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

[iserith]

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

The player's choice to make it more difficult to understand what their character is doing by being vague and noncommittal, encouraging the DM to play their character for them, only to see them object to what the DM established, and need to sort that out?

What about that makes it a good approach in your opinion?

 

[greg kaye]

The player's choice to make it more difficult to understand what their character is doing by being vague and noncommittal, encouraging the DM to play their character for them, only to see them object to what the DM established, and need to sort that out?

What about that makes it a good approach in your opinion?

In many situations, nothing.
In some situations, it could suit characterization.
Players are given the freedom to choose what they say in regard to their character's actions.
GMs adjudicate the consequences.
We've all had situations where we've retrospectively thought, I should have done it differently. That's part of the fun of the game.

Other people can choose how they act.
I hope that you can also keep this in mind in your interactions with people on this forum and elsewhere.

 

[Lanefan]

When any action is given only in general ("I smash the vase" "I attack the Orc" "I sneak past the guard") someone or something has to fill in whatever specifics are required, if any. That filler-in can be any one or combination of the player, the DM, or previously established fiction.

Usually the player has first opportunity to fill the details in simply by providing at least some of them as part of the action declaration - "I smash the vase with my bare hands" "I attack the Orc with my Mace of Charming" "I use my flight ring to sneak past the guard" - and that takes precedence over anyhting else.

But if the player declines this opportunity by not providing details then IMO it's left to either or both of a) previously established fiction (e.g. the Orc-attacker was already using the Mace in an ongoing battle) or b) the DM to fill those details in, particularly when they're fairly clear. When it's open-ended enough to not be clear (as in the sneak-past-the-guard example, where there's all kinds of equally-viable means to success), only then does interrupting the flow by circling back to the player with "How?" make sense.

 

[iserith]

In many situations, nothing.
In some situations, it could suit characterization.

It "suits characterization" to potentially create downstream conflict and the need to resolve that among the player and DM?

Other people can choose how they act.
I hope that you can also keep this in mind in your interactions with people on this forum and elsewhere.

I don't know why you keep saying things like this. I have no power to control what other people do. We're talking about how the game works at various tables. That is all.

 

[iserith]

When any action is given only in general ("I smash the vase" "I attack the Orc" "I sneak past the guard") someone or something has to fill in whatever specifics are required, if any. That filler-in can be any one or combination of the player, the DM, or previously established fiction.

Usually the player has first opportunity to fill the details in simply by providing at least some of them as part of the action declaration - "I smash the vase with my bare hands" "I attack the Orc with my Mace of Charming" "I use my flight ring to sneak past the guard" - and that takes precedence over anyhting else.

But if the player declines this opportunity by not providing details then IMO it's left to either or both of a) previously established fiction (e.g. the Orc-attacker was already using the Mace in an ongoing battle) or b) the DM to fill those details in, particularly when they're fairly clear. When it's open-ended enough to not be clear (as in the sneak-past-the-guard example, where there's all kinds of equally-viable means to success), only then does interrupting the flow by circling back to the player with "How?" make sense.

Why is it okay for the DM to say what the character does? That's the player's role in the game, not the DM's. You good with the player doing things that are in the DM's role?

As well, I believe it was you who said that asking "How?" means that the player may now have reason to believe something is up and change their actions accordingly. So that doesn't seem like a great solution, given your stated preferences.

An approach that does remove the DM from establishing what the character does and the need to ask clarifying questions is setting the expectation of players that they describe their goal and approach up front so you can then, as DM, adjudicate without having to do those things. What downsides do you see here?

 

[greg kaye]

...
I don't know why you keep saying things like this. I have no power to control what other people do. We're talking about how the game works at various tables. That is all.

But you seem to me to have an abject inability to simply agree to differ. Your misinterpretations and fanciful imaginations of non-existent problems in other people's lives are an utter waste of time. EVEN now this carries on.
Honestly, it's OK for other people to play their games in the way they choose.
You do you. Enjoy your play in any way you like.

edit: IT IS ALSO OKAY FOR LANEFAN TO RUN THEIR GAME IN THE WAY THAT THEY LIKE AND FOR PLAYERS TO CHOOSE TO JOIN OR NOT. FFS

 

[iserith]

But you seem to me to have an abject inability to simply agree to differ. Your misinterpretations and fanciful imaginations of non-existent problems in other people's lives are an utter waste of time. EVEN now this carries on.
Honestly, it's OK for other people to play their games in the way they choose.
You do you. Enjoy your play in any way you like.

We're talking about the game in the abstract, or at least I am. I don't actually care how your game specifically works or doesn't work. Does a given approach actually serve the desired goal is the question I'm examining. And, if it doesn't, what purpose does it serve to keep doing it?

Speaking of "misinterpretations and fanciful imaginations," I have also never said that it's not okay for people to play how they like. In fact, I've said quite the opposite, so it's unclear to me why you appear to think I take the position otherwise.

If you don't want to discuss it further, all you need do is stop replying. But if you do, I'd love to hear your justifications for why approaches that don't appear to serve the desired goals are beneficial for the game experience.

 

[greg kaye]

We're talking about the game in the abstract, or at least I am. I don't actually care how your game specifically works or doesn't work. Does a given approach actually serve the desired goal is the question I'm examining. And, if it doesn't, what purpose does it serve to keep doing it?

Speaking of "misinterpretations and fanciful imaginations," I have also never said that it's not okay for people to play how they like. In fact, I've said quite the opposite, so it's unclear to me why you appear to think I take the position otherwise.

If you don't want to discuss it further, all you need do is stop replying. But if you do, I'd love to hear your justifications for why approaches that don't appear to serve the desired goals are beneficial for the game experience.

Things here are working fine.

 

[Lanefan]

Why is it okay for the DM to say what the character does? That's the player's role in the game, not the DM's.

Yes, except if-when the player abdicates that role by not (completely) saying what the character does, what then?

As well, I believe it was you who said that asking "How?" means that the player may now have reason to believe something is up and change their actions accordingly. So that doesn't seem like a great solution, given your stated preferences.

If nothing else, if-when their leaving me to fill in the details causes Bad Things to happen to their characters it'll become clear enough that they might want to be filling in those details themselves.

An approach that does remove the DM from establishing what the character does and the need to ask clarifying questions is setting the expectation of players that they describe their goal and approach up front so you can then, as DM, adjudicate without having to do those things. What downsides do you see here?

The loss of spontaneous or impetuous character actions, for one. If the player has to think through the "how" every time then there's always going to be forethought; and not all characters - or all players - run like that.

 

[Raiztt]

Imagine this:

A player looks at an object of indescript material, location, and size.

The player decides they want to break the object. Do you let them do so? And how do you do it? What is the limit? Does it depend on context or as long as the object doesn't say its unbreakable, they can break it?

If the question is "Do you let PCs break anything that they could, theoretically, actually break given the defined rules and physics of your game world?" The answer is yes and there is no limit. If it's narratively possible without a die roll, then yeah of course they can do whatever they want.