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

[Maxperson]

Players Discuss: "Well, Sir Buzz is noble and so can get an audience, and then once we're that close shouldn't be hard, right? Because 'You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.' and we need to. I can imagine he won't let us be armed, but we know fireball will be safe and not destroy the charter when Chandra nails him with it because it only 'ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.' I think we got this!"

Weeell, if you really want to get technical, once you kill him with the fireball, the body is an object and the charter is no longer being carried or worn and can catch fire.

 

[Maxperson]

So "taking half damage from fire because I'm incredibly angry" is explicitly non-magical?

As it is written, yes. That's why I much preferred 3e's designation of abilities as extraordinary and supernatural. It didn't leave it to the DM to fix things that should be supernatural, but aren't written as being explicitly supernatural.

 

[Cadence]

I confess I don't understand that part. From what I can tell, MMI means I need to ask permission from the DM to do something (and hope they see the narrative of the game in a similar enough way that I do). The player with this background is invoking its benefit, as written. Presumably, the players also invoked other consequences on the narrative by being obvious in their acceptance of the hit on the Duke?
If the DM just arbitrarily decided that the Duke knew the PCs were involved, then I could understand the frustration.
What this seems to revolve around more generally: Why would DMs want to frustrate PC plans?

It feels like what distinguishes a consequence from thwarting a plan isn't always clear. And some give the benefit of the doubt one way, and some the other.

 

[James Gasik]

As it is written, yes. That's why I much preferred 3e's designation of abilities as extraordinary and supernatural. It didn't leave it to the DM to fix things that should be supernatural, but aren't written as being explicitly supernatural.

In my opinion (take it or leave it), the logic of "it's not magic unless it says it is" falls apart pretty quickly. It doesn't take much time to find a list of abilities that aren't explicitly called out as magic that stretch believability.

Of course, YMMV; what is incomprehensible to one person can make complete sense to another (see debates about hit points for details- people who believe "hit points = meat" who are yet perfectly willing to ignore a Fighter's ability to take a day off and heal 16d10+X hit points without using any Hit Dice to do so).

One DM can interpret an ability as being "preternatural" in some way, akin to how a dragon flies or breathes fire, whether or not it's called out as "magical", while another can say it's not. Neither one of them are wrong, no matter what the books say, because it's "rulings, not rules".

As a result, "Position of Privilege" could be preternatural (I mean, it's a fantasy game after all, and in the past, people believed "nobles are special", so maybe they are?).

Invoking RAW (or the absence of it) isn't really proof of anything, other than "a DM has to rule on this", which is pretty much what this thread is all about.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's cool(and I mean that), but it doesn't mean that you have a more vibrant imagination than someone who plays and prefers a more traditional style of play.

We’ve missed each other in this exchange a bit.

I was bringing up those games (and one of those games is a very Trad 5e game…in that game I’m not soliciting input) and those 17 players I’m GMing for not to talk about my own vibrant imagination. Quite the opposite. I was bringing up those 17 players to talk about my situational deference to their vibrant imagination because the dispute in question seemed to be about the temerity - condescension and arrogance - of a player to feel that their imagination in a moment of play might be more vibrant than their GMs.

As a GM, some of those 17 players are no doubt more capable than the others (in terms of “vibrancy of imagination”), but individually (and certainly collectively), they for certain each have their moments where their vibrancy of imagination exceeds my own.

So that’s why I asked “is it actually temerity for a player to feel that way?” Personally, my answer is “no” because my “vibrancy of imagination” has shown to be outdone by players on more than a few occasions!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I wonder if a DM who did really develop the nobility (and knew all the relations and alliances) might also really want to alter the Noble background in a bunch of cases [bigger benefits and maybe obligations for some groups of nobles they were visiting, standard for others, and watch your back for a third].

Encouraging custom backgrounds if the DM or players have strong visions seems like a good thing to encourage.

I think custom backgrounds are absolutely a great idea. I think the backgrounds are probably the element of character creation that gives players the most input on the setting. Background choice makes certain assumptions about the world and the character’s place in it, and potentially about organizations and/or cultures in that world.

I think the reason they are a problem for many is the idea that the GM creates the world.

The background abilities take (or perhaps we can only say they attempt to take) that authority from the GM. And clearly many GMs will only relinquish that from their cold dead heads.

So I don’t think I’d be anywhere near as excited about a game where a GM has really developed the nobility angle of the game ahead of time as I would for a game where the GM worked with the player who wanted a noble to determine how things work. Where custom backgrounds are crafted with all the participants involved.

That’s too collaborative for many.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think custom backgrounds are absolutely a great idea. I think the backgrounds are probably the element of character creation that gives players the most input on the setting. Background choice makes certain assumptions about the world and the character’s place in it, and potentially about organizations and/or cultures in that world.

I think the reason they are a problem for many is the idea that the GM creates the world.

I actually largely agree with this part. Not that I have a problem with backgrounds, but why I think you see a lot of people feeling ambivalent about them when they intrude into setting creation, is definitely due to many of us preferring D&D where the players in a place that the GM designs. There are lots of reasons for that. Too many to get into here I am sure. But it isn't about power. I think it is about preferred style of gaming.

The background abilities take (or perhaps we can only say they attempt to take) that authority from the GM. And clearly many GMs will only relinquish that from their cold dead heads.

This I don't think is fair. I've certainly met GMs who were on power trips (again mostly when I was younger or at public gaming events), but I think a lot of the people here expressing this preference (and to be clear I don't think there has been many people against backgrounds themselves or even backgrounds that deal with setting stuff: they just want the GM to retain the ability to preserve important setting details), have said they prefer it both on the player and the GM side. For me this isn't just about what I want as a GM. As a GM I am pretty flexible with what the group wants. I have my preferences but I am there to play with a group of people and its important that we find an approach that everyone can agree works. As a player though, I vastly prefer when the other players aren't introducing setting elements into D&D. And I would say D&D specifically or D&D like games, as I said, I had no problem with Hillfolk which had even more powers like that given to players. But when I am at a D&D game I want to be in a GM managed and designed (or at least curated if it is an official setting) world. Again, lots of reasons for this, probably too many to get into here and probably would take some thought to really figure out the reasons. I just don't think it boils down to a power trip or someone trying to hold on to some sort of metaphorical crown

So I don’t think I’d be anywhere near as excited about a game where a GM has really developed the nobility angle of the game ahead of time as I would for a game where the GM worked with the player who wanted a noble to determine how things work. Where custom backgrounds are crafted with all the participants involved.

Which is totally fair. But the thing is I can describe this preference you have in neutral terms without invoking concepts reminiscent in tone to mother may or a gm having power pried from his cold dead hands (there are plenty of pejoratives to describe more collaborate styles, but I don't think those are particularly useful for understanding the preference).

 

[Cadence]

I think custom backgrounds are absolutely a great idea. I think the backgrounds are probably the element of character creation that gives players the most input on the setting. Background choice makes certain assumptions about the world and the character’s place in it, and potentially about organizations and/or cultures in that world.

I think the reason they are a problem for many is the idea that the GM creates the world.

The background abilities take (or perhaps we can only say they attempt to take) that authority from the GM. And clearly many GMs will only relinquish that from their cold dead heads.

So I don’t think I’d be anywhere near as excited about a game where a GM has really developed the nobility angle of the game ahead of time as I would for a game where the GM worked with the player who wanted a noble to determine how things work. Where custom backgrounds are crafted with all the participants involved.

That’s too collaborative for many.

I'm all over collaboratively working out backgrounds and things in advance when I DM. And typically say yes and maybe give suggestions -- assuming it doesn't too violently break my head canon (some breakage is to be expected). So I have had a game or two where I worked out chunks of the political structure in advance and let the players know. But most of the time I haven't.

 

[clearstream]

Background abilities are intended to be a minor perk that helps sometimes.

I feel it is valuable to acknowledge lenses through which we interpret rules. Suppose I have a belief that "background abilities are intended to be a minor perk". Then I will likely read the same words and come to a different interpretation than another reading through a different lense.

 

[Maxperson]

So that’s why I asked “is it actually temerity for a player to feel that way?” Personally, my answer is “no” because my “vibrancy of imagination” has shown to be outdone by players on more than a few occasions!

So there's a major distinction there. In those situations YOU were the one acknowledging that your imagination was outdone by someone else. You were not declaring someone else's imagination to be inferior to yours. That major distinction is what made @pemerton's statement both arrogant and condescending.