D&D General Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"

[TiQuinn]

I don't even know what you're talking about any more dude. "Mother may I" is a design shorthand used to refer to cases in TTRPG play where the player must look to the GM for permission to do something based on how its either phrased or the game rules dictate (eg: in 5e.2014, "players never declare skill usage). Crawford is using it to talk about mechanics he designed into 5e, and how he's trying to reduce the reliance on that for core class features. I'm not denigrating your DMing style or like the game or anything when I'm using the same vernacular as teh designers to capture a specific case of play.

As an aside, Crawford saying this still comes across as a judgement on the approach, not terminology across the community. Even in your example, he’s using it in a “this was bad” context because he needed that context to explain why he wanted to reduce that reliance on the approach. For anyone who does use it, it comes off dismissive. Jeremy Crawford is not neutral here - he’s marketing the system he designed.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not sure if I would say "worse," but IME I don't necessarily think that it fundamentally solves anything because all else being equal, nothing fundamentally changes. The barbarian may benefit from your more open approach but so does the mage. It feels a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The core problem persists.

So a systems approach that you don't like fails to solve a problem I don't see occurring.

Got it.

 

[zakael19]

In that game however, it is the practice to invent consequences for everything.

Or, for high stakes scoundrel actions, everything they do that is risky has a chance of consequences. If what you do in blades has no risk, there's no consequence in play.

 

[zakael19]

As an aside, Crawford saying this still comes across as a judgement on the approach, not terminology across the community. Even in your example, he’s using it in a “this was bad” context because he needed that context to explain why he wanted to reduce that reliance on the approach. For anyone who does use it, it comes off dismissive. Jeremy Crawford is not neutral here - he’s marketing the system he designed.

Ok, so if we're playing 5e and you're interacting with the world back and forth and you see an obstacle and the magic sort is like "cool, you said it's a locked portcullis thing right? I misty step through it to the other side."

And now the barbarian is looking at his character sheet and sees something called "Athletics" and is like, "hm, hey GM can I maybe like try and lever the gate up or something? Im strong right?"

What do we call this, and how do we adjudicate it in the OP's framework? Do you have it in your prep that "any character with a str over 17 can easily lift this?" so it just happens? Does that feel good? How do you communicate that the barbarian did something that other characters couldn't? If you say "sure you can try" and the barbarian fails their check with a 2, then what?

What if it's a 5.24 barbarian who's like, "oh and I'll activate rage because there's no way stupid bars are going to hold me back." Is that enough?

And all this time the scrawny little swordmage guy is on the far side rolling his eyes.

 

[TiQuinn]

Ok, so if we're playing 5e and you're interacting with the world back and forth and you see an obstacle and the magic sort is like "cool, you said it's a locked portcullis thing right? I misty step through it to the other side."

And now the barbarian is looking at his character sheet and sees something called "Athletics" and is like, "hm, hey GM can I maybe like try and lever the gate up or something? Im strong right?"

What do we call this, and how do we adjudicate it in the OP's framework? Do you have it in your prep that "any character with a str over 17 can easily lift this?" so it just happens? Does that feel good? How do you communicate that the barbarian did something that other characters couldn't? If you say "sure you can try" and the barbarian fails their check with a 2, then what?

What if it's a 5.24 barbarian who's like, "oh and I'll activate rage because there's no way stupid bars are going to hold me back." Is that enough?

And all this time the scrawny little swordmage guy is on the far side rolling his eyes.

To me, it’s just make a Strength check against a DC for the portcullis. The difference between the barbarian character and the caster with Misty Step is that the caster is spending a resource (a spell) to get the effect they want. The barbarian may not be fail to lift that portcullis but at the next door that he wants to batter down, he hasn’t spent anything to do so. The caster is down a spell though.

If the barbarian fails, what else can he do? Break the mechanism? Hurl his axe at the lever controlling the portcullis with such force that it flips? Those seem like viable options to me.

The scrawny swordmage can roll his eyes all day long but and the barbarian character can look over at him and say “One day your spells will run out, runt.”

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To me, it’s just make a Strength check against a DC for the portcullis. The difference between the barbarian character and the caster with Misty Step is that the caster is spending a resource (a spell) to get the effect they want. The barbarian may not be fail to lift that portcullis but at the next door that he wants to batter down, he hasn’t spent anything to do so. The caster is down a spell though.

If the barbarian fails, what else can he do? Break the mechanism? Hurl his axe at the lever controlling the portcullis with such force that it flips? Those seem like viable options to me.

Yes, but under @Bill Zebub's logic we cannot have an athletics test where the cost of failure is merely not being able to lift the portcullis.

Every time you use a skill something consequentially bad must happen on a failure. This makes skills way more risky tool than they would be otherwise, which weakens classes that primarily rely on skills.

 

[Aldarc]

So a systems approach that you don't like fails to solve a problem I don't see occurring.

Got it.

I'm not sure how what I said warrants this sort of snarky reply.

I don't think that I was being snarky or disrespectful when I said that it feels like what you were doing was rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It was me being honest and forthright about what feels like a solution that doesn't actually address or solve the problem that I may have with your approach, even if you don't necessarily see it happen at your table. Assuming equally creative players, the mage player benefits just as much from your approach as the barbarian player does and, in some cases, they may benefit more so because "magic." A fair and good GM may still be more liberal with what the creative thinking of the mage can accomplish as a result of having a more permissive view towards the possibilities of "magic" than what a more mundane barbarian can likewise accomplish with their creative thinking. This issue has come up numerous times in past discussions with other people on this forum before as well. I know that @EzekielRaiden has talked about this plenty of times before.

You are pretty harsh on other play styles you don't like in this thread, no? You uncharitably characterize a fair share of prevailing forms of 5e play outside of your preferences in terms of players just looking for answers on their character sheets, players mindlessly and uncreatively pushing buttons, or others of being "jerk/bad DMs." Even finger pointing at this style, basically saying words to the effect of "Nuh uh! You're the ones who are being Mother May I!" And you are surprised that you are getting pushback while now being snarky about it? I think that you may need to cool your jets a bit, because you are getting pretty heated as of late.

Now you see problems with what you derisively call "button pushing" playstyle that other people don't see occurring or may even enjoy. So are you actually solving a problem with your approach? Do you think that your approach is without drawbacks, blind spots, or potential problems for players? Or is this a figurative case of you thinking that your crap smells like potpourri? There are downsides to every approach and game style. IMHO, part of becoming a better GM is growing an awareness of the pitfalls and drawbacks for different approaches or how the ideal form of play can devolve in praxis. Advocates for OSR and FKR may, for example, talk up "tactical infinity" as how the game is played. However, I have seen in play how the sales pitch of "tactical infinity" can devolve into a "finite set of GM-approved tactics" in praxis over time. As the OSR community says, what gets rewarded gets repeated, and the tactics that get GM approval will be repeated while those that don't will be discarded.

I understand that you don't see this as a problem at your table. Congratulations! I am genuinely happy that you have found something that works for you and the players at your table. But what happens at your tables doesn't somehow erase the contrary experiences of people who sit at other tables and not every one will necessarily believe, want, or be convinced by the solution to their problem that you are selling with your approach. And if I sat at your table, you may see it as all sunshine, roses, and rainbows while I could be sitting there having an unfun time or wishing that I was playing some other game, even if my Southern upbringing would probably mean that I would say only nice and appreciative things about your game when you asked me how it was.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes, but under @Bill Zebub's logic we cannot have an athletics test where the cost of failure is merely not being able to lift the portcullis.

Every time you use a skill something consequentially bad must happen on a failure. This makes skills way more risky tool than they would be otherwise, which weakens classes that primarily rely on skills.

To me, this comes down to adventure design. If lifting the portcullis is the less treacherous path into the castle, then the penalty for failing is having to find another path, and to my mind, maybe not @Bill Zebub, that path should have some tougher challenges.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To me, it’s just make a Strength check against a DC for the portcullis. The difference between the barbarian character and the caster with Misty Step is that the caster is spending a resource (a spell) to get the effect they want. The barbarian may not be fail to lift that portcullis but at the next door that he wants to batter down, he hasn’t spent anything to do so. The caster is down a spell though.

If the barbarian fails, what else can he do? Break the mechanism? Hurl his axe at the lever controlling the portcullis with such force that it flips? Those seem like viable options to me.

The scrawny swordmage can roll his eyes all day long but and the barbarian character can look over at him and say “One day your spells will run out, runt.”

Before I read your response I was thinking the same thing. The hypothetical scenario was written as if the barbarian is going to fail. But there's the scenario where the wizard blows the level 2 spell slot, then the barbarian lifts the gate, everybody steps through, and the wizard is standing there feeling like he hasn't roleplayed his 17 Int very well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To me, this comes down to adventure design. If lifting the portcullis is the less treacherous path into the castle, then the penalty for failing is having to find another path, and to my mind, maybe not @Bill Zebub, that path should have some tougher challenges.

I think I agree with that...I'm untangling the sentence. But, yeah, how important is this portcullis to the story?

Also, here's another possible outcome:

DM: "The portcullis looks heavy, and is covered with rust."
Wizard: "I misty step through! Catch you martial losers later."
DM: "Just then, a pack of owlbears emerges from the rubble."
Wizard: "Help! That was my last level 2 spell slot!"
Barbarian: "Gosh, this thing is HEAVY...."

(Yes, I'm being a little bit silly. The larger point is that I don't understand or subscribe to this idea that it's a competition to see who has the most effective character. That's just not how I experience RPGs.)