Dud you mean to link that twitter thread or link a post with it?
D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
- Status
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
D&D contains ‘carcinogens’ isn’t any better.
clearstream
(He, Him)
NVM ignore.
Last edited:
clearstream
(He, Him)
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Absolutely not. See above.
MMI is a likely (but not guaranteed) consequence of some of the design choices and components present in 5e. It is also, as I have taken pains to demonstrate, a likely (but not guaranteed) consequence of some of the design choices and components present in 3e, a system which is much more rules-heavy and theoretically less "DM dependent" than 5e is, even though the two share numerous similarities.
It is these design elements I want to point to, analyze, and address. I have no belief that 5e is "equivalent" to MMI, and frankly find the idea ridiculous. Instead, I think it was made in such a way that it has a very high innate susceptibility to such DM behavior, and that it offers few tools to address this issue. As a result, people who use it are liable to either encounter issues, or resort to undesirable methods to self-treat, which can lead to further issues.
Obviously, my preference is a system that does not do these things. A system that includes active and passive safeguards and tries not to undercut natural defenses against this type of dysfunction. That cannot happen with 5e, in part because it already exists and in part because the developers have been reluctant to make any changes to its core (though the upcoming 6e/5.5e/5.1e/whatever seems to change this stance.) Since no change to the actual system itself is possible, identifying risk factors ("carcinogens") and ways they can be managed, mitigated, or preempted is the only remaining recourse.
Of course, as a consequence of this management, mitigation, or preemption, there will almost surely be some expectation that both players and DMs abide by some kind of binding commitment. This may be interpreted as "taking away DM power" or the like, but I find that to be essentially the same as dismissing MMI as an issue of any kind in the first place. Another consequence, however, may be the conclusion that some people just aren't a good fit for DMing 5e, or perhaps even just playing it. If the game leans so heavily on social contract and continuous forthright communication, those who struggle with communication or who prefer to keep players in the dark may simply be bad fits for 5e DMing, though few people are likely to appreciate being told that.
What else am I supposed to say? "Oh no, nothing whatsoever is wrong with 5e, it is absolutely perfect in every respect, and all these issues with DMs feeling overwhelmed and under-supported and with players feeling frustrated and subject to whim and fancy are totally unforeseeable, unpredictable faults that just randomly happen sometimes!"
Carcinogens are things which increase the likelihood that a person will suffer a dysfunction of cellular replication leading to problems. I believe there are rules elements in many different games which cause a heightened likelihood of MMI, a dysfunction of authority regulation leading to problems. 5e happens to have several of these. That doesn't make it some horrible awful assault on human decency.
Alcoholic beverages are known to be carcinogenic to some degree. This fact does not mean I want to crap on people who drink them. (Far from it. I am one myself, albeit only rarely.)
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
I think you can find something between any of the above and 5e is cancer/5e is a carcinogen/5e contains carcinogens.
If you don’t realize by now how incredibly offensive and nearly conversation ending it is to compare 5e to cancer/carcinogens then I really think our discussion is nearly over.
IMO. That’s an indefensible position and digging in your heels over it only makes it that much worse.
clearstream
(He, Him)
Sounds good! Let's by all means continue if so...
Perhaps the clearest water between us is the matter of degree. Based on the evidence I possess and can find, 5e (and 3e ftm) are unlikely to invoke MMI. The greater factor is the tolerance, or it might be characterised as the sensitivity of the participant.
I think my theory up thread can embrace both our positions, as it is silent on how one wants to dial in the values. What it cannot do is cause us to adjust the values we have each dialled in and that we presumably feel are justified. I'm not sure I see a way to bridge that. What I mean is, I don't really see how I would persuade you, and I don't fancy your chances of persuading me. At this point we need fresh arguments.
Avoid either extreme, perhaps.
It's a repugnant analogy. Unhelpful and I believe misleading. Can we leave it behind us?
Last edited:
A common tactic when unable to refute or challenge a line of argument is instead to try and police the tone.
Report the post if it’s so offensive, or deal with the content.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Alright. Are you then willing to abandon the line of argument I chose the analogy against, namely, the whole "it's not guaranteed" thing?
Because that absolutely is a huge sticking point for me. It is extremely frustrating to be met, at every turn, with the statement that "well because it isn't 100% guaranteed to happen, it MUST be due to other factors, with constitutive elements playing either no part whatsoever, or at least so little a part as to be completely negligible, and this we can completely ignore them and focus on the participants alone."
Because yes, I grant that it isn't 100% guaranteed to happen. The fact that it is not 100% guaranteed does not mean that the structures themselves can be treated as completely negligible. I have used analogies because they demonstrate real examples where it is true that a certain undesirable outcome is not 100% guaranteed, and yet we all recognize that there are constitutive elements (rather than purely user characteristics) which contribute risk, sometimes a lot of risk, to that outcome occurring. If we can accept that "well it isn't 100% guaranteed to happen" is not a tenable response to the kinds of criticism I am bringing, then I will gladly retract the analogy and never use it again.
Regardless, I apologize for causing offense.
Last edited:
That's a great set of tweets
- Dungeons and Dragons 5e, Analysis Part III after a three year break (1/11).
- Three things I noticed today that were clunky game-wise. One was due to players not following the rules, second due to D&D not having rules to handle the situation, and third due to D&D putting a lot of weight on the optimal thing to do vs what's narratively interesting (2/11).
- First up: players "Mother May I"-ing their way into skill checks. Although the rules of D&D 5e state that the DM calls for an ability check when a character attempts to do something that is uncertain, in most games, this isn't occurring (3/11).
- Instead, the player grabs dice and proactively asks to make a specific check. It's because they're trying to uncover the story behind the DM screen, rather than create their OWN story via explaining what their character is doing in the fiction (4/11).
- The next issue was a situation where my char wanted to do something different than the rest of the group. Due to D&D needing a high degree of "synergy" among its players to move the game along, and emphasizing "don't split the party," there wasn't a good way to resolve it (5/11).
- I do enjoy resolution methods like "Seduce/Manipulate" in Apocalypse World for this. If a player's char tries to coerce another's into doing something, and gets a successful roll, the other player is given mechanical incentive (XP!) to go along with it. And if they don't (6/11)?
- Then they get an XP handicap, but they don't have to do the thing! Because of the way Apoc World is designed, that the PLAYERS push the direction of the story (no predone story to reveal!), that player can easily not do the thing, and the game as a whole doesn't suffer (7/11).
- Finally, D&D backstories. One player wrote a huge backstory, and in it, his char has a deep hatred of goblins. We encountered them, and another char decided to negotiate. The one who hates goblins kept saying he wanted to kill them, BUT, never followed through. Why (8/11)?
- D&D rewards optimal choices. While the story that might result from the char starting to slay the goblins might be interesting, because the rest of the group weren't on board, he knew it was a lost cause strategically, so he didn't bother pushing his goblin killing agenda (9/11).
- In contrast, Burning Wheel has a fundamental core rule: character beliefs and instincts drive the game. Not only does the game mechanics direct the player to specifically engage them, which will push the narrative forward, it rewards the player with XP by doing so (10/11).
That lack of need goes so far that sometimes I have NPCs "hire" the players to do something & more often than not they don't even bother asking about pay & compensation if the NPC doesn't bring it up first.
Last edited:
- Status
