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

[Oofta]

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".

I've never cared for "good description needed in order to even have a chance" or "good description = success". If I have someone at my table that's a locksmith in real life, I'm sure they could tell me exactly how to pick a lock in excruciating detail. I simply don't see why it would matter if Joe Locksmith is describing how they do it versus No Clue How a Lock Even Works Ned describes it. To me, it's all fluff.

I have no problem with fluff. It's part of the fun. But it will never change the outcome of anything in the game if I'm DM. This style is also nothing new, it's been something some people have done since the inception of the game. To me, it's not using any rules of the game hence if descriptions give you a free pass it's not playing the game. It's testing player skill at being convincing, not testing the skills of the character. I agree with the protest in the example - I'm not a rogue, I'm not trained in finding or disabling traps, why am I expected to describe how I find a trap when the bard is not expected to actually play an instrument or sing?

Last, but not least, if you do this on a regular basis it would get repetitious. If someone has played with the DM before and seen what descriptions have worked for other rogues in other campaigns, they're just going to parrot what someone else said because they know it works.

If it works for you and your group, great. It's a valid way of having fun for some people. It just doesn't work for me.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I've never cared for "good description needed in order to even have a chance" or "good description = success". If I have someone at my table that's a locksmith in real life, I'm sure they could tell me exactly how to pick a lock in excruciating detail. I simply don't see why it would matter if Joe Locksmith is describing how they do it versus No Clue How a Lock Even Works Ned describes it. To me, it's all fluff.

I have no problem with fluff. It's part of the fun. But it will never change the outcome of anything in the game if I'm DM. This style is also nothing new, it's been something some people have done since the inception of the game. To me, it's not using any rules of the game hence if descriptions give you a free pass it's not playing the game. It's testing player skill at being convincing, not testing the skills of the character. I agree with the protest in the example - I'm not a rogue, I'm not trained in finding or disabling traps, why am I expected to describe how I find a trap when the bard is not expected to actually play an instrument or sing?

Last, but not least, if you do this on a regular basis it would get repetitious. If someone has played with the DM before and seen what descriptions have worked for other rogues in other campaigns, they're just going to parrot what someone else said because they know it works.

If it works for you and your group, great. It's a valid way of having fun for some people. It just doesn't work for me.

Again, not how we play, but it would seem you are not really interested in truly understanding that based on repeatedly misrepresenting what has been said. Rather, you seem determined to knock down some straw man of a fabricated playstyle that neither of us would like. At least we have some common ground in not liking the playstyle of "convince the DM".

 

[Charlaquin]

sry, I'm just catching up.


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?

I just wouldn’t write a scenario that way. Even presuming I was running a game where it made sense to have this kind of granular interaction in-town, and there was an adventurer-hating bartender trying to poison the PCs, I’d just have him use an ingested poison in the drinks.

Like, I guess if you insist on me following this hypothetical, maybe I’d try to telegraph the poison by saying something about the handles of the mug being oddly shiny, in hopes that the player would take some kind of action related to the handle? But really, there are just easier ways to write this scenario that don’t cause this to be an issue at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

But nobody’s doing that, so why do we have a 20-page argument?

 

[greg kaye]

Again, not how we play, but it would seem you are not really interested in truly understanding that based on repeatedly misrepresenting what has been said. Rather, you seem determined to knock down some straw man of a fabricated playstyle that neither of us would like. At least we have some common ground in not liking the playstyle of "convince the DM".

An honest interpretation of what has been said might conceivably be a misrepresentation of a not specified reality but you'd still need to make your case. I would have hoped that someone that advocated something more than a " less than charitable assessment" could appreciate this.
Honestly, others here are happy that you play how you play.
You seem determined to knock down other contributors, much in what I take as the style of iserith. I wish it would stop.

 

[Oofta]

Again, not how we play, but it would seem you are not really interested in truly understanding that based on repeatedly misrepresenting what has been said. Rather, you seem determined to knock down some straw man of a fabricated playstyle that neither of us would like. At least we have some common ground in not liking the playstyle of "convince the DM".

I'm literally using @Charlaquin's example. The player objected to the suggestion that they describe how their rogue checked for traps and then, when they did describe what they were doing they were given a check. Disarming the trap was automatic because the players came up with a way to disable it.

You, and Charlaquin may not consider describing how to find and disable a trap "convincing" the DM, I do. The player had to convince the DM they were doing an adequate job of searching for the trap. The player initially stated they would search for the trap the way a trained rogue would do. That wasn't adequate so they had to try again. The PCs then convinced the DM that their method of disabling the trap would automatically work and it did with no check.

In the case of finding the trap "doing what a well trained rogue" would work for me and I would grant a check at that point. Disabling the trap? Cool fluff, but you still need to make a roll. It's not that the plan of how the trap is disabled matters, the check is for how well you implement that plan.

There is no strawman. You can call it a "strategy" or some other term to disarm the trap by shoving a dagger in the door seam if you want. I call it the PCs coming up with a convincing narrative. A strategy to bypass the trap by cutting a hole in the thatch roof would work for me, otherwise you're just describing how the rogue is using their disarm trap skill. Convincingly.

EDIT: again, there's nothing wrong with people using a playstyle I don't personally care for.

 

[greg kaye]

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.

But nobody’s doing that, so why do we have a 20-page argument?

Now there's the nub. I've got my thoughts, but on the topic of "that", you had said:

...
Of course it’s not necessary. Plenty of people run perfectly successful games without doing it. I make no claims about the necessity of it. It does have some impacts that I, personally, find to be advantageous, and I find it curious that people who do care about metagaming seem vehemently opposed to this technique.
...

I value your views that "people run perfectly successful games" in different ways but questioned any significant correlation of people caring about issues metagaming and people opposed to the technique that you use. I'd say that much of the argument that has supported this view has been taken out of all proportion in various contributors' argumentative statements. We are not vehemently opposed to the technique you use and are happy both with your consistent and our varying use of it.
So why do we have a 20-page argument?
I think that it's largely because, even while some of us are ready to have an agree-to-differ attitude, others don't.

 

[iserith]

An honest interpretation of what has been said might conceivably be a misrepresentation of a not specified reality but you'd still need to make your case. I would have hoped that someone that advocated something more than a " less than charitable assessment" could appreciate this.
Honestly, others here are happy that you play how you play.
You seem determined to knock down other contributors, much in what I take as the style of iserith. I wish it would stop.

Discussing the pros and cons of a given DMing approach is not "knocking down other contributors." A contributor is not their DMing approach. Pointing out potential problems with a DMing approach relative to someone's stated goals is not criticizing a person.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, the game has rules for breaking objects.

It does, yes. However, if the group reaches a door and I know that there's nothing in the area and nothing coming, if they tell me that the are going to get an axe and break it down, I don't make them roll to hit and do damage. I just narrate them chopping through the door, which is I think what the OP is asking. "Do you just let PCs just break objects?" isn't the same as "Do you always just let PCs break objects?"

 

[Maxperson]

Echoing Umbran, those three things are exactly what are needed to answer the question! I would add time to that. Given time, a lot of things can be broken - but I have to know what it is to give a ruling on time and effort even if success is (eventually) guaranteed.

I find it hard to believe that the DM wouldn't have at least two of the three pieces of information on hand. I can believe that he may not know the material, but location and size should be known. He placed them there or the module did, even if specific materials weren't mentioned.