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

[Charlaquin]

And the player has every opportunity to fill in that uncertainty while declaring the action. If they so desire they can go into excruciating detail - it's all fine.

But if that opportunity is passed up or ignored then by doing so the player has ceded the right to fill in that uncertainty over to some combination of the DM and the game system (i.e. dice); and thus has no grounds for complaint when the DM and-or game system does that filling-in.

If the player wanted to cede the right to fill in that uncertainty, they could just tell me, “you decide how my character does it.” I have never in my life seen a player do that, nor can I imagine a case where a player would want to do so. Certainly, I don’t think it’s a good policy to assume that a player wants to cede that right any time they leave out an approach from their action declaration. I think the more courteous thing to do would be to simply ask the player what their character’s approach is. Again, if for some strange reason they’d rather I decide, they can just say so.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I simply ask people to minimize metagaming and take backs so it isn't an issue at my table. Iserith is the one that insists there's a problem even in cases DMs don't acknowledge it.

I have the opportunity to go out and rob a bank right now. I don't. People have opportunities to metagame or do takebacks in my games. They don't take them because we're all reasonable adults and have agreed on what behavior is acceptable.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

By setting the expectation that all action declarations include goal and approach (to a reasonable degree of specificity). If that’s the expectation and a player leaves out the approach, or does so with a less than reasonable degree of specificity they can expect to be asked to specify whether the specifics matter to this action or not, therefore asking them to specify does not necessarily indicate that it matters in this case, and therefore does not create the opportunity for metagaming.

It does still cause the break in the narrative. But after a few times, the players get used to including approaches in their action declarations, and develop a good sense of what’s reasonably specific.

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.

Ok. Not my cup of tea there, but you do you.

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

See above. I ask them to specify. Usually, I really only need to do this once in a great while.

 

[Oofta]

Just to add to my response above: it is odd to me that people feel like they have to enforce certain behavior, in this case being specific on actions, in order to enforce behavior they don't approve of. Isn't it just better to say "Please don't do that?" Have a discussion about what kind of game you want to play?

I don't want my players paranoid that they haven't included enough details, I want them to declare actions with as much or as little detail as they desire. Well, maybe not as much detail because every once in a while you'll get someone that's really long winded, but fortunately that's the exception to the rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

I simply ask people to minimize metagaming and take backs so it isn't an issue at my table. Iserith is the one that insists there's a problem even in cases DMs don't acknowledge it.

I’m not saying it’s an issue at your table. You ask people to minimize metagaming at your table, and that keeps it from being an issue, I understand that. What I’m asking is why you prefer doing that, rather than preventing the opportunity for those things to arrive in the first place? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but I would be interested in hearing your reasoning if you’re willing to give it.

I have the opportunity to go out and rob a bank right now. I don't. People have opportunities to metagame or do takebacks in my games. They don't take them because we're all reasonable adults and have agreed on what behavior is acceptable.

Yes, I understand that. What I’m asking is why you prefer to rely on that agreement, rather than preventing the opportunities from arising? I’m not critiquing or judging your choice to use the social contract to prevent metagaming, I’m just curious why you find that to be preferable to circumventing the opportunities to metagame.

 

[Charlaquin]

The player choosing to not care about the details, and not specify them, is still a choice - if they choose it, it isn't the GM taking that freedom away.

I propose an experiment: next time a player declares an intent without specifying what their character does to try and achieve it, ask them, “do you want me to decide how your character goes about trying to do that?” I’d be willing to bet they will say no very close to 100% of the time.

 

[Oofta]

I’m not saying it’s an issue at your table. You ask people to minimize metagaming at your table, and that keeps it from being an issue, I understand that. What I’m asking is why you prefer doing that, rather than preventing the opportunity for those things to arrive in the first place? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but I would be interested in hearing your reasoning if you’re willing to give it.

Yes, I understand that. What I’m asking is why you prefer to rely on that agreement, rather than preventing the opportunities from arising? I’m not critiquing or judging your choice to use the social contract to prevent metagaming, I’m just curious why you find that to be preferable to circumventing the opportunities to metagame.

Because I treat my players with respect and expect them to adhere to the rules we've set down at the table as part of the social contract? Because goal and approach feels artificial and unnecessary to me? Because I want people to be comfortable playing the game and because the vast majority of times the briefest action declaration necessary keeps the game flowing?

But I'll ask for what feels like about the zillionth time: why do you think "I smash the vase" is not adequate? Can you give an actual example of something you feel could come up in your game that would be equivalent that it would matter?

We can lob the same philosophical platitudes back and forth all day. But all you've said about "I smash the vase" is that it's not specific enough for you without explaining why or provided any example at all of when it would not be.

 

[Oofta]

I propose an experiment: next time a player declares an intent without specifying what their character does to try and achieve it, ask them, “do you want me to decide how your character goes about trying to do that?” I’d be willing to bet they will say no very close to 100% of the time.

We don't do a lot of vase smashing in my game, but saying "You go up to the vase and smash it with your axe [pause just for long enough for the player to correct me], it breaks into a hundred pieces." would not be out of character for my game. Sometimes I add fluff, sometimes the player adds fluff.

But the details of how the vase is smashed? Fluff.

 

[iserith]

I propose an experiment: next time a player declares an intent without specifying what their character does to try and achieve it, ask them, “do you want me to decide how your character goes about trying to do that?” I’d be willing to bet they will say no very close to 100% of the time.

If you let me determine how your character approaches smashing the vase, this is the result:

 

[greg kaye]

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?

No, not unless they elaborate on the gory details!