A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[AbdulAlhazred]

Those are some intense words, but all you are doing is asserting without supporting. I would definitely reject the definition you are using for mother may I as a valid playstyle description. Like Lowkey13 said, it is a pejorative. But even then, when it comes up, it is only useful in describing table disfunction where play starts to resemble the game mother may I in the way I described. Using it pejoratively to describe a large swath of RPGs or play styles, is pretty meaningless I think. Certainly isn't going to illuminate anything. If you see a playstyle you don't like and sum it up as mother may I, you will entirely miss the reason people are engaging it (and you will be lacking the curiosity that Pemerton seemed so concerned people retain when analyzing RPGs). It reeks of bias. It is up there with magic tea party in that respect. That would be like me insisting on referring to games with narrative elements as "story time" systems.

Folks (and I'm not singling you out by any means [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], you already made your annoyance at this phrase clear long since and people should be able to remember it), why don't we stop worrying about 'pejoritive' and whatnot? I mean, I accept you consider the term pejorative and I haven't used it (in a long time at least, maybe I did at some point way back when).

My real point is, there is a sense to what [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is actually saying. There is a class of RPGs in which the GM can say 'no', as in a hard no which isn't disputable. The reasons for the 'no' are potentially various. It could be a rule about pre-established fiction, simple 'this guy is in charge, its his game' or intended as some sort of refereeing mechanism. It doesn't really matter what the origin is, and it doesn't really matter how frequently it is used, or to what effect. There are other games where such a thing is mechanically impossible, or there is a 'soft no' which the use of some process or resource by the players can revoke. These are two separate classifications of games (even if they weren't I just invented them, and I have stated a pretty reasonable classification rule, so we can assume these classes to be established, right?)

Again, I get that people get irritated, I'd just urge people to understand that there are meaningful distinctions which can be discussed, and that it should be possible to have a discussion about them, so maybe some curbing of people's urges to call each other out and insist on specific terminology, etc. can be mitigated. It would be a better thread

 

[pemerton]

D&D is only mildly DM facing, because it's very, very easy to retool it to fit just about any playstyle.

I don't thin this is true at all. I've spent a lot of time playing, GMing, and thinking about the rules of classic D&D (in my case B/X and AD&D 1st ed). The only version I'm familiar with that comes close to supporting "story now" play is the mid-80s Oriental Adventures, and its retooling was very extensive - a whole new roster of PC build elements (class themes, ki powers, NWPs, ancestry, etc) and a whole new roster of GM-side elements (mostly but not exclusively monster descriptions).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Folks (and I'm not singling you out by any means [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], you already made your annoyance at this phrase clear long since and people should be able to remember it), why don't we stop worrying about 'pejoritive' and whatnot? I mean, I accept you consider the term pejorative and I haven't used it (in a long time at least, maybe I did at some point way back when).

My real point is, there is a sense to what [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is actually saying. There is a class of RPGs in which the GM can say 'no', as in a hard no which isn't disputable. The reasons for the 'no' are potentially various. It could be a rule about pre-established fiction, simple 'this guy is in charge, its his game' or intended as some sort of refereeing mechanism. It doesn't really matter what the origin is, and it doesn't really matter how frequently it is used, or to what effect. There are other games where such a thing is mechanically impossible, or there is a 'soft no' which the use of some process or resource by the players can revoke. These are two separate classifications of games (even if they weren't I just invented them, and I have stated a pretty reasonable classification rule, so we can assume these classes to be established, right?)

Again, I get that people get irritated, I'd just urge people to understand that there are meaningful distinctions which can be discussed, and that it should be possible to have a discussion about them, so maybe some curbing of people's urges to call each other out and insist on specific terminology, etc. can be mitigated. It would be a better thread

I'd be happy to have a discussion. But this isn't a discussion about legitimate distinctions between play styles and systems (which I agree 100% do exist). This whole conversation is predicated on wanting to dismiss one style as Mother May I, and hold up another as the better answer. And that is clear from the OP (and the discussion in the other thread that lead us here). Why should any poster here who disagrees with the OP, trust that the OP is really interested in talking about the distinctions, when he won't even acknowledge that our preferences are grounded in anything real? If you really do want to have a conversation, I think that is great. But I'd ask yourself if that is really, truly what you want to have here. Or if you just want to debate which playstyle is better. I am content to see both as perfectly valid approaches. But what I often see from a certain cluster of posters here is fights over playstyle that just have a veneer of analysis.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Folks (and I'm not singling you out by any means [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], you already made your annoyance at this phrase clear long since and people should be able to remember it), why don't we stop worrying about 'pejoritive' and whatnot? I mean, I accept you consider the term pejorative and I haven't used it (in a long time at least, maybe I did at some point way back when).

My real point is, there is a sense to what [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is actually saying. There is a class of RPGs in which the GM can say 'no', as in a hard no which isn't disputable. The reasons for the 'no' are potentially various. It could be a rule about pre-established fiction, simple 'this guy is in charge, its his game' or intended as some sort of refereeing mechanism. It doesn't really matter what the origin is, and it doesn't really matter how frequently it is used, or to what effect. There are other games where such a thing is mechanically impossible, or there is a 'soft no' which the use of some process or resource by the players can revoke. These are two separate classifications of games (even if they weren't I just invented them, and I have stated a pretty reasonable classification rule, so we can assume these classes to be established, right?)

Again, I get that people get irritated, I'd just urge people to understand that there are meaningful distinctions which can be discussed, and that it should be possible to have a discussion about them, so maybe some curbing of people's urges to call each other out and insist on specific terminology, etc. can be mitigated. It would be a better thread

While I think it's perfectly rational to not expect others to try to reason out a point from a hostile and pejorative argument. What's the reason you expect others to cope with hostility because there's a valid point undernearh it but not expect the point-maker to make the point in a non-confrontational manner? To me, that answer is pretty much whether or not you agree with the point made or not. I agree there's a point to [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s post, one I've been making as well, but that post was nakedly hostile and belittling. I think it's perfectly fair for others to not wade through that to find the point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oddly, your scroll up just confirmed what I said. At no time was it simply the DM giving permission. The DM in my example also gave rules. Those rules removed his authority to override the players and set up a player facing game.

Max, if the DM is giving things to the players, that means the game assigned those powers to the DM. Which means, as designed, the game of D&D rests all of those powers in the DM. That's makes D&D strongly DM facing. Any houserule a DM makes that changes how D&D works at their table (ie, rewriting rules so players own them) is NOT how D&D is, it's how those houserules are.

Your argument boils down to "D&D is not strongly DM facing because the DM can houserule it." Surely, you can see that this is a self-defeating argument?

And, before you yell strawman, you'll need to make your argument from the printed rules of D&D to claim things about D&D as a game. You can't substitue your houserules for the entirety of D&D.

Giving out a permission is saying, "Hey Tommy, you can go ahead and build the town your PC is from." That's permission to add content while still keeping it a DM facing game. Actually altering the game rules to make it a player facing game involves the DM being unable to give out permission. Or put another way, it's no different than the DM just saying, "Hey, let's play <insert player facing game here> today instead of D&D."

A charitably as I can read this, you seem to be agreeing that altering the rules of D&D is harder than just finding a less DM facing game to play. As that counters your own argument, I must not be understanding your point here.

 

[Sadras]

Player asks, but is powerless to invoke any mechanical resolution to ascertain outcome. GM decides. Absolute rock solid Mother May I play happening right there. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

..(snip)...

There are also games which say 'If you can't agree, the table decides'. Which at most tables sees the GM outnumbered by players about 3 or 4 to 1.

There are systems where a player spends a bennie and says 'The sect members are drinking at the teahouse tonight' and it becomes true.

In all those non D&D games are there monsters which are immune to certain effects or damage types?
For instance, in 5e, Death Knights are immune to exhaustion, being frightened and poison.

Does the table decide if these monsters may be immune? Can bennies be spent to overcome the immunity? If not, I suggest those games be included under your MMI label because the players' mechanical resolution includes some hard No's if particular damage is deemed irrelevant. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

 

[Ovinomancer]

heh, my comment was mostly just tongue-in-cheek. It is true though, and you note it yourself here, that there are a lot of factors. Sure, Samurai were fairly often polite, but they were also VERY often murderous and uncontrollable. Our histories of late Feudal Japan are replete with tales of murderous rampages and endless blood feuds. Heck, Musashi killed at least 100 people in duels, and 100's more in street fights and assassination attempts (reputedly 42 in a single incident in a garden!).

Honestly, though it is aside from the topic here, the notion of the 'gentleman's peace' where everyone is armed and they're all peaceful is so much bollocks. Martial Arts may be different for various reasons, and I'm willing to believe it may well BE different, but I think it isn't really the fighting ability of its practitioners which makes it so. I would venture to guess that disciplined people are disciplined in all areas of their lives. This is really an example of 'Nicomachean Ethics'. "We are good not because of who we are, but because we have practiced goodness constantly."

You seem very wedded to your opinion. I would point out that arguing from the specific to the general is rarely accurate. For instance, samurai were largely a very polite and rigidly structured society, especially based as it was on martial power and obligation. The example of Musashi, whom you point out fought many duels, is a goid example of this. Dueling in feudal Japan was part of the social rituals avoiding widespread violence and were formal affairs that where largely non-lethal. Duels that were lethal avoided larger violence. Your characterization is very shallow and dismissive of a complex society.

Gentlemen's Peace's, as you note, do not avoid violence. They channel it and limit it's scope. For someone that just said there are muktiple factors, you seem very eager to dismiss complex interactions on the basis of a few examples.

 

[Numidius]

In all those non D&D games are there monsters which are immune to certain effects or damage types?
For instance, in 5e, Death Knights are immune to exhaustion, being frightened and poison.

Does the table decide if these monsters may be immune? Can bennies be spent to overcome the immunity? If not, I suggest those games be included under your MMI label because the players' mechanical resolution includes some hard No's if particular damage is deemed irrelevant. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Use fire against Death Knights.
If you have to ask permission to do it, well, then...

 

[Sadras]

Use fire against Death Knights.
If you have to ask permission to do it, well, then...

Perhaps I wasn't clear. No permission is required, we are talking about the resolution process.

Action Declaration: Character goes to Tea House to find sect.
DM: Despite the tea house being full of patrons, you find no sect member present.

Action Declaration: I cast Cause Fear on the Death Knight in my attempt to frighten him.
DM: (Without making a saving throw) You successfully cast it, but your spell appears to have no affect as the Death Knight keeps on advancing.

Both are automatic No's.

 

[pemerton]

In all those non D&D games are there monsters which are immune to certain effects or damage types?
For instance, in 5e, Death Knights are immune to exhaustion, being frightened and poison.

Does the table decide if these monsters may be immune? Can bennies be spent to overcome the immunity? If not, I suggest those games be included under your MMI label because the players' mechanical resolution includes some hard No's if particular damage is deemed irrelevant. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

This has been discussed near-endlessly, and I would have thought you've been a participant in at least some of those threads. (Eg I discussed it in a thread a year or so ago about "secret backstory" and I'm pretty sure you posted in that thread.)

No one thinks that, if a GM narrates a room with a door but no windows, the action declaration "I climb through the window" is going to have a chance of success.

Instead of talking about death knights I'm surprised you're not at least pointing to a more contentious example, namely, the immunity of the Duke to Intimidate checks in the example of a skill challenge in the 4e DMG. The same example skill challenge also establishes a way of learning this immunity, namely, via an Insight check. In the past I've said that I regard this as borderline in terms of the balance between reasonable framing and GM fiat by way of secret backstory.

If a group of players were playing PCs who had no magical attack forms, and the GM framed those PCs into a situation which (i) very clearly invited a violent resopnse, and (ii) involved a being able to be hurt only by magical attack forms, then in my view that would be an instance of exactly what [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is talking about. Ther proverbial ancient red dragon in the first room of a first level dungeon would be another example. (Although that example obviously rests on assumptions about the broader form of gameplay - eg it will involve exploring dungeons - which may not be true in many games.)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. No permission is required, we are talking about the resolution process.

Action Declaration: Character goes to Tea House to find sect.
DM: Despite the tea house being full of patrons, you find no sect member present.

Action Declaration: I cast Cause Fear on the Death Knight in attempts to frighten him.
DM: (Without making a saving throw) You successfully cast it, but your spell appears to have no affect as the Death Knight keeps on advancing.

Both are automatic No's.

In D&D, being told your fear effect doesn't affect the Death Kinght doesn't end the resolution process for fighting a death knight. (Unless the GM goes on to narrate The Death Knight keeps advancing . . . . and suck up your soul! Roll a new PC. Which would be a non-standard way of adjudicating combat in D&D, but would exemplify the same phenomenon [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is pointing to.)