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

[Maxperson]

If I may interject. Everyone here agrees with your last statement 'at no point are you asking the DM's permission for what you want your PC to attempt'. No one here is claiming that MMI exists with respect to the attempt.

So if the MMI being talked about here isn't about freedom to attempt then what do you think it might be about?

It doesn't really matter to me yet. What's happening is like if I killed someone in self-defense and people started accusing me of murder. If they want to discuss with me what I did or why, they need to stop calling it murder first.

The term being used is a pejorative that is designed to cause problems in discussions where it is used. They need to come up with a neutral term it if they expect to have a discussion where at least some people on the traditional side of things are not responding defensively.

This is a common theme with these discussions. One side comes up with some negatively charged term or definition and then try to pass it off as an honest attempt to discuss the different playstyles.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's fair, but it's not just that it's not a deal breaker. You don't really see many 5e threads anywhere where actual 5e players gripe about feeling like they have to ask the DM's permission to do something. You will see complaints about most everything else. Common ones are railroading, game balance, specific rules issues, authoritarian DM's, and even on occasion you will see someone describe a table so dysfunctional that you can't even begin listing all the issues there.

But again, if they think "That's just how things are done" why would you? It'd be like D&D players complaining that classes are too straight-jackety; what would they expect to get out of it?

IMO, At some point if something is the way it is and most aren't complaining about it despite complaining about everything else imaginable, I really don't think the best takeaway is that 'they just don't know it's bad'. IMO, that comes across as not really considering such evidence on it's own terms.

I think, however, ignoring that people internalize "That's just how things are done" is ignoring context, and without context evidence is meaningless.

 

[clearstream]

But again, if they think "That's just how things are done" why would you? It'd be like D&D players complaining that classes are too straight-jackety; what would they expect to get out of it?

Here I feel one risks a - they're too ignorant to know better - sort of conclusion. That I'm quite wary of.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think, however, ignoring that people internalize "That's just how things are done" is ignoring context, and without context evidence is meaningless.

Why haven't they internalized 'railroading is just how things are done' or 'authoratative GMing is just how things are done' or 'unbalanced classes is just how things are done'?

What's different or special about MMI that they just internalize that's how it should be done but don't with the other issues?

IMO, It's one thing to claim that some people internalize that's the way it should be and so don't see the problem, but to claim the vast majority of 5e players (and thus RPG players) have internalized this about this particular issue and none others - that's quite the extraordinary claim. IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here I feel one risks a - they're too ignorant to know better - sort of conclusion. That I'm quite wary of.

Also, couldn't that sentiment be flipped around, the ones seeing it as an issue are just too ignorant to know better? I'd be quite wary if my position rested on that sort of claim!

 

[Manbearcat]

In D&D players do not have to ask the DM's permission to have their PCs try or do something.

Does everyone agree that this entire conversation (and any kindred conversation) turns on formulating the above quoted sentence with the bolded “try to do something” vs “get something done.”

It’s a different sentence when you sub out the latter for the former is it not? Which formulation is the one we’re working off of for the conversation (and contrast)?

I would also say that its insightful (and relevant) to do the same thing (sub those two in/out for each other) in D&D combat vs noncombat resolution. You don’t have to ask the GM’s permission to “try to do something” nor “to get something done” in the overwhelming abundance of D&D combat situations; if I want to move forward 3 squares (15 ft) and use action x and bonus action y…I just do it.

If I consort with the common folk of the town to hide me in the barn until the patrol canvasses the area, fails in their search, and moves on (employing Rustic Hospitality) it’s quite a different scenario. I’m not asking the GM if I can “try to do something”…I’m asking “can I get something done?”

 

[Bedrockgames]

Does everyone agree that this entire conversation (and any kindred conversation) turns on formulating the above quoted sentence with the bolded “try to do something” vs “get something done.”

It’s a different sentence when you sub out the latter for the former is it not? Which formulation is the one we’re working off of for the conversation (and contrast)?

I do think much of the disagreement surrounds how player declarations are made in the game (whether you are trying to do something or setting up a broader conclusion). But I think that very much connects to notions surrounding GM power and the role of players and GMs.

I would also say that its insightful (and relevant) to do the same thing (sub those two in/out for each other) in D&D combat vs noncombat resolution. You don’t have to ask the GM’s permission to “try to do something” nor “to get something done” in the overwhelming abundance of D&D combat situations; if I want to move forward 3 squares (15 ft) and use action x and bonus action y…I just do it.

I think this actually varies a lot and there is an implied "I try" here in the vast majority of cases. If you are using miniatures you might just move your mini 15 feet. But the GM can always say 'you can't because x" and if the game doesn't use miniatures, you may well see players taking more of an "I try" phrasing. And again even if they aren't literally saying a try, that is implied when you say something like "I hit it with my sword". You know that saying you hit it with your sword isn't making the attack automatically succeed in any way, the GM and dice still ultimately determine whether your blow lands.

If I consort with the common folk of the town to hide me in the barn until the patrol canvasses the area, fails in their search, and moves on (employing Rustic Hospitality) it’s quite a different scenario. I’m not asking the GM if I can “try to do something”…I’m asking “can I get something done?”

Part of the issue may be this Rustic Hospitality ability is clouding things because it seems to be giving players clear powers (if I understand the ability). I am honestly still trying to understand what this ability is and how it is normally used. And I would say even in the most rulings over rules game, you would tend to not invoke it to countermand a player ability like a spell unless there was good reason (for example if a player tries to use lighting, I wouldn't suddenly say to them "this never came up but by the way the room is filled with flammable gas so you take 6d10 damage in the attempt and it fails to hit its target" unless that was something that was clearly established). But certainly something like a PC power isn't a thing I would consider inviolable in that respect if the situation warranted the GM intervening (and I think the two chief reasons for doing that usually are something like "it makes no sense or contradicts something that happened OR it goes against the spirit of the game: I.E. the rules don't say you can't combine those two things for that crazy outcome you are seeking but I doubt that was the intention of the design)."

 

[clearstream]

Does everyone agree that this entire conversation (and any kindred conversation) turns on formulating the above quoted sentence with the bolded “try to do something” vs “get something done.”

It’s a different sentence when you sub out the latter for the former is it not? Which formulation is the one we’re working off of for the conversation (and contrast)?

I would also say that its insightful (and relevant) to do the same thing (sub those two in/out for each other) in D&D combat vs noncombat resolution. You don’t have to ask the GM’s permission to “try to do something” nor “to get something done” in the overwhelming abundance of D&D combat situations; if I want to move forward 3 squares (15 ft) and use action x and bonus action y…I just do it.

I was thinking about something relating to this. Mearls' initial concern as I understand it (from 2005) is that it might not matter what characters had the power to do, if the circumstances in which they do it never comes up. I was helpfully reminded of this by @FrogReaver and @pemerton pouncing on me (okay, maybe not pouncing, but drawing to my attention) that we (and I very much include myself in that "we") are concerned not just for how X is added to our fiction, but how participants view that X being added to our fiction. How all that goes. At the time folk may have overlooked that I was pursuing the strong testimony of @Maxperson to see where that led.

If I consort with the common folk of the town to hide me in the barn until the patrol canvasses the area, fails in their search, and moves on (employing Rustic Hospitality) it’s quite a different scenario. I’m not asking the GM if I can “try to do something”…I’m asking “can I get something done?”

But then can you, if the world contains no commoners?

Anyway, up thread @pemerton introduced the notion of the chain - act-result-outcome - and a supposition was made that groups could have different ideas about who had authority over which link. @pemerton has rightly pointed out that an act can entrain a result or process for choosing a result. My own mind is not settled on if that matters or not, for quite a number of reasons, meaning that so far as I am concerned I don't yet have a complete, total and definitive, holistic picture of what I think the implications are (and not for avoidance of doubt that I think it doesn't matter in the sense of not caring about it or believing it has no impact.)

Focusing on RH, the question here is: does it allow player to specify an outcome? Or is it as @Maxperson or @tetrasodium might say (assuming I have their views right) that the player continues to say how their character acts (as specified in the PHB), and DM continues to narrate the outcome (which per the exact wording of RH one can pretty easily finagle.) RH is stymied, because the process entrained is that DM can call auto-success or auto-failure on the hide. They can, as the DM did, decide the hide was broken and the benefit received is rest and recuperate. It's possible some participants would be fine with that and see it as all very parsimonious and rule-abiding, and that just the same other participants will with perfect justice by their lights see it as egregious.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Also, couldn't that sentiment be flipped around, the ones seeing it as an issue are just too ignorant to know better? I'd be quite wary if my position rested on that sort of claim!

So what seems to have just happened is that @clearstream assigned a motive to those who’ve disagreed with him, that they want to imply ignorance on his part. Then you’ve taken that and implied that perhaps those who do see the issue here (me being one such person) are ignorant.

I can say with confidence I’m not ignorant of what’s going on in 5E. Nor have I accused anyone else of such. I’ve described my opinion of my play and GMing. I’ve offered examples and reasons for such.

To be casually dismissed as ignorant by these kind of subtle backhanded comments seems unwarranted.

So earlier in the thread, a couple times, I asked folks who play and run 5E regularly what they do to avoid Mother May I. So I’ll ask if you’re willing to share such an example from your actual play experiences of a situation where MMI could have been a problem of some kind, and what steps you took to avoid it.

I can promise you that if you offer such an example, I will not respond by casually implying that you’re ignorant.

But then can you, if the world contains no commoners?

If the world contained no commoners, then I’d be annoyed that when I said I wanted to be a folk hero, the GM didn’t say “that background isn’t suitable to this game because it will be utterly useless.” A folk hero cannot exist without folk.

If the GM allowed me to pick the background, and then decided after play began that there are no commoners… well I’d say that’s just about the most extreme instance of MMI that I can imagine.

 

[Cadence]

So what seems to have just happened is that @clearstream assigned a motive to those who’ve disagreed with him, that they want to imply ignorance on his part. Then you’ve taken that and implied that perhaps those who do see the issue here (me being one such person) are ignorant.

I can say with confidence I’m not ignorant of what’s going on in 5E. Nor have I accused anyone else of such. I’ve described my opinion of my play and GMing. I’ve offered examples and reasons for such.

To be casually dismissed as ignorant by these kind of subtle backhanded comments seems unwarranted.

It feels like each "side" in this (and a lot of threads on here) has a variety of views and approaches to conversation in it. We're rightfully asked by the mods to not make things personal... but then sometimes it looks like someone is brushing the entire other side when they didn't mean to.

In any case, I think I'd qualify as "other side" from you on this one if forced to make it binary, but have appreciated your posts.