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

[clearstream]

It’s conversation is missing the consequence of a whole lot of “P words.”

* Proportionality.

* Pervasiveness/prolificness.

* Paradigm.

Exceptions that rarely see play have little to no impact on the through-line of play (the process of play, the experience of that process, and what governs the perpetual status and transition gamestate). For instance, I believe saying “nothing here” to one of the questions of DR was brought up. Well…(a) even if there is “nothing here” the player still takes +1 forward when acting on the impact of that “nothing here” and how it effects the array of the imagined space and (b) in all of my GMing of DW (1000s of hours…including easily that many DR moves as it’s the most prolific move in the game), “nothing here” felt like the right response maybe…twice ever?

Citing that (given (a) and (b) above) as consequential to this conversation seems less than helpful to sussing out the question of the lead post.

If something is an extreme exception (and of a particular type…eg, it’s still mechanically useful because it firms up the imagined space and is a lever to pull to impact downstream move-space), it’s a different kettle of fish than a governing paradigm. I mean…we all know this in every other aspect of our lives. Why would it be different in gaming? It’s akin to bringing up an Unsportsmanlike Conduct foul on the sideline for violating sideline decorum of an NFL Football game and framing it in the same consequential space as the rules for Offsides/Line to Gain (and all the other rules and rules paradigms that integrate with that).

I thumbed this up as I feel just this way about cherry-picked and speculative dysfunctional cases in D&D. Overwhelmingly the P words are in play and such cases are not seen. 5e is literally the most played RPG on Earth. Cultures of play are not what they were decades ago.

 

[Manbearcat]

I thumbed this up as I feel just this way about cherry-picked and speculative dysfunctional cases in D&D. Overwhelmingly the P words are in play and such cases are not seen. 5e is literally the most played RPG on Earth. Cultures of play are not what they were decades ago.

But @hawkeyefan ’s case is (a) not cherry-picked (it’s an actual play excerpt from someone’s play…and the handling of Background Traits are absolutely a big deal..this is not the first excerpt of the handling such a would-be fiat ability…and it’s not the first of its kind - see the legion of LTH disputes) and (b) , as should be abundantly clear (from this thread and others), there is HUGE cross-section of individual GMs rigorously defending this particular handling of Rustic Hospitality on ENWorld (and it’s kindred abilities) as well as (c) plenty of defense for those GM’s position on this to be found within 5e’s texts.

So the conversation should relate to the realities of (a), (b), and (c).

EDIT - What I’m getting at is this actual play excerpt could easily be argued as “would-be (or actual) paradigmatic handling of a pervasive aspect of play (GM handling these sorts of player fiat abilities).”

 

[clearstream]

1. Yes. I'm also fairly sure that, when they have experienced it, they usually did not realize it was happening. MMI, especially covert MMI, can be quite subtle. Blatant overt MMI is so obviously dysfunctional that even openly "Viking Hat" DMs will usually try to avoid it. Overt MMI can still happen though, otherwise we wouldn't see the many (many, many) discussions out there about DMs requiring four or five or six (etc.) rolls just to sneak through one small area, or eavesdrop on a single conversation, etc.

Just to note that DMs running stealth that way (five or six rolls to sneak through one area) are not following the 5e rules, which stipulate that stealth checks ride.

We each keep hitting over-broad, highly exagerrated (my view of your) and over-narrow, highly understated (your view of my) characterisations. How to bridge? One way would be the compelling testimony of a significant proportion of participants. So far I think we lack such testimony. I'm skeptical of phenomenon that are asserted to be happening albeit there's no evidence because... reasons.

3. Lack of awareness or understanding of the roots of the issue, the issue not being egregious enough to put them off D&D entirely, or (perhaps the worst of the bunch) the issue is egregious enough to put them off D&D entirely, and we never find out because they just cease engaging with anything D&D related. They become invisible to us, because they just decide D&D isn't for them and never come back or speak about it--why should they, it was a bad experience and complaining about it online isn't going to ake that bad experience better.

5e is the most loved version of D&D of all time, so far as the public record goes. Now, one might want to resist that claim, but supposing there are numerous participants having a terrible time just goes hard up against the literally tens of thousands of testimonials supporting the opposite.

*It wasn't MMI, but rather that 3e billed itself as a cooperative-teamwork experience, a party of allied adventurers taking on challenges of body, mind, and morals; the problem is, it's really a personal-optimization experience, a gaggle of individual adventurers who happen to adventure in the same places at the same time while attending to their personal interests. It took 4e, a game actually designed to be a cooperative-teamwork experience, to make me realize exactly why I had been dissatisfied.

That can all too easily seem to imply - if only the 5e-playing masses weren't so ignorant they would hate this!

That's the problem. You are expecting an absence of social contract violations, as you define your end of the social contract. Many DMs either do not consider this to be a violation of the social contract, or believe that it is inherently, and implicitly, actually encoded into that contract. They think this is so fundamental, so unquestionably core, that they don't even think it needs to be mentioned. Much like the significant number of DMs out there who think that illusionism is not merely a possible technique they can use, but rather the only technique that ever gets used. Further, that it is their job to keep players from discovering that the game is always fundamentally built on illusionism for as long as they can, so that the magic, the beauty, can be preserved as long as possible before the inevitable breakdown thereof.

DMs and players who are part of "Classic" culture may enjoy illusionism. There is no reason other than preexisting assumptions to say that this is one sided.

Yes, I have straight-up been told almost literally that (in less flowery terms), on this very forum.

The fact is, not all cultures of play want the same things you (or I, in the case of illusionism) want.

 

[clearstream]

But @hawkeyefan ’s case is (a) not cherry-picked (it’s an actual play excerpt from someone’s play…and the handling of Background Traits are absolutely a big deal..this is not the first excerpt of the handling such a would-be fiat ability…and it’s not the first of its kind - see the legion of LTH disputes) and (b) , as should be abundantly clear (from this thread and others), there is HUGE cross-section of individual GMs rigorously defending this particular handling of Rustic Hospitality on ENWorld (and it’s kindred abilities) as well as (c) plenty of defense for those GM’s position on this to be found within 5e’s texts.

So the conversation should relate to the realities of (a), (b), and (c).

What percentage of play would you say that case represents? Over all hours of 5e play?

EDIT Recollecting what MMI is, which is not a hard-conflation with DM-narrates.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What percentage of play would you say that case represents? Over all hours of 5e play?

EDIT Recollecting what MMI is, which is not a hard-conflation with DM-narrates.

Over all hours? Probably something like 5%.

Much of 5e play as measured by time, I expect, is filled with either combat (where MMI tends to be rarer in general), or extensive DM descriptions of things. Bookkeeping, cracking jokes, recaps, and many other elements of play take up a lot of time.

Keep in mind, the standard I have for a game that is not at all prone to MMI (or even inclined away from it) would be on the order of <0.1%. My true preference is a game where the percentage would be "effectively, if not truly, zero"--where MMI effectively doesn't happen--but I understand that that goal is unrealistic.

 

[Manbearcat]

What percentage of play would you say that case represents? Over all hours of 5e play?

EDIT Recollecting what MMI is, which is not a hard-conflation with DM-narrates.

My GMing of 5e consists of about 50 sessions at 4 hours apiece so about 200 hours. That has consisted of GMing 3 PCs between level 9 and 19; Diviner, Fighter, Rogue. Between their 3 Background Traits, Spells/Rituals, and a few particulars related to the GM’s game (boons through accreted play to date that were mechanically tantamount to Background Traits) I was subbing for…these sorts of player-fiat-handling moments came into play an average of 2-3 times per session so probably once every 1.25-2 hours or so?

So quite a bit and their (the deployment of the abilities and my handling of them) impact upon the trajectory of play was significant.

 

[clearstream]

My GMing of 5e consists of about 50 sessions at 4 hours apiece so about 200 hours. That has consisted of GMing 3 PCs between level 9 and 19; Diviner, Fighter, Rogue. Between their 3 Background Traits, Spells/Rituals, and a few particulars related to the GM’s game (boons through accreted play to date that were mechanically tantamount to Background Traits) I was subbing for…these sorts of player-fiat-handling moments came into play an average of 2-3 times per session so probably once every 1.25-2 hours or so?

Did your player-fiat-handling cases result in experienced MMI?

So quite a bit and their (the deployment of the abilities and my handling of them) impact upon the trajectory of play was significant.

I've DM'd 153 sessions of 5e and I can think of one case, a player desiring a spell to have additional results (i.e. outside of what the game rules provide for) where a "No" (enforcing here a limit) was met with disappointment. We have of course many player-fiat-handling moments, but I don't as I said count those as synonymous with MMI. If you do, then we are rather back to where we were at the start of the thread.

 

[clearstream]

Over all hours? Probably something like 5%.

If you are having the negative experience associated with dysfunctional interactions for 3 minutes of every hour of play, then no wonder you are so worried about MMI.

Above I said something that I think I worded unhelpfully. I wanted to foreground that to me, many of your posts (and those of some others) read that you see some ways of playing in a negative light, and have found a culture and style of play that you find extremely satisfying. It then seems inevitable to you (or at least, this is the way your posts read to me) that other players must have the same preferences.

I think cultures of play differ. Participants differ. Where I might not have the negative experience of MMI, you might. This view has explanatory power. It helps understand why a game that some view in a very negative light (and looking at this thread, very much including those who highly value agency and enjoy story games) a vast number of other folk view in a very positive light. To me, supposing that it's actually degenerate and they just haven't noticed, seems less probable (and less productive) than supposing that folk have differing preferences... something we know to be true in practically every other form of cultural activity!

 

[pemerton]

Again, referring to the chain, in D&D the rules will at times specify a result or process for choosing between specified results. Player continues to have fiat over how their character acts, and at times what rightly follows from fiction + system (and thus will normally be narrated by DM) will include any specified results.

For avoidance of doubt, the demon case is one where - in cases where the game rules are followed - there is a process for choosing between specified results.

Do you accept that that the players have some say in that process? And hence have some control over what results follow from their declared actions?

Can you also see how this relates to @hawkeyefan's remark way upthread that combat and spell-use in D&D 5e are less vulnerable to "Mother May I" than other domains of play?

This is comparable to, for one example, casting a spell while inside a previously unnoted antimagic zone. Player chose how they acted. Following the rules (as I think they should) DM narrates the result, which may not be as player hoped because DM, not player, narrates results.

Unnoted by whom?. When do you think it is fair for the GM to decide that an anti-magic zone applies? And how might that relate to "Mother May I?"

It is remarks like this, in which you appear to assert that the GM is entitled to narrate whatever they like, that give the impression that you are not aware of the possible principles that might operate to constrain the GM's narration. To make it clear, here is the full explanation:

* Any principle that regulates the way in which the GM narrates results - be it something about combat, or something about fairness in inventing anti-magic zones, or whatever - will allow the players to make action declarations that constrain the GM's narration, by engaging those principles;

* For the players to constrain the GM is to engage in one mode of exercising control over what happens in the fiction as a result of their action declarations for their PCs;

* You continually assert that the rules of 5e D&D give the players no control over what happens in the fiction as a result of their action declarations for their PCs (eg in the post I have quoted here);

* Hence, you appear to deny the possibility of constraining principles.​

And to directly address the thread title: this position, which to me you seem to keep coming back to, is how I would define "Mother May I" in 5e D&D.

 

[Aldarc]

What percentage of play would you say that case represents? Over all hours of 5e play?

What does answering this achieve? Does the extent and totality of MMI in 5e play somehow rest upon this singular case study? It's not as if MMI is defined as "that one time in that one session in that one campaign that the spirit of @hawkeyefan's character background ability wasn't honored by the GM."