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

[Oofta]

Here's another radical concept. Why not talk to your players and ask what kind of game they want to play?

Some people like games where you have to state exactly what your character is doing, others assume that their character knows what they're doing.

Some people prefer that when they state "I search the room for traps" that it just happens. The Sir Sticky Fingers has been doing this his whole life so he knows to look under the bed. Others enjoy the challenge of figuring out puzzles - even if that puzzle is something as mundane as thinking that there may be a trap under the bed.

Neither way of doing it is good or bad, it's simply a preference and where you want to place your focus. So sit down, talk to your players, find out what is fun and what isn't. Try to come up with a compromise that works for everyone including the DM.

 

[Azurewraith]

I assume my PCS are breathing that's about it. Sometimes I let PC's,get away with things such as dropping packs at the start of combat picking them back up, cooking that meat they just decided to eat. But other wise you tell me exactly what your doing and how your doing it.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Don't be a gotcha DM. If it matters, ask them. "Do you want to hold your breath?" "Are you leaving that rope behind?" "The lock also looks unusual, are you checking that too?" "Are you SURE you want to do that?"

One trick I like to do is to narrate the players' actions, with a question intonation. I'd be like "You leave the room, close the door?, and continue on." The players are free to clarify, but it's a subtle way of conveying, "this is a very minor decision, make it quickly and let's get on with the next thing."

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

If a player left something unsaid that it later seems clear his character might have done, you can always call for a check to see if they neglected it. Streetwise in town, dungeoneering when securing a chamber underground, survival overland...

in a dungeon are they closing doors behind them?

Shouldn't assume one way or the other.

Are they collecting rope used in exploring?

Unlessing going full tilt, or the rope was contaminated it seems like a fair assumption...

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?

Might be a good time to call for that check, more to see how well they secured the door, but if they don't even make a 10. "I thought you locked it"

 

[Patrick Johnston]

Looking over the arguments I think I have come to some conclusions.
1) I was wrong on the cloudkill. I will admit it should have been assumed he was holding his breath. I also stated earlier that it would have granted no mechanical advantage. I also now have an idea of how to rule it next time it comes up whether it is regular poison or a cloudkill.

2)I still think I made the right call on the rope.
First leaving the rope down does have some actual usage of letting them escape the statue more quickly if necessary without jumping down and possibly to let the other half of the party get to them if necessary (the other half of the party was sleeping in another section of the dungeon). even If Im not being a gotcha DM pulling up the rope was not a blatantly obvious decision.
Second while I understand the arguments behind trying not be a gotcha DM I don't think it completely fits my style. In part because even people who typically do things will occasionally forget. It seems reasonable that after getting electrocuted, fireballed, fireballed, fireballed, electrocuted, fireballed, fireballed, fireballed, smashed, falling through the floor, and sliced up a person might forget about a rope.
Another part is that what is obvious to one person is not so obvious to someone else. It helps clear up a lot of confusion if players state as much of their actions as they can.
I also understand the argument about not training players to describe everything because it bogs down the game. But I don't want to train them to far in the other direction of just making general statements and having the DM assume they do it in the most perfect manner.

I will try and take some of the advice given here and be a little more lenient. That being said I think I will always be a little of what some would call a gotcha DM. I've been playing with this group for years now and I'm slightly set in my ways. If any of them have a sever problem with it I would love a chance to PC more. Also presumably they would have ousted me long ago.

P.S. I do typically try to question things when I remember. The problem Is I am also forgetful. I honestly didn't even think of asking if he pulled up the rope. Also before anyone ask yes I do accept it when I forget something and get boned by it when I'm a PC because to my mind it's my fault for forgetting. I try and make it a rule to not complain about any DM calls I would also make or at least can see the logic behind.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, ask for clarification if it's not clear from context. But in my experience it's normally pretty obvious what they want to search. And "You search what?" is often a red flag for them that you've got a trick up your sleeve and they ought to search everything. Twice.

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.

I use advantage for this. Assume what you call a "lazy search" is the norm and reward greater planning.

Yep, that works.

Lanefan

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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?

What you are describing...how you DM and how the player(s) play...is a classic example of "old skool" clashing with "n3w school".

How you DM, your 'style', is very much an "old skool" style. In this style, the players are the ones that have to tell the DM they are doing anything 'significant'. Now, that 'significant' stuff is stuff that could/would be something that commoners would not really do or worry about...because they aren't being hunted by an evil demon cult, a pissed off black dragon, a band of elite assassins tasked with killing them, or any number of other myriad things. Does the farmer lock his door when he goes to bed? Maybe, maybe not...he's a farmer. He probably tries to remember, but forgetting isn't likely to result in his death, all things considered. Now, the PC's not barricading a dungeon door as they try and rest up in a 30'x20' room? That's something the players NEED to tell the DM. What if there is a hidden danger in the room the PC's don't know about?

With "old skool" DM'ing, the way you are, the DM is not there to "make sure the players get through the story". An OSDM is unconcerned about weather or not the PC's live or die; whatever happens it will be part of the story because the story is created by the players (primarily, at least). The problem you are having is that you are playing with a (few?) players who are expecting a "n3w school" DM; one that is there to facilitate the players moving through the story.

To the NSPlayer, anything that is not stated should always favour the players. If it is 'better' for the PC's to have removed the rope or barricaded the door...then they did. If it is 'better' for the PC's to have left the rope up or not barricaded the doors...then then didn't. The reasoning is that if the PC's are hindered significantly (or killed), then they can't "continue the storyline as presented in the adventure path"...therefore the DM should favour the players/PC's.

I am not one of those n3w school DM's. I'm an unashamed old skool "killer" DM. Death can be fairly common in my games. Or not... It all depends on the players. Because of this style, we have seen some amazing heroics as well as some heartbreaking tragedies. If I was to always favour the PC's...well, things become VERY much 'less heroic'. It's hard to see something as heroic when the outcome was mostly guaranteed one way or the other. And losses? Pft! Either they are very minor, or easily remedied. No. Not for me. Old Skool Killer DM all the way baby!

So...what you have is, as I said, a "clash of styles/expectations". You are OS, the player(s) are NS...and never the twain shall meet. Unfortunately. Unless, of course, one side is willing to seriously and honestly give the other style a shot over a decent amount of time; say, a year. That's what I had to do with my current group. Four of the 7 had to learn how to play OS style. It was bumpy the first 4 or 5 months, but after that, they now say they much prefer OS...at least for most games we play (definitely any D&D-type game).

You and the player(s) will have to come to a decision on what style you want to go with. Be warned though! Some people just can't "get into" the other style (had some players quit over the years because of this). But it's probably worth a sit-down with the other players to talk about "expectations of play" (re: OS vs NS style).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[S'mon]

I would assume the save is a "can I hold my breath" save - no breath holding, no save. I
think though if someone took an action to breathe in deeply for a few seconds before
entering the cloud I would give advantage.

I assume people lock their inn doors. These days I assume they set watches when camping out, but as a player I'd specify that.

I assume they collect their own rope where practical, if not needed to leave.

I would not assume closing or pitoning dungeon doors as there are good reasons not to.

 

[hastur_nz]

2)I still think I made the right call on the rope.
First [...] pulling up the rope was not a blatantly obvious decision.
Second [...] even people who typically do things will occasionally forget. It seems reasonable that after getting electrocuted, fireballed, fireballed, fireballed, electrocuted, fireballed, fireballed, fireballed, smashed, falling through the floor, and sliced up a person might forget about a rope.

No-one here can tell you you're wrong, just offer an opinion. Even old-timer DM's like me are never too old to learn and change, even if it takes much practice.

Anyway, personally, in the case of the rope, I'm reminded of the very early Conan story, The Tower of the Elephant. Conan and Taurus use a rope to scale the tower, and... do they pull the rope up after them, leave it behind on purpose, or just forget? It's pretty hard to imagine someone simply forgetting to coil up a rope that they have just climbed...
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600831h.html - an excellent story BTW

As noted, players are regular joes or janes, most of who have no idea about survival, dungeoneering, swinging a sword, and so on; half the time we are drinking, eating, and so on; what might seem second nature to "the PC", can easily be overlooked by a player. I'm all for players telling me what their characters are doing, but I definitely cut them some slack when it seems obvious what their character would do, even if the player didn't state it; and visa versa when I'm a player.

To me, pulling a rope up behind you is 100% the most obvious thing for any adventurer to do, because the risk of something seeing it and/or following you is going to be far greater than the risk of needing it for a quick descent, and most likely it's the only rope you have (we're talking D&D here, not climbing mount Everest). But hey, YMMV.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To the NSPlayer, anything that is not stated should always favour the players. If it is 'better' for the PC's to have removed the rope or barricaded the door...then they did. If it is 'better' for the PC's to have left the rope up or not barricaded the doors...then then didn't. The reasoning is that if the PC's are hindered significantly (or killed), then they can't "continue the storyline as presented in the adventure path"...therefore the DM should favour the players/PC's.

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. 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.