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

[Xamnam]

As always, it's better to say yes and use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the character's story and that of your world, rather than shutting down possibilities." -- 5e DMG pg 287

In context, I'm not sure that advice is as generally applicable as you're claiming. It seems to be "sure, put additional restrictions on player options if you want, but after you do that maybe try and allow exceptions."

I think this does short shrift to the "As always" clause. Given that the general 5e rule is "Specific beats general," that reads much more of a reminder of the general context within this specific exception.

Or, to put it otherwise "As always [when running a table satisfying TTRPG]" seems more like the intent than "As always [when you're already in the process of eliminating this choice]".

 

[Maxperson]

I do have my 5e DMG handy, so let's look at that in a broader context. That quote is in the "Modifying a Class" section, under the subheading "Resticting Class Access." This section speaks, broadly, to how you can root a class more firmly in the fiction by associating it with a race.

"Without changing the way a class functions, you can root it more firmly in the world by associating the class with a particular race or culture." -- 5e DMG pg 287

It does end with a paragraph with the above sentence, but in full context it is:

"You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing a player character to break these restrictions [the GM assigned restrictions on class]. Can a half-elf live among the elves and study their bardic traditions? Can a dwarf stumble into a warlock pact despite having no connection to a culture that normally produces warlocks? As always, it's better to say yes and use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the character's story and that of your world, rather than shutting down possibilities." -- 5e DMG pg 287

In context, I'm not sure that advice is as generally applicable as you're claiming. It seems to be "sure, put additional restrictions on player options if you want, but after you do that maybe try and allow exceptions."

Taken with all the other quotes, it speaks to a broad philosophy of saying yes when possible and not shutting the players down. No, it's not nearly as clear as 4e is, but it is there and the DM should be following that philosophy unless he specifically talks to the players about changing it and gets their buy-in.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this does short shrift to the "As always" clause. Given that the general 5e rule is "Specific beats general," that reads much more of a reminder of the general context within this specific exception.

Or, to put it otherwise "As always [when running a table satisfying TTRPG]" seems more like the intent than "As always [when you're already in the process of eliminating this choice]".

There's more, though.

Page 26 of the DMG

"Once you've identified what your campaign is about, let the players help tell the story by deciding how their characters are involved. This is their opportunity to tie their characters' history and background to the campaign, and a chance for you to determine how the various elements of each character's background tie into the campaign's story. For example, what secret has the hermit character learned? What is the status of the noble character's family? What is the folk hero's destiny?"

And...

"Listen to the players' ideas, and say yes if you can. Even if you want all the characters to have grown up in the starting town, consider allowing a recent arrival or a transplant if the player's story is convincing enough."

DMG page 71

"Creating an adventure involves blending scenes of exploration, social interaction, and combat into a unified whole that meets the needs of your players and your campaign."

DMG page 246

"Appeal to Player Preferences."

It's pretty clear that the game wants the DM to listen to the players and say yes as much as they reasonably can.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree with that. Perhaps you are taking my use of ‘concern’ to be different.

If I might try to rephrase.
Players absolutely should have expectations about what their actions are likely to achieve. That’s a big part of playing the game. I am saying they shouldn’t be concerned when some action isn’t resolved to their expectations.

That's better, but I still think it runs into the question of "why?" After all, if you have expectations of how things should work out, and they don't, you kind of want to know why they didn't so you can either change conditions next time something similar comes up, or avoid doing that thing if you don't like the result.

Basically, unless its a rare event, getting different results than you want without further information is the sort of thing that can progressively destroy the ability to make sensible decisions.

 

[Xamnam]

It's pretty clear that the game wants the DM to listen to the players and say yes as much as they reasonably can.

I absolutely agree. That said, I do think the 5e PHB and DMG would be better served by stating that more directly upfront. I think it should be as clear a section as the 4e DMG had. The fact that the earliest mention in the DMG is in reference to, again, character creation, as opposed to more broad best practices, does make it less obvious. But, criticism of the layout of the 5e DMG is no rare thing, and at least it doesn't completely lack direction to be a fan of the player choices.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ask @hawkeyefan's GM!

I don't think it was in bad faith! See the post from @Campbell that I quoted below.

I just think that the Rustic Hospitality example has resulted in the following opinions:

• Totally acceptable ruling by the DM
• Poor judgment on the part of the DM, but within the bounds of the rules
• Bad faith ruling on the part of the DM

And other variations of each of the above. To me, having views run the gamut like that means that the text is very unclear.

EDITED TO ADD:
I can't help but make a connection to the kind of advice offered in the DMG on how to run the game. I'm thinking of "The Role of the Dice" where the book suggests that some people like to use rolls for everything, and some like to use rolls very rarely, only at moments of great import. But most people will fall somewhere between the two.

Is it really surprising that such (non) guidance leads to so many different interpretations? They're hedging their bets at every step.

@pemerton so in BW the player can just declare that they want to roll for a thing, and no matter how absurd to goal, the dice must be rolled and if they succeed the thing happens? Yeah, no thanks.

What's really great about a game having principles is that you can have them for players, too!

Does anyone ever actually play in one of these games where the players try absurd goals that make no sense in the setting? It comes up a lot in these discussions... the idea that the players need to be reined in or else they'll just go bananas. But the GMs can have absolute authority and handle it just fine, and any suggestion that their authority need not be absolute is met with skepticism and doubt.

Like, I'm questioning how the rules/processes are worded in such a way that a GM may have made a poor judgment but didn't violate the actual processes of play, and how this is something to be aware of as a GM and player. We're not talking about "Absolute GM Tyrrany Muhu Haha HA".

Look at the example provided in this thread. The GM was well intentioned - they wanted to provide a thrilling set piece. They just did so in a way that had a marked impact on players' ability to skillfully navigate the fiction.

Exactly. And to me, this is why it's important to discuss. This isn't something addressed by the texts in any real way. Or, even when it is, there is sufficient support to the contrary as well.

They deliberately designed the game to support multiple interpretations. It's clear and if presented in a positive way, most folks would agree. But talk about the downside of that, and suddenly it's not true.

 

[Ovi]

I think this does short shrift to the "As always" clause. Given that the general 5e rule is "Specific beats general," that reads much more of a reminder of the general context within this specific exception.

Or, to put it otherwise "As always [when running a table satisfying TTRPG]" seems more like the intent than "As always [when you're already in the process of eliminating this choice]".

The argument that a critical piece of 5e GM advice is buried in the back of the book, under 'Modifying Classes' in a subheading 'Restricting Class Access' that opens with encouraging the GM to restrict class access, and then offers that advice in the clear context of the GM deciding to restrict class access... is somehow general advice is odd.

 

[Xamnam]

The argument that a critical piece of 5e GM advice is buried in the back of the book, under 'Modifying Classes' in a subheading 'Restricting Class Access' that opens with encouraging the GM to restrict class access, and then offers that advice in the clear context of the GM deciding to restrict class access... is somehow general advice is odd.

I think it's more a function of the fair criticism that 5e books take a little too much institutional knowledge for granted, and assume certain practices are understood without needing to be mentioned. They can say "As always" because the general advice is just so obvious (/s). I'm not saying it's not a failing. I just think the text makes more sense in that context.

 

[Ovi]

There's more, though.

Page 26 of the DMG

"Once you've identified what your campaign is about, let the players help tell the story by deciding how their characters are involved. This is their opportunity to tie their characters' history and background to the campaign, and a chance for you to determine how the various elements of each character's background tie into the campaign's story. For example, what secret has the hermit character learned? What is the status of the noble character's family? What is the folk hero's destiny?"

And...

"Listen to the players' ideas, and say yes if you can. Even if you want all the characters to have grown up in the starting town, consider allowing a recent arrival or a transplant if the player's story is convincing enough."

Not about the GM's resolution process, but about allowing players to assert things about the PC backstories prior to play.

DMG page 71

"Creating an adventure involves blending scenes of exploration, social interaction, and combat into a unified whole that meets the needs of your players and your campaign."

DMG page 246

"Appeal to Player Preferences."

It's pretty clear that the game wants the DM to listen to the players and say yes as much as they reasonably can.

Again, not about the GM resolution process, but rather that the GM should try to design encounters/adventures that the GM thinks the players will like.

In reading, it seems that, despite differences in opinion, the focus of discussion is on how the GM adjudicates actions via the GM's resolution process. These do not speak to that.

Still open to consideration if you find more on this. Honestly, I'd point your towards the Role of the Dice, as I think you'll find some of the best examples of advice on how to employ the resolution process there. Unfortunately, the three presentations span everything from 'always use the dice' to 'almost never use the dice.' Still, there's good points in there worthy of discussion.

 

[Malmuria]

I absolutely agree. That said, I do think the 5e PHB and DMG would be better served by stating that more directly upfront. I think it should be as clear a section as the 4e DMG had. The fact that the earliest mention in the DMG is in reference to, again, character creation, as opposed to more broad best practices, does make it less obvious. But, criticism of the layout of the 5e DMG is no rare thing, and at least it doesn't completely lack direction to be a fan of the player choices.

The layout and much of the writing is indeed terrible. That said, I'll post this part again, from p. 6 of the introduction

The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them , and help steer the campaign through their characters' actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you've created, and to let their characters do awesome things.

Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players' preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.

By contrast, consider the introduction to the 1e DMG (p. 9)

Welcome to the exalted ranks of the overworked and harrassed, whose cleverness and imagination are all too often unappreciated by cloddish characters whose only thought in life is to loot, pillage, slay, and who fail to appreciate the hours of preparation which went into the creation of what they aim to destroy as cheaply and quickly as possible. As a DM you must live by the immortal words of the sage who said: “Never give a sucker an even break.” Also, don‘t be a sucker for your players, for you‘d better be sure they follow sage advice too. As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best. This book is dedicated to helping to assure that you are.