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

[pemerton]

Agreed. That said, I've spoken with more than one DM on here who goes much, much too far in the other direction. Any word that comes out of your mouth is instantly and irrevocably canon. Any declaration, no matter how clearly joking it might be, is instantly (and often ruthlessly) implemented.

That strikes me as an issue of table conventions (and to me, that seems like a doubtful one).

Whereas expectations around the declaration of actions - ie saying what it is, in the fiction, that your PC is doing - seem to me to go to processes of play. There is the issue of what counts as sufficient specificity - I'm sympathetic to the idea that, in many typical D&D scenarios, "I smash the vase" is lacking in specificity, given the many ways that D&D characters have to smash things and the many ways D&D makes a big deal out of furniture and architecture. (I wouldn't expect it to be such a big deal in, say, a game of Prince Valiant.)

Otherwise, I think @Charlaquin's posts about reasonable specificity have been sensible enough!

 

[iserith]

Because of this:

This player has experience of players using vague descriptions in order to, to put it bluntly, cheat. Their unfortunate experiences, which I have never experienced, has led to a breakdown in the trust relationship with their players. So they feel it is necessary to be strict in the way they deal with action declarations. Lack of mutual trust = "bad faith relationship".

Except that poster doesn't actually ask them to be reasonably specific. They assume and establish for the players what their characters do. By their own posts, they'd love for the players to be reasonably specific, but for some reason doesn't ask for that, even though it would incidentally remove the problem of "metagaming" and "takebacks" they say they have.

Also, is your entire opinion of this approach informed by Lanefan's admittedly idiosyncratic game and group that you read about on this forum? That would be notable if true.

Thus, if a DM was to use session zero in order to lay down the law with regards action declarations, I would interpret that as "the DM does not trust me not to cheat". Now, personally, I would not play in a game where the other players did not trust me to play fair, so my reaction would be to politely quit the game and not play with that DM.

Session Zero isn't really about "laying down the law" is it? It's about getting on the same page with expectations for each other, both players and DM. But it looks like asking that players state a goal and an approach to the goal - "I smash the vase with my bare hands" vs. "I smash the vase" - is a bridge too far for you. Does it seem reasonable to you that those 4 extra words, which allow the DM to, say, fairly determine if you touched the hidden contact poison on the vase, should be a reason to quit the game?

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't mean that you are doing it, but if you treat players as if they are likely to cheat, then they may well draw the conclusion, all be it erroneously, that you do not trust them.

It's probably a good thing that asking for a goal and an approach doesn't do that at all. Like not even a little bit. A player who assumes that I'm asking it because I don't trust them is someone who is acting paranoid.

But there is no reason the DM can't be just as vague as the players: "I smash the vase" "Okay, the vase is smashed". Everyone can draw their own conclusion about how the vase was smashed, and it makes no difference.

Oh, good. Then everyone can be left guessing what's happening. No thanks.

 

[Maxperson]

Whereas expectations around the declaration of actions - ie saying what it is, in the fiction, that your PC is doing - seem to me to go to processes of play. There is the issue of what counts as sufficient specificity - I'm sympathetic to the idea that, in many typical D&D scenarios, "I smash the vase" is lacking in specificity, given the many ways that D&D characters have to smash things and the many ways D&D makes a big deal out of furniture and architecture. (I wouldn't expect it to be such a big deal in, say, a game of Prince Valiant.)

Even more than that. In many D&D scenarios there are different things that can happen as a result of smashing the vase. Guards can hear it break. It could be covered in contact poison, making the how of the smashing important. Perhaps it has an Indiana Jones type weight trap and is sitting on a pedestal. If you break it up close you get hit by the trap. If you smash it with an arrow or thrown paper weight from the desk, you won't. And on and on. Because of those many possible effects, specificity in all circumstances is important for both the DM narration of player intent, but also for DM narration of the appropriate result.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's probably a good thing that asking for a goal and an approach doesn't do that at all. Like not even a little bit. A player who assumes that I'm asking it because I don't trust them is someone who is acting paranoid.

It may be a cultural thing, I guess. In the UK your approach sounds like it would be come across as rather rude. We tend not to appreciate that level of directness.

Oh, good. Then everyone can be left guessing what's happening. No thanks.

Who cares? It was a vase, now it's broken. What colour was the cloak of the healing potion vendor the players just met? Do all your players agree? There are lots of inconsequential details that are left to the players' imaginations. So every player has a different "mental movie" in their head. It's unavoidable, and doesn't matter.

 

[Oofta]

I still think people just have a different degrees of what reasonable specificity means. In all my years of playing with dozens of DMs, outside of a conversation here and there, I don't remember when something like "I smash the vase" would not have been adequate.

I had a game yesterday where there was an office to search. I just described the office in general detail and then had people go through it, a combination of perception and investigation checks. There was, indeed a drawer with a false bottom someone noticed with a perception check. Before the PC tried to open it they called over the rogue and had them do an investigation - which indeed the false bottom was trapped. We just did a bit of a cut-scene and I mostly narrated what the trap was and the PC rolled to disable device.

At no time was anyone confused, felt like they were being left out or not in control of their character, everyone was having a lot of fun with it. In another scene they were chasing after a mysterious character and had to run through a carnival, I described the obstacles that were getting in the way and gave them options on how to go through and let them suggest alternatives. Again ... a mix of my narrating and players declaring things like "Athletics to barrel through?" was adequate.

My point is that we all had fun with the narration on both sides of things, occasionally we went into specifics when it mattered, there was never any "confusion" to be avoided.

It's fine if that style of running this stuff isn't for you. But making excuses for why your style works for you - such as needing that level of detail to determine whether or not the narration is "accurate" - doesn't mean anything other than you happen to like it. I don't need it, my players don't need it, it has never once caused a problem other than the incredibly rare correction that I assume happens with any style. The type of correction that I can't remember hitting for literally years.

 

[Clint_L]

Because of this:

This player has experience of players using vague descriptions in order to, to put it bluntly, cheat. Their unfortunate experiences, which I have never experienced, has led to a breakdown in the trust relationship with their players. So they feel it is necessary to be strict in the way they deal with action declarations. Lack of mutual trust = "bad faith relationship".

Thus, if a DM was to use session zero in order to lay down the law with regards action declarations, I would interpret that as "the DM does not trust me not to cheat". Now, personally, I would not play in a game where the other players did not trust me to play fair, so my reaction would be to politely quit the game and not play with that DM.

Yeah, pretty much this. I don't need to sweat the details because if a disagreement happens we just quickly resolve it amicably and move on. I just trust that we are all working together for the same goal, and laying out a bunch of stringent rules for how to frame the way we communicate game details beforehand would feel adversarial. To me. I can't speak for anyone else. Like, reading a lot of these descriptions of in-game disputes makes me uncomfortable.

I do lay out some stringent rules for communication with my beginner players, but these have to do with speaking respectfully to each other, not assuming consent, waiting for your turn, etc. At my home games, it's just never come up; we all know each other well.

To be fair, I don't have the same experiences as other people. For example, I have never run game at a convention with adult strangers. When I am working with new players, I am automatically in an authority position as teacher/camp leader/adult. And at home I just run games with friends and family. So perhaps my experience of running games is more distinct than I know.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, pretty much this. I don't need to sweat the details because if a disagreement happens we just quickly resolve it amicably and move on. I just trust that we are all working together for the same goal, and laying out a bunch of stringent rules for how to frame the way we communicate game details beforehand would feel adversarial. To me. I can't speak for anyone else. Like, reading a lot of these descriptions of in-game disputes makes me uncomfortable.

I do lay out some stringent rules for communication with my beginner players, but these have to do with speaking respectfully to each other, not assuming consent, waiting for your turn, etc. At my home games, it's just never come up; we all know each other well.

To be fair, I don't have the same experiences as other people. For example, I have never run game at a convention with adult strangers. When I am working with new players, I am automatically in an authority position as teacher/camp leader/adult. And at home I just run games with friends and family. So perhaps my experience of running games is more distinct than I know.

I've run plenty of games for adults at game days and cons. Not following goal and approach has always worked just fine for me. For that matter I've had dozens of DMs at those game days and cons and I think the last time I ever had a DM that used anything close to goal and approach was probably back in 2E death house dungeon. Then again, 2E is a different beast altogether.

I was reflecting back on the weekend and I did have to clarify at one point whether someone was intending to use intimidation or persuasion but it was just such a minor correction that it's the kind of thing I didn't even remember until now. There was no retcon, no player trying to get an edge, it just wasn't totally clear in the moment when they said "Get out of the way!"

So like you, if something isn't clear we just figure it out in the moment and move on. It's such a minor thing and something that no methodology will ever remove entirely. The people at the table will never totally agree on what we're envisioning, and that's okay. I don't want to describe of every room that could be potentially searched in such detail that all the players are envisioning exactly the same thing and know exactly what they can interact with. I'd rather just give enough detail to set the scene, let the players fill in the details that they're going to fill in anyway, and move on with the session.

 

[Umbran]

Why do you go straight to "bad faith relationship" ...

This thread is 27 pages long. It isn't like a sudden conclusion to come to.

 

[iserith]

This thread is 27 pages long. It isn't like a sudden conclusion to come to.

What's the correlation here? None of the people advocating for clarity as to goal and approach have suggested anything about a bad faith relationship.