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

[Charlaquin]

We've covered this before. The players have a ton of opportunities to metagame, I simply ask them not do do so. I rarely ask any clarifying questions, in most cases it's just clarifying the scene. It's them saying they're jumping out the window when I'm being sure they understand that they're on the third floor. I can't remember the last time specifics of how they did something really mattered.

If I'm setting up a visual narrative it could be something like this:
PC: I smash the vase
DM: With your battle axe?
PC: Yep
...
Not particularly disruptive. Then again I probably wouldn't even bother with that. I'd probably just describe a bit of noise and what, if anything, was inside the now broken vase. Details of how it was broken don't really matter. And that's where I'm struggling ... I can't think of a good scenario where it would matter.

Cool. Glad that works well for you.

Smashing vases aside, you've been short on examples of where the extra clarity was helpful. The examples I gave way back (one was using Message to talk to a guard) didn't have any "goal" stated on my part. I don't know what other "approach" I would have needed to add, if any.

Can you give any examples? How would it matter to the result?

To drag things back to the topic, how about the player who tries to break the warship? Whether they try to do that by punching the warship, or by using their super-special magic item that can destroy such large objects in a single blow, seems pretty relevant, since it would affect whether or not the approach has any chance of succeeding in the goal of breaking the warship.

If I were to run something like Tomb of Horrors, I'd be making it fairly clear that something was unusual.

Me too. That’s what I call telegraphing, which is very important when it comes to things like traps and secret doors (which ToH is full of!)

I rarely do anything like that, when I do I just give people free skill checks as appropriate. But the problem is that "reasonable" is so much in the eye of the beholder. I think "I smash the vase" is a reasonable level of detail. You don't.

It isn’t any detail at all about how the character attempts to smash the vase. Since both what you want to accomplish and how are required parts of an action declaration in my games, it should be obvious to any player that simply stating an intent is not reasonably specific, since it gives no detail at all on one of the two required elements of the action declaration.

It also doesn't address the "goal" part of things. If a PC states "I cross the road" while they've been polymorphed into a chicken, I don't care why the chicken crossed the road I just have to decide if there's any risk to crossing the road or anything triggered when they get to the other side. It is something that comes up rarely, that the player seems to be floundering a bit trying to achieve a goal so I'll ask them.

Again, crossing the road is a goal. Walking is an approach that one might take to try and achieve that goal. “I walk across the road” is therefore a complete action declaration, where “I try to cross the road” is not.

 

[greg kaye]

Player: I buy an ale from the bar.
DM: do you hold it by the handle or around the glass?

 

[iserith]

Player: I buy an ale from the bar.
DM: do you hold it by the handle or around the glass?

The handle has a deadly contact poison on it.

(The barkeep rightfully hates adventurers.)

 

[Oofta]

Cool. Glad that works well for you.

To drag things back to the topic, how about the player who tries to break the warship? Whether they try to do that by punching the warship, or by using their super-special magic item that can destroy such large objects in a single blow, seems pretty relevant, since it would affect whether or not the approach has any chance of succeeding in the goal of breaking the warship.

My answer to this statement would likely be "It's a warship built of oak planks several inches thick, hitting it with your long sword isn't going to do much of anything." This is a case of the PC is asking to do something impossible, so I'm verifying the scene and abilities of the PC. It's practically asking to jump over the moon but maybe, just maybe, they have some trick up their sleeve in which case they should have specified it. Just like if the wizard says they target an enemy with a spell they have to specify which spell. But this is that 1 in a 1,000 scenario that I don't recall ever coming up in a real game, at least not in 5E. Maybe in 3.5 with adamantine weapons which were stupidly broken it could have happened.

What I'm asking for is examples that would come up in game, things that are at least possible for the PC to achieve.

Me too. That’s what I call telegraphing, which is very important when it comes to things like traps and secret doors (which ToH is full of!)

I don't necessarily telegraph, but I do ask for skill checks if I think the PC may have reason to notice something.

It isn’t any detail at all about how the character attempts to smash the vase. Since both what you want to accomplish and how are required parts of an action declaration in my games, it should be obvious to any player that simply stating an intent is not reasonably specific, since it gives no detail at all on one of the two required elements of the action declaration.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, I don't see how the method of smashing would ever be relevant.

Again, crossing the road is a goal. Walking is an approach that one might take to try and achieve that goal. “I walk across the road” is therefore a complete action declaration, where “I try to cross the road” is not.

I assume the common mode, that they walk since chickens can't fly far enough. "I cross the road" is fine by me, "I cross the road by walking" would be clunky.

 

[Lanefan]

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

I take this to mean your game has fumble rules, 'cause all I see there is one fumble after another...

 

[Lanefan]

I don't necessarily telegraph, but I do ask for skill checks if I think the PC may have reason to notice something.

Same here, for the most part.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, I don't see how the method of smashing would ever be relevant.

And asking for the method is a big red flag to the player that in this case there are extenuating circumstances.

I assume the common mode, that they walk since chickens can't fly far enough. "I cross the road" is fine by me, "I cross the road by walking" would be clunky.

And in neither case is it specified whether the chicken looks both ways first or just walks/flies out into whatever traffic might be going by at the time.

 

[Lanefan]

The handle has a deadly contact poison on it.

(The barkeep rightfully hates adventurers.)

This would seem to make it somewhat more difficult for the trope "We all meet in a tavern...", unless you're using a DCC funnel where the first test of survival is to drink wine (or nothing) rather than ale....

 

[greg kaye]

The handle has a deadly contact poison on it.

(The barkeep rightfully hates adventurers.)

Why do barkeeps hate adventurers?

 

[Oofta]

This would seem to make it somewhat more difficult for the trope "We all meet in a tavern...", unless you're using a DCC funnel where the first test of survival is to drink wine (or nothing) rather than ale....

Every self respecting dwarf would rather risk the poison than drink wine.

 

[Lanefan]

Every self respecting dwarf would rather risk the poison than drink wine.

It's the DM's way of soft-banning Dwarf PCs.