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

[Hussar]

I think I have my first glimpse of the difference between Mother May I and railroading in your mind. Mother May I (at least one form of it) is about invalidating features whereas railroading is about forcing particular outcomes. This may be done via invalidating features or some other means.

Is this true for your position?

*Note - I'll try to get to the rest later.

I would agree with this with the added tag of "invalidating features and player strategies"

And, frankly, they, MMI and railroading, often go hand in hand.

But, I think the point above about calling someone a "bad DM" is very well made too. Just because play devolves into MMI doesn't automatically make a DM bad. Let's be honest here. We have absolutely all done it. We've all said no when, in hindsight, we could have said yes and the game would have been better for it. We've all gotten it in our heads that saying yes will lead to bad things and we have to protect the game.

Anyone who says they've never, ever done this has never run a game.

But, we can learn from each other's mistakes and try to run better games in the future. I cut my teeth on gaming in the 80's and 90's when you had to say no all the time because the rules of D&D were so bad, contradictory and poorly balanced that saying yes all the time would have catastrophic consequences for the campaign. You just had no choice. You certainly couldn't trust the mechanics. Most of the mechanics were crap. And, additionally, the advice in things like the 1e DMG TOLD you to say no all the time. You had to make sure that the players "earned" their rewards. You had to constantly guard against "bad" players who just wanted to spoil the game. That's what the advice was back then, over and over and over again. The DMG told you so. Dragon Magazine told you so. The early days of Usenet and various forums told you so.

So, it's hardly surprising that it persists. It's HARD to say yes. It's so much easier to say no because saying no means I don't have to do anything. I don't have to change anything. I don't have to adapt to anything if I say no. But, IMO, saying yes leads to far, far better games. It's a lot more effort and work for the DM, but, it is such a more rewarding experience for the whole table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You did hide. Rather than using that time to plan a getaway you took a long rest. The duke's men obviously spent that time continuing to search.

This is an odd interpretation of a long rest, where everyone shuts down like going into cryo-sleep.

Typically a rest includes more than just sleep. Eating, dressing wounds, memorizing spells, praying to deities, commiserating with companions, and so on. We’d set a watch and had a view of the inn where the soldiers were, along with some other houses. It felt like a reasonable expectation that if anything went down, we’d at least have a chance of knowing.

The players get to take actions hoping for a result, the result was hiding successfuly but the world moved on. From there you took a nap instead of taking action to escape. The gm determines outcome & in this case the outcome was that you hit for long enough to take a rest

The goal was to do what we could to avoid a fight. Hiding with the townsfolk seemed like a reasonable way to try and achieve that, so that’s what we tried. None of us expected for the DM to grant the rest and then fast forward to morning and declare that we were surrounded.

As I’ve said, there should have been more play involved.

The fact that you didn't doesn't make you a bad player like the gm in question is being accused of... It just makes you a player who made a plan that didn't have enough follow through to work as well as hoped.

I haven’t said the GM was a bad GM. He’s one of my oldest friends and a perfectly good GM. He made a bad call here. It didn't ruin the game for me or anything, it was just a dissatisfying turn of events that I wish had been handled differently. There’s nothing hostile about it at all.

I make plenty of mistakes as a GM. It’s part of the job. It’s also how we learn. I ask my players all the time how things could be better, or how certain things are handled and if changes are needed. So bringing up an example of a mistake such as this isn’t some weird attempt to shame a GM. It’s a way to examine what’s going on in the game and see how we can improve.

 

[Hussar]

I gotta admit, I'm very much my own biggest critic. Mostly because getting feedback from players can be like pulling teeth but also because I do rehash things that I think I did wrong all the time. They stick out in my mind because I think I could have done something better. When conflicts happen at the table, I really do try to learn from them. Like I said way upthread, I MMI'd my players by forcing them to perform a specific task in a specific way ((a trap room where you had to close all the doors before you could proceed - textbook pixel bitching which led to confusion and frustration from the players.))

Now, was this a total trainwreck or did players get really angry or was there a huge meltdown over this? No, of course not. It was 20 minutes of (mostly) wasted table time and we moved on. But, I do know that if I do something similar in the future, I will make sure to make certain things more obvious because the players completely missed something that I thought was really clear. ((Heck, because we play on VTT, you could literally SEE that the door to the room was open whereas the other doors in the dungeon had always closed)) But, what was obvious and clear to me was anything but for them.

 

[tetrasodium]

@tetrasodium

I don't think the GM in the example @hawkeyefan provided was a bad GM. I do think he could have done a better job in this instance of providing meaningful points of interaction. I have made similar judgement calls in the past that I wish I could have back. I certainly do not always communicate the details of the fiction as well as I could. I think he could do better, but I think we all could do better.

I don't think it was a bad gm or "railroading either, but there's definitely a rush shout railroading if the gm doesn't complete a plan the players themselves stopped carrying out or if the gm doesn't tell players things that their characters have no way of knowing. At one point someone suggested than npc runners should have relayed word or that players should have seen a neighbor not willing to loook the PCs in the eye (while they were hiding in a bars no less). It was also suggested that the gm was obligated to tell players things like what the guards were doing beyond the awareness of the PCs because it would make for good story citing movies and such doing similar to keep the passive viewer aware.

That rush to blame the gm while completely avoiding the topic of "what could the players have done different is unfair to the gm who often winds up with the blame while players completely absolve themselves of any responsibility to learn grow or evolve. @hawkeyefan wrt that fast forward I'd suggest making plans and staying active in order to move on to the next step in your plans rather than "let's take a long rest" to avoid thst kind of thing. You can even do stuff like "let's wait until the guards are further away or the sun sets & plan to run like heck away from here" then ask if a long rest can be back ported into that wait when the time comes for the next step.

With 5e's heavy reliance on" rulings not rules" & "ask your gm" it's especially terrible when so many player facing abilities give a misleading implication that it shifts from rulings to rules without actually doing so. It's rustic hospitality not rustic safehouse

 

[pemerton]

I don't think the GM in the example @hawkeyefan provided was a bad GM.

<snip>

I have made similar judgement calls in the past that I wish I could have back.

I don't know whether or not he's a bad GM in some absolute sense. But I think that @hawkeyefan has described an instance of bad GMing. It baffles me that a number of posters are arguing that it's proper GMing of 5e D&D.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know whether or not he's a bad GM in some absolute sense. But I think that @hawkeyefan has described an instance of bad GMing. It baffles me that a number of posters are arguing that it's proper GMing of 5e D&D.

Even if it’s not quite proper it still seems very much possible by following the standard rules and processes. And I think that’s what makes it so tricky. Lots of folks… players and GMs… don’t even realize anything’s wrong. They know they have frustrating moments of play, but can’t quite suss it out.

I say this from experience.

 

[pemerton]

Use of the feature is conditioned on - posing no threat, and not putting lives at risk. Seeing as DM agreed the feature could be used, those conditions aren't at issue (insofar as deciding whether it worked or not goes: it worked.)


The feature did work. Had it not worked, the party would not have received a long rest.

As @EzekielRaiden has asked, what is your basis for asserting that but for the use of the feature, the PCs would not have been able to take a long rest?

I genuinely don't think it was at issue for the DM in question. They agreed that the feature worked. The dispute is over the results of "worked". Say I cast a fireball intending to kill all the Duke's men, but my fireball fails to kill them all. My fireball still worked, even though it failed to achieve my intent.

To my reading, this is about a result, not an action. I want the result of whatever I do to be that I avoid battle with the Duke's men. In order to draw attention to that, I put forward


This describes an action, not a result. I want to use Rustic Hospitality here. It's a little bare on detail, but I felt that was unlikely to be at issue.

With those words in mind, I feel your initial citation, reframed as a fireball, would read like this


That is not the same as the action of casting a fireball: it describes the desired result of the Duke's men being dead.


We agree on this, albeit to me your examples do not really align with it as - to my reading - it seems like you are switching between an example of describing a result, to an example of describing an action (cast fireball), and calling the two the same.

Fireball doesn't say anything about killing. It talks about inflicting damage via an exploding ball of flame. If a player declares that their PC casts Fireball, the fiction changes - a bright streak flashes from their pointing finger to a point within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.

Rustic Hospitality also describes a change in the fiction that occurs when the ability is used - the PC finds a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless the PC has shown themself to be a danger to those commoners. Those commoners will shield the PC from the law or anyone else searching for them, though will not risk their lives for the PC.

As I've repeatedly stated, in @hawkeyefan's example of play the fiction didn't change so as to permit the hiding from searchers. The GM in fact narrated that, although the PCs were amongst friendly commoners, who were not in any apparent way being asked to risk their lives or put into danger, the PCs failed to hide and were not shielded.

 

[pemerton]

Even if it’s not quite proper it still seems very much possible by following the standard rules and processes. And I think that’s what makes it so tricky. Lots of folks… players and GMs… don’t even realize anything’s wrong. They know they have frustrating moments of play, but can’t quite suss it out.

I say this from experience.

My "shocked face" response is genuine.

To elaborate: I can see how an inexperienced GM, or one who is not thinking about things, might fall into the "trap" of doing what your GM did.

But I don't see how it can be mysterious, on reflection, why it was a sour moment in play! As per my posts upthread, the rulebook has the resources to understand what has gone wrong - its references to everyone, together, creating an exciting and memorable story. This isn't set out with quite the thoroughness that Luke Crane or Vincent Baker would in their rulebooks; but it's not hidden.

 

[FrogReaver]

You think I've got fireball wrong?

Obviously not.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would agree with this with the added tag of "invalidating features and player strategies"

IMO, Invalidating player strategies is so broad that it covers anything a DM might determine, including objectively bad 'player strategies'.

And, frankly, they, MMI and railroading, often go hand in hand.

With my understanding of the definition being given, i agree.