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

[Tony Vargas]

I still disagree that "new school challenges the characters." It doesn't make any sense to me, even though I've heard words to that effect many times over.

It seem to me pretty clearly in reference to the more detailed skill systems we've had the last 20+ years. Old-school, you might have gotten a reaction roll (behind the screen) with a CHA & racial mod upon an initial encounter, but from then on it was up to the DM figuring how they react to what you say in character. In 3.x, you could build a 'diplomancer,' and roll vs static RAW-defined DCs.

I'd rather refer to it as 'resolution' than 'challenge,' you'd prefer 'difficulty,' perhaps, but the game evolved that way, whatever the label...

 

[Shasarak]

I stand by my statement that "gaming the DM" is bad-faith play.

Gaming the DM is the only way to play otherwise your character is just going to get trolled by DMs who claim that you did not say you were attacking the Orc with your sword.

 

[iserith]

Gaming the DM is the only way to play otherwise your character is just going to get trolled by DMs who claim that you did not say you were attacking the Orc with your sword.

I always assume they're attacking with a waffle iron unless otherwise stated.

 

[Shasarak]

I always assume they're attacking with a waffle iron unless otherwise stated.

See what I mean - the DM does not even remember that the waffle iron got eaten by the Rust monster in the previous room so how am I supposed to use that now?

 

[Fanaelialae]

It seem to me pretty clearly in reference to the more detailed skill systems we've had the last 20+ years. Old-school, you might have gotten a reaction roll (behind the screen) with a CHA & racial mod upon an initial encounter, but from then on it was up to the DM figuring how they react to what you say in character. In 3.x, you could build a 'diplomancer,' and roll vs static RAW-defined DCs.

I'd rather refer to it as 'resolution' than 'challenge,' you'd prefer 'difficulty,' perhaps, but the game evolved that way, whatever the label...

If that's the definition of New School (and I disagree that it is) then the new school has roots that are quite ancient (by D&D standards). In issue 1 of The Dragon (which was later renamed to Dragon magazine), published June 1976, there was an article "How to Use Non-Prime-Requisite Character Attributes" which was all about how to use ability scores to resolve actions. It was essentially a proto skills system, going so far as to argue that all characters should have a chance to be able to pick a lock (although this chance was quite low for characters not of the thief class).

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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.

This is definitely a NS train of thought. A DM, imo, can virtually never "kill a PC by accident". The only time this could be an accident is if the DM rolls 1d8+2, gets an 8, and says "you take 28 points of damage" because he's distracted, tired or just had a major brain-fart (I know I've done stuff like that). That is an "accident". But, as an impartial adjudicator of the campaign world, I just roll the dice and describe results; if a PC has 2 hp left and just took a critical for 24...well, sucks to be that PC. Time for the player to roll up a new one. That PC's death isn't an "accident"...it was deliberate, as far as the monster is concerned.

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.

Again (imho), very much a NS thought process. A trap dungeon, by definition really, IS trying to toss in as many "gotchas!" as it can. The Tomb of Horrors is a meat grinder and has most players who know about it break out into a cold sweat when they hear about it. I'd say you are describing a more...."tricks n' traps" type of adventure. One where the designer is trying to test the skill/capability of the party...not necessarily kill them, test them. Some may die, but the clever, bold and lucky ones will survive. Tomb of Horrors is definitely a TRAP dungeon.

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).

I can completely see why you would think that. But I live in a small'ish city in Canada. Locking my door is one of those "try and remember, but if I don't, oh well" things. When I leave the apartment (ground floor), I never lock my door unless I'm going to be gone overnight...and that's only really because I've had two or three drunk folk mistake my apartment for the one above me. But "locking my door" isn't very high on my list of things to remember (even when I go to sleep at night).

So...I think a PC's "common sense" things to do would depend on where/how the character grew up. Growing up as a noble, I'd guess the character probably wouldn't lock the door as a default. The PC would likely have never really need to do that; that's what the guards and servants are for...and the outer compound wall. However, a PC with a street-urchin background would probably always lock the door...or place a chair up against it if there wasn't a lock. Such a PC would be intimately aware of all the bad people out there because they had to live with them.

That said...an adventurer would probably, after some time, be one of those types who rents a room, locks the door, puts a chair up against it and uses dimension door to jump into the next room to sleep in there. Adventurers get pretty paranoid...

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?

This falls into the old newbie DM mistake: "You see a hallway, 70' long with doors every 10 feet on both sides. All the doors are dark wood with bands of rusty metal. One door, the fourth up on the right, is made with newer wood and is lighter in colour with slightly less-rust on the metal bands". This is also fairly common in NS style adventures/play where the intent is to get the PC's to the "next encounter", as someone said above somewhere.

Thats why I, as DM, try and give "equal amounts" of description, so...: "You see a hallway,
70' long with doors every 10' on both sides. They are mostly dark wood, some a bit lighter, some a bit darker, all with varying bands of rusty metal".

With that description, it's up to the players to decide if the hallway is just a hallway, and if the doors are just doors. This is when the players ask questions...Do any doors stand out?, or Does each door have the same number of metal bands?, or Do any of the doors look like they are newer? Maybe like they replaced ones that had been broken down before?. That's a more OS style of play.

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.

This is most definitely a "play style" thing. One mans "boring" is another mans "engaging". I guess this would be the "different strokes for different folks". We (me and my group) have attempted to play through four Adventure Paths (3.x and PF)...never managed to complete one. They get, to us, ridiculously predictable. Like 'hollywood-blockbuster-movie' predictable. So much so that the DM had to outright cheat/insta-change/completely-rewrite things during the game session. When the players start to prepare, two 'modules' in advance, for something that they aren't expected to know/suspect...well, that's a problem.

When it's easy to figure out "Ok, about to have a major encounter..." or "Oh, right, this is where we get background info for no particular reason right now...but next module it will be needed...got it...", well, the adventure becomes "..wasting time on boring things" for us. We/my players like to piece things together themselves, from all that "boring stuff", so that when they do come to a big encounter and are prepared for it...they know it's because they figured something out; not because they killed that one bad guy at the end of the last module and he had a piece of paper that had the 'big encounter bad guys' name on it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tony Vargas]

If that's the definition of New School (and I disagree that it is) then the new school has roots that are quite ancient (by D&D standards).

Yep. Dungeoneers Survival Guide (1e), with non-Weapon Proficiencies, would be a solid example going quite a ways back, for instance. I threw out 3e as an example, but it was arguably the pinnacle of the phenomenon.

And, yeah, I suspect the intended definition of 'New' School is not so quantitative...
...maybe even more a "kids these days!" kinda thing.
I also suspect the difference is not so profound as those making the distinction might like to think.

In issue 1 of The Dragon (which was later renamed to Dragon magazine), published June 1976, there was an article "How to Use Non-Prime-Requisite Character Attributes" which was all about how to use ability scores to resolve actions. It was essentially a proto skills system, going so far as to argue that all characters should have a chance to be able to pick a lock (although this chance was quite low for characters not of the thief class).

Before my time, but roll-under-your-stat checks were familiar enough in '80, too. Interesting if that's where they came from.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I always assume they're attacking with a waffle iron unless otherwise stated.

You too? I thought I was the only one...

Wafellll-MAAAAAN!!!! I am the Waffler! Gold and Crispy! Bad guys are history! Yeaaaooowwww!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LicptUy9Ay4

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Lanefan]

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.

A half-competent assassin isn't going to be stopped by a basic lock on an inn-room door.

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).

It might at first seem nonsensical, but dig in a bit:

- do the rooms in this inn have locks on the doors at all? (locked doors are a modern thing)
- are the party standing watch (some paraniod parties do this, believe me!) and thus do they want the doors unlocked for ease of access to the hall and thus to their other rooms?
- if there are locks, who else has keys?

Yes this is all minutae and can probably be ignored most of the time, but sometimes it comes up relevant.

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?

Because if you don't ask when it doesn't matter, the very fact of your asking this time as opposed to all the other times puts up a big red metagame flag that something here does matter (or soon will matter), which is bad. This is where establishing some SOPs (where possible) comes in handy - it avoids the "I assumed this! "We assumed that!" arguments on the occasions when something happens.

And were SOPs aren't possible or practical, you kinda have to ask every time.

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.

It's about changing the definition of fun.

Lanefan

 

[schnee]

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.

That is the old school thing about low level play being the way to teach 'player skill' vs. 'character skill'. Your early characters suffer and die because they aren't a 'character', they are YOU.

YOU learn to poke and prod floors for pressure plates in a room where there are suspicious holes in the walls, when to spike doors shut or open, when to chalk walls to make sure you don't get lost.

YOU learn to hide your encampment far enough away from the dungeon, set up correct watch schedules, bring enough food and water for the horses, and strategies for what to do when ambushed.

YOU learn which spell lists to use in a dungeon vs. traveling, how to coordinate spells between casters, to invest in traveling spell books while keeping the main one at home, to bring extra ink and supplies to scribe from scrolls.

YOU learn how to set up ambushes, frontal assaults, how to judge when to run vs. when it's worth staying, how to protect spellcasters, when to stay at range vs. close for melee.

--

It's a much different game than 'Heroic' fantasy, which puts the emphasis on cinematic larger than life events, sweeping vistas, deeply emotional experiences, devious treachery by trusted friends, and the like. That sort of thing doesn't really mix with marking off torches hourly.

I've played both. I'm torn. I've done the 'old school' stuff enough to be pretty damn good at game tactics, to where I'm teaching the new players how to take advantage of cover and various 'Actions' instead of just rushing up to melee... but I also find myself sometimes spending time worrying about things that the Heroic games just hand-wave away.

It's a wash. You just need to come to an agreement at the table.

I suggest keeping a running tally of 'House Preferences'. It's less about making new 'House Rules', and more about saying what we all agree to care about and focus on, and knowing when a thing will be done because it's necessary vs. flavorful.