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

[Maxperson]

I don’t know about you, but I would have an extremely difficult time functioning in a game where the shared imaginary space was so vague and abstract. How does one imagine a character existing and interacting with an environment none of its features are specified?

DM: "You open the door made of some material and inside you see a bedroom with some stuff in it."
PC: "I go search the dresser."
DM: "There isn't a dresser."
PC: "Okay, then I go search the closet."
DM: "There isn't a closet."
PC: "Is there a trunk for clothes?"
DM: Yes!"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But as it's possible for them to use a ranged attack to smash the vase, specificity in the approach is warranted. Without it I have to guess at what the player wanted to do when I narrate the result, and guessing while narrating is far from optimal DMing.

But what is stopping you asking the player for more information, if you think it is needed?

DM: "You open the door made of some material and inside you see a bedroom with some stuff in it."
PC: "I go search the dresser."
DM: "There isn't a dresser."
PC: "Okay, then I go search the closet."
DM: "There isn't a closet."
PC: "Is there a trunk for clothes?"
DM: Yes!"

This illustrates that the players may well have to ask the DM for more information when their descriptions supply insufficient detail. It works both ways.

 

[Maxperson]

But what is stopping you asking the player for more information, if you think it is needed?

This illustrates that the players may well have to ask the DM for more information when their descriptions supply insufficient detail. It works both ways.

I prefer to give the details and get a detailed approach and goal back. The constant game interruptions to ask questions(both ways) is disruptive. The game flows much smoother if both sides are clear with what they say.

 

[Deset Gled]

DM: "You open the door made of some material and inside you see a bedroom with some stuff in it."
PC: "I go search the dresser."
DM: "There isn't a dresser."
PC: "Okay, then I go search the closet."
DM: "There isn't a closet."
PC: "Is there a trunk for clothes?"
DM: Yes!"

OPEN TRUNK
The trunk is open.
LOOK TRUNK
It is a heavy trunk made of wood.
LOOK IN TRUNK
In the trunk, you see a scroll, a key, and a candle.
GET SCROL
What you have expected hasn't happened.
GET SCROLL
The scroll is in hand.
READ SCROLL
You can't do that until you open it.
OPEN SCROLL
You have opened the scroll.
READ SCROLL
The scroll reads:
The six cultures of play are known as Classic, Trad, Nordic LARP, Story Game, OSR, and Neo-trad...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I prefer to give the details and get a detailed approach and goal back. The constant game interruptions to ask questions(both ways) is disruptive. The game flows much smoother if both sides are clear with what they say.

It might be clearer, but it's also slower. A lot of unnecessary information is being exchanged, and you may well still have to ask, since the other party can't know what information is essential. The party travels 50 miles through a forest. Do you name every species of tree in case the druid wants to use transport via plants?

 

[pemerton]

In which case the DM asks for the required information. The PC cannot be automatically expected to supply it, since they do not know what information is important.

The party travels 50 miles through a forest. Do you name every species of tree in case the druid wants to use transport via plants?

This is why what counts as a sufficiently specific action declaration will always be relative to a particular context and set of expectations of play. Although I think smashing the vase is more "central" to D&D, given its traditions and general orientation, than naming all the species. (Which is one reason why a spell like AD&D's Transport via Spells is a terrible fit with the typical processes of AD&D play.)

 

[Oofta]

Not unlikely at all in my experience. I mean, I guess it might be unusual for PCs to go around smashing random vases for no reason. But, if there’s a vase in a dungeon or other adventuring location, there are many reasons PCs might want to smash it. And chances are, if there’s a vase the PCs have good reason to want to smash, it probably matters how they go about doing it.

Obviously your games may be different, but this is not at all an unusual scenario to me.


The question may cause the player to second-guess their originally intended action. But more importantly to me, I find:

Player: “I smash the vase with my bare hand”
DM: “It shatters into a thousand tiny pieces, and the stone pedestal beneath it sinks down; a faint rumbling sound can be heard, and quickly begins to grow louder. What do you do?”

To be far more immersive than:

Player: “I smash the vase.”
DM: “How?”
Player: “What do you mean?”
DM: “Like, do you use your bare hand? or do you use a weapon or other tool? Do you throw it on the ground?”
Player: “Oh, I guess I just bring my bare hand straight down on it.”
DM: “It shatters into a thousand tiny pieces, and the stone pedestal beneath it sinks down; a faint rumbling sound can be heard, and quickly begins to grow louder. What do you do?”

That break from the narrative may be brief, but if they happen frequently (which in my experience, they always do at first with players who aren’t used to this style), it gets tiring quickly. I prefer to keep in the fiction as much as possible and minimize meta-game discussion.

DM clarification questions happen now and then, I can't imagine any style fixing that. It's just part of the game. It's not jarring, it's not unusual. They also don't happen frequently in my games. I ran two sessions over the weekend and I was paying attention to this (I usually don't) and it came up 1 time. Even then, it really only came up because the group is all newbies running the game. It took maybe 20 seconds.

If there's a trap, I may handle it differently. Give them a free perception check to notice something off about the stand or something. But if they just smash some random thing that happens to be trapped? The trap goes off no matter how they smash it. If the PCs are in a bar and someone says "I go talk to the bartender" I don't ask how they're walking over. As far as I know they could be skipping, they could start walking with their left foot first or their right. It's just not relevant. Just like how they smash the vase is not going to be relevant.

That’s nice that it hasn’t been an issue for you, but your experience is not universal. It was often an issue for me before I started asking players to specify goal and approach when they declare their actions. Now it isn’t any more.

Obviously I must necessarily make some assumptions, but if I you state both what you want to happen and how you try to make that happen, the remaining assumptions are just minutiae. If you only state what you want to happen, I have to assume the whole action you take to make it happen, which I don’t want to do (and certainly wouldn’t want a DM to do for my own character’s action!)

Of course.

I never said my experience was universal, even if it has stretched back to practically the inception of the game and included hundreds of other people. I'm saying that the issues you're raising are something I've never encountered.

 

[Umbran]

I am curious how you get there rationally.

Sorry, as I just mentioned, I'm not continuing this conversation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is why what counts as a sufficiently specific action declaration will always be relative to a particular context and set of expectations of play. Although I think smashing the vase is more "central" to D&D, given its traditions and general orientation, than naming all the species. (Which is one reason why a spell like AD&D's Transport via Spells is a terrible fit with the typical processes of AD&D play.)

Indeed, context is king. Compare these:

DM: "The room is bare, apart from a 3 foot high pedestal in the centre of the room. On top of the pedestal is an ornate crystal vase. Leering faces are carved into the walls, and the floor is covered in a geometric pattern of stone tiles."

DM: "The cottage is simply but comfortably furnished. There is a plain wooden table and with two chairs, on a shelf under the window are a couple of books and a vase of flowers. A pair of china dogs sit on the mantle above the fireplace, which is unlit."

Most players will not need prompting in order to give lots of detail in describing their interactions with the first vase, but will probably be quite casual in describing how they interact with the second.

 

[iserith]

It might be clearer, but it's also slower. A lot of unnecessary information is being exchanged, and you may well still have to ask, since the other party can't know what information is essential. The party travels 50 miles through a forest. Do you name every species of tree in case the druid wants to use transport via plants?

All that is being asked of the player is to say what they want to do (smash the vase) and how they do it (with their bare hands).

For the DM's part, they just need to describe the basic options that present themselves in the environment. The players' declared actions will then prompt them to add more detail as needed via the play loop.