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

[Charlaquin]

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?"

I mean, those are definitely play patterns I have experienced and wish to avoid. Which is why I attempt to be reasonably specific and succinct in my description, telegraph the presence of hazards with environmental clues, (which may be missable if the players aren’t paying attention but are always at least clear in hindsight), and ask that players be reasonably succinct and specific in their descriptions of their actions. The more assumptions can be avoided on either side of the screen, the better. One thing you will never catch me saying as a DM is, “you test the lock.”

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

You seem to be implying that the intent behind asking that players declare actions rather than ask questions is to reproduce the play patterns above, but on the contrary, the intent is to avoid them. In fact, when a player declares an action that in my assessment has a possibility of success and failure and a cost or consequence for failure, I tell them the DC and potential consequences, and allow them to decide not to go through with the action. There will be no “gotchas” in my game - my players take informed risks, thank you very much.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

What is this "Perception Roll" of which you speak, in the 1980s? Have we shifted suddenly to playing Hero System or BRP? Or have we advanced 20 years to 3.0?

(The rationale I remember from back in the day, now that I think of it, was that part of what the saving throw represented /was/ noticing the poison before it was too late, anyway.)

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.

Sure. But, many were. Many crossed the line into that, now and then, but were mostly reasonable, most of the time.
Play varied a lot back in the day...
...but it didn't often vary all the way over to a formal, action-declaration-based mode of information gathering, like we're seeing some folks do, now, with the play-loop. It did often seem to lean in the "20 questions" direction, IMX/AIR(BIO).

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

See. In my game, I would have included a hint that might have indicated the presence of the poison in my initial description of the door. Perhaps noting that the metal handle is tarnished, and/or that it reflects the light of the torches as if wet. Or if I’d planned it out right, I’d probably have described a door early in the dungeon with a brass handle, and a corpse next to it with a still-full vial of antitoxin in one hand. Then throughout the dungeon, poisoned door handles would be brass, while not poisoned ones would be steel, or something along those lines.

 

[iserith]

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.

It could be imagined that, for some, it is easier to experience a sense of immersion if the focus is on what's happening in the context of the game world rather than stop every few minutes to have a sidebar between the DM and player, which is exactly what these sorts of questions are. These questions may imply action of some kind, but they are not actions, until the player says they are (since the DM cannot say what the character is doing). Each question therefore, unless it's dialogue, exists at the table rather than in the game world.

I don't personally hold that this approach is more immersive in any objective sense, but I've been told by some players in my games that it helps them. I use it as an approach because frequent stops to ask questions are like hitting the pause button on the game moving forward and because I know how it can be used to "cheat." I've also noticed (and have been told by my players) that once it's been pointed out to you, you can't help but notice it going forward. I'd encourage you to make a mental note of every time someone asks a question at your next game (or the next actual play podcast you listen to). I find it very interesting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

See. In my game, I would have included a hint that might have indicated the presence of the poison in my initial description of the door. Perhaps noting that the metal handle is tarnished, and/or that it reflects the light of the torches as if wet. Or if I’d planned it out right, I’d probably have described a door early in the dungeon with a brass handle, and a corpse next to it with a still-full vial of antitoxin in one hand. Then throughout the dungeon, poisoned door handles would be brass, while not poisoned ones would be steel, or something along those lines.

That actually wouldn't have been too unusual, either, back in the day. Good DMs prided themselves in placing the information the player needed to avoid the horrid death trap or hilarious curse or whatnot, in the details of the initial description, rather than just withholding it, as in my tongue-in-cheek parodies of play, above - that way, when the trap sprung, the player would be kicking himself for not having seen it, rather than kicking the DM for being a jerk.

 

[Charlaquin]

That actually wouldn't have been too unusual, either, back in the day. Good DMs prided themselves in placing the information the player needed to avoid the horrid death trap or hilarious curse or whatnot, in the details of the initial description, rather than just withholding it, as in my tongue-in-cheek parodies of play, above - that way, when the trap sprung, the player would be kicking himself for not having seen it, rather than kicking the DM for being a jerk.

Yeah, that’s more the kind of play I aim for. I didn’t play “back in the day,” but I think of games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne, where I might blunder into a trap once, realize the clue I had missed that would have indicated its presence, and from then on be able to avoid similar traps because I know what to look for. Every time I spot the different patterned floor tile that I know indicates a fireball trap in a Bloodborne Chalice dungeon, or notice that a corner is a perfect spot for an ambush and manage to get a backstab on the enemy that was there waiting for me in Dark Souls, I feel clever. Every time I fall for such a trick, I blame myself for not paying attention, not the game for being unfair. Those are feelings I want my players to be able to get out of our D&D games.

 

[robus]

"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?"

I can totally see teenage boys inflicting this kind of suffering on each other. Hopefully it is the exception rather than the rule these days. Certainly I have no desire to pointlessly torture my players.

My torture always comes with a point!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can totally see teenage boys inflicting this kind of suffering on each other.

Well, I was certainly a teenager at the time, though some of the DM's I watched inflict those sorts of things were a good deal older than me...
(...sheesh, some of them could be dead by now...)

Hopefully it is the exception rather than the rule these days. Certainly I have no desire to pointlessly torture my players.
My torture always comes with a point!

The 5e play loop and natural-language ruleset certainly leaves the door open to that style of DMing, and any other. But it's also a firm foundation for the G&A style of DMing, which does help avoid those sorts of problems, and which I'd recommend even to skeptical old-timers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You seem to be implying that the intent behind asking that players declare actions rather than ask questions is to reproduce the play patterns above, but on the contrary, the intent is to avoid them.

I must have failed my "imply intent" check, then, because the contrary is /exactly/ what I meant. ;(

 

[JiffyPopTart]

What is this "Perception Roll" of which you speak, in the 1980s? Have we shifted suddenly to playing Hero System or BRP? Or have we advanced 20 years to 3.0?

I see you failed your Perception Roll to notice I covered that base in my original statent.

Adding skills in 3e, as opposed to Nonweapon proficiencies, was a BIG step forward in the DnD lifecycle.