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

[Lanefan]

I agree with that, but the statement is both clear and committed.
A comparatively vague statement would be, "I guess I'll do something with the vase" or "I'll smash something". You rightly state that the statement "I smash the vase" lacked description or something like that, but it's not vague. It's certainly not uncommitted.

I'm reminded of a long-ago exchange between a DM and a player (neither was me) during a mass-melee combat that went something like:

DM to player on her initiative: "What are you doing?"
Distracted player: "I swing my axe"
DM: "At anyone in particular?"
Player: "Oh, the enemy." (the character had a choice of several within reach, plus some allies).
DM sighs, then randomly determines which foe gets struck at.

 

[Lanefan]

Asking a clarifying question does create the opportunity for the player to metagame, if that’s a thing you care about. It also creates a break in the narrative to answer that clarifying question, rather than providing that clarity up-front. These things may not be a problem for you, and if so, that’s fine and dandy. But if you want to know why I prefer players to provide that clarity ahead of time, that’s why.

And that's great.

However, when - not if, but when - the player doesn't provide that clarity, what happens next and how do you proactively prevent metagaming opportunities before they arise?

I don’t generally like traps that depend on the characters’ position being that specific; unless you’re using a map and minis, and ask the players to move their minis exactly where their characters stand, but that’s a degree of granularity I don’t care for.

I use traps like that often enough that they're a known risk, traps that depend not only on positioning but on method of approach and sometimes even on who is doing the approaching (e.g. the 240 lb. Half-Orc will set off a trap that the 110-lb Elf or a flying character won't). Very Indiana-Jones-ish, sometimes.

Again, that degree of specificity might be needed in something like the Tomb of Horrors wherein traps have such precise triggers. That’s generally too much specificity for my tastes. I just ask that players be “reasonably specific” in stating their goal and approach. “Reasonably specific” is like the Reasonable Person Standard in US law - it’s ultimately subjective, but there’s generally a common understanding of what constitutes “reasonable,” within a tolerable margin of error. If a player’s action declaration is not reasonably specific in my view, I’ll ask them to clarify. Since reasonable specificity is an expectation I set up front, this means such questions generally don’t raise any suspicion of danger, since I’ll ask them whether or not danger exists, and players who don’t have a clear sense of where the range of “reasonable specificity” lies will generally develop one pretty quickly based on when such clarifying questions are or aren’t asked.

Again, that sounds great; and again I have to ask what happens when reasonably specific isn't enough for that situation?

 

[Lanefan]

The action is uncommitted as to how the character approaches smashing the vase. That leaves it an open question. Who answers that question? Either the DM asks the player for clarity and the DM uses that answer or the DM assumes and establishes that for the player, potentially leading to disagreement. And if the DM doesn't normally ask for this level of clarity, then as Lanefan and others pointed out, now the player may be suspicious as to why and we can end up with "metagaming" or "takebacks."

If the action "I smash the vase" is declared then one way or another that vase - if real and as fragile as it looks - is ending up in pieces* and that character will be the one who breaks it. That's the "committed" part that IMO can't be taken back even if there's disagreement as to the "how" piece, yet far too many times I've seen just this sort of take-back be tried by players who too late regret their rashness.

* - the only exceptions being when the character is prevented from reaching the vase by either a) some other setting element (a pit trap en route, an invisible barrier, etc.), or b) another character acting quickly to interpose.

 

[Lanefan]

The action declaration is clear in its intent to perform an action to smash the vase. What do you think "I smash the vase" means, I'm going fishing?

Clearly yes, and you need some shiny vase shards as lures.

 

[iserith]

If the action "I smash the vase" is declared then one way or another that vase - if real and as fragile as it looks - is ending up in pieces* and that character will be the one who breaks it. That's the "committed" part that IMO can't be taken back even if there's disagreement as to the "how" piece, yet far too many times I've seen just this sort of take-back be tried by players who too late regret their rashness.

I would expect that sort of policy could result in more suspicion. Like, okay, you're now locked into the act of smashing the vase and now I need to know how. I might use that sling now instead of my forehead, which is what I originally imagined (since it played into the PC's personal characteristics perhaps). Better in my view to just have an expectation that this is established by the player up front. It avoids a lot of these downstream issues.

 

[Lanefan]

To be fair, you could choose not to "metagame."

Nope. It's my duty as a player, under the heading "advocating for my character", to use whatever the game gives me to my character's best advantage. Which means if you give me the opportunity to metagame I'm a) 100% within my rights, and b) you by default fully expect me, to use that opportunity to whatever extent I can...even when doing so ruins the game, as it almost immediately will.

Don't want me to metagame? Then don't allow it. And the easiest way to ban it is by not giving the opportunity for it in the first place.

And I'm not the sort of player who wants to ruin games. Nor am I an optimizer or power-gamer. I am, however, the sort of player who wants to "win" against the game when I can, using what my character and I have available to work with; and if you wave a legal-at-your-table opportunity in front of me that makes winning easier I'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it.

I would say it's up to the player and no one else, unless the player delegates that role.

And that's just my point: the player has delegated that role by not including those details in the action declaration.

 

[Charlaquin]

The action declaration is clear in its intent to perform an action to smash the vase. What do you think "I smash the vase" means, I'm going fishing?

Clear in its intent, not in the action, of which it’s supposed to be a declaration.

 

[Oofta]

Clear in its intent, not in the action, of which it’s supposed to be a declaration.

But that goes back to why would the details of the action matter? Can you give an example of where the details of how they smash the vase or any other similar action would matter?

 

[Charlaquin]

Metagaming and takebacks for the most part as far as I can tell. Why do you feel it's important?

I simply ask people not metagame or change what their character does simply because I ask a clarifying question and I trust that they don't. Meanwhile the players trust me to give them a fair break when their PC should have had a chance to notice or otherwise know something.

Right, so what @iserith is doing is not insisting that you must have a problem with metagaming and takebacks. He’s asking why, if you consider metagaming and takebacks to be a negative thing, do you prefer an approach that creates opportunities for those things and rely on asking the players simply not to take advantage of those opportunities, as opposed to a technique which would not create opportunities for those things in the first place? Presumably you have reasons for your preference.

 

[iserith]

Nope. It's my duty as a player, under the heading "advocating for my character", to use whatever the game gives me to my character's best advantage. Which means if you give me the opportunity to metagame I'm a) 100% within my rights, and b) you by default fully expect me, to use that opportunity to whatever extent I can...even when doing so ruins the game, as it almost immediately will.

Don't want me to metagame? Then don't allow it. And the easiest way to ban it is by not giving the opportunity for it in the first place.

And I'm not the sort of player who wants to ruin games. Nor am I an optimizer or power-gamer. I am, however, the sort of player who wants to "win" against the game when I can, using what my character and I have available to work with; and if you wave a legal-at-your-table opportunity in front of me that makes winning easier I'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it.

Fully agree with you here - and I don't care about "metagaming." But if a player at my table wanted to not "metagame," perhaps because they thought it increased their feeling of immersion, then they could do that. I make no judgment either way.

And that's just my point: the player has delegated that role by not including those details in the action declaration.

We disagree here because unless the player actively says "You decide" to me as DM, then as far as I am concerned I don't have their consent to play their character for them. (And I wouldn't accept that anyway as it's effectively refusing to play in my view.) I'm going to ask for them to tell me how they smash the vase. If they are unwilling to say how, then we'll have to resolve the problem outside the context of the game.