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

[Hussar]

It's an interesting question @FrogReaver. If you start from the position that the DM is interpreting things correctly - that invoking the background only allows for the long rest, is it still a Mother May I situation.

But, here's the thing. Even if the DM is 100% in the right, the player is still unhappy. The player isn't really unhappy about the interpretation of the rules, but rather, how that interpretation was used in the game which resulted in a situation that wasn't fun for the player.

So, in my mind anyway, it really doesn't matter who is right. The issue is that there is a problem at the table. Who's correctly interpreting the rules doesn't change that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that MMI is the symptom of a problem at the table, not the problem itself. The problem is that the DM ignored the players unstated but pretty clear goals in order to use his own. The players wanted to be able to hide from the bad guys and then formulate some sort of strategy to move forward. The DM took that away and forced the players into a reactive rather than active role. The players couldn't avoid the encounter, couldn't plan for the encounter. They could only react to the encounter. The DM's choices deprotagonized the players. It took away their choices.

And, note, it wasn't the player's choices that resulted in this scenario either. If the players chose to enter the bad guy's stronghold and get caught in a trap, well, that's on the players. The players in this case though, have pretty strongly signaled that they want to be in the driver's seat and the DM completely ignored that.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Okay. But IMO, you also have consistently provided definitions that under examination don't seem to separate the 2 with respect to whether they are mother may I. So, for me it appears you are consistently saying two different things. That's frustrating for me as well - but I'm confident we can get this sorted out.

*Note: I'm not blaming you. Defining stuff just the right way is hard!

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.

I fully agree that those are different. So let's start here. Are both of those mother may I? If not, can you define mother may I in a way that exempts the scenario that isn't? I think for me that's where I keep getting hung up.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

There is often a certain element, IMHO, of "Who owns the fiction?" when it comes to MMI and railroading.

Despite differences of opinion, I don't think that MMI would be as an egregious of an issue in a sandbox game run by @Bedrockgames based upon how they describe their games - i.e., a world meant to be broken by the players - because this suggests an approach where the GM feels less entitlted to the shared fiction of the world as theirs. This is because sandboxes are defined in relation to the players (and their actions) and not the GM.

However, I likely would expect to encounter MMI more in games where either (a) the GM is more interested in setting tourism (often IME for the adulations of their homebrew) or (b) the GM player has a god complex: i.e., believes the role confers infallibility and unassailable privilege.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

To start - any that don't fit with the genre or setting.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I hope we fellow ENworlders played meaningful (if necessarily modest) part!

 

[clearstream]

It's an interesting question @FrogReaver. If you start from the position that the DM is interpreting things correctly - that invoking the background only allows for the long rest, is it still a Mother May I situation.

But, here's the thing. Even if the DM is 100% in the right, the player is still unhappy. The player isn't really unhappy about the interpretation of the rules, but rather, how that interpretation was used in the game which resulted in a situation that wasn't fun for the player.

So, in my mind anyway, it really doesn't matter who is right. The issue is that there is a problem at the table. Who's correctly interpreting the rules doesn't change that.

Exactly! I have been making the argument because if the case is one of MMI, it is for reasons that don't turn on compliance with the rule. Something I believe @hawkeyefan's thoughts on Intimidation-as-healing also demonstrates.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that MMI is the symptom of a problem at the table, not the problem itself. The problem is that the DM ignored the players unstated but pretty clear goals in order to use his own.

Without disagreeing with that, I wonder if there is also something in the distinction between player declaring an action - Intimidate Ilmater say - and declaring a result - my fallen ally is healed.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't think I agree. If the players declare actions for their PCs, I adjudicate them. Whether they work or not is determined via the adjudication process, which doesn't include decisions about "validity".

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.

So what, then, is the point of a background feature like Rustic Hospitality? I thought it's whole point is to take that little bit of the fiction out of the hands of the GM.

I mean, any player, regardless of PC background, can tell the GM that they are seeking to hide among the common folk like Robin Hood and find out what the GM thinks of that strategy!

 

[pemerton]

Here is a question for @FrogReaver and @clearstream.

Consider the following, imagined, episode of 5e D&D play:

The PCs are high level (20th or thereabouts). They have planned to assault Orcus on the Abyss. They have teleported (via some appropriate magical effect) into Orcus's throneroom. And the GM describes a Balor demon standing not far from them, obviously Orcus's personal bodyguard.

The player of the fighter PC declares "I charge at the Balor, ready to cut it down!" The PC has good AC and hit points for a character of that level, is equipped with a +1 Demon-slaying sword, and has been buffed a bit by the PC spellcasters and some potions.

The GM replies straight away (ie no dice are rolled or anything like that) "The Balor ducks your charge, and pulls to the floor with its whip about your legs. Then it decapitates you with its flaming sword!"​

This appears to conform to the 5e D&D playloop as you are presenting it. Do you think it is consistent with the rules and/or the principles for GMing 5e D&D.

And to make my position clear: I regard the episode of play that @hawkeyefan described as having the same basic structure as this imagined episode.

 

[clearstream]

So what, then, is the point of a background feature like Rustic Hospitality? I thought it's whole point is to take that little bit of the fiction out of the hands of the GM.

I mean, any player, regardless of PC background, can tell the GM that they are seeking to hide among the common folk like Robin Hood and find out what the GM thinks of that strategy!

As a preface, different groups give rests significantly different impact on their games of 5e. So what I describe will not apply at some tables. For groups that give rests significant impact, the benefit of gaining a long rest in the middle of an extended pursuit is huge. Recover 100% of hit points, a level of exhaustion, all expended spell slots, power pools and feature uses. The consequence for subsequent actions and combat can be very large.

 

[clearstream]

Here is a question for @FrogReaver and @clearstream.

Consider the following, imagined, episode of 5e D&D play:

The PCs are high level (20th or thereabouts). They have planned to assault Orcus on the Abyss. They have teleported (via some appropriate magical effect) into Orcus's throneroom. And the GM describes a Balor demon standing not far from them, obviously Orcus's personal bodyguard.​

​

The player of the fighter PC declares "I charge at the Balor, ready to cut it down!" The PC has good AC and hit points for a character of that level, is equipped with a +1 Demon-slaying sword, and has been buffed a bit by the PC spellcasters and some potions.​

​

The GM replies straight away (ie no dice are rolled or anything like that) "The Balor ducks your charge, and pulls to the floor with its whip about your legs. Then it decapitates you with its flaming sword!"​

This appears to conform to the 5e D&D playloop as you are presenting it. Do you think it is consistent with the rules and/or the principles for GMing 5e D&D.

And to make my position clear: I regard the episode of play that @hawkeyefan described as having the same basic structure as this imagined episode.

It's markedly different mechanically because it will fall within the rules for combat. In order for the Balor's whip (can result in pulling 25') and sword attack to be legitimate per 5e rules, initiative would need to be rolled.

However, perhaps you have in mind a way to run this through some other rules, such as those for ability checks. Can you walk us through that if so?

EDITED for clarity.