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

[iserith]

Which about sums it up, doesn't it? You believe everything you say is fact. Your disclaimer is nonsense, it's your way or the highway.

I'm sure if you search my posts for "in my view" or "in my experience" or "in my opinion" you'll find a lot of those instances. So no, I don't believe everything I say is fact. That would be another erroneous assertion on your part.

Some people don't like dictators. Even petty ones.

Good thing there are no dictators around here. Perhaps we can return to discussing DMing approaches, particularly as it relates to how to adjudicate characters attempting to break objects?

 

[greg kaye]

Sometimes it's a fact, not an opinion. My only wonder is why someone would allow themselves to get worked up into a hostile state over discussing DMing approaches. We're talking about how a player describes smashing a vase. A little perspective, perhaps.

If, at any stage, you could say something like "I have my approach and you have your approach and we can agree to differ", then that would be great.
But you seem like a dog with a bone that can't let go.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Good thing there are no dictators around here.

That is certainly a matter of opinion.

That would be another erroneous assertion on your part

Like the "erroneous assertion" that my game runs perfectly well without taking your approach?

 

[greg kaye]

Good thing there are no dictators around here. Perhaps we can return to discussing DMing approaches, particularly as it relates to how to adjudicate characters attempting to break objects?

So, can someone remain in your games and not make the extent of action description you require? (Again, run your table the way you like. It's a game and a dictatorial game approach can work).

 

[iserith]

If, at any stage, you could say something like "I have my approach and you have your approach and we can agree to differ", then that would be great.
But you seem like a dog with a bone that can't let go.

I've already said that several times upthread in various contexts. @Swarmkeeper even shared a document I created almost a decade ago showing I held the view that everyone can play however they want, and you appeared to reject that. I rather think that you're the one not able to let go. I'm more than willing to get back to the topic.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've already said that several times upthread in various contexts. @Swarmkeeper even shared a document I created almost a decade ago showing I held the view that everyone can play however they want, and you appeared to reject that.

You contradicted that yourself, by arguing with people who don't DM your way. Actions speak louder than words.

I rather think that you're the one not able to let go. I'm more than willing to get back to the topic.

An apology would be nice.

 

[iserith]

So, can someone remain in your games and not make the extent of action description you require? (Again, run your table the way you like. It's a game and a dictatorial game approach can work).

They'd have to endure me asking for clarification after their vague or uncommitted action declarations. It would not be ideal in my view, but perhaps the player has a learning difference that requires it.

I would advise against framing approaches to the game as "dictatorial."

 

[iserith]

You contradicted that yourself, by arguing with people who don't DM your way. Actions speak louder than words.

An apology would be nice.

Discussing the upsides and downsides of DMing approaches has nothing to do with people playing their own ways and enjoying it. Those two things are quite distinct and separate. There's no need for anyone to apologize here.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They'd have to endure me asking for clarification

Which is exactly what every DM does if a player doesn't give them sufficient information (and there is sometimes no way that a player can know what information is required) to make an adjudication. It's called playing the game, it's not a punishment.

Example: Player is confronted my a locked door. They possess a key. The player says "I put the key in the lock, turn it, and open the door". Has the player supplied sufficient information? In this case, no. turning the key clockwise unlocks the door, turning the key anticlockwise triggers a trap. So the DM needs to ask the player which way they turn the key. There is no way the player would have known that they needed to include the direction in which they turned the key in their declaration.

 

[greg kaye]

Good thing there are no dictators around here. Perhaps we can return to discussing DMing approaches, particularly as it relates to how to adjudicate characters attempting to break objects?

So, can someone remain in your games and not make the extent of action description you require? (Again, run your table the way you like. It's a game and a dictatorial game approach can work).

They'd have to endure me asking for clarification after their vague or uncommitted action declarations. It would not be ideal in my view, but perhaps the player has a learning difference that requires it.

I would advise against framing approaches to the game as "dictatorial."

"I smash the vase!" clear and committed!
vague: of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.
The statement is not vague!
uncommitted: not committed to a cause, activity, etc.
The statement shows full commitment.
Please, your attempts at Magic Wordsmithing, can't make words say things they don't mean.