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

[Charlaquin]

That tension mechanic is interesting. I may look into something like that next time I run a caper.

If you want to add some extra complexity you can use different size dice based on overall threat level. I like the simplicity of just using d6s, but you could go up to d8s for low-threat and down to d4s for high-alert for a caper kind of situation.

 

[Lanefan]

In my experience, players asking if their character knows or remembers something (or more often, asking to “make a check to see if I know/remember” are usually asking for permission to act on knowledge they have as a player that they are unsure if they’re allowed to act on.

Where my experience is they're more often asking if they've ever been exposed to, and-or remember, some piece of knowledge in their unplayed past that might come in handy now.

For example, say they find a corpse, obviously of a Cleric but wearing a holy symbol that's never come up in play before. Neither I nor the players have any way of knowing whether or not any of the PCs have ever chanced upon this symbol before their played careers began; I'm not about to force a "no" but nor am I willing to guarantee a "yes", and so out come the dice.

The typical example of this is “do I know trolls are weak to fire?” but substitute whatever common piece of player knowledge that DMs typically don’t consider common character knowledge. In these events, I allow the player to decide if their character has that knowledge or not and how to act on it or not.

My problem is that I've had players who would game this to the max, and just assume their characters always know everything. And to a certain point I don't mind this approach, as when it comes to things like this I see it as the players' job to try to get an edge (whether fair or not) for their characters and my job as DM/referee is to prevent them from doing so. Dice are a good way of shutting this down.

I don’t see that as important at all.

Randomizing? I see it as vital. Not everybody consistently remembers what they need to at the time they need to; or remembers it correctly.

Real-life example: I'm the vocalist in an amateur band. Sometimes I remember the lyrics to a particular song, sometimes I don't (for the same song) and rely on the lyrics sheet in front of me.

And just ask anyone who's ever sat an exam.

Also, memories morph over the long term. Back to the holy symbol: sure some character might remember seeing 15 years ago but even that doesn't guarantee that any information recalled about it will be accurate.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This thread is interesting because it shows that people refusing to accept HP for what the game designers intend them to be, and instead insisting they're basically a literal measure of how mangled your body is still the biggest problem for many people with immersion in D&D. It's bizarre to me but I think largely reflects how HP were initially explained to you. I had them explained correctly by an experienced DM, but I still had players coming in from other groups thinking max HP = perfect and unblemished and 0 HP = probably multiple stab wounds, broken limbs, bone-deep burns and so on.

Personally I do find resting paradigms in D&D a bit of a problem, in all editions. None of them feel quite right. But they typically work, which is where games with more immersive rest/recharge/resource paradigms tend to fall down.

I also struggle slightly with how many editions of D&D use skills/proficiencies which seem too binary and RNG-y. 4E skill challenges and group tests and stuff seemed to make a bit more sense as a direction but we're underdeveloped.

I also find multi-shot firearms destroy immersion in D&D/d20-type rules as the attack and turn structure which makes some sense with melee weapons and bows falls apart with a 15-shot pistol that even an basically proficient user could fire half a dozen times in six seconds.

 

[jgsugden]

In my game there is a book known as the Librum Arcanum. It is used in the training of almost every spellcaster, and it is widely available in almost anyplace that sells books.

It contains lay descriptions of every spell, magic item and monster in the PHB, DMG, and MM.

When a character is created, we discuss their familiarity with the book. If there is reason for them to own a copy or to have studied it thoroughly, then there is usually little question about player knowledge of source book materials.

However, there are a lot of little things that don't hold up across the board. Monsters have evolved since it was first written. Spellcasters have created alternate versions of items. They've fiddled with some spells. Thus, it is not gospel to be trusted, but guidelines to advise.

 

[Charlaquin]

Where my experience is they're more often asking if they've ever been exposed to, and-or remember, some piece of knowledge in their unplayed past that might come in handy now.

For example, say they find a corpse, obviously of a Cleric but wearing a holy symbol that's never come up in play before. Neither I nor the players have any way of knowing whether or not any of the PCs have ever chanced upon this symbol before their played careers began; I'm not about to force a "no" but nor am I willing to guarantee a "yes", and so out come the dice.

Whereas I would just go by the characters’ proficiencies. Trained in Religion? Yeah, you’ve come across this holy symbol before.

My problem is that I've had players who would game this to the max, and just assume their characters always know everything.

So?

And to a certain point I don't mind this approach, as when it comes to things like this I see it as the players' job to try to get an edge (whether fair or not) for their characters and my job as DM/referee is to prevent them from doing so. Dice are a good way of shutting this down.

I disagree about the role of the DM.

Randomizing? I see it as vital. Not everybody consistently remembers what they need to at the time they need to; or remembers it correctly.

Real-life example: I'm the vocalist in an amateur band. Sometimes I remember the lyrics to a particular song, sometimes I don't (for the same song) and rely on the lyrics sheet in front of me.

And just ask anyone who's ever sat an exam.

Also, memories morph over the long term. Back to the holy symbol: sure some character might remember seeing 15 years ago but even that doesn't guarantee that any information recalled about it will be accurate.

Yes, realistically, memory is imperfect. I don’t really care about realism, I care about a good game experience.

 

[Maxperson]

For me the entire combat system is the worst offender for breaking my immersion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This thread is interesting because it shows that people refusing to accept HP for what the game designers intend them to be, and instead insisting they're basically a literal measure of how mangled your body is still the biggest problem for many people with immersion in D&D.

Well, a few people.
Really, though, the issue was dead for decades. It was only brought to this freakish, brain-eating, un-life by the edition war. (aside: today, googling the exact phrase "hit points are meat" yields over 400 results (which,I know, not many by Google standards). Restrict the search to the run of 3e, 2000 through 2007, though and you get "No results found for "Hit points are meat" Results for Hit points are meat (without quotes):" Yeah.)

Personally I do find resting paradigms in D&D a bit of a problem, in all editions. None of them feel quite right. But they typically work, which is where games with more immersive rest/recharge/resource paradigms tend to fall down.

They work for a certain pacing, usually at least close to the intended pacing, sure. But the more you deviate, the more problematic class & encounter balance become.

I also struggle slightly with how many editions of D&D use skills/proficiencies which seem too binary and RNG-y. 4E skill challenges and group tests and stuff seemed to make a bit more sense as a direction but we're underdeveloped.

They were a faltering step in the right direction. Well, after they got back up after the initial version. Maybe if they'd had 10 years of incremental improvement. ::

I also find multi-shot firearms destroy immersion in D&D/d20-type rules as the attack and turn structure which makes some sense with melee weapons and bows falls apart with a 15-shot pistol that even an basically proficient user could fire half a dozen times in six seconds.

It depends on how you model it. I placed a submachine gun as an item, once, and it attacked either several times a round, or hosing down a large area - with it's own innate attack bonus. Overwhelmingly powerful at low level, giving one to a low-level character made him suddenly dangerous to mid-level characters, but vs high level PCs, it'd just miss a lot (as the A-Team theme played in the background).

 

[robus]

That tension mechanic is interesting. I may look into something like that next time I run a caper.

The AngryGM's posts on it are quite illuminating, for example: Why’d You Have to Go and Make Things So Complicated? . Pleased to hear that you've had good success with it @Charlaquin - I've got a print out of the tension pool/time tracker and while I've been using it to communicate the passing of time I've yet to get to a point where the PCs are spending time in a dangerous location. I look forward to it happening in the near future

And actually tracking the passage of time was one of the big immersion breakers for me. Time just seemed to be this random thing going on unrelated to the actions of the PCs. Now the passage of time is always clear to everyone.

 

[Xetheral]

In my experience, players asking if their character knows or remembers something (or more often, asking to “make a check to see if I know/remember” are usually asking for permission to act on knowledge they have as a player that they are unsure if they’re allowed to act on. The typical example of this is “do I know trolls are weak to fire?” but substitute whatever common piece of player knowledge that DMs typically don’t consider common character knowledge. In these events, I allow the player to decide if their character has that knowledge or not and how to act on it or not.

It's interesting just how different experiences can be at different tables. For me, knowledge checks most often come up when a player needs more information to determine whether a potential course of action is feasible/wise. Examples:

• Upon seeing a mercenary company insignia, and considering a plan involving distracting the mercenaries. "Does my character know whether that company has any strong rivalries with other companies, and what their rival's insignias are?"
• Upon considering a profoundly direct method of bypassing an enemy fighting at an interior choke point. "Is my character familiar enough with the architectural style of the building to know whether this wall is structural?"
• Upon noticing a storm system moving in and considering waiting for it to pass. "Is my character familiar enough with the weather patterns in this region to be able to make an educated guess as to how long the storm will last?"

So not only are the players at my table not trying to get access to rulebook information, they're usually asking for answers to setting questions I've not previously considered and don't (yet) have answers to.

The system I described in an earlier post with dropping d6s in a glass bowl and rolling them all when there are 6d6 in the bowl to determine if a complication occurs is how I measure that mounting tension, and also how I keep track of time. Each d10 dropped in the bowl represents roughly 10 minutes of time during moment-to-moment exploration and roughly 4 hours during travel. Actions that are inconspicuous but take time, such as picking a lock add a die. Actions that are quick but reckless, such as trying to break the door down, trigger a roll of however many dice are in the pool at the time. Actions that are both reckless and time-consuming do both. It turns otherwise mundane tasks like opening locked doors into minigames of push your luck.

That's a cool system. Ironically enough, however, I would personally find it extremely immersion-wrecking. For me immersion requires the game world to feel like a real place, and being able to readily see that the new complication that just arose was added as the result of a bad die roll on the tension dice would work against. Oddly enough, I'd have no problem with the DM just deciding to add a new complication because they think it would be fun, as long as it was presented seemlessly with the rest of the world--it's seeing the tension mechanic in action (or knowing it was in use) that would cause the problem for me.

I feel the same way about wandering monsters. I'm totally fine with using dice to abstractly determine whether an existing monster in the area happens to wander by as it goes about its business. And I'm also totally fine with the DM choosing to add a new monster without rolling any dice at all (again assuming the revision was seemless). But fighting a monster that I know wouldn't even exist in the game world but for a bad roll on a wandering monster check makes the game world seem less real to me.

 

[5ekyu]

It's interesting just how different experiences can be at different tables. For me, knowledge checks most often come up when a player needs more information to determine whether a potential course of action is feasible/wise. Examples:

• Upon seeing a mercenary company insignia, and considering a plan involving distracting the mercenaries. "Does my character know whether that company has any strong rivalries with other companies, and what their rival's insignias are?"
• Upon considering a profoundly direct method of bypassing an enemy fighting at an interior choke point. "Is my character familiar enough with the architectural style of the building to know whether this wall is structural?"
• Upon noticing a storm system moving in and considering waiting for it to pass. "Is my character familiar enough with the weather patterns in this region to be able to make an educated guess as to how long the storm will last?"

So not only are the players at my table not trying to get access to rulebook information, they're usually asking for answers to setting questions I've not previously considered and don't (yet) have answers to.



That's a cool system. Ironically enough, however, I would personally find it extremely immersion-wrecking. For me immersion requires the game world to feel like a real place, and being able to readily see that the new complication that just arose was added as the result of a bad die roll on the tension dice would work against. Oddly enough, I'd have no problem with the DM just deciding to add a new complication because they think it would be fun, as long as it was presented seemlessly with the rest of the world--it's seeing the tension mechanic in action (or knowing it was in use) that would cause the problem for me.

I feel the same way about wandering monsters. I'm totally fine with using dice to abstractly determine whether an existing monster in the area happens to wander by as it goes about its business. And I'm also totally fine with the DM choosing to add a new monster without rolling any dice at all (again assuming the revision was seemless). But fighting a monster that I know wouldn't even exist in the game world but for a bad roll on a wandering monster check makes the game world seem less real to me.

I think a lot of this comes down to what I call seeding. There should be imo presented to the characters a lot of seeds of "stuff around" that can crop up later to serve these moments. Most every survival check for scouting includes some info of tracks or signs of critters or events not yet seen. Barring unusual circumstances many encounters in the wild are signs of or spotting at distance, unless it's a stealthy etc.

So, typically, it's easy to pull up a complication already hinted at being an issue.