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

[iserith]

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.

Yes, that's an example of the "metagame thinking" the DMG warns against. In the DMG, the example given is a door the DM described to great detail and the players believe that, since so much time was spent on the description, it must be important, causing them to waste time searching it repeatedly.

 

[nevin]

makes sense. I don't really care about metagaming. If my players metagame against me I metagame against them and most stop it or leave the table and the table is usually better because they left.

 

[Clint_L]

I would say it's unusual for someone who cares about "metagaming."

Perhaps we define metagaming differently. For me, metagaming is either breaking story logic, ("yeah, but how does your character who grew up on a farm know all about Aboleths?") counterintuitive rules exploits, or telling other players what they "should" do (the latter is the one that I particularly hate).

 

[Oofta]

...
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?
...

In general I wouldn't do this during a session, I take ideas and suggestions from players if they want but we discuss it off-line. I do this primarily so I can think how it's going to impact other things going on, including things that the players don't know about. If the players don't know about it yet, it's not set in stone either, but there will be times when even relatively small changes could have ripple effects.

This seems to be more of a story first approach and is quite common in other games based on PbtA (Powered by the Apocalypse) games. I don't see it a lot in D&D, then again a lot of DMs use modules so they may not have much flexibility.

 

[iserith]

Perhaps we define metagaming differently. For me, metagaming is either breaking story logic, ("yeah, but how does your character who grew up on a farm know all about Aboleths?") counterintuitive rules exploits, or telling other players what they "should" do (the latter is the one that I particularly hate).

In the case of your example, those who say they prefer no "metagaming" tend to cite players establishing setting details as a route toward exploiting it to their advantage, same as if they declare their character knows about trolls and fire. If I get to say who the NPC is and how they react to me, then of course they're going to be nice and give me all their gold. It almost never works out that way, but try convincing people of that. I had to eat a ration of stuff for years on forums regarding this topic.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I appreciate the elaboration on the example at hand!

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?"

So, in both of these cases, the DM is describing the PC’s action. This is something I specifically avoid doing. In my games, it would be

Player: “I go over to look at the vase”
DM: It looks like a regular vase.”
or
Player: “I look at the vase and the pedestal closely, trying to see it from all angles.”
DM: “Make an Investigation check.”

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.

Sure, in the case where any physical interaction with the vase sets off the trap, if doesn’t matter if it’s done with a tool or by hand. However, had the vase been coated with contact poison, or cursed, or a mimic or something, it might have mattered.

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.

In my case, they would have to state that because, no, I’m not going to assume they’re touching it just because they didn’t say they didn’t. Say what you do do, and I’ll resolve that action.

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.

I’d prefer the player say what their character is doing, so I don’t have to assume either way.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I disagree. Giving the players more information is almost always better (as long as their characters would reasonably be able to glean that information, of course).

 

[Charlaquin]

makes sense. I don't really care about metagaming. If my players metagame against me I metagame against them and most stop it or leave the table and the table is usually better because they left.

Sounds like you do, in fact, care about metagaming, you just have a solution to it that you’re very comfortable with.

 

[Clint_L]

In the case of your example, those who say they prefer no "metagaming" tend to cite players establishing setting details as a route toward exploiting it to their advantage, same as if they declare their character knows about trolls and fire. If I get to say who the NPC is and how they react to me, then of course they're going to be nice and give me all their gold. It almost never works out that way, but try convincing people of that. I had to eat a ration of stuff for years on forums regarding this topic.

I assume that the players won't try to exploit their power, just as they assume that I won't try to exploit mine. We have a mutual goal of telling a good story, and inventing an NPC who automatically gives you what you want when you want it would be super lame. That's what I mean when I talk about "bad faith" - it seems to me that a lot of folks (not meaning you) seem to assume that players will exploit any power they have and are kind of working against the DM - that they can't be trusted. Perhaps you and I are talking about the same thing, from different angles.

 

[iserith]

I assume that the players won't try to exploit their power, just as they assume that I won't try to exploit mine. We have a mutual goal of telling a good story, and inventing an NPC who automatically gives you what you want when you want it would be super lame. That's what I mean when I talk about "bad faith" - it seems to me that a lot of folks (not meaning you) seem to assume that players will exploit any power they have and are kind of working against the DM - that they can't be trusted. Perhaps you and I are talking about the same thing, from different angles.

Me, I fully expect that players may try to use any means at their disposal to gain an advantage to overcome challenges. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. After all, trying to overcome the challenges before them is what bold adventurers confronting deadly perils do. So go ahead and "metagame" if you want. It's risky to do that anyway and who am I to try to stop players from taking risks? Now, trying to beat the DM or sabotaging themselves in achieving the goal of having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story (the default "win" condition of the game), not so much.