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

[FrogReaver]

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".

1) Principles do invalidate many potential player/GM actions - that's one of their greatest benefits to the game.
2) Part of an adjudication process can be to determine validity and then to say no to the invalid actions.

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 agree here. The friction we are having is not about that but rather just how much fiction it takes out of the hands of the GM. You view the ability as taking much more out of the hands of the GM than I do.

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!

Sure. But the ability guarantees certain things in certain circumstances - the disagreement here is really about the scope of what is guaranteed.

 

[Campbell]

Is there anyone here who if the GM's framing was that an outrider showed up at dawn saying that the Duke's men were on the way, probably a couple hours out would have disagreed with that framing? Perhaps that they were being a little rough with the villagers as they made their way there?

What if you were presented with a GM who was wondering if they should have interpreted the setting differently with no complaints coming from a player?

 

[pemerton]

Is there anyone here who if the GM's framing was that an outrider showed up at dawn saying that the Duke's men were on the way, probably a couple hours out would have disagreed with that framing?

Not in my case. I posted something similar to this upthread.

This relates to the "duration" of Rustic Hospitality depending on fiction which is largely under the GM's control. So it is always has the potential to be a bit awkward working out how to bring it to an end. A soft move is clearly much better GMing than a hard move.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not in my case. I posted something similar to this upthread.

This relates to the "duration" of Rustic Hospitality depending on fiction which is largely under the GM's control. So it is always has the potential to be a bit awkward working out how to bring it to an end. A soft move is clearly much better GMing than a hard move.

Agreed. I think the distinction between soft and hard moves and some guidance on when DM's tend to use them would be some excellent DM advice for the DMG.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is there anyone here who if the GM's framing was that an outrider showed up at dawn saying that the Duke's men were on the way, probably a couple hours out would have disagreed with that framing? Perhaps that they were being a little rough with the villagers as they made their way there?

What if you were presented with a GM who was wondering if they should have interpreted the setting differently with no complaints coming from a player?

I probably would not have disagreed with that framing, no. Like pemerton, I gave an example of something in a similar sense but from a different direction, where the farmer was already afraid of the Duke (in this case, because his eldest child is nearly conscription age, and he doesn't want to draw attention to that fact and thus lose one of his children), and thus refused to grant hospitality directly, but instead offered an alternative that would require some work, but which would not put the villagers at risk. He also offered a hot meal and preserved victuals, so the players weren't getting nothing. It made clear that the feature would only be applying in part, and gave the players the choice of trying to make use of its benefits anyway or trying to move on and hope for the best.

This example serves to highlight both that openness and give-and-take are great antidotes to the problems of MMI, and that MMI is necessarily something we must evaluate situationally. Like the legal definition of obscenity (or, to be strictly formal, "hardcore pornography"), which is pretty much "you know it when you see it."

 

[FrogReaver]

Is there anyone here who if the GM's framing was that an outrider showed up at dawn saying that the Duke's men were on the way, probably a couple hours out would have disagreed with that framing? Perhaps that they were being a little rough with the villagers as they made their way there?

What if you were presented with a GM who was wondering if they should have interpreted the setting differently with no complaints coming from a player?

First of all, I don't think anyone or at least extremely few people here have argued that the DM in the example handled things good. I don't think you are saying they did but I want to make that clear because it's extremely important.

In general, I think there are many adjudications that would make us all happy. The implication this seems to be pushing toward is that we should just avoid adjudications that don't make everyone happy and I'm very concerned with the precedent that sets and how that philosophy could detrimentally impact the whole game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First of all, I don't think anyone or at least extremely few people here have argued that the DM in the example handled things good. I don't think you are saying they did but I want to make that clear because it's extremely important.

In general, I think there are many adjudications that would make us all happy. The implication this seems to be pushing toward is that we should just avoid adjudications that don't make everyone happy and I'm very concerned with the precedent that sets and how that philosophy could detrimentally impact the whole game.

There is a difference between "adjudications which make a sustained, good-faith effort to reach true consensus" and "you absolutely cannot ever adjudicate unless every single person is overwhelmingly, ecstatically, blissfully thrilled with what you're doing."

It's honestly really tedious to see very careful, circumspect assertions turned into "so...you want everything to be absolutely perfect 100% of the time?" Because that's obviously not true, no one has said or implied otherwise, and having to repeatedly exhaust multiple paragraphs specifying "no, that's not true, perfection is not the goal, we are not advocating absolutism, we do not want DMs walking on eggshells, we are not supporting bad player behavior," etc. is just...really tiring.

 

[Irlo]

This thread has been a lot to get though, but I'm finding many parts of it quite valuable for me. There's much I disagree with, as my tastes and (I think) of my players differ quite a bit from some views expressed here. I'm not currently DMing a game, but I'm sure I'll be more self-reflective the next time I do. People have put a lot of effort into this, and I really do appreciate it.

 

[pemerton]

Is there anyone here who if the GM's framing was that an outrider showed up at dawn saying that the Duke's men were on the way, probably a couple hours out would have disagreed with that framing? Perhaps that they were being a little rough with the villagers as they made their way there?

Further to this, and my description of it as a "soft" move: it opens up possibilities.

Eg one is that the PCs leave their commoner hosts, so as to not endanger them.

Another is that a rogue, ranger, illusionist or similarly capable PC leads the Duke's soldiers away on a wild goose chase, thereby ensuring they don't pose any more threat to the villagers.

Etc.

 

[pemerton]

have nothing to do with the game rules

You seem to treat the combat rules as a binding supplement to the play loop. I'm not sure on what basis (given your other posts in the thread).