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

[Clint_L]

The only time it might matter in my game is if the vase is the McGuffin. If it's just a random vase? I don't see why it matters. If it's something special but the players don't know it, I'll give some appropriate check to notice that the vase is unusual.

I might ask "So you just smash it with your sword?" Then if they start going on about 10 foot poles or taking precautions they didn't mention before I'll just remind the player that the PC has no reason to do that. Again, there would likely be some sort of check involved before I tell someone that. This is the incredibly rare exception to the rule that I don't tell people what their PC does, I'm far more likely to remind them to check for traps or remind them info their PC knows about the McGuffin that I think the player may have forgotten.

At a certain point there has to be some mutual trust between player and DM. I don't do "gotcha" tricks, they don't change behavior just because I verify details of their action.

Yeah, I mean this is fair. I do remind myself that the character is far more immersed in the situation than the player might be, so if the player suggests something obviously stupid I might have failed to describe the situation effectively enough, or maybe they just spaced out, so giving them a reminder is good practice. But if they are smashing vases willy nilly, I figure they should be prepared for any consequences!

 

[Clint_L]

It could. And if you don’t typically expect those details unless they matter, then asking for additional detail is an unambiguous indication that it matters in this case, which may prompt the player to declare the action in a different way than they otherwise would, in hopes of avoiding some hypothetical negative consequence.

Wanting to know what the plan is so I can figure out if there needs to be a DC, consequences, etc. is precisely why I want to know how. How am I to know it’s a non-trivial task if I don’t know what the player is trying to accomplish and how?

So, now I'm interested. A player, perhaps looking for a hidden key, declares "I smash the vase!" Me, knowing about the contact poison, asks how, wanting to know if they hit it with an object or grab it with their hand. The player, reading that something is up with the vase, then declares, "wait, instead of smashing it, I first examine it very carefully." What do you do?

I would say, "No way, you've already said that you are smashing it - I just want to know how." But then, I hate metagaming.

Oh, and trolls are rare enough in my world that knowing they regenerate and how to prevent it is not common knowledge. Unless characters are from a region where trolls are well known, or have some other source of knowledge - perhaps a lore skill check - then they would proceed as if they didn't know exactly what to do when encountering a troll for the first time. It's all part of the roleplay...which is acting, after all. "What would my character plausibly do in this situation?"

 

[greg kaye]

The player has not established how they will be smashing the vase. And that's very important in my view for all the reasons stated upthread.

I respect your view.
My view is that as long as everyone feels that adjudication is handled reasonably then a few approaches can work. As well as the goal of making things meaningful and fun for the players, I'd also hope to keep things real in regard to characterization.
If I thought a player would give a genuine response on what their character would do, then I'd similarly ask that player to establish that narrative.
If, however, I thought the player might metagame and, say, have the character suddenly become uncharacteristically cautious, I might not.

 

[iserith]

I respect your view.
My view is that as long as everyone feels that adjudication is handled reasonably then a few approaches can work. As well as the goal of making things meaningful and fun for the players, I'd also hope to keep things real in regard to characterization.
If I thought a player would give a genuine response on what their character would do, then I'd similarly ask that player to establish that narrative.
If, however, I thought the player might metagame and, say, have the character suddenly become uncharacteristically cautious, I might not.

I don't see it as any of my business to know a player's motivations for having their character do a thing. I just need to know what they are trying to accomplish and how so I can perform my role as DM. If they're being "uncharacteristically cautious" about this vase for any reason, that's their concern, not mine, as I see it.

But again, like a lot of "metagaming," the stage is set for that by the DM. If the DM doesn't normally ask the players to establish a goal and approach, then the DM does it after the fact because it matters to how the situation is resolved, of course a player might be suspicious about the DM's sudden interest in their approach. The DM just incentivized the player to "metagame." This doesn't happen in my games because I get the goal and approach for every action declaration up front, thereby not setting the stage for it to occur. (Not that I care about "metagaming" in the slightest. It just turns out my approach mitigates against it naturally, which is perhaps something to think about if you don't like "metagaming!")

 

[greg kaye]

I don't see it as any of my business to know a player's motivations for having their character do a thing. I just need to know what they are trying to accomplish and how so I can perform my role as DM. If they're being "uncharacteristically cautious" about this vase for any reason, that's their concern, not mine, as I see it.

But again, like a lot of "metagaming," the stage is set for that by the DM. If the DM doesn't normally ask the players to establish a goal and approach, then the DM does it after the fact because it matters to how the situation is resolved, of course a player might be suspicious about the DM's sudden interest in their approach. The DM just incentivized the player to "metagame." This doesn't happen in my games because I get the goal and approach for every action declaration up front, thereby not setting the stage for it to occur. (Not that I care about "metagaming" in the slightest. It just turns out my approach mitigates against it naturally, which is perhaps something to think about if you don't like "metagaming!")

Nor does it have to be. That's your game.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I guess I feel like if you're in a situation where:

a) The player says "I smash the vase"
b) The vase has a trap of some kind
c) None of the PCs has investigated the vase or whatever it's sitting on for a trap
d) There's nothing in the area that the character would have noticed that the player simply isn't yet aware of
e) You don't trust the player to roleplay appropriately if you ask for a clarification

Then I'd just assume the character would act without any forethought. To me that would probably mean picking up the vase and throwing it against the ground, wall, or some hard surface.

Ideally I would just say, "Alright, you pick it up and smash it against the floor." Then I'd wait for the player to say something. This is their last opportunity to alter their fate. If they say, "No, wait, I don't want to touch it. I want to hit it with a sling bullet from across the room," then that's what happens.

If instead they say, "What's inside?" or "What happens?" then they're implicitly okay with their PC picking up the vase and smashing it against the floor. At that point I think it's pretty hard to argue that both the player and the character were acting a little carelessly, and that's exactly what a trap is designed to catch. If the player was going to search for traps, they've had more than enough opportunity to do so. If they wanted to search for traps, they should already have stated they intend to do so.

Even if it's magical touch paralysis trap, this works because you can just rewind time a bit if they fail their saving throw. It doesn't matter because they've already committed to the action.

I don't think I would run it in that ideal manner all the time. I think I would tip my hand at least some of the time. But I don't think that's a solvable problem in this situation. It's equally as much a problem that you've got a player that might be metagaming in a way you don't really like. But even that isn't necessarily going to be a problem at every table. Some tables don't care if players do that if it's honestly in-line with their characters. Others might be adamant that traps must be a secret to the player as well as the character.

 

[iserith]

Nor does it have to be. That's your game.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just ask that PCs don't act on information they have no way of knowing. Meanwhile, everyone knows that trolls are hurt by fire, etc. Different strokes and all. In addition, as I said, it's an incredibly rare exception to my general rule.

My perspective on that matter is, just because information might cause you to act a certain way, doesn’t mean you couldn’t act that way without that information. For all I know, the player would have poked the vase with a 10-foot poll anyway, and if I forbid them from doing so because asking them how they try to break it may have influenced their decision doesn’t seem fair of me. Better to get around the whole issue by asking the player to say how they try to break it first.

 

[greg kaye]

I guess I feel like if you're in a situation where:

a) The player says "I smash the vase"
b) The vase has a trap of some kind
c) None of the PCs has investigated the vase or whatever it's sitting on for a trap
d) There's nothing in the area that the character would have noticed that the player simply isn't yet aware of
e) You don't trust the player to roleplay appropriately if you ask for a clarification

Then I'd just assume the character would act without any forethought. To me that would probably mean picking up the vase and throwing it against the ground, wall, or some hard surface.

Ideally I would just say, "Alright, you pick it up and smash it against the floor." Then I'd wait for the player to say something. This is their last opportunity to alter their fate. If they say, "No, wait, I don't want to touch it. I want to hit it with a sling bullet from across the room," then that's what happens.

If instead they say, "What's inside?" or "What happens?" then they're implicitly okay with their PC picking up the vase and smashing it against the floor. At that point I think it's pretty hard to argue that both the player and the character were acting a little carelessly, and that's exactly what a trap is designed to catch. If the player was going to search for traps, they've had more than enough opportunity to do so. If they wanted to search for traps, they should already have stated they intend to do so.

Even if it's magical touch paralysis trap, this works because you can just rewind time a bit if they fail their saving throw. It doesn't matter because they've already committed to the action.

I don't think I would run it in that ideal manner all the time. I think I would tip my hand at least some of the time. But I don't think that's a solvable problem in this situation. It's equally as much a problem that you've got a player that might be metagaming in a way you don't really like. But even that isn't necessarily going to be a problem at every table. Some tables don't care if players do that if it's honestly in-line with their characters. Others might be adamant that traps must be a secret to the player as well as the character.

Awesome.

 

[Oofta]

I guess I feel like if you're in a situation where:

a) The player says "I smash the vase"
b) The vase has a trap of some kind
c) None of the PCs has investigated the vase or whatever it's sitting on for a trap
d) There's nothing in the area that the character would have noticed that the player simply isn't yet aware of
e) You don't trust the player to roleplay appropriately if you ask for a clarification

Then I'd just assume the character would act without any forethought. To me that would probably mean picking up the vase and throwing it against the ground, wall, or some hard surface.

Ideally I would just say, "Alright, you pick it up and smash it against the floor." Then I'd wait for the player to say something. This is their last opportunity to alter their fate. If they say, "No, wait, I don't want to touch it. I want to hit it with a sling bullet from across the room," then that's what happens.

If instead they say, "What's inside?" or "What happens?" then they're implicitly okay with their PC picking up the vase and smashing it against the floor. At that point I think it's pretty hard to argue that both the player and the character were acting a little carelessly, and that's exactly what a trap is designed to catch. If the player was going to search for traps, they've had more than enough opportunity to do so. If they wanted to search for traps, they should already have stated they intend to do so.

Even if it's magical touch paralysis trap, this works because you can just rewind time a bit if they fail their saving throw. It doesn't matter because they've already committed to the action.

I don't think I would run it in that ideal manner all the time. I think I would tip my hand at least some of the time. But I don't think that's a solvable problem in this situation. It's equally as much a problem that you've got a player that might be metagaming in a way you don't really like. But even that isn't necessarily going to be a problem at every table. Some tables don't care if players do that if it's honestly in-line with their characters. Others might be adamant that traps must be a secret to the player as well as the character.

There are a lot of ways to handle traps. Forcing people to state things like investigating a vase for traps before they smash it in a game where things tend to blow up in their face generally leads to a very cautious approach. It's a style of play, just not one I want for games I'm involved with. There will certainly be places where the PCs should be cautious, but there are many ways of doing this. If they're walking down the hall of a dungeon for example, I'll base the speed at which they do it on how cautious they're being. Then I use passive investigation or perception modified by their speed. Same type of logic can be applied to searching rooms and so on.

If you want people to be cautious and paranoid about every vase they encounter, cool. I don't so in general I'm pretty lenient and - as you said - sometimes I'll just verify details such as how exactly they're smashing the vase. I don't do this just in cases where it matters, I just sprinkle it in once in a while. Throw in that I simply ask people not to meta-game and it's never been an issue for me.

On a side note, I assume a PC trained in thieves tools or similar knows a heck of a lot more about traps and how they work than I, or the player, does. So if you want to add some sparkle to your description of disarming a trap, cool. But unless you've figured out a way to bypass it completely, it still comes down to a skill roll.