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

[Thomas Shey]

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!

Not like landless knights weren't a thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Can't these examples ever be kept to like a reasonable and likely sort? Do we really need to add in world-hopping just in an attempt to win some kind of technical win?

The purpose is not to have a technical win. It's not even for a win at all. The purpose is to establish beyond any doubt that there are going to be times where the rule doesn't apply, so that we can then begin to discuss where the line might be. Without establishing that, trying to establish where the line is going to be will be fruitless, because the absolute language used doesn't allow for a line to exist at all.

Is it possible that the Toril noble would find the Mystara noble in their court, and dismiss them out of hand as an imposter of unknown name and house? Sure.

Is it possible that when the Mystara noble speaks, their bearing and poise clearly communicates something that the Toril noble recognizes... and that despite their concern, the Toril noble senses some form of kindred and decides to follow the practices of hospitality and treat this person as if they are the noble they claim? I would say sure.

Sure, but 99.99999% of the time it's going to be a rogue or someone else with a high deception and persuasion skill trying to accomplish something nefarious by pretending a noble that can't be verified. No sane person would fall for that on the extremely off chance that the story is true.

It says that they love Mother May I and they want to drink it and bathe in it and rub it under their armpits!

No. What it says is that they don't want a completely irrational in-fiction world.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Some types of campaigns can make this more difficult than others, though. In particular, if the campaign is going to be based on travelers who do not have a lot of support structure, it kind of doesn't matter if they have people they care about because they're not going to be interacting with them much if at all.

 

[James Gasik]

Not like landless knights weren't a thing.

No, they totally were (and are, I'm sure). But the Noble Background doesn't specify what type of Noble you are, and how open to receiving a minor Noble a given Duke or Baron would be can be quite subjective.

Basically the Background tells you can easily gain audiences with Nobles, and that commoners always recognize you as being a Noble, but doesn't do anything to make you seem really more Noble than anyone else.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And as I've noted elsewhere, DM's hate surprises.

I have to say this varies considerably. I've met GMs who hate surprises (because they like things to be planned or they feel more comfortable running things that they've had time to think through, but met just as many GMs who love surprises. Personally I much prefer my players to surprise me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, frankly, that's a player pathology for the most part, often a consequence of interacting with GMs who consider any connections a lever to use on them.

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)

I see I'm telling you things you already know.

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

Well, they can still have purposes if not connections, but it does make it more difficult.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, that is exactly as I read it. It was on that reading - now confirmed correct - that I flagged it problematic.

You genuinely don't see the issue? Some players desire railroading because they are cognitively limited? Surely you don't mean to imply that!?

Uh? Yeah…I mean to say that exactly.

There are people on this planet…with cognitive limitations (of which there are multiple formulations)…whereby their struggles with mentally processing make mentally demanding play undesirable.

That is a reality. I know many, many of them (one happens to be a PHD Chemist!) and there are multiple reasons for this.

Some days? Some days I’m significantly limited cognitively myself due to the affliction of profound insomnia! If I were to be a player in a TTRPG on one of my worse days? Damn right I’d like a game that features play that doesn’t demand much from me mental processing-wise (like an entertaining Railroad where I can just hang out and roll some dice…or perhaps another player could do the heavy mental processing lifting for me so I can just make low impact decisions).

One of my dearest friends is a lifelong GM whose primary group consists of one player who has persistent severe cognitive limitations due to his birth conditions and another player who has both social and minor cognitive limitations (deep anxiety over both and he struggles in a tactically-intensive environment). As such, he has had to curate play in a specific way when running games for that group of four.

As far as Investment Limitations go? See @Thomas Shey ‘s post. The hobby is overfilled with casual players (and even serious players who are sometimes casual) for which their investment in play is very low (therefore, if the game or play exceeds a certain cognitive and/or social demand threshold…they’re out!).

It’s not clear to me why you’re stuck on this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Seems to be related to d&d straddling the fence of being a toolkit vs a specific game.

Even with that it doesn't make much sense. But then, I'm used to elements from games in the D&D sphere to being, bluntly, not thought through (which doesn't mean it doesn't happen outside of that, but the ad-hoc and everything-is-a-special-case nature of D&D and related design breeds this sort of thing in a way that a system that is approached, well, systematically, doesn't).

 

[hawkeyefan]

The purpose is not to have a technical win. It's not even for a win at all. The purpose is to establish beyond any doubt that there are going to be times where the rule doesn't apply, so that we can then begin to discuss where the line might be. Without establishing that, trying to establish where the line is going to be will be fruitless, because the absolute language used doesn't allow for a line to exist at all.

Why is that necessary? Just consider a likely example you’r encounter in a game instead of adding in some cockamamie extreme to skew things.

Sure, but 99.99999% of the time it's going to be a rogue or someone else with a high deception and persuasion skill trying to accomplish something nefarious by pretending a noble that can't be verified. No sane person would fall for that on the extremely off chance that the story is true.

What does this have to do with anything? Who cares about past fictional attempts to trick the noble? We’re focused on this specific interaction between PC and NPC.

The GM is perfectly capable of crafting a believable version of failure and a believable version of success.

The ability says the attempt should succeed.

Overriding that seems very questionable. This is the issue.

Could there be cross-dimensional shenanigans that create an exception? Sure. But let’s talk about the standard instead of some weird edge case.

No. What it says is that they don't want a completely irrational in-fiction world.

What is irrational about a noble recognizing kindred and honoring custom?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Uh? Yeah…I mean to say that exactly.

There are people on this planet…with cognitive limitations (of which there are multiple formulations)…whereby their struggles with mentally processing make mentally demanding play undesirable.

I suspect this is a case where "limitations" has some semantic loading that isn't helping the discussion, though I concur its not fundamentally inaccurate.