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

[FrogReaver]

Railroading effectively requires MMI.

You’ve said this a couple of times. I would initially disagree but I’d love to hear you make your case on why this is so.

 

[pemerton]

This seems to come back to an argument @overgeeked was making. If accurate, the player asked for an outcome. They wanted the result of their feature use to be that battle was avoided.

Under this framing, MMI would be the case where - independently of whether the game rules are followed - the result sought by the player isn't what the DM narrates. All versions of D&D play that this is sometimes true, so it seems to me too broad. What narrows it?

Do you similarly criticise players of wizards who declare I cast fireball with the expectation that a ball of fire will result? The ability in question (Rustic Hospitality; the Fireball spell) specifies an outcome (in the latter case, "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame"). That's the point of a player-side ability: it generates a consequence in the shared fiction.

The GM's job is to narrate the outcome that follows from the player's invocation of their ability.

 

[FrogReaver]

And, again, I reject the idea that this is anything more than lip service. It is very clearly violating the spirit of the feature and barely even qualifies as sticking to the letter of it (read: IMO it doesn't.)

Can reasonable people disagree about that?

Consider - what if there was a clear houserule where the ability was supposed to work as you envision. And this question goes as much for those more aligned with my views than yours.

If the DM failed to honor that houserule the biggest issue we would be talking about would be his breaking of the rule. The 2nd thing we would say is that his breaking the rule railroaded the players by completely circumventing the established fiction of them having a lookout. But I still don't see where you see Mother May I coming in there? What's the element of the scenario that causes that complaint?

¿Porqué no los dos?

You seem to be under the impression that the presence of identified railroading excludes the possibility of MMI. What prevents this scene from being both things, whether separately or concurrently?

I can't speak for him but I am not. What I would add is that if you view Mother May I and railroading as different things then please provide an example where Mother May I takes place but not railroading. That would go a long way for me in understanding the nuance of your position.

That is, in "normal" MMI, the players directly ask for permission and directly get told yes or no.

You said a lot more here, but this particular sentence seems to align with my conception of your position, but everytime I claim that's what people are saying I get told it's not. If normal MMI is asking permission and directly get told yes or no, then all D&D play can be categorized as normal MMI. It's tautological to that definition and how D&D is played. That's fine, but if that's all MMI is, then it doesn't come across as an actual negative.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you similarly criticise players of wizards who declare I cast fireball with the expectation that a ball of fire will result? The ability in question (Rustic Hospitality; the Fireball spell) specifies an outcome (in the latter case, "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame"). That's the point of a player-side ability: it generates a consequence in the shared fiction.

The GM's job is to narrate the outcome that follows from the player's invocation of their ability.

IMO, you have a very different view on how that ability is supposed to work than I and those that share positions close to my own. Until we can get that premise aligned I think we are mostly going to end up talking past each other on that example.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can reasonable people disagree about that?

I mean maybe? I think someone who disagrees with that is wrong, and frankly, if they told me that at an actual table I would very much feel they were offering fig-leaf excuses for poor DM behavior.

Consider - what if there was a clear houserule where the ability was supposed to work as you envision. And this question goes as much for those more aligned with my views than yours.

I'm not sure what you mean. What kind of house rule enforces "respect the spirit of the rules and the player's intentions"? And if that's not the kind of house rule you mean, I don't see how this applies.

If the DM failed to honor that houserule the biggest issue we would be talking about would be his breaking of the rule.

I consider that a (very badly) lossy compression of the fundamental complaint. The DM denied the use of a player-facing mechanic as intended, by both the spirit of that mechanic and the player's described intent. Yes, at a lossy level, the problem is "you broke a rule." I prefer to be more specific. "Don't break rules" is not a very useful conclusion to draw, especially since some amount of flexibility is useful even in rules-heavy games. "Don't subvert the spirit of the rules and player intent without extremely good, well-supported justification" is a much better lesson.

What's the element of the scenario that causes that complaint?

The player took an action, with the (explicit) intent to cause certain results. The DM (explicitly) approved that action. The DM then proceeded to actually refute the player's (explicit) intent. The player was functionally told no. That is MMI, just abstracted away from a direct statement of "no you can't do that" and into "sure you can (but it won't do what you want.)" And then, because they were told no, consequences followed that were both (explicitly) undesirable and (explicitly) the exact opposite of the player's intent occurred, and the players were afforded no opportunity to do anything about it, despite having plenty of chance to do so. That is the railroading.

I can't speak for him but I am not. What I would add is that if you view Mother May I and railroading as different things then please provide an example where Mother May I takes place but not railroading. That would go a long way for me in understanding the nuance of your position.

Railroading without MMI: Illusionism, quantum ogres, most but not all instances of fudging (whether fudging dice or fudging stars) to ensure a predetermined outcome. None of these involve the players being given permission to do something nor neutering something they were technically allowed to do, but they still ensure that the rails are adhered to.

MMI without railroading: Being a curmudgeonly DM without any planned plot. E.g., running a sandbox but saying no to 90% of player stunts, my aforementioned example of Paladin alignment in 3e ("mother may I keep my powers?" "Nope!"), setting crazy high TNs/paltry rewards for anything that doesn't sound "realistic," etc. None of these involve enforcing a future story state, the focus is entirely on either actually or functionally denying player actions unless and until they conform to whatever you already pre-approved.

Both together: "The villagers refuse to talk to you" (because you want the players to move on), "you can't leave town by wagon, because all the horses are sick with horse-plague, and you can't walk out because the horse-plague can be carried by humans so you're under quarantine for the next month...but a sailing ship can get you out in two months so you won't have to quarantine when you arrive!", "raise dead fails, the murder victim doesn't want to be revived, you don't know why." Etc. Nixing reasonable attempted actions in order to enforce a sequence of events.

Like I said, the two are very similar. I see the key difference as, again, one of "adventure design" or "plot" vs "action resolution" or "adjudication." Macro vs micro, one might say. Micromanaging is one way to achieve macro control, but hardly the only way. If one is ensuring a specific sequence of enforced events, regardless of player input, the one is railroading. If one is rejecting player inputs until those inputs match the pre-approved list, one is engaging in MMI. One need not have a pre-approval list in order to have a specific sequence of enforced events. One need not have a specific sequence of enforced events in order to have a pre-approval list.

You said a lot more here, but this particular sentence seems to align with my conception of your position, but everytime I claim that's what people are saying I get told it's not. If normal MMI is asking permission and directly get told yes or no, then all D&D play can be categorized as normal MMI. It's tautological to that definition and how D&D is played. That's fine, but if that's all MMI is, then it doesn't come across as an actual negative.

You have incorrectly understood.

My issue is not "you should talk with your DM and get them on board." That, as you say, is a fundamental part of playing a game with a player who possesses adjudication powers.

I am not talking about all possible forms of "DM approval." I am talking about tables where the DM will reject out of hand anything that does not conform to preconceived notions, sometimes literally manifesting as an actual list of actions that have pre-approval and rejecting everything else, sometimes metaphorically in the form of (to use my earlier terms) "curmudgeonly" or "miserly" DMing. I know the Rustic Hospitality problem has been cited as perhaps overused in the discussion here, but "miserly" is exactly how I would view the adjudication of what the players got from its use in that case, which was then compounded by separate, non-MMI railroading (via denial of any ability to actually respond to being ambushed, despite the PCs having plenty of opportunity to keep watch and detect such an ambush in advance.)

Yes, DM approval is a thing, and exists for a good reason. MMI is when that approval is granted only begrudgingly, with inappropriate and often capricious or inconsistent limitations or denials. Surely you can agree that "some things should be subject to the approval of a real human" is distinct from "if what you want to do isn't on my mental list/already written down, I won't let you do it." Because, again, it can also be caused by enforcing draconian and foolishly restrictive rules, not just capricious DMing. The latter is just more of a problem because it is way harder to criticize an invisible list than a visible one.

 

[chaochou]

The GM's job is to narrate the outcome that follows from the player's invocation of their ability.

Worth noting then that when a player casts Fireball it is entirely within both the GMs purview and both the spirit and letter of 5e - according to many here - to reply with: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame, which engulfs the dukes' guards and coats them in a protective shield which add 45 to their armour class and renders them immune to any further magical effects you cast."

To claim otherwise would be to expect everything to always go your way, such terribly entitled players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IMO, you have a very different view on how that ability is supposed to work than I and those that share positions close to my own. Until we can get that premise aligned I think we are mostly going to end up talking past each other on that example.

So, just to make sure we have the text before us, here is that feature in full.

Feature: Rustic Hospitality
Since you come from the ranks of the common folk, you fit in among them with ease. You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them. They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you.

It explicitly says, "they will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you." That did not happen. In fact, exactly the reverse happened; the PCs were ratted out by someone. That's strike one.

Then, it says, "You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them." By the standard given, the players had done no such thing, and had perhaps (I'm fuzzy on the details now) even shown themselves to be helpful and protective. The DM gave only the absolute bare minimum (allowing a long rest...which the party could have gotten out in the woods...) and none of the "place to hide" aspect. That's strike two.

Finally, the only remaining escape clause is "...but they will not risk their lives for you." Not only did the party have no indication that them staying there would put the farmers' lives at risk (and it sounds like, if they had known that, they would have sheltered elsewhere!), but the DM subsequently (this is the railroad part) denied any ability for the players to try to respond, (this is the MMI part) despite both general precedent and the spirit of the rules indicating that a long rest includes people keeping watch during its course. Strike three.

The "ruling" here is absolutely miserly in the extreme. Hence why I reject the "but they got a long rest!" response. A long rest is not some amazing reward. In fact, it may be (as it was here) the smallest part of the feature's benefits.

 

[tetrasodium]

Worth noting then that when a player casts Fireball it is entirely within both the GMs purview and both the spirit and letter of 5e - according to many here - to reply with: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame, which engulfs the dukes' guards and coats them in a protective shield which add 45 to their armour class and renders them immune to any further magical effects you cast."

To claim otherwise would be to expect everything to always go your way, such terribly entitled players.

The analogy is off but given the spirit of your example it's entirely within the spirit & the letter of the rules for the gm to say "you don't know" if asked about fire & magic resist/immune on a monster or wait until the effects of the fireball are in motion to reveal them after the spell is cast. It's reasonable for the GM to do that because the characters have done nothing up until that point to discover things.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, just to make sure we have the text before us, here is that feature in full.



It explicitly says, "they will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you." That did not happen. In fact, exactly the reverse happened; the PCs were ratted out by someone. That's strike one.

What it actually says is "They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you."

It's very much in dispute over whether the rule I properly quoted was adhered to. Rehashing our disagreement about that #1 isn't what this thread is about and #2 isn't going to get anywhere.

Then, it says, "You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them." By the standard given, the players had done no such thing, and had perhaps (I'm fuzzy on the details now) even shown themselves to be helpful and protective. The DM gave only the absolute bare minimum (allowing a long rest...which the party could have gotten out in the woods...) and none of the "place to hide" aspect. That's strike two.

This assessment is in dispute as well. They were hidden for at least 8 hours. One might ask, how long must the party remain hidden in order to satisfy your take on having the ability work.

Finally, the only remaining escape clause is "...but they will not risk their lives for you."

Finally, we get to the important bit.

Not only did the party have no indication that them staying there would put the farmers' lives at risk (and it sounds like, if they had known that, they would have sheltered elsewhere!),

I'm not sure why the party having an indication about what was happening is important here? D&D is a game where the players often lack full information about the fiction so not having that information isn't unusual in itself. Maybe you can elaborate there.

but the DM subsequently (this is the railroad part) denied any ability for the players to try to respond,

This I agree with - and yet denying players the ability to respond isn't in itself railroading - it's also part of scene framing. So while I agree it's railroading here, i don't agree your reasoning as to why is sufficient.

(this is the MMI part) despite both general precedent and the spirit of the rules indicating that a long rest includes people keeping watch during its course. Strike three.

I still don't understand why that's Mother May I instead of just railroading. That's the contentious part. Please elaborate more there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The analogy is off but given the spirit of your example it's entirely within the spirit & the letter of the rules for the gm to say "you don't know" if asked about fire & magic resist/immune on a monster or wait until the effects of the fireball are in motion to reveal them after the spell is cast. It's reasonable for the GM to do that because the characters have done nothing up until that point to discover things.

Do you really mean to suggest it is reasonable to drop fire-immune completely random guards on a party? We clearly have very different ideas of what is "entirely within the spirit of the rules."

I still don't understand why that's Mother May I instead of just railroading. That's the contentious part. Please elaborate more there.

I genuinely do not understand what the disconnect can possibly be. The explicit player intent was to avoid detection. Avoiding detection is explicitly described in the feature. The DM granted the use of the feature. They then declared that avoiding detection not only did not happen, but that exactly the inverse (an instant and unstoppable ambush due to having been ratted out) happened instead.

"You are on this Council, but we do not grant you the rank of Master."