to play this way if you enjoy it. I simply do not.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, every group is different, but I still think you completely missed the point of NS play. It's not about "the players can never fail for the sake of a story". It's about eliminating the tedious and boring elements of the game and trying to maximize fun at the table. I suppose it's possible that for some the possibility of failure is unfun, and therefore would be excised, but such a group would be the outlier, not the norm.

The design trends over the years and editions would, sadly, suggest otherwise.

Failure is becoming less possible as the editions go by. Not impossible...not yet...but less possible.

And what you call the "tedious and boring elements" - the resource tracking, the careful searching, the slow cautious movement through unexplored territory, the telling the DM what you're doing and why - are in fact what tend to keep your characters alive. I think it was you (and if not, I apologize in advance) who didn't like gotcha DMs...but face it: the bog-standard adventuring world IS out to getcha. Adventuring is a risky business, with danger lurking around every corner...maybe...and so it's only logical that the PCs are going to quickly learn to be meticulous in what they do and how they do it. It's down to the players to convey this to the DM (usually by both asking lots of questions and being precise in describing actions) and not the other way around. The DM neutrally presents the world, and if the presentation isn't clear enough keep asking questions till it is. Otherwise.....gotcha.

I think a lot of the old-school new-school divide comes from expected pace of play. OS types don't mind taking the time to sweat the details, NS types just want to get on to the next encounter.

Lan-"to the NS types: slow down and smell the dungeon dressing"-efan

 

[guachi]

It's only a red flag if one doesn't do it every single time. I do.

And there's different types of searching, so just saying "I search" doesn't even tell me what you're looking for. Are you searching for traps, or secret doors, or treasure, or pretty seashells? Searching for secret doors, for example, tells me you're paying lots of attention to the walls (and sometimes even floor and ceiling) but aren't as concerned about the contents of the desk and footlocker.
Lanefan

I've noticed the modules I enjoy running have good room or area descriptions that invite players saying what and where they are searching/investigating. I'll read the boxed text (sometimes you get a good, succinct description like module U1 that allows the DM to give the PCs information while withholding stuff that they shouldn't know right away) and it might state that in this room there is a bed, desk, footlocker, closet, and small chest.

After reading the boxed text I'll summarize what's in the room leaving out the adjectival descriptors. "Again, the noticeable things in the room are a bed, desk, footlocker, closet, and small chest. What do you want to do?" It naturally leads the PCs to precisely state where they are going, it gives each PC a chance to help search and it enables the DM to direct what is found to a particular PC and look directly at them while you tell them. This keeps them more engaged.

U1 Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh is a well-regarded module. And I'm convinced its good room descriptions are a reason. Since it was the first adventure I did in my current campaign, I and the PCs have become used to being particular about where the PCs go.

tl;dr - Give the PCs enough interesting things to interact with often enough and you can get away with doing it every time even if there are times where there isn't anything obvious to search or interact with.

 

[Soul Stigma]

Regarding Cloudkill, holding your breath is a function tied to Con anyway and would not grant any benefit. I might give advantage if they say they tear some cloth and place it over their nose/mouth. Is it really a filter? No, but the player is thinking and acting like a character trying to survive, and that's worth something. "I run through the cloud" assumes nothing but running through the cloud.

As for the rope scenario, rope is a resource that the characters are unlikely to leave behind, even if their players forget. My group wouldn't forget because they tend to be in the zone with roleplay and think like their characters. Not all players are like that, though. Players who get more out of combat and the "game" part of RPG may not be good at thinking like a character in that situation. I guess what I'm saying is the rope scenario is more of a "gotcha" in my view and Morath has a point that the character wouldn't forget the rope.

So, what to assume as a DM? Give characters the benefit of the doubt. Case in point, my group includes my wife and we all have a drink while playing, so it becomes Drunks & Dragons as the night goes on. Her Sorceress is elegant in speech. During conversation with NPCs, drunk wife will be blunt and slightly confused, but will say "Of course Varia is saying this much cooler" and I assume she is, lol.

Assume things core to the PC. The party doesn't have to constantly say they're checking for traps, but unless they do state it, I use passive skill values for them. I really like passive abilities for this.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The design trends over the years and editions would, sadly, suggest otherwise.

Failure is becoming less possible as the editions go by. Not impossible...not yet...but less possible.

I disagree. The newer edition empower DMs with greater control. For example, prior to 4e it was quite easy it accidentally kill a PC by taking them to -10 (or 0, depending on edition).

Starting in 4e, they introduced death saves, which function as a small buffer where everyone is aware that the PC is in danger of dying. A DM can still kill PCs; I've killed plenty myself. But it's far less likely to happen by accident.

And what you call the "tedious and boring elements" - the resource tracking, the careful searching, the slow cautious movement through unexplored territory, the telling the DM what you're doing and why - are in fact what tend to keep your characters alive. I think it was you (and if not, I apologize in advance) who didn't like gotcha DMs...but face it: the bog-standard adventuring world IS out to getcha. Adventuring is a risky business, with danger lurking around every corner...maybe...and so it's only logical that the PCs are going to quickly learn to be meticulous in what they do and how they do it. It's down to the players to convey this to the DM (usually by both asking lots of questions and being precise in describing actions) and not the other way around. The DM neutrally presents the world, and if the presentation isn't clear enough keep asking questions till it is. Otherwise.....gotcha.

The world, much like the DM, is neutral. Even a trap dungeon isn't there to getcha, it's there to prevent you from getting through it.

There are plenty of survival things that can be reasonably assumed, like locking the door of your inn room before you go to sleep. It's something that anyone would do. I'm an extremely absent minded person in real life, yet I can't recall the last time I forgot to lock the door to my apartment. But a player who doesn't think to say that has a character who forgets throughout the entire campaign, at least until the DM pulls the gotcha card and has an assassin walk into his room. It's nonsensical to me. The character would have noticed sooner or later that he was forgetting to lock the door, but if the player assumes that it goes without saying and the DM doesn't point it out, then the character somehow overlooks this rather obvious thing (at the very least he should realize his mistake when he goes to leave the room in the morning).

And yes, I am a DM/player who detests gotcha DMing (if you like it, good for you, just don't ask me to play). As I see it, if I'm going to mess with the PCs, it will be because of their own choices. Not because they forgot to mention something that ought to be blatantly obvious to anyone with even half a brain.

When it matters I will ask my players what they are doing and how, if they haven't already specified. When it doesn't matter, why bother?

I think a lot of the old-school new-school divide comes from expected pace of play. OS types don't mind taking the time to sweat the details, NS types just want to get on to the next encounter.

Lan-"to the NS types: slow down and smell the dungeon dressing"-efan

It's not about rushing to the next encounter. It's about not wasting time on boring things. There's a famous quote about D&D being 30 minutes of fun stretched over 4 hours (or something like that). NS is all about improving that ratio.

 

[Seramus]

OS 'style' is about players specifically taking precautions against the obvious dangers in the situation...with failure to do so possibly resulting in death...and players using their own brains to keep their characters alive as opposed to relying on the DM to ask them for checks/saves (e.g., "Make a Wisdom save everyone...[rolls]...ok, Nivez made it. Nivez, you feel uneasy about trying to sleep in this dungeon room without taking some kind of precautions against wandering monsters coming in or other such potential dangers.")

Old School is usually about challenging the Player.
New School is usually about challenging the Character.

I have no opinion about which is better. That's not a value statement. Just the way it almost always works out.

 

[iserith]

Old School is usually about challenging the Player.
New School is usually about challenging the Character.

I have no opinion about which is better. That's not a value statement. Just the way it almost always works out.

I've heard this floated a lot, but it doesn't make sense. The game challenges the player, always.

How a DM sets about challenging the player can vary, however.

 

[guachi]

I think it's about "things on a sheet" versus "things not on a sheet"

Example:
DM: You are in a room. There are no exits you can see as the large stone door you entered has shut tight, seemingly of its own volition. As you look around you see figures in bas relief on one of the walls and a number of skeletons on the floor.

PCs: We go look at floor/wall. How many skeletons?

DM: You count 15 skeletons.

PCs: What about the figures?

DM: You see a number of figures in faded relief and...

PCs: How many?

DM: 15.

PCs: Hmm...

DM: ... and six (there were 6 PCs) that appear to be newly carved and...

PC: (Player playing the fighter) I grab my dagger and scratch it out!!

DM: What?

PC: I scratch them out! Probably weren't well-carved, anyway!

DM: Ok... you scratch them out and an exit opens at the other end of the room. You solved the trap before I could even finish describing it. I hate you. I hate you all. Rocks fall. You all die.

PCs: .

DM:

I assume that's what "challenge the player" means.