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

[Plaguescarred]

Like the DMG says;

Objects: characters can destroy any destructible object. Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Use common sense

Sir, we're gamers.

 

[iserith]

IME the minute I ask "How?" is the minute trouble starts.

In the experience of your game, sure. In my game, it's expected you give your goal and approach with reasonable specificity. No "trouble" can start at all, not can it lead to the next bit:

If a player says something quickly and rashly, as in "I smash the vase" without further details, I interpret that to mean the character is acting without forethought. If I start asking even as little as "How?", forethought will start to retroactively creep in and what was an impulsive act won't be any more.

If you say you're doing something and don't say how, you've in effect ceded the determination of "how" to me-as-DM, or to the dice.

I firmly disagree. The player establishes what the character is doing, not me as DM, short magical compulsion or the like. I can't fill in the blanks for them. That's the player's role in the game.

 

[Clint_L]

I mean, if someone says "I smash the vase," I don't think the "how" really matters, does it? They probably didn't specify because they assumed, as would I as the DM, that smashing a vase is a relatively self-explanatory action - does it really matter if they throw it on the ground or hit it with their sword? (If it did matter - like maybe throwing it on the floor could trigger a trap - then I would respond with "Okay, you definitely smash that thing! Describe how, exactly." In other words, no take-backsies!).

Generally, if I ask "how?" it implies that this is a non-trivial task and I want to know what the plan is so I can figure out if there needs to be a DC, consequences, etc.

 

[greg kaye]

In the experience of your game, sure. In my game, it's expected you give your goal and approach with reasonable specificity. No "trouble" can start at all, ...

To be fair the full quote was:

IME the minute I ask "How?" is the minute trouble starts.

Instead, on "I smash the vase" if there's contact poison on the vase I'd ask for a d20 roll (without saying why) - a difficult perception check to notice the poison. If that failed there'd be a saving throw, success on which would mean the vase was hit with something other than a hand. If that failed then there'd be the save vs the poison itself.
...

then, responding to a different text:

If a player says something quickly and rashly, as in "I smash the vase" without further details, I interpret that to mean the character is acting without forethought. If I start asking even as little as "How?", forethought will start to retroactively creep in and what was an impulsive act won't be any more.

If you say you're doing something and don't say how, you've in effect ceded the determination of "how" to me-as-DM, or to the dice.

... The player establishes what the character is doing, not me as DM, short magical compulsion or the like. I can't fill in the blanks for them. That's the player's role in the game.

The player has established much of what their character is doing: smashing the vase.
My disagreement with Lanefan is in the interpretation that the character is acting without forethought, whereas I'd suggest that it could also work to interpret that that character would have acted in the way that character would have acted and I'd take, "I smash the vase" as a summary.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, if someone says "I smash the vase," I don't think the "how" really matters, does it? They probably didn't specify because they assumed, as would I as the DM, that smashing a vase is a relatively self-explanatory action - does it really matter if they throw it on the ground or hit it with their sword? (If it did matter - like maybe throwing it on the floor could trigger a trap - then I would respond with "Okay, you definitely smash smash that thing! Describe how, exactly." In other words, no take-backsies!).

Generally, if I ask "how?" it implies that this is a non-trivial task and I want to know what the plan is so I can figure out if there needs to be a DC, consequences, etc.

The only time it might matter in my game is if the vase is the McGuffin. If it's just a random vase? I don't see why it matters. If it's something special but the players don't know it, I'll give some appropriate check to notice that the vase is unusual.

I might ask "So you just smash it with your sword?" Then if they start going on about 10 foot poles or taking precautions they didn't mention before I'll just remind the player that the PC has no reason to do that. Again, there would likely be some sort of check involved before I tell someone that. This is the incredibly rare exception to the rule that I don't tell people what their PC does, I'm far more likely to remind them to check for traps or remind them info their PC knows about the McGuffin that I think the player may have forgotten.

At a certain point there has to be some mutual trust between player and DM. I don't do "gotcha" tricks, they don't change behavior just because I verify details of their action.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, if someone says "I smash the vase," I don't think the "how" really matters, does it? They probably didn't specify because they assumed, as would I as the DM, that smashing a vase is a relatively self-explanatory action - does it really matter if they throw it on the ground or hit it with their sword? (If it did matter - like maybe throwing it on the floor could trigger a trap - then I would respond with "Okay, you definitely smash that thing! Describe how, exactly." In other words, no take-backsies!).

It could. And if you don’t typically expect those details unless they matter, then asking for additional detail is an unambiguous indication that it matters in this case, which may prompt the player to declare the action in a different way than they otherwise would, in hopes of avoiding some hypothetical negative consequence.

Generally, if I ask "how?" it implies that this is a non-trivial task and I want to know what the plan is so I can figure out if there needs to be a DC, consequences, etc.

Wanting to know what the plan is so I can figure out if there needs to be a DC, consequences, etc. is precisely why I want to know how. How am I to know it’s a non-trivial task if I don’t know what the player is trying to accomplish and how?

 

[Charlaquin]

The only time it might matter in my game is if the vase is the McGuffin. If it's just a random vase? I don't see why it matters. If it's something special but the players don't know it, I'll give some appropriate check to notice that the vase is unusual.

I might ask "So you just smash it with your sword?" Then if they start going on about 10 foot poles or taking precautions they didn't mention before I'll just remind the player that the PC has no reason to do that. Again, there would likely be some sort of check involved before I tell someone that. This is the incredibly rare exception to the rule that I don't tell people what their PC does, I'm far more likely to remind them to check for traps or remind them info their PC knows about the McGuffin that I think the player may have forgotten.

Yeah, as a rule I don’t police “metagaming,” so “your PC has no reason to do that” would be verboten at my table. It’s up to the player what their PC would or wouldn’t do, and nobody else, including me.

At a certain point there has to be some mutual trust between player and DM. I don't do "gotcha" tricks, they don't change behavior just because I verify details of their action.

I agree.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, as a rule I don’t police “metagaming,” so “your PC has no reason to do that” would be verboten at my table. It’s up to the player what their PC would or wouldn’t do, and nobody else, including me.

I just ask that PCs don't act on information they have no way of knowing. Meanwhile, everyone knows that trolls are hurt by fire, etc. Different strokes and all. In addition, as I said, it's an incredibly rare exception to my general rule.

I agree.

 

[iserith]

To be fair the full quote was:

then, responding to a different text:


The player has established much of what their character is doing: smashing the vase.
My disagreement with Lanefan is in the interpretation that the character is acting without forethought, whereas I'd suggest that it could also work to interpret that that character would have acted in the way that character would have acted and I'd take, "I smash the vase" as a summary.

The player has not established how they will be smashing the vase. And that's very important in my view for all the reasons stated upthread.