Which PC actions are unstated?

[p_johnston]

So last session me and one of my players got into a minor argument a couple of times about what his character was doing.For the purpose of this post we'll call him Morath (his PC's name). I want the playgrounds opinion on whether I made the right calls in the specific situations and also on how other DM's handle the idea of what actions by a PC don't need to be stated . Skip to the Bold if you want to just get to the general question and skip the specifics scenarios.

1) Morath rushed through a cloudkill spell to reach the rest of the party on the other side. I had him roll his con save and another player asked if he holding your breath when going through the cloud allowed you to make the save with advantage. Morath says that of course he was holding his breath when he ran through the cloudkill. I inform him that he would have had to state that before running into the cloud and Morath argues that he thought it went without saying that he did so.

On this issue my thinking is that if you want to try for some sort of mechanical advantage, such as getting advantage on a save, you HAVE to tell me your doing something. I'm not going to assume it.

2)Morath and another PC are sleeping inside of a statue that has stairs leading to the top. The stairs are collapsed partway up and the only way to the top of the statue is by climbing a rope. The next morning the party has left the area, comes back, and finds a wizard at the top of the statue with the rope curled around his feet. When talking about it Morath claims that of course he would have pulled the rope up after him when climbing the tower, he thought it didn't need to be stated that he would do so. I again said that he would have had to of told me he did so the night before when they were making the camp.

On this issue my thinking is that I'm not going to make assumptions about the parties preparations that they don't state. During the previous scenario the other half of the party described how the tied off doors to secure their camp and what watch order they took. Morath and his companion described how they climbed the tower and set up a guardian of faith at the top of the tower. If they didn't also state "we also pull up the rope after us" then the rope is still hanging down.

So my general style of DMing, as you may have guessed by my answers above, is that if you don't tell me about something it didn't happen. I try and be fair about this. If the party makes a plan I will generally ask if that is all they are doing and then repeat the plan back to them, to clear up any misunderstandings. If the party says something like "we make camp for the night" I don't just assume they fall over asleep on the spot, I'll prod them about watch order and any defenses they want to erect.

My question to you playground is what do you think it is reasonable to just assume a PC is doing even if they don't state it? in a dungeon are they closing doors behind them? Are they collecting rope used in exploring? If they sleep in a dungeon is it assumed the door is barricaded? If they sleep in an inn is it assumed the door is locked? Where do you draw the line?

P.S. if curious my answer to the above is no, no, no, and yes.

[suplee215]

On the first situation I think you are 100% correct. If you go "I'm running in to the cloud kill spell" and do not say you are doing anything special than you are just running in. It is also suspect that he says "of course I did the thing the other player said that is smart". On the second situation I think it is more up to the DM. Given your side of the story, I side with you. If they made other preparations and other did made their preparations that were spelled out then you spell it out. But if the player said something along the lines of "we secure camp before going to bed" I would give them the rope pulled up. There it depends on how the DM and players usually operate.

[mephnick]

On this issue my thinking is that if you want to try for some sort of mechanical advantage, such as getting advantage on a save, you HAVE to tell me your doing something. I'm not going to assume it.

Pretty much. I would assume someone was holding their breath through a stinking cloud but I wouldn't grant them any kind of advantage for it. That way lies the madness of attempting to grab advantage for every stupid little thing possible in the world. If you want to avoid stinking cloud, go around it or blow it away or something that costs you resources. You don't get to negate a level 3 spell by holding your nose.

I wouldn't assume they're closing doors. Hell, I'd probably leave them open in case I needed to run back.
I'd just let them have their rope unless it was obviously irretrievable for some reason.
I would assume they locked a door if it has one, but they have to tell me specifically that they barricaded it and how.
Same with Inns.

[Ixidor92]

I think where you draw the line depends on the level of danger present in the area and how integral the PC's actions are to moving the story along at that point. If the PC's are in a relatively safe area, such as an inn, then I wouldn't worry too much about the specifics in interest of moving the plot forward. In the middle of a dungeon however, that would be a different story. It also depends on how far back the "well I did this" was taking place. In the two examples you gave, I would personally have said "fine" to the cloudkill example, but no to the other example. For the cloudkill spell, the player is immediately taking action, and it makes sense that he would hold his breath. So yes, I would allow it. For the other however, it has been a day of in-game time. That is not thinking about your character's immediate action, that is ret-conning what your character did the previous day just so you can have an immediate advantage.

[Mellack]

I think a group can assume many basic things because otherwise it can bog down the game. It would be very tedious if the group has to say every time "I am watching out for traps and ambushes," or "I pack all my gear up for travel in the morning." I would even assume setting watches is standard unless said otherwise.

My answers, yes (see above), no, (unless they say they will always close them), yes, yes, and yes.

[TheCrowing1432]

No you're not wrong to DM that way.

Its one thing to assume your players do something when the results are fluff based. I mean, you assume that your players eat food, drink water and go to the bathroom when they set up camp, do you not? They dont need to tell you that they did these things. (Unless they have a limited supply of food and water and you're using starvation/exhaustion rules, but thats a mechanical problem, not a fluff one)

In the examples that you provided, both of these had mechanical influences on your game, the cloudkill spell, and the rope being used by someone else. Both of these have huge impacts on the game at large and change how each encounter could have gone down.

However, I do see where the player is coming from. Acts of self preservation, such as holding your breath when walking into poison/securing the rope from intruders, seems like a very obvious thing to do and something that does not bear mentioning, similar to having your character use the bathroom, you dont have to tell anyone you're doing it because the reasons why you did it are self evident

I dont like to think the worst of people, so I think your player might have thought it was obvious that he would hold his breath when wading into the cloudkill spell, or he would secure the rope against enemies.

However, there is the other side of the coin, where he could be realizing his mistake of not telling you things and trying to say that he meant to do them in order to eke out an advantage against you, sadly some players do that. I dont know the player, you do, so I have to refer to your judgement, does he seem the type to take advantage of you? Or do you think these are general slip ups?

[p_johnston]

Knowing the player I will say that It is about 35% trying to get advantage 65% genuinely forgetting.
I will also state some of how I rule it is based upon established habits by the players. We have one player who always approaches things methodically. When playing an archer he would ask "I retrieve my arrows, how many do i get?" after every combat. After a while I simply told him to assume he got back any arrows that are non-retrievable. He had established a pattern of behavior. So if a PC/The party does something enough I will just assume they keep doing it. (watches are an exception because they like to change those up based upon who's the most wounded. When I ask about watches I mostly am looking for the order.)
Morath on the other hand has established himself to be forgetful about things like that as BOTH the player and the character.

[Nifft]

Creatures are affected even if they hold their breath or don’t need to breathe.


Holding your breath shouldn't help.

It is obvious, and it probably is what every PC would do instinctively, and yet by the rules it won't help.

So, no Advantage => you did it right.

[p_johnston]

On the holding breath to get advantage: even if he had stated it I wouldn't have given advantage and I never actually ruled one way or another at the table.
The problem is I like to establish that any action you want to grant you a mechanical advantage needs to be stated, whether or not any actual advantage is going to be gained from it. If for instance it had been regular poison gas instead of cloudkill Morath would still have had to state "I hold my breath before going in" in order to gain advantage.

[MaxWilson]

My question to you playground is what do you think it is reasonable to just assume a PC is doing even if they don't state it? in a dungeon are they closing doors behind them? Are they collecting rope used in exploring? If they sleep in a dungeon is it assumed the door is barricaded? If they sleep in an inn is it assumed the door is locked? Where do you draw the line?

P.S. if curious my answer to the above is no, no, no, and yes.

When stuff like this comes up I just ask them. "So, you're at the top of the cliff... is the rope still hanging down the cliff, or have you untied it?" "Are you closing the door behind you?" "Do you ever take your armor off to bathe?"

If you do it with the right intonation you can make players equally afraid to say "Yes" or "No". :)

[Nifft]

On the holding breath to get advantage: even if he had stated it I wouldn't have given advantage and I never actually ruled one way or another at the table.
The problem is I like to establish that any action you want to grant you a mechanical advantage needs to be stated, whether or not any actual advantage is going to be gained from it. If for instance it had been regular poison gas instead of cloudkill Morath would still have had to state "I hold my breath before going in" in order to gain advantage.

I'd assume that PCs always do obvious things.

If I were going to run through smoke or visible gas, I'd hold my breath. It's obvious and instinctive. IMHO that sort of thing is why they get saves in the first place.

The only time I demand that the player tell me about their actions before doing something is when there are multiple valid choices.

Like, I don't require that the PCs tell me "I look up!" when they walk into a room, since there are plenty of well-known ceiling monsters, and that's what Perception is for. But if they're running away from monsters, then I'll make them choose -- do you proceed carefully, or do you favor speed? -- and that tells me if they're going to take a speed penalty or if they're going to take a Perception penalty.

Basically: don't allow the players to bully you into giving them advantages for having more and more meticulous descriptions of their actions. They are professional adventurers, they will do things in a relatively smart way by default.

You know what happens when you allow the PCs to bully you into giving them advantage for describing their actions? They try to optimize their descriptions. That turns the game from an action thriller into a very boring and very verbose legal document -- you stop playing Dr. Strange and start playing C-SPAN.

This exact thing happened in 1e, and that's why you can find stupid monsters like:

Ear Seekers - "Oh you want to listen at a door? Well screw you! The door had trap monsters in it!"
2e - http://www.lomion.de/cmm/parasite.php
PF - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/traps-hazards-and-special-terrains/hazards/environmental-hazards/ear-seeker-cr-5/

Lock Lurker - "Oh you think you searched for traps sufficiently around the treasure? Well screw you! The treasure was also a trap!"
2e - http://www.lomion.de/cmm/locklurk.php

Overly careful descriptions are the beginning of an arms race, and that race ends in both stupid monsters and playing C-SPAN.

Just assume that the PCs are doing the smart thing unless there are multiple valid choices, and then ask them which choice they make.

Their decisions should be meaningful, not just saying the correct boilerplate.

[Emay Ecks]

I usually give my players the benefit of the doubt in most of these scenarios. I know these are people sitting around a table, having a good time, eating chips and salsa while playing a role-playing game. They aren't actually in these intense combat situations so a lot the smaller details might slip past them, even if those small details make big differences.

I also try to ask my players directly if I am unsure.
Players: "We go to the next room"
Me: "Could you describe that process for me? Do you just walk into the next room? Do you listen at the door to see if there is anything in there? Do you kick the door down and open fire on the first thing that moves? Do you close the door behind you?"

Sometimes if I don't feel like giving them the benefit of the doubt, I will make the character make a retroactive intelligence check to see if they remembered to do the thing the player says they did. Did you remember to hold your breathe when running into the poison cloud you see directly in front of you? Well this one seems like it's a pretty obvious thing to remember to do, you don't usually forget that breathing poison is bad, so I'd make it a DC 5 intelligence check. Did you remember to barricade the doors when you were taking a rest is a little less likely, so I might make that one a DC 15 or possibly DC 20.

So my answers to your questions are: no, yes, no, yes. But if a player makes an argument, I'll let them roll or just give it to them. They are here to have fun after all.

[Kane0]

This bears an uncanny resemblance to something that happened in my group.

We had a diviner attempt to cast Detect Thoughts right in front of his target while they were speaking to the party, also knowing the individual was educated in at least basic magic. Only after he attempted to do so and got slapped around a bit for his rudeness did he say "Well of course I was trying to be covert about it, why would I not?". The discussion following the incident was not pretty.

Anyways, to answer: No to doors, Yes to rope, no to barricades and yes to rooms and in all cases I will ask/verify if it becomes relevant. At my table far more is lost than gained from being deliberately vague. I do assume some common sense things but I make sure to narrate it so it does not go unsaid and always allow the players to interject if need be. Sometimes the players even surprise me by saying "Nah, XYZ is a sucker for comfort. He totally would start a campfire on a night like this."

[Malifice]

So last session me and one of my players got into a minor argument a couple of times about what his character was doing.For the purpose of this post we'll call him Morath (his PC's name). I want the playgrounds opinion on whether I made the right calls in the specific situations and also on how other DM's handle the idea of what actions by a PC don't need to be stated . Skip to the Bold if you want to just get to the general question and skip the specifics scenarios.

1) Morath rushed through a cloudkill spell to reach the rest of the party on the other side. I had him roll his con save and another player asked if he holding your breath when going through the cloud allowed you to make the save with advantage. Morath says that of course he was holding his breath when he ran through the cloudkill. I inform him that he would have had to state that before running into the cloud and Morath argues that he thought it went without saying that he did so.

On this issue my thinking is that if you want to try for some sort of mechanical advantage, such as getting advantage on a save, you HAVE to tell me your doing something. I'm not going to assume it.

You were 100 percent in the right here.


2)Morath and another PC are sleeping inside of a statue that has stairs leading to the top. The stairs are collapsed partway up and the only way to the top of the statue is by climbing a rope. The next morning the party has left the area, comes back, and finds a wizard at the top of the statue with the rope curled around his feet. When talking about it Morath claims that of course he would have pulled the rope up after him when climbing the tower, he thought it didn't need to be stated that he would do so. I again said that he would have had to of told me he did so the night before when they were making the camp.

You were again correct.

[FreddyNoNose]

I think a group can assume many basic things because otherwise it can bog down the game. It would be very tedious if the group has to say every time "I am watching out for traps and ambushes," or "I pack all my gear up for travel in the morning." I would even assume setting watches is standard unless said otherwise.

My answers, yes (see above), no, (unless they say they will always close them), yes, yes, and yes.

I would prefer they state what they are doing.

Suppose they are in a room in a dungeon. They can close the door or leave it open. Both have consequences. Would you have them do the right thing depending on the consequence?

[Foxhound438]

My question to you playground is what do you think it is reasonable to just assume a PC is doing even if they don't state it? in a dungeon are they closing doors behind them? Are they collecting rope used in exploring? If they sleep in a dungeon is it assumed the door is barricaded? If they sleep in an inn is it assumed the door is locked? Where do you draw the line?

P.S. if curious my answer to the above is no, no, no, and yes.

my caveat for collecting rope: if it was there when they got to the place (IE just hanging down as with your example), it would in fact be "no". If, however, the player said "I use my grappling hook and rope to climb this 20' wall" then my assumption is that of course they keep it with them; it's their stuff after all.

[Malifice]

my caveat for collecting rope: if it was there when they got to the place (IE just hanging down as with your example), it would in fact be "no". If, however, the player said "I use my grappling hook and rope to climb this 20' wall" then my assumption is that of course they keep it with them; it's their stuff after all.

I make no such assumptions. Unless the PC tells me what they are doing, it doesnt happen.

If you dont collect your arrows, you dont collect your arrows. If you dont close the door after opening it to enter a room, it stays open. Etc.

It encourages players to engage more with the world around them. No longer do you get 'I listen at the door (rolls perception).' Now you get: 'I press against the door lightly with my gloved hand, slowly as to not make any noise, but to see if the dorr opens on its own. I keep my sword ready to strike in my other hand. I then press my ear to just near the door and listen carefully for a minute, stilling my breath as I do so. I then peer into the keyhole to see if I cant see anything on the other side'

[Foxhound438]

I make no such assumptions. Unless the PC tells me what they are doing, it doesnt happen.

If you dont collect your arrows, you dont collect your arrows. If you dont close the door after opening it to enter a room, it stays open. Etc.

It encourages players to engage more with the world around them. No longer do you get 'I listen at the door (rolls perception).' Now you get: 'I press against the door lightly with my gloved hand, slowly as to not make any noise, but to see if the dorr opens on its own. I keep my sword ready to strike in my other hand. I then press my ear to just near the door and listen carefully for a minute, stilling my breath as I do so. I then peer into the keyhole to see if I cant see anything on the other side'

I refer you to nifft's response.

[Vaz]

You are fine, but if the individual is about to do something reasonably stuoid, I typically state that they may make an Intelligence check; in regards to spells, as an Arcana.

[Millstone85]

This reminds me of when I told the forum about a situation that involved sending ahead my invisible familiar. Someone here asked me if I had precised my familiar was trying to be stealthy, and then was amused when I thought I didn't have to.

Seriously, I don't have to. In combat, sure, I might have the familiar turn invisible for defense alone and use its action for something else than hiding. But if I am sending my familiar on a scouting mission, why do you think I want it invisible?

[Contrast]

I would tend to agree with the general idea here that a player has to stipulate if they want to do something out of the ordinary but the problem there is defining what constitutes ordinary behaviour.

I was once in a game where I was planting listening devices in the rooms of another PC (my character was the chief engineer on our spaceship so I had access to all the security and could pinpoint where anyone on the ship was at any given time and there was no urgency to it so it could be done at any time). The DM got me to roll a stealth check (I assumed to see how well I covered my tracks/hid the device). Turns out it was because I was trying to sneak into their bedroom and plant the device while they were in there asleep. As soon as this became obvious I said 'errr no I would have waited until they weren't in the room?' and was told it was too late now as the dice had already been rolled.

My general suggestion for a DM would be - if you are planning/expecting an action to have a consequence, confirm if with the players. So leaving a rope dangling or door open and you know someone is tracking/following them? Check with the players what their intention is. Sleeping somewhere dangerous and they haven't mentioned setting a guard/securing the area? Check with the players. I understand the mindset of wanting to encourage the players to be more explicit in their descriptions but really that way lies in players spending an hour real time walking down a short stretch of empty corridor because they want to poke every floor tile with a 6ft stick in case of traps. I'd personally rather get on with playing the game than get bogged down with minutiae.

I also find it amusing that OP thinks it is automatic to lock the door in an inn but not to secure a campsite in a dangerous location :smallbiggrin:

[mephnick]

We had a diviner attempt to cast Detect Thoughts right in front of his target while they were speaking to the party, also knowing the individual was educated in at least basic magic. Only after he attempted to do so and got slapped around a bit for his rudeness did he say "Well of course I was trying to be covert about it, why would I not?". "

"Because Subtle spell is a sorceror's best class feature and you don't just get to do it for free anyway."

Please god people, don't let your players stealth cast just because it seems cool. Might as well let barbarians and fighters smite because "I try real hard on this one".

[Millstone85]

"Because Subtle spell is a sorceror's best class feature and you don't just get to do it for free anyway."

Please god people, don't let your players stealth cast just because it seems cool. Might as well let barbarians and fighters smite because "I try real hard on this one".Would you ask for a Dexterity (Stealth) check when the sorcerer casts a spell without any gesture or word? If not, I would argue that "stealth casting" and Subtle Spell are actually two different concepts.

[Kromp]

If this is an issue, I would ask the group before playing what actions you want to assume they are doing. What is their standard watch order? What order do they march in? Do they close doors behind them in a dungeon, or leave a path open? This way both you and the players know what they are doing even though they do not state it each time, and the players can make an exception when they want to do things differently.

[FreddyNoNose]

You are fine, but if the individual is about to do something reasonably stuoid, I typically state that they may make an Intelligence check; in regards to spells, as an Arcana.

If the character is about to do something brilliant can I make him roll an Intelligence and say he can't do it?

I don't like this "assumed play" bs. My character is smart he would have done this even though I didn't state it.

[Ninja-Radish]

I don't think holding breath gives advantage on saves against spells like Cloudkill. I would assume the PC did hold his breath but that it didn't help.

I also agree with the OP in the second situation as well. Pulling the rope up behind you is a smart action to take, but not an obvious one. I can think of some reasons why a group might leave the rope there.

Assumed actions have to be so blindingly obvious that to do otherwise would be unthinkable. For example, if one of my players says "I charge the enemy in front of us", I would assume his character drew his weapon during the charge, even if the player didn't specifically say he drew his weapon. These examples aren't quite that obvious.

[Vaz]

If the character is about to do something brilliant can I make him roll an Intelligence and say he can't do it?
Where did you get that from what I said?

If a Barbarian with an intelligence only a little bit above that of a horse is suddenly coming up with answers to difficult mental puzzles, I'll have a word with them about maintaining character with their intelligence. If an alchemist character tries to touch a clearly flammable substance, I'll make them roll an intelligence check just before they get close, where if it's successful, they'll get a little warning in their head to let them know that that would be a bad idea. If Barbarian from before was about to take a running jump into a pit of absolute darkness, they'll get an Intelligence "save" that allows me chance to give the player a heads up that they have no idea how deep it is, and that they can have a last minute "this is not a good idea" thing.

But yeah, sure, turn the argument round to suggest that I prevent players doing cool **** because I don't even know how you managed to read that into what was written.

[Foxhound438]

Assumed actions have to be so blindingly obvious that to do otherwise would be unthinkable. For example, if one of my players says "I charge the enemy in front of us", I would assume his character drew his weapon during the charge, even if the player didn't specifically say he drew his weapon. These examples aren't quite that obvious.

or similarly, that you picked up your stuff as you left camp this morning.

[FreddyNoNose]

Where did you get that from what I said?

If a Barbarian with an intelligence only a little bit above that of a horse is suddenly coming up with answers to difficult mental puzzles, I'll have a word with them about maintaining character with their intelligence. If an alchemist character tries to touch a clearly flammable substance, I'll make them roll an intelligence check just before they get close, where if it's successful, they'll get a little warning in their head to let them know that that would be a bad idea. If Barbarian from before was about to take a running jump into a pit of absolute darkness, they'll get an Intelligence "save" that allows me chance to give the player a heads up that they have no idea how deep it is, and that they can have a last minute "this is not a good idea" thing.

But yeah, sure, turn the argument round to suggest that I prevent players doing cool **** because I don't even know how you managed to read that into what was written.
I was flipping it to see if you would simple agree or make a big deal out of it like you just did.

[Vaz]

I was flipping it to see if you would simple agree or make a big deal out of it like you just did.

K.

/characters

[Grod_The_Giant]

Generally speaking, my rule when DMing is "assume competence." I think it's usually safe to assume that characters are doing things like retrieving arrows, maintaining weapons, keeping watch and the like automatically. If a situation comes up where it matters, I'll intentionally bring it up, framing it as a choice so as not to be too obvious-- "are you sealing doors behind you in the name of stealth, or leaving an escape route open?" I don't think it's very fun for either party to play a game of "gotcha." I want the players to get into trouble because the willfully made bad choices, not because they forgot to mention that they look at the ceiling or some such rot.

On a related note, this is exactly the sort of situation where hero points (or some such mechanics) are useful-- when a player makes a retroactive "I would have remembered X," you can simply have them pay a small metagame cost and move on without arguments.


1) Morath rushed through a cloudkill spell to reach the rest of the party on the other side. I had him roll his con save and another player asked if he holding your breath when going through the cloud allowed you to make the save with advantage. Morath says that of course he was holding his breath when he ran through the cloudkill. I inform him that he would have had to state that before running into the cloud and Morath argues that he thought it went without saying that he did so.

On this issue my thinking is that if you want to try for some sort of mechanical advantage, such as getting advantage on a save, you HAVE to tell me your doing something. I'm not going to assume it.
In this specific instance, Cloudkill calls out holding your breath as something that doesn't help. I would generally assume that sort of instinctive defense is part of the normal mechanics of the spell-- you don't need to call out that you're dodging for AC to work. If you have some sort of special plan that you think will give an added bonus, though? Yeah, that needs to be announced.


2)Morath and another PC are sleeping inside of a statue that has stairs leading to the top. The stairs are collapsed partway up and the only way to the top of the statue is by climbing a rope. The next morning the party has left the area, comes back, and finds a wizard at the top of the statue with the rope curled around his feet. When talking about it Morath claims that of course he would have pulled the rope up after him when climbing the tower, he thought it didn't need to be stated that he would do so. I again said that he would have had to of told me he did so the night before when they were making the camp.

On this issue my thinking is that I'm not going to make assumptions about the parties preparations that they don't state. During the previous scenario the other half of the party described how the tied off doors to secure their camp and what watch order they took. Morath and his companion described how they climbed the tower and set up a guardian of faith at the top of the tower. If they didn't also state "we also pull up the rope after us" then the rope is still hanging down.
In this case, I think you're probably wrong. It sounds like the party was intentionally fortifying their camp; I think you can assume that they didn't leave that sort of opening.


I usually give my players the benefit of the doubt in most of these scenarios. I know these are people sitting around a table, having a good time, eating chips and salsa while playing a role-playing game. They aren't actually in these intense combat situations so a lot the smaller details might slip past them, even if those small details make big differences.
Very much this-- we're here to have fun, not to play paranoia-trivia. Unless you find that fun.


I was flipping it to see if you would simple agree or make a big deal out of it like you just did.
I'm not sure what your point is here, because "flipping it" doesn't tell you anything. Opposite acts don't have to be equal, and asserting otherwise is nonsense. If a little kid kicks me, that's a minor behavioral problem; if I kick a little kid, I'm a monster. If I surprise you with a new laptop, that's generous; if I take your current laptop without telling, that's theft. If you say "you're proficient in Arcana, you'd recognize that's a bad idea," that's generous and empowers the player and character; if you say "you're not proficient in Arcana, so you must assume that's safe," that's obnoxious and dis empowering.

[RSP]

Holding your breath does nothing for cloudkill. Some poisons are inhaled, some are contact, some are injury. If the poison states what it is, go by that. However, Cloudkill doesn't state that it's inhaled. It states that when you start your turn, or enter its area for the first time you make your rolls. Holding your breath does nothing but prevent oxygen from getting to your body.

If playing that all poisons are granted Advantage when holding your breath, and you're assuming players always hold their breath when confronted with a poison, you've just given out lots of free Advantage on saves (and green dragons are a little less frightening).

Also, players have to state what they do. If they don't state they took the rope, then they left it.

[Waazraath]

I'm strongly in the 'assume competence' camp. To each his or her own, of course, but for me there are a few things relevant:

1) it kills versimilitude if experienced, professional adventurers continuously make silly beginner mistakes.
2) my players aren't their characters. They play them, a few hours every 2 weeks. And (surprise) they aren't adventurers in real live, but have normal jobs. Some obvious stuff about pulling up ropes and locking doors won't be at the centre of their mind. They come to my house to have a little escapist RP fun and drink a few beers. Sometimes they won't state something because they think it's obvious, sometimes because they didn't consider it, but in neither I care: their character would sure as hell have known to lock the door, pull up the rope, hold his breath.

My solution is easy, and from what I've read widely applied. If something is relevant, and to me something that is more or less obvious that an adventurer would do, but not stated explicitly, and relevant, I can either:
- ask the player to describe explicitly how he/she performs the action
- ask for a skill check (to remember something obvious should be done), with a very easy DC
- simply ask "did you lock the door" or something like that

As a player, I try to be as explicit as possible. But as a DM, I'm not gonna punish my players for not being super explicit about stuff that might be obvious for them, ans would definitely be obvious to a pro adventurer.

[Nifft]

Generally speaking, my rule when DMing is "assume competence." I think it's usually safe to assume that characters are doing things like retrieving arrows, maintaining weapons, keeping watch and the like automatically. If a situation comes up where it matters, I'll intentionally bring it up, framing it as a choice so as not to be too obvious-- "are you sealing doors behind you in the name of stealth, or leaving an escape route open?" I don't think it's very fun for either party to play a game of "gotcha." I want the players to get into trouble because the willfully made bad choices, not because they forgot to mention that they look at the ceiling or some such rot.

Yeah, exactly.

Players should make meaningful choices -- and then suffer the consequences of their choices.

Assuming competence isn't some kind of "get out of trouble free" card. It's just that the huge pile of trouble that's going to fall on their heads will be the results of their choices, not their failure to write impenetrable legal boilerplate.

[Slipperychicken]

You can confirm for things that make sense. Like you can ask "are you pulling the rope up after you, or letting it hang?". That's what my GM does for the most part.

[p_johnston]

Looking over the arguments I think I have come to some conclusions.
1) I was wrong on the cloudkill. I will admit it should have been assumed he was holding his breath. I also stated earlier that it would have granted no mechanical advantage. I also now have an idea of how to rule it next time it comes up whether it is regular poison or a cloudkill.

2)I still think I made the right call on the rope.
First leaving the rope down does have some actual usage of letting them escape the statue more quickly if necessary without jumping down and possibly to let the other half of the party get to them if necessary (the other half of the party was sleeping in another section of the dungeon). even If assuming competence pulling up the rope was not a blatantly obvious decision.
Second while I understand the arguments of "assuming competence" for the party I don't think it completely fits my style. In part because even people who typically do things will occasionally forget. It seems reasonable that after getting electrocuted, fireballed, fireballed, fireballed, electrocuted, fireballed, fireballed, fireballed, smashed, falling through the floor, and sliced up a person might forget about a rope.
Another part is that what is obvious to one person is not so obvious to someone else. It helps clear up a lot of confusion if players state as much of their actions as they can.
I also understand the argument about not training players to describe everything because it bogs down the game. But I don't want to train them to far in the other direction of just making general statements and having the DM assume they do it in the most perfect manner.

I will try and take some of the advice given here and be a little more lenient. That being said I don't think I'll ever be a fully "assume competence" DM. I've been playing with this group for years now and I'm slightly set in my ways. If any of them have a sever problem with it I would love a chance to PC more. Also presumably they would have ousted me long ago.

I do like the idea that Emay Ecks posted about having the players make intelligence checks to see if they remembered. I will probably give that a shot and see if I like it.

P.S. I do typically try to question things when I remember. The problem Is I am also forgetful. I honestly didn't even think of asking if he pulled up the rope. Also before anyone ask yes I do accept it when I forget something and get boned by it when I'm a PC. I try and make it a rule to not complain about any DM calls I would also make or at least can see the logic behind.
P.P.S if anyone is curious they were sleeping in the amber temple in Curse of Strahd. Morath and his friend were in the statue in the main chamber which had the face broken off to allow access. The rest of the party was sleeping in the Barbarians camp.

[SharkForce]

i would say that from all appearances, the entire reason they were camping at the top of a hollow statue with no stair access was probably to make it hard to reach them. as i tend to fall in to the "assume competence" group, i'd say that it makes perfect sense for them to have pulled up the rope (but not necessarily untied it from its place - that would allow them to get down quickly, but will still provide full protection, so i would argue that it is indeed an "of course i ______" situation).

[SiCK_Boy]

I'd also side with the "assume competence" camp.

I think a lot of this has to do with expectations at the table. If the DM has been clear that players have to state everything they want their characters to do and nothing ever gets assumed, and players are fine with it, then that's fine for that table. But as it's been pointed out, I think it would slow the game down terribly and it is not something I would personally enjoy.

Also, if your feeling is that the player was trying to "abuse" the situation, you should have a chat with him outside the game about this kind of behavior.

Regarding the two original situations, in the case of the cloudkill, I would tell the player right away that holding his breath has no impact on this situation, so the point is moot, but then I would reinforce that the next time (assuming that's how you want to play it), unless he states so BEFORE, it will be assumed he doesn't hold his breath when entering any kind of noxious-looking fumes/cloud. (You could also have given him a chance before he stepped in, asking him "so you just run through the cloud without taking any other precaution?")

Regarding the rope, since as a DM you knew that something would happen during the night with that rope, you should have asked them what they were doing. I agree that both options have valid strategic value (maybe they want to leave it down so other party members can join them, or they can escape quickly if attacked from the sky; or maybe they want to remove it to ensure that nobody can climb in), hence the importance of clarifying what the players want to do. By not insisting on getting an answer beforehand, you are setting up a kinda "gotcha" situation, and those always suck as a player when you feel like the DM is just playing dumb; just save yourself some trouble as a DM and ask them those kind of things (in the same way you say you ask them for watch order when they set up camp). Whether or not asking the question would bring up some metagaming from the players is irrelevant; it's already been decided that something will happen during the night and players don't know what (and they'll see soon enough what it is, one way or the other), so it cannot influence their decision; if they remove the rope and their allies get stuck down and beaten while the ones at the top try to throw them a line, they'll regret their decision, but at least, the consequence will have flown from an actual choice they made. Same thing if they leave the rope and get attacked in the middle of the night.

Ultimately, it is not a matter of being right or wrong; but to each its own preference, and what matters is that the DM's preference matches the players' (in an ideal world).

[Gryndle]

I think it kinda depends on the group, mainly if you are new to each other or not. Like any new relationship communication is key, both sides should state clearly what they are doing and take nothing for granted until you have learned each others ways and habits pretty well.

My group knows each other pretty well, and over the years some things have just became "standard operating procedures." To the point one of the guys when checking for traps just says he "sops" the area/door/whatever. I and I know that he is basically giving the target a colonoscopy-level inspection, and have him make die rolls appropriately.

If they use a rope I assume they recover it unless circumstances intervene. If they say they are setting up camp, I assume they are setting up watches as normal (if they intended to set traps or alarms, they must state that).
As for doors in dungeons; if they don't say so, I will ask them if they left them open or closed (and then find a way to use it against them :smallbiggrin: ) Its pretty much assumed that if they are restign in a dungeon they are taking reasonable precautions such as barring doors and setting watch, but anything like traps/alarms need to be stated.
In an inn, anything other than locking the door must be stated.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Well, I'd assume that they hold their breath through a cloudkill spell, but that it wouldn't grant advantage or anything. The toxic gas has a lot of other holes by which it can enter your body.

I'd also assume they gather up their rope when they're done using it, unless they specifically state that they're going to leave it behind for someone coming after them.

However, they'd have to state intent to barricade a door, because that's not something "normal".

Gathering up your rope and holding your breath in a toxic gas cloud [no matter how futile] are normal things someone would do, so I assume the players do so unless they tell me otherwise. I mean, unless someone else is going to use my rope, I'd take it up and bring it with me. I mean, I'm not a magic rope fairy who can have an infinite supply of climbing rope, so I'd take it up so I can use it again. And I think I'd have to consciously try to not hold my breath and keep my eyes open when running through a cloudkill.

[furby076]

1) Hold breath...I think the DM is wrong and right. Yes the player should specify, but sometimes we don't think about these things...we are NOT our characters or living the situation. We are (sometimes) not as intelligent as them, definitely not as battle trained as them. Also, think about it, if you are running through a cloud of something stinky (fire smoke, skunk cloud) you will hold your breath (though maybe not possible in the heat of battle when you are breathing heavy). It will be innate to do. Given that, I wouldn't give advantage on saving through even if the player did specify this. IMHO, the game assumes when making a save you are trying to preserve your health. This is called a saving throw. Just like your AC, from DEX, is automatically calculated. YOu don't have to specify you are trying to avoid getting hit, you just do so
2) Rope...In this case I think the DM is wrong. When the group makes camp at night do they specify they unfurl their bedrolls, take out their rations and eat them? Do you make them specify they change clothes, take a shower, take a pooh/pee, etc? In the morning, do the players specify they break camp, douse the fires, etc? I highly doubt it - the game becomes incredibly slow and boring. Certain things are assumed, like taking your equipment with you.

[Friv]

I make no such assumptions. Unless the PC tells me what they are doing, it doesnt happen.

If you dont collect your arrows, you dont collect your arrows. If you dont close the door after opening it to enter a room, it stays open. Etc.

It encourages players to engage more with the world around them. No longer do you get 'I listen at the door (rolls perception).' Now you get: 'I press against the door lightly with my gloved hand, slowly as to not make any noise, but to see if the dorr opens on its own. I keep my sword ready to strike in my other hand. I then press my ear to just near the door and listen carefully for a minute, stilling my breath as I do so. I then peer into the keyhole to see if I cant see anything on the other side'

Thank you, for explaining in some depth why I don't want my PCs to have to declare every little thing that they do. That description is fun the first time. It's a lot less fun repeated every thirty seconds for five hours.

[Nifft]

Thank you, for explaining in some depth why I don't want my PCs to have to declare every little thing that they do. That description is fun the first time. It's a lot less fun repeated every thirty seconds for five hours.

You mean you use dungeons with more than one door?!

Madness!!!

[SharkForce]

Thank you, for explaining in some depth why I don't want my PCs to have to declare every little thing that they do. That description is fun the first time. It's a lot less fun repeated every thirty seconds for five hours.

no kidding. not to mention this is like writing a contract during my fun time. i don't want to write contracts in my fun time. heck, i generally don't want to write contracts in my non-fun time. why do i need to specify when i'm trying to listen that i'm doing things conducive to listening? that when i look through the keyhole, i am in fact trying to see what's on the other side, and not just doing it for fun? that while i'm traveling in dangerous areas, i have a weapon ready, etc. what a royal pain in the butt.

i don't dungeon crawl for a living, but my character does, and seeing as how they are still alive they must be at least decent at remembering to not get themselves killed.

(on a side note, that presumed competence also means that if there is some incredibly obvious thing you might do to resist something - like keeping your sword in a position to parry, or trying to get away if you feel the ground crumbling underneath you - that your basic defenses such as saving throws, AC, perception, etc, already factor that sort of thing in... so you're not going to get an extra defensive bonus for saying you do that, it's already part of the reason you get to roll to resist in the first place).

[RSP]

One issue with the "assume competence" method is it leaves everything unclear. In the case of the OP, do you tell the Players of the second party that there's no way up because you're assuming the other group kept it?

If no one says they collected the rope, then where is the rope? Is someone carrying it? Was it left hanging? Rolled up?

What if one player is separated from the group? Do you just assume the first character who needs the rope was the one to take it?

I assume Players will tell me if they're changing something in their environment. I've known too many players who like to take advantage of such things otherwise.

[bid]

My question to you playground is what do you think it is reasonable to just assume a PC is doing even if they don't state it? in a dungeon are they closing doors behind them? Are they collecting rope used in exploring? If they sleep in a dungeon is it assumed the door is barricaded? If they sleep in an inn is it assumed the door is locked? Where do you draw the line?
You draw the line at whatever they tell you.

Keep them honest and make them understand shutting out every opportunity will make the adventure boring.

You also have to assume they have basic streetwise. Nobody locks doors at those inns because the city is safe enough and the floor is noisy, that's common knowledge.

The best meta-gaming is when players decide their characters did something wrong.

[SharkForce]

One issue with the "assume competence" method is it leaves everything unclear. In the case of the OP, do you tell the Players of the second party that there's no way up because you're assuming the other group kept it?

If no one says they collected the rope, then where is the rope? Is someone carrying it? Was it left hanging? Rolled up?

What if one player is separated from the group? Do you just assume the first character who needs the rope was the one to take it?

I assume Players will tell me if they're changing something in their environment. I've known too many players who like to take advantage of such things otherwise.

whoever was carrying it before is carrying it after. just like it is with every other thing the party uses. or do you assign a waterskin to a random PC every time anyone in the party takes a drink for some stupid reason? or assume that after drinking from it, they just threw it on the ground and nobody picked it up?

and yes, that does mean the other half of the party isn't going to have easy access. that's the whole damn point in making your campsite some place hard to reach. if they wanted easy access, they'd be camping someplace where anyone can walk up, not in the top of a statue that has no easy access.

[Pex]

I make no such assumptions. Unless the PC tells me what they are doing, it doesnt happen.

If you dont collect your arrows, you dont collect your arrows. If you dont close the door after opening it to enter a room, it stays open. Etc.

It encourages players to engage more with the world around them. No longer do you get 'I listen at the door (rolls perception).' Now you get: 'I press against the door lightly with my gloved hand, slowly as to not make any noise, but to see if the dorr opens on its own. I keep my sword ready to strike in my other hand. I then press my ear to just near the door and listen carefully for a minute, stilling my breath as I do so. I then peer into the keyhole to see if I cant see anything on the other side'

No.


Thank you, for explaining in some depth why I don't want my PCs to have to declare every little thing that they do. That description is fun the first time. It's a lot less fun repeated every thirty seconds for five hours.

This.

It's gotcha DMing otherwise. It's akin to Ye Olden Days of searching a room. You couldn't just search a room. You had to specify where and how, and occasionally the DM says "You didn't say you look at the ceiling" and a trap or monster attacks with surprise. I don't want to give a speech for every action. The dice roll is what determines the success. If I roll low in Perception that is why I didn't look at the ceiling in time for that particular instance.

[RSP]

whoever was carrying it before is carrying it after. just like it is with every other thing the party uses. or do you assign a waterskin to a random PC every time anyone in the party takes a drink for some stupid reason? or assume that after drinking from it, they just threw it on the ground and nobody picked it up?

and yes, that does mean the other half of the party isn't going to have easy access. that's the whole damn point in making your campsite some place hard to reach. if they wanted easy access, they'd be camping someplace where anyone can walk up, not in the top of a statue that has no easy access.

I think you missed the point, Shark. If the PCs don't tell you what they do with the rope until (and only if) it's relevant, then no one is carrying it until they need it.

So maybe the PC who gets separated from the party wants to use it. You just magically let him have taken the rope from 10 hours ago, game time? What if more than one PC wants to use the rope, but no one said they took it?

Further, why are you punishing the second group if the first didn't say they took the rope?

Where the rope is shouldn't be based on which PC needs it first; it should be based on who did what with it. If no one did anything with it, then its right where it was left.

[Contrast]

I think you missed the point, Shark. If the PCs don't tell you what they do with the rope until (and only if) it's relevant, then no one is carrying it until they need it.

So maybe the PC who gets separated from the party wants to use it. You just magically let him have taken the rope from 10 hours ago, game time? What if more than one PC wants to use the rope, but no one said they took it?

Further, why are you punishing the second group if the first didn't say the took the rope?

Where the rope is shouldn't be based on which PC needs it first; it should be based on who did what with it. If no one did anything with it, then its right where it was left.

If only characters had sheets where they could write down what equipment they personally did and didn't have that would save a lot of arguing, huh? :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

I can understand DMs not wanting players to abuse "Of course I did" or "I would have". If a player does that too much the DM should talk to him to teach how to handle things better. Hindsight is 20/20 as the saying goes. If it happens once in a while let it go. It's the reverse meta-game. There is knowledge characters know in character the player hasn't a clue he should know or to even inquire about it. Likewise the characters know in character about their own abilities and equipment and what to do about them. The player could have forgotten about it or don't know the tactics involved. Let it happen and make it teaching moment for the player to learn. At the very least allow for a DC 10 IN or WI check with proficiency, which ever is better for the PC if it happens often but not too often to become abusive.

[RSP]

If only characters had sheets where they could write down what equipment they personally did and didn't have that would save a lot of arguing, huh? :smallbiggrin:

Indeed. In this example though, no one would have written it down, as no one actually thought of it until after the DM revealed the consequence of not doing it.

[RSP]

It's gotcha DMing otherwise. It's akin to Ye Olden Days of searching a room. You couldn't just search a room. You had to specify where and how, and occasionally the DM says "You didn't say you look at the ceiling" and a trap or monster attacks with surprise. I don't want to give a speech for every action. The dice roll is what determines the success. If I roll low in Perception that is why I didn't look at the ceiling in time for that particular instance.

I don't think it's gotcha DMing at all. We're not talking about "you didn't say you slept in your bedroll so I'm giving you all Exhaustion levels for how uncomfortable it was."

We're talking about a PC stating he did something to significantly change the environment (including possibly limiting the participation of other PCs), only after the effect of not doing it is revealed by the DM.

It's just as likely Morath was leaving the rope so his allies could follow as it is he pulled it up so no one could follow.

50' of rope is 10 lbs, which isn't insignificant on a Str dumped character, so I wouldn't assume anyone is carrying it as it could very well cause the rogue in studded leather to be over his carrying capacity.

And since it's a Wizard we're talking about here, it's probably a moot point as there's a fair chance they could have gotten around the no rope issue, such as Levitate, Fly, or Spiderclimb.

[Big Papa Turnip]

"Hey, Jeff, roll a CON save for me."

"Uh...8. What's this for?"

"Oh, you didn't tell me you've been breathing since we started, so I assumed you've been holding your breath. You fall unconscious."

"What? Of course I've been breathing!"

"No retcons."

[Contrast]

Indeed. In this example though, no one would have written it down, as no one actually thought of it until after the DM revealed the consequence of not doing it.

In which case you've created a problem and are purposefully ignoring the solution so as to perpetuate the problem? If no-one owned a rope in the first place, why did the DM let them use a rope to climb something :smalltongue:

Also, see my post earlier in the thread where I suggest DMs intending for a lack of clarity on a players behalf to have a consequence should typically clarify with the player/s before imposing the consequence.


I don't know if anyone has played the recent Star Wars RPG system but that had a mechanic I liked a lot where there was a pool of 'destiny' points, split into dark side and light side points. Players could use light side points to make their rolls easier and in doing so flipped it over to become a dark side point. DMs the reverse. One of the uses of light side points was limited plot intervention so you could say 'ah yes don't you remember, I packed those rebreathers after the last time this happened'. Keeps the game running without bogging you down in details while allowing players who like to stay prepared to use the light side points for other stuff.

[mephnick]

Would you ask for a Dexterity (Stealth) check when the sorcerer casts a spell without any gesture or word?.

Probably not. I'm AFB but I believe the rules for spellcasting state that the words must be spoken clearly. I take that to mean "not a whisper". I'd never allow a Dex check to negate somatic components either.

[RSP]

In which case you've created a problem and are purposefully ignoring the solution so as to perpetuate the problem? If no-one owned a rope in the first place, why did the DM let them use a rope to climb something :smalltongue:


Not at all. The rope was hanging as a make-shift way to get up the collapsed stairs. Per the OP:

"The stairs are collapsed partway up and the only way to the top of the statue is by climbing a rope."

That to me means the rope was there when the PCs arrived, not that they climbed up and attached the rope after (why would they climb it, then attach the rope if their goal was to not have it hanging down?).

I didn't create any problem and really aren't sure what solution you think I'm ignoring. I'm not sure if anyone owned a rope or not, but per the OP's description, the rope was there.

Obviously if the OP meant to include that the rope belonged to the party originally, that could change how I'd rule it (though a lot of that would be based on why they lowered the rope after climbing in the first place).

[BRC]

I'm a big fan of "Assume Competence", occasionally with clarifications before it becomes relevant. Usually, it's not too hard to put yourself in the shoes of the PC at that time. After that, it's usually a question of "What Makes Sense"


For example, with the Rope. Unless they were expecting allies to follow them, it makes more sense to take the rope. Ropes are a resource, and it sounds like they were using the broken stairs to secure a campsite. If it's in doubt, ask for clarification before it's relevant, and before they know WHY it's relevant.

The other nice thing about "Assume Competence" is that it nicely shuts down a certain type of annoying player, one who tries to get free mechanical bonuses by stating descriptions.

You know, " I sharpen my sword, thus I get +1 To damage with it tommorow, right?"
"When we make camp, I practice my archery, so I get a bonus to attacks, right?"
"I tie the rope in a *Insert name of real, very effective* knot, so it can't come undone".
"I hold my breath when running through the Cloudkill"
If you assume that the PCs are doing stuff like armor maintenance, regular training drills, tying good knots, and not just gulping down poison gas, it doesn't give them a leg to stand on when they try to argue for mechanical bonuses by explicitly stating basic common-sense stuff that costs them nothing. Assume all that is already factored in.


Now, something like laying traps or barricading a door is a different story I guess.

My general philosophy is that all the free lunches are already taken. If something is a good idea, and has no relevant opportunity cost or barrier, assume that it's being done.

[SharkForce]

I think you missed the point, Shark. If the PCs don't tell you what they do with the rope until (and only if) it's relevant, then no one is carrying it until they need it.

So maybe the PC who gets separated from the party wants to use it. You just magically let him have taken the rope from 10 hours ago, game time? What if more than one PC wants to use the rope, but no one said they took it?

Further, why are you punishing the second group if the first didn't say they took the rope?

Where the rope is shouldn't be based on which PC needs it first; it should be based on who did what with it. If no one did anything with it, then its right where it was left.

if the rope belongs to nobody before, it belongs to nobody after and nobody is carrying it unless otherwise specified. but it still makes sense to pull the rope up when you specifically went out of your way to find a hard-to-reach place to camp. not necessarily to untie it. but to pull it up. if you need to get down, you just throw it over the edge and you're ready to go.

and the second group (as well as the first group) were punished the moment they split the party. if they wanted to not be separated, they needed to not be separated in the first place. again, the whole poing of finding a secure place to camp is that the location is (hopefully) more secure. if the party found a room with a door that can be barred specifically so they could have a somewhat secure campsite, then the door is assumed to be barred. if they use a rope to climb the statue to find a secure place to rest, they don't leave the rope hanging there for anyone else to use, party member or otherwise (if the other half of the party shows up, they can call for the rope to be dropped, and a second or two later the rope will be there for them to use... but generally speaking, if you look for a secure site for a camp, i'm going to presume that you're taking steps to secure it).

[dickerson76]

tl;dr: you are a "gotcha" DM that plays an adversarial-style game I'd hate.

One thing to keep in mind is elapsed time. While setting up camp and putting protections in place, the party probably had 30 minutes or more to look over, see the hanging rope and think "hey, we should haul that up." When you take shortcuts ("we set up camp"), the goal is speed the un-fun parts of the game up. You can either be overly-harsh in your parsing of what they said they are doing, or everyone can have fun (I'm assuming the players were not having fun at that moment since they objected to your interpretation).

The players are generally playing this game to be heroes. They shouldn't have to tell the DM that they boiled the water before dinner. If they wanted the adventure to end by dying from dysentery, they'd still be playing Oregon Trail.

[Friv]

With the rope specifically, the correct thing to do as a GM would have been to say, "Okay, you're on top of the statue. Are you pulling the rope up behind you to make your camp more secure, or leaving it in place to make it easier for your allies to get up and for you to escape if there's trouble?

That way, there's no assumptions made on either side. The GM has made it clear to the players that there's an advantage either way so he's not making guesses, and they don't yell about gotchas later if their choice turns out to be wrong.

[RSP]

if the rope belongs to nobody before, it belongs to nobody after and nobody is carrying it unless otherwise specified. but it still makes sense to pull the rope up when you specifically went out of your way to find a hard-to-reach place to camp. not necessarily to untie it. but to pull it up. if you need to get down, you just throw it over the edge and you're ready to go.

and the second group (as well as the first group) were punished the moment they split the party. if they wanted to not be separated, they needed to not be separated in the first place. again, the whole poing of finding a secure place to camp is that the location is (hopefully) more secure. if the party found a room with a door that can be barred specifically so they could have a somewhat secure campsite, then the door is assumed to be barred. if they use a rope to climb the statue to find a secure place to rest, they don't leave the rope hanging there for anyone else to use, party member or otherwise (if the other half of the party shows up, they can call for the rope to be dropped, and a second or two later the rope will be there for them to use... but generally speaking, if you look for a secure site for a camp, i'm going to presume that you're taking steps to secure it).

Here's the situation stated by the OP:

"Morath and another PC are sleeping inside of a statue that has stairs leading to the top. The stairs are collapsed partway up and the only way to the top of the statue is by climbing a rope. The next morning the party has left the area, comes back, and finds a wizard at the top of the statue with the rope curled around his feet."

So the PC camped and left the area. First, I'm not sure how the PC got down the tower if they left the rope curled up at the top of the tower, as the OP states the rope is "the only way to the top."

So that's my first reason to go against "the rope is curled up at the top of the stairs" argument.

Next is the fact that the party is split up, and no one knows where the other group is, or is going (outside of metagaming). As either leaving the rope accessible, or leaving it curled up and inaccessible, is a valid strategy for experienced adventurers (at least in theory based on them wanting to reconnect with their fellow adventurers), the PCs need to state what they do.

I understand some tables play more fast and loose, and if that works for them, great. I prefer to play by the rules, and track things like encumbrance (so grabbing a 10 lb rope may be an issue), and if a PC wants to purposely make it so other PCs cannot follow, I'm going to make them specifically tell me that.

If you prefer the PCs to alter their actions after seeing the effects, and that works for you, cool; I don't.

[Demonslayer666]

So last session me and one of my players got into a minor argument a couple of times about what his character was doing.For the purpose of this post we'll call him Morath (his PC's name). I want the playgrounds opinion on whether I made the right calls in the specific situations and also on how other DM's handle the idea of what actions by a PC don't need to be stated . Skip to the Bold if you want to just get to the general question and skip the specifics scenarios.

1) Morath rushed through a cloudkill spell to reach the rest of the party on the other side. I had him roll his con save and another player asked if he holding your breath when going through the cloud allowed you to make the save with advantage. Morath says that of course he was holding his breath when he ran through the cloudkill. I inform him that he would have had to state that before running into the cloud and Morath argues that he thought it went without saying that he did so.

On this issue my thinking is that if you want to try for some sort of mechanical advantage, such as getting advantage on a save, you HAVE to tell me your doing something. I'm not going to assume it.

2)Morath and another PC are sleeping inside of a statue that has stairs leading to the top. The stairs are collapsed partway up and the only way to the top of the statue is by climbing a rope. The next morning the party has left the area, comes back, and finds a wizard at the top of the statue with the rope curled around his feet. When talking about it Morath claims that of course he would have pulled the rope up after him when climbing the tower, he thought it didn't need to be stated that he would do so. I again said that he would have had to of told me he did so the night before when they were making the camp.

On this issue my thinking is that I'm not going to make assumptions about the parties preparations that they don't state. During the previous scenario the other half of the party described how the tied off doors to secure their camp and what watch order they took. Morath and his companion described how they climbed the tower and set up a guardian of faith at the top of the tower. If they didn't also state "we also pull up the rope after us" then the rope is still hanging down.

So my general style of DMing, as you may have guessed by my answers above, is that if you don't tell me about something it didn't happen. I try and be fair about this. If the party makes a plan I will generally ask if that is all they are doing and then repeat the plan back to them, to clear up any misunderstandings. If the party says something like "we make camp for the night" I don't just assume they fall over asleep on the spot, I'll prod them about watch order and any defenses they want to erect.

My question to you playground is what do you think it is reasonable to just assume a PC is doing even if they don't state it? in a dungeon are they closing doors behind them? Are they collecting rope used in exploring? If they sleep in a dungeon is it assumed the door is barricaded? If they sleep in an inn is it assumed the door is locked? Where do you draw the line?

P.S. if curious my answer to the above is no, no, no, and yes.

#1. I would not tell a secondary player the answer to advantage or not until they tried it. Secondly, I would not give advantage to holding breath in cloudkill, it specifically says so in the description of the spell, "Creatures are affected even if they hold their breath or don't need to breathe." I'd only grant advantage if the cloud was thinning in a gust of wind, or they covered themselves in a wet blanket (or something similar).

#2. Did you tell them they noticed the rope still hanging over the edge? Because characters would have noticed that. The player's don't have a rope sitting out in front of them constantly reminding them to pick it up. I would have allowed them to retrieve the rope without them saying they do so. Same goes for dropped weapons in combat, unless of course they are forced to retreat.

Bold questions:
What is reasonable - It is reasonable to assume that a character would not ignore obvious things unless they had a low wisdom.
Close doors behind them in a dungeon - no.
Recover rope - yes, if able.
Barricade door when sleeping in a dungeon - no. By barricade, I mean stack boxes/crates/furniture in front of it. Shut it, yes. Lock it, yes. Bar it, yes. As long as it's obvious that the door has that easily available.
Lock door at inn - yes, and also shut it before locking. :smallcool: It also depends on if they are accustomed to city life.

[Waterdeep Merch]

If my players forget mechanical advantages baked into their own class, then I simply consider it negligence on the part of their character and move on. This goes double for anything their characters might do.

To keep things fair, the monsters and NPC's all behave by the same logic. If I forgot to factor in the red dragon's fire resistance, that's on me. I don't take back actions unless someone had a mechanical advantage they shouldn't have.

[FreddyNoNose]

I'm strongly in the 'assume competence' camp. To each his or her own, of course, but for me there are a few things relevant:

1) it kills versimilitude if experienced, professional adventurers continuously make silly beginner mistakes.
2) my players aren't their characters. They play them, a few hours every 2 weeks. And (surprise) they aren't adventurers in real live, but have normal jobs. Some obvious stuff about pulling up ropes and locking doors won't be at the centre of their mind. They come to my house to have a little escapist RP fun and drink a few beers. Sometimes they won't state something because they think it's obvious, sometimes because they didn't consider it, but in neither I care: their character would sure as hell have known to lock the door, pull up the rope, hold his breath.

My solution is easy, and from what I've read widely applied. If something is relevant, and to me something that is more or less obvious that an adventurer would do, but not stated explicitly, and relevant, I can either:
- ask the player to describe explicitly how he/she performs the action
- ask for a skill check (to remember something obvious should be done), with a very easy DC
- simply ask "did you lock the door" or something like that

As a player, I try to be as explicit as possible. But as a DM, I'm not gonna punish my players for not being super explicit about stuff that might be obvious for them, ans would definitely be obvious to a pro adventurer.

It isn't about competence. Leave the door open or close it. Both have potential consequences. Other situations have multiple possible actions each of which could have a consequence. The competence excuse is trying to meta game and avoid consequence. It is more reasonable to state what you are doing that to assume it.**

**: Unless you are the narrative style of play where you writing a story together then nothing has real consequences...

[Beleriphon]

It isn't about competence. Leave the door open or close it. Both have potential consequences. Other situations have multiple possible actions each of which could have a consequence. The competence excuse is trying to meta game and avoid consequence. It is more reasonable to state what you are doing that to assume it.**

**: Unless you are the narrative style of play where you writing a story together then nothing has real consequences...

Assuming is stuff like breaking camp, and taking all of your stuff with you. That's an assumed part of breaking camp, it shouldn't need to be stated the character is packing a tent in the most efficient manner, they are competent so they pack it the best way.

[RSP]

Assuming is stuff like breaking camp, and taking all of your stuff with you. That's an assumed part of breaking camp, it shouldn't need to be stated the character is packing a tent in the most efficient manner, they are competent so they pack it the best way.

Sure but that's not the same as whether or not you leave a rope hanging for other PCs, or remove it from their use. No one else is going to lay claim on your tent.

Likewise, I wouldn't let a PC tell me at the end of the adventure that during his watch during every long rest he was robbing the other PCs and so he should get their gold. This may be exactly what their character would have been doing, and they may have the expertise to pull it off, but I'm not going to retcon an entire adventure because they didn't think to tell me what they were doing at the time.

If a PC wants to inform me beforehand of something like "I secure all doors behind me as we make our way through the dungeon," then I'll give leeway to things like "would you have taken/secured the rope behind you?"

As this preface wasn't part of the OP, I don't give the player the benefit of the doubt after consequences have been learned.

[Elric VIII]

This is exactly the kind of DMing that would encourage me to be so obsessive with minutia that the DM would be forced to confront his own stupid and clumsy attempt to "outwit" his players. Seriously, don't assume that the PCs are playing into your plan if you can't be bothered to ask them about specific actions.

[Cybren]

When stuff like this comes up I just ask them. "So, you're at the top of the cliff... is the rope still hanging down the cliff, or have you untied it?" "Are you closing the door behind you?" "Do you ever take your armor off to bathe?"

If you do it with the right intonation you can make players equally afraid to say "Yes" or "No". :)

I think some large percentage of the time, if you are unsure of what your players are doing "unstated" and you don't ask for clarification you're going after a cheap gotcha.

[Gryndle]

As DM this kind of minute detail would bore me to tears.

As a player this kind of minutia would just annoy me and I would assume the DM is only looking for those "gotcha moments". And if I had a choice I wouldn't be in that game long, see Rule 0.5 in my sig.
I mean, if the DM can only hand down consequences because I failed to mention a totally meaningless detail that equates to accountant level book-keeping, then what kind of story is that person able to tell anyway?

Edit: I'm not referring explicitly to inventory management; to some degree it can be useful (tracking ammo is one that I DO use in my games, for example), especially if you are running a grittier type game. Rather it is the concept of having to state that you are performing certain actions that I take issue with.
I literally lock my front door every time I close it, regardless of whether I am going out or coming in. If I were to do that in a game, should I have to state it every single time? Should a character state that he spends time cleaning his sword after every battle? after all sheathing a blade with blood or other ick on it will quickly mean the sheath must be replaced and possibly the blade itself. DO they have to track that as well?

There comes a point where a certain amount of trust must exist between DM and player. The DM has to trust (and enforce) "no-backsies" from time to time, but the player has to trust that the DM isn't going to make them state every single stupid little thing or else suffer some arbitrary calamity because the player (who likely has never handled a real blade in his/her life) forgot to state they cleaned their sword; as opposed to the character who lives and dies by their blade is not likely ever to forget to actually clean their blade unless under dire circumstance).

If a DM enforced such tedium in a game, I wouldn't be there long; perhaps just long enough to point out after every time that our characters take a rest that I: urinate, belch, pass gas and perhaps do other things. After all I wouldn't want that DM giving my character a kidney stone or bladder infection just because I didn't mention I made lemonade.

[Bohandas]

As DM this kind of minute detail would bore me to tears.

As a player this kind of minutia would just annoy me and I would assume the DM is only looking for those "gotcha moments". And if I had a choice I wouldn't be in that game long, see Rule 0.5 in my sig.
I mean, if the DM can only hand down consequences because I failed to mention a totally meaningless detail that equates to accountant level book-keeping, then what kind of story is that person able to tell anyway?

To be fair there are a lot of successful CRPGs out there where inventory management consumes most of the game (including Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Temple of Elemental Evil, Diablo, Wasted, and Dungeons of Dredmor, among others), so apparently somebody out there enjoys accountant level bookkeeping. Not me mind you (I consider it a major flaw and tend to uncap inventory whenever it is feasible to do so by modding), but apparently somebody must like it or else they wouldn't keep doing it.

[SiCK_Boy]

There is a significant difference between inventory management and needing to stipulate every single gesture and action your character does to interact with the environment.

Inventory management, as loved or hated as it may be (I love it; and I think it's a detriment to the balance of the game to not play with encumbrance rules or allow infinite ammunition for ranged weapons - but I can understand that some people just handwaive this part of the game off), is usually entirely within the player's control. A player can make all the decisions and knows in advance the consequences for each possible decision, so the player has full agency and control over that aspect of the game.

The issue posted about by the OP is rather a result of a lack of communication between the DM and the players. The players did not realize the possible importance of that rope, and the risk it posed to them by allowing potential opponents to reach their camp; the fact that the players tried to retcon the situation AFTER the DM revealed an actual result of that choice (or non-choice, I would argue) is a further complication in adjudicating this.

Since we were not there, we don't know exactly how the situation was described, but as I pointed out earlier, and many others have as well, it would all have been avoided if the DM had simply asked the players the question: what do you guys do with this rope before you get ready to sleep?

If the DM sticks with his "if you don't tell me about a PC action, then that PC action never happened" philosophy, he opens up the possibility that players will overreact and become paranoid (in the original example, the consequence was minimal, since the wizard was somehow found hanging on the rope; but a more dramatic consequence such as having the wizard infiltrate the camp and kill a PC or steal all their treasure would provoke an even more paranoid response from players). And then, the game will devolve into a game where players take hours to describe stuff that should really just take a couple of seconds. And based on a lot of comments, that's not the kind of experience people are looking for.

Ultimately, it remains a matter of preference between DM and players; but ideally, this is the kind of stuff that is covered in a Session 0 so that players are aware of what they are getting into.

[Cybren]

To be fair there are a lot of successful CRPGs out there where inventory management consumes most of the game (including Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Temple of Elemental Evil, Diablo, Wasted, and Dungeons of Dredmor, among others), so apparently somebody out there enjoys accountant level bookkeeping. Not me mind you (I consider it a major flaw and tend to uncap inventory whenever it is feasible to do so by modding), but apparently somebody must like it or else they wouldn't keep doing it.

in my last D&D game I played the party bard who became sort of the party quartermaster. I bought like 1500 GP worth of assorted mundane gear, including multiple tents, different kinds of survival & exploratory equipment, a specified number of days of food for a group of ten people and their mounts, and various other sundries, and stuffed them into a bag of holding. That kind of book keeping is fun to me.

[Bohandas]

in my last D&D game I played the party bard who became sort of the party quartermaster. I bought like 1500 GP worth of assorted mundane gear, including multiple tents, different kinds of survival & exploratory equipment, a specified number of days of food for a group of ten people and their mounts, and various other sundries, and stuffed them into a bag of holding. That kind of book keeping is fun to me.

It's fun when you have a bag of holding (or better yet, a handy haversack or labile locker). I'm talking about things where you have a limited number of inventory slots (and occasionally encumbrance limitations as well, in addition to a limited number of slots; Temple of Elemental Evil did this) and the slots never add to versimilitude because objects usually take up one slot regardless of their size (which leads to ridiculous scenarios like one bolt each of two different types taking up more space than 999 bolts of the same type in Dungeons of Dredmor or an entire suit of powered armor taking up the same space as a pair of sunglasses in Wasted) and even in the rare cases where items do take up varying nimbers of slots, the number is often arbitrary (IIRC in Diablo 2 a talisman takes up the same space as a sword)

[Cybren]

You seem to not understand. The storage limit isn't what makes it less fun, it's what makes it more fun. Having to manage a small set of resources is fun, having a huge set of resources to manage is also fun, but if there's no limit at all it's not fun, because it's not management anymore. It's ignored.

Also, i'm 99.8% sure that talismans in Diablo 2 take up 1 slot and swords take up at least 3.

[Gryndle]

You seem to not understand. The storage limit isn't what makes it less fun, it's what makes it more fun. Having to manage a small set of resources is fun, having a huge set of resources to manage is also fun, but if there's no limit at all it's not fun, because it's not management anymore. It's ignored.

Also, i'm 99.8% sure that talismans in Diablo 2 take up 1 slot and swords take up at least 3.

In Diablo II some talismans took up 2 spaces, and some swords took up only 3 spaces, while a lot of swords took up 6, and I think two-handed weapons took 8 slots. it varied. a lot.