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

[pemerton]

I don’t play those games so I don’t have an example. I’d be willing to work together with you to craft a hypothetical example but this is very much something that has to go both ways.

I'm asking for actual play. Like I and @hawkeyefan have given.

As you know, my view is there aren't hypotheticals here. That's my point!

 

[pemerton]

It's been awhile since I ran 4e, but the designers provided us with a case that came up at the time as an example of MMI. "The Negotiation" sample Skill Challenge gives this DM ruling

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Auto-fail on whatever you try using Intimidate. I think that squarely qualifies as MMI to some players.

Does it? Or is it relevant that the scenario expressly states that a different sort of check reveals the information?

Especially because a single failure in a skill challenge is typically a soft, not a hard, move.

 

[pemerton]

Well in a sense I agree: the sense of social trust and communication at the table, among all participants, is more relevant when discussing a problem like MMI than the system mechanics. 5e designers wrote a game where in absence of a specific rule the DM decides ("absolute plenary power"). But due to the play culture, this has had the opposite effect, disempowering the dm to make any ruling except one that would satisfy the players.

Is there something wrong with players wanting to be satisfied by playing a game?

 

[Malmuria]

Is there something wrong with players wanting to be satisfied by playing a game?

Not at all; in fact, 5e DMs seem to love it when players feel satisfied, to the point that they burn themselves out creating bespoke narratives for each character a la critical role. Accordingly, 5e players seem to enjoy 5e because they feel protagonized and empowered.

 

[clearstream]

Does it? Or is it relevant that the scenario expressly states that a different sort of check reveals the information?

Especially because a single failure in a skill challenge is typically a soft, not a hard, move.

This highlights the subjective nature of MMI. I know that for some folk in the past this felt indeed like an egregious case of MMI. To you, it does not: you're able to justify it as not-MMI.

 

[clearstream]

Not at all; in fact, 5e DMs seem to love it when players feel satisfied, to the point that they burn themselves out creating bespoke narratives for each character a la critical role. Accordingly, 5e players seem to enjoy 5e because they feel protagonized and empowered.

I think we see a strong current of OC/Neo-trad in 5e. To quote the Retired Adventurer

"OC culture has a different sense of what a "story" is, one that focuses on player aspirations and interests and their realisation as the best way to produce "fun" for the players."

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm asking for actual play. Like I and @hawkeyefan have given.

As you know, my view is there aren't hypotheticals here. That's my point!

I understand. No problem. I'll just go sit on the sidelines of this part of the convo till someone can provide such examples to you, but i'll continue to participate in the other parts. Hopefully someone here can provide you what you are asking for.

 

[Malmuria]

I think we see a strong current of OC/Neo-trad in 5e. To quote the Retired Adventurer

"OC culture has a different sense of what a "story" is, one that focuses on player aspirations and interests and their realisation as the best way to produce "fun" for the players."

I agree. Though they arrive at similar places through different paths: one, through a char op play culture, and the other, through radically freeform roleplay on message boards, usually using an established fictional universe (harry potter, etc). That latter is very interesting to me, just as a phenomenon. I have one friend who is about 10 years younger that participated in some of this. It seems to have relied on pre-web 2.0 technology, so I'm not sure if people still do that; maybe they've just migrated to posting their dnd/anime OCs in random places?

 

[Thomas Shey]

My point was a different set of words might have provoked a more open state of mind. correct and factual are only two of many considerations when you plan your argument if you actually want to make any ground.

This of course assumes the poster really wanted an open state of mind, rather than an examination of why this could be problematic.

 

[FrogReaver]

I genuinely don't understand how. "Pick good reason" reads exactly like "this isn't a principle, it's just a thing you can do if you feel like." Principles should be more fundamental than that. They are touchstones.

As a broad general example: principles can collide. I think you noted the 3e Lawful Good Paladin dilemma. The solution to that kind of dilemma is to prioritize one principle over another when they collide. That would be one good reason to ignore a principle at a particular time.

The problem is, l legitimately don't understand what your position is. How can you have a principle of play if it is violated whenever the GM thinks it's worthwhile to violate it? That's not a principle anymore. It's barely a suggestion.

IMO, this is a better way to phrase your objection. It avoids the whole conflation of 'a good reason' with 'do it anytime you like' - which was the whole point of my counter-objection.

Maybe a better approach is to first ask if you believe there are every any good reasons to violate principles? If not I think we are at an impasse, if so I think you have your answer to what 'good reasons to ignore a principle' actually entails.

Given "real world D&D play" doesn't have principles right now, as several people in this thread have specifically noted (many of them on the pro-5e side!), I'm not sure how that's possible. A game with explicit principles wouldn't do this, and D&D 5e has pretty intentionally avoided articulating principles.

I think real world D&D play does have principles at the table level, just not the ruleset level.

Because you spoke of principles, which 5e doesn't have. What do you think a game principle is supposed to be?

I'd say principles are your decision-making guides.

Sure, we can articulate our own ad-hoc principles, but we have to be aware that the game wasn't actually designed with them in mind. As a result, you are quite liable to run into situations where these principles conflict with the rules. (There's also the issue of needing to playtest proposed principles to suss out any unexpected wrinkles that might arise, but I find the previous issue the more pressing concern.)

Fully agree here! I think it's a really great point as well.