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

[Maxperson]

This is also why I regard pointing to the 5e core play loop as incomplete. I think it's obvious that the play loop is to be supplemented by certain principles, and that some of those principles will reduce the likelihood of "Mother may I" moments in play. (This is the bit of the discussion involving @Ovi and @Maxperson about trying not to say "no" and the like.)

For sure. The play loop is just the outline of play, not the entirety of what play is supposed to be like. The DMG then gets into a lot of advice for DMs to use when narrating responses to player input.

 

[Maxperson]

The reality is, the bandits very much did not want to fight the party at full strength, as they were recovering from a raid. When the party came up to them, asking for information about the bandit threat, the DM presented the bandits as being initially confused.

The DM then allowed the party to make checks to notice the bandits had serviceable weapons that were near at hand, that they looked slightly beat up, and that they seemed suspicious. The party, operating under the assumption that bandits are monsters, and therefore will attack on sight, never picked up on the cues provided.

Thus when the bandits said "sure, we know where the bandit camp is, we can take you there", and the PC's just went along with the obvious trap, and then were betrayed, they were outraged, because the bandits didn't "act like bandits should".

DM gets Blamed...

I can't imagine my players acting that way. Monsters don't always attack on sight or fight to the death.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's part of what causes the problem. the situation @Malmuria brought up where the table has 4 competing understandings is front & center in 5e. A player can't even get past character creation without forming their own understanding in isolation. phb ~9-16 chapter1 step by step character creation does not even mention working with the gm or other players on anything at all until the player has a fully completed character. The GM needs to fight against that or just accept that the world they are responsible for is a thing shaped by something a player thought up or put together in isolation away from the table that might even be a quantum thing.

But there are plenty of games that work exactly that way. I described the campaign my group was running where we rotated GMs, and we did all of that ahead of time.

There's no reason a DM can't wait until the players have made their characters and shared them with the DM to then craft the world. Then he can easily shape his ideas around those of the players, and there's no conflict.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can't imagine my players acting that way. Monsters don't always attack on sight or fight to the death.

I’m pretty sure my players are the monsters…

 

[Malmuria]

Now don’t get me wrong. Im not saying that downstream of a robust series of assessment that a rigorous and thoughtful user can’t arrive at “this system is inherently more vulnerable to MMI/Force compared to that system, therefore a through line of gamestate is likely to be invested with, if not outright governed by, MMI/Railroading in this system where it’s unlikely or impossible to happen in that system.” I’m not saying that (I would never say that because, as folks know, I have firm opinions on that matter!).

I’m just saying it’s of little use to conversation on these boards. Evaluating short play excerpts (like @hawkeyefan ’s instance of Rustic Hospitality or the infinite episodes of LTH adjudication ) of sufficient resolution (including understanding of all aspects of system/best practices) is imminently more insightful and useful.

I think there is something about the "spirit"/ethos of D&D play, that I feel became entrenched in the 2nd ed AD&D era and seems to carry through, via whatever process and channels, into the 5e era, that makes experiences like @hawkeyefan's with Rustic Hospitality, a recurring sort of thing. It's connected to assumptions/expectations/practices about GM authority over both setting and backstory; to a certain sense that players should be humble in what they hope to get out of action declarations, especially non-combat ones; and I think it can survive the transition from "trad" to "neo-trad" because players can be humble around action declaration but expect the GM to use their authority to make the PCs shine.

I would agree with @Manbearcat, in that MMI is more an analysis of (poor) GM technique than of the inherent tendencies (let alone the "spirit"!) of a game. So when looking at 5e, the fact that the play culture when it comes to GM adjudication is quite radically different is quite relevant. And the (dnd) play culture is different because it has changed since the 90s, adding new players with different expectations (whether drawn from video games, free form forum rp, 3e and 4e play culture, or whatever). As a player in 5e, it's [MMI] a non-issue. If I was going to change anything in 5e to make it even less of an issue for new players, it would be along the lines of DM principles, like "be a fan of the PCs," rather than in any change to the core loop/adjudication process.

 

[tetrasodium]

But there are plenty of games that work exactly that way. I described the campaign my group was running where we rotated GMs, and we did all of that ahead of time.

There's no reason a DM can't wait until the players have made their characters and shared them with the DM to then craft the world. Then he can easily shape his ideas around those of the players, and there's no conflict.

There is a very big reason that the GM can't wait. Look closer at what I wrote & what you quoted

Spoiler: You just demoted the table to sidekick status

where the table has 4 competing understandings is front & center in 5e. A player can't even get past character creation without forming their own understanding in isolation. phb ~9-16 chapter1 step by step character creation does not even mention working with the gm or other players on anything at all until the player has a fully completed character. The GM needs to fight against that or just accept that the world they are responsible for is a thing shaped by something a player thought up or put together in isolation away from the table that might even be a quantum thing.

That is a 100% unacceptable way for a player to treat their fellow players. If you look at the actual wording in the step that mentions other players though it really drives home how bad it is.

Spoiler: this is the last step

6. Come Together
Most D & D characters don’t work alone. Each character plays a role within a party, a group of adventurers working together for a common purpose. Teamwork and cooperation greatly improve your party’s chances to survive the many perils in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons . Talk to your fellow players and your DM to decide whether your characters know one another, how they met, and what sorts of quests the group might undertake.

Up until then the theme is always you the player decide you choose you imagine you you you. That final step mentions teamwork & cooperation "greatly improving your party's chances". Even the part that talks about teamwork as a party paints your character as The Main Character & doesn't waste even a drop of ink pointing out that you are responsible for working with the party or that you are coequal in it. The rest of your party are just sidekicks. It's on the sidekicks to get with your story & your plan. The GM can do the same when you are ready to give it to them.

Spoiler: When there is satire like this

It exists for a reason, the GM can't build a world from that & have it be anything approaching logical because there was never any effort put into it. Worse still is that the player is perfectly free to treat that backstory

Spoiler: like this

The players can do that because 5e imposes no responsibilities or mechanics to push them when a player wants their character to ignore or reinvent whatever background elements & continuity of established facts that might be inconvenient. Worse still they have a PC that is so insulated from risk attrition & need that they don't really even face consequence shy of the GM declaring "rocks fall "

How exactly do you expect the GM to craft a world based on 3-5 isolated quantum "characters" played by players who might not even agree on the world or basic themes?

 

[hawkeyefan]

There is a very big reason that the GM can't wait. Look closer at what I wrote & what you quoted

Spoiler: You just demoted the table to sidekick status

where the table has 4 competing understandings is front & center in 5e. A player can't even get past character creation without forming their own understanding in isolation. phb ~9-16 chapter1 step by step character creation does not even mention working with the gm or other players on anything at all until the player has a fully completed character. The GM needs to fight against that or just accept that the world they are responsible for is a thing shaped by something a player thought up or put together in isolation away from the table that might even be a quantum thing.

That is a 100% unacceptable way for a player to treat their fellow players. If you look at the actual wording in the step that mentions other players though it really drives home how bad it is.

Spoiler: this is the last step

6. Come Together
Most D & D characters don’t work alone. Each character plays a role within a party, a group of adventurers working together for a common purpose. Teamwork and cooperation greatly improve your party’s chances to survive the many perils in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons . Talk to your fellow players and your DM to decide whether your characters know one another, how they met, and what sorts of quests the group might undertake.

Up until then the theme is always you the player decide you choose you imagine you you you. That final step mentions teamwork & cooperation "greatly improving your party's chances". Even the part that talks about teamwork as a party paints your character as The Main Character & doesn't waste even a drop of ink pointing out that you are responsible for working with the party or that you are coequal in it. The rest of your party are just sidekicks. It's on the sidekicks to get with your story & your plan. The GM can do the same when you are ready to give it to them.

Spoiler: When there is satire like this

It exists for a reason, the GM can't build a world from that & have it be anything approaching logical because there was never any effort put into it. Worse still is that the player is perfectly free to treat that backstory

Spoiler: like this

The players can do that because 5e imposes no responsibilities or mechanics to push them when a player wants their character to ignore or reinvent whatever background elements & continuity of established facts that might be inconvenient. Worse still they have a PC that is so insulated from risk attrition & need that they don't really even face consequence shy of the GM declaring "rocks fall "

How exactly do you expect the GM to craft a world based on 3-5 isolated quantum "characters" played by players who might not even agree on the world or basic themes?

This is my point, I don't expect a GM to craft a world. Just some stuff for the characters to do, preferably with some consideration given to what the players want to do.

Everything you've said above requires as negative an interpretation as possible of both the books and player behavior that I just can't really give it much credence. It also seems to fully embrace MMI as the only solution to the problem of the players.

 

[Campbell]

I mean in any social activity if someone is being unreasonable is to ask them to be reasonable. If they aren't being reasonable after having a conversation don't play with them. No rule in a book is going to protect you from people acting in bad faith on either side of the screen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean in any social activity if someone is being unreasonable is to ask them to be reasonable. If they aren't being reasonable after having a conversation don't play with them. No rule in a book is going to protect you from people acting in bad faith on either side of the screen.

Does it need to protect?

Can it not simply be useful? Something that assists with avoiding (or resolving) innocent errors, or which discourages unreasonable people from attempting things, or helps skip past the many plausible errors someone might make when they're inexperienced?

It seems to me that this is, in effect, dismissing any benefits that may be accrued from trying to learn from others' mistakes before you begin yourself.

 

[Malmuria]

@hawkeyefan what happened the next time rustic hospitality came up in that game?