D&D 5E When generational differences become apparent

[pemerton]

I tend to get annoyed at players who almost completely forego interacting with the fictional world.

"I search for treasure. I roll a 20!"

<snip>

I make clear that a roll only counts after you tell me what you're doing

Gen Y gamers tend to want a dice roll for everything. For example, during our AL games, the 3e/PF players will say something like, "As I enter the room, I try to percept it. What's the DC I need to beat?" For an old fart like me, I'm thrown off. "What do you mean? Are you searching the room? How are you searching it?" And that in turn throws them off. They were just expecting a die roll and compare the result to a DC, and if they beat it, I as the DM need to tell them everything about the room.

<snip>

Another example is if the players know there's this monster X they will end up running into, the Gen Yers are "I rolled an 18 on my lore check, what do I know about it?" compared to the GenX players who will say, "I find a library or ask around to see how much research I can do to find out about monster X."

Here are some passages from Gygax's PHB (pp 24, 27; published 1978) and DMG (pp 19, 60, 97; published 1979):

Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying. . . . Rangers . . . are themselves surprised only 16 2/3% of the time (d6, score 1). . . .


Secondary functions of a thief are: 1) listening at doors to detect sounds behind them . . . Listening at doors includes like activity at other portals such as windows. It is accomplished by moving silently to the door and pressing an ear against it to detect sound. . . .

Hearing Noise: This is pretty straightforward. The thief, just as any other character, must take off helmet or other obstructing headgear in order to press his or her ear to the door surface in order to hear beyond. . . .

In addition to the simple exercise of observation, many times characters will desire to listen, ear pressed to a portal, prior to opening and entering. This requires a special check, in secret, by you to determine if any sound is heard. . . . When a die roll indicates a noise has been heard, tell the player whose character was listening that he or she heard a clink, footstep, murmuring voices, slithering, laughter, or whatever is appropriate. . . . Failure to hear any noise can be due to the fact that nothing which will make noise is beyond the portal, or it might be due to a bad (for the listener) die roll. Always roll the die, even if you know nothing can be heard. Always appear disinterested regardless of the situation. . . .


[Secret doors] are portals which are made to appear to be a normal part of the surface they are in. They con possibly be sensed or detected by characters who are actively concentrating on such activity, or their possible location may be discovered by tapping . . . Discovery does not mean that access to the door mechanism has been discovered, however. Checking requires a very thorough examination of the possible secret door area. You may use either of two methods to allow discovery of the mechanism which operates the portal:

1. You may designate probability by a linear curve, typically with a d6. Thus, a secret door is discovered 1 in 6 by any non-elf, 2 in 6 by elven or half-elven characters, each character being allowed to roll each turn in checking a 10' X 10' area. This also allows you to have some secret doors more difficult to discover, the linear curve being a d8 or d10.

2. You may have the discovery of the existence of the secret door enable player characters to attempt to operate it by actual manipulation, i.e. the players concerned give instructions as to how they will have their characters attempt to make it function: "Turn the wall sconce.", "Slide it left.", "Press the small protrusion, and see if it pivots.", "Pull the chain."

It is quite acceptable to have a mixture of methods of discovering the operation of secret doors.​

In light of these passages, which informed a lot of people's play of the game, I don't think there is anything very novel in the idea that a character might declare a perception check of some sort and than anticipate a roll (whether made by the GM, or by the player). The idea that this might be done for visual perception as well as for listening is already implicit in the AD&D rules for detecting secret doors, for a ranger's reduced chance of surprise, etc. There was never any expectation that a player had to declare how his/her ranger was scouting and/or spying so as to get the surprise bonus; or how his/her thief was listening so as to get the better-than-typical chance to hear a noise behind a door. And as Gygax says, either method for detecting the method of opening a secret door is acceptable.

Here are some more passages (PHB pp 27, 118; DMG p 20):

At 4th level (Burglar), thieves are able to read 20% of languages, and this ability increases by 5% with each additional level of experience until an 80% probability is attained. This enables the possible reading of instructions and treasure maps without having to resort to a magic item or spell. . . .

Read languages: This ability assumes that the language is, in fact, one which the thief has encountered sometime in the past. Ancient and strange languages (those you, as DM, have previously designated as such) are always totally unreadable. Even if able to read a language, the thief should be allowed only to get about that percentage of the meaning of what is written as his or her percentage ability to read the tongue in the first place. The rest they will hove to guess at. Languages which are
relatively close to those known by the thief will not incur such a penalty. . . .


Legend lore and Item Knowledge Percentage shows the chance that the bard has of knowing something about a legendary person, place or thing or of knowing what a particular magic item is.​

These passages indicate that the idea that a player might make a die roll to determine whether or not his/her PC has knowledge of something not as a result of actual game play, but as a result of the PC's "off stage" experience and learning, has an equally ancient provenance.

I would expect a 5e character built with a good INT bonus and trained in knowledge skills to play much the same as an AD&D thief or bard did, in respect of whatever the field of knowledge it is that the character has expertise in.

 

[Radaceus]

I feel the biggest impact on the 'generationalisticness' at the table is whether or not you grew up playing MMO's,; by that I mean in the last fifteen years, as some of us have had the fortunate misfortune of playing 8bit NWN (and Loving it!), but it was secondary, a placebo until it was time to gather around a table for a session.

 

[Nickolaidas]

About Monster Lore.

I think the MM of 5E did a wonderful job with bold titled paragraphs of the monster - it gives you a way to have the PCs roll multiple intelligence checks - each success giving them the info of a paragraph, but the DM can choose to increase the DC by 5 for every new paragraph of information.

So basically,

First Paragraph of info: DC 5-10
Second Paragraph of info: DC 10-15
Third Paragraph of info: DC 15-20
Weaknesses / Vulnerabilities DC 20-30

That's how I'd house-rule it.

 

[BoldItalic]

Here are some passages from Gygax's PHB (pp 24, 27; published 1978) and DMG (pp 19, 60, 97; published 1979):

...

These passages indicate that the idea that a player might make a die roll to determine whether or not his/her PC has knowledge of something not as a result of actual game play, but as a result of the PC's "off stage" experience and learning, has an equally ancient provenance.

I would expect a 5e character built with a good INT bonus and trained in knowledge skills to play much the same as an AD&D thief or bard did, in respect of whatever the field of knowledge it is that the character has expertise in.

Indeed, that was the way people played in AD&D. And some people play 5e that way. Other people play 5e the other way, with mechanics fading into the background and the narrative taking the foreground. Some people, indeed, are capable of switching between them, depending on which edition they happen to be playing at the time.

5e can accommodate both styles, but the explanatory text and examples sprinkled through the 5e PHB and the 5e DMG all seem to say that it is the DM who decides if and when an ability check is needed, not the player. In other words, 5e is a different game from AD&D. The key difference is that in 5e, the DM is at liberty to decide whether or not a roll is necessary at all. The player cannot anticipate this decision because he doesn't know all the circumstances.

Player: I make a Perception roll. I've rolled a 14. What do I see?
DM: I don't know. What DC were you rolling against?
Player:
DM:
Player: You're supposed to decide.
DM: Okay, I've decided that no roll was necessary right now. What is your character actually doing?

 

[pemerton]

Indeed, that was the way people played in AD&D. And some people play 5e that way. Other people play 5e the other way, with mechanics fading into the background and the narrative taking the foreground. Some people, indeed, are capable of switching between them, depending on which edition they happen to be playing at the time.

5e can accommodate both styles, but the explanatory text and examples sprinkled through the 5e PHB and the 5e DMG all seem to say that it is the DM who decides if and when an ability check is needed, not the player. In other words, 5e is a different game from AD&D. The key difference is that in 5e, the DM is at liberty to decide whether or not a roll is necessary at all. The player cannot anticipate this decision because he doesn't know all the circumstances.

Player: I make a Perception roll. I've rolled a 14. What do I see?
DM: I don't know. What DC were you rolling against?
Player:
DM:
Player: You're supposed to decide.
DM: Okay, I've decided that no roll was necessary right now. What is your character actually doing?

I think what you say is mostly orthogonal to the OP's point.

In AD&D it was typically the GM who rolled the dice for thief abilities, but similarly, that is mostly orthogonal to the OP's point also.

In an AD&D game, the player of the thief or bard says something like "I study the parchment - what can I read of it"? or "I study the runes - what do I know of their meaning and origin?" The GM then rolls the Read Languages or the Legend Lore dice, perhaps after asking the player for a % chance if s/he is not already familiar with what that is for a character of the PC's class and level.

Analogously, in a 5E game the player might say "I'm learned in the lore of such-and-such - what do I know about this such-and-such that we can see?" Where the such-and-such might be a monster, a coat of arms, a magic sword, or whatever.

The GM can answer with some information. Or the GM can set a DC and tell the player to roll. The GM can even say "You don't know anything", just as the AD&D GM can declare that the thief is unable to read the language if prior decisions about its origin mean that nothing could be known about it by the PC.

But if the GM asks "What are you doing?" I think it is fair for the player to answer "I'm introspecting, consulting my memory of such things." In the Perception case, I think the player can equally fairly say "I'm looking, relying upon my native wit and training to discriminate small details one from the other." There is no rule in 5e that suggests that, unlike in AD&D, PCs cannot recall information that they know (but which the player cannot recall, because the learning of it took place "off stage"); nor that PCs can't discern details by concentrating on doing so, just as AD&D PCs can by listening at doors or looking for secret door mechanisms.

Furthermore: Even if a particular 5e GM wants to insist that all perception and observation be handled in the second way that Gygax identified (eg actually describe what you are looking under, of what you are trying to manipulate), there is no reason to think that AD&D players will have a peculiar comfort with this that younger players will lack. Because that was not the only norm in AD&D, and having played at plenty of AD&D tables back in the day it was not an approach that I ever encountered as the norm (whereas I encountered a lot of use of Gygax's first method, of rolling dice).

And if a 5e table does insist on doing things that way, then I think it would be good sport to advise players of this in advance so that they do not waste skill training on Perception (which has no work to do in Gygax's second method) or on knowledge or lore skills (which have no work to do if attempts at introspection and recall are not permitted, and all knowledge/information must be acquired via actual play).

There would be nothing per se objectionable about a table that played in such a fashion and operated under such advice - I think that is probably how many tables worked in the early days of D&D, and before thief and bard classes were invented; and it reinforces the importance of sages as a resource, who even in AD&D were intended to be a big deal, and in my experience often were because lore/knowledge skills hadn't been generalised beyond the thief's linguistics and the bard's legend lore.

But state it up front so that players can make character building choices accordingly.

 

[iserith]

Furthermore: Even if a particular 5e GM wants to insist that all perception and observation be handled in the second way that Gygax identified (eg actually describe what you are looking under, of what you are trying to manipulate), there is no reason to think that AD&D players will have a peculiar comfort with this that younger players will lack. Because that was not the only norm in AD&D, and having played at plenty of AD&D tables back in the day it was not an approach that I ever encountered as the norm (whereas I encountered a lot of use of Gygax's first method, of rolling dice).

And if a 5e table does insist on doing things that way, then I think it would be good sport to advise players of this in advance so that they do not waste skill training on Perception (which has no work to do in Gygax's second method) or on knowledge or lore skills (which have no work to do if attempts at introspection and recall are not permitted, and all knowledge/information must be acquired via actual play).

There would be nothing per se objectionable about a table that played in such a fashion and operated under such advice - I think that is probably how many tables worked in the early days of D&D, and before thief and bard classes were invented; and it reinforces the importance of sages as a resource, who even in AD&D were intended to be a big deal, and in my experience often were because lore/knowledge skills hadn't been generalised beyond the thief's linguistics and the bard's legend lore.

But state it up front so that players can make character building choices accordingly.

D&D 5e works best in my experience if the players clearly state a goal and approach to that goal and then wait for the DM to ask for a check if necessary. As a player, you try not to roll if you can avoid it (outright success is better than a fickle d20), but you always have your character build to back you up if your efforts have an uncertain outcome. Since you know which ability checks have the best chance of success, you tend to engage in those activities in case you have to roll. But if you can make decisions that remove the uncertainty in the outcome, you go for it regardless of your character build choices.

That's how it goes at my table anyway. It validates both player decisions in character building and those made during play.

 

[pemerton]

D&D 5e works best in my experience if the players clearly state a goal and approach to that goal and then wait for the DM to ask for a check if necessary.

When it comes to perception-style training or acuity, or knowledge learned "off stage", what is the approach?

In AD&D, the player of a thief can say "I listen at the door - what do I hear?" Surely it is open to the player of a 5e PC, and especially one with Perception skill, to declare much the same action. AD&D has no "say yes" rule, and to be honest for this sort of thing I'm not 100% sure how 5e's version of a "say yes" rule is meant to work. What sort of listening action does a 5e player declare such that his/her hearing of any noise on the other side of the door becomes certain rather than a matter of rolling?

Likewise when it comes to recollection: surely "Being learned in such matters, I introspect - what do I recall?" is a valid action declaration in 5e?

 

[iserith]

When it comes to perception-style training or acuity, or knowledge learned "off stage", what is the approach?

In AD&D, the player of a thief can say "I listen at the door - what do I hear?" Surely it is open to the player of a 5e PC, and especially one with Perception skill, to declare much the same action. AD&D has no "say yes" rule, and to be honest for this sort of thing I'm not 100% sure how 5e's version of a "say yes" rule is meant to work. What sort of listening action does a 5e player declare such that his/her hearing of any noise on the other side of the door becomes certain rather than a matter of rolling?

Likewise when it comes to recollection: surely "Being learned in such matters, I introspect - what do I recall?" is a valid action declaration in 5e?

As I said, you clearly state a goal and approach, then the DM decides whether you succeed, fail, or roll.

"I place my ear to the door to see if I hear anything on the other side."

"I try to recall what I may have read about troll vulnerabilities."

And so on. The DM will take it from there.

 

[pemerton]

As I said, you clearly state a goal and approach, then the DM decides whether you succeed, fail, or roll.

"I place my ear to the door to see if I hear anything on the other side."

"I try to recall what I may have read about troll vulnerabilities."

And so on. The DM will take it from there.

What I am asking is, what principle guides the GM in deciding whether or not a roll is needed?

In AD&D, the relevant principles are fairly clear. Thus, if the player declares that "I put my ear to the door and listen", the GM either (i) makes a hear noise roll (this is the default), or (ii) if the GM's notes indicate a noise is automatically audible (eg the sounds of hammering on an anvil on the other side of the door) the GM just tells the player what is heard.

And in AD&D, if the player declares that his/her PC tries to recall something, the relevant principles are likewise pretty clear: by default, only thieves and bards are entitled to a roll (in the appropriate circumstances) and otherwise the player must have acquired the knowledge in the course of play.

5e does not have such a strong conception as does classic D&D, though, of the GM's notes made prior to play and binding during the course of play. And 5e, at least by default, happens in a much richer gameworld than does classic D&D (eg a Forgotten Realms-type gameworld rather than the very austere dungeons of classic D&D).

How is a GM expected to decide whether a roll is required, or whether the player just gets told the information? What are the relevant principles?

(Those question aren't rhetorical. I'm curious. In Burning Wheel, for instance, the relevant principle is "say yes if nothing of importance to the player flags is at stake, otherwise set a DC based on in-fiction "objective" considerations and call for a roll". But I don't think this is stated as the relevant principle for 5e.)

 

[iserith]

What I am asking is, what principle guides the GM in deciding whether or not a roll is needed?

If the DM thinks the outcome of the stated fictional action is uncertain (not definitely successful or definitely a failure), then some kind of check is appropriate. See Basic Rules, pages 3 and 58, and DMG page 237.