• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Yes, except if-when the player abdicates that role by not (completely) saying what the character does, what then?
I would ask them to clarify. My experience is that once I've asked someone a few times "How?" or words to that effect, they just include it in their action declarations going forward.

If nothing else, if-when their leaving me to fill in the details causes Bad Things to happen to their characters it'll become clear enough that they might want to be filling in those details themselves.
The stick, then.

The loss of spontaneous or impetuous character actions, for one. If the player has to think through the "how" every time then there's always going to be forethought; and not all characters - or all players - run like that.
If someone is playing a spontaneous or impetuous character, they're free to act as such, including the "how." "I smash the vase." "How?" "With my forehead as hard as I can." Nothing about being clear as to approach prevents anyone from acting spontaneously or impetuously. All it does is paint a clearer picture so that everyone's on the same page. It obviates the need to use the stick, too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Why would you suppose it's not OK?
The rules of the game lay out who gets to say what. The DM describes the environment (e.g. "There's a vase..."). The players describe what they want to do (e.g. "I smash the vase with my bare hands..."). The DM narrates the result (e.g. "The vase cracks and falls to pieces..."), sometimes calling for a roll of some kind.

If the group wants to blur the lines such that the DM gets to describe what the character does, they can, but that comes with the potential for conflict that was already identified and discussed for, in my view, no particular gain. I get nothing by doing it except the possibility of conflict. That doesn't seem like a good trade to me.
 

greg kaye

Explorer
The rules of the game lay out who gets to say what. The DM describes the environment (e.g. "There's a vase..."). The players describe what they want to do (e.g. "I smash the vase with my bare hands..."). The DM narrates the result (e.g. "The vase cracks and falls to pieces..."), sometimes calling for a roll of some kind.

If the group wants to blur the lines such that the DM gets to describe what the character does, they can, but that comes with the potential for conflict that was already identified and discussed for, in my view, no particular gain. I get nothing by doing it except the possibility of conflict. That doesn't seem like a good trade to me.
What limits do you think the DM has?
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
What limits do you think the DM has?
I would say the limit is whatever the players are willing to put up with.

I would not, for example, put up with a DM who takes over my character and describes what they do. The rules of the game do not suggest that is the way the game is meant to be played by design, and doing so creates the potential for conflict for no gain that I can see.
 

greg kaye

Explorer
I would say the limit is whatever the players are willing to put up with.

I would not, for example, put up with a DM who takes over my character and describes what they do. The rules of the game do not suggest that is the way the game is meant to be played by design, and doing so creates the potential for conflict for no gain that I can see.
Exactly, the DM is the rules.
1687212556833.png

"You do you."
But it seems that there are also a number of great DMs here that don't share all your views. I've had messages on ths subject during our conversations.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Exactly, the DM is the rules.
View attachment 288186
"You do you."
But it seems that there are also a number of great DMs here that don't share all your views. I've had messages on ths subject during our conversations.
Yes, the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. Which is why I say the limit is not the rules at all, but what the players are willing to tolerate. I, for example, wouldn't tolerate the DM encroaching upon the one thing I'm expected to do in the game - describe what my character does, thinks, and says (i.e. roleplaying). The DM already describes the environment and decides whether what I want to do is successful or not. They really don't need to take over my little part in that process, too.

Should I care that a number of "great DMs here" don't share all my views?
 


iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Something like that and any other reactions to you could give pause for thought.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. But in any case, I don't care that not everyone shares all my views. Wasn't it you who said, unprovoked, that people can play however they want, after all? That being so, why would it give me pause that someone thinks about these things differently than me?
 

greg kaye

Explorer
...
But if the player declines this opportunity by not providing details then IMO it's left to either or both of a) previously established fiction (e.g. the Orc-attacker was already using the Mace in an ongoing battle) or b) the DM to fill those details in, particularly when they're fairly clear. When it's open-ended enough to not be clear (as in the sneak-past-the-guard example, where there's all kinds of equally-viable means to success), only then does interrupting the flow by circling back to the player with "How?" make sense.
This is so true. I'm lucky in that I've always been with players that are also fairly swift to act.

In other situations where a player is slow, maybe habitually, in deciding on and giving any information on their actions, I know that some DMs would then just say, "OK, you take the dodge action" and move on.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top