D&D 5E When generational differences become apparent

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

In the context of 5e, yeah, sure, it kicks a lot to the DM. It's intentional.

There does seem to be a diversity of approaches, yes. As I said upthread, I'm not implying this is bad (or good). I'm just curious.

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.

I wasn't meaning to say that it couldn't be done. But I don't think it is such a strong default. Apart from anything else, I think that 5e assumes as a default a much richer and more expansive gameworld than the classic dungeon, and so it is much less likely that the GM will have all the key points noted and more likely that the GM will have to make some sort of judgment call on the spur of the moment, possibly in the context of improvised fiction and backstory as well.

(In the classic game, this move away from either pre-prepared notes or straightforward random rolling was, I think, most common in city adventures. I think that 5e, by default orientation, perhaps tends to bring this sort of play more front-and-centre than in the classic game.)

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.

This approach seems to be based on what, upthread, I called the "objective" ingame situation. It reminds me of the GMing advice in Moldvay Basic, and of the approach to setting DCs (but not to deciding if a roll is required) in Burning Wheel.

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.

This looks similar to the sort of approach [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] describes.

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.

Some of this also looks similar - the issue of "uncertainty" is settled by considering the in-fiction situation. But some of it is also driven by "meta" considerations ie giving the players the information that is vital for the scenario.

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.

This leaves it open, though, what makes a door "ordinary" or "special". Is that ascertained by reference to the in-fiction circumsances, or by "meta"-considerations.

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.

The same question arises with respect to "exceptional circumstances". Are circumstances exceptional because of in-fiction considerations? Or "meta" considerations?

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

The description of doors needing locks or passwords sounds like the relevant consideration is in-fiction circumstances. But the desire to avoid grind sounds like a "meta", pacing consideration.

In my own GMing (which is not 5e GMing - at the moment I'm running a 4e game and a Burning Wheel game) I have come to use only "meta" considerations to decide when a roll is needed. If it is needed, then it has to be made even if the chance of success if (near-)automatic - because the making of the roll might trigger other factors within the overall resolution system.

 

[Jaelommiss]

If this thread had been posted a week ago I would have had a hard time understanding the complaint. Then I played pathfinder two days ago for the first time with a bunch of people I had previously played 5e with. The change was (from my perspective) horrible.

"I roll for X"
"I'm making an X check"
"X: 17!"

It just felt as though people were playing a number crunching game rather than a role playing game.

I should mention that everyone there (myself included) is in the seventeen to mid twenties range, and most of them grew up on 3.X. Myself, I played 4e in a one-on-one campaign for a couple of months then hopped over to 5e when it was released, with the focus always firmly on the narrative and situation rather than the mechanical implications. I felt out of place for saying "I attempt to catch the skeleton by following in the direction that it ran, checking the ground for footprints, the bushes and shrubs for bent leaves and broken twigs, and listening for the sound of it running" and waiting for the DM to tell me the result or if I needed to roll anything.

 

[Manbearcat]

Some of this also looks similar - the issue of "uncertainty" is settled by considering the in-fiction situation. But some of it is also driven by "meta" considerations ie giving the players the information that is vital for the scenario.

This leaves it open, though, what makes a door "ordinary" or "special". Is that ascertained by reference to the in-fiction circumsances, or by "meta"-considerations.

The same question arises with respect to "exceptional circumstances". Are circumstances exceptional because of in-fiction considerations? Or "meta" considerations?

The description of doors needing locks or passwords sounds like the relevant consideration is in-fiction circumstances. But the desire to avoid grind sounds like a "meta", pacing consideration.

In my own GMing (which is not 5e GMing - at the moment I'm running a 4e game and a Burning Wheel game) I have come to use only "meta" considerations to decide when a roll is needed. If it is needed, then it has to be made even if the chance of success if (near-)automatic - because the making of the roll might trigger other factors within the overall resolution system.

Snipped a bit of your post. All of your musings above draw back to the initial conversations we were having about 5e noncombat action resolution principles and procedures.

As I said then, within the system's architecture and its GM instruction, you'll find:

1) evidence that "drama logic" underwrites GM framing and action resolution (interesting story as the primary goal of play, interesting outcomes as a micro-principle, and the recommended use of Fail Forward)

and simultaneously you'll find

2) evidence that "causal logic" underwrites GM framing and action resolution (DCs appear to be referencing "in-world processes" or are "objective" and the GM is supposed to determine if the PC has removed enough uncertainty at the action declaration phase by cross-referencing the players "move" with that context - calling for a roll and then setting a DC if the player hasn't done a good enough job).

I said then that it looks like the designers finished their work with a mash-up of 13th Age (backgrounds, fail forward, drama logic/interesting consequences) and 3.x (causal logic) with the spirit of AD&D 2e (rulings not rules and GM as primary storyteller).

 

[iserith]

If this thread had been posted a week ago I would have had a hard time understanding the complaint. Then I played pathfinder two days ago for the first time with a bunch of people I had previously played 5e with. The change was (from my perspective) horrible.

"I roll for X"
"I'm making an X check"
"X: 17!"

It just felt as though people were playing a number crunching game rather than a role playing game.

I should mention that everyone there (myself included) is in the seventeen to mid twenties range, and most of them grew up on 3.X. Myself, I played 4e in a one-on-one campaign for a couple of months then hopped over to 5e when it was released, with the focus always firmly on the narrative and situation rather than the mechanical implications. I felt out of place for saying "I attempt to catch the skeleton by following in the direction that it ran, checking the ground for footprints, the bushes and shrubs for bent leaves and broken twigs, and listening for the sound of it running" and waiting for the DM to tell me the result or if I needed to roll anything.

How did the DM narrate the result of the adventurer's action?

 

[BoldItalic]

There does seem to be a diversity of approaches, yes. As I said upthread, I'm not implying this is bad (or good). I'm just curious.

I wasn't meaning to say that it couldn't be done. But I don't think it is such a strong default. Apart from anything else, I think that 5e assumes as a default a much richer and more expansive gameworld than the classic dungeon, and so it is much less likely that the GM will have all the key points noted and more likely that the GM will have to make some sort of judgment call on the spur of the moment, possibly in the context of improvised fiction and backstory as well.

(In the classic game, this move away from either pre-prepared notes or straightforward random rolling was, I think, most common in city adventures. I think that 5e, by default orientation, perhaps tends to bring this sort of play more front-and-centre than in the classic game.)

5e is no differerent, in that the DM can use a pre-written adventure where the problems are predefined or he can wing it and invent problems on the fly, or a mixture of both. He could use dice to randomize when problems occur and what kind of problem they are (as in the classic wandering monster roll) or just use his imagination on the spot. Some DMs are comfortable with doing that and find it works well for them, others prefer not to. I think it's a matter of the DM's personality. My feeling is that it is easier to wing it in 5e, but there is no built-in presumption one way or the other.

Some of this also looks similar - the issue of "uncertainty" is settled by considering the in-fiction situation. But some of it is also driven by "meta" considerations ie giving the players the information that is vital for the scenario.

This leaves it open, though, what makes a door "ordinary" or "special". Is that ascertained by reference to the in-fiction circumsances, or by "meta"-considerations.

The same question arises with respect to "exceptional circumstances". Are circumstances exceptional because of in-fiction considerations? Or "meta" considerations?

The description of doors needing locks or passwords sounds like the relevant consideration is in-fiction circumstances. But the desire to avoid grind sounds like a "meta", pacing consideration.

If you are winging it (or even if you aren't), you can use meta considerations too - the players won't necessarily know the difference. I avoided introducing that side of things in my door example and talked about the in-game fiction but, yes, deciding whether or not a door is a problem and if so what kind comes into it too. The DM should be asking himself: is it useful to the narrative to place a problem right now? If I make this door exceptional, am I doing it to delay the party or to divert them along a different route? Or am I doing it to provide a clue to something? Or because nothing much has happened lately and the pace is going a bit slack? All of these are viable meta reasons for making the door exceptional. You could even introduce it for no reason at all to confound metagaming. Conversely, if a door has been marked as exceptional in a pre-prepared scenario, you could decide on the fly to make it unexceptional if it seemed to serve no purpose at the moment. An example of this might be a door that had been placed to delay the party in the expectation that they would be chasing fleeing monsters, but they have somehow killed all the monsters so there is no chase and delays now serve no purpose. In 5e the DM is expected to do this, whereas perhaps it was regarded as inappropriate before.

In my own GMing (which is not 5e GMing - at the moment I'm running a 4e game and a Burning Wheel game) I have come to use only "meta" considerations to decide when a roll is needed. If it is needed, then it has to be made even if the chance of success if (near-)automatic - because the making of the roll might trigger other factors within the overall resolution system.

I think there is a different emphasis in 5e, perhaps because the mechanics are simplified. I've been using doors as a canonical example, but I'm going to switch to investigation rolls for finding treasure. The players are in a room and there is some treasure placed there. Do I definitely want them to have the treasure, or definitely not want them to have it, or to only have a random proportion of it, or does it not matter very much either way? Do I want them to feel that they have earned it by solving a problem right now, or have they already solved a signficant problem just getting to this point? Do I want to encourage the searching of rooms as a feature of game, or discourage it? Hiding the treasure and calling for an investigation roll should serve some purpose.

In 5e, though, whether or not a roll succeeds only has an in-game consequence (the door is now open or still shut; the treasure is now found or not found), it doesn't directly cross-link to other rolls or other mechanics at the meta level. The rules don't say: if this type of roll fails, you must make that kind of roll.

(edit - added)

There is another kind of meta-consideration that relates to giving each player a turn in the spotlight. In 5e, there are relatively few skills (just 18) and each PC has a fraction of them (typically about 5) but different PCs will tend to have different factions. The DM can (and preferably should) present problems that allow each player some opportunities to exercise their PC's skills; some doors for the fighter to smash down with his Athletics skill; some clues for the wizard to find with his Investigation skill and so on. But in 5e anyone can attempt these tasks, whether they have the skill or not; having a relevant skill just improves the chances of success if a roll is called for. A situation where a puny wizard smashes down a door that the fighter had just failed to force open can be quite memorable!

 

[Shasarak]

I'm not sure which generation I am, possibly generation W, but let's put it this way: I'm three decades older than D&D.

Player: I make a perception check. I've rolled 17. What do I see?
DM (Me): You see a table with a number of small multi-faceted crystals on it.

You forgot the bit where the DM describes everything in the room except for the "Dragon" or left that feature to the end of the room description.

That was always hilarious to me.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I agree that rolling before saying what you do is annoying but we abandoned the detailed description of searches decades ago.

Detail and description are what give the game world life for me and my group. Just skipping to the roll makes everything seem too binary.

 

[BoldItalic]

You forgot the bit where the DM describes everything in the room except for the "Dragon" or left that feature to the end of the room description.

That was always hilarious to me.

Oh, do you mean the seven dragons who were sitting around the table using those polyhedral dice to play Houses and Humans? No, well, I didn't get around to mentioning those. Do you think I should have done? After all, the player didn't say he was looking around the room for dragons did he?

 

[jayoungr]

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.

I'm more thrown by the use of "percept" as a verb.

 

[Iosue]

I make no claim as to it being generational, or past edition history, or just play style, but I can relate to the OP, and I don't think it's necessarily a system issue. When I play 5e with my old group from back in the day, we are in sympatico. They tell me what they want to do, and I say yes, no, or roll these dice. When I've played with some other groups, with people that are generally a decade or more younger than me, there just seems to be a greater desire to interact with the game through mechanics, rather than through me. And it's not necessarily like they're not into role-playing. They'll give me big descriptions of what they're doing, or make big in-character speeches, and then before I can even react to that they're rolling dice and telling me the result.

Even playing B/X, there was one time when I player asked if he could read any tracks in the dust of a dungeon floor. For that particular situation, I thought a roll would be appropriate, so I said, "The dust is pretty churned up by many comings and goings. Why don't you roll a d6 to see if you can make anything out?" After that, though, the player would frequently say, "I'm looking for tracks in the floor!" and throw the d6, before I could say, "The tracks can be clearly read," or "There are no visible tracks," or even "Roll the die to see what you can find." They latched onto that quick-and-dirty ruling as a mechanic they could go to again and again.

It makes me sad, in a way. As DM, I very much believe in Mike Carr's advice that "the DM must be fair, reasonable (without giving in to the unreasonable demands of the players), and worthy of the respect of all the participants," and "The Dungeon Master should do everything possible to assist players in their quest without actually providing important information unless the players themselves discover it..." I have no desire to "Gotcha!" the players or be needlessly adversarial. If the players prefer to play with a heavy reliance on mechanical resolution, I'll adjust; I have no problem letting the players play the kind of game they want to play. But I could give them so much more...