D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?

[Bedrockgames]

Rustic Hospitality means shelter, and hiding, and shielding, unless there is a threat to the NPCs. So it obliges the GM to decide when such a threat occurs. I strongly assert that it is possible to do this better or worse, and that the better and the worse can be judged by coherent principles that are implicit in the idea of the players as equal participants in relation to the shared fiction of the game. The GM can think along these lines even in a system, like 5e D&D, that gives the GM a very high degree of authority over the shared fiction. (To this modest extent, at least, I agree with @Bedrockgames.)

The reason I considered the rustic hospitality example railroading (though I probably wouldn't say Mother May I, as it has little to with that problem in my opinion, since it seemed to skip over even the players trying to do something), is two-fold. The primary reason is the GM clearly had a story they wanted to tell, and that sort was going to happen regardless of what the PCs did. They said they hid in a barn, there was no apparent reason that didn't work, and it went right to the dramatic moment the GM had envisioned. I'm fine with GMs having those kinds of dramatic moments if they want (it isn't my style but I see nothing wrong with it) but it becomes a railroad if it is going to happen regardless of what the PCs do, or if the deck is weighted so it might as well be a foregone conclusion. In this example, I would have been fine with it if more had been done to make it less of a foregone conclusion. This doesn't even have to involve rolling dice. But some deeper interaction with what was going on so the players could make choices that lead to different outcomes would have made it okay in my book. The other issue is, and I might be missing details that weren't given in the example, the GM seemed to just gloss over specifics and elapse time in a really weird way. Like I get elapsing time when it is uncontested. But if the players are in a dungeon and walking down the hall and you just declare "Oakridge the Filthy confronted you, did an amazing spinning hook kick that knocked all of your heads off, so you wake up in his Laboratory, bodiless in fluid filled bottles." That is shifting the present moment to the past tense in a way that railroads a hook or a dramatic part of the story. And this isn't far off from published railroad hooks I've seen.

There is a Ravenloft Adventure (it might be From the Shadows but it could have been Roots of Evil or a similar module) where, in order for the adventure to happen, the players have to have their heads cut off by the headless rider so they can wake up in Azalin's lab (that is what I based my example on). I don't have the module on me at the moment, but my memory is there was little the players could do to avert the beheading. If my memory is correct that is a railroad in the same sense as the rustic example.

Now I would be totally fine if instead the GM had concocted a contingency scenario where "if Oakridge the filthy happens to take their heads in any fight in the coming weeks, he plans to experiment on their heads in jars in his lab". Or int he rustic example, if the GM had a contingency awaiting should the players legitimately be found and captured. It is the forcing of the outcome that makes it a railroad

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We’ll just have to disagree on this.

Pretty much everyone had DDI (nearly a necessary precondition to play…that could certainly be complained about.

You had:

* Immediate math patch so (outside of C4 and C5 Skill Challenges) the game was just fine in 3rd quarter ‘08.

* Terrain Powers introduced 10 months later in Dungeon Mag 165 and continued support for duration. Then DMG 2 release 14.5 months after release with further updates and Terrain Powers.

* Monster math and damage expressions update shortly after that.


Yes, it would have been nice if DDI wasn’t a precondition of play + the immediate patch was in the books (rather than DDI) + all the math was perfect at release, but my experience running it out-the-box was pretty seemless and intuitive.

Thanks for the exact timeline.
I actually do agree with you here as it mirrors my experience. Except for the last sentence. If you mean out of the box without errata, then no.

Als I said: the books were full of obviously bad math, which should have been cought before the printing.
And the conversation with ER started: little math errors can have a dramatic effect on multiple rolls. Yes. I do agree: See 4e and its need for a(n immediate) patch.

Edit: and I said "sadly" because 4e lost a lot of people and having obvious math errors in the books did not make a good impression for the undecided.

Also I wanted to state, that I was playing full DDI, because I waited for an updated printing of the first books, which never came (or way too late). I have a full box of 4e splats and core books. But not he first 3 because they were not up to date at any point in time.

 

[Cadence]

The reason I considered the rustic hospitality example railroading (though I probably wouldn't say Mother May I, as it has little to with that problem in my opinion, since it seemed to skip over even the players trying to do something), is two-fold. The primary reason is the GM clearly had a story they wanted to tell, and that sort was going to happen regardless of what the PCs did. They said they hid in a barn, there was no apparent reason that didn't work, and it went right to the dramatic moment the GM had envisioned.

I wonder if it would still have happened if they had fled the village, hired some folks to act like they were them fleeing the village, arranged with someone to signal them if the bad guys were closing in, picked a barn that had a cellar with a second exit, laid down a false tracks to a second barn, food poisoned the bad guys food, etc...

I certainly don't want it to turn it into a (apparently) classic 1e guessing game of picking the one right way to avoid it, but it feels like there are a ton of extra precautions that might have been prudent and helped a lot.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I wonder if it would still have happened if they had fled the village, hired some folks to act like they were them fleeing the village, arranged with someone to signal them if the bad guys were closing in, picked a barn that had a cellar with a second exit, laid down a false tracks to a second barn, food poisoned the bad guys food, etc...

I certainly don't want it to turn it into a (apparently) classic 1e guessing game of picking the one right way to avoid it, but it feels like there are a ton of extra precautions that might have been prudent and helped a lot.

What I am picking up on is the lack of specifics and the glossing over time, which suggests the gm wanted something to happen and made it happen. Perhaps there was more going on and it wasn’t described. But just going by the description provided

 

[tetrasodium]

The reason I considered the rustic hospitality example railroading (though I probably wouldn't say Mother May I, as it has little to with that problem in my opinion, since it seemed to skip over even the players trying to do something), is two-fold. The primary reason is the GM clearly had a story they wanted to tell, and that sort was going to happen regardless of what the PCs did. They said they hid in a barn, there was no apparent reason that didn't work, and it went right to the dramatic moment the GM had envisioned. I'm fine with GMs having those kinds of dramatic moments if they want (it isn't my style but I see nothing wrong with it) but it becomes a railroad if it is going to happen regardless of what the PCs do, or if the deck is weighted so it might as well be a foregone conclusion. In this example, I would have been fine with it if more had been done to make it less of a foregone conclusion. This doesn't even have to involve rolling dice. But some deeper interaction with what was going on so the players could make choices that lead to different outcomes would have made it okay in my book. The other issue is, and I might be missing details that weren't given in the example, the GM seemed to just gloss over specifics and elapse time in a really weird way. Like I get elapsing time when it is uncontested. But if the players are in a dungeon and walking down the hall and you just declare "Oakridge the Filthy confronted you, did an amazing spinning hook kick that knocked all of your heads off, so you wake up in his Laboratory, bodiless in fluid filled bottles." That is shifting the present moment to the past tense in a way that railroads a hook or a dramatic part of the story. And this isn't far off from published railroad hooks I've seen.

There is a Ravenloft Adventure (it might be From the Shadows but it could have been Roots of Evil or a similar module) where, in order for the adventure to happen, the players have to have their heads cut off by the headless rider so they can wake up in Azalin's lab (that is what I based my example on). I don't have the module on me at the moment, but my memory is there was little the players could do to avert the beheading. If my memory is correct that is a railroad in the same sense as the rustic example.

Now I would be totally fine if instead the GM had concocted a contingency scenario where "if Oakridge the filthy happens to take their heads in any fight in the coming weeks, he plans to experiment on their heads in jars in his lab". Or int he rustic example, if the GM had a contingency awaiting should the players legitimately be found and captured. It is the forcing of the outcome that makes it a railroad

This isn't just you, but there's been a lot of railroading accusations & "the gm should have telegraphed x because y" or "a good hm should have telegraphed the npcs like so to let the players do something"


All of that skips over two 5e design flaws that put the players in The hole here.

• rustic hospitality is effectively "pick this from AA list and with no interaction resource expenditure or responsibility otherwise you automatically get to do x" the players largely skipped over. Much of what would have both allowed any telegraphing as well as seeing things like getting turned down or whatever because they automatically succeed
• The "long" rest is so short that the players have very little chance of being exposed to something that they could have a chance of noticing.

Frustratingly when you put together both you often have a gm who empowered the players with agency to try something he was bound to largely fast travel to conclusion on getting pilloried from it showing the players something that they weren't present for & weren't around long enough to be exposed to because the players only partially succeeded at completely avoiding the patrols searching for them aaand were ultimately found.

 

[Manbearcat]

What I am picking up on is the lack of specifics and the glossing over time, which suggests the gm wanted something to happen and made it happen. Perhaps there was more going on and it wasn’t described. But just going by the description provided

Glossing over time is cool. Eliding inconsequential content/scenes is cool. Cutting to the action is cool.

The problem is when a GM uses Setting Solitaire Fakery/unilateral access to offscreen content as leverage/means for Blocks. You overwhelmingly see this in GM arms race against player fiat (player fiat is typically spellcasting in D&D, but the 5e Background Traits, some of its best design-work, features similar game tech) when the GM either (a) wants content to see screen time that the fiat would bypass/shut down or (b) the GM feels the player fiat moveset is bad for play and, instead of handling it out of game, they basically punish the player in-game (via Illusionism).

Both (a) and (b) are terrible in different ways:

(a) creates an environment where the player knows the GM's content is the "Main Character" (to use the jargon introduced into this thread) and that the GM will use Force to ensure "the real protagonist" (the GM's content) sees its necessary screen time and controls the trajectory of play.

(b) creates an environment of deep distrust because in that scenario the GM is going to pretend like their Setting Solitaire Fakery is actually legit rather than admitting that its just a ham-fisted "in-game patch" for a perceived meta problem - PC build/moveset. That is a bad environment for a player to be in for multiple reasons. Their decision-tree and tactical/strategic/thematic input can be undone at any moment and you (the player) can't penetrate the GM's model for content introduction because its offscreen Setting Solitaire Fakery...AND both you and the GM know its a ham-fisted "in-game patch" with a veneer of setting extrapolation to give it fake legitimacy. This is the story of nearly every adversarial GMing to control overpowered Spellcasters ever. You see GM testimonials about this all the time like the moves they make to artificially put downward pressure on their overpowered spellcasters are Totally Legit Setting Extrapolation TM.

 

[FrogReaver]

Glossing over time is cool. Eliding inconsequential content/scenes is cool. Cutting to the action is cool.

The problem is when a GM uses Setting Solitaire Fakery/unilateral access to offscreen content as leverage/means for Blocks. You overwhelmingly see this in GM arms race against player fiat (player fiat is typically spellcasting in D&D, but the 5e Background Traits, some of its best design-work, features similar game tech) when the GM either (a) wants content to see screen time that the fiat would bypass/shut down or (b) the GM feels the player fiat moveset is bad for play and, instead of handling it out of game, they basically punish the player in-game (via Illusionism).

Both (a) and (b) are terrible in different ways:

(a) creates an environment where the player knows the GM's content is the "Main Character" (to use the jargon introduced into this thread) and that the GM will use Force to ensure "the real protagonist" (the GM's content) sees its necessary screen time and controls the trajectory of play.

(b) creates an environment of deep distrust because in that scenario the GM is going to pretend like their Setting Solitaire Fakery is actually legit rather than admitting that its just a ham-fisted "in-game patch" for a perceived meta problem - PC build/moveset. That is a bad environment for a player to be in for multiple reasons. Their decision-tree and tactical/strategic/thematic input can be undone at any moment and you (the player) can't penetrate the GM's model for content introduction because its offscreen Setting Solitaire Fakery...AND both you and the GM know its a ham-fisted "in-game patch" with a veneer of setting extrapolation to give it fake legitimacy. This is the story of nearly every adversarial GMing to control overpowered Spellcasters ever. You see GM testimonials about this all the time like the moves they make to artificially put downward pressure on their overpowered spellcasters are Totally Legit Setting Extrapolation TM.

In a game where not all information is player facing, how does one tell the difference between a block and a negative outcome of player actions?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Glossing over time is cool. Eliding inconsequential content/scenes is cool. Cutting to the action is cool.

The problem is when a GM uses Setting Solitaire Fakery/unilateral access to offscreen content as leverage/means for Blocks. You overwhelmingly see this in GM arms race against player fiat (player fiat is typically spellcasting in D&D, but the 5e Background Traits, some of its best design-work, features similar game tech) when the GM either (a) wants content to see screen time that the fiat would bypass/shut down or (b) the GM feels the player fiat moveset is bad for play and, instead of handling it out of game, they basically punish the player in-game (via Illusionism).

Both (a) and (b) are terrible in different ways:

(a) creates an environment where the player knows the GM's content is the "Main Character" (to use the jargon introduced into this thread) and that the GM will use Force to ensure "the real protagonist" (the GM's content) sees its necessary screen time and controls the trajectory of play.

(b) creates an environment of deep distrust because in that scenario the GM is going to pretend like their Setting Solitaire Fakery is actually legit rather than admitting that its just a ham-fisted "in-game patch" for a perceived meta problem - PC build/moveset. That is a bad environment for a player to be in for multiple reasons. Their decision-tree and tactical/strategic/thematic input can be undone at any moment and you (the player) can't penetrate the GM's model for content introduction because its offscreen Setting Solitaire Fakery...AND both you and the GM know its a ham-fisted "in-game patch" with a veneer of setting extrapolation to give it fake legitimacy. This is the story of nearly every adversarial GMing to control overpowered Spellcasters ever. You see GM testimonials about this all the time like the moves they make to artificially put downward pressure on their overpowered spellcasters are Totally Legit Setting Extrapolation TM.

I'm not particularly interested in the term Setting Solitaire. I am interested in railroading. And this to me seems like a railroad because the GM forced an outcome he or she wanted and had planned. And I have nothing against elapsing time either, but that is a moment in play where the GM has to be careful because you can use time elapsing to override agency.

This might just be one instance of a set piece the GM had in mind, but otherwise the game is quite open. Maybe the OP (I think it was Hawkeye who brought up this example, I could be wrong) can clarify how the whole campaign feels or how the GM's complete style feels. I know I've met GMs who do things like that here or there, but then give you a lot of freedom elsewhere. I've also been in groups who expect those set pieces, and so the GM is just trying to meet that expectation (in this case thought it doesn't sound like what was happening). My reading though is it seems railroady.

 

[Manbearcat]

In a game where not all information is player facing, how does one tell the difference between a block and a negative outcome of player actions?

Now that…is a very good question.

I have thoughts (both system related and non system related), but I’m curious to hear yours.

Also, would you agree with this assessment:

“In proportion with the players being unable to tell the difference, there will be a tendency toward player decisions and actions feeling meaningless due to the looming prospect of subversion by GM hanging over every consequential moment of play.”

EDIT - @Bedrockgames > not interested in the term “Setting Solitare” because you don’t think it’s a thing that happens or you don’t believe the directly above proposition is true?

 

[hawkeyefan]

If there's no way for the characters to know what's happening, there's no reason to tell the players. It's as simple as that.

But that's just it... there are plenty of ways that the characters could know. The only reason in this case that the characters don't know is because the GM decided that they didn't. That's my problem with it.

The GM could have just as easily narrated soldiers going door to door in town, or a sketchy neighbor taking notice of us, or any number of other things. He could have asked us to make rolls to notice these things, and if we rolled poorly, so be it.

He had a choice... decide what happens on his own, or set things up so that the players and the system have a say in what happens.

I get that in this exact instance you know this is what happened because you say the referee in question explicitly told you after the fact. Sure. That time. But a lot of referees would do exactly the same thing for a whole host of other reasons. Top of my list: the players shouldn't metagame any more than absolutely necessary to continue the game, so if the characters don't or can't know something, the players don't get to know it either.

What if they can't know something solely because the GM decided they can't?

I would think anyone would prefer that there be a chance for the players to learn relevant information so that they can make decisions. The argument against that... that the GM should just be considering all this in his head to determine the outcome... doesn't seem a strong argument against Mother May I. It seems to embrace it.

Because focusing on the game prevents immersion and roleplaying. The more the game is hiding in the background, the better. I love me some indie games, but I can't play Fate because it requires constantly checking in with the game and interacting with the system takes awhile depending on what you're doing. I want to get into the character, into the world, into the drama of it all. I don't want to constantly get pulled out of that with game system. At least with 5E anything outside of combat is pure conversation or one skill check at most. We talk, the referee asks for a roll, I make it, and we're back in the world. Quick and easy. Stopping the conversation and roleplaying to talk through the mechanics is tedious and dull. Hashing out all the potential futures of some decision is equally dull and tedious. Make a call, throw the dice, see what happens. Play to find out, not play to win.

I just would have liked to play!

It's definitely not about winning; it's about at least being given the chance to win. Not for the GM to play a solo game in his head and then have that determine how our shared game goes.

As for immersion... I don't agree with your assessment. While I would say that rules can sometimes feel intrusive to the fiction that's being established, it's certainly not a given. And I would argue that rules can serve... I'd even go as far as to say must serve... as part of the player's understanding of the fiction. They help provide context to the player that they otherwise cannot have compared to the character, who is a person in a specific location, with an abundance of information available to them.