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

[Swarmkeeper]

"... better yet, just make it an expectation that action declarations include both a goal and an approach".
There has been a predominant, out-to-persuade approach and this despite, for instance, my many " you do you" and "we can agree to differ" comments.

Sure, taken out of context, maybe you are right.

However... quoting the original exchange:

I think players, especially newer players, will assume their intentions are clear when they declare their action but don't realize that they've added something extra that the DM might interpret too literally.

Like if a player is trying to attack the castle gate, the DM probably has good reason to assume that what they're doing is breaking down the gate. But the details between the line leave some other interpretations open, like the player might want to just draw attention to themselves or trying to be random to confuse the guards.

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

This is a direct response to another poster suggesting the technique could help solve the issue that is raised. It is not a blanket "everyone should use this method".

 

[greg kaye]

...
This is a direct response to another poster suggesting the technique could help solve the issue that is raised. It is not a blanket "everyone should use this method".

Even here, this is a direct response to another poster stating the technique would better solve the issue raised.

 

[Charlaquin]

Even here, this is a direct response to another poster stating the technique would better solve the issue raised.

…huh?

 

[greg kaye]

…huh?

The response you received was:

Some players really like to have the element of surprise for the big "wow" factor or don't want the DM to let them do something out of pride.

Some players want their plans to surprise even the DM. I respect that, so I at least let them think through the situation with informed choices before I directly ask them.

I also like being surprised and even outsmarted as a DM. So if I can preserve that, I would.

Though also later saying:

I don't think you're wrong. My style is pretty much adjusted for my main group. They think its pretty fun to "mess with my plans" so having me know what they're up to can reduce that fun for them.
...

So, no, your recommendation was not universally "better". Issues including those of group dynamics can come into play.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think advocates are saying "goal and approach" is "universally better".

Well, there does seem to be an underlying sense of that, and you know what? In principle, it's not wrong. In general an action declaration that states both what you're doing and how you're doing it is better than one which doesn't.

That said, it's also not a standard to which everyone is willing to adhere every time or even any time. For a lot of players, "I smash the vase" or "I punch the guard in the face" or "I open the door" is more than good enough most of the time. Further, there's many degrees of detail involved in the "how you're doing it" piece even when it is given; consider the difference between "I smash the vase with my axe" and "I smash the vase with my axe using a down-angled left-to-right swing at three-quarters strength and employing the Tofflich technique* for my grip."

The disputes come around who gets to fill in any details skipped during declaration. For me, if the player doesn't give the details I take it that a) the player isn't concerned with the details and b) the right to fill in those details has been ceded to one or both of me-as-DM or the game rules.

* - whatever that is. I just made it up.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Well, there does seem to be an underlying sense of that, and you know what? In principle, it's not wrong. In general an action declaration that states both what you're doing and how you're doing it is better than one which doesn't.

To expound on your statement, I'd say "better" in the sense that 1) it gives the player more narrative control over how their PC is acting, 2) helps minimize any ambiguity as to what is occurring in the fiction with regards to said PC, and 3) adds flavor to the story from a participant other than the DM in this shared story-telling experience that we all love.

That said, it's also not a standard to which everyone is willing to adhere every time or even any time. For a lot of players, "I smash the vase" or "I punch the guard in the face" or "I open the door" is more than good enough most of the time.

Sure. More than good enough most of the time for certain playstyles.

Further, there's many degrees of detail involved in the "how you're doing it" piece even when it is given; consider the difference between "I smash the vase with my axe" and "I smash the vase with my axe using a down-angled left-to-right swing at three-quarters strength and employing the Tofflich technique* for my grip."

The detail need not be belabored (unless the player really, really wants to invoke Tofflich, I suppose). The goal and approach method just needs reasonable specificity. I'd even argue that your latter example is unreasonable specificity, if that is something a DM at some imagined table is requiring. "I smash the vase with my axe" is simple and perfectly fine. The goal? Smashing the vase. The approach? Using their axe. It's a succinct piece of story shared by the player. Now the DM can adjudicate accordingly. But, of course, this has all been said before.

The disputes come around who gets to fill in any details skipped during declaration. For me, if the player doesn't give the details I take it that a) the player isn't concerned with the details and b) the right to fill in those details has been ceded to one or both of me-as-DM or the game rules.

Agreed. At our table, and I'd argue according to the rules/guidance of 5e*, the player is fully in charge of roleplaying their PC (PHB 185: "determining how [their] character thinks, acts, and talks.") The DM is in charge of determining whether said actions of PC succeed, fail, or require some kind of roll. When I get to play, I'm not a fan of the DM narrating my PC's actions (which is very different from narrating the results of my PC's actions, which is the DM's job.) When I DM, I try my best to avoid any statements that give the impression that I'm controlling/playing the PCs.

* - whatever that is. I just made it up.

* I know you are coming at this from the lens of your modded 1e game, which I appreciate since it provides a helpful vantage point, IMO

 

[Charlaquin]

The response you received was:

Though also later saying:

So, no, your recommendation was not universally "better". Issues including those of group dynamics can come into play.

Yeah, I know. I wasn’t claiming it was universally better, and after Asisero further explained their preference I said it made sense that they wouldn’t want to set that expectation as I initially recommended.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed. At our table, and I'd argue according to the rules/guidance of 5e*, the player is fully in charge of roleplaying their PC (PHB 185: "determining how [their] character thinks, acts, and talks.")

I think this is common across all editions; but what 5e (and, I think, all the other editions as well) fail to detail is what happens when the player (voluntarily or otherwise) cedes this ability* to someone or something else.

It's my take that the player cedes this ability when not providing detail in a declaration, and that the DM and-or game rules take over at that point. An obvious example is combat: "I attack the Orc [with x-weapon, the first time]" cedes all the picky details over to the combat rules (did you hit it, how much damage did you do, etc.) and to narration ("You smack it upside the head.") because combat has to be abstracted and D&D doesn't do called shots.

The DM is in charge of determining whether said actions of PC succeed, fail, or require some kind of roll. When I get to play, I'm not a fan of the DM narrating my PC's actions (which is very different from narrating the results of my PC's actions, which is the DM's job.) When I DM, I try my best to avoid any statements that give the impression that I'm controlling/playing the PCs.

In principle I'm on board with that, however in practice I find having to circle back and ask for details both time-consuming and an open avenue for player-side second thoughts and-or de-commitment to the original action. Instead, in most cases I just narrate the results and in the uncommon cases where details matter (e.g. contact poison) then I usually let the dice sort it out.

* I know you are coming at this from the lens of your modded 1e game, which I appreciate since it provides a helpful vantage point, IMO

Thanks for that!

 

[Maxperson]

I never said anything about descriptions being "cool". I said persuasive. The player has convinced the DM that their actions are guaranteed to disable the trap.

Without that persuasion step (whether that step is logic, charm, promises of free pizza, or any other method) the only way to avoid making a check to disable the trap it is to not go through the door.

That doesn't make this style right or wrong, it's even covered in the DMG under Role of the Dice.

Although come to think of it, promise of free pizza might work on me depending on how hungry I am.

Let me ask you this.

If you placed something valuable in a false bottom of one of the desk drawers and I said to you, "I pull out all of the drawers and pry the boards off the bottom of both the inside and outsides of every drawer, just in case one has a false bottom." Would you make me roll to find the false bottom? And if so and my roll failed to find it, how would you narrate my missing the false bottom that I literally pried off?

 

[Maxperson]

I generally don't telegraph most of the time - particularly traps which by their nature are supposed to be difficult to find other than the hard way - as IMO doing so makes things far too easy on the players and PCs. If they're in the field they'd best be on their guard; and though most doors in fact aren't trapped, any and every one of them potentially could be.

For me it depends on the trap. A crude spear trap from a wall is going to have holes in the walls(telegraph). A resetting fireball trap in a ruins is likely to have been set off at some point in the past, scorching the walls(telegraph). A well maintained trap in the hall to the king's treasure chamber, though, isn't going to have telegraphs.