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

[greg kaye]

... The DM presents an opportunity and incentive to "metagame." ...

The DM presents the fun/rewarding encounters that s/he is able to present.

... The player is then expected to...

engage in collaborative storytelling/strategic shenanigans.
lovely

 

[greg kaye]

That method (1) has the DM playing the role of the player by deciding for the player what their own character does and (2) potentially breaks "immersion" so the DM and player can hash out what the character is actually doing, after the player objects to the DM taking over their character for them. If you care about "no metagaming" and maintaining "immersion," how does this approach serve your goals?

The vase, presuming it's pottery, glass, or similar, is the only thing that needs to break. It's more smashed than hashed. Back to my mock-up:

... I could imagine:
Matthew Mercer: ~"You enter the chamber where there's a vase on a pedestal".
Travis Willingham playing Grog Strongjaw: "I smash the vase."

I think that, for this character, this could be as immersive as things could get.
Regarding game issues, I care mostly about characterization and freedom of choice.
Hey, I'm happy for you to do your things your way and wish you well.

 

[iserith]

The DM presents the fun/rewarding encounters that s/he is able to present.

...wherein they offer incentives and opportunities to "metagame" while expecting and demanding that the players don't do that.

engage in collaborative storytelling/strategic shenanigans.

...while not "metagaming" despite the DM presenting incentives and opportunities to do so. Hence, it's a test, and not at all aligned in my view with the goal of reducing "metagaming" or increasing "immersion." It seems to me to be more effective to create fewer such opportunities in the first place.

The vase, presuming it's pottery, glass, or similar, is the only thing that needs to break. It's more smashed than hashed. Back to my mock-up:

I think that, for this character, this could be as immersive as things could get.
Regarding game issues, I care mostly about characterization and freedom of choice.
Hey, I'm happy for you to do your things your way and wish you well.

You did not answer my question. If you needed to know how the character attempts to smash the vase, how do you approach that? And how would that particular approach serve a goal of reducing the potential for "metagaming" or maintaining "immersion?"

I'll remind you that it was you who raised the matter of "immersion" upthread. I also linked your previously posted concern about "metagaming" a few posts ago.

You, of course, don't have to answer. That's up to you. But I think it would be interesting to talk through these approaches to reach a better understanding of how they work.

 

[greg kaye]

...wherein they offer incentives and opportunities to "metagame" while expecting and demanding that the players don't do that. ...

...wherein you going out of your front door offers you incentives and opportunities to mug old grannies.
You are your responsibility.
Players are theirs.

... You did not answer my question. If you needed to know how the character attempts to smash the vase, how do you approach that? And how would that particular approach serve a goal of reducing the potential for "metagaming" or maintaining "immersion?" ...

I've mentioned the Bacon Bits quote.

...
I'll remind you that it was you who raised the matter of "immersion" upthread. I also linked your previously posted concern about "metagaming" a few posts ago.
...

I was responding to what I thought was an unfair characterisation of this post:

I try not to metagame when I'm playing. When I recognize a monster, which I frequently do, I'll ask the DM if my PC knows anything about it. Then I act on it as I think my PC would.

I added to the description applied to say:

But I'd say centrally on the subject of tactics to sustain immersion.

This is Oofta's style of play which I applaud.

...
You, of course, don't have to answer. That's up to you. But I think it would be interesting to talk through these approaches to reach a better understanding of how they work.

My approach has been to believe in people and to encourage things like characterization and fun, but most players are on this already. It's the fostering of collaboration that I think is key.
Do you also think that D&D is about winning?

 

[iserith]

...wherein you going out of your front door offers you incentives and opportunities to mug old grannies.
You are your responsibility.
Players are theirs.

I don't understand what you mean here.

I've mentioned the Bacon Bits quote.

Which doesn't actually appear to serve your goals, and potentially creates additional areas for conflict as shown.

My approach has been to believe in people and to encourage things like characterization and fun, but most players are on this already. It's the fostering of collaboration that I think is key.
Do you also think that D&D is about winning?

You "win" D&D by creating an exciting, memorable tale and having fun together. So, yes, I believe there is a way to "win" D&D, and that there are multiple strategies to achieving that "win." Some appear to be more coherent than others.

 

[greg kaye]

...
Which doesn't actually appear to serve your goals, and potentially creates additional areas for conflict ...

Our goals, as a gaming group, are fine. The only goal I think I've personally mentioned is characterisation.
We don't see conflict.

 

[iserith]

Our goals, as a gaming group, are fine. The only goal I think I've personally mentioned is characterisation.
We don't see conflict.

What happens if your player doesn't agree with what you described their own character as doing, which is what Bacon Bits suggested in the approach you endorsed? That is a conflict that has to be resolved before play can move forward. Or, you can avoid that discussion altogether by asking players to be reasonably specific about what they want to do. And you can do that with no loss of characterization e.g. "Grog smash puny vase with bare hands - YARRR!"

 

[greg kaye]

What happens if your player doesn't agree with what you described their own character as doing, which is what Bacon Bits suggested in the approach you endorsed? That is a conflict that has to be resolved before play can move forward. Or, you can avoid that discussion altogether by asking players to be reasonably specific about what they want to do. And you can do that with no loss of characterization e.g. "Grog smash puny vase with bare hands - YARRR!"

Read again;

...
Ideally I would just say, "Alright, you pick it up and smash it against the floor." Then I'd wait for the player to say something. This is their last opportunity to alter their fate. If they say, "No, wait, I don't want to touch it. I want to hit it with a sling bullet from across the room," then that's what happens.
...

Grog can handle his own characterization as Grog, not the Hulk - but, yes, there are OPTIONS that the PLAYER CAN CHOOSE to reflect that consistent characterization.

 

[iserith]

Read again;

Don't need to - the conflict is plain between what the DM described and what the player imagined but left undescribed. "No, wait, I don't want to touch it..." after the DM described the character as touching it is the conflict. That needs to be resolved - in this case by the player describing something else they can accept then the DM saying "Okay, then that's what happens." It would have been avoided altogether if the player had simply been reasonably specific in the first place.

What's more immersive? Saying what you want to do in a way that that is clear and concise OR being vague and noncommittal such that the DM has to declare what you're doing for you, which you may object to, at which point that has to be resolved? I think it's obvious, but maybe we're operating from different ideas of what is immersive.

 

[greg kaye]

... It would have been avoided altogether if the player had simply been ... specific in the first place.
...

agreed, but I'd say that's the player's choice, but you do you.