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

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan what happened the next time rustic hospitality came up in that game?

That’s a good question. I think it came up maybe three other times, but only one of those had any kind of stakes involved. The other two it was just fluff… we may as well have rented a room for the night or whatever.

The other time we were able to hide some people we’d helped escape from the duke’s prison among the townsfolk. So we managed to save some NPCs by using the ability and were free to go do what we needed without having to worry about them.

I’m sure there could be a campaign where the feature could wind up being used all the time, but that didn’t happen with us. It was a handful of times.

 

[Malmuria]

That’s a good question. I think it came up maybe three other times, but only one of those had any kind of stakes involved. The other two it was just fluff… we may as well have rented a room for the night or whatever.

The other time we were able to hide some people we’d helped escape from the duke’s prison among the townsfolk. So we managed to save some NPCs by using the ability and were free to go do what we needed without having to worry about them.

I’m sure there could be a campaign where the feature could wind up being used all the time, but that didn’t happen with us. It was a handful of times.

That tracks with my experience of 5e. If anything that's about a handful of times more than I've seen any background feature be relevant, especially past 1st-2nd levels. They are mostly fluff and flavor, intended for a game that is much less high fantasy than what 5e became. To the point where the next edition will replace background features with a feat. In other words, the rustic hospitality example strikes me as something of an edge case, something which could happen given ambiguities in the rules plus a DM making a bad call. It's a missed opportunity for that session, for sure, and I think the background features were a good idea, just not one that fit with 5e play past level 3 or so.

 

[Campbell]

I had my own experiences with a different background feature - The Sage's Researcher feature where if you do not know the information you are looking for the DM is supposed to tell you where to find it. Played a Githyanki Psi-Warrior who was a Demonologist who liked to dissect demons, angels and other extraplanar beings to better understand their anatomy. Expertise in Religion with an 18 Int at around 14th level. The longer we played the more the DM bristled under the feature. As time went on the DM kept making places to find the information we sought more and more untenable yet also got frustrated when we would travel to far flung libraries in search of information on the demons and devils we faced rather than the plot hooks we missed. After awhile I let go of mentioning it. I could tell that us not knowing what we were about to face was fun for the DM.

It was a pretty frustrating experience for me. I really enjoyed the feature in the beginning and would have loved if it was mostly played straight. I did not enjoy how not fun it made it for the DM who did not have the same skilled play prerogative I have.

 

[Malmuria]

I had my own experiences with a different background feature - The Sage's Researcher feature where if you do not know the information you are looking for the DM is supposed to tell you where to find it. Played a Githyanki Psi-Warrior who was a Demonologist who liked to dissect demons, angels and other extraplanar beings to better understand their anatomy. Expertise in Religion with an 18 Int at around 14th level. The longer we played the more the DM bristled under the feature. As time went on the DM kept making places to find the information we sought more and more untenable yet also got frustrated when we would travel to far flung libraries in search of information on the demons and devils we faced rather than the plot hooks we missed. After awhile I let go of mentioning it. I could tell that us not knowing what we were about to face was fun for the DM.

Also a missed opportunity perhaps. But here the dm didn’t negate the feature, just up’d the challenge level to use it. This is similar to when a dm plans around the combat abilities of the PCs. Which I think used to be fair game, though now in the play culture the advice is opposite: dms should design encounters to let players shine.

 

[Campbell]

Also a missed opportunity perhaps. But here the dm didn’t negate the feature, just up’d the challenge level to use it. This is similar to when a dm plans around the combat abilities of the PCs. Which I think used to be fair game, though now in the play culture the advice is opposite: dms should design encounters to let players shine.

It kind of became obvious to me over time that the DM just did not want me to use it. I could see the obvious frustration when I acted on the information he gave me because it meant preparing adventures he did not mean to. I totally get it. He wanted there to be a sense of mystery to everything, but the combination of my high Knowledge skills and Researcher made that a little difficult on him. I also encouraged our other party members to use divination spells and the like so we could prepare for everything. It took me a while to realize the mismatch in playstyle.

Overall I'm a big fan of these features because they encourage players to engage with the world beyond the current adventure. When I ran 5e I tried to build in a lot of opportunities to make use of this stuff. I'm personally a bit sad to see them go because I found the well designed ones got players to go out and do stuff in the world which can sometimes be a struggle. It's the same reason why I love uncommon and rare spells and such in Pathfinder Second Edition because you have to go out and get them.

 

[pemerton]

The reality is, the bandits very much did not want to fight the party at full strength, as they were recovering from a raid. When the party came up to them, asking for information about the bandit threat, the DM presented the bandits as being initially confused.

The DM then allowed the party to make checks to notice the bandits had serviceable weapons that were near at hand, that they looked slightly beat up, and that they seemed suspicious. The party, operating under the assumption that bandits are monsters, and therefore will attack on sight, never picked up on the cues provided.

Thus when the bandits said "sure, we know where the bandit camp is, we can take you there", and the PC's just went along with the obvious trap, and then were betrayed, they were outraged, because the bandits didn't "act like bandits should".

This seems consistent with my conjecture. The GM didn't roll a reaction to see if the bandits welcomed these friendly strangers.

 

[pemerton]

So while I guess Main Character Syndrome is meant to be a pejorative…I take ZERO offense to it

I mean, if my PC isn't a main character then why the hell am I turning up to this game again?

 

[Aldarc]

I agree 100%-

-so that's why I personally came to the conclusion that it's best used as a descriptor of specific instances of play, rather than a style. A MMI-style RPG, where the weight of the reference of that title comes fully to bear, wouldn't count as RPGing at all.

It's possible that some people perceive MMI as a criticism against a style of play because their mode of play has a fairly hefty number of "specific instances of play" that they recognize would qualify as MMI.

I mean, if my PC isn't a main character then why the hell am I turning up to this game again?

You don't want a guided tour of the cool world that I homebrewed?

 

[Manbearcat]

It kind of became obvious to me over time that the DM just did not want me to use it. I could see the obvious frustration when I acted on the information he gave me because it meant preparing adventures he did not mean to. I totally get it. He wanted there to be a sense of mystery to everything, but the combination of my high Knowledge skills and Researcher made that a little difficult on him. I also encouraged our other party members to use divination spells and the like so we could prepare for everything. It took me a while to realize the mismatch in playstyle.

Overall I'm a big fan of these features because they encourage players to engage with the world beyond the current adventure. When I ran 5e I tried to build in a lot of opportunities to make use of this stuff. I'm personally a bit sad to see them go because I found the well designed ones got players to go out and do stuff in the world which can sometimes be a struggle. It's the same reason why I love uncommon and rare spells and such in Pathfinder Second Edition because you have to go out and get them.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve got some pretty potent anecdotal evidence as it pertains to the topic of this thread as I subbed in for a GM’s home game when he would be unable to GM/sick/flaking/away whatever. This was at their request and I was happy enough to help them out, but it would be on my terms. I’ll use your metaplot the best I can, but I’m basically going to run the game the way I run the game so it’s going to go off of your rails to whatever degree one session can do that…then you’re going to have to get it back on your rails the following session. And I’m going to resolve actions my way (everything is table-facing + I’m going to use Success W/ Cost/Complication and Degree of Failure and Social Interaction).

This became a problem over time not just because the sessions I GMed would “unrailroad-ify” his games, but because the significant differences in action resolution handling. My handling of Background Features, particular Rituals, and other kindred extra-class boons (Vehicle/Mount Features, Animal Companion Features, accreted fictional boons akin to Friends/Contacts in Blades) was VERRRRY different than his handling; precisely like the disputes you see in this thread and other threads (like disputes over LTH).

While that become a problem, I had the easy trump card of “this is basically charity…I do it my way or I’m out.” Eventually, he ended up adjusting his game to the way I GM because he needed me to fill in for him while I didn’t need to be performing the unreciprocated charity (and certainly not get grief for it!). In the long run, it worked out!

 

[hawkeyefan]

That tracks with my experience of 5e. If anything that's about a handful of times more than I've seen any background feature be relevant, especially past 1st-2nd levels. They are mostly fluff and flavor, intended for a game that is much less high fantasy than what 5e became. To the point where the next edition will replace background features with a feat. In other words, the rustic hospitality example strikes me as something of an edge case, something which could happen given ambiguities in the rules plus a DM making a bad call. It's a missed opportunity for that session, for sure, and I think the background features were a good idea, just not one that fit with 5e play past level 3 or so.

Yeah, the Rustic Hospitality in and of itself is not a big deal. I was actually amazed to even have the opportunity to use it in play in any kind of meaningful play. This is also part of the reason I was surprised at how things played out. It's like, here's a situation tailor made for this ability that may never come up again.... just let it work.

But I think it goes a bit further than that, because it's not just about the ability. It's about how the GM adjudicated the ability, and how often such adjudication is needed throughout the course of play for all manner of action declarations, many of which will be even less defined than Rustic Hospitality.

For the background features, I actually think they should have gone further than they did, and made them more robust and clearly defined. I think having the presence of such player triggered abilities that oblige the GM is a good way to set the precedent that the GM can and should try to work with the player ideas. Like, there's kind of half-hearted comments in the book "Try and say yes" and all that... so why not have some examples that actually promote that idea?

I had my own experiences with a different background feature - The Sage's Researcher feature where if you do not know the information you are looking for the DM is supposed to tell you where to find it. Played a Githyanki Psi-Warrior who was a Demonologist who liked to dissect demons, angels and other extraplanar beings to better understand their anatomy. Expertise in Religion with an 18 Int at around 14th level. The longer we played the more the DM bristled under the feature. As time went on the DM kept making places to find the information we sought more and more untenable yet also got frustrated when we would travel to far flung libraries in search of information on the demons and devils we faced rather than the plot hooks we missed. After awhile I let go of mentioning it. I could tell that us not knowing what we were about to face was fun for the DM.

It was a pretty frustrating experience for me. I really enjoyed the feature in the beginning and would have loved if it was mostly played straight. I did not enjoy how not fun it made it for the DM who did not have the same skilled play prerogative I have.

Yeah, that's frustrating. A bit of a different kind of situation, but still the GM placing his own ideas above those of his player. In this case, it's about preserving the idea of mystery and danger of the encounters he's prepared. If it was me in the GM chair, I hope I'd pick up on what you were doing and then consider that when crafting encounters or scenarios.