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

[hawkeyefan]

I haven’t said they are equally susceptible. In fact I used the word minimizes in relation. @clearstream has explicitly said they are less susceptible.

I’m sure there’s someone that believes what you made a case against but I’ve not seen that sentiment expressed in this thread.

I didn't attribute the idea to you or @clearstream though I would say your stances lean that way for sure.

....which doesn't work. It's why most of the thoughtful 5e players don't engage in these lengthy ... threads ... with the same conversations. It's pointless to try and discuss a bad example (with some people who don't even play the game) with exemplars from other games.

Wow. Way to label those of us who play 5E and are taking part in this thread as "unthoughtful". Also, I don't think it's been pointless, since people with varied takes on Mother May I have at least been able to agree that the GMing in the example was flawed in some way.

The "bad example" was from an actual game in which I played. I play 5E weekly, and have run it weekly from its launch until about 6 months ago when I started playing instead. The idea that only people who don't play 5E are taking part in this thread is just wrong.

As for "bad example" I would argue it's an excellent example. Perhaps you mean "example of bad play", to which I would agree! That's the point and is what makes it an excellent example to discuss. As you've recently noted, D&D can be played many ways. 5E seems to have been intentionally designed for that purpose. Unfortunately, the lack of a specific play process means that a mismatch in expectations is more likely.

It's a potential pitfall for running 5e. It's good to be aware of these kinds of concerns if one is going to run or play 5E.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't attribute the idea to you or @clearstream though I would say your stances lean that way for sure.

Im not sure your intent. So instead I’ll just bluntly ask - what prompted your comment against all games are equally susceptible to MMI, and what was the intent of that comment?

Also, What can i say or do to convince you that I do not believe all games are equally susceptible to MMI?

 

[Ovi]

I didn't attribute the idea to you or @clearstream though I would say your stances lean that way for sure.



Wow. Way to label those of us who play 5E and are taking part in this thread as "unthoughtful". Also, I don't think it's been pointless, since people with varied takes on Mother May I have at least been able to agree that the GMing in the example was flawed in some way.

The "bad example" was from an actual game in which I played. I play 5E weekly, and have run it weekly from its launch until about 6 months ago when I started playing instead. The idea that only people who don't play 5E are taking part in this thread is just wrong.

As for "bad example" I would argue it's an excellent example. Perhaps you mean "example of bad play", to which I would agree! That's the point and is what makes it an excellent example to discuss. As you've recently noted, D&D can be played many ways. 5E seems to have been intentionally designed for that purpose. Unfortunately, the lack of a specific play process means that a mismatch in expectations is more likely.

It's a potential pitfall for running 5e. It's good to be aware of these kinds of concerns if one is going to run or play 5E.

Yup, my take is that to run 5e you have to engage in MMI. The best practice is to use it responsibly. The pitfall is that nothing in any of the rulebooks gives you any idea how to do that. Well, almost nothing, there's something in the "Middle Path," but it's pretty weak and presented as optional.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Wow. Way to label those of us who play 5E and are taking part in this thread as "unthoughtful". Also, I don't think it's been pointless, since people with varied takes on Mother May I have at least been able to agree that the GMing in the example was flawed in some way.

That's not what I said. If you notice, there are a large number of very, very thoughtful people who post regularly about 5e. I know this because I see them in other threads discussing these issues.

....these thoughtful people who are so prominent in other threads don't bother communicating in these threads . I'm reasonably certain you've noticed that.

The "bad example" was from an actual game in which I played. I play 5E weekly, and have run it weekly from its launch until about 6 months ago when I started playing instead. The idea that only people who don't play 5E are taking part in this thread is just wrong.

That's not what I was referring to. I do think it has been repeatedly (and proudly) pointed out that at least one regular contributor to these conversations about the deficits of 5e doesn't play 5e, and never has.

As for "bad example" I would argue it's an excellent example. Perhaps you mean "example of bad play", to which I would agree! That's the point and is what makes it an excellent example to discuss. As you've recently noted, D&D can be played many ways. 5E seems to have been intentionally designed for that purpose. Unfortunately, the lack of a specific play process means that a mismatch in expectations is more likely.

It's a potential pitfall for running 5e. It's good to be aware of these kinds of concerns if one is going to run or play 5E.

As I wrote- it's a critique. It's been a critique since Mike Mearls first coined it to announce the superiority of 3e to other styles of play, and it continues to be a critique today.

If you want to have a true "5e conversation," then perhaps it would be a good idea to ... have a conversation about 5e? With other people (I can think of quite a few here!) that play and DM a lot of 5e, and have a lot of experience discussing and detailing the issues with DM adjudication in 5e games and how they handle it, and best practices.

Something tells me that this would be a very different conversation. I don't think that's the conversation people are having. I'm not the boss of the thread though, and the OP (in relation to 5e) was answered in the first few pages, so I assume you're happy with the thread drift.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's not what I said. If you notice, there are a large number of very, very thoughtful people who post regularly about 5e. I know this because I see them in other threads discussing these issues.

....these thoughtful people who are so prominent in other threads don't bother communicating in these threads . I'm reasonably certain you've noticed that.




That's not what I was referring to. I do think it has been repeatedly (and proudly) pointed out that at least one regular contributor to these conversations about the deficits of 5e doesn't play 5e, and never has.



As I wrote- it's a critique. It's been a critique since Mike Mearls first coined it to announce the superiority of 3e to other styles of play, and it continues to be a critique today.

If you want to have a true "5e conversation," then perhaps it would be a good idea to ... have a conversation about 5e? With other people (I can think of quite a few here!) that play and DM a lot of 5e, and have a lot of experience discussing and detailing the issues with DM adjudication in 5e games and how they handle it, and best practices.

Something tells me that this would be a very different conversation. I don't think that's the conversation people are having. I'm not the boss of the thread though, and the OP (in relation to 5e) was answered in the first few pages, so I assume you're happy with the thread drift.

To be fair - I almost made a quip about our collective unthoughtfulness in this thread based on that comment. It did initially read that you were implying we were u thoughtful here. But after your explanation here the comment makes more sense.

 

[tetrasodium]

Right, which is why the basic structure of 5e is heavily weighted towards MMI. The concept of soft and hard moves doesn't make sense in that structure because the GM isn't expected to be held to intents or action results so it doesn't make sense as a tool. But if you're talking about what is a soft move vs what is a hard move, then you're bringing in the kinds of play that do engage these concepts and what I posted above is true about the difference between a soft and hard move.

There's a common effort to borrow terms from other systems but leave the context and even meaning of those terms behind. This seems to be done to try and claim that D&D (usually, although I've seen it for things like Vampire and other systems as well) also do those things because the borrowed and redefined term is deployed. Like here where the Duke's men surrounding the barn without any further play (and despite "actions" taken to warn against that) is being labeled as a "soft move." That's a straight hard move, the door to avoiding the Duke's men closed and cannot be reopened -- you failed to avoid them.

While the 5e system is not blameless in the way it strips the gm of soft power (magic item need/churn, resource attrition/actual risk to PCs/etc) I think this particular example of the barn & RH fails at being "weighted towards MMI" because it involves a player expecting to seize responsibilities from the GM. Shielding the player from being told they are overstepping the role of player only serves to encourage a downward spiral of dysfunction that further restrains the GM should they ever try to push back & get everybody to stop trying to GM for their own PCs.

The weighting created by the system comes in the form of all the ways it insulates PCs from needs risks & attrition resulting in a semi-figurehead GM by taking so many pains to combat various bad gm stereotypes like killer gm's & such as if those are a rampant problem rather than generally just signs of a newer & not very experienced GM. Sure there will be exceptions but those exceptions are likely to find themselves lacking in players soon enough.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To be fair - I almost made a quip about our collective unthoughtfulness in this thread based on that comment. It did initially read that you were implying we were u thoughtful here. But after your explanation here the comment makes more sense.

Heh. To be fair, maybe the mark of thoughtfulness is not being involved in a discussion that is now over 1,000 comments.

 

[FrogReaver]

Heh. To be fair, maybe the mark of thoughtfulness is not being involved in a discussion that is now over 1,000 comments.

Hmmm. Is the one that has been here since page one more thoughtful or the one that joined 1000 posts in.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Hmmm. Is the one that has been here since page one more thoughtful or the one that joined 1000 posts in.

Q. Why do you bang your head repeatedly against the wall?

A. Because it feels so good when I stop.

 

[Ovi]

While the 5e system is not blameless in the way it strips the gm of soft power (magic item need/churn, resource attrition/actual risk to PCs/etc) I think this particular example of the barn & RH fails at being "weighted towards MMI" because it involves a player expecting to seize responsibilities from the GM. Shielding the player from being told they are overstepping the role of player only serves to encourage a downward spiral of dysfunction that further restrains the GM should they ever try to push back & get everybody to stop trying to GM for their own PCs.

The weighting created by the system comes in the form of all the ways it insulates PCs from needs risks & attrition resulting in a semi-figurehead GM by taking so many pains to combat various bad gm stereotypes like killer gm's & such as if those are a rampant problem rather than generally just signs of a newer & not very experienced GM. Sure there will be exceptions but those exceptions are likely to find themselves lacking in players soon enough.

My argument has nothing to do with your claims of soft power as a failing of 5e. I don't agree with your position, but I see where you're standing there, and it's rather orthogonal to the points I'm making.