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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don’t think many participants tend to examine it all that much. Sometimes, sure, it’s easy to pinpoint something. Other times, the feeling may be there, but one may not be sure why.

For many years, my play revolved around a heavy GM role. As time went on, it was less satisfying. I had to experience a few significant pitfalls as both a GM and a player before I started to try and improve things. And even at that point, it took me a long time to find new games or ideas that actually helped me.

Also I think with D&D and similar games with multiple versions, people cobble together a Frankenstein’s monster of rules and processes that they like, when they haven’t even considered if such a beast should be unleashed upon the world.

 

[FrogReaver]

Features would be one example, but it can also be non-feature player...approaches, I guess?

But yes, that is the key difference. Railroading forces outcomes, it's "positive" in the sense that it pushes toward one specific goal. MMI, at least in this context, invalidates plans or approaches, and is thus inherently "negative." The two can pair together, as noted above: negating every option other than the one which sits upon the rails.

Okay. So here are my thoughts. In a game like D&D one purpose of the DM/referee is to make judgements about what plans and approaches are appropriate and whether they succeed. Any approach or plan he chooses as not working by definition is negating that plan. Which makes your definition above appear to apply.

This is why I keep coming back to the tautology. You are defining MMI in such a way that the D&D prescribed method of play is always MMI. There's nothing wrong with that, you've made it definitionally true. But if that's what MMI is really describing (and maybe it's not and your attempt at a definition was simply overbroad and needs some more nuance) - but if that's what MMI is really describing then I think there's much better and more neutral terms than MMI to describe it.

Now, ust as linearity can be good in some cases (e.g., we don't need constant interruptions when going from "the inn where we're staying" to "the marketplace where we intend to buy stuff"), it is totally okay contextually to have some "I'm sorry, that won't work" or "because of <established backstory reasons>, you won't be able to do that." Saying "no" is not inherently bad. But it is something one should do cautiously. IMO, saying "no" requires much more caution than saying "yes," but I find a lot of DMs treat it as exactly the reverse--that "yes" should be treated with utmost skepticism and caution, while "no" is always safe and effective.

That sounds like a solid observation.

In both cases, railroading and MMI, openness to alternatives is one of the best anodynes to the problem in question. Instead of "no, sorry," if you say, "Well, I don't think that will work as is. What are you looking for? Perhaps there's a different way," you are specifically averting MMI and railroading. You aren't just giving the player whatever they ask for, but you aren't just shutting off possibilities either, which averts MMI--you're making a dialogue. Further, you aren't just setting out one specific chain of events, but you also aren't letting the players craft whatever events they like, either--you're making a field of possibility.

IMO, this comes back to:
1) can the DM ever just say no without it being MMI
2) can the DM ever just say yes without it being MMI

And, of course, this sort of thing critically depends on human judgment. That's fine. We need that. But it also depends on human sensitivity, on empathy and diplomacy and not just a willingness but an eagerness to cooperate. To not simply make fiat declarations, but to work as hard as you can to build consensus, and only leverage hard fiat when you're backed into a corner and have nowhere else to turn.

I think I agree with all that, i'd just add the caveat that consensus can literally be - we want the DM to be the judge for the outcomes of our characters actions in the fiction.

 

[Campbell]

What I would say is this : in situations where a player cannot reasonably intuit the sort of consequences (both positive and negative) of their actions with knowledge that is meaningfully knowable it can feel like you have to ask permission in order to accomplish your objectives. Generally it's not really anyone's fault. It is something that should be addressed through trying to communicate with each other better. There's a lot of different solutions to this stuff, but playing the blame game never does anyone any good. We should all refine our play processes so they suit our groups better.

 

[clearstream]

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 base that on @hawkeyefan's report that their DM associated the long rest with the feature use.

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.

Unfortunately this evades or fails to grasp what I am asking.

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.

It nay be too, that folk have differing grasps of what "hide" implies in 5e. It connects to Stealth and even if hiding, a DM must determine if searchers find the party. That may be automatically successful, automatically unsuccessful, or require a check.

The result was unpalatable, but was compliant with 5e rules.

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.

As I have pointed out, that's not relevant. The feature was used and gave a benefit.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO. When it comes to invalidating player approaches or strategies - I think most of us agree that there are some approaches or strategies that should be invalidated. In some games principles are there to preempt them or to pre-invalidate such choices. In other games that doesn't happen, either because the lack of such principles or there's ambiguity existing around them or potentially the principles could even be dynamic instead of constant.

Since D&D lacks principles within the rules then it's much more likely that player principles aren't able to pre-invalidate certain choices and instead the game places the responsibility of invalidating player approaches and strategies that need to be invalidated on the DM.

I guess what I am trying to say is that having static rules defined principles does much of the heavy lifting in this area for games that feature them. Obviously, there's a trade off in having a game structured that way and having one open to various sets of table defined principles.

 

[Hussar]

What I would say is this : in situations where a player cannot reasonably intuit the sort of consequences (both positive and negative) of their actions with knowledge that is meaningfully knowable it can feel like you have to ask permission in order to accomplish your objectives. Generally it's not really anyone's fault. It is something that should be addressed through trying to communicate with each other better. There's a lot of different solutions to this stuff, but playing the blame game never does anyone any good. We should all refine our play processes so they suit our groups better.

Yeah, I've been trying to say this for a while, although I haven't found the right words.

When someone says, "I don't like this, it feels like MMI to me", pointing fingers is the absolute last thing that's useful. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that someone at the table is not enjoying the game. That is the problem that needs to be resolved. If the player feels that the DM is unfairly ruling against him or her, then it might very well be time to find a new group (if hte problem is persistent and egregious - again, regardless of whether or not it is "true"). Or, maybe simply having a frank conversation with an open mind on both sides will resolve things.

Maybe @Hawkeye's DM thought he was making the correct choice. I could certainly see how he might. He's making the game fun and interesting in his mind. That the players don't find it fun or interesting, but, rather frustrating and annoying means that there's some disconnect there. Learn from it and do better next time.

 

[FrogReaver]

I base that on @hawkeyefan's report that their DM associated the long rest with the feature use.


Unfortunately this evades or fails to grasp what I am asking.


It nay be too, that folk have differing grasps of what "hide" implies in 5e. It connects to Stealth and even if hiding, a DM must determine if searchers find the party. That may be automatically successful, automatically unsuccessful, or require a check.

The result was unpalatable, but was compliant with 5e rules.


As I have pointed out, that's not relevant. The feature was used and gave a benefit.

IMO, neither of you are going to change your position on whether the feature was used appropriately or not. I would say that you should evaluate the scenario as if the ability works exactly as he claims and actually was misapplied and see what that does to your conclusions around MMI and he should do the same with your views about the ability working exactly as you claim and being appropriately applied and see what that does to his conclusions about this being MMI.

I've tried to nudge us all there before, but maybe it will help being explicit.

 

[tetrasodium]

What I would say is this : in situations where a player cannot reasonably intuit the sort of consequences (both positive and negative) of their actions with knowledge that is meaningfully knowable it can feel like you have to ask permission in order to accomplish your objectives. Generally it's not really anyone's fault. It is something that should be addressed through trying to communicate with each other better
. There's a lot of different solutions to this stuff, but playing the blame game never does anyone any good. We should all refine our play processes so they suit our groups better.

This so much. It's incredibly frustrating as a gm to see players at your table basically shoot themselves in the foot and all but say "speak to the hand" while blaming you for their own refusal to grow learn or adapt.

One of my players recently almost died (again) & even with a shopkeeper trying to sell them on the benefits of greater /superior healing potions in combat because the regular ones aren't all that useful for surviving through a fight the player scowled at me saying that he would buy one 150gp greater against his better judgment and like 5 or 6ish regular ones. I've tried to have discussions with the group when they blatantly Bork things ip on combat with jaw dropping incompetence a couple of times and the players most responsible for it who did things like "I want to shoot those monsters off the other way now that the rest of the group just engaged these monsters who see us" yet somehow I am to blame for the fight being too hard and discussing it is quote "homework" or "insult to injury rubbing it in because of a badly balanced fight".

5e has this weird paradox & I suspect it's because of death saves & wackamole healing. If a pc dies its exclusively the gm's fault. If the gm tries to council the players over an obvious srlf inflicted wound it's a micromsnaging attempt to force the players into doing things they do to do. If the players continue unchanged & suffer consequences the gm is at fault.
Od&d needs to do so much better.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe @Hawkeye's DM thought he was making the correct choice. I could certainly see how he might. He's making the game fun and interesting in his mind. That the players don't find it fun or interesting, but, rather frustrating and annoying means that there's some disconnect there. Learn from it and do better next time.

Yeah, I wasn’t bringing up the example to blame the GM. I brought it up precisely because it was an example of a GM meaning well… “hey, this scene will be like the end of Young Guns, that’ll be an exciting encounter!”… but making a decision that lead to a dissatisfying outcome. And one which doesn’t violate the rules.

I discussed it with him after, he said he hadn’t even realized that, and saw what I was saying. He had the idea of a showdown in his head so much that when we wound up in the barn, he just shifted to that as the scene, thinking of Young Guns.

IMO. When it comes to invalidating player approaches or strategies - I think most of us agree that there are some approaches or strategies that should be invalidated.

Like what?

Assuming genuine play on the part of the players… not absurd hypotheticals or anything. What strategies that may actually be proposed should be invalidated? And why?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay. So here are my thoughts. In a game like D&D one purpose of the DM/referee is to make judgements about what plans and approaches are appropriate and whether they succeed. Any approach or plan he chooses as not working by definition is negating that plan. Which makes your definition above appear to apply.

This is why I keep coming back to the tautology. You are defining MMI in such a way that the D&D prescribed method of play is always MMI. There's nothing wrong with that, you've made it definitionally true. But if that's what MMI is really describing (and maybe it's not and your attempt at a definition was simply overbroad and needs some more nuance) - but if that's what MMI is really describing then I think there's much better and more neutral terms than MMI to describe it.

And this is very frustrating, because I've repeatedly separated the two.

There is a vast gulf between "sometimes, albeit rarely, the answer is no" and "the answer is almost always no, unless it tickles DM fancy." If you cannot see how those two things are different, it's always going to be a sticking point.