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

[greg kaye]

This is how discussion can jump from:

...
But what I keep trying to clarify, and I apologize if I say it wrong, is they why. Why do you find it useful? Is it just a different approach to the game, a story driven narrative game versus ... and I wish there was a simple dictionary here for these terms ... a simulationist approach.

Example: In a recent ....

to a further heightened:

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.

At least from the players' perspectives, they still may not have a personal goal to provide a "description of both action and intention in all cases". The approach may not always relate to a goal they naturally share. It's sufficient for something that may not always be among their priorities.

 

[Oofta]

This is how discussion can jump from:

to a further heightened:

At least from the players' perspectives, they still may not have a personal goal to provide a "description of both action and intention in all cases". The approach may not always relate to a goal they naturally share. It's sufficient for something that may not always be among their priorities.

I had a longer reply but ... it comes down to it all still seems fuzzy to me. Adequate goal or approach is always in the eyes of the DM and seems to be focused on only a handful of types of interactions. All that matters to me is that the DM and players are communicating the fictional interaction of the PCs with the world and it's inhabitants clearly.

 

[Gradine]

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

The PCs:
View attachment 288539

One time in a Star Wars D20 campaign we were hired by a group of rebels to assassinate a Moff in an Imperial-controlled system. While there we not only discovered an anti-matter weapon they were building, we also inadvertantly set it off, causing the local star to go supernova. We barely escaped with our lives. We managed to rendezvous with the Rebels on Alderaan and explained that technically we did kill the Moff so we were owed payment.

They tried to have us executed.

On Alderaan.

 

[Hriston]

This is how discussion can jump from:

to a further heightened:

At least from the players' perspectives, they still may not have a personal goal to provide a "description of both action and intention in all cases". The approach may not always relate to a goal they naturally share. It's sufficient for something that may not always be among their priorities.

So? Every technique isn’t for every group. It’s still okay to discuss them.

 

[greg kaye]

So? Every technique isn’t for every group. It’s still okay to discuss them.

As are questions, as per a part of your context that you discarded, ~"why does it matter?"

 

[Hriston]

As are questions, as per a part of your context that you discarded, ~"why does it matter?"

I wrote in my post about why I think the technique is useful. Maybe you missed it the first time, but feel free to respond to any of the ideas I wrote about there, and keep in mind that useful doesn’t necessarily mean “useful for everyone”. A hammer might not be useful to someone who has no interest in driving nails or doing any of the other things for which hammers are useful. That doesn’t mean hammers aren’t useful.

 

[greg kaye]

I wrote in my post about why I think the technique is useful. Maybe you missed it the first time, but feel free to respond to any of the ideas I wrote about there, and keep in mind that useful doesn’t necessarily mean “useful for everyone”. A hammer might not be useful to someone who has no interest in driving nails or doing any of the other things for which hammers are useful. That doesn’t mean hammers aren’t useful.

I think that's the issue because various advocators of your technique tend to present arguments as "useful for everyone". It starts with declaring it universally better to "make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach" and it continues in escalations that not even x "is necessarily a sufficient description of both action and intention in all cases. It's only not sufficient if there's actually an issue in the first place and the player-DM dynamic does not compensate for it in other ways.
I think that a lot of the reason that we have got to 25 pages in this thread is because of a “useful for everyone” slant/argumentation used.

... Adequate goal or approach is always in the eyes of the DM and seems to be focused on only a handful of types of interactions. All that matters to me is that the DM and players are communicating the fictional interaction of the PCs with the world and it's inhabitants clearly.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think that's the issue because various advocators of your technique tend to present arguments as "useful for everyone". It starts with declaring it universally better to "make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach" and it continues in escalations that not even x "is necessarily a sufficient description of both action and intention in all cases. It's only not sufficient if there's actually an issue in the first place and the player-DM dynamic does not compensate for it in other ways.
I think that a lot of the reason that we have got to 25 pages in this thread is because of a “useful for everyone” slant/argumentation used.

I don't think advocates are saying "goal and approach" is "universally better". That seems to be a rather narrow and uncharitable interpretation of what's been said to this point, IMO, but perhaps you have a direct quote from someone that says that "goal and approach" is "universally better" you can share (there are a lot of pages here... I'll admit to the possibility that I missed it)? That said, it does work really well at tables that employ it. But it won't work for everyone as playstyles and expectations at various tables naturally differ.

I think you might benefit from charitably reading an assumed "at our table" or "in our experience" when someone is expressing the benefits of any technique here on the boards. Or, if unclear, ask some questions rather than casting aspersions - I mean, you have been doing the former to a decent extent and that has brought about the best of the conversation.

TL;DR: Just because someone talks about a given technique does not mean they think it is the "one true way" for all tables everywhere.

 

[greg kaye]

"... better yet, just make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach".
There has been a predominant, out-to-persuade approach and this despite, for instance, my many " you do you" and "we can agree to differ" comments.

 

[Hriston]

I think that's the issue because various advocators of your technique tend to present arguments as "useful for everyone". It starts with declaring it universally better to "make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach" and it continues in escalations that not even x "is necessarily a sufficient description of both action and intention in all cases. It's only not sufficient if there's actually an issue in the first place and the player-DM dynamic does not compensate for it in other ways.
I think that a lot of the reason that we have got to 25 pages in this thread is because of a “useful for everyone” slant/argumentation used.

I think it's clear from the context of my comments that sufficient is being used to mean sufficient for the purposes of a group in which a "complete action declaration" contains a description of both action and intention. Other groups will have different ideas about to what degree action and/or intention might need to be described.