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

[Maxperson]

It might be clearer, but it's also slower. A lot of unnecessary information is being exchanged, and you may well still have to ask, since the other party can't know what information is essential.

Sure. Occasionally I have to ask a question. Generally I don't if the player is being clear with what the goal of the PC is and how they are trying to accomplish that goal.

The party travels 50 miles through a forest. Do you name every species of tree in case the druid wants to use transport via plants?

Oh, look. The reductio ad absurdum fallacy. And it doesn't even get the spell right. The druid doesn't need to know the species to use the spell.

 

[Maxperson]

This is why what counts as a sufficiently specific action declaration will always be relative to a particular context and set of expectations of play. Although I think smashing the vase is more "central" to D&D, given its traditions and general orientation, than naming all the species. (Which is one reason why a spell like AD&D's Transport via Spells is a terrible fit with the typical processes of AD&D play.)

The AD&D druid didn't need to know any species of tree in order to use the spell. Yes, the trees had to be the same species, but the druid didn't need to be familiar with the destination tree. If he wanted to go 100 miles west to the town of Mystertree, all the druid had to do was touch some random tree close by and say, "I want to go 100 miles west." and he'd come out of the nearest tree of the species that he just randomly chose. All without ever knowing the species of either tree.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, as I just mentioned, I'm not continuing this conversation.

He wasn't asking you that question.

"Okay. For anyone else..."

 

[Maxperson]

Indeed, context is king. Compare these:





Most players will not need prompting in order to give lots of detail in describing their interactions with the first vase, but will probably be quite casual in describing how they interact with the second.

The examples don't actually change anything in a group that uses the goal and approach method. "I walk over and pick up the crystal vase, turning it around in my hands as I look at it." isn't really different from "I walk over and pick up the flower vase, turning it around in my hands as look at it."

The first example will be more detailed only in the sense that it will probably get the PCs to interact with it in more different ways due to the description. All of those ways will be specific in goal and approach. All you've really managed to change is which item the party will interact with in the most ways. In the first example it's the vase. In the second example it's the pair of china dogs which are not only out of place in a simply and plainly furnished home, but also valuable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The examples don't actually change anything in a group that uses the goal and approach method. "I walk over and pick up the crystal vase, turning it around in my hands as I look at it."

Given the deception I have just given, no D&D player in the world would "walk over" to that vase, and if they did they would be shot full of poison darts before they got close, so the action would be interrupted. Anything after the words "walk over" is irrelevant.

isn't really different from "I walk over and pick up the flower vase, turning it around in my hands as look at it."

Why would they do that? There is nothing in the description to suggest the vase is anything other than scenery. They are more likely to say, "I trash the cottage looking for phat loot". The player wouldn't even have to mention the vase directly in order for it to be smashed.

 

[nevin]

I think it's a DM problem that most DM's have the story in thier head and all of us eventually forget at some point that our "masterful" description left out some key evidence to those poor players who aren't seeing everything we imagined. When we do thing about it we tend to over describe things and emphasize the important stuff and turn an encounter that was supposed to be difficult into easy mode because we gave away the secret. It's hard to stay in the zone and tell the players what they need to hear without leaving out or adding too much and messing up the encounter when it involves non combat stuff. that's why most games are mostly combat. that's easy.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think it is pointless to argue about what players would and wouldn't actually do in these theoretical examples.
Every DM knows that the players IRL are completely and utterly unpredictable!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think it's a DM problem that most DM's have the story in thier head and all of us eventually forget at some point that our "masterful" description left out some key evidence to those poor players who aren't seeing everything we imagined. When we do thing about it we tend to over describe things and emphasize the important stuff and turn an encounter that was supposed to be difficult into easy mode because we gave away the secret. It's hard to stay in the zone and tell the players what they need to hear without leaving out or adding too much and messing up the encounter when it involves non combat stuff. that's why most games are mostly combat. that's easy.

Does the DM make it clear which details are important, or do they try to smuggle in the important details amongst a load of extraneous information?

The Figurines of Wonderous Power: China Dogs transform and attack anyone disturbing the cottage.

 

[iserith]

I think it's a DM problem that most DM's have the story in thier head and all of us eventually forget at some point that our "masterful" description left out some key evidence to those poor players who aren't seeing everything we imagined. When we do thing about it we tend to over describe things and emphasize the important stuff and turn an encounter that was supposed to be difficult into easy mode because we gave away the secret. It's hard to stay in the zone and tell the players what they need to hear without leaving out or adding too much and messing up the encounter when it involves non combat stuff. that's why most games are mostly combat. that's easy.

They don't really need to hear anything other than the basic scope of options that present themselves though (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on), which can be refined (or revealed, if hidden) after the players describe their actions. It's not a one-and-done. It's a play loop, so there's plenty of opportunity there to get all the information to the players so they can act with agency. That same loop applies to combat, though often there's more structure to it than in an exploration or social interaction challenge.

 

[nevin]

Yep. One of my favorite games My fighter and his friend the cleric went into a tomb looking for a Lich. We closed every partially open casket or burial chamber. took the time to consecrate them Put all the items back in place because we weren't tomb robbers. left the tomb in really good shape. When we left the tomb we both commented on how much easier than expected it was and the DM just grunted and said "sure all the wights and ghouls and vampires are locked into thier newly consecrated graves Dammit".