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

[clearstream]

I find this a hard sell, given that one of the three recommended paths in the DMG for play is 'roll for everything, all the time.' It's clearly not just an intended mode of play, but one specifically called out in the limited actual play guidance provided (the three paths section of the DMG is where, I find, the largest extent of useful advice on play exists).

As @EzekielRaiden complained up thread, some exchanges become fatiguing. You will see that I draw attention to the roll with it text, saying that it encourages rolling too often. I point out that the rules themselves better serve rolling less often.

On this forum I very often read folk saying that they roll whenever it's uncertain. Do you think that is the 5e rule for when to roll, based on the whole Core game text?

 

[Ovi]

Is it your contention that a DM should never draw to the player attention the imagined facts about their shared fiction? Do you say that whenever they do so, they are egregiously protracting?

What do you think the Druid says next, and how do you think their DM responds to it?

Essentially, determined to find fault, the poster has filled my silence with their suspicions.

What imagined facts are in the shared fiction? That's the thrust -- there are none. The bit of play you proposed is against that backdrop of no facts in play, so it's the GM either pushing hitherto secret facts, which may be valid, or the GM inserting at least a temporary blocking move. Most of my post was talking about how the latter works on Trad play and treating it pretty nicely.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just to be clear: you and @FrogReaver are no longer asserting that the core play loop governs all action resolution in 5e D&D, without more?

I'm not sure what the 'without more' means, but I will still try to answer.

Just to be clear the core play loop is:

1. The DM describes the environment...
2. The players describe what they want to do...
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1. This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.

The basic playloop itself calls out combat as different - but the playloop description of DM describes the environment -> players describe what they want to do -> The DM narrates the results - IMO that is still definitionally what is occurring in combat despite the differences in structure, fluidity and flexibility that the rules text explicitly makes mention of.

So I guess it depends on just what you mean by 'the core play loop governing all action resolution'.

In that case, why do you assert that there is no "more" in the case of Rustic Hospitality?

I don't know what this means.

 

[FrogReaver]

Read my whole reply.

While I understand your frustration, I don't think that's a good way to reply.

 

[Ovi]

I'm not sure what the 'without more' means, but I will still try to answer.

Just to be clear the core play loop is:

1. The DM describes the environment...
2. The players describe what they want to do...
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1. This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.

The basic playloop itself calls out combat as different - but the playloop description of DM describes the environment -> players describe what they want to do -> The DM narrates the results - IMO that is still definitionally what is occurring in combat despite the differences in structure, fluidity and flexibility that the rules text explicitly makes mention of.

So I guess it depends on just what you mean by 'the core play loop governing all action resolution'.


I don't know what this means.

Let's say we're in a 5e combat, so we're in the 'more structured' mode of play. A player declares/describes their PC attacks a foe. Is there any additional constraint on the GM in how this is resolved? By this, I mean, can the GM decide on autosuccess or autofailure, or call for an ability check to resolve this? We aren't talking about a special case, but a run of the mill "Bob swings his sword at the foe to try and kill them!" Is there some additional constraint on the GM's ability to narrate outcomes here from a non-combat mode of play?

If so, where does that additional constraint come from, and why would Rustic Hospitality not also provide a similar constraint?

 

[Ovi]

Let's say we're in a 5e combat, so we're in the 'more structured' mode of play. A player declares/describes their PC attacks a foe. Is there any additional constraint on the GM in how this is resolved? By this, I mean, can the GM decide on autosuccess or autofailure, or call for an ability check to resolve this? We aren't talking about a special case, but a run of the mill "Bob swings his sword at the foe to try and kill them!" Is there some additional constraint on the GM's ability to narrate outcomes here from a non-combat mode of play?

If so, where does that additional constraint come from, and why would Rustic Hospitality not also provide a similar constraint?

To answer my own questions -- yes there is an additional constraint, in that the rules for how to adjudicate attacks are player facing and create expectation for play. Unless the GM has a strong justification (or a prior asserted change to the rules) to not use the combat rules as presented, failing to do so is extremely likely be received by the players as bad play and a violation of the rules of the game.

I would hope that Rustic Hospitality would receive the same deference by the GM, even though the ability may require more interpretation depending on the situation it's spirit is very clear. It's as valid and player facing a rule as the combat rules. However, since it isn't a combat rule (or spell), hasn't been long internalized as a clear constraint, and impinges on the GM's traditional authority over pacing and setting, it will rarely receive such deference.

 

[Ovi]

As @EzekielRaiden complained up thread, some exchanges become fatiguing. You will see that I draw attention to the roll with it text, saying that it encourages rolling too often. I point out that the rules themselves better serve rolling less often.

On this forum I very often read folk saying that they roll whenever it's uncertain. Do you think that is the 5e rule for when to roll, based on the whole Core game text?

No, it is not the rule for 5e.. 5e provides three general camps of rolling -- all the time, sometimes, and almost never. These are given equal weight, and describe legitimate approaches to play as the designers of 5e see it. All three, and various points between, are intended play for 5e. You opinion that roll with it asks fir too much rolling is a valid opinion, but doesn't define intended play for 5e. I agree with your opinion, but that doesn't give me license to discard it because it is one of the very few explicitly endorsed bits of play advice in the game.

 

[clearstream]

What imagined facts are in the shared fiction? That's the thrust -- there are none. The bit of play you proposed is against that backdrop of no facts in play, so it's the GM either pushing hitherto secret facts, which may be valid, or the GM inserting at least a temporary blocking move. Most of my post was talking about how the latter works on Trad play and treating it pretty nicely.

@FrogReaver is right, I was frustrated, and responded snappily. I'm sorry about that.

I refer to my post #790 (thumbs-upped by ER.) @EzekielRaiden says

Being the DM in this case, I can say that there was no established precedent that this was the case. That is, places of power had been used to power up spells, but had never done anything directly related to spirits before, so there would be no way the players could know, and nothing I could cite for said precedent.

The "this" in question is my speculation about the fiction (recollect, I am offering a hypothetical counter-case and in doing so I am not saying that my speculation really was the fiction in play at @EzekielRaiden's table.

I took @EzekielRaiden's example

Druid: Alright. Could we conduct a ritual to draw spiritual energy?
DM: No, that would only let you power up spells or other produced magic, not actually build up a spirit.

And proposed that instead of "No..." it would be better to clarify. The "this" then is

DM: Remember that all our prior rulings on drawing spiritual energy have established that it works that way. Like when you... [DM cites prior ruling]

Notice that @EzekielRaiden had gone on to say

That is, places of [1] power had been used to power up spells, but [2] had never done anything directly related to spirits before, so there would be no way the players could know,

I did not spell it out, but in my example I believed that there is something there after "That is" that players can know, so I revised my hypothetical accordingly

Druid: Alright. Could we conduct a ritual to draw spiritual energy?
DM: Your druidic learning makes you confident that can power up spells or other produced magic that way, but actually build up a spirit? It's outside your current knowldege.
Druid: Hmm... so who would know, I wonder?

What actually is pre-established, notwithstanding @EzekielRaiden saying there is no pre-established fiction, is what I have labelled 1 and 2 in the quoted text above. It was pre-established that power had been used to power up spells. So DM gives Druid that information straight. Nothnig had been done directly related to spirits before. So DM lets Druid know that part is outside current knowledge (in writing, I prevaricated between "knowledge" and "experience"... perhaps the latter would have made my thought here clearer?)

Finally, notwithstanding the above, suppose that I want to characterise what you - @Ovi - thinks? I want to really get at your meaning. But let us imagine you have unfortunately misread a post that you are responding to. One can certainly point out the misreading, but for me to understand what you intended I would have to accept your misreading as - for that purpose (understanding your meaning) - the meaning that obtains. Seeing too, as I was writing a hypothetical counter-case in order to show @EzekielRaiden an idea - a way of adapting their write up to avoid a possible construal as illusionism - all that is required to be true is what I had in mind as the premises of that hypothetical. What did I have in mind? A salient pre-established fiction.

 

[Ovi]

@FrogReaver is right, I was frustrated, and responded snappily. I'm sorry about that.

I refer to my post #790. @EzekielRaiden says

The "this" in question is my speculation about the fiction (recollect, I am offering a hypothetical counter-case and in doing so I am not saying that my speculation really was the fiction in play at @EzekielRaiden's table.

I took @EzekielRaiden's example



And proposed that instead of "No..." it would be better to clarify. The "this" then is


Notice that @EzekielRaiden had gone on to say


I did not spell it out, but in my example I believed that there is something there after "That is" that players can know, so I revised my hypothetical accordingly


What actually is pre-established, notwithstanding @EzekielRaiden saying there is no pre-established fiction, is what I have labelled 1 and 2 in the quoted text above. It was pre-established that power had been used to power up spells. So DM gives Druid that information straight. Nothnig had been done directly related to spirits before. So DM lets Druid know that part is outside current knowledge (in writing, I prevaricated between "knowledge" and "experience"... perhaps the latter would have made my thought here clearer?)

This is the point -- why is this outside the Druid's current knowledge? That is hasn't been imagined before this moment by the players or the GM doesn't mean that we can't imagine the Druid already knows the answer. It's this assumption that is being questioned.

Finally, notwithstanding the above, suppose that I want to characterise what you - @Ovi - thinks? I want to really get at your meaning. But let us imagine you have unfortunately misread a post that you are responding to. One can certainly point out the misreading, but for me to understand what you intended I would have to accept your misreading as - for that purpose (understanding your meaning) - the meaning that obtains. Seeing too, as I was writing a hypothetical counter-case in order to show @EzekielRaiden and idea - a way of adapting their write up to avoid a possible construal as illusionism - all that is required to be true is what I had in mind as the premises of that hypothetical. What did I have in mind? A salient pre-established fiction.

It doesn't appear I misread anything, though, because this entire time (and @pemerton as well) I've been driving at the assumption I called out just above.

 

[clearstream]

This is the point -- why is this outside the Druid's current knowledge? That is hasn't been imagined before this moment by the players or the GM doesn't mean that we can't imagine the Druid already knows the answer. It's this assumption that is being questioned.

Woah Nelly! ER says

had never done anything directly related to spirits before, so there would be no way the players could know

Given there is - and here I am quoting ER literally - "no way the players could know", I gave an example in which the Druid did not know. (That's why I eventually settled on "knowledge" over "experience")

If it is your contention that DM should have created a new imagined fact in the moment, that may (conditioned on exactly what you are thinking) be perfectly reasonable. But to criticise my example on that basis is simply preposterous!