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

[iserith]

But you seem to be suggesting that EVERYONE should do it your way, and refusing to accept that this might not be a good approach for some people. Some people are capable of being clear without having to be told.

I don't suggest anything of the sort. I explain why what I do works for the given goal and how other approaches can fall short of the goals those DMs may have. That is not saying anyone should do anything my way. Now, at my group's table, the expectation of the players and the DM is that the players say what they want to do and how. But that doesn't extend to people at other tables, obviously.

Does that happen much? I've never seen it. I've seen plenty of trying and failing.

Oh yes, lots. I play with lots of different groups, as do a lot of the people I play with regularly, plus I watch a number of random actual plays. It's reported pretty frequently - the DM says "no" a lot or effectively says "no" by way of overly high DCs or way too many ability checks to resolve an action that will ensure failure.

It may well resonate with A FEW people. That doesn't mean it's going to resonate with everyone, or even most players.

It at least is some kind of evidence that I'm not just making stuff up. I don't claim it resonates with everyone. That would be an absurd claim, so it's a wonder why you're addressing it.

 

[iserith]

What would you do regarding a player who didn't make declarations to the extent that you require even after you repeatedly asked them? Genuine question.

Let's look at it from another angle: What would YOU do if a player was steadfastly refusing to play the game they signed up for?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Try reading the document... his Disclaimer on page 2 contradicts your statement here.

But that is rather contradicted by the fact that they are still here arguing the toss....

As I said, it's an adversarial playstyle from someone who doesn't know any other way.

 

[greg kaye]

I can picture it. The problem is in thinking this would work for everyone.

Try reading the document... his Disclaimer on page 2 contradicts your statement here.

That disclaimer says: "... Other DMs may adjudicate actions differently based on their own understanding of the game and their own experiences. ..."
So this an admittance that various of the content wouldn't work for everyone?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't suggest anything of the sort. I explain why what I do works for the given goal and how other approaches can fall short of the goals those DMs may have. That is not saying anyone should do anything my way. Now, at my group's table, the expectation of the players and the DM is that the players say what they want to do and how. But that doesn't extend to people at other tables, obviously.

Yet you contradict me here, here and here, not to mention contradicting everything everything @greg kaye has to say.

It at least is some kind of evidence that I'm not just making stuff up.

No one has accused you of making stuff up. We have just said that your way doesn't work for everyone. You are the one who keeps coming back on that.

 

[iserith]

Yet you contradict me here, here and here, not to mention contradicting everything everything @greg kaye has to say.

Discussing the upsides and downsides of approaches to the game or addressing erroneous assertions aren't the same thing as telling someone else how they should play.

 

[greg kaye]

Let's look at it from another angle: What would YOU do if a player was steadfastly refusing to play the game they signed up for?

Are you saying that your players effectively sign up for a regime of presenting the extent of action description you require?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Discussing the upsides and downsides of approaches to the game or addressing erroneous assertions aren't the same thing as telling someone else how they should play.

An "erroneous assertion" being anything you disagree with? Do you make that clear to players in session zero too?

 

[iserith]

Are you saying that your players effectively sign up for a regime of presenting the extent of action description you require?

Isn't discussing each other's expectations for the game what Session Zero is for? I say what I want, the players say what they want, we come to an agreement and move ahead? What I want is for the players to say how they smash the vase, so I can adjudicate and narrate their actions fairly without assuming or establishing for them what their own character is doing. Does that seem like an unreasonable ask to you?

 

[greg kaye]

Isn't discussing each other's expectations for the game what Session Zero is for? I say what I want, the players say what they want, we come to an agreement and move ahead? What I want is for the players to say how they smash the vase, so I can adjudicate and narrate their actions fairly without assuming or establishing for them what their own character is doing. Does that seem like an unreasonable ask to you?

So, is the presenting of the extent of action description you require, a demand?