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

[Crimson Longinus]

Here are some actual play examples: the GM had framed my characters (knight PC + wizard sidekick) into an encounter with some Elves. I had zero interest in Elves, but had as a goal to try and liberate my ancestral estate. So I started a Duel of Wits to try and persuade the Elven Captain to ride with me to my estate, to deal with the evil forces there. I lost the DoW, but the mere fact that I was able to start it, and thus to shift the focus of play away from the GM's concerns and onto mine, is a difference from 5e D&D.

I literally can't fathom why you think you couldn't do this in 5e. In these discussions your perception of 5e often seems really weird to me.

 

[pemerton]

I literally can't fathom why you think you couldn't do this in 5e. In these discussions your perception of 5e often seems really weird to me.

Where is the actual play example?

I mean, here is @Maxperson on this very issue:

That one is more difficult, but presumably there were ways to find out if it would be possible or not through roleplaying with him or others. The player should still have a very good idea if it is possible or not.

Where are all these actual play examples of 5e play in which it is the players, and not the GM, who are the lead storytellers? And how do they fit with the core play loop which says that the GM says what happens as a result of the players' declared actions for their PCs?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I thought you are familiar with Burning Wheel, given your post above referring to how obstacles are set. If not, you can get the core of the rules for free here: Burning Wheel Gold: Hub and Spokes - Burning Wheel | Burning Wheel | DriveThruRPG.com

I am vaguely familiar with it, but have not perfectly memorised rules of games I don't play. Hell, I have hard enough time remembering the rules of games I do play!

There are tables for setting obstacles based on fictional circumstances, comparable to (say) Rolemaster - those tables are not in the free part of the rules but with the skill descriptions and (in the case of Duel of Wits) in the description of the various moves permitted. And there are no difficulties that it is impossible to hit, because Fate points can always be spent to open-end 6s.

That's very theoretical. Even with fate you it is possible for beating the difficulty to be so unlikely that it is in practice impossible. In any case, like 5e, BW says that dice are rolled "if outcome is uncertain". Who decides what's uncertain?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Notice your structure of this concept: "The GM is also expected (by whom? under what authority?) to entertain the players..." So are the players passive consumers of entertainment? There to hear the GM's fantasy novel played out before them? If so then that sounds very much like MMI. Instead, as others have noted, the game seems to actually tell us that it is everyone's job to contribute to an entertaining story, not just a unilateral descent of entertainment from GM to player(s). How is this compatible with the sweeping and seemingly unilateral authority structure people have repeatedly defended in this thread (IIRC including you?), where it is completely within the GM's authority and latitude to override any contribution the player might theoretically make.

I think there are groups who are content to be passive consumers of the GM's story. I don't get this style of play, but I think it is one mode D&D caters to. However by entertain I don't mean that. I think it is a very broad canopy of entertainment. And for me that includes the players engaging the material and setting the GM presents (and shaping it through their actions). Personally I don't see this as incompatible with the GM having final authority over the game. The very first time I sat to play D&D, it was understood the GM had the ultimate authority over outcomes. But felt very much like I had complete agency because the GM used that authority to help make sense of the choices I was making (so the effect felt very much like I could try anything I wanted to in this setting). That isn't the only power structure that exists in RPGs or needs to be in place in every edition of D&D, but it is one I think works perfectly well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the presence was established prior to the party getting to that spot and rooted in the fiction, then the player will fail. The DM cannot just pop an anti-magic field into place and then coble up some fiction to explain it.

Where does it say that the DM cannot do so?

The DM decides it ultimately, but the player should have a very, very good idea in advance.

Should implies an obligation. Where is this obligation rooted? Is it in the rules, or does it exist only in the social contract?

I mean, why would the 1st level wizard think that he could climb the Cliffs of Insanity when the best climbers in the world have been coming for generations and failing. Nobody has successfully climbed it yet. If they're lucky, they are able to climb back down and live. If not...

Okay. Now take this answer, and apply it to the next three things the party attempts for reaching whatever they need to reach beyond the Cliffs of Insanity before the Wizard proposes teleporting up there using some magic reagents the party acquired earlier. "What makes you think you can survive the trip through the Fire Swamps?" "Do you really want to risk an encounter with the Dread Pirate Roberts, who has notoriously destroyed every ship trying to sail through the Strait of Nightmares?" "You already heard the rumors in the bar about the vicious six-fingered man indiscriminately killing travellers on the road and in the forest on the long route around the Cliffs and Swamp. Even the Countess' soldiers, who have been exploring the forest on foot, have suffered heavy casualties." Etc.

That one is more difficult, but presumably there were ways to find out if it would be possible or not through roleplaying with him or others. The player should still have a very good idea if it is possible or not.

As above: where is this "should" rooted?

What is that proportion? I think it's rare for a DM to tell a player, "No you can't climb that easy to climb wall, because I say so."

Indeed, you are correct that such blatant and frank behavior is rare. But it need not be so frank. A "thwarter in chief" can come up with all sorts of reasons, to give guise to them saying no which "justifies" them doing so. I gave some examples of this way upthread. Sometimes it manifests as railroading, e.g. "We need to get to Darmir-upon-Pyne, let's go check out the cost of renting horses." "Remember how I mentioned the Countess' soldiers were on foot before? That's because there's a horse plague affecting this area. Even if a horse is healthy it isn't being let out for fear of it dying or spreading the plague." "Okay, how about we check in with the mage tower and see if we can teleport like we did to get to Lyonesse, beyond the Cliffs of Insanity?" "You used up the last of your reagents last time and don't have the money to get more." "Alright, I guess we have to go by boat then?" "There are several boats in the harbor, you probably have your pick of the litter...."

Other times it manifests in even more "covert" ways, like technically letting something happen but setting an impossible DC or, as was the case with the Rustic Hospitality example, saying that it works and then denying any meaningful benefit that its use would provide. Other similarly covert MMI can include making all roads lead to the same answer or allowing something to seem to work for a while before slowly introducing problems that eventually become insoluble, so the players are forced to switch tactics until they eventually happen upon one the DM approves of (note, it need not be one specific tactic!)

The very first time I sat to play D&D, it was understood the GM had the ultimate authority over outcomes. But felt very much like I had complete agency because the GM used that authority to help make sense of the choices I was making (so the effect felt very much like I could try anything I wanted to in this setting).

Understood by whom? Understood from what? As I asked Max above, where is this understanding rooted?

What constrained the GM to only use their authority in support of your intent? What bound them to "help make sense of the choices [you were] making"? What prevented them from telling you no when you attempted things?

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is the argument I asked not to be used earlier. I won't respond to it as I did before, so I will try a different analogy.

Let's say you're in the house construction business. Someone, let's say me, wants a house built on some lovely beachfront property they just acquired in a bequest. I have you examine the site where I want the house, as it will give the best view of the ocean. You determine that this is a bad place to build a house, because the bedrock is very deep, and above it is a layer of pumice stone, clays, and material that is very likely to settle unevenly. You could dig deep enough to set the foundation on bedrock, but it would be an expensive and laborious undertaking. You recommend that I consider a different location.

I think the argument I made though was a valid one (especially because there is often a 'could' equals 'is' that creeps into these conversations. Your response to it is also valid as it raises additional points. Sure I fully acknowledge for you, this may be a problem even if it never materializes. You might not Want an RPG where that can occur and you would like the system or advice to be designed in such a way that the problem never arises. I think my counter argument here, and where I think the beach front property analogy breaks down a bit, is that whereas the beach front property issue is pretty objectively bad (if all your facts about bedrock are true since I know nothing about building homes), there is a subjective element to the problem that can arise in D&D with the GM being given that much authority. I think also we would all agree that should the house settle unevenly, that is a bad outcome. But not everyone is going to agree that the point where the game becomes MMI for you, it becomes MMI for them. An unsettled house is a pretty objective state of being for a home, whereas it is hard to draw a line and say "at this point the RPG is mother may I". And even if we use a much broader definition of MMI here, which includes style of play some people enjoy, then that complicates it further because, again we can agree a house being unsettled is bad, but with the broader definition of MMI we can't even all agree that MMI is a bad thing. And there is also the added element that while giving the GM this authority means, yes, it can lead to problem X or MMI, it also confers a number of crucial benefits that for many people outweighs the risk of MMI or X.

Do bear in mind, I am not at all suggesting that you should retract your complaint about 5E and play games that have this feature, because I've made some arguments. I think you should play whatever system you want, and you should want D&D to be whatever it is you want it to be. I'm not a fan of trying to convince people they are wrong about their stated preferences. So if you feel 5E is too mother may I for you, or you feel this much GM authority is a problem for you because it creates too much of a risk of MMI arising, I think that is a perfectly fair preference.

 

[Manbearcat]

I literally can't fathom why you think you couldn't do this in 5e. In these discussions your perception of 5e often seems really weird to me.

It’s not that “you couldn’t do this in 5e.”

It’s the vast gaping gulf of difference in process between 5e and BW. @pemerton has mentioned some of it (I won’t recount that), but there is mountainous more beyond that:

* Unlike 5e, the GM must tell the player the consequence/stakes for failure before resolving.

* Unlike 5e, failures in resolution are governed by theme & intent-driven Fail Forward. Coupled with everything else in system (including needing Failures to Advance), these multilayered incentive structures with Failure handling have huge (positive) implications upon play generally and for player decision-points specifically (actions declared and resolved).

* (this was mentioned as something shared, but it’s not at all) Unlike 5e, there are table-facing procedure for the game’s equivalent of “DC setting” with codified Obstacle ratings and Factors to count to impact that.


This doesn’t even get into Beliefs and Instincts and Traits and Fate and Persona and Deeds and Linked Tests and Graduated Tests and FoRKs and Beginner’s Luck and on and on and on and on.

Just the basics of Tests alone (from incentive structures to stake-setting to failure handling to codified obstacle/vs handling) is a profoundly different beast in process and in impact upon the experience of running and playing the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Can you point to the instructions in 5e which explicitly say this? That is, which tell the GM not to be "thwarter in chief"?

My point is that isn't the expectation of the GM role, it clearly isn't what they have in mind. I do think the way many editions are written (and again I can't speak to 5E as I don't play it) it leaves that aspect open enough so it can vary from table to table (and eve when they don't leave it open, tables tend to vary on that point anyways). Some groups like a more miserly, thwartier GM I'm sure. It isn't any skin off my back if people want that and play that way (I don't see it as something the game needs to explicitly tell us not to do, just like it doesn't need to tell me to not hit people with the PHB, or not deduct XP from players as punishment when their words displease me).

Because a lot of people have been defending examples given here as perfectly valid play, and yet which look to my eyes exactly like being a "thwarter in chief."

I'm not sure which examples you have in mind, but here I just think tastes vary considerably. One man's railroad is another man's epic adventure. Like I said above, I'm not terribly worried about the game being broad enough in its approach that it allows for some styles of play I think of as not fun, bad, or even terrible.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Perhaps that's a useful acronym here. TIC. What do you think?

Since I coined it I would respectfully ask people spell it out every time so we aren't adding more acronyms for people to remember If you want to throw in hyphens though, by all means do so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Where are all these actual play examples of 5e play in which it is the players, and not the GM, who are the lead storytellers?

I have no idea, I don't really ever read other people's play reports. But of course the players affect the direction of the game a lot. They're controlling the main characters, how could they not? Now how much that happens certainly varies, and I don't claim my game is super character driven, but my players have certainly convinced NPCs to do more unlikely stuff than in your elf example. (Granted, I really don't have the full context for that.)

And how do they fit with the core play loop which says that the GM says what happens as a result of the players' declared actions for their PCs?

As informed by the players action declaration, established fiction and the dice roll. GMs decisions are not context free.

I really don't think it is really that different in BW. Granted, BW resolution seems to imply that it is rather binary; either the player gets exactly what they want or they get nothing. I really like employing degrees of success, so for example if the player rolled rather well, but not amazingly in their persuasion, the elven captain might instead agree to lend couple of his best warriors to aid the PCs, instead their whole force etc.