D&D 5E What are your biggest immersion breakers, rules wise?

[The Crimson Binome]

Right, which is why we roll the die. A person’s assessment of their own abilities is not 100% accurate and they can’t account for all possible variables, so the dice make a decent abstract representation of those unpredictable factors. Which is all well and good, as long as there is something stopping the character from trying repeatedly until those unpredictable variables line up just right.

This used to bother me, too, until I started thinking more about those unknown factors.

There's no real necessity that those unknown factors must change over time. Unknown does not mean uncertain. It doesn't necessarily reflect things like your hand twitching, or the sun getting in your eyes. It could reflect particular traits of the construction, which will remain fixed after we determine what those are; and if you can't do something the first time, then you wouldn't be able to do it by trying a second time, since those same variables are still in place.

As an example, let's say you have a 25% chance of lifting a specific box. You can't see what's in the box. You try to lift it, and fail by a significant margin. Why did you fail? Apparently this particular box was actually filled with old RPG books, and it's far too heavy for you to lift. You could try again, but you'll definitely fail again, because you're still not strong enough.

Basically, the uncertainty of the die roll is being used to fill in unknowns that the GM overlooked when designing the world. If they hadn't left that unknown, and instead written down what was in the box, then they could have skipped straight to telling you that you fail instead of rolling.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You'll see it much more from DMs who started with 1e, as one-roll-only is RAW there.

Seemed like a good idea at the time: there was no consequence, for instance, for failing to pick a lock that would keep you from trying again. IIRC, the "RaW" was no re-try, until the Thief gained a level!
I used to explain it, when pressed, as breaking a pick off in the lock, or damaging the lock or something - which, of course, was creating such a consequence.

Me: 'This rule breaks my immersion, so I've chosen to ignore it and replace it with something better'
You: 'That [i.e. my version] is not what the rule says'
Me: 'I agree that's not what the rule says; I've already changed it because the original rule is garbage'
Put another way, I'm complaining that my immersion is broken when I don't ignore the rules as written.

This is what you claim breaks your immersion.

All fine until those arrows are poison-tipped, at which point this train of thought comes off the rails.
If I get hit by 6 poisoned arrows I have to make 6 saves vs poison; and the very fact I have to make those saves at all says that each arrow either touched my skin (for contact poison) or broke my skin (for just abut any other type of poison).

Now, I know you play 1e, and have a 1e DMG, and that's simply /not/ what the 'RAW' says, on p81. If you make the save, then you did not receive a wound that could deliver the poison; the arrow didn't scratch you, contact poison arrow didn't even touch your skin.

Now 1e Gygaxisms were ambiguous circumlocutions at best, but it is absolutely possible, and perfectly fair, to interpret that passage in a way that does /not/ lead to "6 arrows = 6 wounds, because poison." Choosing not to do so is you break'n your own immersion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yep, I'd be another who does it that way; and despite @doctorbadwolf 's opinion I don't see myself as a "garbage DM" for doing so.

You'll see it much more from DMs who started with 1e, as one-roll-only is RAW there.

By your description, you aren’t doing what Charlequin first described before I said I’d never seen or heard of such a thing.

I’ve no issue with requiring a change in circumstance. What they described was “you cannot retry, ever”. Which is quite different.

 

[Charlaquin]

And this is the problem in a nutshell: you're taking that eventual success* as a given. How, under the hood, is this any different than Take-20?

Because take-20 is a player-facing option. It tells the player “you can spend 20 times as long to do a thing, and then the DM has to let you succeed unless the DC is higher than 20 + your modifier. Framing it this way also conflates actions with checks. Teaching the DM to evaluate whether or not actions have costs or consequences, and only call for checks to resolve actions that do doesn’t have that problem.

Put another way, in any case where the outcome is doubtful enough to require rolling dice even just once, eventual success on repeated tries should never be guaranteed.

* - or, if what you're trying to do really is beyond you, eventual failure

I would argue that it isn’t guaranteed, so long as the action has a cost or consequence for failure. And if the action doesn’t have a cost or consequence for failure, then a check shouldn’t be called for.

 

[Charlaquin]

By your description, you aren’t doing what Charlequin first described before I said I’d never seen or heard of such a thing.

I’ve no issue with requiring a change in circumstance. What they described was “you cannot retry, ever”. Which is quite different.

No, I was describing “can’t retry until circumstances change.” That’s what this part was referring to:

Usually DMs who do this rule that you either have to take a different approach, or try again after your bonus to the check has increased.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

And this is what I was getting at when I was saying that (the thing I’ve been referring to
as) “best effort” harms my ability to assess my character’s capabilities and make predictions about the likely outcomes of events. If you just decided the lock was rusty on a whim, to explain in terms of the fiction why I didn’t succeed, then there is no way I could have predicted that outcome. That leads to questions of “well, why couldn’t I tell the lock was rusty before trying to pick it? I would have done something different if you had described the rust first.” It makes it difficult to immerse myself in my character because I can’t make decisions as I think my character would when I am lacking vital information that would inform my character’s decision-making.

An interesting look at the 4th dimension of time....

I, as a GM, cannot see into the future. Thus I cannot give you "all the things your character should have known about the situation" before those thoughts have even been created in my head. Literally all my notes say is "There is a chest with 5 healing potions in it and a DC 15 lock". You, as a player, can ask me 1000 detailed questions on the chest that I can make up answers to before you make the check.

What kind of wood is it made from? Oak
What metal is the lock? Steel
Does it look rusted? Not particularly
What are its exact dimensions? 10X8X8
If I lick the wood what does it taste like? Moldy oak
Etc...

Then you say your character is going to try to unlock the chest.

IF there was no reason for you not being able to keep trying until you get it....then I would roll a die behind the screen (1-20) and narrate how it was a simple twist of the wrist or that someone had shoved a copper piece in the mechanism and it took awhile but you got it open...then give you the potions.

OR

If there is a reason for you not being able to keep trying (EVEN IF THAT REASON IS ME, THE GM, DECIDING YOU ARE BREEZING THROUGH THE ADVENTURE AND I NEED TO UP THE DIFFICULTY A BIT) then I would tell you to roll the dice and see if you can get the chest open. You get a 2 and fail the check. Then I have to come up with some reason to narrate to you why there is a delay in your trying again (because otherwise I would have used the other narrative only option). Yea, the copper piece in the slot won't come out without taking the lock apart completely.

At this point you can try something OTHER than just rolling again. Maybe the wizard has a grease spell, or shrink powder, or maybe the barbarian just whacks it, or maybe you disassemble the lock and it takes a short rest to get it open. There are a LOT of other solutions to getting the goodies that doesn't include you just rolling over and over until you succeed.

The words spoken between GM and Player do not represent the entirety of the information the character observed nor does it represent the entirety of all the actions the character took.

If your character is picking a lock...they are literally doing everything in their power (at the moment, however long that moment might be) to open the lock. If the lock was rusty, they are adding in some oil. If it needs more force they are using the correct tools. You don't have to, as a player, narrate that you are oiling the lock or that you are using the #3 bent hook instead of the #7 spring hook because its just naturally assumed.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Real world example.

What would you set the DC for for the our actual real world action "Open a lock with the correct key?" I'd say maybe a 3???

But yet....there are not one but TWO padlocks that I deal with on a regular basis that are a PAIN IN THE ASS. If I were hastily trying to open those padlocks while dodging arrows or fireballs it would probably take me a few rounds to get them open. One has to have the key pulled back out about a millimeter or it will only turn half way so I slowly pull the key out while constantly trying to twist it. The other, despite being new and expensive, was slightly defective and it takes about 5 minutes of twisting, pulling, praying, and luck to release the key once its been put in the lock.

So does this mean that I, as a person, have a -10 to my disable device checks or that I am somehow fundamentally bad at opening locks with the proper key? No, its just those two locks. Its not a comment on myself in any way just like your character trying and failing at that one random lock in a dungeon may have nothing to do with their skills or abilities. The die rolling doesn't say if your character did a good job, narratively, it just says that you tried and failed for some reason.

 

[Charlaquin]

An interesting look at the 4th dimension of time....

I, as a GM, cannot see into the future. Thus I cannot give you "all the things your character should have known about the situation" before those thoughts have even been created in my head. Literally all my notes say is "There is a chest with 5 healing potions in it and a DC 15 lock". You, as a player, can ask me 1000 detailed questions on the chest that I can make up answers to before you make the check.

What kind of wood is it made from? Oak
What metal is the lock? Steel
Does it look rusted? Not particularly
What are its exact dimensions? 10X8X8
If I lick the wood what does it taste like? Moldy oak
Etc...

Then you say your character is going to try to unlock the chest. In this hypothetical we don’t seem to be observing the flow of play described in the How to Play section of the 5e rules. According to that, it is your responsibility as DM to describe the environment. My responsibility as a player is to describe what I want to do, not to uncover the details of the environment by asking 1000 detailed questions. If all you put in your notes was "There is a chest with 5 healing potions in it and a DC 15 lock,” then you will need to do some improvisation to fulfill your responsibility of describing the environment. Which is totally fine if you like to do it that way, but if your improvised description didn’t include rust on the lock, then rust on the lock shouldn’t be given as a reason my check failed after the fact.

IF there was no reason for you not being able to keep trying until you get it....then I would roll a die behind the screen (1-20) and narrate how it was a simple twist of the wrist or that someone had shoved a copper piece in the mechanism and it took awhile but you got it open...then give you the potions.

That wouldn’t be immersion breaking, but I wouldn’t care for it for other reasons.

OR

If there is a reason for you not being able to keep trying (EVEN IF THAT REASON IS ME, THE GM, DECIDING YOU ARE BREEZING THROUGH THE ADVENTURE AND I NEED TO UP THE DIFFICULTY A BIT)

And again, here’s the problem. If the reason I can’t decide is that you decided so, it ruins my ability to make predictions about the likely outcomes of events, because I can’t read your mind.

then I would tell you to roll the dice and see if you can get the chest open. You get a 2 and fail the check. Then I have to come up with some reason to narrate to you why there is a delay in your trying again (because otherwise I would have used the other narrative only option). Yea, the copper piece in the slot won't come out without taking the lock apart completely.

At this point you can try something OTHER than just rolling again. Maybe the wizard has a grease spell, or shrink powder, or maybe the barbarian just whacks it, or maybe you disassemble the lock and it takes a short rest to get it open. There are a LOT of other solutions to getting the goodies that doesn't include you just rolling over and over until you succeed.

The words spoken between GM and Player do not represent the entirety of the information the character observed nor does it represent the entirety of all the actions the character took.

If your character is picking a lock...they are literally doing everything in their power (at the moment, however long that moment might be) to open the lock. If the lock was rusty, they are adding in some oil. If it needs more force they are using the correct tools. You don't have to, as a player, narrate that you are oiling the lock or that you are using the #3 bent hook instead of the #7 spring hook because its just naturally assumed.

Yes, I understand the reasoning behind this style of DMing. I still find it horribly meta.

 

[Charlaquin]

Real world example.

What would you set the DC for for the our actual real world action "Open a lock with the correct key?" I'd say maybe a 3???

But yet....there are not one but TWO padlocks that I deal with on a regular basis that are a PAIN IN THE ASS. If I were hastily trying to open those padlocks while dodging arrows or fireballs it would probably take me a few rounds to get them open.

Right, and if you have as long as you want to try to open those locks, you’ll eventually get it. If you’re being shot at by arrows and fireballs, there’s a consequence for failing to open them (more time that you’re at risk of being killed by arrows and fireballs). So you should be allowed to try, at the risk of suffering that consequence, as many times as you are willing to accept that risk proposition.

One has to have the key pulled back out about a millimeter or it will only turn half way so I slowly pull the key out while constantly trying to twist it. The other, despite being new and expensive, was slightly defective and it takes about 5 minutes of twisting, pulling, praying, and luck to release the key once its been put in the lock.

So does this mean that I, as a person, have a -10 to my disable device checks or that I am somehow fundamentally bad at opening locks with the proper key? No, its just those two locks.

If it’s those locks, they should have a higher DC to open (in a situation where a roll is even necessary i.e. a cost or consequence).

Its not a comment on myself in any way just like your character trying and failing at that one random lock in a dungeon may have nothing to do with their skills or abilities. The die rolling doesn't say if your character did a good job, narratively, it just says that you tried and failed for some reason.

Mhmm. But trying and failing to unlock one of these locks when there are not fireballs and arrows being shot at you, or wandering monsters that have an increasing chance of finding you the longer you spend trying to open them, or some other source of pressure, doesn’t mean anything. You can just keep trying until you get it, and in the absence of such consequences, how long that is doesn’t matter. So the DM should just skip the roll and say “these locks are a pain, but you get them open eventually.”

 

[5ekyu]

Real world example.

What would you set the DC for for the our actual real world action "Open a lock with the correct key?" I'd say maybe a 3???

But yet....there are not one but TWO padlocks that I deal with on a regular basis that are a PAIN IN THE ASS. If I were hastily trying to open those padlocks while dodging arrows or fireballs it would probably take me a few rounds to get them open. One has to have the key pulled back out about a millimeter or it will only turn half way so I slowly pull the key out while constantly trying to twist it. The other, despite being new and expensive, was slightly defective and it takes about 5 minutes of twisting, pulling, praying, and luck to release the key once its been put in the lock.

So does this mean that I, as a person, have a -10 to my disable device checks or that I am somehow fundamentally bad at opening locks with the proper key? No, its just those two locks. Its not a comment on myself in any way just like your character trying and failing at that one random lock in a dungeon may have nothing to do with their skills or abilities. The die rolling doesn't say if your character did a good job, narratively, it just says that you tried and failed for some reason.

FWIW, it seems to me you described two locks that were maybe not DC3.

That ssid... in my game, in combat and in ability checks and in saves, I try to narrate the d20. I have a clear house ruling that says the d20 roll is "known" to the charscter in terms of seeing/sensing a variety of aspects that reveal enough about the effort to be taken by the charscter as judgement or confidence.

This was done and imx is done all the time with attack rolls. Nobody I have ever seen expects a player who swings and misses to treat "I rolled a 19 and missed" the same as "I rolled a 2 and missed". Its never been the case I have seen where "better switch to saves-based attacks or ways to get more bonuses" after the "19 miss" was pushed back against anymore than the "miss on 2" and "yeah, just seeing again, wont roll that bad all thr time" was either.

So I do the same for ability checks. I add to the narration elements that illustrate the roll and leave the player and character free to choose how to proceed. Often that involves things like adding in extra detail that shows a feature they might address in their narration of the retry. Often it might offer up another approach entirely. So for instance, the mold encrusted lock might be jammed on the first picking but the thieves realizes that makes it easier to spring than pick.

Net result, the player and character have the same info and there are narrative hooks to help with the viability of retries.

That said, I am very fond of the some progress with setback core definition for 5e and use that a lot.