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

[pemerton]

It appears to be the reason is probably because that’s still somewhat subjective. There are a lot of of qualifiers in rustic hospitality and the principles that depend somewhat on how different GMs (and players as well) are going to judge them. Disagreements do happen. GMs make judgments one player thinks conflict with rules of principles that another player think is in line with them

But if a player at the table thinks it's a bad call, and the players who think it's a fine call are all at other tables (eg posting in this forum), why do their views have any weight at all? And how are they supposed to be defences of 5e D&D - which is how they're being presented? The typical way you defend a game against someone's bad experience is by explaining how their bad experience was the result of a misapplication of the game rules and principles. Which I think is easy to do in this case!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What do you have in mind? Do you have actual play in mind?

I really don't get why you are posting as if the only way that Burning Wheel might be different from 5e D&D is by being terrible or absurd.

It has a different authority structure in respect of the fiction. That's all. If you're comfortable that the 5e authority structure doesn't produce absurdity, even though no one has sovereignty over the GM, then why are you worried that the BW authority structure will produce absurdity even though no one has authority over the players?

Or to put it another way, upthread you posted this:
Is it a high priority for you that a RPG system protect you from "bad" players? If not, why are you worried about absurd action declarations? Why are players not as responsible as GMs in respecting fictional position?

Right. That's the point. I don't expect that this routinely results absurdities in BW, as I assume that there is context and conventions that in practice guide things. So I don't know why you cannot extend similar charitable assumptions to 5e GMs. And I know you're gonna say "but there was an actual play example where there was maybe a slight problem!" then I assure you that if BW was as widely played as 5e we would have a flood of examples of reported issues. Of course with enough instances things sometimes go awry!

 

[pemerton]

Because I prefer games where the players don’t have that kind of control over the setting (especially around things like the monsters they are facing). Just simple preference

Why would it be control over the setting to decide whether or not a ghost (your example) is a spirit? It doesn't change the nature of the setting - it just settles the way those setting elements fall under natural language, "folk"/"fairy story" descriptors.

I mean, why is the GM's intuition about what is or isn't a spirit a better guide to folk beliefs than the players?

 

[pemerton]

I don't know why you cannot extend similar charitable assumptions to 5e GMs.

What assumption are you saying I am not extending to 5e GMs? The only 5e GM I've criticised in this thread is one who made an objectively terrible call.

I'm not one of the posters whose been defending that call as fully consistent with good play of 5e D&D!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why wouldn't the player be the one to make the call? That's how I tend to run those sorts of "natural language" abilities.

This question is not intended as a "gotcha". But I hope you can see how it relates to the issues of authority structure that @Ovi, in particular, has been raising.

One answer is that I feel we might in some instances get into Czege principle territory. There might be a significant temptation for the player to declare things to be spirits simply so that they can solve the obstacle with their spirit affecting powers. Also, consistency. What if there are several PCs with such powers and they disagree what things count as spirits?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why would it be control over the setting to decide whether or not a ghost (your example) is a spirit? It doesn't change the nature of the setting - it just settles the way those setting elements fall under natural language, "folk"/"fairy story" descriptors.

I mean, why is the GM's intuition about what is or isn't a spirit a better guide to folk beliefs than the players?

It would change the nature and weaknesses of ghosts. And the ghosts and monsters are external to the characters and a part of the setting.It is also a horror game so I find it helpful. It contributes to the sense of unease.

It isn’t a better guide. Both approaches are workable. It’s just how I prefer to play (I could try to give an assessment of why but it would be like trying to explain to you why I prefer Bach to Mozart)

There are places in the game where I give the players more control. It’s too deep to get into now but it’s psychological horror and a bit surreal so there are moments where I put explaining something that connects to the adventure to their past in their court. But mostly there is a sense in the game of a [EDIT] world outside the players they are striving to decipher

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What assumption are you saying I am not extending to 5e GMs? The only 5e GM I've criticised in this thread is one who made an objectively terrible call.

I'm not one of the posters whose been defending that call as fully consistent with good play of 5e D&D!

The discussion seemed to be quite a bit broader than that. And has anyone defended it as good GMing? I certainly think it was a bad call, but the feature also is vague and the PCs got eight hours of hospitability which is a long rest thus significant. "Objectively terrible" seems like an overreaction. I'd go with "not ideal", or "kinda bad."

To me in that example the worst part is how we jump directly from chilling in the barn with assumption that the guards have no clue that PCs are even in the village whilst still keeping watch to being surrounded by the soldiers without there being any chance for the PCs to do anything. That is rather jarring.

 

[Umbran]

I mean, why is the GM's intuition about what is or isn't a spirit a better guide to folk beliefs than the players?

That sounds like a thing that is decided by game rules or table agreement, and not answerable in a general sense.

 

[Bedrockgames]

One answer is that I feel we might in some instances get into Czege principle territory. There might be a significant temptation for the player to declare things to be spirits simply so that they can solve the obstacle with their spirit affecting powers. Also, consistency. What if there are several PCs with such powers and they disagree what things count as spirits?

Definitely part of it would be the The way it impacts the challenge

But if a player at the table thinks it's a bad call, and the players who think it's a fine call are all at other tables (eg posting in this forum), why do their views have any weight at all? And how are they supposed to be defences of 5e D&D - which is how they're being presented? The typical way you defend a game against someone's bad experience is by explaining how their bad experience was the result of a misapplication of the game rules and principles. Which I think is easy to do in this case!

I think part of what I am saying is for a lot of People, a bad call by a gm here or there isn’t a huge thing the system needs to address. You see a bad call, maybe there is discussion about it at the table if it is important enough and people move on. I wouldn’t say their opinions have no weight. If players raise objections to a call, the Gm might change things. I know I consider the mood at the table.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This question is not intended as a "gotcha". But I hope you can see how it relates to the issues of authority structure that @Ovi, in particular, has been raising.

I can see how it relates to gm power. I’m not evading that the GM is the one who makes the choice about whether something qualifies as a spirit though. It is definitely a game where the gm controls setting elements. Doesn’t mean players are passive participants but it does mean the GM gets to decide if a particular monster qualifies as a spirit. I still wouldn’t label that stuff MMI personally (for the reasons I’ve given over the thread). At this point in the conversation I am happy to agree to disagree about MMI