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

[Charlaquin]

The thing is that "clarity" is subjective. So, discussion and disagreement around it was to be expected.

Literally the OP explicitly said that the player in the example might have a different goal than the DM assumed, so I suggested making it a general rule that players explicitly state their goal when declaring an action.

 

[greg kaye]

They’re doing no such thing. You seem to be perceiving people simply discussing their preferred approaches - under intense and hostile scrutiny I might add - as “trying to knock down other contributors.” It’s bizarre how threatened people seem to be by this approach. Like, this whole thing started because I dared to suggest that the OP set an expectation for their players to clearly state their intentions when they declare actions (in response to an explicit suggestion that sometimes the player’s intentions may be different than the DM assumed).

Was that here?:

So just ask for clarification. Or better yet, just make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach.

I guess that may indeed have been one of the things that could have got people's backs up.
Could a presentation of a play style as better than others that are played elsewhere have contributed to annoyance?

 

[Charlaquin]

Was that here?:

Yes

I guess that may indeed have been one of the things that could have got people's backs up.
Could a presentation of a play style as better than others that are played elsewhere have contributed to annoyance?

Nowhere else does such casual use of such a common turn of phrase lead to 20 pages of heated debate. Something about this style of play in particular definitely seems to rub a lot of people around here the wrong way. My guess is that it reminds them of bad experiences they’ve had playing with DMs who were in fact playing “gotcha” and/or forcing the players to try to persuade them rather than engaging earnestly with the fiction, and those folks simply can’t believe that we aren’t secretly just like those bad DMs they’ve played with in the past.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It does, yes. However, if the group reaches a door and I know that there's nothing in the area and nothing coming, if they tell me that the are going to get an axe and break it down, I don't make them roll to hit and do damage. I just narrate them chopping through the door, which is I think what the OP is asking. "Do you just let PCs just break objects?" isn't the same as "Do you always just let PCs break objects?"

Talk about clarity needing being asked for: When I posted what you quoted, I was under the impression that the OP was asking if it was possible (in our games) to ever break anything, not whether or not we sometimes allow people to break something without rolling.

Of course we do. Why wouldn't we?

I think what the OP actually wanted out of this discussion, which appears to be, "Under what circumstances do you allow a player to break an object? When do you ask for a roll? At what point do you declare it impossible?"

So my answer would be:
Small, unimportant (or weak) objects break on player declaration.
Bigger objects (in particular during combat) require rolls.
Even bigger objects (say, siege weapons or castle gates) require multiple checks (usually damage dealt, like they're a monster).
If destroying it isn't part of the story, then it's impossible.

 

[iserith]

Was that here?:

I guess that may indeed have been one of the things that could have got people's backs up.
Could a presentation of a play style as better than others that are played elsewhere have contributed to annoyance?

Certain approaches are sometimes better at achieving certain goals. That's true of more than just how to conduct RPGs. Using a hammer is better than a screwdriver when driving in a nail. The larger question is why anyone would choose to get angry and go on the attack just because it's suggested that a hammer might be better than a screwdriver in that one use case. We're talking about DMing techniques, not going after someone personally.

 

[greg kaye]

Yes

Nowhere else does such casual use of such a common turn of phrase lead to 20 pages of heated debate. Something about this style of play in particular definitely seems to rub a lot of people around here the wrong way. My guess is that it reminds them of bad experiences they’ve had playing with DMs who were in fact playing “gotcha” and/or forcing the players to try to persuade them rather than engaging earnestly with the fiction, and those folks simply can’t believe that we aren’t secretly just like those bad DMs they’ve played with in the past.

I don't doubt that history could have produced far, far worse. It's a shame because your:

So just ask for clarification. Or better yet, just make it as expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach.

... is so close to my preference that action declarations include both a goal and an approach. Is having this as a preference better than having it as an expectation? That's what I believe. But I won't evangelize the "technique" or variously push it as better as various contributors here have done.
My advice here is, if you have a goal, consider your approach, else others will be justified with push back and reaction.

 

[Oofta]

@Charlaquin you asked for negatives ...
When evaluating an issue with multiple solutions I frequently come up with a check list - positive and negative things.

For "Goal and Approach", I'll discuss approach first because that's all we seem to be talking about.

Approach negatives:

• It's just wordy fluff to me. If every time I come to a door that I want to check for traps I have to repeat the same "I look carefully for seams ..." eventually I'd just put it on a flash card. There are only so many ways to describe looking for traps.
• If someone is persuasive they can convince the DM their solution will work. I know people who could sell shampoo to a bald man. Whether their logic was sound or not, they will convince you it is. In the case of disabling a trap (not bypassing the trap by finding an alternate route) in your example you did not ask for check because they adequately described how the rogue disables the trap. To me the check for disabling the trap is getting the dagger in just the right spot, applying just the right amount of pressure, etc..
• Another example is searching a room. It's come up in previous conversations that people have to be specific about what they're searching and how. I've had this come up a few times in games I've played and I find it frustrating and boring. I can't literally see the room, if I can't find the trap door because I didn't look under the rug, it's frustrating.
• It can lead to "Gotcha" DMing in my experience. Investigating that desk for secret drawers? Too bad there's contact poison on the underside of the desk! You didn't specify that you looked first, make a con save.
• I have a personal preference to not adding extra words and fluff that add no value. If you always attack with a battle axe, saying "I attack with my battle axe" every single time is just kind of wasting time. Adding extra qualifiers in being a waste of space is not limited to gaming. In SQL you can specify "Left Outer Join" but it's exactly the same thing as "Left Join" so I never include the "Outer". I admit it's a personal quirk.

NOTE: adding descriptive fluff now and then is fine, I just don't want it constantly. In addition it doesn't change the outcome of an action when I DM.

Approach Neutral:

• Metagaming and take-backs. Neither of these are an issue for me.
• "I check for traps" or "I attempt to disable the trap" are complete action declarations for me.
• The DM filling in details is not an issue for me or my players. If it becomes obvious that the scene was just unclear we can always backtrack, but that rarely happens.

Approach Positives:
- I can't think of any for me. Every positive mentioned either falls under neutral or one of my negatives.


As far as the "goal" side of things, I simply don't care why the chicken crosses the road, what their intent on crossing was. Things may happen on their way across, something may be triggered when they get to the other side. But the reason they're doing what they're doing? Doesn't really matter. Occasionally I'll ask for clarification if what they are doing isn't clear but as a DM I want to be pretty neutral as I can be on the reaction or response to PC actions.

Copying the only thing from Iserith's PDF that seems to address goal (admittedly I only skimmed)

DM: As if to underscore your point, the volcano trembles. What do you hope to achieve here?​

Lack-Toes: I want them [hostile Yuan-Ti] to back down from trying to capture us long enough to give my smarter friends a chance to figure out a plan of escape.​

DM Decision Point. Ssslither has given a command to his subordinates that Lack-Toes is opposing. This is a good opportunity for an opposed check.​

I don't necessarily disagree with the DM Decision Point, but I'm going to evaluate the action from the perspective of the Yuan-Ti without considering what the player is attempting because I wouldn't find it relevant.

Last, but not least, and I believe also relevant to the overall conversation is that people have a tendency to throw out Goal and Approach with little or no explanation as something they do to fix perceived issues. It's fine to have a style even if I disagree. I just don't find things like the following helpful without explanation (bold added)

So just ask for clarification. Or better yet, just make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach.

I agree with the first part, asking for clarification is a good idea. I'll even give players advice and options for what their PC can do. The goal and approach add on is kind of meaningless without context or explanation to me.

So there's my summary. Can you stop asking me why I don't want to use Goal and Approach? We have different styles. Viva le Difference.

 

[greg kaye]

...
So there's my summary. Can you stop asking me why I don't want to use Goal and Approach? We have different styles. Viva le Difference.

Yep, it strikes me that it's the incessant, arrogant persistence that gets people's backs up.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But you agree that a player approach where a 'player is playing "Persuade the DM"' is less than ideal?
That was the, I'd think, honest interpretation that was made.

You are missing a greater context: It's been years of telling that poster that their characterization of our playstyle is wrong. I personally find it hard to swallow that it is an "honest interpretation" at this point.

 

[Oofta]

You are missing a greater context: It's been years of telling that poster that their characterization of our playstyle is wrong. I personally find it hard to swallow that it is an "honest interpretation" at this point.

So because someone disagrees they're being dishonest?