The GM in my imagined episode of play didn't use the combat rules. They invalidated the player's strategy and narrated the outcome that they believed followed from the fiction as they saw it.
D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
- Status
clearstream
(He, Him)
The problems here are due by factors described well by other posters, and have nothing to do with the game rules (as those have been suspended in this case.)
You quoted some apposite text further above: the DM here appears to have forgotten that text.
Aldarc
Legend
Remember: rulings not rules and there is text that states that the GM does not have to adhere to the rules.
clearstream
(He, Him)
An interesting case to reflect on is freeform RPG. What is implied for freeform if one feels that MMI is associated with an absence of constraining rules?Remember: rulings not rules and there is text that states that the GM does not have to adhere to the rules.
Something that your note makes clear is that rules can't protect from MMI, unless wielded under principles. It is those principles, and not the rules, that I suggest is decisive for MMI. (Or to put it another way, can the presence of rules in the absence of principles prevent MMI? In my view, no.)
Last edited:
Manbearcat
Legend
I’ve been absent the last few days and I’ve only briefly, briefly skimmed intervening posts, but I want to clarify what I’m asking with my questions in post 632.
I’m not asking for your “in-world-extrapolation-reasoning” as to why you might agree with the GM.
I’m asking for your process.
I’m asking you to “show your work.”
I’m asking why the alternative mental model run (one where runners get to the PCs and warn them or the barkeep subtly feeds the quartered troops a meal that’s gone a hair off or why there isn’t a contingent of sympathizers amongst the guard ranks or why a muddled insubordination doesn’t manifest among the ranks due to weariness and wages) the isn’t what you chose to instantiate during play?
I’m asking you what is the play priority that undergirds the handling of this:
* you can “play the world” lots of ways do why this way?
* ultimately, is it tied to perception of the potency of Long Rest Recharge and Rustic Hospitality will have earned the players that and, for game balance purposes, that is the limit of scope for RH’s instantiation upon this interval of play (rather than a full blown “resolve conflict by obviating” move)?
And, if so, isn’t that something that should be communicated to the players via a meta-channel to avoid these bad feelings? Retreating to “this is my work not shown extrapolation of the world and it’s just a misplay on the players part if they thought the conflict would be obviated” doesn’t solve the feelings of “offscreen gaming the system by the GM.”
So I would suggest showing your work, revealing the intersection of principles undergirding the decision here, and keeping the meta channel open.
I’m not asking for your “in-world-extrapolation-reasoning” as to why you might agree with the GM.
I’m asking for your process.
I’m asking you to “show your work.”
I’m asking why the alternative mental model run (one where runners get to the PCs and warn them or the barkeep subtly feeds the quartered troops a meal that’s gone a hair off or why there isn’t a contingent of sympathizers amongst the guard ranks or why a muddled insubordination doesn’t manifest among the ranks due to weariness and wages) the isn’t what you chose to instantiate during play?
I’m asking you what is the play priority that undergirds the handling of this:
* you can “play the world” lots of ways do why this way?
* ultimately, is it tied to perception of the potency of Long Rest Recharge and Rustic Hospitality will have earned the players that and, for game balance purposes, that is the limit of scope for RH’s instantiation upon this interval of play (rather than a full blown “resolve conflict by obviating” move)?
And, if so, isn’t that something that should be communicated to the players via a meta-channel to avoid these bad feelings? Retreating to “this is my work not shown extrapolation of the world and it’s just a misplay on the players part if they thought the conflict would be obviated” doesn’t solve the feelings of “offscreen gaming the system by the GM.”
So I would suggest showing your work, revealing the intersection of principles undergirding the decision here, and keeping the meta channel open.
I don't think you can get a reasonable answer because it's not a reasonable set of questions. by omitting any talk of the players being responsible for their own plan & what they could have or should have done you also avoid providing a new starting point for a gm to answer from. "because the players stopped actively shepherding their plan with actions the guards caught up" may not be an answer some folks like, but it's an answer that fits because the GM is a mere human with (usually) multiple players not some kind of hyper-elevated hive mind being.
Your questions take that a step further with a need to add an unstated "assume the GM is wrong, prove why they aren't by answering these questions" in order to give the details you want. Add some "what if the players did x" / "how would you rule if the players continued with Y" or whatever to provide a new starting point and ask relevant questions.
It's still MMI.
An alternative to get to the same sticking point: the PCs don't deploy Rustic Hospitality but instead successfully use Hide to sneak to a farm unnoticed, then engage in discussion with the farmer to use his barn and succeed on the called for CHA check to do so. They then get a long rest in, mounting watch where they can see towards where the Duke's men are quartered. No further play occurs, instead play skips to the PCs being surrounded by the Duke's men the next morning.
All Rustic Hospitality is doing is auto winning some play. Everyone seems so caught up trying to exclaim it was partially successful and so players should be happy they got something that they completely miss the functional issue -- RH was deployed to avoid encountering the Duke's men. The GM said no.
Manbearcat
Legend
So what I'm saying isn't tracking for whatever reason. Let me try this toy model thought experiment another way.
Imagine there are no players.
Its just you. The GM.
We have removed Skilled Play as a priority such that it no longer "infects" your mental model for "what might happen in this village with a Folk Hero afforded the means of Rustic Hospitality?" We've also removed "PC build rules that should/must be obliged" from the equation.
Now. Run the model.
What does that look like? You could instantiate that 1000 different ways and more.
How are you choosing one instantiation over another? What does that process look like? For instance, I gave a model upthread that landed on something like:
Dice Pool =
+1d6 per Common Folk Faction Status w/ Folk Hero (3 = 3d6)
+4d6 for Scale of search
+2d6 for Common Folk Advanced Trait "Resourceful"
-1d6 per Tier of Guard (3 = 3d6)
-1d6 for Scale of Guard
-2d6 for Guard Advanced Trait "Ruthless"
= 3d6
6 = you're total hidden away (they don't find you and the people don't snitch)
4-5 = they find you in the barn but its after a rest and the watch has spotted them so you're mobilized.
1-3 = its fubar (the frightened people snitched and the antagonists found you in such a way that the watch couldn't mobilize). You're awoken in the night, surrounded and a patrol of angry, mounted guards have busted down the barn door via the hooves of their horses...with more on the way.
How do you settle on your result? Why?
Now...
Is this different when you add players back in...if so, why? This answer will tell us what is happening from a play process and play priority perspective.
Last edited:
No. That's called "writing a novel" not "playing d&d".
The players could have ran away into the sewers and come into combat with oozes Kobold cultists or whatever... But they didn’t, they instead expected to world to pause while they took a long rest
The players could have fled into the wilds and run into any number of things in the wilds... But they took a long rest instead...
Tge players could have fled on horseback along roads to another town... But they took a long rest instead and the world didn't pause.
"Assume the gm is a novelist without players" doesn't change anything because it's still carrying an "explain orassume the gm is wrong"
clearstream
(He, Him)
For my part, I am mindful of that. I can see a reasonable interpretation of the feature that supports the DM's ruling from a rules perspective (which does not imply support from other perspectives, nor when I rule in one argument do I rule out other arguments that aren't in conflict.)
Strictly speaking, RH cannot be deployed to "avoid encountering the Duke's men." Conditioned on your not posing a threat, it can be deployed to hide you, to rest you, to recuperate you. I take the word "shield" to refer to those benefits, so I parse out that those benefits stop if providing them would put the commoners at risk. Note that I can think of other readings of that same passage, based on how a group interprets "shield", but so far, interpreting "shield" as I do seems to match the reading in this thread.
Hide in 5e is reasonably taken to connect with hiding and the hidden state. It's an action or stance (i.e. it can be started, and it can be continued.) It's not a result (the mechanical result of hide is to be hidden, in 5e.) The DM said that the result of using the feature was to gain a long rest. That is within scope for the feature.
A group may find other readings they believe reasonable. I'm philosophically skeptical as to one universal interpretation by humans of game texts so for me, all of those readings coexist.
- Status
