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

[Oofta]

I don’t know how to be more clear or specific than I have been. I have given you specific examples in past threads. At this point, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it. And I don’t know why you even care, let alone have such a deep investment in it that you drag this out every time the subject even tangentially comes up. I don’t want to block you, I otherwise enjoy discussions with you, but I’m just done talking to you about this subject. Sorry if that’s dissatisfying. Maybe you can go back and read old threads where we’ve talked about it before and if you have specific questions, DM them to me or something.

I did ask a specific question, or at least thought I did. In my example of messaging the guard, what would you have done and how do you feel it would have been beneficial. What different approach would you take other than just making sure you understand what action a PC is taking? Whether that's messaging an NPC or punching a battleship.

If you don't want to discuss I'll drop it. It's just that a statement of "stating goal and approach" can solve issues (or works better for you or whatever) doesn't mean much to, well, most people if they don't already know what you mean and agree with you.

Sorry if I made a big deal out of this without meaning to ... trying once again to reduce caffeine intake to a reasonable amount.

 

[Charlaquin]

I did ask a specific question, or at least thought I did. In my example of messaging the guard, what would you have done and how do you feel it would have been beneficial. What different approach would you take other than just making sure you understand what action a PC is taking? Whether that's messaging an NPC or punching a battleship.

If you don't want to discuss I'll drop it. It's just that a statement of "stating goal and approach" can solve issues (or works better for you or whatever) doesn't mean much to, well, most people if they don't already know what you mean and agree with you.

Sorry if I made a big deal out of this without meaning to ... trying once again to reduce caffeine intake to a reasonable amount.

It’s cool, sorry if I came across as obtuse, I just feel like the benefit of asking for additional clarity was self-evident in the case under discussion in this thread, in which the OP explicitly stated that the player may have had a different goal that the DM assumed or forgotten to mention details of their approach, and that those facts were the specific reasons they would rule the way they do.

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. Likewise, in the example that started this whole tangent, the action declaration “I try to destroy the warship with one punch” is also a complete action declaration in my mind. It includes both a goal (destroy the warship) and an approach (punch it once). That’s everything I need to know to determine how to resolve the action. It would, at my table, fail without a roll of any kind being called for, because at least in the kinds of worlds I like to run in D&D, even the strongest playable character would not be able to destroy a warship by punching it a single time. Maybe it would be more plausible in a game using the genre conventions of superhero comics, but not my D&D games.

For an example of an action declaration that isn’t complete to my mind, look at the “I smash the vase” one from earlier in this thread. As I said in my response to that post, that tells me what the player wants to happen as a result of their action (for the vase to be broken), but not what their character is doing to try and accomplish that. Are they picking it up and throwing it against the wall? Are they pushing it over and allowing it to fall to the floor? Are they bringing the pommel of their sword down on it? Are they squeezing it between their hands as hard as they can? The reason this information matters is that it might be relevant in how I resolve the action. For example, maybe the vase contains valuables that could be damaged or lost when it’s thrown. Or maybe it’s coated with a contact poison*. Or maybe it’s sitting on a pressure-sensitive plate like the idol in the opening scene of raiders of the lost arc. There are all sorts of reasons I might need to know how the character is going about trying to smash the vase in order to determine the possible results of that action and make the best call as to what rules (if any) need to be invoked to resolve any uncertainty in the possible results.

And as @Lanefan pointed out, in a post that you liked, if I were to accept “I smash the vase” alone as a general rule and only asked for additional detail when it’s relevant, asking for additional detail would indicate to the player that it is relevant, and may impact their decision making. Maybe they were imagining squeezing the vase between their hands, but the fact that I asked them how they try to smash it makes them suspicious, so instead they decide to nudge it off its platform with a 10-foot pole instead. And certainly if I simply assume how they go about trying to smash the vase, there’s a high likelihood that the player will take issue with my assumptions, especially if the action has any negative outcomes they think they might have been able to avoid had they gone about it a different way (whether or not they had any action intentions of doing it in the hypothetical way they imagine would have prevented those consequences).

Better, in my mind, to make the general rule that action declarations must always include both goal and approach. Excessive detail is not necessary - as we’ve seen “I cast message and say [whatever]” and “I try to destroy the warship in one punch” are perfectly sufficient action declarations by this standard. The suggestion I give if anyone is unsure whether an action declaration includes the necessary information is, if you can phrase it as “I try to __ by __,” it will in almost all cases be sufficient. And the nice thing is, by setting this standard, I can always ask for clarification if needed, without making the player think there’s something specific about this action that they need to be cautious of. Because that information is a requirement for all actions.

*For the record, I don’t actually use contact poison as a trap, because it doesn’t make a lick of sense. It’s just a convenient example of a reason it might be relevant whether or not a character touches a vase.

 

[Oofta]

It’s cool, sorry if I came across as obtuse, I just feel like the benefit of asking for additional clarity was self-evident in the case under discussion in this thread, in which the OP explicitly stated that the player may have had a different goal that the DM assumed or forgotten to mention details of their approach, and that those facts were the specific reasons they would rule the way they do.

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. Likewise, in the example that started this whole tangent, the action declaration “I try to destroy the warship with one punch” is also a complete action declaration in my mind. It includes both a goal (destroy the warship) and an approach (punch it once). That’s everything I need to know to determine how to resolve the action. It would, at my table, fail without a roll of any kind being called for, because at least in the kinds of worlds I like to run in D&D, even the strongest playable character would not be able to destroy a warship by punching it a single time. Maybe it would be more plausible in a game using the genre conventions of superhero comics, but not my D&D games.

For an example of an action declaration that isn’t complete to my mind, look at the “I smash the vase” one from earlier in this thread. As I said in my response to that post, that tells me what the player wants to happen as a result of their action (for the vase to be broken), but not what their character is doing to try and accomplish that. Are they picking it up and throwing it against the wall? Are they pushing it over and allowing it to fall to the floor? Are they bringing the pommel of their sword down on it? Are they squeezing it between their hands as hard as they can? The reason this information matters is that it might be relevant in how I resolve the action. For example, maybe the vase contains valuables that could be damaged or lost when it’s thrown. Or maybe it’s coated with a contact poison*. Or maybe it’s sitting on a pressure-sensitive plate like the idol in the opening scene of raiders of the lost arc. There are all sorts of reasons I might need to know how the character is going about trying to smash the vase in order to determine the possible results of that action and make the best call as to what rules (if any) need to be invoked to resolve any uncertainty in the possible results.

And as @Lanefan pointed out, in a post that you liked, if I were to accept “I smash the vase” alone as a general rule and only asked for additional detail when it’s relevant, asking for additional detail would indicate to the player that it is relevant, and may impact their decision making. Maybe they were imagining squeezing the vase between their hands, but the fact that I asked them how they try to smash it makes them suspicious, so instead they decide to nudge it off its platform with a 10-foot pole instead. And certainly if I simply assume how they go about trying to smash the vase, there’s a high likelihood that the player will take issue with my assumptions, especially if the action has any negative outcomes they think they might have been able to avoid had they gone about it a different way (whether or not they had any action intentions of doing it in the hypothetical way they imagine would have prevented those consequences).

Better, in my mind, to make the general rule that action declarations must always include both goal and approach. Excessive detail is not necessary - as we’ve seen “I cast message and say [whatever]” and “I try to destroy the warship in one punch” are perfectly sufficient action declarations by this standard. The suggestion I give if anyone is unsure whether an action declaration includes the necessary information is, if you can phrase it as “I try to __ by __,” it will in almost all cases be sufficient. And the nice thing is, by setting this standard, I can always ask for clarification if needed, without making the player think there’s something specific about this action that they need to be cautious of. Because that information is a requirement for all actions.

*For the record, I don’t actually use contact poison as a trap, because it doesn’t make a lick of sense. It’s just a convenient example of a reason it might be relevant whether or not a character touches a vase.

I'm not certain we're that far apart in actual game play but the reason it's confusing is because "I message and say ___" doesn't seem to fit the pattern, it's just an action declaration. As far as the vase, those are tricky but they almost never come up in my game because A) contact poison doesn't make sense to me either and B) even if the vase was for example cursed, the exact method of it's destruction wouldn't matter. So, like the other post I might ask some clarification but I don't do gotcha DMing so it's not an issue.

But I think this is one of those cases where short of actually sitting down and watching a live stream of each other's games we're just not going to further the conversation. Sorry for derailing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not certain we're that far apart in actual game play but the reason it's confusing is because "I message and say ___" doesn't seem to fit the pattern, it's just an action declaration.

The “I try to __ by __” template isn’t necessary, it’s just an easy format to use if you’re unsure whether an action declaration would include both goal and approach or not. You could phrase the message declaration that way if you wanted to - e.g. “I try to send him the message [whatever] by casting the message spell.” It’d be a stilted way to express that, but it would convey the same information, which as I’ve said repeatedly in these discussions is the only thing I care about, not the specific verbiage. That’s why I phrased the recommendation the way I did: If you can phrase your action in the form “I try to __ by __,” it’s almost certainly a complete action declaration. You don’t have to actually phrase it that way if you don’t want to, but if you could do so, it probably contains all the information I need to adjudicate the action.

But I think this is one of those cases where short of actually sitting down and watching a live stream of each other's games we're just not going to further the conversation. Sorry for derailing.

I suspect you’re right that it’s not vastly different from the way you run your games. Probably the most obvious difference is that I love dungeons, which I know are not your cup of tea. I strongly favor what I call location-based adventures, where the focus is mainly on exploring a dangerous location like a dungeon and the storytelling, such as it is, is largely environmental. This as opposed to what I call event-based games, where the focus is on an unfolding sequence of events, more akin to an ongoing narrative featuring the PCs.

In terms of differences in technique though, there’s a thing I’ve seen a lot of DMs do, not sure if you do this: a player will declare an action in pretty vague terms (sometimes even just saying “I make a __ check), the DM will call for a roll, and then the DM will narrate the action in more detail based on the results of the roll. That’s something that I specifically avoid; I prefer for the details to be established by the player before I call for a roll, and in any post-roll narration I do describes the effects of the declared action on the environment, avoiding adding or altering details to the character’s action as the player described it. That’s something that’s very important to me, I want the characters’ actions to be under the sole purview of the player, and do everything I can to limit my narration strictly to the environment and non-player characters and monsters within it.

 

[Lanefan]

If the players understand the expectation is to state their approach to the goal to make it a valid action declaration the DM can then adjudicate, then there's no asking for "picky extra details."

IME the minute I ask "How?" is the minute trouble starts.

Instead, on "I smash the vase" if there's contact poison on the vase I'd ask for a d20 roll (without saying why) - a difficult perception check to notice the poison. If that failed there'd be a saving throw, success on which would mean the vase was hit with something other than a hand. If that failed then there'd be the save vs the poison itself.

This also avoids conflict that arises from assuming or establishing what the characters are doing in a moment of dramatic tension. If I'm asking for a Constitution saving throw after a declaration of "I smash the vase" because I know there's a contact poison on it, and the player imagined their character knocking the vase onto the floor with their quarterstaff instead of their hands, we now have to resolve this. Getting it established by the player (who is who gets to say what the character does anyway, not the DM) up front means we don't have that problem, in addition to painting a more reasonably detailed scene during play.

If a player says something quickly and rashly, as in "I smash the vase" without further details, I interpret that to mean the character is acting without forethought. If I start asking even as little as "How?", forethought will start to retroactively creep in and what was an impulsive act won't be any more.

If you say you're doing something and don't say how, you've in effect ceded the determination of "how" to me-as-DM, or to the dice.

 

[greg kaye]

It amazes me that in a thread about clarity, people use abbreviations.
I doubt i'm the only one forced to make history checks (in my case failing) and the rigmarole of investigation checks (still failing).

experience

 

[Charlaquin]

IME the minute I ask "How?" is the minute trouble starts.

Instead, on "I smash the vase" if there's contact poison on the vase I'd ask for a d20 roll (without saying why) - a difficult perception check to notice the poison. If that failed there'd be a saving throw, success on which would mean the vase was hit with something other than a hand. If that failed then there'd be the save vs the poison itself.

If a player says something quickly and rashly, as in "I smash the vase" without further details, I interpret that to mean the character is acting without forethought. If I start asking even as little as "How?", forethought will start to retroactively creep in and what was an impulsive act won't be any more.

If you say you're doing something and don't say how, you've in effect ceded the determination of "how" to me-as-DM, or to the dice.

You wouldn’t have to ask how if it was an expectation that explaining how be a required part of all action declarations.

 

[greg kaye]

If you say you're doing something and don't say how, you've in effect ceded the determination of "how" to me-as-DM, or to the dice.

Yeah, it's been ceded but could optionally be given back. The vase is effectively being reduced to 0 hp and a "how do you do this?" question is still an option costing time.. but potentially allowing player flavour...

 

[Plaguescarred]

I let them break any item they want it's a roleplaying game where they're free to do any actions they can possibly do, with the consequences that may come with it,

 

[greg kaye]

I let them break any item they want it's a roleplaying game where they're free to do any actions they can possibly do, with the consequences that may come with it,

Absolutely, but my reservations would be if the player-stated actions didn't fit with the player-created character and previous characterisation.

...
A player looks at an object of indescript material, location, and size.
...

In this case, it's the character that looks and might have a chance to gain information by looking. It's the player/GM interaction that has, for whatever reason, not conveyed a further description of the object's material, location, and size...

What if, for instance, a character has not-in-the-least-dumped scores in int and wis, and, potentially, proficiencies in perception and investigation? Is the impulse action out of sync with their previous roleplayed behaviour?
Sure, if even a perceptive investigator has a history as a vase smash hobo, let it carry on. Otherwise, a dice role and perhaps a check on the character's insight mod (depending on the circumstances) could fit.