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

[AnotherGuy]

Who is "the table" in this context?

If I wanted to say the DM I would have said the DM.
I used the word table to reflect DM and players.

Like @FrogReaver says

In most d&d groups the players also want the fictional world to make sense.

 

[Maxperson]

Aside from being literally correct (the best kind of correct) I have some thoughts on those pieces of text. All are sentences I have had in mind in forming my views of 5e.

My thoughts on why I read them the way I do.

DMG4 - Being in charge is a circumstance I can enjoy even when I only use the mechanics. For example, we readily refer to being in charge of an automobile. That's true, even if I only use and cannot change at a whim the mechanics of the automobile.

Not on a whim, but I can have it customized any time I want if I have the money to do so. It's my automobile. I own it and I'm the only one who is allowed to make it into what I want.

DMG34 - Changing or ignoring rules to fit players roleplaying needs doesn't authorise it in other circumstances. It implies a concrete constraint, much different from what Rule Zero is normally taken to mean.

Not by itself, no. In the context of the other quotes it is more support.

DMG235 Rules serving you does not grant any authority to change them, it means use them in service to your ends. A hammer may serve my purposes. I don't change the hammer to have it serve my purposes: I use it.

Were that the only part of that, you would be correct. It also says that you do not serve the rules, though. That can only be true if you can ignore the rules or change them to suit your needs. Otherwise you are bound to follow(serve) them. You only use(serve) the hammer for its purpose and nothing else.

DMG237 Dice are like rules doesn't say anything not already said.

It's just another example the rules serving the DM and not the other way around, since it uses the same language and says "like the rules."

DMG263 This can be interpreted in several ways, but the literal meaning does not amount to Rule Zero. It doesn't change or suspend any rule in the PHB, DMG or MM. It tells you that you can avail yourself of additional rules - house rules, rules in books to come like XGE, TCoE.

Not being limited by the rules means that the rules cannot limit you. There is only one way that they cannot limit you and that is if you can ignore or change them at your whim. Anything short of that is a limit of some sort upon you by the rules.

 

[James Gasik]

In reality, "Noble" is probably a bad idea for a Background. Nobles have more opportunities than other social classes. They have more money, access to better education, depending on the period are expected to learn many different things, and probably better health care.

The 5e Noble is apparently an "impoverished" Noble, who lacks land, wealth, and an education any better than the average street rat. No wonder other Nobles don't want to associate with him or her!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I wonder if the definitions differ from person to person based on that too though...

Some posters consider sandboxes railroads (I don’t but I have seen that argument), and posters disagree over a railroad’s exact definition. But I generally dislike both railroads (in the sense of the GM inhibiting freedom of movement and choice, keeping things in the direction he or she wants) and linear adventures

 

[James Gasik]

I've found that saying "here's the world, where do you want to go?" tends to confuse my players. So it's better to put them on a train early on, but let them get off whenever they want.

 

[Campbell]

I've found that saying "here's the world, where do you want to go?" tends to confuse my players. So it's better to put them on a train early on, but let them get off whenever they want.

I think you have to do the work to integrate the characters into the world. Give them real context - people, places they care about, things they want to accomplish. I don't think you need a train, but you do need context and a dynamic situation.

 

[Maxperson]

Worthy of Respect
Interesting phrase choice.

So the man is a noble within the Known World of Mystara (essentially the Gazetteers). It is far more certain that when a PC noble meets other nobles from far away nations (Red Steel, the unchartered continents Davania and Skothar and even the lands in Brun not covered within the Gazetteers as well as the Hollow World) or even those from another setting altogether) they won't recognise each other.

You seem to think a DM ruling this way is an affront to the player or at least his creative choice.
Meanwhile the common place view would be to appreciate the setting and the table's fiction.

It goes beyond even that. @pemerton is essentially saying that a noble from the Known World of Mystara who ends up on Toril should be put up by nobles who would automatically recognize him. Every noble in the multiverse knows this guy is a noble, and not some imposter claiming to be one.

 

[Maxperson]

My scenario was that the DM was saying yes without invoking those rules. No attack roll, no potential for waking up, etc.

I probably wasn’t clear enough there.

The player still invoked them, but the DM decided to fast forward through them and just get to the part where the sword goes through the innkeeper and he dies.

 

[Xamnam]

I mean, if a player chooses as their ability that they are a noble whom other nobles will recognise, then aren't they already positing that there is a fundamental respect in which nobility is not different in distant lands? That's a creative choice too. Why is it not worthy of respect?

It goes beyond even that. @pemerton is essentially saying that a noble from the Known World of Mystara who ends up on Toril should be put up by nobles who would automatically recognize him. Every noble in the multiverse knows this guy is a noble, and not some imposter claiming to be one.

With all due respect, I think reading distant lands as including across the entire multiverse is putting hyperbolic words in their mouth, at least without more direct context.

 

[Cruentus]

I think you have to do the work to integrate the characters into the world. Give them real context - people, places they care about, things they want to accomplish. I don't think you need a train, but you do need context and a dynamic situation.

This is the tricky part. Players have to want to be integrated into the world, want to have connections that are meaningful, etc. Every. single. player. in every single campaign I have run has done the opposite: loner, no family, no home, no connections to anyone. Just adventuring and the party (and even then, their connection to the party is usually tenuous). My players don't want anything that can potentially be used against them, ever. (I think it has to do with their early experiences with our former-forever DM)

Without wanting to explore the world, ask questions, engage with people, etc., its very difficult to run a sandbox.