D&D 5E When generational differences become apparent

[pemerton]

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.

I've read the rules. I'm asking what is expected to guide the GM in making this call.

In AD&D, the GM makes the call by combing the rules with the dungeon notes. If the notes describe an outcome (eg an audible noise behind the door; moving the sconce will open the secret door), the GM applies that. Otherwise the rules specify dice rolls to be made for hearing noise behind a door, finding the opening mechanism etc.

In Burning Wheel, the GM makes the call by reviewing the stakes of the situation in light of player flags. If nothing salient is at stake, the GM says yes. Otherwise the GM sets a DC based on "objective" in game likelihoods, and the player makes a roll (and there are mechanics functionally comparable to Inspiration that enable the player to manipulate those likelihoods at the metagame level).

In Moldvay Basic, under the heading "Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art", there is a discussion of always giving the players a chance. In this discussion, the assumption seems to be that failure should almost always be uncertain, but that - in deciding this, and therefore in setting chances of success - the GM should have regard to "objective" in game likelihoods. (The example given involves the GM calculating the odds of their being water of sufficient depth at the bottom of a drop over a dungeon precipice that the character might survive it.)

What, in 5e, is meant to guide the GM in deciding if their is uncertainty? It seems to me that the game doesn't, in general, presuppose dungeon notes of the sort typical for AD&D. The characterisation mechanics don't go quite as far as a game like BW in establishing flags by which salient stakes can be identified to generate an indie-style approach to saying yes, though it probably woudn't be hard to drift the game in that direction via informal flags. (Plenty of 4e players seem to do something like this.) Is the GM meant to be adjudicating by reference to ingame likelihoods and "objective" ingame physics?

If the answer is, the game establishes no such principles, and expects the GM to work them out for him-/herself, that's fine. I'm just asking.

 

[iserith]

What, in 5e, is meant to guide the GM in deciding if their is uncertainty?

The DM's own judgment as to whether the outcome is uncertain based on the fictional circumstances at that moment. The guidance provided is on the aforementioned pages. In a nutshell, if the player describes wanting to do a thing that is "so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure," then the character simply succeeds (no roll). If the task is "so inappropriate or impossible... that it can't work," then the character just fails (no roll). For anything in between, some kind of check may be appropriate.

As a player, the smart play in my view is to try and remove the conflict and stress from the situation such that failure is impossible. If you can't do that, make sure you're doing something that your character is good at mechanically. Whenever possible, try to play to personality traits, ideals, bond, or flaws so as to get Inspiration for use in later rolls. If failure looks like it won't cost much (or is potentially at least as interesting as success), then it might even be worth purposefully failing if you can get Inspiration out of the deal.

 

[BoldItalic]

I've read the rules. I'm asking what is expected to guide the GM in making this call.

It speeds up play if you don't roll dice unless and until it is established that you definitely have to.

This can be illustrated with the example of the dungeon door. There is a door, the player wants to open the door and says so.

Most doors open trivially; they don't require any particular feat of strength or door-opening skills, they just open. A few doors are made purposely difficult to open, however; they might be locked or stuck, perhaps. The player doesn't know, when attempting to open the door, if this is an ordinary door or a special one. He finds out when he tries to open it.

Now, you could play the game that before opening any door in the dungeon the player makes a strength roll and a unlock roll just in case, accepting that in the majority of cases the rolls were superfluous. If the players enjoy rolling dice even when they don't need to, that's kinda fun but it slows down play.

Or, you can speed up play by establishing that the default is not rolling anything until the DM says that, because of exceptional circumstances, there is a problem with opening this particular door.

Having established that this particular door does not open easily, it is then up to the players to decide what, if anything, to do about it. They could walk away, use a key, batter it down by brute force, speak a secret password, find a passing goat, burn it down with flaming oil, or any number of creative solutions. When they say what they are doing next, the DM can decide if a skill roll is appropriate and, if so, what kind.

In short, the players don't know beforehand if there is even a problem and, if there is, the DM doesn't know how the players will tackle it. You can't sensibly call for dice rolls until that is established.

It avoids this kind of grind:

Player: I move 5 feet and prod the wall with my pole.
*makes perception roll*
DM: You find nothing special. It's just a wall.
Player: I move 5 feet and prod the wall with my pole.
*makes perception roll*
DM: You find nothing special. It's just a wall.
Player: I move 5 feet and prod the wall with my pole.
*makes perception roll*
DM: You find nothing special. It's just a wall.
Player: I move 5 feet and prod the wall with my pole.
*makes perception roll*
DM: You find nothing special. It's just a wall.
Player: I move 5 feet and prod the wall with my pole.
*makes perception roll*
DM: *facepalm*

 

[pming]

Hiya!

A bit late to the party, but...

The game of D&D has evolved quite a bit since the 70s. So has pop culture. So it shouldn't have come to a surprise to see just how obvious the generational differences in gamers playing D&D are. Note, this isn't an indictment on which generation is "better" or more of "role players" or whatever. Just an observation of differences. And these are just generalizations; of course there are exceptions.

For example, one thing I've noticed a lot is that 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.

LOL! Yeah, me too. When I first started DM'ing two of my current players (they're the "youngins"...they joined about 16 years ago) had that attitude. Every now and then they slip into that Gen Y mindset. Just a few months ago it happened mutliple times during a session. For some reason it really bugged me that night and I kinda 'snapped' at him a bit. He was asking to do that very thing you used as an example; make a Perception roll to notice stuff in the room. I said something like "It's a sort of lounge room. Round table, some chairs, it has a..." ...and he cut me off by rolling the die. I was even more annoyed at being interrupted during a description of the room! *light fuming* Then I saw his die roll. It was low. Like, really low...2 or 3. I think his perception check was maybe 4. He looked at me, a bit stunned...and didn't say a word. I continued... "...small couch right after the table in front of you, it's seat facing you." The player decided to have his character walk in to start searching the couch for loose change.... "Right, well, you step in and suddenly a pair of large, poisonous spiders drop down from the web-strewn rafters above your head! [roll roll roll]. They bite deep for 4 and 4 points; make two DC 12 Con saves." He failed. And died. There was much rejoicing.

The player in question did attempt to make the argument "But I would have noticed rafters covered in big-ass webs!", to which I said "Yeah, I was getting to that but you wanted to make a perception roll. You rolled badly, so obviously your character was completely focused on the couch and what coppery treasure lay within. You got a 4, man! That's pretty oblivious". He couldn't argue, and started rolling up a new character. He hasn't done that since...but we'll see.

On the flip side, Gen X and prior gamers tend to want to explain everything in detail to you and bypass rolling completely. Die rolls are only for combat, most of the time.

..and here we have one of my original players (roughly 31 years ago). He's a bit of an odd duck. If he doesn't really care one or the other for his character, he's happy to just roll dice and see what turns up. But the more he likes his character, the more he doesn't want to roll. That's how we can all tell if he likes his character or not. When he first starts playing one, he'll be all up about "I draw my sword and wade into the room". After a bit of success with the character, its "How many were in the room? Seven? Well, guys, should I draw my sword? Are we going to attack?". After more success, and the point when we know he likes his character, its reduced to "Ok. I'll wait until someone else goes into the room".

He does the same thing with description. "I guess I'll just try to tough it out...is that a Survival roll?" ... vs. ... "I spend two hours gathering up green pine branches. I also make two small fires on a pile of small to medium sized rocks. I dig a shallow area, maybe 6" deep. I take the pine branches, use my fishing net and wire to fasten them together over this shallow area, in a curved way...like a half egg shape. When that's done, I use my shield to shove the coals and rocks into the shallow area and cover it up with sand and dirt. I put more green pine over that, then my bedroll. My shield and backpack sit at the 'corners', to give a bit more protection from the outside wind. That should keep my nice and toasty warm for most of the night at least"... and I get the stink-eye when I still ask for a Survival roll (albeit with a rather large bonus, like +5 and/or Advantage)...but he still doesn't want to roll because he knows he can get low and I'll make up the why's and wherefores of what that result translates to in-game.

I guess it's the more he likes his character, the more he wants to treat the game as a "collective story telling system" and less and less like a "collective role-playing game system".

My biggest confusion comes with the seemingly "on/off", "yes/no" or otherwise binary mental operation a lot of Gen Y'ers (or folks growing up with that style of game play). I have given other players chances at our game ("try outs", if you will), and have had some rather bizarre reactions. One girl only played one session. Her reason for not wanting to come back was because, basically, "my character can't do anything because there are no Feats, Multiclassing or purchasable magic items...so I'd only be swinging my sword once a round" (she wanted to make a duel-wielding fighter). The system at the time was Dark Dungeons (a retro BECMI/RC clone). In her mind, if she didn't have a Feat that said she could use two swords at the same time, she couldn't. If she didn't have an ability that said she could climb walls, she couldn't. If she didn't have a class feature that gave her access to carving small wooden childrens toys, she couldn't. It was very much "on/off". I was really dumbfounded. She didn't tell me directly...I heard it from one of my other female players. Bottom line for her "I don't like the system because characters can't do anything". I think she was of the opinion that the game would have been nothing more than "A 20' square room. Roll initiative. ... A 30' diameter cave, roll initiative. ... ...A 10' wide, 40' long corridor, roll initiative", with nothing else in the game because "there wasn't anything in the game to 'do' due to lack of 'build choices and rules'". Really, really bizarre IMHO.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[BoldItalic]

...
In her mind, if she didn't have a Feat that said she could use two swords at the same time, she couldn't. If she didn't have an ability that said she could climb walls, she couldn't. If she didn't have a class feature that gave her access to carving small wooden childrens toys, she couldn't. It was very much "on/off".
...

Lucky no one told her about the "Improvised Action" action. That one is really scary

Where's the list of actions I'm allowed to improvise? It's not in the book! This game is hopeless!

 

[Corpsetaker]

I was actually thinking about this topic the other day while sitting on the toilet.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

It's a matter of DM judgment whether a roll is called for, so it's a matter of knowing the DM. If the DM appreciates preparedness and using the right tool for the job then having a tumbler or horn or some other gizmo might help. If the DM values cooperation, then getting everyone else to be very very quiet for a moment might.

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?

I don't know about "introspect" but asking if your character knows or can remember having heard anything on a topic doesn't seem unreasonable.

If the answer is, the game establishes no such principles, and expects the GM to work them out for him-/herself, that's fine. I'm just asking.

In the context of 5e, yeah, sure, it kicks a lot to the DM. It's intentional. That might make it a 'bad' game by some standards ("not playable as written"), but that 'what the DM works out for him/herself' may still result in a very good experience for his/her players.

 

[BryonD]

If the answer is, the game establishes no such principles, and expects the GM to work them out for him-/herself, that's fine. I'm just asking.

This is an interesting line of question to me. I've long stated that any game which tries to tell the players (inc DM) how to resolve any situation is doomed to being a crappy game overall.
And if the people sitting around the table bring that mentality to the game, they can bring a good system down.

For 5E specifically, it seems very clear to me that WotC went out their way to avoid having the answers between the covers. Agreement with my idea is likely in the mix somewhere, but I'd say that simply trying to make the game as adaptable as possible was the driver. And it working for so well for me is somewhat a happy circumstance.

Typical YMMV here.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wha~~~~? People who've been doing something for 30+ years are generally better at it than people who are just starting out? Pshaw, I say, pshaw!

Better at what exactly? There are so many different play styles and variations within those styles that skill in one may not transfer to the other. I am a decent player and DM, having over 35 years of experience but if I were to play in 3.5 game including tons of splat material then I would ask for help from someone who was a master of all that material to assist in character creation. There are a great many different sorts of gaming skills and everyone, regardless of how long they have been playing, has aspects that they favor and are thus more skilled in them.

Personally, I have seen more clashes of expectations based on play style than age. It is all a matter of taste. There are those my age and older who prefer a newer approach to playing and there are young players who love OSR games. It is true that you can find out more about someone in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. Young or old, how do they approach, and what do they expect out of the game? These questions are more important IMHO than physical age.

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?

Why do you think 5E doesn't have a strong connection to the scenario that the DM has prepared prior to play? I prepare my 5E scenarios and notes much the same as I have since B/X was released. There are system based differences of course but the principle is the same. The 5E background system is wonderful for aiding in the decisions about what a character might know. If a character has chosen background: sailor, and asks if he/she might know anything about favorite ports of call for pirates along the Wild Coast then I would likely be inclined to impart the information without a roll. A character with the criminal background may know as well. A noble or a knight might not have any idea.

Often times, when character attributes have no bearing on the situation I decide what bucket the information belongs in. Is the information being sought very basic and vital? This is the kind of information that was commonly read to players in the introduction of classic adventure modules. If this is the case, then just get them the information. It is the type of info the party needs to engage with or even become aware of, a given scenario. Then there is the very useful but not vital bucket. Information that could save the PCs time, resources, make their lives easier, or provide a bit of extra reward goes here. This type of information can be obtained often by simply being interested enough to look for it. For example the PCs have all the vital information that they need to explore a particular adventure site. The magic user decides to spend some time in the library looking up any historical data about the site as well as any pertinent rumors or legends. Doing this research earns the information being sought generally without a die roll. Another character may be trained in history and wants to see if he can remember anything offhand. For this I will generally have rough estimates worked out about how much information can be recalled depending on the roll.

In many cases a roll is a quick and dirty way to get some information when time or disinterest prevents taking steps to get a clearer picture.

A richer game world? Impossible to determine by system used or what published material is being used. A good DM can make a sketchy barely defined game world come alive and a poor one can make the Realms as dull and mushy as cold porridge.

Hiya!

LOL! Yeah, me too. When I first started DM'ing two of my current players (they're the "youngins"...they joined about 16 years ago) had that attitude. Every now and then they slip into that Gen Y mindset. Just a few months ago it happened mutliple times during a session. For some reason it really bugged me that night and I kinda 'snapped' at him a bit. He was asking to do that very thing you used as an example; make a Perception roll to notice stuff in the room. I said something like "It's a sort of lounge room. Round table, some chairs, it has a..." ...and he cut me off by rolling the die. I was even more annoyed at being interrupted during a description of the room! *light fuming* Then I saw his die roll. It was low. Like, really low...2 or 3. I think his perception check was maybe 4. He looked at me, a bit stunned...and didn't say a word. I continued... "...small couch right after the table in front of you, it's seat facing you." The player decided to have his character walk in to start searching the couch for loose change.... "Right, well, you step in and suddenly a pair of large, poisonous spiders drop down from the web-strewn rafters above your head! [roll roll roll]. They bite deep for 4 and 4 points; make two DC 12 Con saves." He failed. And died. There was much rejoicing.

The player in question did attempt to make the argument "But I would have noticed rafters covered in big-ass webs!", to which I said "Yeah, I was getting to that but you wanted to make a perception roll. You rolled badly, so obviously your character was completely focused on the couch and what coppery treasure lay within. You got a 4, man! That's pretty oblivious". He couldn't argue, and started rolling up a new character. He hasn't done that since...but we'll see.

No better cure for premature polyhedral rollers than this.

..and here we have one of my original players (roughly 31 years ago). He's a bit of an odd duck. If he doesn't really care one or the other for his character, he's happy to just roll dice and see what turns up. But the more he likes his character, the more he doesn't want to roll. That's how we can all tell if he likes his character or not. When he first starts playing one, he'll be all up about "I draw my sword and wade into the room". After a bit of success with the character, its "How many were in the room? Seven? Well, guys, should I draw my sword? Are we going to attack?". After more success, and the point when we know he likes his character, its reduced to "Ok. I'll wait until someone else goes into the room".

He does the same thing with description. "I guess I'll just try to tough it out...is that a Survival roll?" ... vs. ... "I spend two hours gathering up green pine branches. I also make two small fires on a pile of small to medium sized rocks. I dig a shallow area, maybe 6" deep. I take the pine branches, use my fishing net and wire to fasten them together over this shallow area, in a curved way...like a half egg shape. When that's done, I use my shield to shove the coals and rocks into the shallow area and cover it up with sand and dirt. I put more green pine over that, then my bedroll. My shield and backpack sit at the 'corners', to give a bit more protection from the outside wind. That should keep my nice and toasty warm for most of the night at least"... and I get the stink-eye when I still ask for a Survival roll (albeit with a rather large bonus, like +5 and/or Advantage)...but he still doesn't want to roll because he knows he can get low and I'll make up the why's and wherefores of what that result translates to in-game.

I guess it's the more he likes his character, the more he wants to treat the game as a "collective story telling system" and less and less like a "collective role-playing game system".

Thats classic OD&D training in action! At first, you know how fragile life is so you don't get too attached. Then after getting a level or two under your belt, you start to cheer for the character and really get invested. At that point randomness is your biggest enemy. Anything you can do to just play without invoking the fickle finger of the dice is worth doing. When the whole group is doing it together its an awful lot of fun. It would seem rather strange to be the only one playing like that in the group though.

My biggest confusion comes with the seemingly "on/off", "yes/no" or otherwise binary mental operation a lot of Gen Y'ers (or folks growing up with that style of game play). I have given other players chances at our game ("try outs", if you will), and have had some rather bizarre reactions. One girl only played one session. Her reason for not wanting to come back was because, basically, "my character can't do anything because there are no Feats, Multiclassing or purchasable magic items...so I'd only be swinging my sword once a round" (she wanted to make a duel-wielding fighter). The system at the time was Dark Dungeons (a retro BECMI/RC clone). In her mind, if she didn't have a Feat that said she could use two swords at the same time, she couldn't. If she didn't have an ability that said she could climb walls, she couldn't. If she didn't have a class feature that gave her access to carving small wooden childrens toys, she couldn't. It was very much "on/off". I was really dumbfounded. She didn't tell me directly...I heard it from one of my other female players. Bottom line for her "I don't like the system because characters can't do anything". I think she was of the opinion that the game would have been nothing more than "A 20' square room. Roll initiative. ... A 30' diameter cave, roll initiative. ... ...A 10' wide, 40' long corridor, roll initiative", with nothing else in the game because "there wasn't anything in the game to 'do' due to lack of 'build choices and rules'". Really, really bizarre IMHO.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

The binary phenomenon comes from learning to play in certain gaming culture. When D&D was first released it came with only a few hard and fast rules. Everything else, like most war games played with a referee at the time, fell under the principle of: everything not forbidden is possible. So if there wasn't a rule explicitly stating that doing X was not permitted, you could attempt it and the referee would adjudicate.

As more rules were added to the game and the mechanics became more complex the governing philosophy reversed gears. The exact point at which this viewpoint starting dominating the majority of play is debatable but the commonly accepted principle became: everything which is not expressly permitted is impossible. The binary switch was thrown. At this point, somehow the character sheet became the beginning, middle, and end of all possibilities for your character. Things that most active adventuring human beings can do at least in a somewhat passable manner suddenly became impossible without a skill, talent, feat or whatever. It was when this principle took over that how things are accomplished mechanically began to assert dominance over what characters were actually doing in the game world. Having a +X in a skill was far more important than what you chose to do in a given situation when ALL situations ended with a DC Y die roll.

A player learning to play in such a culture would indeed be lost without enough tangible widgets to assemble. In their mind they have nothing with which to aid them in the inevitable slew of difficult DC die rolls that they will required to make to be able to even pick their nose.

Lucky no one told her about the "Improvised Action" action. That one is really scary

Where's the list of actions I'm allowed to improvise? It's not in the book! This game is hopeless!

How true!

 

[werecorpse]

My group is comprised of people who are in their 40's (a few turn 50 this year) and have played for 30-35+ years. So I guess we are gen X. But our play method is describe what your character is doing, often in general terms (ie I search the chest for traps) and if it's not an auto success or fail you roll a dice to see how well you did.

I agree that rolling before saying what you do is annoying but we abandoned the detailed description of searches decades ago. It was pure player knowledge rather than character knowledge. It got to the stage of everyone knowing what to look for and simply saying "standard door (or room or chest or corridor) procedure". That's player problem solving - it's a type of roleplaying, where you play the role of what you would do in that circumstance, but not where you play the role of what Krago of the mountains a dwarf and an ex soldier would do.

Now once a room is described with a chest If a player wants to look around for traps they just say they are. The GM assumes that means a whole array of checking for wires, tiny holes, loose stones, contact poison etc in one roll.

Same as in combat if you just say you attack you get to roll to hit. The GM assumes all the appropriate manoeuvres your attack bonus dictates.