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

[Malmuria]

In this thread, I've engaged with actual play examples - we've had three about background features.

As well as those examples in this thread, I've read a lot of other discussions of 5e D&D which evidence "Mother may I" as a feature of play.

Also, when you say "5e players" I don't know whether or not you mean to include or exclude @Manbearcat, @Campbell, @hawkeyefan and @Ovi, all of whom play and/or GM the game more or less regularly. But for my part, I take their analyses to be good guides for me.

Upthread I also mentioned another conversation I had, with someone I know well, who was talking about the collaboration in his 5e RPGing (between him as GM and the single player). When I drilled down a bit to work out how it was working, the answer emerged clearly and without any shame: the player was using spells. Perhaps he is also not someone you count as a "5e player". I don't know.

In that case, excuse me if I ascribe discrepancies between my actual experience playing 5e and your characterization of it to the fact that you are basing your analysis on a handful of selected, second-hand anecdotes (while largely discarding the experiences of others). And doing so with an unclear investment--are you interested in playing 5e? would you like to see the game improved in some way?--i.e. in bad faith.

fwiw, I think 5e is fine but somewhat bland; I have no interest in playing more of it at the moment. But my criticisms of the system are based in play experience, not clipped and selected secondhand anecdotes and hypotheticals.

 

[Malmuria]

But this is why I said we should evaluate a likely example and not an edge case. You've introduced an absurdity to the example and are now dismissing it as absurd.

Forget planar travel for a bit, please.

What's irrational about a noble recognizing kindred and honoring custom? Is this a possible thing? That's really the only question.

In one 5e game I played a noble, and was able to use it to great and consistent effect. In one case I even managed to stop a combat that was going poorly and parlay by invoking my noble birth. I worked out with the DM at the table the backstory of how my character related to the people that were attacking us; it wasn't very difficult to do. That said, the ensuing conversation did not play out exactly per the text of the position of privilege text, because there was additional context to the fictional situation, namely war/conflict between noble houses.

So perhaps when invoking background abilities in core 5e, one needs to keep in mind one of the fundamental rules of the game, that specific beats general. The background features speak to a general situation, but the specific context in which they arise will take precedence.

 

[Malmuria]

GMless games may be fine... I haven't yet played Ironsworn without a GM, but I'd certainly be interested in giving it a try. But the thing is... I don't have a problem with the GM role. I just don't think it functions best with absolute authority. Is it really that hard to understand? That if I say "The GM's authority should be limited in ways" the natural next conclusion is that I want to be rid of the GM?

I was actually asking sincerely, because in my limited experience I've found that games without a GM really do play quite differently, more so than games that retain the GM plays Npcs players play characters structure. For example, world building games like The Ground Itself.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was actually asking sincerely, because in my limited experience I've found that games without a GM really do play quite differently, more so than games that retain the GM plays Npcs players play characters structure. For example, world building games like The Ground Itself.

I don't mind that you asked. I just took the opportunity to comment how often that happens in these discussions.

I have played some games like that... Microscope, most notably. I've also played the solo game Thousand Year Old Vampire (which I played here, but sadly didn't finish). And I think it'd be cool to try Ironsworn using the GMless option. I'm curious how that would play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then shouldn't there be a different background chosen?

Possibly. If I as GM suspect that some feature etc would not be super useful in the game I try to inform the player about it so they can choose something else.

That being said, I don't think the RAI even is that the background traits are inviolable and always work. I'm not an expert on official D&D settings, but I'm pretty sure the sort of fluff conflicts regarding backgrounds I mentioned would happen with them. Still, I assume you're meant to use backgrounds with those settings.

I think the GM should make good faith effort to take them into account, but the player should also accept that sometimes the coherence of the fiction requires them not to work.

Another is that the GM uses their imagination and judgment to see if there is some way they can think of to make the ability work.

Yeas, the GM should do that. And in this thread we've seen examples of situations in which it seems the GM didn't do that. Still, there will be some situations where the the feature fully functioning becomes very difficult to justify.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeas, the GM should do that. And in this thread we've seen examples of situations in which it seems the GM didn't do that. Still, there will be some situations where the the feature fully functioning becomes very difficult to justify.

Sure, there will be times when it may not make sense for the ability, or where it will but perhaps limited in some way.

What I don’t think is very useful… and which I think starts pushing into Mother May I territory… is when GMs try to find reasons for such a player facing ability to not work.

As has been pointed out many times in the thread, the background features come up pretty rarely. It’s a thing the player can invoke and which the GM should honor, within reason, just as they would a spell or perhaps a feat.

So the question is even more a case of why block it? Why not let the player have this little win?

It seems to me… and I admit I’m biased, so you tell me if I’m crazy… that many people are resistant to the idea by default. Not because of the fictional circumstances of play or anything like that, but more because of two things.

First, some preconceived idea about what’s likely. The GM has already determined the most likely outcome, and resists any but that.

Second, that the process itself… where a player gets to say “this happens now”… just doesn’t sit right with many people.

Do you think either of these may often be the case?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, there will be times when it may not make sense for the ability, or where it will but perhaps limited in some way.

What I don’t think is very useful… and which I think starts pushing into Mother May I territory… is when GMs try to find reasons for such a player facing ability to not work.

Yeah, I agree.

As has been pointed out many times in the thread, the background features come up pretty rarely. It’s a thing the player can invoke and which the GM should honor, within reason, just as they would a spell or perhaps a feat.

So the question is even more a case of why block it? Why not let the player have this little win?

It seems to me… and I admit I’m biased, so you tell me if I’m crazy… that many people are resistant to the idea by default. Not because of the fictional circumstances of play or anything like that, but more because of two things.

First, some preconceived idea about what’s likely. The GM has already determined the most likely outcome, and resists any but that.

Perhaps. When thinking about "likely" we should remember that unlikely things happen in the game all the time, we just usually roll the dice for them. But some things, such as background features might in certain situations effectively grant you an autosuccess. However, that requires that the thing was at least somewhat possible in the first place.

Second, that the process itself… where a player gets to say “this happens now”… just doesn’t sit right with many people.

Do you think either of these may often be the case?

"This happens now" without rolls is rather different than usual method of resolving things so it might feel jarring or counterintuitive to some. Granted, some spells do that, but fair or not, people are willing to let magic to do stuff that seems weird to them. After all, the definition of magic is that it can achieve things that are not normally possible.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the GM should make good faith effort to take them into account, but the player should also accept that sometimes the coherence of the fiction requires them not to work.

I suspect the issue here is the amount of heavy lifting "sometimes" can be doing here.

 

[Campbell]

In general I have experienced a lot of cynicism around players utilizing their connections to the setting or nonplayer characters to solve their problems. I think there are a fair number of GMs who view it almost as bad sportsmanship. I have experienced a lot of scenario design, play of NPCs in other traditional games with backgrounds that give you allies, armies and the like where the GM obviates them - not because they want to force play in a given direction, but because they want the player characters to accomplish things like personally, not through intermediaries.

I personally think doing so largely ruins the point of like playing social characters, but I kind of get it. It's really not to my personal tastes though. A large part of the appeal of roleplaying games to me has always been the increasing stakes as you gain more influence over the setting. Like I do not want to be doing the same fundamental things in a high level D&D game as a low level one. Getting rid of strongholds and followers is something I largely view with a dim eye.

 

[clearstream]

It’s not only “not fundamentally inaccurate,” it’s fundamentally accurate. It’s literally the field-usage within the discipline and (so far as I’m aware) the typical general usage among folks outside of the discipline.

It’s not clear to me why we would tie ourselves into pretzels using another term which carries less useful information. When I suffer from a particularly bad bout of Insomnia, cognitive limitation is what it suffer from. I mean, I could say “cognitive impairment” for myself when my affliction manifests in its worst form because it isn’t a persistent condition, but I’ve got enough hardships, concerns, and pressing matters that I can’t spare anymore mental bandwidth to worry about dying on that hill (I can’t believe I’ve spent 3 posts on this now!).

These things are distinct

• After a bad bout of insomnia I sometimes suffer from some cognitive impairment
• I am cognitively impaired, and I make choices about the style of play I prefer because of my cognitive impairment (as if those choices could not be made for any reason but being too limited to make better choices, and as if folk who perhaps are differently abled are not perfectly able to have all kinds of preferences)

It surprises me hugely that you cannot see the problem here. That you've doubled down on it is really concerning. It sounds like you may be under other pressures and I hope you return refreshed and are able to see what I'm saying. @hawkeyefan @Campbell really? This line of argument is vile.