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

[Charlaquin]

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

... 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.

That seems like semantics to me.

But I won't evangelize the "technique" or variously push it as better as various contributors here have done.

Nor has anyone here done so. Yes, I used the term “better” casually. I do think that creating that expectation would be more successful in the goal of eliminating ambiguity between the player’s goal and the DM’s assumptions. Whether that’s “better” or “worse” for your table depends on your goals. Since the OP later expressed wanting to preserve the opportunity to be surprised by a player’s action being different than they thought it was, I think that technique would actually be worse for what they’re trying to achieve, which I did acknowledge.

My advice here is, if you have a goal, consider your approach, else others will be justified with push back and reaction.

I definitely think the pushback has been massively disproportionate.

 

[greg kaye]

That seems like semantics to me. ...

OK. So it can be ok for people at your table to not have their "action declarations include both a goal and an approach"?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So because someone disagrees they're being dishonest?

It's not the disagreement. It's that you consistently misrepresent our playing style as "persuading the DM". That's the issue.

 

[Charlaquin]

OK. So it can be ok for people at your table to not have their "action declarations include both a goal and an approach"?

I mean, I would ask them to elaborate, but of course it’s ok.

 

[greg kaye]

It's not the disagreement. It's that you consistently misrepresent our playing style as "persuading the DM". That's the issue.

I've seen that phrase used one, single time in this entire sprawling thread.
Is he saying your "playing style" is "persuading the DM"?
Where?

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.

refs?

 

[Oofta]

It's not the disagreement. It's that you consistently misrepresent our playing style as "persuading the DM". That's the issue.

I'm not misrepresenting my opinion. Getting a free pass on disabling a trap because you come up with a cool description of how you do it is persuading the DM that your approach is guaranteed to work, that you've removed all uncertainty. In my opinion, of course.

Stop calling me a liar.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've seen that phrase used one, single time in this entire sprawling thread.
Is he saying your "playing style" is "persuading the DM"?
Where?

refs?

There have been a ton of threads of this nature throughout the years. This one has actually been very short and relatively civil in comparison. Many of them have ended up getting locked.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not misrepresenting my opinion. Getting a free pass on disabling a trap because you come up with a cool description of how you do it is persuading the DM that your approach is guaranteed to work, that you've removed all uncertainty. In my opinion, of course.

Stop calling me a liar.

The Mischaracterization here is “getting a free pass on disabling a trap because you come up with a cool description of how you do it.” How cool the description is has nothing to do with how I evaluate if an action requires a roll to be successful.

 

[Oofta]

The Mischaracterization here is “getting a free pass on disabling a trap because you come up with a cool description of how you do it.” How cool the description is has nothing to do with how I evaluate if an action requires a roll to be successful.

If they had come up with what you considered a terrible idea of how to disarm the trap then it would have automatically failed or perhaps a roll with a higher DC, correct?

 

[greg kaye]

edit