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

[iserith]

That wouldn't matter to me.

But perhaps you can see how it matters to others and why, and how setting this standard mitigates against other problems people in this thread have reported having.

 

[greg kaye]

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?

Very rarely. But I think we're dealing with idealogues out to promote their own play style as the only one that works.

 

[greg kaye]

But perhaps you can see how it matters to others and why, and how setting this standard mitigates against other problems people in this thread have reported having.

Sure, if it matters to you, "YOU DO YOU!"
Please, please learn, we can agree to differ!!!

 

[greg kaye]

The question is how.

It's not my question.

 

[iserith]

Very rarely. But I think we're dealing with idealogues out to promote their own play style as the only one that works.

Ad hominems are unbecoming.

Sure, if it matters to you, "YOU DO YOU!"
Please, please learn, we can agree to differ!!!

Not sure why you keep raising this since it's been stated restated multiple times. If you don't want to continue the conversation, that's cool, just stop replying. I'm still happy to discuss the topic at hand if you are.

 

[Oofta]

Which is…?

Metagaming and takebacks for the most part as far as I can tell. Why do you feel it's important?

I simply ask people not metagame or change what their character does simply because I ask a clarifying question and I trust that they don't. Meanwhile the players trust me to give them a fair break when their PC should have had a chance to notice or otherwise know something.

 

[greg kaye]

Ad hominems are unbecoming. ...

True. I just took idealogues as people pushing ideals or ideas. That's the description I think well applies.

Not sure why you keep raising this since it's been stated restated multiple times. If you don't want to continue the conversation, that's cool, just stop replying. I'm still happy to discuss the topic at hand if you are.

If you stop making statements like, "The question is how" when its not my question. But you persist in making unbalanced and seeming universal assertions.
Yes, I can see how it matters to others. Yes, it matters to you. Fine.
How is not the question for me and for "others".

 

[iserith]

True. I just took idealogues as people pushing ideals or ideas. That's the description I think well applies.

If you stop making statements like, "The question is how" when its not my question. But you persist in making unbalanced and seeming universal assertions.
Yes, I can see how it matters to others. Yes, it matters to you. Fine.
How is not the question for me and for "others".

Right, and feel free to discuss the upsides of not asking for "how" or only occasionally asking for it. You mentioned "characterization" previously, but that can be achieved by saying how you smash the vase, too, via active and/or descriptive roleplaying. You also said "freedom" but it seems to me that not saying how you smash the vase, in Bacon Bits' approach which you endorsed, actually cedes your freedom to determine how your character acts and thinks to the DM. That suggests the player has less freedom to me, since they're no longer determining what their own character is doing. Thoughts?

 

[Deset Gled]

I just want to say that I've played and watched people play multiple RPGs for decades, and I have never once experienced anything remotely approaching this amount of existential turmoil over something as simple as breaking an object.

It just ain't this complicated, folks.

 

[Umbran]

You also said "freedom" but it seems to me that not saying how you smash the vase, in Bacon Bits' approach which you endorsed, actually cedes your freedom to determine how your character acts and thinks to the DM. That suggests the player has less freedom to me, since they're no longer determining what their own character is doing. Thoughts?

The player choosing to not care about the details, and not specify them, is still a choice - if they choose it, it isn't the GM taking that freedom away.