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

[Paul Farquhar]

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?

What do you do if the player, is not, in your opinion, sufficiently clear?

 

[Oofta]

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

It's rare that "I smash the vase" doesn't communicate enough information. If it doesn't I'll clarify "You smash the vase with your axe?" or something similar. But it's so rare that it happens. I wouldn't want to force people to give me details for every action, because how will they ever know when enough detail is enough? What if smashing the vase opens a trap door on the left side of the vase? Does the player have to specify where exactly they were standing? Do the players have to specify exactly which weapon they're using? What if the vase is concealing a sphere of annihilation and suddenly they've just destroyed their favorite weapon?

Those questions simply don't come up in my game because I have no problem with granting checks if I think the PC might notice that something is off i.e. if they're successful at that free perception check "You glance inside the vase as you approach and notice a dark orb of energy."

I also have no issue with letting people know we have to go into detail when it's necessary. Most exploration in my game is handled at a very high level with theater of the mind. Even if you're exploring a house, I'm just going to describe various rooms as they go through them and only get into specific details when necessary. I want to test the overall strategies of the player, I want to test the skills of the PC.

NOTE: My examples are a bit extreme. But needing details on how someone smashes a vase is pretty extreme as well.

 

[iserith]

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

Absolutely.

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

As stated upthread already, it does not communicate how the character attempts to smash the vase, which may be relevant to how the smashing of the vase is resolved and narrated.

 

[iserith]

What do you do if the player, is not, in your opinion, sufficiently clear?

I ask them to fill in the bits that are missing (the approach or the goal). As already stated, players tend to catch on that they're going to get this question and will start to get it done up front.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Absolutely.

So, you don't think opening up session zero with demands that players all speak in a certain way is adversarial?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I ask them to fill in the bits that are missing (the approach or the goal).

So, exactly the same as someone would do who had not started session zero with demands for clarity.

 

[iserith]

So, you don't think opening up session zero with demands that players all speak in a certain way is adversarial?

I don't demand. I ask that players state a clear goal and approach. And I explain why it's important - so they can act with agency and I can fairly adjudicate their action without a lot of back and forth slowing down the game. That seems like a normal conversation to me of getting on the same page before the game begins, not an adversarial one.

 

[greg kaye]

I fully agree ...

you're not agreeing. Bacon Bit's said:

... If you wish to retain agency, be your own agent. ...

There was a conditional clause.

... 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. ...

No, the rules do that.
What gives you de facto permission, on your table, to make demands about the extent to which players make their declarations?

 

[iserith]

So, exactly the same as someone would do who had not started session zero with demands for clarity.

Nobody's demanding anything, as stated above. I'll note that it was said upthread by Lanefan and possibly others that asking for clarity can mean the player might "metagame" or ask for "takebacks" if they become suspicious as to why the DM is asking for clarity. Now I don't care about these situations, because I neither care about "metagaming" or "immersion" (rather I care about game pace and flow), but Lanefan if not others care about it enough to immediately race to resolving the action even going so far as to effectively say "too bad!" to the player if they object. That seems quite a bit more adversarial to me than what little I ask of players.

 

[greg kaye]

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

As stated upthread already, it does not communicate how the character attempts to smash the vase, which may be relevant to how the smashing of the vase is resolved and narrated.

So is it the extent of the communication that you're talking about or would you describe it as something else? "I smash the vase", for what it says, is pretty clear.