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

[Oofta]

But obviously this does make a difference in some circumstances - if it's the vase of exploding and doing 5d6 damage to everyone within 5' when smashed, for instance.

But unless the PC states that they're using a ranged attack to smash the vase, it still doesn't matter.

It's also an issue of how the game works and what sort of fiction it cares about. D&D, for instance, doesn't generally care whether a player is walking on tippy toes or on flat feet; some versions treat walking vs running as important, because these are different things according to the movement rules, but this pertains to action economy, not the movements of the characters feet, ankles, knees etc.

In the fiction of my games, I have also never cared about the level of detailed expression people are talking about. Over decades of play, I've probably only experienced it once or twice and those were specifically sessions run as death traps (something we knew going in).

But D&D often does care about where a character is in a room (rules for triggering traps, for taking cover, for having line of sight, etc) or how much noise a character is making (this is a feature of the current version of the Knock spell, and is a consideration in the use of Stealth).

If that level of detail matters, we clarify the details. Vast majority of times it doesn't matter.

D&D generally doesn't care about a character's feelings towards someone when that player's character declares an action to affect that someone. Other RPGs do (eg In A Wicked Age distinguishes between actions done For Love or For Myself). On the other hand, D&D is oddly obsessive and complicated about what sort of weapon is used to make an attack (this affects mechanical aspects, like attack stat and damage, as well as interacting in quite precise ways with fictional minutiae like separation between opponents - eg attacking at reach with a pike is handled quite differently from closing and stabbing with a dagger).

The discussion about the vase seems to me to be taking place against a backdrop of assumptions about the ways in which D&D has often cared about details of architecture and furniture, going way back to classic modules like Castle Amber, KotB, ToH and White Plume Mountain, and reinforced by mapping conventions, expectations about what should be covered in a GM's notes, etc.

There's nothing "magical" about a RPG caring about some aspects of the shared fiction and not others. But I don't think there's anything wrong with a table having a reasonably clear sense of what is cared about, and expecting action declarations to respect that.

Like some tables playing modern RPGs will expect players to specify whether transactions happen via cash or credit card, whether phone calls are made on land lines or from "burner" phones, etc - because these are all relevant to being traced - whereas others will not, or will bundle such things into a "Covert Action" check or ability rather than looking to the details of the player's action declaration, etc.

One might prefer one or the other approach, but the logic of each is not particularly mysterious!


It's not "making excuses" to express a preference for how one prefers to approach the game.

You don't mind figuring things out in the moment. Others find that that is not conducive to how they adjudicate play, in part because they put more emphasis on the distinction between player and GM roles in relation to how actions are declared and adjudicated. Those others are not "making excuses" any more than you are.

There's been a lot of "if you do it my way you don't have [insert issues x,y and occasionally z]", i.e. "specificity in all circumstances is important for both the DM narration of player intent, but also for DM narration of the appropriate result." This whole thing started with a comment of (emphasis mine) "... better yet, just make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach."

Occasionally I ask for clarification. Maybe it's not clear which enemy they attack or are they going left or right. But it's never going to be 100% clarity because we're playing a game of imagination. But I do agree, it's just a matter of preference.

 

[Charlaquin]

But there is no reason the DM can't be just as vague as the players: "I smash the vase" "Okay, the vase is smashed". Everyone can draw their own conclusion about how the vase was smashed, and it makes no difference.

I don’t know about you, but I would have an extremely difficult time functioning in a game where the shared imaginary space was so vague and abstract. How does one imagine a character existing and interacting with an environment none of its features are specified?

 

[Charlaquin]

Or does it not matter at all because the vase is just set dressing and the players want to get to the more engaging content?

How are the players to know if the vase is just set-dressing before they’ve interacted with it? Interacting with it to find out is, to me, engaging content.

 

[Charlaquin]

After 27 pages of discussion, it isn't "going straight to". Indeed, after this much, we have a fairly winding path covering a good deal of territory from which folks can draw conclusions. There's oodles of implications and tone to be thought over.
In your eyes, perhaps not. But, yours is not the only valid perspective, is it?

If no one is advocating for maintaining bad faith player/DM relationships, but someone perceives that people are advocating such, then that‘s a misperception.

 

[Charlaquin]

But unless the PC states that they're using a ranged attack to smash the vase, it still doesn't matter.

Then shouldn’t there be an expectation that players specify if they’re using a ranged attack or not?

 

[iserith]

In your eyes, perhaps not. But, yours is not the only valid perspective, is it?

One simply cannot draw a valid connection between "bad faith relationship" and anything that Charlaquin, Swarmkeeper, myself, and others have said, regardless of how many pages it has been discussed.

 

[Gradine]

How are the players to know if the vase is just set-dressing before they’ve interacted with it? Interacting with it to find out is, to me, engaging content.

Sure! But then, that is not as true for everyone. As I said, different tables will have difficult cultures for how this might play out. It's a matter of personal preference, rather than anyone acting in bad faith.

 

[Oofta]

Then shouldn’t there be an expectation that players specify if they’re using a ranged attack or not?

I assume that if someone is smashing a vase they're using a melee attack. It would be just weird to state "I smash the vase" to mean that you're shooting it with an arrow.

Then again this is such an odd hypothetical that it's practically useless.

 

[Lanefan]

Or does it not matter at all because the vase is just set dressing and the players want to get to the more engaging content?

Clearly in someone's eyes smashing the vase is the engaging content at least in this moment, otherwise the action wouldn't have been declared in the first place.

Then again, on my narrating a vase in a room the question "Is it fragile?" would take a distant second place to "What's it worth?".

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure! But then, that is not as true for everyone. As I said, different tables will have difficult cultures for how this might play out. It's a matter of personal preference, rather than anyone acting in bad faith.

Granted; I was speaking rhetorically to illustrate where my preference comes from, not saying mine is the only valid preference.