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

[Oofta]

I appreciate the elaboration on the example at hand!

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.”

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.

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.

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

One of the biggest differences is that unless an obstacle such as a trap is being totally bypassed (i.e. not interacting with the vase at all) that the risk falls on the roll of the dice and the build of the PC, not player ability. I want to level the playing field a bit because player skill makes a pretty big difference no matter what. So it doesn't really matter who adds fluff to the description of an investigation, it could be me or the player. The only thing that really matters is that the PC is investigating and whether or not they physically interact with the vase, otherwise the description isn't going to matter. I'm not going to assume physical interaction unless the player specifically says so. At that point, I don't see that it matters if the vase is a mimic or not, it's time to roll initiative.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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.

Maybe this is another cultural thing, but inside an unassuming vase is a great place to hid valuables like gems. Plenty of groups I've been in over the years would make sure that the vase had nothing in it, wasn't magical in some way and/or wasn't painted to LOOK unassuming, but is really valuable.

 

[Lanefan]

Given the deception I have just given, no D&D player in the world would "walk over" to that vase....

Typo? Or intentional wordplay?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Up to here we're in complete 100% agreement. But then...

So go ahead and "metagame" if you want.

...you say this. My take is the opposite: ideally I want to have it that metagaming is simply not a means at their disposal to use.

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.

Why on earth would you stop them sabotaging themselves in order to achieve the goal of having fun?

 

[Clint_L]

Also, I would veto if players added something like like, "and in the centre of the room lies a vorpal sword, totally unguarded!" Or, "I come across a merchant selling healing potions at clearance rates because he's closing up shop." But I can't imagine them doing that.

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.

Means at their disposal within the context of the story, I 100% agree. It's when players start trying to use means from outside the story that I have issues.

For instance, all my players have access to any published adventure, because the internet, and I recently ran an adaptation of "White Plume Mountain" as part of our ongoing campaign. Would any DM be okay with players looking it up online as we play, in order to figure out how to solve puzzles, find the treasures, avoid traps, etc.? I assume no, because otherwise, what is the point? Then it's not a story anymore...it's barely even a game.

On the other hand, I think probably all DMs are cool with players discussing strategy between sessions, or even during the game when we take a pizza break, and so on, even though that is certainly a kind of metagaming. So I don't think there's a black&white solution - there's no table that is entirely anti-metagaming, and no table that is fully pro-metagaming. It's a continuum of different play styles, with room for lots of different preferences. Obviously, I'm more on the anti-metagaming end of that continuum. For me, heavy metagaming undermines what I love most about the game, which is being immersed in the story, as if we are in a book or movie, rather than playing a game.

This debate goes way back in D&D - in the 70s, some folks were so anti-metagaming that they felt players should not even know the rules! That the job of the players was simply to describe what they did as if narrating a story, and it was up to the DM to interpret that in the context of the rules. Then you had wargamer-types who felt that the rules were the whole point, and the narrative was just fluff added for additional colour.

 

[Lanefan]

On the other hand, I think probably all DMs are cool with players discussing strategy between sessions, or even during the game when we take a pizza break, and so on, even though that is certainly a kind of metagaming.

IMO it isn't, really; to me it's (mostly*) more them roleplaying some of the in-character chats and discussions they'd have around the campfire or during other downtime or while on the march.

* - the exception being if, say, a pizza break happened in the middle of a combat and players spent that time discussing how to resolve that combat.

So I don't think there's a black&white solution - there's no table that is entirely anti-metagaming, and no table that is fully pro-metagaming. It's a continuum of different play styles, with room for lots of different preferences. Obviously, I'm more on the anti-metagaming end of that continuum. For me, heavy metagaming undermines what I love most about the game, which is being immersed in the story, as if we are in a book or movie, rather than playing a game.

This debate goes way back in D&D - in the 70s, some folks were so anti-metagaming that they felt players should not even know the rules! That the job of the players was simply to describe what they did as if narrating a story, and it was up to the DM to interpret that in the context of the rules. Then you had wargamer-types who felt that the rules were the whole point, and the narrative was just fluff added for additional colour.

The 1e DMG was supposed to be off-limits to players. A worthy idea in principle, but it presupposes a culture where DMs are only ever DMs and players are only ever players, which just ain't how it works.

 

[iserith]

Up to here we're in complete 100% agreement. But then...

...you say this. My take is the opposite: ideally I want to have it that metagaming is simply not a means at their disposal to use.

The way that I approach the game means that "metagaming" is a risky strategy, so the problem is mitigated without me having to ask them not to do that.

Why on earth would you stop them sabotaging themselves in order to achieve the goal of having fun?

Perhaps I was not clear - the "win condition" of the game (per the rules) is to have fun and create an exciting, memorably story by playing. I would work, and players do work, to avoid sabotaging that outcome in my experience.

 

[iserith]

Also, I would veto if players added something like like, "and in the centre of the room lies a vorpal sword, totally unguarded!" Or, "I come across a merchant selling healing potions at clearance rates because he's closing up shop." But I can't imagine them doing that.

They certainly could, but in my experience, they don't. I've seen players test the limits, but once they realize that I'll just roll with it - after all, I have infinite dragons - it settles right down.

Means at their disposal within the context of the story, I 100% agree. It's when players start trying to use means from outside the story that I have issues.

It's trivially easy to justify any action in the context of a game based on make-believe though. "I read about the weaknesses of trolls in my grandpa's journal!" (But was grandpa right? You can't know for sure until you try. And he might not have been, where this troll is concerned.)

 

[Clint_L]

IMO it isn't, really; to me it's (mostly*) more them roleplaying some of the in-character chats and discussions they'd have around the campfire or during other downtime or while on the march.

* - the exception being if, say, a pizza break happened in the middle of a combat and players spent that time discussing how to resolve that combat.

That's exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.

 

[Clint_L]

It's trivially easy to justify any action in the context of a game based on make-believe though. "I read about the weaknesses of trolls in my grandpa's journal!"

I just...fundamentally disagree. Or maybe it's that our contexts are different: it might be trivially easy to justify in the context of a game, but not in the context of a story. Not if you want the story to be any good.

For example, what if the player is actively looking up the "White Plume Module" online, mid-game, while explaining that their character is looking through their grandfather's journal, because he happened to have been an adventurer who happened to visit that exact same dungeon, and kept perfectly meticulous notes.

Your answer seems to suggest that you might be fine with it, but reserve the right to react by changing anything and everything in an ad hoc manner. Which seems like an extremely adversarial approach to a cooperative game, from my perspective. Plus it would feel to me that story logic had gone right out the window - how convenient that your grandpa kept a handy journal with just the information you need, whenever you need it (albeit that this is more or less the plot of much of the TV show Supernatural).