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

[Charlaquin]

First, nothing I've ever read about method acting requires or even implies limiting the knowledge the actor has. What I have read and seen explained is that it's about putting yourself into the perspective and emotional state of the character being presented. Second, I really don't understand why you're making a mountain out of a molehill when I said it was "akin to method acting". Not exactly the same, in a similar vein. AKA "akin". I guarantee I would never rise to the level of dedicated method actors, I just try to do something similar.
All I'm saying is that I try to have my PC approach the world as my PC would approach it. It will never be perfect, I can never actually feel the confusion of a troll that doesn't die, but I can at least attempt to understand how that would feel. But your odd criticism? It feels like a way to just attack a method of RP that you don't personally follow or care for by attacking the fundamental concept.

What you’re describing is just called acting. Method acting is a specific technique, and the approach of limiting the player’s knowledge is more akin to it than the approach of simply choosing to imagine how the character would feel and acting that way. The latter is more akin to Meisner’s adaptation of Stanislavsky’s system. And for the record, I actually favor Meisner’s system over Stanislavsky’s, so no, this isn’t about trying to attack your preferred play style. It’s about accuracy with regard to discussing acting techniques, something which is very important to me as an actor. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about “method acting,” and I try to set the record straight where I can.

 

[greg kaye]

... Method acting ...

should be mandatory. Players should dress up and GMs should have a series of hats.
Having said that, I still think it would be relatively rare for players with average player knowledge to have more character world knowledge than the characters themselves. Exceptions might involve some of the knowledge bases of characters from hermit backgrounds or those raised in religious cults.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course, they can. There might be a question as to what extent they'd want to (as useful that information might be in assessments for a fighting force), but they clearly can.

How? Nobody sits around a pulls a rank amateur out and faces him off against a goblin one after another to see how long he lasts. Then suddenly one day he hits level 2 and they're like, "He's lasting 6 seconds longer on average now!"

1. Fights happen infrequently and people aren't timing them to see how much longer they are lasting.
2. Hit points don't look like hit points to anyone. They look like skill(the fighter parries a thrust and takes damage even though he's not hit). They look like luck(The fighter goes to parry one goblin and accidentally also blocks a second thrust he didn't see coming and takes damage even though he's not hit). They look like divine intervention(An arrow shot from behind thunks next to the fighter's ear instead of going through his head, even though he was unaware of the shot).
3. What the party can see are power improvements. The group of goblins ended quickly to a fireball, where before they would have been more of a challenge.

So to sum up, the party can see skill, luck, divine intervention(what hit points are), but not actual hit points, and they can see power levels. They also are not running scientific experiments to see if they can discover hit points.

With assessment in a context like boxing it would become ever clearer that there was a 10% difference between the two participants.

Yes. SKILL matters. Skill =/= hit points. It can be hit points sometimes, but often does not.

Gamers watch dice.

Gamers also know hit points as they are a player mechanic.

Pundits watch outcomes.

And are wrong so often they might as well not matter. Oh, wait...

Either way, the watchers can be aware of any flow of "lucky punches" one way or another and still make a clear assessment of an issue such as the durability of boxers.

Skill, yes. Durability, no. Durability would be punch each of the boxes while they are defenseless with exactly the same amount of force and see which one folds first. Durability is a matter of constitution, not hit points.

 

[Maxperson]

None-the-less,

A rival boxer would need ~a little more of those successful, 15+ type rolls to put ol' Reggie down for the count than ... to knock Al out. Spectators would be watching the hits land and would have the opportunity to make note of differences.

This argument relies on the party having a watch that can time things down to the second, looking at watch the second the fight begins, looking the second the fight ends, and then taking notes for hundreds of consecutive game fights. And assuming that blind chance, divine intervention, skill, etc. are hit points. This just doesn't ever happen.

 

[Lanefan]

But back in white box days, you couldn't buy a staff but just a 10' pole.

I wonder if that's because the assumption was you could easily go to some nearby woods and find or make a combat-ready staff for free?

It also amazes me that, by 5e, casters have discovered mage hand but crafters are yet to comercialise pull apart tent poles.

Or even folding poles, which given that hinges are a common thing isn't a big stretch of invention.

 

[Lanefan]

If hit points are purely physical, yes. Because they are skill, luck, divine intervention, etc., they would not be able to pin down why it is that they are lasting a bit longer. There's nothing they can pin down as hit points. One fight they might last 5 rounds due to skill. Another fight they last 5 rounds not so much due to skill, but some luck and a cleric's god causing the enemy to stumble and strike a glancing blow instead of a killing one. There's no way that they can pin it down to purely them, assign any kind of number to it, and identify that as hit points.

I'm not saying they can identify it as hit points. I am saying they could tell the difference in the fiction between varying degrees of toughness and resilience, just like they could tell the difference between who was generally more or less resistant to minor diseases etc. (quantified in the game as people having different Con scores).

That's actually not true. Variable damage means that 45 and 57 can go down at the same time, the 45 hit point guy first, or the 57 hit point guy first.

In any one fight, yes; but over time the difference would become abundantly clear.

 

[Oofta]

What you’re describing is just called acting. Method acting is a specific technique, and the approach of limiting the player’s knowledge is more akin to it than the approach of simply choosing to imagine how the character would feel and acting that way. The latter is more akin to Meisner’s adaptation of Stanislavsky’s system. And for the record, I actually favor Meisner’s system over Stanislavsky’s, so no, this isn’t about trying to attack your preferred play style. It’s about accuracy with regard to discussing acting techniques, something which is very important to me as an actor. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about “method acting,” and I try to set the record straight where I can.

I really don't understand your obsession with this. I try to envision the perspective of the character, putting myself in their position, trying to emulate what they actually feel. I really don't give a fig what you call it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I really don't understand your obsession with this. I try to envision the perspective of the character, putting myself in their position, trying to emulate what they actually feel.

Which is absolutely fine, it’s just not analogous to method acting.

I really don't give a fig what you call it.

You’re the one who compared it to method acting and then tried to defend that analogy when I pointed out that it’s inaccurate.

 

[Oofta]

Which is absolutely fine, it’s just not analogous to method acting.

You’re the one who compared it to method acting and then tried to defend that analogy when I pointed out that it’s inaccurate.

Can we drop this? You're definition does not match up to anything I've ever read, from what I've read as a layman my analogy was accurate. It also doesn't matter one bit.

When I play D&D I don't metagame because I try to inhabit my character. I'm attempting to not just mimic what the character would do, I'm actually attempting (poorly, of course) to immerse myself in that character. If you say that it's impossible to call any RPing method acting so be it.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not saying they can identify it as hit points. I am saying they could tell the difference in the fiction between varying degrees of toughness and resilience, just like they could tell the difference between who was generally more or less resistant to minor diseases etc. (quantified in the game as people having different Con scores).

In any one fight, yes; but over time the difference would become abundantly clear.

What do you mean by toughness? Skill in parrying and dodging blows? Getting lucky? Having a god help you out and cause a miss? Physical toughness? All of the above?