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

[Umbran]

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.

But, in doing so, you are implying different stakes for the choice than were initially presented.

If you didn't signal that the choice particularly matters, they won't specify as if it particularly matters.

 

[Charlaquin]

But, in doing so, you are implying different stakes for the choice than were initially presented.

How so?

If you didn't signal that the choice particularly matters, they won't specify as if it particularly matters.

And if the expectation is that action declarations always include both goal and approach, as is the case in my games, then asking that question is not a signal that the choice particularly matters.

 

[iserith]

There is no way to go about any form of action declaration in RPGs that doesn't have some downsides. There is no perfect form. So "it has some downsides" isn't a compelling assertion, to me.

Having a bit of clarification, meanwhile, can have some upsides, too. In general, action declarations are supposed to be (more or less) informed choices. A player who gives what the GM feels is a less-than-complete declaration may well be doing so because the GM has failed to properly inform the player of the situation/stakes. The clarification loop is an opportunity to inform the player more fully/clearly.

Any analysis of the declaration-resolution loop that focuses only on player-side issues forgets that GMs are imperfect human beings.

I'll note that in my approach, clarifying questions from the DM are fine. It's only in the approaches of others in this thread where it has been said it can be an issue.

 

[Lanefan]

In fairness, if a player declares an action that doesn't seem to have taken the obvious surroundings completely into account, be it because I mis-described/forgot something (which happens, sadly, all too often) or because the player didn't hear or parse me right, I'll ask if the player is aware of what the character sees/knows before proceeding.

An example might be where a player declares a character is bullrushing a heavy door that obviously opens toward the character rather than away, unless the character is itself an idiot (and some are, believe me!) and dumb moves are in its nature I'll toss in something like "Uh, you know the door opens toward you, right?".

 

[greg kaye]

sry, I'm just catching up.

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

I don’t generally handle in-town activity at that degree of granularity. Where time is measured in minutes and hours in the dungeon (or other adventuring locations), it’s handled in days and weeks in town. We might roleplay a quick interaction here and there in town, but generally, town is where adventure isn’t, so this kind of thing would never happen there.

So, in a hopefully extreme situation, that you responded to, where:
"The handle has a deadly contact poison on it [as] The barkeep rightfully hates adventurers".
(because,
"They're forever robbing and murdering them, or causing fights in their bars.")
and with hatred burning to the extent that the profits (from selling base price 2cp ale mugs) are potentially spent on hundreds of gp worth of glossy contact poison so that it is spread only on the handle (at the potential ire of the potentially injured adventurer and/or social drinking allies, and a potential charge of an attempted offense (if the character makes the con. save against ~paralysis) or maybe murder);
in what way/s would you say the ale mug situation would be handled?

 

[greg kaye]

... I find it curious that people who do care about metagaming seem vehemently opposed to this technique. ...

In context, I think that the caring about metagaming issue has elsewhere been argued out of all proportion.
But, I don't see these people being vehemently opposed to this technique.
In fact, I think that most people are more than happy in cases where it's optionally used. We just, on our tables, don't want to be, by some people, condescendingly cajoled into the view that their way is better. It's just that on an every-situation basis, it's not for us.

 

[greg kaye]

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.

That to me is utter genius. Goes straight into the toolbox. But, while I'd certainly be curious about results in experiment, I'd see my main use for it more as a technique for engagement and a relatively subtle way to draw out further information. The only thing I'd add to, “do you want me to decide how your character goes about trying to do that?” is to add something like, "I can elaborate." Otherwise, they might simply be happier to hear my narration.

What the question does is to state, ask, "More information is needed/wanted, me or you?" but it places the player in control. Absolutely love that. It adds a stage from potentially a DM deciding (which may well not happen) and an alternative to the more demanding "how?" question.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The example was quite clear. The player had to convince the DM to give her even a chance to notice the trap. Then, because of a description of how to disable a trap, no roll was needed.

I call that playing the DM, I'm not sure what else to call it. If that's the type of game for you, great. It's just not for me and never has bee.

Regardless of your misinterpretation of what's actually going on at the table, I guess it just surprises me that you would call anyone's description of how they play D&D "not playing D&D". You know, since you often like to say "there is no one true way".

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes

 

[greg kaye]

Regardless of your misinterpretation of what's actually going on at the table, I guess it just surprises me that you would call anyone's description of how they play D&D "not playing D&D". You know, since you often like to say "there is no one true way".

IF a "player is playing "Persuade the DM" [then I'd agree, they're] not playing D&D". I don't know where your "there is no one true way" quote is from but I'm sure it didn't have a potential "persuade the DM" strategizing in mind.
Your hypocrisy is astounding coming from someone who recently raised criticism of a supposed leveling of a "less than charitable assessment".