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

[Paul Farquhar]

Be reasonably clear with your action declaration

Using jargon like "action declaration" implies a much more formalised approach to the game than we would use.

But you do what works for you.

 

[iserith]

Using jargon like "action declaration" implies a much more formalised approach to the game than we would use.

But you do what works for you.

It's just a more succinct way of saying "describe what you want to do."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's just a more succinct way of saying "describe what you want to do."

Indeed it is. But we have never felt the need to label it or define rules about how to do it. We just do it, and don't have any problems.

 

[iserith]

Indeed it is. But we have never felt the need to label it or define rules about how to do it. We just do it, and don't have any problems.

What rules are you referring to though? "Be reasonably clear in your description?" That's hardly a rule in my view. It's just two humans trying to communicate better about a fictional space so the game flows more smoothly. It takes away the need for the DM to ask clarifying questions to get at the goal or approach so that the game moves ahead. By taking away those clarifying questions, it also means that it takes away possible suspicion on the player's part as to why the DM needs to know certain details, which can break immersion and create the incentive and opportunity to "metagame." According to some posters, they value "immersion" and "not 'metagaming'," so it's a mystery to me what the objection actually is here.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

in my view.

^^this.

For us, it's something that has never been said, we have never felt the need, and the game flows perfectly smoothly.

By taking away those clarifying questions, it also means that it takes away possible suspicion on the player's part as to why the DM needs to know certain details

We don't need to "take away suspicion". We have trust - the trust that we are all here to make sure everyone has a good time.

 

[iserith]

^^this.

For us, it's something that has never been said, we have never felt the need, and the game flows perfectly smoothly.

We don't need to "take away suspicion". We have trust - the trust that we are all here to make sure everyone has a good time.

Probably worth pointing out that concerns around making clear the character's approach to the goal possibly resulting in "metagaming" or "take-backs" were raised by Lanefan and later greg kaye, not me. If they have the "trust" that you suppose here, then why were those concerns raised? It shouldn't be a problem at all for the DM to ask clarifying questions of a vague action declaration then because of all that trust that their players won't "metagame," right? No need to rush right to adjudication to avoid it.

 

[greg kaye]

I don't think trust has anything to do with this, nor do I impose "rigid codes of conduct" on anyone. Unless you think "Be reasonably clear with your action declaration so we can all understand what you're trying to do" is rigid. I don't think it is, and have shown by way of example how that can be accomplished with as few as 4 additional words. Certainly it's not more rigid than "Don't 'metagame' despite the fact I'm creating all these opportunities and incentives for you to 'metagame.'" That strikes me as not only more rigid, given that the player can't have their character act as they please (or risk violating the table's policy on "metagaming"), but also incoherent as an approach to the desired goal.

Someday I hope someone will explain to me how creating said opportunities in any way supports the goal of reducing or eliminating "metagaming" or maintaining "immersion" at their table. Until then, I'm inclined to believe that it's not really about that at all. It's about something else, and a test of the player seems like a possibility to me.

-> smash the vase. If a how issue would also be gainfully addressed, this can be accomplished in a variety of ways as fitting in with the player/GM relationship within their efforts at collaborative storytelling/strategic shenanigans.

I'm glad of the further movement from the former "is" to a current "possibility". I'd still venture that it's more likely that people play in the way they play - because that's how they want to play. I'm inclined to believe that social gamers don't typically plan behaviour-based tests for each other.

 

[iserith]

-> smash the vase. If a how issue would also be gainfully addressed, this can be accomplished in a variety of ways as fitting in with the player/GM relationship within their efforts at collaborative storytelling/strategic shenanigans.

If you needed to know how they smash the vase because it wasn't clear in their action declaration, how would you approach that?

I'm glad of the further movement from the former "is" to a current "possibility". I'd still venture that it's more likely that people play in the way they play - because that's how they want to play. I'm inclined to believe that social gamers don't typically plan behaviour-based tests for each other.

It's only ever a possibility to begin with until confirmed. In this case, I don't imagine anyone, in this discussion anyway, has purposefully created a test of the player to see if they will "metagame." But that is what it is, in effect, if not in design. It's a checkpoint in play: The DM presents an opportunity and incentive to "metagame." The player is then expected to either make the case for why their character might know the thing (which is trivially justified by someone sufficiently motivated to use "metagame knowledge") or, more commonly, ask the DM for permission, which breaks immersion while that is all hashed out. Wouldn't it be easier to just not create the opportunity and incentive in the first place? Then there's neither a chance to "metagame" nor a possibility of breaking immersion. If I were someone that cared about either of those things, I'd strongly consider that approach since it presumably aligns with my stated goals.

And I agree "that people play in the way they play - because that's how they want to play." But that doesn't take away from pointing out how their approaches to play might not really serve their stated goals.

 

[greg kaye]

I thought that this presented a good option for how to handle things.

...
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.
...

 

[iserith]

I thought that this presented a good option for how to handle things.

That method (1) has the DM playing the role of the player by deciding for the player what their own character does and (2) potentially breaks "immersion" so the DM and player can hash out what the character is actually doing, after the player objects to the DM taking over their character for them. If you care about "no metagaming" and maintaining "immersion," how does this approach serve your goals?