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

[Lanefan]

The locations are there, of course, but I don't do dungeon crawls or hex exploration. I rarely use detailed maps for locations and instead do general exploration with ToTM. The action revolves around social encounters and combat, not finding and removing traps. I can't remember the last time I did an old school dungeon crawl, although of course occasionally people are in abandoned buildings which may be underground. The Temple of Elemental Evil is what would consider a location based campaign. Dragon Heist is more event based.

I've heard of Dragon Heist but that's it, so I'll just have to take your word for this.

In general, though, it sounds like you place the social and combat pillars above exploration, in terms of importance to your game. This might explain some viewpoint differences, as for me exploration is, of the three pilars, the most important.

I also don't do TotM, but that's in part because both I and some players tend to rely on visual references for things.

My campaign revolves more around events and interacting with the various power groups I've set up for my campaign. The obstacles you encounter are usually not going to be traps or terrain, it's going to be NPCs and monsters.

In my game - if I'm doing it right, which isn't always the case - you're ideally going to hit all those types of obstacles plus others, more often than you want to.

Traps, terrain, weather, NPCs, monsters, mysteries, mazes, riddles, red herrings, misinformation, double-crosses...they're all in play and all, IMO, fair game. And that's before even considering what the PCs sometimes want to do to each other.

 

[Lanefan]

The true purpose of traps is to force one player to play rogue even if and especially when they don't want to.

Who says?

The party can always go and recruit an adventuring NPC to fill the trapfinder/locksmith gap if they think it's that important, or they can instead choose to take their chances without anyone in the party filling that role. It's up to the in-character players.

 

[Lanefan]

No, you misunderstand. Or rather, I wasn't clear: If it's not part of the story, then it's not part of the story. Breaking the moon, for example, would absolutely be a thing, if the story was about breaking the moon. I meant in escalating "size and importance" of the things being broken. If it's big enough (the moon; a god's face; all of reality) then it could STILL be broken - it would just (at that point) BE THE STORY.

OK, this makes sense.

Not the other-way around. Not little things being impossible if they're not part of the story. A little thing would already be part of the story, or it wouldn't even be there to break. Does that make more sense?

But this still doesn't, not quite.

A little thing such as a vase can be part of the story (e.g. the pattern in its finish holds a vital clue to some mystery, or breaking it reveals a key baked into the china) or it can be not part of the story (e.g. it's merely described as being part of a room's contents where both vase and room hold no story relevance whatsoever).

They should, though, be equally smashable.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

OK, this makes sense.

But this still doesn't, not quite.

A little thing such as a vase can be part of the story (e.g. the pattern in its finish holds a vital clue to some mystery, or breaking it reveals a key baked into the china) or it can be not part of the story (e.g. it's merely described as being part of a room's contents where both vase and room hold no story relevance whatsoever).

They should, though, be equally smashable.

In this context I mean that if it's there - whether window dressing or important detail - it's part of the story and therefore can be smashed.

But my entire bit about whether something was part of the story or not was only really talking about the earlier scenario in which a thing is so big/powerful that most people would consider it unsmashable, but if the story was about smashing it, then it would be smashable.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Who says?

The party can always go and recruit an adventuring NPC to fill the trapfinder/locksmith gap if they think it's that important, or they can instead choose to take their chances without anyone in the party filling that role. It's up to the in-character players.

A choice backed by a threat of force is not actually a choice.

I'd rather spend the time pixel hunting for traps doing other things.

 

[theCourier]

Mfw the game that involves delving into dangerous dungeons involves playing as people who specialize in delving into dangerous dungeons

 

[greg kaye]

Yep! Those rules are where I derived my approach to action resolution from, more or less. Actually to be more specific, I derived it from the version of these rules that was in the D&D Next playtest, which I thought communicated the same ideas with slightly clearer wording, or at least wording that resonated a bit better with me. I’ve refined the approach over time and with some feedback from other sources, but fundamentally it comes back to the way the 5e playtest taught me to run itself, which was a revelation for me at the time. The way it described running the game was vastly different to how I had run or seen D&D run before, and out of desire to engage with the playtest on its own terms, I tried to adjust my style according to what it instructed. And by golly, I had way more fun with the game than I ever had before.

... and this is my time, which is appreciated. I've long wondered about the habit for, say a skilled, confident oratory performer to need to take skill checks in situations other than ill-health etc. I still think checks could apply though just for the purpose of seeing if crits are achieved.

 

[Oofta]

... and this is my time, which is appreciated. I've long wondered about the habit for, say a skilled, confident oratory performer to need to take skill checks in situations other than ill-health etc. I still think checks could apply though just for the purpose of seeing if crits are achieved.

There are certainly times when the PC has a high enough modifier that they will always succeed. I'm not going to ask even a mid level rogue with expertise in open locks for a check on a standard lock.

But that's a different from the player being a skilled locksmith when their PC has no training in that area.

 

[Hriston]

Example: In a recent game, I'm playing a wizard and one of his cantrips is message. We had decided to take out a bad guy guard, who had just unjustly arrested an innocent and was hauling them off. So my PC messaged the guard a couple of times asking why they were really doing this, did they really follow the head leader, did they not realize that what they were doing was wrong and futile. I had also messaged my allies to let them know to follow my lead.

I had multiple goals in mind with this. If I was really, really lucky I could get some information or even change the guard's mind.

To your Message example, “I cast message and say [whatever]” is a complete action declaration in my mind. It clearly communicates what you want to happen (for the target of the spell to receive the intended message) and what your character does to try and make that happen (cast the message spell). No further detail is necessary.

I’m going to disagree with @Charlaquin here that “I cast message at [whomever] and whisper [whatever].” is necessarily a sufficient description of both action and intention in all cases. An intention might be implicit in the words or generalized description of the words that are whispered, but the description is all action. For example, of the stated goals, only the first, to “get some information”, is implicit in the questions “Why are you really doing this?” and “Do you really follow the head leader?” which are also more specific about the type of information desired, rendering a separate statement of this intention superfluous. I’d say that social interactions often have this dynamic where the words or description of the words spoken by the character often reveal the character’s intentions, but not always.

The second stated goal, to “change the guard’s mind”, is only somewhat implied by the words “Do you not realize that what you are doing is wrong and futile?” It leaves open the possibility of some misunderstanding about what the character is trying to accomplish, so I believe the action declaration would benefit in clarity of meaning from the addition of that subtext. This would allow the player to define what success looks like for the character, so the DM could adjudicate the success of the character's goal (changing the guard’s mind), not just the character's action (casting a spell and whispering some words).

A benefit for some of this technique is it gives the players an input into the trajectory of the fiction, allowing them to more directly shape the direction of the game by giving voice to their aspirations for their characters and their characters aspirations for themselves.

A possible drawback for some groups might be a clash with a preference for “show don’t tell” in that group’s fiction because it requires the player to reveal things about the character’s inner mental state which otherwise might remain hidden from the group.

 

[Weiley31]

DM: Did.....did....did you just break the Core..... of the THE WHOLE PLANET!?!?!?!?

The PCs: