Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 5986740" data-attributes="member: 6680772">That's not surprising when your example portrays the former in the worst possible light, and the latter in the best possible light.&nbsp; The thing is, when you look at the &quot;example of play&quot; in the early editions, you never see it looking like that.&nbsp; The players never ask permission.&nbsp; Nor does the DM ever deny them when they state what they are going to do.&nbsp; The players say, &quot;I'm going to do X,&quot; and the DM says, &quot;Okay.&nbsp; Then Y happens.&quot;&nbsp; Or, &quot;Roll to hit.&quot;&nbsp; The player never has to ask, &quot;Am I in range?&quot; because the DM properly describes the setting, including distance in feet, so players know if they can reach the enemy in a move, or if they are getting bonuses for close range, or what have you.&nbsp; The DM takes their role as the eyes and ears of the players seriously, and makes efforts so that they don't feel adrift in the fog of war.We can certainly go the other way, using the examples of play from AD&amp;D or BD&amp;D, while giving an example of a WotC-era player wasting everyone's time as they pour over their character sheet and/or power cards, and then simply saying, &quot;I Trip him,&quot; or &quot;I do 'Sly Flourish'&quot; with no flavor at all.In the end, different groups have different expectations, and have different kinds of fun.&nbsp; So I don't even particularly agree with the OP, aside from being perfectly amenable to games that use DM adjudication over a grid, in addition to gridded games.&nbsp; So why am I responding?Because of this.&nbsp; I hate it when people twist a perfectly reasonable method of play that has brought fun to thousands, if not millions, of people over some 25 years and refer to it as a kids game that removes all agency from the players.&nbsp; Sure, the style can be abused -- it has weakpoints just like any other style -- and some folks may find it not to their taste even when it's done well.&nbsp; But &quot;mother-may-I&quot; is a demeaning term, not meant to encourage discussion or even to simply express preference, but explicitly to put down the preference of others.&nbsp; It's a term that needs to leave the discussion.Yeah.&nbsp; &quot;Mother-may-I&quot; manages it in three.**For the record, I am not saying that TCO has used the term.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 5986740, member: 6680772"] That's not surprising when your example portrays the former in the worst possible light, and the latter in the best possible light. The thing is, when you look at the "example of play" in the early editions, you never see it looking like that. The players [i]never ask permission[/i]. Nor does the DM ever deny them when they state what they are going to do. The players say, "I'm going to do X," and the DM says, "Okay. Then Y happens." Or, "Roll to hit." The player never has to ask, "Am I in range?" because the DM properly describes the setting, including distance in feet, so players know if they can reach the enemy in a move, or if they are getting bonuses for close range, or what have you. The DM takes their role as the eyes and ears of the players seriously, and makes efforts so that they don't feel adrift in the fog of war. We can certainly go the other way, using the examples of play from AD&D or BD&D, while giving an example of a WotC-era player wasting everyone's time as they pour over their character sheet and/or power cards, and then simply saying, "I Trip him," or "I do 'Sly Flourish'" with no flavor at all. In the end, different groups have different expectations, and have different kinds of fun. So I don't even particularly agree with the OP, aside from being perfectly amenable to games that use DM adjudication over a grid, in addition to gridded games. So why am I responding? Because of this. I hate it when people twist a perfectly reasonable method of play that has brought fun to thousands, if not millions, of people over some 25 years and refer to it as a kids game that removes all agency from the players. Sure, the style can be abused -- it has weakpoints just like any other style -- and some folks may find it not to their taste even when it's done well. But "mother-may-I" is a demeaning term, not meant to encourage discussion or even to simply express preference, but explicitly to put down the preference of others. It's a term that needs to leave the discussion. Yeah. "Mother-may-I" manages it in three.* [SIZE="1"]*For the record, I am not saying that TCO has used the term.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification