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

[Maxperson]

PC points at moon: "can I break that?"

DM: "no."

PC:

That's no moon.

 

[el-remmen]

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.

Who said a DM wouldn't? I meant the OP's overly-generic example made giving a specific answer impossible because the answer to can it be broken, how easily, and how long it takes is "it depends."

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Well, I would say she had to make a check rather than she was allowed to. Checks can fail, and failed checks have consequences, therefore making a check is something you should seek to avoid, unless you for some reason want your character to suffer. In the way I run the game, that is.

Disarming the trap was automatic because the players came up with a way to disable it.

Well, yeah. If the players say their characters do a thing (and that thing is actually possible for them to do), they do it. If the characters do a thing that would result in the trap being disarmed, and doesn’t involve any risk, then it it wouldn’t make sense to call for a check.

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.

I object to the framing as “convincing the DM because that suggests that the deciding factor is how well you’ve persuaded me. In actuality, the deciding factor is following the logic of the fiction.

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.

Thats valid. reason I don’t care for that style, personally, is it makes it feel like my choices don’t really matter. I succeed or fail by random dice rolls alone, and have no ability to devise strategies to mitigate that randomness.

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.

Is D&D not a game of collaboratively creating narratives?

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.

What’s the difference? In both cases it sounds to me like navigating the challenge by engaging with the fiction, why does one work without needing to make a roll and the other not?

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

Agreed.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

They’re doing no such thing. You seem to be perceiving people simply discussing their preferred approaches - under intense and hostile scrutiny I might add - as “trying to knock down other contributors.” It’s bizarre how threatened people seem to be by this approach. Like, this whole thing started because I dared to suggest that the OP set an expectation for their players to clearly state their intentions when they declare actions (in response to an explicit suggestion that sometimes the player’s intentions may be different than the DM assumed).

 

[greg kaye]

They’re doing no such thing. You seem to be perceiving people simply discussing their preferred approaches - under intense and hostile scrutiny I might add - as “trying to knock down other contributors.” It’s bizarre how threatened people seem to be by this approach. Like, this whole thing started because I dared to suggest that the OP set an expectation for their players to clearly state their intentions when they declare actions (in response to an explicit suggestion that sometimes the player’s intentions may be different than the DM assumed).

But you agree that a player approach where a 'player is playing "Persuade the DM"' is less than ideal?
That was the, I'd think, honest interpretation that was made.

 

[Umbran]

How so?

It arises from the idea that play centers on meaningful choice. If you are asking the player for clarification, that implies that the difference is meaningful, where they didn't think it was before.

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.

So, perhaps you, personally, are perfection. Broadly speaking, however, even GMs who "always" ask for approach are not so consistent about it as they may think.

"I walk across the room," is usually not challenged with, "How do you walk across the room?" We have some shared conception of what "walking" is. That the character is walking without Pythonesque silly flourishes, are using the character's usual pedal extremities, and so on, are usually assumed by all sides. These assumptions are common, because they are reasonable - we have limited time at the table, and so we have limits on the granularity of descriptions, lest we never get anything done.

So, the "always" is perhaps not literally an absolute. And the table then creates buckets of expectation of when it is true, and when it is not. Defying those expectations by asking for clarification when the player doesn't expect it is necessary means their conception of the situation was wrong - including the possibility that they didn't understand the stakes.

 

[Umbran]

Like, this whole thing started because I dared to suggest that the OP set an expectation for their players to clearly state their intentions when they declare actions (in response to an explicit suggestion that sometimes the player’s intentions may be different than the DM assumed).

The thing is that "clarity" is subjective. So, discussion and disagreement around it was to be expected.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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.

There absolutely is a significant correlation, at least on these forums. These arguments pop up from time to time, and I have observed that literally everyone who uses similar techniques to myself has no problem with metagaming, and everyone who argues with us about it for dozens of pages (usually the same handful of posters) does.

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.

All evidence to the contrary. Remember, all I did was suggest that maybe, if the OP was concerned about action declarations being unclear, they ask players to state their actions clearly as a matter of course. I was immediately jumped on to explain myself, which I resisted doing tooth and nail because I knew this would happen. Those of us who ask our players to clearly state goal and approach simply can’t talk about our playstyle on these forums without dozens of pages of hostile interrogation and accusations of everything from being dictators to gotcha DMs to one-true-wayists. Certainly seems like people are vehemently opposed to our playstyle, to the point that they perceive the mere mention of it as an attack against theirs.

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.

Who is not agreeing to disagree? Nobody that I can see. Everyone who thinks the other folks in this discussion shouldn’t be allowed to disagree with them, say “aye.”

 

[Charlaquin]

But you agree that a player approach where a 'player is playing "Persuade the DM"' is less than ideal?

Of course.

That was the, I'd think, honest interpretation that was made.

Yes, and I think it poorly describes what actually goes on in my games.

 

[Charlaquin]

It arises from the idea that play centers on meaningful choice. If you are asking the player for clarification, that implies that the difference is meaningful, where they didn't think it was before.

How am I to know if the difference is meaningful before the player has described what they’re trying to accomplish and how?

So, perhaps you, personally, are perfection. Broadly speaking, however, even GMs who "always" ask for approach are not so consistent about it as they may think.

"I walk across the room," is usually not challenged with, "How do you walk across the room?"

“I walk across the room” is a complete action declaration, communicating both goal (get across the room) and approach (walk there).

We have some shared conception of what "walking" is. That the character is walking without Pythonesque silly flourishes, are using the character's usual pedal extremities, and so on, are usually assumed by all sides. These assumptions are common, because they are reasonable - we have limited time at the table, and so we have limits on the granularity of descriptions, lest we never get anything done.

Yes, and this is where reasonable specificity comes into play. A DM could, theoretically, ask that the player be specific about how quickly they walk or how high they lift their feet, but that would not be a reasonable degree of specificity to expect. Asking the player to be specific about the route that they take when walking across the room is a bit more of a gray area - I wouldn’t ask for that level of specificity personally, but in a game like @Lanefan’s where stepping on a specific part of the floor might trigger a trap and stepping just to the left of that spot wouldn’t, I don’t think it would be an unreasonable degree of specificity to expect.

So, the "always" is perhaps not literally an absolute. And the table then creates buckets of expectation of when it is true, and when it is not. Defying those expectations by asking for clarification when the player doesn't expect it is necessary means their conception of the situation was wrong - including the possibility that they didn't understand the stakes.

I don’t think it’s as hard as you think it is for always to be literally true. I think a lot of people are just not used to thinking of things in terms of teasing apart goal and approach, and accordingly don’t realize that “walk across the room” does in fact convey both, or that “smash the vase” does not.