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

[Oofta]

The problem I see is one person stating

1. "I think there is a problem, here's how I fix it".
2. Other people respond "I don't have that problem so I don't need to fix anything and here's what I do."
3. "But how do you fix the problem that I pointed out?" typically followed by a variation of "If you don't acknowledge the problem it's still there, you're just ignorant."

Step #1 is not an issue, a lot of people give advice for what works for their game. It's step #3 that's the issue. No matter how much iserith may claim they aren't pushing 1 true way they refuse to accept that their perceived problem is not an issue at other people's table. If they did accept it then they wouldn't continue to ask how people solve their perceived problem nor would they claim that the problem exists no matter what people state.

 

[greg kaye]

"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.

It is uncertain how the character smashes the vase.

I agree with that, but the statement is both clear and committed.
A comparatively vague statement would be, "I guess I'll do something with the vase" or "I'll smash something". You rightly state that the statement "I smash the vase" lacked description or something like that, but it's not vague. It's certainly not uncommitted.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fair enough and, as you've just referenced, different people perhaps with different groups may find different things to work. This is where the agree do differ thing can come in.

Never have I said people can’t differ on this.

It’s very strange to me how people seem to perceive anyone describing this DMing style as claiming that other styles don’t work, when no such claim is being made. Like, constantly, every time it comes up. This is why I didn’t want to respond to @Oofta ’s questioning about how I run things all the way back on the first couple pages. Because I knew this would happen, because it always does. I, @iserith, @Swarmkeeper, and others who use similar techniques seem to be unable to discuss our DMing approach openly on ENWorld without dozens of pages of people falsely accusing us of one-true-wayism ensuing.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem I see is one person stating

1. "I think there is a problem, here's how I fix it".
2. Other people respond "I don't have that problem so I don't need to fix anything and here's what I do."
3. "But how do you fix the problem that I pointed out?" typically followed by a variation of "If you don't acknowledge the problem it's still there, you're just ignorant."

Step #1 is not an issue, a lot of people give advice for what works for their game. It's step #3 that's the issue. No matter how much iserith may claim they aren't pushing 1 true way they refuse to accept that their perceived problem is not an issue at other people's table. If they did accept it then they wouldn't continue to ask how people solve their perceived problem nor would they claim that the problem exists no matter what people state.

What perceived problem do you think @iserith is refusing to accept isn’t an issue at other people’s tables?

 

[Oofta]

It is uncertain how the character smashes the vase.

The vast majority of time it doesn't matter. In the rare case that it does, I'll ask a clarifying question which has never caused an issue.

As someone pointed out above, what level of certainty is necessary? How is a player supposed to know? My example was going up to the vase, what side do you stand on? Because if you're standing on the right-hand side you fall into a pit. Another example was do you turn the key clockwise or counter-clockwise. One springs a trap, but that's not normally anything anyone would state as part of their action.

 

[Oofta]

What perceived problem do you think @iserith is refusing to accept isn’t an issue at other people’s tables?

The one he claims to be solving with goal and approach.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with that, but the statement is both clear and committed.
A comparatively vague statement would be, "I guess I'll do something with the vase" or "I'll smash something".

You agree that it’s unclear how the character smashes the vase, but the statement is clear? Huh?

 

[Oofta]

You agree that it’s unclear how the character smashes the vase, but the statement is clear? Huh?

How often is the detail of how they smash the vase relevant? How much detail do they need to give? If they smash the vase with their primary weapon, do they need to clarify a horizontal swing or a vertical? Full strength hitting a baseball out of the park swing or just hard enough to break it?

What level of detail is enough and how does anyone know?

 

[greg kaye]

You agree that it’s unclear how the character smashes the vase, but the statement is clear? ...

It is also clear that the action is to smash the vase.
It is certainly committed.
Additional information about how the character smashes the vase is not given but the statement itself is very clear. There is clearly a vase. It is clearly intended to be smashed. The minimal content of the words is crystal clear - or, in terms of the words used, not in the least vague. Do you agree, "I smash the vase" shows commitment?

 

[Charlaquin]

The vast majority of time it doesn't matter. In the rare case that it does, I'll ask a clarifying question which has never caused an issue.

Asking a clarifying question does create the opportunity for the player to metagame, if that’s a thing you care about. It also creates a break in the narrative to answer that clarifying question, rather than providing that clarity up-front. These things may not be a problem for you, and if so, that’s fine and dandy. But if you want to know why I prefer players to provide that clarity ahead of time, that’s why.

As someone pointed out above, what level of certainty is necessary? How is a player supposed to know? My example was going up to the vase, what side do you stand on? Because if you're standing on the right-hand side you fall into a pit.

I don’t generally like traps that depend on the characters’ position being that specific; unless you’re using a map and minis, and ask the players to move their minis exactly where their characters stand, but that’s a degree of granularity I don’t care for.

Another example was do you turn the key clockwise or counter-clockwise. One springs a trap, but that's not normally anything anyone would state as part of their action.

Again, that degree of specificity might be needed in something like the Tomb of Horrors wherein traps have such precise triggers. That’s generally too much specificity for my tastes. I just ask that players be “reasonably specific” in stating their goal and approach. “Reasonably specific” is like the Reasonable Person Standard in US law - it’s ultimately subjective, but there’s generally a common understanding of what constitutes “reasonable,” within a tolerable margin of error. If a player’s action declaration is not reasonably specific in my view, I’ll ask them to clarify. Since reasonable specificity is an expectation I set up front, this means such questions generally don’t raise any suspicion of danger, since I’ll ask them whether or not danger exists, and players who don’t have a clear sense of where the range of “reasonable specificity” lies will generally develop one pretty quickly based on when such clarifying questions are or aren’t asked.