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

[iserith]

Yeah, pretty much this. I don't need to sweat the details because if a disagreement happens we just quickly resolve it amicably and move on. I just trust that we are all working together for the same goal, and laying out a bunch of stringent rules for how to frame the way we communicate game details beforehand would feel adversarial. To me. I can't speak for anyone else. Like, reading a lot of these descriptions of in-game disputes makes me uncomfortable.

I do lay out some stringent rules for communication with my beginner players, but these have to do with speaking respectfully to each other, not assuming consent, waiting for your turn, etc. At my home games, it's just never come up; we all know each other well.

To be fair, I don't have the same experiences as other people. For example, I have never run game at a convention with adult strangers. When I am working with new players, I am automatically in an authority position as teacher/camp leader/adult. And at home I just run games with friends and family. So perhaps my experience of running games is more distinct than I know.

What exactly is "stringent" about asking for "I smash the vase with my bare hands" versus "I smash the vase?" It's certainly more precise, but some reasonable specificity can be needed to adjudicate fairly, and to avoid taking over the player's role in the game.

And as a reminder, if it's not clear, we ask. But most players in my experience, knowing that it will be asked, just do it up front to avoid that interruption in the flow of the game. It's only some posters who don't use this approach that have a problem with asking (since it can tip off the player that something is up, possibly leading to "metagaming" and "takebacks").

 

[Maxperson]

It may be a cultural thing, I guess. In the UK your approach sounds like it would be come across as rather rude. We tend not to appreciate that level of directness.

That's very possible. I've heard lots of stories and read articles that say that we Americans are much more direct than citizens of many other countries around the world. To my knowledge, nobody in my game has been offended by it.

 

[Gradine]

I think part of the disconnect is what matters and to whom.

Does it matter how the vase is broken, or does it not matter?

If it matters, then it matters, and the table needs to know.

If it doesn't matter, then it's a waste of time and energy to litigate the matter. The vase be smashed. Moving along.

What matters and to whom is going to be dependent on the DM and their players. At a table where a vague vase-smashing action is inexcusable, for whatever reason (verisimilitude, for one), the vagueness seems unlikely to come up at all, as detailed descriptions are sure to already be an important part of the table's culture. Even new players are only going to need to be asked "how" so many times before they get the picture.

At tables where the vase is unimportant so how it gets smashed is unimportant it's much easier to simply move on to the stuff that is important for the people at that table.

Different strokes, yucking yum, yadda yadda

 

[Lanefan]

I think part of the disconnect is what matters and to whom.

And, also, why it matters.

Does detail matter because of unknown elements in the fiction, or does it matter because of different expectations of specificity of narrration, or does it matter because someone else wants to interrupt the action and needs to know what they're interrupting, etc.

 

[Clint_L]

What exactly is "stringent" about asking for "I smash the vase with my bare hands" versus "I smash the vase?" It's certainly more precise, but some reasonable specificity can be needed to adjudicate fairly, and to avoid taking over the player's role in the game.

And as a reminder, if it's not clear, we ask. But most players in my experience, knowing that it will be asked, just do it up front to avoid that interruption in the flow of the game. It's only some posters who don't use this approach that have a problem with asking (since it can tip off the player that something is up, possibly leading to "metagaming" and "takebacks").

So, I was referring to "stringent" in the context of having a kind of set methodology for communication, which is the impression I am getting from some comments. We are often very casual in our table communication, only asking for clarification when needed but generally just going with the flow. I may have given the impression that metagaming is a big deal at my games; it seldom comes up as an issue and everyone agrees on not liking it, so as soon as someone starts doing it they generally out themselves and we laugh. More of an issue at school, but again that usually comes from more experienced players wanting to coach.

 

[iserith]

So, I was referring to "stringent" in the context of having a kind of set methodology for communication, which is the impression I am getting from some comments. We are often very casual in our table communication, only asking for clarification when needed but generally just going with the flow. I may have given the impression that metagaming is a big deal at my games; it seldom comes up as an issue and everyone agrees on not liking it, so as soon as someone starts doing it they generally out themselves and we laugh. More of an issue at school, but again that usually comes from more experienced players wanting to coach.

What is agreeing not to "metagame" but a "set methodology for communication?" If I can't use fire on the troll until the DM agrees that my character knows about trolls and fire, that's a methodology for communicating action in that some actions are off limits unless and until a process is followed to see if they are valid. That seems a great deal more "stringent" to me than just doing what I want, but being clear about how I do it.

 

[Gradine]

And, also, why it matters.

Does detail matter because of unknown elements in the fiction, or does it matter because of different expectations of specificity of narrration, or does it matter because someone else wants to interrupt the action and needs to know what they're interrupting, etc.

Or does it not matter at all because the vase is just set dressing and the players want to get to the more engaging content?

 

[pemerton]

there is no reason the DM can't be just as vague as the players: "I smash the vase" "Okay, the vase is smashed". Everyone can draw their own conclusion about how the vase was smashed, and it makes no difference.

But obviously this does make a difference in some circumstances - if it's the vase of exploding and doing 5d6 damage to everyone within 5' when smashed, for instance.

I think part of the disconnect is what matters and to whom.

Does it matter how the vase is broken, or does it not matter?

If it matters, then it matters, and the table needs to know.

If it doesn't matter, then it's a waste of time and energy to litigate the matter. The vase be smashed. Moving along.

What matters and to whom is going to be dependent on the DM and their players.

It's also an issue of how the game works and what sort of fiction it cares about. D&D, for instance, doesn't generally care whether a player is walking on tippy toes or on flat feet; some versions treat walking vs running as important, because these are different things according to the movement rules, but this pertains to action economy, not the movements of the characters feet, ankles, knees etc.

But D&D often does care about where a character is in a room (rules for triggering traps, for taking cover, for having line of sight, etc) or how much noise a character is making (this is a feature of the current version of the Knock spell, and is a consideration in the use of Stealth).

D&D generally doesn't care about a character's feelings towards someone when that player's character declares an action to affect that someone. Other RPGs do (eg In A Wicked Age distinguishes between actions done For Love or For Myself). On the other hand, D&D is oddly obsessive and complicated about what sort of weapon is used to make an attack (this affects mechanical aspects, like attack stat and damage, as well as interacting in quite precise ways with fictional minutiae like separation between opponents - eg attacking at reach with a pike is handled quite differently from closing and stabbing with a dagger).

The discussion about the vase seems to me to be taking place against a backdrop of assumptions about the ways in which D&D has often cared about details of architecture and furniture, going way back to classic modules like Castle Amber, KotB, ToH and White Plume Mountain, and reinforced by mapping conventions, expectations about what should be covered in a GM's notes, etc.

There's nothing "magical" about a RPG caring about some aspects of the shared fiction and not others. But I don't think there's anything wrong with a table having a reasonably clear sense of what is cared about, and expecting action declarations to respect that.

Like some tables playing modern RPGs will expect players to specify whether transactions happen via cash or credit card, whether phone calls are made on land lines or from "burner" phones, etc - because these are all relevant to being traced - whereas others will not, or will bundle such things into a "Covert Action" check or ability rather than looking to the details of the player's action declaration, etc.

One might prefer one or the other approach, but the logic of each is not particularly mysterious!

But making excuses for why your style works for you - such as needing that level of detail to determine whether or not the narration is "accurate" - doesn't mean anything other than you happen to like it. I don't need it, my players don't need it, it has never once caused a problem other than the incredibly rare correction that I assume happens with any style. The type of correction that I can't remember hitting for literally years.

I was reflecting back on the weekend and I did have to clarify at one point whether someone was intending to use intimidation or persuasion but it was just such a minor correction that it's the kind of thing I didn't even remember until now. There was no retcon, no player trying to get an edge, it just wasn't totally clear in the moment when they said "Get out of the way!"

So like you, if something isn't clear we just figure it out in the moment and move on.

It's not "making excuses" to express a preference for how one prefers to approach the game.

You don't mind figuring things out in the moment. Others find that that is not conducive to how they adjudicate play, in part because they put more emphasis on the distinction between player and GM roles in relation to how actions are declared and adjudicated. Those others are not "making excuses" any more than you are.

 

[pemerton]

So, I was referring to "stringent" in the context of having a kind of set methodology for communication, which is the impression I am getting from some comments. We are often very casual in our table communication

I don't get that impression at all. I just see certain expectations about how an action is declared, in terms of reference to the fiction, that rests on assumptions about what is typically salient and hence what is reasonably specific when playing a particular RPG.

One may or may not share such expectations. But they don't seem weird or hard to make sense of, or at odds with casualness (cf formality or structure).

 

[Umbran]

What's the correlation here?

After 27 pages of discussion, it isn't "going straight to". Indeed, after this much, we have a fairly winding path covering a good deal of territory from which folks can draw conclusions. There's oodles of implications and tone to be thought over.

None of the people advocating for clarity as to goal and approach have suggested anything about a bad faith relationship.

In your eyes, perhaps not. But, yours is not the only valid perspective, is it?