A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Sadras]

No one thinks that, if a GM narrates a room with a door but no windows, the action declaration "I climb through the window" is going to have a chance of success.

The death knight has been narrated by the DM. Secret backstory the death knight is immune to x.
The tea house has been narrated by the DM. Secret backstory the sect are not at the tea house.

Instead of talking about death knights I'm surprised you're not at least pointing to a more contentious example, namely, the immunity of the Duke to Intimidate checks in the example of a skill challenge in the 4e DMG.

My primary purpose in this line of debate, is to reflect that Hard No's exist in the combat pillar, which is the most detailed part of many RPG's. So it is fair to say if Hard No's can exist in the Combat pillar, why is MMI only attributed towards Social and Exploration pillars by some posters?

 

[Sadras]

In D&D, being told your fear effect doesn't affect the Death Kinght doesn't end the resolution process for fighting a death knight.

Actually it does.
You're confusing the entire combat as the Action Declaration.
In that case, the Action Declaration is finding the Sect. Going to the Tea House is but one minor action in that process, just like one Cause Fear casting is but minor action in the combat.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Use fire against Death Knights.
If you have to ask permission to do it, well, then...

But there are some big differences here. One fire is something your character handles in the setting and tries to apply to the Death Knight. Like if you have a spell, that is an ability your character has that is defined in the setting. The sect being at the Tea House isn't something the character can control in that way. But the character can go to the tea house, the GM isn't going to stop them, unless something intercedes on the way (and I think if the GM is constantly blocking the party in that way, then something is up and the GM isn't doing a terribly good job of running the game).

It is true that combat and non-combat stuff tends to function differently in most games. You usually have clear rules for combat, whereas you can run an RP moment in game with no mechanics at all. I think you can do either, but I don't think it is mother may I to have fewer mechanics or procedures on the non-combat side of play. It is just the nature of the medium: you can run that stuff without mechanics and the GM serving as the engine of the setting is perfectly viable. Not the only way to do it. It is a valid way to run a game and it has its advantages. People who like those advantages will go for it. The issue people are having in this discussion is this preference is being discussed as if it is based in delusion, a lack of courage to question assumptions, or even as a lack of gaming enlightenment (and the snark around peoples' intellect is really palpable here). If you like running a game where there are mechanics and procedures for non-combat stuff, and you want to include some variation of "Say yes or..." that is totally cool. I just think the attitude being expressed by certain posters, the condescension, is just getting under peoples' skin.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. No permission is required, we are talking about the resolution process.

Action Declaration: Character goes to Tea House to find sect.
DM: Despite the tea house being full of patrons, you find no sect member present.

Action Declaration: I cast Cause Fear on the Death Knight in attempts to frighten him.
DM: (Without making a saving throw) You successfully cast it, but your spell appears to have no affect as the Death Knight keeps on advancing.

Both are automatic No's.

This is taking tricks in poker, again. Using an explicitly D&D mechanical example to ask how a non-D&D mechanic would work together will never illuminate anything.

/begin ramble
It's fair to point out that D&D relies heavily on the DM to adjudicate player actions according to the DM's judgement. Calling this Mother May I is going straight to a degenerate example of play, which you should not do if your intent is to have productive discussion of play structures. I think it should be fairly obvious that this kind of GM centered play is widely popular and not bad per se. That doesn't mean it suits everyone or that a different center of play isn't worth doing an honest compare/contrast of styles. I do think using bad examples of play and pejoratives is a poor way of doing that.

That said, I understand the frustration on the side of the non-DM-centered play. If you question how D&D plays, even politely, you're met with a kind of unintentional hostility -- most posters aren't trying to he dismissive, but they're trying to understand the argument while firmly stuck within the franework of thinking native to D&D so tgey musunderstand and misrepresent those arguments. You can see an echo of this in the threads where older edition D&D players clash with 5e players on mechanics that litter the rules forum. And they're not disagreeing on fundamental play structures, just specific mechanics within the same general play structure.

This constant having to patiently reiterate your points while reading replies that badly misunderstand the points can lead to anger and frustration. This is further exacerbated if you really don't like a DM-centered play structure.

I don't condone it, though. Engaging here is a choice, a choice to try to understand better both how others play and how you play. I was on the "other" side of these discussions just a few years ago. I didn't get it, yet; I was still firmly within the D&D paradigm of thinking. I think my difference is that I was looking for a different play experience not because I was dissatisfied with D&D, but because I recognized that D&D doesn't do some things I wanted to try well at all. I still very much like D&D, but I also very much like other games that use different play structures, like Blades on the Dark. So, I have a foot on both camps.

This does not afford me any special authority, and I claim none, but I'm seeing valid arguments on both sides, here, and invalid ones. I'd call on others to try to use the best examples of play from the other side to compare/contrast and not the bad ones. Just doing that will naturally avoid pejorative language.

To bring this around, you really must consider how a mechanic works within its game alongside that game's other mechanics. You can't isolate one and compare it within a different game to evaluate it's usefulness in its home game.


/end ramble

 

[Maxperson]

A charitably as I can read this, you seem to be agreeing that altering the rules of D&D is harder than just finding a less DM facing game to play. As that counters your own argument, I must not be understanding your point here.

Depends. If you have to learn an entirely new system, then the minor rules changes for D&D will not be more difficult than switching. If you already have it, then it will. If it is, an altered D&D will still have a different feel than the other system, so you may want to go through the effort anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

In all those non D&D games are there monsters which are immune to certain effects or damage types?
For instance, in 5e, Death Knights are immune to exhaustion, being frightened and poison.

Does the table decide if these monsters may be immune? Can bennies be spent to overcome the immunity? If not, I suggest those games be included under your MMI label because the players' mechanical resolution includes some hard No's if particular damage is deemed irrelevant. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

What Chaochou is not seeing is that simply asking the DM about something and getting an answer does not qualify as Mother May I. Mother May I involves needing permission to an absurd degree. Mother May I go to the bathroom? Mother May I breathe? Mother May I have my PC take out his sword? And so on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Depends. If you have to learn an entirely new system, then the minor rules changes for D&D will not be more difficult than switching. If you already have it, then it will. If it is, an altered D&D will still have a different feel than the other system, so you may want to go through the effort anyway.

So, then, we're agreed that D&D is strongly DM centered unless you make changes to the ruleset?

 

[Maxperson]

So, then, we're agreed that D&D is strongly DM centered unless you make changes to the ruleset?

Um, no. A strongly DM centered game would require much more work to change, and very likely wouldn't be worth the effort no matter what the feel.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Um, no. A strongly DM centered game would require much more work to change, and very likely wouldn't be worth the effort no matter what the feel.

Again, I must ask you for a specific example of a more GM centered game.

I get you're trying to establish some hypothetical paragon of GM centered* that not only rests all authority in the GM but also, somehow, does so in a manner that resists change, but this has three problems. Firstly, the centering of authority has really nothing to do with whether you can change that system. Secondly, the diffuculty with which a system can be changed has no bearing on hiw it centers authority.

And thirdly (new para because this is my main point), we can't play a hypothetical game, so in a useful discussion we have to be able to look at how real systems distribute authority.

So, arguing from the hypothetical isn't at all useful, we need concrete examples to examine play. What's your example of a more GM centered game?


*I submit that the only example of such is writing a novel.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*