D&D 5E Do you let PC's just *break* objects?

[Paul Farquhar]

Typo? Or intentional wordplay?

Dyslexia.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I love for players to add story enriching details.

Oh yeah. Less work for the DM that way! My players are a mixture, a couple play like that, a couple are very reserved, so I encourage them to use whatever style of communication they feel comfortable with.

 

[iserith]

I just...fundamentally disagree. Or maybe it's that our contexts are different: it might be trivially easy to justify in the context of a game, but not in the context of a story. Not if you want the story to be any good.

For example, what if the player is actively looking up the "White Plume Module" online, mid-game, while explaining that their character is looking through their grandfather's journal, because he happened to have been an adventurer who happened to visit that exact same dungeon, and kept perfectly meticulous notes.

Your answer seems to suggest that you might be fine with it, but reserve the right to react by changing anything and everything in an ad hoc manner. Which seems like an extremely adversarial approach to a cooperative game, from my perspective. Plus it would feel to me that story logic had gone right out the window - how convenient that your grandpa kept a handy journal with just the information you need, whenever you need it (albeit that this is more or less the plot of much of the TV show Supernatural).

Yes, I'd be fine with it, and as far as I know they're doing it right now (since I play online). In fact, the "Grandpa's journal" thing is something my group says a lot as a joke. I regularly change modules because most modules suck in my opinion. I change monster stat blocks frequently too to fit whatever challenge, theme, or stupid pun I'm going for. None of this has anything to do with trying to be "adversarial" with my players or negate their "metagaming." But the fact they know I change things from time to time is enough to make grandpa's journal unreliable and therefore "metagaming" is a risky strategy. Verifying their assumptions through action then becomes the more optimal way to play. And because I expect players to by and large play optimally, they do not disappoint.

As far as "story logic," that's just a matter of skill in my view. For a decent improviser, it's easy.

 

[pemerton]

For instance, all my players have access to any published adventure, because the internet, and I recently ran an adaptation of "White Plume Mountain" as part of our ongoing campaign. Would any DM be okay with players looking it up online as we play, in order to figure out how to solve puzzles, find the treasures, avoid traps, etc.? I assume no, because otherwise, what is the point? Then it's not a story anymore...it's barely even a game.

<snip>

This debate goes way back in D&D - in the 70s, some folks were so anti-metagaming that they felt players should not even know the rules!

Well, those players did know the procedures of play: the player tells the GM what their PC does, and the GM tells them back what happens as a result. What they didn't always know was the method the GM was using to decide what to say back, except in rough terms: some combination of consulting a map and key, and making dice rolls and reading the results of either an actual table or a notional table (as in, the table sits inside the GM's head).

It's pretty clear that there was a mainstream assumption, in 1970s D&D play, that players would get better at the game over time, by learning more about particular elements of the game (eg monster immunities; how to deal with pit traps; etc). That's why there are so many weird puzzle monsters in the Monster Manual, why the equipment list includes 10' poles, etc.

Part of what causes this sort of play to break down, though, is its commercialisation: whereas at the original tables the players had to learn, through play (or through having read the right novel or short story!) how to defeat trolls and grey oozes and the like, and had to invent ideas like prodding with poles, searching for secret doors, and so on, new players who buy the rulebooks don't need to think up these things. They can see 10' poles in the equipment list and intuit what they are for; they can read the rules for searching for secret doors; they can read the Monster Manual; etc.

Thus, from some time around the late 70s, there are really only three options. One is to invent new puzzles that can't be solved simply by being familiar with the published material - that is, to undertake the same process as happened at those original tables, albeit generating different content.

A second option is to drop the puzzle conceit altogether, and to shift the focus of play onto something else. This is the general trend of FRPGs like RQ and RM (in the late 70s and 80s) as well as more recent RPGs like Burning Wheel: puzzle monsters and baroque traps and the like figure less prominently in these systems than in D&D. We even see strong hints of a change in this direction in Gygax's DMG, where the account of how to set up a campaign and how to adjudicate a dungeon is much more "living world" than is presented in the PHB. (Although the actual sample of play in the DMG is a closer fit with the PHB.)

A third option is to keep the puzzle conceit, but to change the style of play from the puzzle-solving of the original tables to some sort of karaoke/emulation, where players who do know about trolls, poles, pits and the like play characters who don't. To me, this third option is extremely weird, but it seems to be quite popular.

When it comes to reading modules, I think it's quite different. It's pretty hard to make a case that someone who reads the rulebook (and thereby learns about 10' poles, trolls, he rules for searching - which of course make searching a salient action declaration - and the like) is cheating. Whereas reading the secret information for a game that is supposed to be played on a "hidden gameboard" is pretty obviously cheating.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, those players did know the procedures of play: the player tells the GM what their PC does, and the GM tells them back what happens as a result. What they didn't always know was the method the GM was using to decide what to say back, except in rough terms: some combination of consulting a map and key, and making dice rolls and reading the results of either an actual table or a notional table (as in, the table sits inside the GM's head).

It's pretty clear that there was a mainstream assumption, in 1970s D&D play, that players would get better at the game over time, by learning more about particular elements of the game (eg monster immunities; how to deal with pit traps; etc). That's why there are so many weird puzzle monsters in the Monster Manual, why the equipment list includes 10' poles, etc.

Part of what causes this sort of play to break down, though, is its commercialisation: whereas at the original tables the players had to learn, through play (or through having read the right novel or short story!) how to defeat trolls and grey oozes and the like, and had to invent ideas like prodding with poles, searching for secret doors, and so on, new players who buy the rulebooks don't need to think up these things. They can see 10' poles in the equipment list and intuit what they are for; they can read the rules for searching for secret doors; they can read the Monster Manual; etc.

Other than "they can read the Monster Manual", which IMO isn't far from reading the module, this is a good summary.

Thus, from some time around the late 70s, there are really only three options. One is to invent new puzzles that can't be solved simply by being familiar with the published material - that is, to undertake the same process as happened at those original tables, albeit generating different content.

A second option is to drop the puzzle conceit altogether, and to shift the focus of play onto something else. This is the general trend of FRPGs like RQ and RM (in the late 70s and 80s) as well as more recent RPGs like Burning Wheel: puzzle monsters and baroque traps and the like figure less prominently in these systems than in D&D. We even see strong hints of a change in this direction in Gygax's DMG, where the account of how to set up a campaign and how to adjudicate a dungeon is much more "living world" than is presented in the PHB. (Although the actual sample of play in the DMG is a closer fit with the PHB.)

A third option is to keep the puzzle conceit, but to change the style of play from the puzzle-solving of the original tables to some sort of karaoke/emulation, where players who do know about trolls, poles, pits and the like play characters who don't. To me, this third option is extremely weird, but it seems to be quite popular.

And of course there's no end of debate and argument over which of these three options and-or combination of these options is best; a debate which can only really be sorted table by table.

I'm not sure Gygax's living world ideas really have anything to do with puzzle-based play, though, other than they might hint at the idea that the "puzzle" itself could also be ever-evolving. But even that is probably a stretch.

Also, keep in mind that Gygax held the view that the DMG was for DMs' eyes only; thus his words and sentiments there - specifically and "only" intended for DMs - may or may not entirely line up with those in the intended-for-players PH. That the example of play does line up closer to the PH kind of supports this, as I rather suspect it was intended to be read out to players as a "how play actually goes" guide.

When it comes to reading modules, I think it's quite different. It's pretty hard to make a case that someone who reads the rulebook (and thereby learns about 10' poles, trolls, he rules for searching - which of course make searching a salient action declaration - and the like) is cheating. Whereas reading the secret information for a game that is supposed to be played on a "hidden gameboard" is pretty obviously cheating.

Indeed, and agreed.

 

[Charlaquin]

One of the biggest differences is that unless an obstacle such as a trap is being totally bypassed (i.e. not interacting with the vase at all) that the risk falls on the roll of the dice and the build of the PC, not player ability. I want to level the playing field a bit because player skill makes a pretty big difference no matter what.

Yeah, I suspect that this is really the main culprit behind our differing preferences. I want a game where the primary deciding factor in the players’ successes and failures is their ability to read the situation based on the description of the environment and make good decisions based on that reading (which you might reasonably describe that as “player skill”), and their decisions about how to build their character (which you might reasonably describe as “system mastery,” another form of “player skill”) can help mitigate the random element of the action resolution mechanic when the outcomes of your actions are uncertain. You prefer a game where the player’s skills are de-emphasized compared to the character’s statistics.

So it doesn't really matter who adds fluff to the description of an investigation, it could be me or the player. The only thing that really matters is that the PC is investigating and whether or not they physically interact with the vase, otherwise the description isn't going to matter.

As I’ve said a few times now, the character’s approach isn’t fluff in my games; it’s in fact the most important element of the action resolution process, which for me emphasizes applying the logic of the fiction to the described action and only relies on dice rolls when the above alone can’t determine the outcome fairly. Accordingly, it wouldn’t be appropriate in my games for the DM to provide the approach, because that element has the greatest power to affect the outcome.

I'm not going to assume physical interaction unless the player specifically says so.

Same! I’m also not going to assume lack of physical interaction unless the player specifically says so. I’m going to ask that, whatever they want their character to do, they specifically say so. In this way, there is practically no risk of miscommunication, and (once players get used to it), no need to pause the in-universe narration to ask for clarification.

At that point, I don't see that it matters if the vase is a mimic or not, it's time to roll initiative.

Maybe I lost the thread somewhere, why would you need to roll initiative if the vase isn’t a mimic?

 

[Charlaquin]

Why on earth would you stop them sabotaging themselves in order to achieve the goal of having fun?

I believe @iserith meant the players sabotaging their own ability to have fun and create exciting, memorable stories. That seems like something that might be worth trying to prevent.

 

[Charlaquin]

For instance, all my players have access to any published adventure, because the internet, and I recently ran an adaptation of "White Plume Mountain" as part of our ongoing campaign. Would any DM be okay with players looking it up online as we play, in order to figure out how to solve puzzles, find the treasures, avoid traps, etc.? I assume no, because otherwise, what is the point? Then it's not a story anymore...it's barely even a game.

I would have no problem with that. I mean, for one thing I wouldn’t run the module exactly by-the-book. I like to make my games my own even when running modules, so a player playing in a White Plume Mountain game I was running who had read the module would find the game had same broad beats they were familiar with, but different details. It might even be enjoyable for them to see where my version differed from their expectations!

I mean, people enjoy replaying video games, rewatching movies, rereading books. Why shouldn’t replaying D&D adventures be just as enjoyable? Granted, there is a unique enjoyment on the first, “unspoiled” experience with a piece of media, and that goes for D&D adventures too. But that doesn’t mean repeat viewings/plays can’t also be enjoyable in their own way. Personally, I think an adventure that wouldn’t be fun for players who have read the module or played through it before probably needs work.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe I lost the thread somewhere, why would you need to roll initiative if the vase isn’t a mimic?

I missed what you were specifically replying to with this, but my immediate answer would be "if one character moves to smash the vase and another character - maybe with an eye to its value - wants to keep the vase intact".

 

[Lanefan]

I would have no problem with that. I mean, for one thing I wouldn’t run the module exactly by-the-book. I like to make my games my own even when running modules, so a player playing in a White Plume Mountain game I was running who had read the module would find the game had same broad beats they were familiar with, but different details. It might even be enjoyable for them to see where my version differed from their expectations!

If I'm running a canned module it's usually to save time and effort; and IME those sort of tweaks to a canned module - enough to make it largely unrecognizable to someone who has played it (or run it) before - take just as much time and work as writing from scratch.

Far better IMO to just ask beforehand if anyone is familiar with the module and on hearing a "Yes", find a different module.

I mean, people enjoy replaying video games, rewatching movies, rereading books. Why shouldn’t replaying D&D adventures be just as enjoyable? Granted, there is a unique enjoyment on the first, “unspoiled” experience with a piece of media, and that goes for D&D adventures too. But that doesn’t mean repeat viewings/plays can’t also be enjoyable in their own way. Personally, I think an adventure that wouldn’t be fun for players who have read the module or played through it before probably needs work.

Some players are OK re-playing a module. Others will take shameless meta-advantage of prior knowledge if they have it* even if the adventure is new to their character.

* - the one and only situation in which this is A-OK is if the character somehow finds itself repeating an adventure and still has those memories. This happened to me as a player: I rebooted an old character into a newer campaign (same DM) who at the time was re-using an old adventure of his own, disguising it under a different name. I-as-player recognized the adventure before long and was able to play this out in character "Hey - I've seen this before!"; the DM had forgotten my character had been in the first go-round, 12 years prior. While interesting because it was unusual, it did spoil both my and others' enjoyment of the adventure a bit as I was sometimes able to tell them what came next.