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

[Swarmkeeper]

the player is playing "Persuade the DM" not playing D&D

This is not happening at our tables, yet you insist on marching out this... less than charitable assessment... quite often when this discussion of "goal and approach" comes up. Why?

 

[Oofta]

This is not happening at our tables, yet you insist on marching out this... less than charitable assessment... quite often when this discussion of "goal and approach" comes up. Why?

The example was quite clear. The player had to convince the DM to give her even a chance to notice the trap. Then, because of a description of how to disable a trap, no roll was needed.

I call that playing the DM, I'm not sure what else to call it. If that's the type of game for you, great. It's just not for me and never has bee.

 

[Clint_L]

I don’t even care if my players metagame, so a lack of trust has nothing to do with it for me. But, for someone who did care about that, preferring a technique which didn’t create opportunities to metagame over relying on the players choosing not to metagame doesn’t indicate a lack of trust.

I just don't understand why I wouldn't expect the players to act in character automatically. What does it matter if they have more information than their characters would? Are we role-playing, or are we not? This is a two-way street - the characters trust that even though I know most of their character details and am right there at the table while they come up with a plan, I am going to play the creatures and NPCs as if they don't have any of that knowledge. Like, I am not going to have the zombies suddenly disperse themselves as widely as possible just because I know the wizard has fireball prepared.

Can't we just mutually assume that as we are cooperating to create a shared story, we will all approach the game with the intention of embracing the logic of the story?

 

[Lanefan]

One time I had a player declare that she wanted to check a door for traps. I responded “I’m hearing that you want to find out if the door is trapped; what does your character do to try and find that out?” She initially said “something my character who’s trained in perception and investigation would think of that I can’t?” to which I said, “I understand you’re not an expert in trapfinding; neither am I. I just need to know what your character is doing in the world of the game so I can determine if it could succeed, if it could fail, and if there are any potential consequences for failing. Just go with something that seems reasonable to you, and I will do my best to interpret that generously.” She said she gave the door and the seams around it a thorough visual inspection, and I determined that this would have a chance of resulting in her seeing through the seam at the top that there was a lever, which would trigger a bell to ring when the door opened. I called for a check, she passed, and saw the lever.

Cool!

Now, does the player have to do this every time, or after a few times can she establish a check-the-door-for-traps SOP so as to avoid the repetition?

 

[Charlaquin]

So either you trust your players or you don't. We agree on that. The point was raised that one of the reasons to have goal and approach is because it will remove opportunity from the players. If I trust my players, I don't need to remove opportunity. Therefore for me there is no reason to put a check in the "reasons to use" column.

Right, so "It isn't necessary for me because I trust my players not to metagame." That makes that particular advantage of the technique not applicable to you - it's not applicable to me either, since I don't care about metagaming anyway. However, that alone isn't a reason not to use the technique. There are presumably reasons you prefer what you do - either advantages of your technique, disadvantages of mine, or both. That's what I was asking about your perspective on.

I've given my reasons upthread on why I don't like it, the only thing you seem bothered by is the trust issue.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall you giving such reasons. But it looks like you're going on to list them again, so thanks for repeating yourself for my benefit

Having to describe how I check for traps would be annoying and frustrating to me. If I, or a player, wants to add some fluff that's fine. Change the outcome? Heck no. I would no more want to have to describe how I check for traps than I would give the actual incantation for casting Bless. In your example? Only getting a check because the described something successfully and then succeeding in disarming without a roll? Big Bozo no-no from me.

That makes sense. Much as being told by the DM what my character does is a "Big Bozo no-no" from me.

Because as a DM I have tells. Someone who has known me and played with me will know my style.

I'm not sure what tells you mean. Tells for what? I'm not like... trying to bluff my players...

If Jo is playing a rogue, it should not matter if they are capable of coming up with a good description.

The quality of the description is not the relevant point for me. An action that couldn't succeed in its goal will still fail even if described flawlessly. An action that couldn't fail to achieve its goal will still succeed even if described terribly. An action that could succeed or fail and has meaningful consequences will require a roll regardless of the quality of the description.

The PC doing the action matters at the level of in-world resolution of uncertain actions, not the player.

Right, but first we have to determine whether or not the outcome of the action is uncertain. That requires either knowing what the character is doing in the fiction, or abstracting that fictional action. For me, leaving it abstract isn't an option, and neither is establishing for the playe what their character does. So, for me, the only option is to ask the player to do the describing.

I think this whole "getting or automatically passing a check because of player skill instead of PC skill" is likely one of the biggest gulfs between our styles.

Probably.

I'm not sure I would want to play in a game where this happens, the player is playing "Persuade the DM" not playing D&D.

Not at all. It's not about persuading me, it's about using the tools at your disposal to come up with a plan of action that would be likely to result in achieving your goals. That, to me, is what playing D&D is all about

I first had people suggest things like this in 1E, I had the same answer back then. I don't let the fighter automatically hit because they can explain how they're swinging a sword, player can give an eloquent speech that brings tears to the eyes of everyone there and it's still going to be a persuasion roll.The DC might be modified by the content of their speech, but not by their thespian skills.

Agreed. Though, I'd probably word it as "I set the DC based on how well their approach aligns with the NPCs' goals and personality traits" rather than "the DC might be modified by the content of their speech."

NOTE: there is a big difference between climbing in a window thus avoiding the trapped door and describing how you're disabling the trap on the door. The former is bypassing an obstacle, the latter is IMHO playing "convince the DM".

Different strokes and all.

Again, the point isn't to convince me, it's to come up with a strategy that minimizes or eliminates the risk of failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

The example was quite clear. The player had to convince the DM to give her even a chance to notice the trap. Then, because of a description of how to disable a trap, no roll was needed.

She didn't have to convince me of anything, she simply had to state what her character was trying to do and how. And no roll was needed not because of how they described their attempt to disable the trap, but because they came up with an approach that eliminated the risk of failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just don't understand why I wouldn't expect the players to act in character automatically.

To paraphrase the EGG-man himself, the player is making-believe he or she is the character, therefore whatever action the player decides the character takes is, by definition, in character.

What does it matter if they have more information than their characters would? Are we role-playing, or are we not?

Agreed, though probably not in the sense you were thinking. So what if the player has information the character wouldn't? Think of the proverbial troll, and assume for the sake of argument that the players' characters don't know about trolls and fire. Maybe because the DM decreed it to be the case, or maybe they all decided it for themselves, it doesn't matter for the purpose of this point. The character could still decide to attack it with fire, for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with knowing that it's weak to fire. Therefore, in my view, they should be allowed to do so. This example can be extrapolated to any action. Just because the player has access to information the character might not have, they should not, in my view, be forbidden from taking actions that said information might lead them to consider optimal; the character should still be able to decide to take that action for other reasons.

This is a two-way street - the characters trust that even though I know most of their character details and am right there at the table while they come up with a plan, I am going to play the creatures and NPCs as if they don't have any of that knowledge. Like, I am not going to have the zombies suddenly disperse themselves as widely as possible just because I know the wizard has fireball prepared.

I mean, I wouldn't do that because I just don't think it would be very fun for the players. It doesn't have to be about metagaming.

Can't we just mutually assume that as we are cooperating to create a shared story, we will all approach the game with the intention of embracing the logic of the story?

If we're creating the story together, we have the power to make it a story whose logic that action does fit.

 

[Charlaquin]

Cool!

Now, does the player have to do this every time, or after a few times can she establish a check-the-door-for-traps SOP so as to avoid the repetition?

I mean, if she wanted to check every door the same way, she would be free to establish that as an SOP, sure. In my view, that would be a poor strategy - you'll likely end up wasting a lot of time scrutinizing untrapped doors, and might end up walking into traps that can't be detected by a simple visual inspection. Better, in my view, to pay attention to the description of the environment and decide on a case-by-case basis what the best course of action would be in that particular instance. But, certainly, the player could abdicate that decision-making to an SOP if she wanted to take that risk.

 

[Umbran]

They've given their freedom to choose away.

They used their freedom to choose - they chose to not choose. That is still a choice, and exercise of that freedom.

It just may result in clarifying questions, which some posters suggest has some downsides.

There is no way to go about any form of action declaration in RPGs that doesn't have some downsides. There is no perfect form. So "it has some downsides" isn't a compelling assertion, to me.

Having a bit of clarification, meanwhile, can have some upsides, too. In general, action declarations are supposed to be (more or less) informed choices. A player who gives what the GM feels is a less-than-complete declaration may well be doing so because the GM has failed to properly inform the player of the situation/stakes. The clarification loop is an opportunity to inform the player more fully/clearly.

Any analysis of the declaration-resolution loop that focuses only on player-side issues forgets that GMs are imperfect human beings.

 

[Clint_L]

To paraphrase the EGG-man himself, the player is making-believe he or she is the character, therefore whatever action the player decides the character takes is, by definition, in character.

This is an unworkable definition of role-playing. It is exactly like an actor claiming “I am acting as a prohibition era gangster, so whatever choices I make are by definition in character as a prohibition era gangster. So don’t tell me my surfer accent, fidget spinner, and Starbucks cup are out of character, Mr. Critic.” It’s a circular argument, assuming its premise as a conclusion. It has no meaning.

For example, what is to stop the player from sitting there with a copy of the adventure and reading out what happens next to everyone? By that definition, they are just acting in character. As long as they say the magic words “this is in character,” anything goes. A definition that includes anything means nothing.

I think this “definition” only works if you are playing DnD as a war game and trying to win, not playing it as a TTRPG. ie if the story is irrelevant. But for us, the story is the whole point.