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

[greg kaye]

The handle has a deadly contact poison on it.
(The barkeep rightfully hates adventurers.)

Are you this DM?

Player: I buy an ale from the bar.
DM: do you hold it by the handle or around the glass?

 

[Charlaquin]

But that goes back to why would the details of the action matter? Can you give an example of where the details of how they smash the vase or any other similar action would matter?

I did - there could be something inside the vase that might be at risk depending on how the vase is broken; the vase may be cursed or coated in contact poison; it may be on a pressure-sensitive plate like in Raiders of the Lost Arc; it might be some kind of mimic; it might be an illusion. There are countless reasons it might matter. Moreover, by making the “how?” a required part of all action declarations even when it doesn’t matter, asking how if the player forgets to include that detail stops being an indication that there’s something special about this particular action.

 

[Oofta]

I did - there could be something inside the vase that might be at risk depending on how the vase is broken;

If you're applying enough force to break it, method of smashing would rarely matter. Taking a moment to investigate the vase might be a good idea, but I'm not going to change the result of being smashed with a hammer or someone's forehead.

the vase may be cursed or coated in contact poison;

Contact poison is dumb. Not only is it nonsensical because of how quickly it would dry, many PCs are going to have heavy leather gloves which will stop it.

it may be on a pressure-sensitive plate like in Raiders of the Lost Arc;

In which case it's going to go off no matter how you smash it.

it might be some kind of mimic;

Which will attack no matter what, roll for initiative.

it might be an illusion.

Makes no difference if your hand or your weapon passes through it.

There are countless reasons it might matter. Moreover, by making the “how?” a required part of all action declarations even when it doesn’t matter, asking how if the player forgets to include that detail stops being an indication that there’s something special about this particular action.

If it ever mattered I'd just casually ask "So you're smashing it with you [primary weapon]?" If they then state that they aren't really smashing it I'll call shenanigans, they can't take back a declared action like that.

When in a recent game you've run has this mattered?

 

[Charlaquin]

Because I treat my players with respect and expect them to adhere to the rules we've set down at the table as part of the social contract?

If this is your reason, you are implying that people who prefer to prevent opportunities to metagame don’t respect their players. I assume that wasn’t your intention?

Because goal and approach feels artificial and unnecessary to me? Because I want people to be comfortable playing the game and because the vast majority of times the briefest action declaration necessary keeps the game flowing?

Those are valid reasons. Thanks.

But I'll ask for what feels like about the zillionth time: why do you think "I smash the vase" is not adequate? Can you give an actual example of something you feel could come up in your game that would be equivalent that it would matter?

See my previous post.

We can lob the same philosophical platitudes back and forth all day. But all you've said about "I smash the vase" is that it's not specific enough for you without explaining why or provided any example at all of when it would not be.

I have provided examples multiple times now, and again, part of the point is to require both goal and approach whether it matters in any particular given instance or not.

 

[Oofta]

It's the DM's way of soft-banning Dwarf PCs.

Nah, just the dainty ones who don't just grab it like a dwarf around the throat and chug it down. Handles are for wimps and elves.

 

[Charlaquin]

We don't do a lot of vase smashing in my game, but saying "You go up to the vase and smash it with your axe [pause just for long enough for the player to correct me], it breaks into a hundred pieces." would not be out of character for my game. Sometimes I add fluff, sometimes the player adds fluff.

But the details of how the vase is smashed? Fluff.

Yeah, in my games, "You go up to the vase and smash it with your axe [pause just for long enough for the player to correct me], it breaks into a hundred pieces" wouldn’t fly, because I like to keep the PCs’ actions strictly under the players’ purview. That’s something a lot of other groups are comfortable with having some wiggle-room on, but for me it’s a hard rule.

 

[greg kaye]

... Contact poison is dumb. Not only is it nonsensical because of how quickly it would dry, many PCs are going to have heavy leather gloves which will stop it.
...

Hmmm. How shall we poison this drink? I know, let's smear some expensive and likely detectable contact poison specifically on the handle.

 

[Charlaquin]

Player: I buy an ale from the bar.
DM: do you hold it by the handle or around the glass?

I don’t generally handle in-town activity at that degree of granularity. Where time is measured in minutes and hours in the dungeon (or other adventuring locations), it’s handled in days and weeks in town. We might roleplay a quick interaction here and there in town, but generally, town is where adventure isn’t, so this kind of thing would never happen there.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, in my games, "You go up to the vase and smash it with your axe [pause just for long enough for the player to correct me], it breaks into a hundred pieces" wouldn’t fly, because I like to keep the PCs’ actions strictly under the players’ purview. That’s something a lot of other groups are comfortable with having some wiggle-room on, but for me it’s a hard rule.

You made the assertion that people would not like the DM describing a detail of their actions. It happens on a regular basis on games I run, play and on actual play streams I listen to. Whether you choose to do it is up to you. To me it's meaningless fluff and it doesn't matter if the DM or player adds it in.

 

[Oofta]

If this is your reason, you are implying that people who prefer to prevent opportunities to metagame don’t respect their players. I assume that wasn’t your intention?

If you don't trust your players enough to simply ask them to not metagame, yeah it does follow that there is a lack of trust. If it works for you that's fine, I also don't think it's necessary. I'm just trying to explain why the justification "Because the players may do something I don't like unless I prevent it" is not something that sits easy with me.

Those are valid reasons. Thanks.

See my previous post.

I have provided examples multiple times now, and again, part of the point is to require both goal and approach whether it matters in any particular given instance or not.

Okay, but I'm asking for a real example from a real game.