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

[Lanefan]

Approach negatives:

• It's just wordy fluff to me. If every time I come to a door that I want to check for traps I have to repeat the same "I look carefully for seams ..." eventually I'd just put it on a flash card. There are only so many ways to describe looking for traps.
• If someone is persuasive they can convince the DM their solution will work. I know people who could sell shampoo to a bald man. Whether their logic was sound or not, they will convince you it is. In the case of disabling a trap (not bypassing the trap by finding an alternate route) in your example you did not ask for check because they adequately described how the rogue disables the trap. To me the check for disabling the trap is getting the dagger in just the right spot, applying just the right amount of pressure, etc..
• Another example is searching a room. It's come up in previous conversations that people have to be specific about what they're searching and how. I've had this come up a few times in games I've played and I find it frustrating and boring. I can't literally see the room, if I can't find the trap door because I didn't look under the rug, it's frustrating.
• It can lead to "Gotcha" DMing in my experience. Investigating that desk for secret drawers? Too bad there's contact poison on the underside of the desk! You didn't specify that you looked first, make a con save.
• I have a personal preference to not adding extra words and fluff that add no value. If you always attack with a battle axe, saying "I attack with my battle axe" every single time is just kind of wasting time. Adding extra qualifiers in being a waste of space is not limited to gaming. In SQL you can specify "Left Outer Join" but it's exactly the same thing as "Left Join" so I never include the "Outer". I admit it's a personal quirk.

There are five points here and for me the only real "negative" is the first one.

The second one is neutral to me; the fifth is pure personal preference (I'm almost the opposite, give me more fluff and description please!).

And the third and fourth are, in my eyes, positives. Sometimes the world is out to get you, and if you ain't careful, it will. Sure you can see the room but you can't see what's under the rug unless you lift or move the damn rug! My default is that if you don't say you're doing something more specific, your search consists of little more than a cursory glance around the room.

Approach Neutral:

• Metagaming and take-backs. Neither of these are an issue for me.
• "I check for traps" or "I attempt to disable the trap" are complete action declarations for me.
• The DM filling in details is not an issue for me or my players. If it becomes obvious that the scene was just unclear we can always backtrack, but that rarely happens.

Of these three, in my view the first is a massive "negative"; the second is a positive but only after SOPs have been established, and the third is neutral.

I'm starting to wonder if some of your issues revolve around pacing: you simply want a much faster pace of play than some of us, and are willing to sacrifice some detail in both descriptions and action declarations in order to achieve it.

edit: cave like typeman

 

[Oofta]

There are five points here and for me the only real "negative" is the first one.

The second one is neutral to me; the fifth is pure personal prefence (I'm almost the opposite, give me more fluff and description please!).

And the third and fourth are, in my eyes, positives. Sometimes the world is out to get you, and if you ain't careful, it will. Sure you can see the room but you can't see what's under the rug unless you lift or move the damn rug! My default is that if you don't say you're doing something more specific, your search consists of little more than a cursory glance around the room.

Of these three, in my view the first is a massive "negative"; the second is a positive but only after SOPs have been established, and the third is neutral.

I'm starting to wonder if some of your issues revolve around pacing: you simply want a much faster pace of play than some of us, and are willing to sacrifice some detail in both descriptions and action declarations in order to achieve it.

Some of it is around pacing. A lot of it likely revolves around style of game, I don't do location based adventuring. We all emphasize things we find enjoyable and engaging, don't we?

 

[Charlaquin]

Of these three, in my view the first is a massive "negative";

Preventing opportunities for metagaming and take backs is a massive negative for you? That’s surprising to me, from what I understand of your play preferences.

 

[Lanefan]

As I said, I would certainly allow players to establish such an action as standard operating procedure if they so desired. I just think that in my games that would be an inefficient strategy. I make use of telegraphing so that players don’t have to blindly guess when to look for traps or play in full-on bomb squad mode treating every door as a potential trap.

I generally don't telegraph most of the time - particularly traps which by their nature are supposed to be difficult to find other than the hard way - as IMO doing so makes things far too easy on the players and PCs. If they're in the field they'd best be on their guard; and though most doors in fact aren't trapped, any and every one of them potentially could be.

 

[Charlaquin]

I generally don't telegraph most of the time - particularly traps which by their nature are supposed to be difficult to find other than the hard way - as IMO doing so makes things far too easy on the players and PCs. If they're in the field they'd best be on their guard; and though most doors in fact aren't trapped, any and every one of them potentially could be.

Yeah, not my cup of tea. We’re ultimately playing a game, and the gameplay purpose of traps is to be interacted with. I don’t go so far as to literally signpost traps, but my rule of thumb is, if a player falls for a trap, they should be able to recognize in retrospect the clue they missed that would have indicated its presence. Otherwise it just feels like a screwjob.

 

[Lanefan]

Some of it is around pacing. A lot of it likely revolves around style of game, I don't do location based adventuring.

Side question, but I've never quite understood this (bolded) claim and I've seen it from others as well as you.

Adventuring of any kind has to happen somewhere, doesn't it?

Pirate adventuring happens on the bounding main, and sometimes in port. Dungeon-crawling happens (usually) in dungeons or caverns. City-based adventures happen in a city. Travel-based adventures happen on the road. Courtly intrigue usually revolves around a palace, or maybe a few in different capitals. And so forth.

So how can this claim make any sense?

 

[Lanefan]

Preventing opportunities for metagaming and take backs is a massive negative for you? That’s surprising to me, from what I understand of your play preferences.

Maybe I misread @Oofta 's wording, but I took it to mean he doesn't care about metagaming. I do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Side question, but I've never quite understood this (bolded) claim and I've seen it from others as well as you.

Adventuring of any kind has to happen somewhere, doesn't it?

Pirate adventuring happens on the bounding main, and sometimes in port. Dungeon-crawling happens (usually) in dungeons or caverns. City-based adventures happen in a city. Travel-based adventures happen on the road. Courtly intrigue usually revolves around a palace, or maybe a few in different capitals. And so forth.

So how can this claim make any sense?

“Location-based adventuring” is a somewhat jargon-y term, which exists in contrast to the likewise jargon-y “event-based adventuring.” Yes, every adventure is ultimately a sequence of events that takes place in a location. What these terms are meant to communicate is which of these things forms the basis of the adventure. Is the main focus of your campaign exploring a dangerous place or places, or is it more about the players participating in an unfolding narrative? The former would be location-based, while the latter would be event-based. It’s not too dissimilar from “sandbox” vs. “story-driven,” but intended to be a bit more broad. Not all location-based campaigns are sandboxes and not all event-based campaigns have planned-out stories. But the same fundamental dichotomy is at play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe I misread @Oofta 's wording, but I took it to mean he doesn't care about metagaming. I do.

No, he was saying the fact that this technique prevents opportunities for metagaming is neutral for him, because while he does consider metagaming a negative thing, he trusts his players not to metagame when the opportunity to do so arises.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, not my cup of tea. We’re ultimately playing a game, and the gameplay purpose of traps is to be interacted with.

There's a difference: to me the gameplay purpose of traps is to delay and-or weaken the PCs; for which the only interaction required is that they set the damn things off.

That some traps also serve to alert the opposition when set off is a bonus.

I don’t go so far as to literally signpost traps, but my rule of thumb is, if a player falls for a trap, they should be able to recognize in retrospect the clue they missed that would have indicated its presence. Otherwise it just feels like a screwjob.

All I think they should recognize in retrospect is that they weren't cautious enough (or maybe just plain ol' unlucky, it happens). There isn't always a clue, and a well-designed trap wouldn't provide any.

That said, on the flip side sometimes they can get lucky and find traps ahead of time they really have no business finding. One relatively recent example from my game is an illusionary floor covering a pit trap. Almost impossible to find by normal means, but by sheer luck their mage had cast Detect Magic in the previous room and it was still running when they reached this hall.

And rarely, a trap can even be an unexpected benefit. Some PCs met a Ghost once in my game. Ghosts have this nasty effect where if you fail a save you run away in blind panic; the Ghost then tracks you down to whatever corner you end up hiding in (unless you manage to flee far enough) and kills you while you're cowering. One character fled and went straight into a pit trap, which then closed above her - thus making her the only character in the party who was safe from the Ghost as the Ghost didn't know the trap was there!