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

[pemerton]

Let them? What is this 'let'?

This whole thread seems to rest on a premise that the GM gets to decide the outcomes of action declarations more-or-less without constraint (beyond what participants will put up with - ie there are no rules other than "social contract").

In that context, the "let" is not "let them declare the action" but rather "let them have an effect on the shared fiction, such that it now includes a broken object".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Probably worth pointing out that concerns around making clear the character's approach to the goal possibly resulting in "metagaming" or "take-backs" were raised by Lanefan and later greg kaye, not me. If they have the "trust" that you suppose here, then why were those concerns raised? It shouldn't be a problem at all for the DM to ask clarifying questions of a vague action declaration then because of all that trust that their players won't "metagame," right? No need to rush right to adjudication to avoid it.

I can't speak for what happens at other peoples games, and in a more adversarial game there is a case for a stricter approach to declarations. But in my game, no one is trying to catch anyone out, so it 's not necessary.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This whole thread seems to rest on a premise that the GM gets to decide the outcomes of action declarations more-or-less without constraint

My players trust me to do so fairly. That trust was earned by being fair.

 

[greg kaye]

My players trust me to do so fairly. That trust was earned by being fair.

This seems to me as being a great way to go. The whole of D&D rests on the premise that there are no rules other than the social contract.
I guess that one part of my social contract is that, while I'll encourage players to present, for instance, evocative action descriptions, they can express themselves how they like.

 

[greg kaye]

This whole thread seems to rest on a premise that the GM gets to decide the outcomes of action declarations more-or-less without constraint (beyond what participants will put up with - ie there are no rules other than "social contract").

In that context, the "let" is not "let them declare the action" but rather "let them have an effect on the shared fiction, such that it now includes a broken object".

The GM certainly gets to adjudicate the outcomes of action declarations which is often done with the help of participants rolling dice.
GMs can also let players declare whatever they like which, perhaps, can be done to whatever level of specificity they like.

 

[Bacon Bits]

That method (1) has the DM playing the role of the player by deciding for the player what their own character does and

If you want your character to take precise actions, you must speak precisely. If you wish to retain agency, be your own agent. If you act carelessly, how should anyone know that it wasn't intentional?

And sure, you could play where the DM says:

"You open the door and see a 20x20 foot room. In the middle is a porcelain vase on top of a small stone pillar. None of your characters notice it without searching, but the pillar and vase are trapped with a contact poison. Also, there's a concealed panel in the floor by the wall, but again, you'd have to search to find it. What do you do?"

I know that my table would dislike that approach. The players would feel like that breaks immersion for them quite badly. They want to be surprised or mistaken for their carelessness. It's a fundamental part of the game.

(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?

Rewinding time a few seconds breaks immersion far less than telling the player that traps exist that their characters don't know about and then expecting the players to roleplay honestly. Yes, they should be able to do that, but it makes roleplaying needlessly difficult. It also eliminates an intentional game feature: keeping player knowledge and character knowledge the same to enhance verisimilitude.

Like if the player says, "The key must be inside the vase. I run in and smash it with my club!" And the DM says, "Actually you fall into a concealed pit trap three steps into the room before you make it to the vase," I don't think that time rewind is actually breaking immersion. The character attempts to complete an intended action, and the game-world's reality intervenes in an unpleasant way. Indeed, the existence of reaction actions means this kind of temporal anomaly is literally a game mechanic for PCs and NPCs, making it unavoidable.

That's just my opinion, but you don't need me to clarify that.

Reading the last few pages, I don't see you making any new points at all. At this point it feels like we've belabored the point well beyond critique. I think instead of continuing to claim problems with the methods we're saying work just fine for us, it's time for you to explain how you run it instead. You're clearly not making a convincing argument by just claiming our method is worse. You're just claiming it could be run differently, which isn't a particularly strong or enlightening counterpoint.

 

[iserith]

I can't speak for what happens at other peoples games, and in a more adversarial game there is a case for a stricter approach to declarations. But in my game, no one is trying to catch anyone out, so it 's not necessary.

One doesn't need to have an "adversarial game" to value and expect a clearly communicated action declaration from the player.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

One doesn't need to have an "adversarial game" to value and expect a clearly communicated action declaration from the player.

Are you sure you know what it is to not be adversarial?

 

[greg kaye]

One doesn't need to have an "adversarial game" to value and expect a clearly communicated action declaration from the player.

You are not communicating clearly.
"I smash the vase" clearly communicates the message that this message contains.

 

[iserith]

If you want your character to take precise actions, you must speak precisely. If you wish to retain agency, be your own agent. If you act carelessly, how should anyone know that it wasn't intentional?

I fully agree that the player should clearly communicate what they want to do, including if they are having the character act carelessly. Acting carelessly might well be part of the character's personal characteristics and worth Inspiration (e.g. Criminal personality trait "I don't pay attention to the risks of a situation. Never tell me the odds.") That a player hasn't acted as their "own agent" in a given exchange, however, does not give the DM de facto permission to do it for them. Some players are probably fine with that though. Some might not be used to any other way.

And sure, you could play where the DM says:

"You open the door and see a 20x20 foot room. In the middle is a porcelain vase on top of a small stone pillar. None of your characters notice it without searching, but the pillar and vase are trapped with a contact poison. Also, there's a concealed panel in the floor by the wall, but again, you'd have to search to find it. What do you do?"

I know that my table would dislike that approach. The players would feel like that breaks immersion for them quite badly. They want to be surprised or mistaken for their carelessness. It's a fundamental part of the game.

Rewinding time a few seconds breaks immersion far less than telling the player that traps exist that their characters don't know about and then expecting the players to roleplay honestly. Yes, they should be able to do that, but it makes roleplaying needlessly difficult. It also eliminates an intentional game feature: keeping player knowledge and character knowledge the same to enhance verisimilitude.

I don't believe I've seen anyone advocate for that approach in this discussion.

Reading the last few pages, I don't see you making any new points at all. At this point it feels like we've belabored the point well beyond critique. I think instead of continuing to claim problems with the methods we're saying work just fine for us, it's time for you to explain how you run it instead. You're clearly not making a convincing argument by just claiming our method is worse. You're just claiming it could be run differently, which isn't a particularly strong or enlightening counterpoint.

I've stated how I run it already - the player is expected to state a reasonably descriptive goal and approach - what they want to do and how they attempt to do it - as part of their action declaration before the DM proceeds to adjudication. Is there anything about this that isn't clear?