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

[Salthorae]

"Yer gonna hafta fight me to find out!" the desk sneers back at you! "C'mon, let's find out what yer made of!"

Odd, can’t get the image to post. But this made me think of the old

“My party and I walked into a tavern. The bar tender asked 'Why do you carry your swords inside here?' I looked him dead in the eyes and said, 'Mimics.' The bar tender laughed. I laughed. My party laughed. The table laughed. We killed the table. It was a good night."

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Charlaquin/DM Dave1: I 100% understand what Charlaquin is saying and I see what you are trying to achieve. In my mind, as Lanefan says, "From where I'm standing I look at the desk to see what it's made of" is just a long way of saying "What's the desk made of?".

Thus my defining your style as formal and alien to me. I literally have never played at a table (and I have been gaming since before the events of Stranger Things took place) that expressed a preference for the former over the latter. I'd be interested in hearing what a game session done in this style sounded like if you have any preferred examples. I have heard of (but don't employ) the "Speak only in character" style, the "One player is the caller" style, and even the "Videogamish everything in 3rd person" style but never the "Players interact almost exclusively in stated actions" style.

At the end of the day I believe that each table has its own feel and one style is as valid and fun as the next if everyone is having fun. I'm just baffled I have never heard of it before.

 

[Charlaquin]

Charlaquin/DM Dave1: I 100% understand what Charlaquin is saying and I see what you are trying to achieve. In my mind, as Lanefan says, "From where I'm standing I look at the desk to see what it's made of" is just a long way of saying "What's the desk made of?".

As I say, to me the difference is that the former is framed in terms of action that is occurring in the fiction, while the latter is simply talking about the fiction from a removed perspective. In the former case, something is happening in the game world, where in the latter we’re just talking about the game world abstractly. It’s show vs. tell if you will.

Thus my defining your style as formal and alien to me. I literally have never played at a table (and I have been gaming since before the events of Stranger Things took place) that expressed a preference for the former over the latter. I'd be interested in hearing what a game session done in this style sounded like if you have any preferred examples. I have heard of (but don't employ) the "Speak only in character" style, the "One player is the caller" style, and even the "Videogamish everything in 3rd person" style but never the "Players interact almost exclusively in stated actions" style.

At the end of the day I believe that each table has its own feel and one style is as valid and fun as the next if everyone is having fun. I'm just baffled I have never heard of it before.

Hey, @iserith, is that AP you did way back during the WotC forum days specifically to showcase this style still floating around in cyberspace anywhere?

 

[iserith]

As I say, to me the difference is that the former is framed in terms of action that is occurring in the fiction, while the latter is simply talking about the fiction from a removed perspective. In the former case, something is happening in the game world, where in the latter we’re just talking about the game world abstractly. It’s show vs. tell if you will.

The 20 Questions thing is also a way to effectively "cheat," in addition to being immersion-breaking for some. What the player does is just ask a lot of questions until he or she can suss out what the DM will go along with then the player takes action accordingly. It's a way to mitigate failure because, if the player is asking questions of the DM, the character is not taking action in the game world. Actions in the game world can have consequences, so questions are just way safer. Clever, eh?

Which is not to say that all players are doing this for that reason (or that some of them even realize that's what they're doing), but it is a thing. It can also be a sign that the DM is not adequately laying out the basic scope of options when describing the environment. For this reason and others, it's best to request players state actions rather than ask questions wherever possible in my view. If the players are asking a lot of questions, I see that as a symptom of an underlying problem. Once that problem is handled, the questions tend to just go away and the flow of the game improves, plus anyone's immersion if it's reliant upon game flow.

Hey, @iserith, is that AP you did way back during the WotC forum days specifically to showcase this style still floating around in cyberspace anywhere?

I'm not sure. I am sure that there will have been some questions in there like in any game, though obviously the goal is thoughtful reduction not total elimination.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Hey, @iserith, is that AP you did way back during the WotC forum days specifically to showcase this style still floating around in cyberspace anywhere?

Not exactly what you’re referring to, but this certainly goes a long way to showcase the style:

D&D 5E - How to Adjudicate Actions in D&D 5e

According to the Basic Rules (page 3), the basic conversation of the game is: 1. The DM describes the environment. 2. The players describe what they want to do. 3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers actions. Somewhere between 2 and 3, the Basic Rules tell us (page 58) that the DM...

www.enworld.org

 

[3catcircus]

For me, healing can be explained through nicks and exhaustion.
But, the one that stops immersion for me is everyone doing a round in initiative order. Obviously, it changes for a player depending on what the previous player did. Going to go swing at that creature, but your ally took it out? No, not going to do that, instead I'll run the other way to attack that creature. A mode where everyone plays at the same time would be nice. But, impossible to do with each character having a standard, move, and bonus action; miniatures complicates the matter too.

Concur. The "easy" way to do this is to use initiative with an action cost "tick" mechanic, with weapon bulk affecting initiative. Your init is also how many ticks' work of actions you can take per round. Have actions resolve at the "end" of their initiative. When casting a spell, AD&D used to identify how many segments it took. A melee attack with a knife takes less time than one involving a cudgel. Move x amount per tick. So two opponents have inits of 14 and 10. The guy with the 14 decided to cast a spell that takes x ticks. The guy with the init of 10 decides to stabbity-stab with his spear, which, say, takes 3 ticks. As long as the guy with 14 init gets his spell off before hitting init 7, his spell takes effect before he can be stabbed. Keep going with actions until you run out of ticks. No need to worry about where you are in the order after the start of the round. Yes, this means someone with a higher initiative can do more in a combat tons than someone slower, which is actually much closer to reality than the existing action mechanics in both 5e and PF2e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Charlaquin/DM Dave1: I 100% understand what Charlaquin is saying and I see what you are trying to achieve. In my mind, as Lanefan says, "From where I'm standing I look at the desk to see what it's made of" is just a long way of saying "What's the desk made of?".

Thus my defining your style as formal and alien to me. I literally have never played at a table (and I have been gaming since before the events of Stranger Things took place) that expressed a preference for the former over the latter.

As successful as 5e is at evoking that back-in-the-day feel of classic D&D, the "play loop" has been taken up with a modern spin.

Depending on the DM, you might have encountered something like what Charlaquin and Iserith and others describe. A formal requirement that players seeking more information declare an /action/ to acquire that information. You'll also see players object because they feel the DM hasn't done a good enough job describing the situation, yet, at times - again, maybe formally.

Back in the day, it might go more like this:

"There's a door on the far wall."
"Is it locked?"
"You test the lock, there's XX contact poison on the doorknob, roll vs poison or die."
"Wait, I.. I'm wearing gloves! My character would notice if there was something smeared on the doorknob."
"You should have asked, and you should have said you were wearing gloves - make that save."

Or this...

"You open the door and see a 40x40 room, the walls are solidly built of greyish-green stone."
"I move cautiously into the room."
"You fall 40' onto iron spikes, take 18 points of damage from the fall and and 1d6 spikes attack you... 3 hit for... 12 damage."
"What? There was a pit trap?"
"No, just a pit. You didn't ask about the floor!"
"You're jerk, Steve."

Leading to...

"There's a door on the right."
"What's it made of? What's the handle look like? Is there anything on it? What's the floor in front of it made of? "IS there a floor in front of it not an open pit or cursed rug of smothering? Is there green slime on the ceiling above it?
"You chec- "
"NO! No, I haven't don anything yet! I'M just looking!!!"
"Sheesh, Mike, why'ya so paranoid?"


...leading to, decades later, DMs luxuriating in the idea of players having to declare actions to get information.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Not exactly what you’re referring to, but this certainly goes a long way to showcase the style:

I can see how the descriptions in that post are very "What do you do?" then possibly "Here is what you have to roll" then "Here is what happened." The language used in those examples seems natural to me as they are addressing things as they happen. That sounds very much like my games as well. Where this format doesn't work for me is when a player is trying to put the bits and pieces together after the fact. . I didn't see that it gave an example of what we are talking about in this case...players asking about things from the past which weren't described because it wasn't important at the time but which is important now.

The game i'm used to...
P1: Are there skunks around here?
GM: No, there are no skunks in the desert. ....or.... Yes, you smelled a couple when you were setting up camp. ....or.... You didn't notice one today, do you want to go looking for one? If so make a Survival check.

The "Everything is an action game" you describe...
P1: Fytor tries to recall if he noticed any skunks during our travels today.
GM: No, Fytor has never seen a skunk in the desert. ....or... Yes, Fytor recalls smelling a skunk while setting up camp. ...or... "Fytor does not recall seeing a skunk but they weren't paying that close of attention. Do you want to look for one? If so make a Survival check.

I think at this point we are beating a dead horse on this thread derailment. I get it. It's a preferred style. It sounds formal and stilted to my ears.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Odd, can’t get the image to post. But this made me think of the old

“My party and I walked into a tavern. The bar tender asked 'Why do you carry your swords inside here?' I looked him dead in the eyes and said, 'Mimics.' The bar tender laughed. I laughed. My party laughed. The table laughed. We killed the table. It was a good night."

I got you.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

"There's a door on the far wall."
"Is it locked?"
"You test the lock, there's XX contact poison on the doorknob, roll vs poison or die."
"Wait, I.. I'm wearing gloves! My character would notice if there was something smeared on the doorknob."
"You should have asked, and you should have said you were wearing gloves - make that save."

Games i'm used to (Including those played in the 80s, but with Find Traps subbed in for Perception roll)....
GM: There is a wall on the door.
P1: Is it locked.
GM: You can't be sure without trying it, but there isn't an obvious lock or keyhole.
P1: I try to open it.
GM: Knowing there is a poison on the knob and the character is a rogue or professional adventurer Make a Perception roll.
P1: rolls Dang, an 8!
GM: You didn't notice the poison at first but when you reached up and scratched your nose you realized that you failed to spot it smeared on the back side of the doorknob. Make a CON save.

Contrary to popular belief, many old-school DnD games weren't just GM vs. Player gotcha style games, even if that's what the pre-written adventures seemed to imply.