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

[pemerton]

OK, they're hidden information. Still something the DM knows and the player doesn't.

This claim about monster abilities as hidden information is already making assumptions about play which, as [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] said, presusppose a "Mother may I" approach. I posted a fairly long reply to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] about this and so refer you to that (it's around 50 posts upthread).

Sure there's retries. How can there not be? We try the teahouse. If nothing, then half an hour later we try the teahouse again. If nothing, then leave off till sunset and try it again. [etc.]

On this, I refer to [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s posts not very far upthread:

combat is traditionally an activity where the PCs are given the widest range of options. Heck, an AD&D fighter has, basically, NO options that are defined by rules outside of combat! Inside combat he has at least 3-5 basic options at any given time, maybe considerably more, that are covered by the rules (at least to some extent).

The point is, if the DM says "no you cannot aim at the neck of the snake and cut its head off using a called shot." that is simply a rules adjudication, it isn't allowed by the rules. It might also be a 'no' to what might be considered possible under some circumstance, depending on the game, DM, etc. In any case, this isn't removing all good options from the PC, nor thwarting them from continuing on basically the same course (IE killing the monster, etc.).

I don't disagree that saying "no the sect is not in the tea house, period" is not definitively of a different character. There are plenty of other equally convenient places to search, there isn't a hard time constraint, etc.

Right, and I agree that "they aren't at the tea house" is not necessarily a very hard constraint. I would have to base my opinion of it on the specific scenario, what the players are expecting, how much of an obstacle this presents, etc. It could be nothing "we go to the dojo next door." It could be a monumental problem "the oracle told us we can only be victorious if we find the sect in the tea house."

All I will add to this is that, in fighting the Death Knight, whether or not a chosen approach works is (i) not just GM decides (assuming that this monster has some rules associated with it), and (ii) there are easily accessible options, like hit it with a magic weapon, which can achieve the goal of defeating it.

There are some monsters which can come very close to "Mother may I" - eg the classics like green slime, ochre jelly, grey ooze and black puddings with essentially arbitrary lists of vulnerabilities and resistances - and as I already posted upthread there are some contexts in which even the Death Knight's immunity to fear may be an example of "Mother may I" (eg as an important aspect of play, a PC has sworn to drive away the next foe s/he encounters by sheer terror alone, and then the GM presents a Death Knight as the next foe and thus dictates the failure of the PC's oath).

 

[Sadras]

@pemerton, that was a good post (your reply to me, in case there is any confusion), thanks.
The only quibble I have is:

(1) An NPC with the statistic Incorruptible. Is that backstory or fictional fact? I think you have answered it somewhat in your post where you spoke of the Duke who could not be intimidated, however 3 attempts were initially allowed where the Duke example then would fall into SYRTD territory since at least 1 roll is allowed.

(2) Not a huge fan of using the reading of the MM as a decent defense. Your Monster Knowledge check fares much better, but I reserve the right to revert, as I just don't have my 4e books with me right now and I want to look up something.

Does the player know that the attack may fail? If the fiction has been well-narrated (eg undead lack mortal minds) then perhaps. Is the aim of play for the player to solve the puzzle of how to defeat a death knight (like the demi-lich in ToH)? Then perhaps we are in "Mother may I" territory, depending on further details about whether it was a puzzle the players were expected to reason out, or a flat-out guessing game.

(3) This kind of reasoning skirts quite close to defeating your own argument above. Well-narrated fiction suggests that the player HAS to know as opposed to the player doesn’t know due to failed Monster Knowledge check or having the inappropriate skill. I did not miss your perhaps which allows a walk-back of that thought.

When noob PCs first encounter an Iron Golem with its various resistances and immunities, I can see how it can seem like a puzzle “How do we hurt this thing”. Personally I do not feel that is MMI territory, not even remotely, however the common definition MMI provided in this thread would included it if say s/he did not have knowledge of it.

(4) In my latest session, the PCs landed up in a town and one my new players, approached the local gem-wright asking if he had any enchanted gems that could somehow be attached to his weapon to enhance it. SYRTD precludes a hard no, right?

EDIT: In my game the gem-wright informed the PC about the local arcanist who could offer consumables and other lowly magical items but nothing like what he wanted. He suggested he try the elven settlement across the river (the PC was an elf).

 

[Maxperson]

This claim about monster abilities as hidden information is already making assumptions about play which, as [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] said, presusppose a "Mother may I" approach. I posted a fairly long reply to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] about this and so refer you to that (it's around 50 posts upthread).

But again, Chaochou is wrong about that. Mother May I is an extreme where, not just some Q & A with the DM. DM may I draw my sword? DM may I open that door? DM may I have my PC scratch his butt? The game doesn't rise to the level of Mother May I.

There are some monsters which can come very close to "Mother may I" - eg the classics like green slime, ochre jelly, grey ooze and black puddings with essentially arbitrary lists of vulnerabilities and resistances - and as I already posted upthread there are some contexts in which even the Death Knight's immunity to fear may be an example of "Mother may I" (eg as an important aspect of play, a PC has sworn to drive away the next foe s/he encounters by sheer terror alone, and then the GM presents a Death Knight as the next foe and thus dictates the failure of the PC's oath).

There no Mother May I there, either. The player is not asking if his PC can do something. He is doing it. It's also okay to fail at something. Even something the PC swears to do.

 

[Sadras]

As a reminder, Vincent Baker - from whom the "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" originates - created the Apocalypse World system where the players roll everything. Sadras, how would you say that your introduced discussion of GMs fudging the dice is relevant in that framework of play?

I'm not saying it is. My line of thought was that fudging (dice or other) would fit into the MMI as defined by some posters here, it was not about any one specific game.

Even if we accept your thesis of monster statistics as "hidden backstory" (monster weaknesses, immunities, etc.) - and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does a good job refuting this idea - it seems like there is at least one key difference: repeatability of methods.

...(snip)...

But let's say that you are looking for the Cult again somewhere else. Instead of being able to repeat your previous method, now you have to engage in renewed "hidden backstory" procedures to discover the Cult.

This is all true. This searching for the cult is such a bad example.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If the presence of green slime or death knight immunities makes the game mother may I, I would say, in my opinion, that is an overly broad definition. Not particularly useful for discussion, and needlessly insulting to anyone who likes that stuff (and a substantial number of gamers do).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think they ARE excluded. However, combat is traditionally an activity where the PCs are given the widest range of options. Heck, an AD&D fighter has, basically, NO options that are defined by rules outside of combat! Inside combat he has at least 3-5 basic options at any given time, maybe considerably more, that are covered by the rules (at least to some extent).

The point is, if the DM says "no you cannot aim at the neck of the snake and cut its head off using a called shot." that is simply a rules adjudication, it isn't allowed by the rules. It might also be a 'no' to what might be considered possible under some circumstance, depending on the game, DM, etc. In any case, this isn't removing all good options from the PC, nor thwarting them from continuing on basically the same course (IE killing the monster, etc.).

I don't disagree that saying "no the sect is not in the tea house, period" is not definitively of a different character. There are plenty of other equally convenient places to search, there isn't a hard time constraint, etc. OTOH it falls outside the normal context of 'say yes or roll dice'. I would note that 4e D&D has a 'SYORTD' rule, and it also has page 42 for doing arbitrary actions. So you can try most anything in 4e and there is at least a general rule system to handle that. This is typical of this type of game, there is little need to say 'no'.



Well, I was stating a preference for how I would approach AD&D play. 'say yes' is fine in AD&D too, sometimes. It just isn't coherent with challenge the player type game play, so it is likely to only come up when the DM deems the task trivial. Either nothing is at stake, so we really don't need to talk about 'yes' that much, or we do need to roll! 2e is an awkward game to talk about, because it has issues with what it thinks the play process is.

But Mother May I doesn’t mean: any approach that isn’t SYORTD. I am fine with SYORTD as an approach but characterizing any style or system that isn’t that as Mother May I poisons the well, it is essentially just a debate tactic to make SYORTD the only approach worth considering (because who in their right mind wants Mother May I when they play an RPG?)

 

[S'mon]

This "mother may I" thing sounds a lot like "playing D&D".

 

[Bedrockgames]

This "mother may I" thing sounds a lot like "playing D&D".

But the Paladin's warhorse

 

[Ovinomancer]

But again, Chaochou is wrong about that. Mother May I is an extreme where, not just some Q & A with the DM. DM may I draw my sword? DM may I open that door? DM may I have my PC scratch his butt? The game doesn't rise to the level of Mother May I.

Yes and no. Firstly, MMI can, and often does, exist without explicit permission seeking. If the GM has authority to negate action declarations, then you're in MMI territory because any declaration must at least be implicitly be approved by the GM.

5e does not rise to this level as written, but there's certainty a subculture that both embraces and cherishes this play, ie the GM is the boss of the table.

Secondly, MMI can exist indirectly. If a HM uses action adjudication to control acceptable outcomes, like by setting DCs to impossible targets or outright failing actions they don't agree with, this is also MMI, just not directly. The existence of GM arbitration doesn't mean MMI, but if the GM isn't following the fiction (both open and secret) with integrity, adjudication can be used for MMI.

5e is in this camp as written. Some will not like the possibility of a system to enable MMI play, and you see this in this thread. I think a purality of 5e games are principled enough to avoid it, some have some MMI, and some are very much MMI. 5e, as a system, does nothing to restrict it, but does offer play advice that acts to limit abuse.

So, no, I don't think MMI is as extreme as your portraying it. You can see elements of its existence in metagaming discussions, frex, where it's often viewed by one side of those discussions as a legitimate tool.

There no Mother May I there, either. The player is not asking if his PC can do something. He is doing it. It's also okay to fail at something. Even something the PC swears to do.

This I agree with. Failure is not the same as negation. You should be careful, though, for cases where failure is used as a stand in for negation, which do rise to MMI. Failure is neutral, but hiw it's used is not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This "mother may I" thing sounds a lot like "playing D&D".

They are not incompatible.