NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7570959" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes and no.  Firstly, MMI can, and often does, exist without explicit permission seeking.  If the GM has authority to negate action declarations, then you're in MMI territory because any declaration must at least be implicitly be approved by the GM.5e does not rise to this level as written, but there's certainty a subculture that both embraces and cherishes this play, ie the GM is the boss of the table.Secondly, MMI can exist indirectly.  If a HM uses action adjudication to control acceptable outcomes, like by setting DCs to impossible targets or outright failing actions they don't agree with, this is also MMI, just not directly.  The existence of GM arbitration doesn't mean MMI, but if the GM isn't following the fiction (both open and secret) with integrity, adjudication can be used for MMI.5e is in this camp as written.  Some will not like the possibility of a system to enable MMI play, and you see this in this thread.  I think a purality of 5e games are principled enough to avoid it, some have some MMI, and some are very much MMI.  5e, as a system, does nothing to restrict it, but does offer play advice that acts to limit abuse.So, no, I don't think MMI is as extreme as your portraying it.  You can see elements of its existence in metagaming discussions, frex, where it's often viewed by one side of those discussions as a legitimate tool.This I agree with.  Failure is not the same as negation.  You should be careful, though, for cases where failure is used as a stand in for negation, which do rise to MMI.  Failure is neutral, but hiw it's used is not.</blockquote>

Verification