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

[Oofta]

I don't care for metagaming. So I ask people to not do it. Being reasonable adults, by and large people try to avoid it; every once in every other blue moon I have to call people out on it and ask them not to metagame. It works for me and my table.

The problem that I see with the proposed solution is that the definition and implementation is fuzzy. Now, maybe it's just that I'm dense and it would make more sense if I saw it in action but I don't see how - or more important why - the DM has to police their players and have them state actions in such a way as to prevent metagaming. It's easier just to ask them not to, at least for me.

But this horse died a long time ago. I simply ask people to not metagame so they don't. Other people try to run their game so that metagaming doesn't happen or they ignore it. I prefer my style and it seems to be quite widespread.

 

[iserith]

Techniques like this are great, as is the removal of those opportunities.

The very techniques I'm describing remove those opportunities. If the expectation of the table is that a player is reasonably specific in their action declarations to include goal and approach, we get something like "I smash the vase with my bare fist" instead of "I smash the vase." But for some, no doubt those extra 4 words which remove the opportunity for "metagaming" to arise is a bridge too far, a hoop through which they are unwilling to make players jump, a Rubicon that can never be crossed. They'd rather leave it open for the DM to assume or establish for the player what their character does and thinks, potentially creating conflict, or a space where the DM needs to ask clarifying questions which raises suspicion and incentivizes "metagaming" to occur. Does that make sense?

The DM is the one leaving the player to play in the style that they choose, and to face the consequences.

The consequences for "metagaming" being?

Because they also like freedom of choice?

The freedom of choice to do what? Freedom for players to choose to "metagame" or not to "metagame?" What does that add to your game if you dislike "metagaming?" You increase the risk of it occuring to your game, and the need to police it, and judge or even punish players that do it. Wouldn't it be easier to mitigate against those opportunities in the first place with with as few as 4 extra words?

 

[Charlaquin]

But I'd say centrally on the subject of tactics to sustain immersion.

Not at all. Nothing about a character knowing stuff about a monster breaks immersion - characters know stuff about monsters all the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't care for metagaming. So I ask people to not do it. Being reasonable adults, by and large people try to avoid it; every once in every other blue moon I have to call people out on it and ask them not to metagame. It works for me and my table.

Cool

The problem that I see with the proposed solution is that the definition and implementation is fuzzy. Now, maybe it's just that I'm dense and it would make more sense if I saw it in action but I don't see how - or more important why - the DM has to police their players and have them state actions in such a way as to prevent metagaming. It's easier just to ask them not to, at least for me.

First off, it’s again not about the way the players phrase the actions, it’s about what information the action declarations contain. I don’t care how you phrase it, all I care about is if it’s clear both what you’re doing and why. Second, preventing metagaming is not the point. As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t care about metagaming. The point is to insure I understand correctly what the players intentions are for their character without having to make assumptions or establish things for them, and to make resolving those actions easier for me. It would incidentally have the effect of preventing opportunities for metagaming if that was something I cared about, but it isn’t.

But this horse died a long time ago. I simply ask people to not metagame so they don't. Other people try to run their game so that metagaming doesn't happen or they ignore it. I prefer my style and it seems to be quite widespread.

Cool

 

[greg kaye]

The very techniques I'm describing remove those opportunities. ...

within, what I perceive to be, a relatively rigid style of play, but I've not sat in your games so I can't be sure. I certainly perceive you to be quite confrontational here.

.., we get something like "I smash the vase with my bare fist" instead of "I smash the vase." ...

Sure, I'll encourage that. I won't insist on it.

... , or a space where the DM needs to ask clarifying questions ...

or a space where players face the consequence of their chosen lack of precision/description.

The consequences for "metagaming" being?

That wasn't what I was talking about.

The freedom of choice to do what? ...

The freedom of players to present description to the level that they choose.

... What does that add to your game...?" ...

More freedom of player play style.

... You increase the risk of it occuring to your game, and the need to police it, and judge or even punish players that do it. ...

I try to be more of an adjudicator of fun games.

... Wouldn't it be easier to mitigate against those opportunities in the first place with with as few as 4 extra words?

Absolutely, and players are well advised to use them.

 

[Charlaquin]

The freedom of players to present description to the level that they choose.

Players don’t lack any such freedom in my games, or, I assume, @iserith’s. The expectation of goal and approach isn’t about requiring any particular degree of descriptive detail, it’s about insuring the information necessary to understand the fictional positioning is being communicated prior to action resolution.

 

[Oofta]

Cool

First off, it’s again not about the way the players phrase the actions, it’s about what information the action declarations contain. I don’t care how you phrase it, all I care about is if it’s clear both what you’re doing and why. Second, preventing metagaming is not the point. As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t care about metagaming. The point is to insure I understand correctly what the players intentions are for their character without having to make assumptions or establish things for them, and to make resolving those actions easier for me. It would incidentally have the effect of preventing opportunities for metagaming if that was something I cared about, but it isn’t.

Cool

But the issue seems to be

1. If the DM asks specifics about how they do something after they declare their action (in our case because the vase is trapped) it clues the player onto the fact that it's not just an ordinary interaction.
2. If the player feels that it's not an ordinary interaction they change what they would have otherwise done.

It's step 2 that I would call metagaming. I simply ask people not to do step 2. If I ask for clarification, it shouldn't affect how they were envisioning their action.

But part of this may well be that I rarely use traps, or poison. I think they're okay in some situations and they can add to the theme and tension of the scenario. When I do have traps, I will frequently ask the player if they want to check for traps first or I'll ask them to roll a check if I'm uncertain what their PC would think. Some styles of D&D have traps around every corner, I don't because traps in old school D&D were often illogical. Just think of the issues you'd have with OSHA!

So in either case, it's simply not an issue for me. I don't need a solution for a problem I don't have. As always do what works for you, life would be boring if we were all the same.

 

[greg kaye]

Not at all. Nothing about a character knowing stuff about a monster breaks immersion - characters know stuff about monsters all the time.

That may depend on the character but I generally side with your view as per the earlier reply that I made directly to Oofta.

... I'd expect that a good proportion of the inhabitants of a 5e world might have a better knowledge of the inhabitants of that world than many players would, especially if the character was a prospective adventurer.

It's just that Oofta seems to me as exceptionally knowledgeable and his question, I'd imagine, could be valid for many characters that might be created.
It certainly seems to me to have been a question made with respect to the world as presented by the presiding DM.

 

[iserith]

within, what I perceive to be, a relatively rigid style of play, but I've not sat in your games so I can't be sure.

Say "I smash the vase with my bare fist" instead of "I smash the vase" and leaving it a question as to how. What's rigid about this? The player is just describing what they want to do, which is part of their role in the game. The upside is I don't have to ask any clarifying questions (which some fear sets the stage for "metagaming") or decide for myself what the character does (which sets the stage for conflict with the player). I also, to the original topic, have the information I need to fairly adjudicate whether the character can break something. Can the vase be smashed with a bare fist? Yes, no, or maybe and, in the latter case, we roll for it if there's a meaningful consequence for failure.

Sure, I'll encourage that. I won't insist on it.

or a space where players face the consequence of their chosen lack of precision/description.

The freedom of players to present description to the level that they choose.

More freedom of player play style.

I suppose it could be a "playstyle" to be vague or noncommittal in your action declaration such that the DM needs to ask you clarifying questions about it and/or just say what your character is doing for you. It rather seems fraught with a lot of downsides that it seems many might agree is best avoided, including creating opportunities for "metagaming."

 

[greg kaye]

Say [things this way]...

They are adults but the same is relevant for children. People can choose how they present themselves.
from earlier:

... the need to police, ...

I don't want that.

... the DM needs to ... say what your character is doing for you. ...

Or just agree, "you leave a scattering of pottery shards."

... It rather seems fraught with a lot of downsides that it seems many might agree is best avoided, including creating opportunities for "metagaming."

I think it leaves freedom of expression. I could imagine:
Matthew Mercer: ~"You enter the chamber where there's a vase on a pedestal".
Travis Willingham playing Grog Strongjaw: "I smash the vase."
I'd suspect the DM and player in this situation would be cool with this.