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

[pemerton]

I don't think the nobles need to know each other, or even of each other, for the ability to make sense.

Sure, and those nobles shows up with men-at-arms, servants, goods, etc. It was an entire train of people that commoners could not match. Not some lone guy with a few scruffy friends showing up and making a claim.

To be clear here, I don't think you are wrong on this. I could honestly see arguments for both positions. I'm just fine with the arrangement that the GM is the one who gets to decide that

Here is the text of the ability:

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.​

And here is some of its accompanying descriptive text:

You understand wealth, power, and privilege. . . . Nobles are born and raised to a very different lifestyle than most people ever experience, and their personalities reflect that upbringing.​

No reference is made to being known. Or to having an entourage. It refers to birth, to understanding, to personality. These all imply comportment. Much as the CHA stat - a long-established part of D&D PC build - does.

I don't see how the idea of a "GM ruling" even comes up! The rules text seems clear to me.

even if the GM has a weaker reason than the player, my general feeling is "its the GMs setting and he is the one running the campaign, so let him decide".

Here's more of the background text:

Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries. . . Not only do you need to determine your noble title, but you should also work with the DM to describe your family and their influence on you.​

It's clear that the player is being granted some authority here. Just as one might expect from a player-side rule for including background as part of PC-building.

The view that, despite all this clear text, the GM gets to gate the background feature behind their own view of how the fiction "should" work does not seem to be in contrast with "Mothery may I". It seems to be defending it for this particular context.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Obviously there would be nobles in some parts of the setting if the PC is able to be one. But for example in my current game world such social structures only exists in certain city states, rest of the world is mostly some nomads or hunter-gatherers without analogous hierarchy.


Right, exactly.

As I've suggested in the past, in that kind of situation I think I'd just houserule the background out of the game for that setting, as the benefit is too attenuated to justify itself. That's a case where the game's assumptions in that area and your campaign design are kind of at loggerheads.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I've suggested in the past, in that kind of situation I think I'd just houserule the background out of the game for that setting, as the benefit is too attenuated to justify itself. That's a case where the game's assumptions in that area and your campaign design are kind of at loggerheads.

Yes, perhaps, but then gain it would work perfectly well in certain areas of the world. And utility of many of the backgrounds depend a lot on location or other such factors that might vary greatly during the course of the campaign, quite possibly even in way that cannot be anticipated by the GM in the beginning. How much wilderness travel must the campaign contain in order to include the outlander background, how much seafaring to include the sailor etc?

In any case, my personal take regarding background (which I'm pretty sure I told to the players at the session zero) is that they're statements about the character that I take into account like any other fiction that is not covered by more exact rules. Like sure, you're a criminal, so you know these other criminals, and might get an advantage to some rolls to interact with such elements or know about illicit stuff etc. But also a person from place X might just know a legend from place X or at least gain an advantage to their roll to know it and that's not really any different even though their home location isn't written on the character sheet and the background is.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm pretty sure you knew that reply was coming yet you felt the need to reply which I found strange. Anyways.

Mod Note:

Most of your post was fine…until this line.

To you and everyone else: mind-reading is not a power you actually possess! When you attempt it in a discussion like this, all you do is escalate tensions.

So I’m asking you to refrain from future attempts at telling people what they’re thinking.*






* My crystal ball tells me there will be future incidents of attempted mind-reading.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thanks Umbran. While you have vastly more information than us around just how many reports there have been made and the overall context of them I want to offer one point of consideration - while this thread has went off track into nastiness multiple times, overall we do seem to be working through that and are mostly able to get it back on track. You likely already are considering this but I wanted to call it out just in case. Obviously, however much you want to weight this consideration with the other information you have available is solely your prerogative.

Mod Note:

I understand your goal with this post, but technically, commenting on moderation in thread is itself a violation of forum rules, and was reported as such. Please don’t do it again.

 

[Maxperson]

Here is the text of the ability:

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.​

And here is some of its accompanying descriptive text:

You understand wealth, power, and privilege. . . . Nobles are born and raised to a very different lifestyle than most people ever experience, and their personalities reflect that upbringing.​

No reference is made to being known. Or to having an entourage. It refers to birth, to understanding, to personality. These all imply comportment. Much as the CHA stat - a long-established part of D&D PC build - does.

I don't see how the idea of a "GM ruling" even comes up! The rules text seems clear to me.

Because it's not a magical ability like you are treating it. As a result, it needs to make sense in the fiction, and the ability as written does not make sense in all circumstances. This is further an issue, because 5e is deliberately written with holes, omissions and vagueness in the text, to turn the game into rulings over rules. This is the 5e design intent. Make an ability that is incomplete or won't make sense in certain situations so that the DM has to make a ruling.

Treating these rules as complete in and of themselves is going against RAI and ends up resulting in some nonsensical situations.

It's clear that the player is being granted some authority here.

That's not how D&D works. The player isn't being handed any authority at all. They are getting an ability that can be(not will be) helpful. Expecting it to be helpful in every situation that you could possible use it is like expecting fireball to be helpful in every situation where you could possibly cast it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If a game is susceptible to mother may - what are you trying to say the game is susceptible to?

I would say the answer there is susceptible to players feeling like they have to ask the DMs permission to do something… is that far off?

Not far off no. Susceptible to what I think of as Mother May I, which to me is excessive GM authority.

The distinction I'm making is that personal preference doesn't weigh in on the susceptibility. Like it's either there or not. Whether or not a GM actually goes that route or not, whether I or any player is bothered by it... these don't matter in that regard.

So actually, we could be quite close here. I'll just put it in a more natural form

Factors like principles or design choices + individual's concerns and preferences = their experienced play, in dysfunctional cases feeling like "Mother May I"

I've very happy to chew over what factors matter. For instance, I gladly agree that

DM-decides (that's a factor) + your concerns and preferences = in dysfunctional cases, feelings of "Mother May I"

Why would I want to subject you to MMI, were I DMing? Obviously (or I hope it's obvious) I would not. Therefore we might want to constrain DM-decides (so modified factors.) And this says nothing about the case when we insert me as the individual in question (and note here I use "me" to just mean, random individual with a differing culture of play.)

Maybe I'm 8? Maybe I'm a really casual player and I'm not that concerned with my agency, I just want to roll some dice and laugh with my friends? There are any number of reasons.

This is why I'm not trying to say MMI is objectively good or bad.... I have my own subjective opinion about it, which I think is clear... but the elements of a rules system and play practices that allow it to come about... those I think are objective things we can identify and discuss.

To be clear here, I don't think you are wrong on this. I could honestly see arguments for both positions. I'm just fine with the arrangement that the GM is the one who gets to decide that, and we all essentially sign up for that arrangement. It may well be the GM has a good reason, and so does the player, but the GM decides to go his own way on it, and I am fine with that. And even if the GM has a weaker reason than the player, my general feeling is "its the GMs setting and he is the one running the campaign, so let him decide".

I get it. You're trying to maintain a reasonable environment and consider as many elements as possible. And for the most part, I agree with you. I'm all for the GM being final arbiter (though not above the opinions of others, as I mentioned), I'm all for discussion and checking with the players about these things.

Where we disagree is, I think, in the severity (this may not be the right word, but bear with me) of the rationalization for a GM to step in and tell me "No, this ability doesn't work that way". You're okay with that as a default... and to me, that's basically saying that you're okay with Mother May I. For me, the GM can certainly do so, but there have to be really strong reasons to do so. I need to understand it as a player.

To put it in a different way, I think we've all been in a game where a player has an idea, and at first it seems crazy or inappropriate, and so the GM denies it. But, given the chance to explain themself, the player states their case, and the eyes of everyone at the table kind of open, and they all start nodding.... they realize, with some explanation, what a cool idea this is. The GM says, you know what, yes, that works. I imagine I'm not alone in experiencing something like this.

For me, for the GM to shut down something that the rules say works, he should have to do a similar level of convincing. When he explains why he's denying the idea, I should be nodding along at the reasoning. Obviously, perfect agreement is not always possible, but that's the way I feel about it.

I also don't tend to view the setting as the GM's setting, so I think even that distinction (however minor in practice at the table) may flavor how we each view this.

 

[James Gasik]

Because it's not a magical ability like you are treating it. As a result, it needs to make sense in the fiction, and the ability as written does not make sense in all circumstances. This is further an issue, because 5e is deliberately written with holes, omissions and vagueness in the text, to turn the game into rulings over rules. This is the 5e design intent. Make an ability that is incomplete or won't make sense in certain situations so that the DM has to make a ruling.

Treating these rules as complete in and of themselves is going against RAI and ends up resulting in some nonsensical situations.

That's not how D&D works. The player isn't being handed any authority at all. They are getting an ability that can be(not will be) helpful. Expecting it to be helpful in every situation that you could possible use it is like expecting fireball to be helpful in every situation where you could possibly cast it.

Isn't the answer always Fireball?

 

[FrogReaver]

Not far off no. Susceptible to what I think of as Mother May I, which to me is excessive GM authority.

The distinction I'm making is that personal preference doesn't weigh in on the susceptibility. Like it's either there or not. Whether or not a GM actually goes that route or not, whether I or any player is bothered by it... these don't matter in that regard.

First of all you say some good stuff below that really deserves a reply.

I think my reply is going to go in two really different directions, so I'll probably split it into separate posts so the points are clear and delineated.

1) You keep reiterating that to you MMI isn't good or bad (i've bolded that claim below), but it sounds to me like excessive GM authority is bad, not neutral or sometimes good, just bad. I hope you are able to see where I am coming from. This is what I spoke of earlier when I said that all the other definitions of MMI seem to implicate it as a negative thing. Now maybe you don't view 'excessive GM authority' as a flat out negative. If that's the case I'd love some elaboration on why/how that works.

This is why I'm not trying to say MMI is objectively good or bad.... I have my own subjective opinion about it, which I think is clear... but the elements of a rules system and play practices that allow it to come about... those I think are objective things we can identify and discuss.

Where we disagree is, I think, in the severity (this may not be the right word, but bear with me) of the rationalization for a GM to step in and tell me "No, this ability doesn't work that way". You're okay with that as a default... and to me, that's basically saying that you're okay with Mother May I. For me, the GM can certainly do so, but there have to be really strong reasons to do so. I need to understand it as a player.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's not how D&D works. The player isn't being handed any authority at all. They are getting an ability that can be(not will be) helpful. Expecting it to be helpful in every situation that you could possible use it is like expecting fireball to be helpful in every situation where you could possibly cast it.

Max... if the player doesn't have any authority at all, then who has it?

You're saying that you don't think D&D is a game that requires a player to seek approval for everything from the GM. But then you're also pointing out how everything needs to be approved by the GM.