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

[iserith]

I think players, especially newer players, will assume their intentions are clear when they declare their action but don't realize that they've added something extra that the DM might interpret too literally.

Like if a player is trying to attack the castle gate, the DM probably has good reason to assume that what they're doing is breaking down the gate. But the details between the line leave some other interpretations open, like the player might want to just draw attention to themselves or trying to be random to confuse the guards.

I would say it's on the DM then not to assume anything and ask questions to get at the player's goal and approach.

 

[Asisreo]

I would say it's on the DM then not to assume anything and ask questions to get at the player's goal and approach.

Well, that's what I do. Part of that is transparency through communication. Give them the information they need and let them figure out how they want to acheive their goals. Obviously, I can't give the statblock for every object the players come across but giving that information when its relevant, even when I don't have the imagination to see how it could be useful, is part of open communication with the players.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think players, especially newer players, will assume their intentions are clear when they declare their action but don't realize that they've added something extra that the DM might interpret too literally.

Like if a player is trying to attack the castle gate, the DM probably has good reason to assume that what they're doing is breaking down the gate. But the details between the line leave some other interpretations open, like the player might want to just draw attention to themselves or trying to be random to confuse the guards.

So just ask for clarification. Or better yet, just make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach.

 

[Asisreo]

So just ask for clarification. Or better yet, just make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach.

Some players really like to have the element of surprise for the big "wow" factor or don't want the DM to let them do something out of pride.

Some players want their plans to surprise even the DM. I respect that, so I at least let them think through the situation with informed choices before I directly ask them.

I also like being surprised and even outsmarted as a DM. So if I can preserve that, I would.

 

[Professor Murder]

They can try.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some players really like to have the element of surprise for the big "wow" factor or don't want the DM to let them do something out of pride.

Some players want their plans to surprise even the DM. I respect that, so I at least let them think through the situation with informed choices before I directly ask them.

I also like being surprised and even outsmarted as a DM. So if I can preserve that, I would.

Ok. I disagree, but sure, then don’t have the expectation that action declarations include goal and approach. You should still ask for clarification if those things aren’t clear. I mean, how are you supposed to resolve an action if you don’t know what the PC is trying to do?

 

[iserith]

Ok. I disagree, but sure, then don’t have the expectation that action declarations include goal and approach. You should still ask for clarification if those things aren’t clear. I mean, how are you supposed to resolve an action if you don’t know what the PC is trying to do?

One thing I've seen in play, and it was confirmed to me by a bunch of players I don't play with in Discord a while back, is that sometimes players will do very incremental or vague action declarations (or more often ask questions) in order to corner the DM so that they must agree to allow the main thing they want to happen. Often this is a reaction of or strategy to deal with having DMs that are prone to saying "No" a lot. They learn this behavior under such DMs and just bring it into games where such DMs don't do that and have to be trained out of that behavior in my experience.

 

[Asisreo]

Ok. I disagree, but sure, then don’t have the expectation that action declarations include goal and approach. You should still ask for clarification if those things aren’t clear. I mean, how are you supposed to resolve an action if you don’t know what the PC is trying to do?

I don't think you're wrong. My style is pretty much adjusted for my main group. They think its pretty fun to "mess with my plans" so having me know what they're up to can reduce that fun for them.

In reality, I don't mind them going off "the railroad" since I only really sell the illusion that I expected them to do something or be somewhere. In truth, I make characters and settings, but I don't make stories, so what happens is almost always a surprise for me as much for them.

Giving them stats grant them the illusion that I knew they were going to attempt something and giving them "impossible" DCs are often met as a challenge. There's been many times where they go back to a challenge to overcome it not because they need to, but to just feel like they "broke the bounds."

 

[Oofta]

Ok. I disagree, but sure, then don’t have the expectation that action declarations include goal and approach. You should still ask for clarification if those things aren’t clear. I mean, how are you supposed to resolve an action if you don’t know what the PC is trying to do?

The vast, vast 99% of the time I know what the PCs are trying to accomplish. In that rare case I don't, I ask but even then it's more likely to be clarifying details. I don't need a lot of detail if someone says "I smash the vase".

 

[Charlaquin]

The vast, vast 99% of the time I know what the PCs are trying to accomplish. In that rare case I don't, I ask but even then it's more likely to be clarifying details. I don't need a lot of detail if someone says "I smash the vase".

Sure, sure. But we were specifically discussing a case where the player’s goal was unclear.