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

[Oofta]

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.

Except if there was no indication whatsoever that they would treat the eponymous vase differently, it's obvious they're acting on meta-game knowledge. Something I ask them to try to avoid. Besides if I ask how they break it, then I have to ask how they break everything and that leads to a slower game which is what I want to avoid. I'd rather have fast-paced action and move the game along than face some hypothetical "wrong" DM style. I don't remember the last time it happened, but I may tell someone that no, they don't change PC behavior because of what I said as DM that wasn't part of the description of the world.

But I also run an event based game, not location based. I find dungeon crawls boring most of the time, it's a different emphasis on what's important.

 

[iserith]

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.

The more I've engaged with this topic over the years the more I've come around to the idea that the objection so often voiced isn't to "metagaming" at all. You and I have both offered a number of approaches to the game that mitigate both the opportunities for and incentive to "metagame." But the people who claim to detest "metagaming" the most are also usually the first to reject those approaches, despite the fact said approaches would mostly rid them of the very thing they say they don't like.

So I've settled on it not really being about "metagaming" at all, but rather it's some kind of test of the player: "Can you avoid 'metagaming' when I put the opportunity to do it in front of you?" Then see if the player chooses to adhere to the group's (or DM's) principles. I can't think of any other reason why, given approaches that will effectively take "metagaming" off the table, why they'd continue to keep it on the table when they claim not to like it.

 

[greg kaye]

The more I've engaged with this topic over the years the more I've come around to the idea that the objection so often voiced isn't to "metagaming" at all. ...

If people voice an objection to metagaming, then perhaps the objection of those people is to metagaming.

... it's some kind of test of the player: "Can you avoid 'metagaming' when I put the opportunity to do it in front of you?" ...

It's the reverse of a test. It's avoiding the opportunity. It's getting on with the game.
No one wants to keep certainly this kind of metagaming on the table.

 

[Oofta]

If people voice an objection to metagaming, then perhaps the objection of those people is to metagaming.

It's the reverse of a test. It's getting on with the game.
No one wants to keep metagaming on the table.

I try not to metagame when I'm playing. When I recognize a monster, which I frequently do, I'll ask the DM if my PC knows anything about it. Then I act on it as I think my PC would. I don't see an issue with expecting the same courtesy from my players.

EDIT: I could jump through hoops to avoid it being an option for my players of course, but I think the "cure" is worse than the disease. At least for me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except if there was no indication whatsoever that they would treat the eponymous vase differently, it's obvious they're acting on meta-game knowledge. Something I ask them to try to avoid.

Of course the player is, but I’ve been quite clear that I don’t care about that. It’s perfectly plausible for the character to act that way in absence of the information, and I have no desire to police my players’ motivations.

Besides if I ask how they break it, then I have to ask how they break everything

Yes, which is why I ask the players to always include both the goal and approach in every action declaration.

and that leads to a slower game which is what I want to avoid. I'd rather have fast-paced action and move the game along than face some hypothetical "wrong" DM style.

My games are very fast-paced. I can certainly imagine stopping after every action to ask the player for their approach slowing down the game, but by making that a required part of the action declaration in the first place I avoid needing to do so and keep the pace quick.

I don't remember the last time it happened, but I may tell someone that no, they don't change PC behavior because of what I said as DM that wasn't part of the description of the world.

Yeah, that’s something I wouldn’t want to do.

But I also run an event based game, not location based. I find dungeon crawls boring most of the time, it's a different emphasis on what's important.

For sure!

 

[Charlaquin]

I try not to metagame when I'm playing. When I recognize a monster, which I frequently do, I'll ask the DM if my PC knows anything about it. Then I act on it as I think my PC would.

On the subject of things that could slow down play…

 

[greg kaye]

... 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. ...

Yep PCs can be knowledgable on the tools of their trade.

... I try not to metagame when I'm playing. When I recognize a monster, which I frequently do, I'll ask the DM if my PC knows anything about it. Then I act on it as I think my PC would. I don't see an issue with expecting the same courtesy from my players. ...

Yep, the DM's the boss, but I'd expect that a good proportion of the inhabitants of a 5e world might have a better knowledge of the inhabitants of that world than many players would, especially if the character was a prospective adventurer.

 

[iserith]

If people voice an objection to metagaming, then perhaps the objection of those people is to metagaming.

If it's true, then I would say there's a strong correlation between that and people who also don't want to adopt techniques to mitigate against opportunities for "metagaming." Sure, sometimes you'll see people try to roll dice for the players to avoid it, but when we suggest something like "ask them to say what they're doing and how on all action declaration before you go to adjudication" there's resistance. Why? It removes the "metagaming" they say they don't like which may arise when the DM has to go clarify their action after the fact.

It's the reverse of a test. It's avoiding the opportunity. It's getting on with the game.
No one wants to keep certainly this kind of metagaming on the table.

The DM is the one creating the opportunities though. Why do people seem to do that if they dislike "metagaming" so much? It very much seems like a test of the player to me, a way to reinforce the group's identity of "Not Metagamers" in some sense.

It reminds me of a conversation with my dad and grandmother some time ago. They were lamenting about how much people swear in TV shows and movies nowadays. So I said, well, the good news is that at a certain point those words will lose their impact and might not even be seen as swear words anymore. They seemed dissatsified with this. I asked, if you don't like swear words, wouldn't it be better if there were no swear words anymore? The answer was "No." So it's like, they wanted swear words to exist, just nobody should use them. I see what looks to me like the same kind of thinking in these "metagaming" tangents all the time: "Here's a way to mitigate 'metagaming'." "Hell no, I'm not doing that."

 

[greg kaye]

On the subject of things that could slow down play…

But I'd say centrally on the subject of tactics to sustain immersion.

 

[greg kaye]

... techniques to mitigate against opportunities for "metagaming." ...

Techniques like this are great, as is the removal of those opportunities.

..., but when we suggest something like "ask them to say what they're doing and how on all action declaration before you go to adjudication" there's resistance. ...

Sometimes I do that. I just don't think there is only one rigid way to play.

... The DM is the one creating the opportunities though. ...

The DM is the one leaving the player to play in the style that they choose, and to face the consequences.

... Why do people seem to do that if they dislike "metagaming" so much?

Because they also like freedom of choice?

... "Hell no, I'm not doing that."

For sure, do what you want on your table. You seem to be a great DM for that style of play.