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

[nevin]

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?

depending on the players you have to navigate that. I've had players that would literally snap on the smallest clue and figure it out immediately. I've also had players that couldn't figure anything out unless you brought out the Crayons. Add that to DM having all the answers in thier head and it being easy to forget the players don't and it's a moving target.

 

[nevin]

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.

It's also important to not become too predictable. It's not unlike poker. If you have a tell you can give too much information very easily without meaning too. I've got a friend who leans back, locks down the smile and tries to make small talk like it's not important. The small talk came when he realized he was getting quiet. I suspect a lot of frustrated DM's have similar issues and haven't figured out thier players don't need to guess at what is important.

 

[nevin]

that and we all have habits that are unnoticeable to us when we run our games but the players know. works the other way too .

 

[iserith]

It's also important to not become too predictable. It's not unlike poker. If you have a tell you can give too much information very easily without meaning too. I've got a friend who leans back, locks down the smile and tries to make small talk like it's not important. The small talk came when he realized he was getting quiet. I suspect a lot of frustrated DM's have similar issues and haven't figured out thier players don't need to guess at what is important.

I'm not sure much is gained by being stingy with information. If the DM gives away "too much," oh well! The poker analogy also suggests some kind of competition with the players, which I don't view as the DM's role. There is something of an art to telegraphing though. I just wouldn't be upset if I gave something away.

 

[Oofta]

I'm trying to envision how this vase scenario is happening. All I can say is that it might go something like
DM: "The room is bare, apart from a 3 foot high pedestal in the center of the room. On top of the pedestal is an ornate crystal vase. Leering faces are carved into the walls, and the floor is covered in a geometric pattern of stone tiles."
Player: "I go over to have a closer look"

Most likely option - It's a trap!:
DM: "As you walk over you are disintegrated as all the leering faces simultaneously blast you with rays of disintegration. You had a backup character, right?"
[This is a bit tongue-in-cheek and there would likely be a roll or two. I wouldn't expect any player to ignore something so obviously a trap, but they do the darnedest things.]

The other option is that the room was just done by an interior decorator with a strange sense of style. I'll skip over the resolution of how they determine the room itself is not a trap. Determining the room is safe could include detect magic, 10 foot poles, investigation or perception checks.

Then there are many ways the scene would continue in my game

DM: "You go over to look at the vase, give me an investigation check."
Player: [rolls dice] "I got a 20."
DM: "It looks like a regular vase. What do you do next?"
or
DM: "You look at the vase and the pedestal closely, trying to see it from all angles, are you looking inside the vase as part of the investigating?"

When nothing happens or is revealed but the DM has decided that physical interaction with the vase triggers a trap ...
Player: "I pick the vase up to look at it more close."
or
Player: "I pick the vase and smash it to the floor."
or
Player: "I smash the vase."
in either case
DM: "Give me a dexterity saving throw as you hear a rumble and the floor starts to give way..."

There is no way that I'm going to change anything if the physical interaction of smashing the vase is done by hand, with a weapon, with an overhand strike or a haymaker. It just doesn't matter.

If the player wants to back up to the door and tip the vase over with a mage hand or shoot it with an arrow they'll have to state that because, yes, I'm going to make a logical assumption of what they're doing. Just like if the PC polymorphed into a chicken is crossing the road, I assume the chicken is just walking across the road and not misty stepping unless they declare misty stepping.

 

[nevin]

stingy is bad, liberal is bad , and what is stingy or liberal depends on your players and how well and quickly they process information. The point was there is no one size fits all fix or strategy. it has to be crafted and designed for the particular table you are running.

I am talking about when you aren't trying to play head games with them. Telegraphing things to them would be a different conversation.

 

[Oofta]

stingy is bad, liberal is bad , and what is stingy or liberal depends on your players and how well and quickly they process information. The point was there is no one size fits all fix or strategy. it has to be crafted and designed for the particular table you are running.

I am talking about when you aren't trying to play head games with them. Telegraphing things to them would be a different conversation.

One person's stingy description is another person's adequate. Another person's adequate description is boring and/or putting a giant neon sign flickering "Trap here!" Neither DM nor player can give every detail; personally I give fairly high level and then when it adds interest and value I "zoom in" on those details.

 

[nevin]

I find a good general description and let the players decide what they want more description on works. If they ask and I tell them about the vase then they dont' thing twice. If I give them too much information about one thing without being prompted they obsess about the thing i talked the most about.

 

[Clint_L]

And it may be that the vase was created by the player.

DM: "You enter the princess's chamber, it is luxuriously furnished."
Player: "Are there any vases in the room?"
DM [making something up]: "yes, there is a vase of flowers on the desk."
Player: "I walk over, smash the vase, and yell angrily at the princess."

In my game, it might go further:
DM: "You enter the princess's chamber, it is luxuriously furnished."
Player: "I walk over, smash an ornate vase that is sitting on her desk, and yell angrily at the princess."

I love for players to add story enriching details. For example, the exchange below (more or less; I didn't record it or anything) happened between me and a Grade 9 player in her third game. The set-up is that the characters were in the pirate town Darktow, looking for supplies and information, and her character, who had previously lived in Darktow, had walked into a tavern.

Player: Do I see anyone that I recognize?
Me: You tell me. [at this point, I am trying to see how far the player is comfortable going with improvising a scenario; I'm ready to step in]
Player: Ummm...yeah, I see my sister sitting in a corner.
Me: Are you on good terms?
Player: Uh...no, she's really mad at me.
Me: How come?
Student: Uh...I'm not sure...can you?
Me: She glances up and sees you staring at her, and immediately her expression shifts into a glare. What do you want to do?
Student: I guess I go over to her table.
Me: As you pull up a chair she hisses, "How could you leave me in this place..." [and we carried on from there.]

At that point we improvised the rest of the encounter, working out that her sister had been left behind when the character had to flee due to a dispute with the local boss, and now was working to pay off the character's debt. This gave the player an opportunity to pay the debt off herself, freeing her sister, who then grudgingly supplied the information the character was seeking. None of this was planned, except for the information that I wanted the players to get somehow (I had other means of getting it to the players if necessary, but preferred to let them devise a stratagem).

In this process the player did a ton of world-building connected not just to her character's backstory but to Darktow itself. And I honour that by letting the world change to fit the players' contributions. I've had major campaign arcs come completely out of player additions to the story, happening mid-play. Is this an unusual approach?

For me, I love it because I get to be as entertained by the story as my players - I had no idea that character had a sister, or a whole family drama around a pirate town. The player, in her third game, supplied the crucial details of 1. sister 2. bad blood and 3. debt. This made for a really fun sub-plot that ultimately drove the main story forward and was so much better than anything I had planned out!

 

[iserith]

Is this an unusual approach?

I would say it's unusual for someone who cares about "metagaming." In my experience people who care about that aren't into players improvising details outside the four corners of their character sheet or their backstory. While many DMs are fine with "Yes, and..." to something like the player establishing a chandelier to swing from in a tavern, it's probably unusual to the degree you're doing it in your example with the player creating details about the NPC on the fly. It's certainly not a defined role of the player in the D&D 5e rules.

It's normal in a game with my regular johns. The only rule there is you can't establish anything that contradicts or negates something that was already established.