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

[FrogReaver]

I posted an explanation of this not far upthread, in the post (#471) that you replied to.

I don't know if @hawkeyefan agrees with everything in that post, but I think it captures the general gist of hawkeyefan's thoughts.

I'll take another look.

I think this understates the role of the GM as per the 5e rules. The GM is also given overwhelming, even sole, responsibility for establishing outcomes.

I don't think that focusing on one aspect of D&D GMing means I'm understating the other things the D&D DM is doing. I agree that the GM is also given overwhelming, even sole, responsibility for establishing outcomes.

I don't think this is a correct account of @hawkeyefan's position. I mentioned some alternatives to 5e D&D's resolution system which still involve GM judgement, to quite a significant degree, but that don't have the same structure as 5e, and hence are not as vulnerable to "Mother may I".

But those other resolution systems don't feature the DM determining outcomes to the same degree as D&D... is that an accurate statement?

Because if so and Mother May I is being used to denote the DM's ability to determine outcomes then it's tautological to claim that D&D is more prone to Mother May I because of that. Which goes back to the earlier complaints in this thread of using a negative term to describe a system. Claiming that's what the term means falls flat when you could have chosen any other less negative and more objective term to mean that same thing.

I don't know if I've understood your question - but you seem to be suggesting that the "Mother may I" categorisation should be applied in a way that is relative to system. To me that wouldn't make sense. "Mother may I" is a bit of terminology whose meaning is system-independent, and that is used to distinguish between RPG systems (and often to criticise those that are seen to fall under the label). What the terminology signals is (more or less) that the player can only impact the shared fiction via GM mediation and approval.

It's much more nuanced than that.

The complaint is that you've decided to use a completely negative term to describe a particular playstyle/game structure and despite claims otherwise you persist here in saying the negative term describes a whole game style. If that's all this is then shouldn't you pick a more objective term to describe that game style?

If Mother May I is actually negative in itself then it surely cannot be said that the D&D game structure is Mother May I because it often does not lead to negative play experiences.

My point is really more about picking one or the other and being consistent in your meaning.

A system in which all players can do is express hopes about changes to the fiction - via establishing intents or immediate bodily actions for their PCs, but nothing more - is one which is liable to exhibiting this feature in ways that other systems (like the two I sketched, both of which allow the player to impact the fiction on a successful dice roll) are not.

I agree that such a system can exhibit the non-tautological kind of mother may I play - but unless we are going back to the tautological definition, such a system need not exhibit the negative mother may I play.

 

[clearstream]

Because if so and Mother May I is being used to denote the DM's ability to determine outcomes then it's tautological to claim that D&D is more prone to Mother May I because of that. Which goes back to the earlier complaints in this thread of using a negative term to describe a system. Claiming that's what the term means falls flat when you could have chosen any other less negative and more objective term to mean that same thing.

Terms I have been thinking of to describe the process from a positive point of view include

• Legitimating - in the same sense used in relation to positioning i.e. doing what follows your fiction and system. This would include cases of stretching the shard fiction to gain a mechanical benefit, going off-pisted from the shared fiction, interpreting fiction or system in ways that other participants find doubtful, distorting or detracting... that sort of thing.
• Clarifying - where explanation is supplied as to why the intended action may not work / work differently from what is wanted. This would include cases I listed up-thread such as can my spell do X? Can I fit down that hole? @hawkeyefan please see DMG244 for the answer as to why the case of social interaction I outlined fits in this category.

So far as Mother goes, I count a multitude. Game designers, can GWM be even more imba? World designers, can Waterdeep just not exist? Dice, can I jump that pit? Friends around the table, can my medieval fantasy knight have a laser blaster? Ludicrous examples, possibly, but these questions and decisions do truthfully fall on a spectrum. @FrozenNorth gave an example that they felt some DMs would say no to: shift that example up a notch - DM, can I heal my fallen allies with my Intimidate skill (because it's my biggest skill bonus!) Would a greater number be predicted to say no?

When someone declares that something happens in the game, it becomes true when everyone assents to it, and under no other conditions.

Isn't that Mother May I, but now everyone is Mother. Different modes, systems, cultures of play have differing ideas about how that divides out. Does everyone have an equal vote, or is Addy responsible for Addy's character, and Robin responsible for the forest folk of the far north? Maybe Al takes on the burden of learning the game rules and guiding the group, so they have a stronger say in forming our "assent" when it's a rules question? Some games put facets of that into writing, such as the Reaching rules in TB2.

The social dynamic at the table is observably unequal. An advantage of appointing a DM is that it avoids a pernicious self-appointment: where someone helps themselves to a stronger say without giving up their participation on the player-side of affairs. A DM accepts burdens and gives up aspects of participation. They specialise in work of a certain kind: that's their contribution. It is normal to leverage differentiated roles to our advantage in all aspects of our lives, including play.

 

[FrogReaver]

Terms I have been thinking of to describe the process from a positive point of view include

• Legitimating - in the same sense used in relation to positioning i.e. doing what follows your fiction and system. This would include cases of stretching the shard fiction to gain a mechanical benefit, going off-pisted from the shared fiction, interpreting fiction or system in ways that other participants find doubtful, distorting or detracting... that sort of thing.
• Clarifying - where explanation is supplied as to why the intended action may not work / work differently from what is wanted. This would include cases I listed up-thread such as can my spell do X? Can I fit down that hole? @hawkeyefan please see DMG244 for the answer as to why the case of social interaction I outlined fits in this category.

I think that's a good starting point, though I must say the name legitimating doesn't really evoke much from me. Clarifying is really clear IMO.

So far as Mother goes, I count a multitude. Game designers, can GWM be even more imba? World designers, can Waterdeep just not exist? Dice, can I jump that pit? Friends around the table, can my medieval fantasy knight have a laser blaster? Ludicrous examples, possibly, but these questions and decisions do truthfully fall on a spectrum. @FrozenNorth gave an example that they felt some DMs would say no to: shift that example up a notch - DM, can I heal my fallen allies with my Intimidate skill (because it's my biggest skill bonus!) Would a greater number be predicted to say no?

'Mother' - generally designates an individual with unilateral control over what you do. I don't think particularly fair to refer to group distributed systems that lack that individual unilateral control aspect as 'mother'.

However, I also think part of 'mother may I' in the classical sense is not just control over outcomes but control over attempted actions as well. In D&D terms the players are free to attempt basically anything and the rules call that out at least implicitly if not explicitly. There's no Mother that says they can or cannot do something. There is a DM there that excercises judgment as part of a process that determines whether they were able to do what they desired to do or not.

The social dynamic at the table is observably unequal. An advantage of appointing a DM is that it avoids a pernicious self-appointment: where someone helps themselves to a stronger say without giving up their participation on the player-side of affairs. A DM accepts burdens and gives up aspects of participation. The specialise in work of a certain kind: that's their contribution. It is normal to leverage differentiated roles to our advantage in all aspects of our lives, including play.

The same thing can be achieved without a single designated DM, perhaps authority rotates around to some degree or is partially shared between player and DM in ways not seen in D&D. There's a large spectrum of ways to handle this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Then perhaps the issue is that I'm not following how the structure of the game placing the vast majority of authority on the DM makes it so a GM can easily fall into Mother May I without realizing it. It is true that the DM in D&D has the vast majority of authority, but it's not clear how that authority morphs into the GM doing Mother May I, and doubly so for doing it and not realizing it.

*Unless your position is that strong DM authority always necessarily produces Mother May I, but I don't believe that is your position.

I'm looking at it as it relates to the outcomes. A player indicates what they want to see happen by declaring an action for their character. How is the outcome of that action determined?

You described the basic play loop below.

The basic play loop.

The DM describes the environment.
The players describe what they want to do.
The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

Where in that do the players have to ask for or await the DM's permission to describe anything that they want to do?

Between steps 2 and 3. It's not about being allowed to declare any action they like. It's about the actions they declare being allowed to be effective.

As I've said, when we look at combat actions, we are fully aware (or should be) of what is happening between steps 2 and 3. The player is making a roll, the DM is comparing the result to the target's AC, and then they declare if the attack was a miss or a hit and then tells the player to roll damage.

There's no ambiguity there. Not unless the DM abandons the rules and just starts narrating results at whim.

With non-combat actions, however, there is a whole lot of ambiguity between steps 2 and 3.

IMO, such a process is clear cut. Just because a process has a step for DM Judgement in it doesn't make it an unclear process. IMO, what you are interested in is not a clear cut process but a process with no DM judgement.

It's not the DM judgment that makes it unclear. It's the mechanics of the game. Do you think if you poll several people about how to adjudicate a social action like trying to get a guard to turn a blind eye to some PC-related shenanigans, you'd get responses that are consistent? Would they be anywhere near as consistent as if you polled several people about how to handle an attack on the guard? Or a spell cast at the guard?

They won't be. Because the actual process is far less clear. The NPC doesn't have some kind of social saving throw to roll against such attempts. What would likely be brought to bear, if any roll is allowed at all because the DM can just declare the attempt a failure, would be some kind of Ability check for the PC, with a skill applying.

In such a case, here's what happens between steps 2 and 3.

• The DM can declare the action is impossible, and the attempt fails outright. A DM can also declare the action is automatically successful.
• If the DM decides the outcome is uncertain, a roll is typically called for. The DC of such a roll is set by the DM. The applicable Ability and Skill are decided by the DM.
• The applicable traits of the guard that may shut down a roll or may inform the DC are decided by the DM.
• Environmental factors are decided by the DM.
• The DM also has the authority to apply Disadvantage or Advantage on the roll. Many would also claim the DM can further alter the results, if they decide to.
• The DM then also has complete authority to declare what happens on a success or a failure; they can make a success less potent or a failure more severe based on whatever criteria they want.

Taking all this into consideration, the question is "Can I convince this guard to ignore what we're up to?" Filtered through the process above, is it really surprising that many may consider this "DM, may I convince the guard to ignore what we're up to?"

Again, compare to combat and spellcasting where the DM has far less input on the outcome. If I exceed the AC with my attack roll, I hit. If the guard fails his saving throw against the spell, he's Charmed.

Do you know why they usually bring that up? Because someone that wants no DM judgement in the D&D resolution process is complaining because the DM evaluated the genre, setting and current conditions and determined that despite the rules text that in these specific circumstances something works differently. An example, does fireball work the same way underwater?

Again, no one is saying there should be no DM judgment in the game. I agree, this caveat in the rules is more for edge cases where how the rules apply is unclear. In such cases, the DM needs to figure out how to make the situation work. That's a perfectly reasonable application of DM judgment.

However, many cite that caveat actually grants the DM the ability to alter or ignore any rules they like for any reason. I think that's an overly broad interpretation, and absolutely places things into Mother May I territory. I don't even know how it can be argued otherwise.

So if we accept that this caveat is not about granting the DM absolute authority, then we must accept that the rules have authority. That the rules should work as we expect them to work, barring some form of exception.

The game is premised on the DM making judgements and rulings based on the fictional position and that's implicit if not explicit in the rules of the game. If the DM is doing that then it's not clear how unsatisfactory play occurs due that that funneling all decision making through the DM. I'd even go a step further and argue that if the DM is following that basic guideline that the kind of unsatisfactory play you are concerned with here will not occur.

What is unsatisfactory is subjective, so I'm describing what I see as the possible problem.

I think that there are plenty of GMs who will interpret things in a manner that is in good faith, but yet can still lead to the kind of play I'm describing as unsatisfactory. The books describe the DM as the "primary storyteller" and that they "make the adventure" and so on. All the phrasing is about placing the DM's ideas above others. About the DM predetermining many aspects of play.

Interesting. I'd love to hear some actual examples of Mother May I from your recent group. I think old school D&D was prone to Mother May I play. Some Gygaxian advice seems to specifically call for the gotcha playstyle that tends to lead to that feeling. But modern D&D is pretty far removed from that.

In a thread from a couple months back, I shared an example of my Folk Hero Ranger attempting to avoid the evil Duke's men by taking shelter with the common folk of a town the PCs were in. The Duke's men were hunting the PCs and we knew they were on their way to the town. I used the Folk Hero feature to gain us shelter.

My expectation was that we would avoid an encounter with the Duke's men. The DM instead decided that the Duke's men learned of our presence and surrounded the farmhouse where we were hidden. His reasoning was that my use of the ability let us get a full rest, and so he felt he honored my action. But he still decided a battle was going to happen.

He wasn't specifically trying to undermine my idea... there was no ill intent... but it was unsatisfactory for me because I didn't feel that my choices mattered. His decision was about preserving his plans more than about allowing my choices to meaningfully influence the events of play.

I think it's very possible. However, being very possible is not the same thing as a good well meaning DM being easily able to fall into it.

I mean, if it's possible, then I don't see how it can't happen. It doesn't take ill intent. It can happen by accident.

PHB: One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game's lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore. The DM might describe the entrance to Castle Ravenloft, and the players decide what they want their adventurers to do. Will they walk across the dangerously weathered drawbridge? Tie themselves together with rope to minimize the chance that someone will fall if the drawbridge gives way? Or cast a spell to carry them over the chasm? Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers' actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can he exciting and unexpected.

I don't see how this in any way warns against Mother May I play.

PHB: Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.

This reinforces the idea of Mother May I. It's explicitly directing players to ask the DM for permission.

 

[Aldarc]

Isn't that Mother May I, but now everyone is Mother.

Do you define a democracy as a system where everyone is an autocrat? I don't see the value in trying to dilute the meaning MMI by trying to paint everything with the same broad strokes. There is a lot of false equivalent comparisons in that sort of analysis.

 

[pemerton]

The complaint is that you've decided to use a completely negative term to describe a particular playstyle/game structure and despite claims otherwise you persist here in saying the negative term describes a whole game style. If that's all this is then shouldn't you pick a more objective term to describe that game style?

If Mother May I is actually negative in itself then it surely cannot be said that the D&D game structure is Mother May I because it often does not lead to negative play experiences.

<snip>

I agree that such a system can exhibit the non-tautological kind of mother may I play - but unless we are going back to the tautological definition, such a system need not exhibit the negative mother may I play.

I haven't asserted that D&D per se is "Mother may I". Nor has @hawkeyefan. @Ovinomancer has, but in doing so has denied the label is pejorative - he is using it just to describe the authority structure (and embraces the label as describing his own GMing of 5e D&D).

My post was really just picking up on @hawkeyefan's, and was trying to explain why the 5e D&D authority structure - in particular, the strong degree of authority the GM has over outcomes when compared to (i) what the players actually have in 5e D&D, and (ii) what the alternative possibilities are for authority structures (seen in some other fairly well-known RPGs) - is noticeably vulnerable to becoming "Mother may I".

Vulnerability doesn't entail actuality, and I don't take hawkeyefan to be saying that 5e D&D is inevitably going to "Mother may I" play. But if the authority structure is going to remain unchanged, then maybe the vulnerability could be reduced by setting out some principles more clearly than is currently done. (See hawkeyefan's post 436 upthread.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

Whether or not "Mother may I" is a problem - you think it is by definition, I think @hawkeyefan agrees with you, I know @Ovinomancer doesn't - I think that it does flow, in part at least, from features of system.

I think your assessment is very much in line with mine. I don't think that all play of 5E (or any given game) qualifies as Mother May I, but I do think the system as designed leans that way, and almost every bit of advice in the books reinforces that. It takes some effort to work against it, and it's not the kind of effort that is suggested by the books.

@hawkeyefan please see DMG244 for the answer as to why the case of social interaction I outlined fits in this category.

This is a good example! I think the book ruins it a bit by making it all optional. This bit:

Some DMs prefer to run a social interaction as a free form roleplaying exercise, where dice rarely come into play. Other DMs prefer to resolve the outcome of an interaction by having characters make Charisma checks. Either approach works, and most games fall somewhere in between, balancing player skill (roleplaying and persuading) with character skill (reflected by ability checks).

And this one:

This section adds to that material by providing a structured way to resolve a social interaction. Much of this structure will be invisible to your players in play and isn't meant to be a substitute for roleplaying.

These spoil it for me. It offers a structure that the players can use in a social interaction, but makes it entirely optional and suggests to not even let the players be aware of a lot of it.

As such, I don't think it fits your idea of "Clarifying" information.

If the structure was known to the players, and was allowed to be evoked by the players when applicable, then I'd consider it a good step to move the game away from Mother May I. I use this in my play regularly, giving the players the option to learn a Bond, Ideal, or Flaw of the NPC and then using that to leverage their attempts to persuade/convince the NPC. There's still a lot of leeway for the DM in the form of starting attitudes and determining DCs and other factors, but at least it gives a clearer process.

So far as Mother goes, I count a multitude. Game designers, can GWM be even more imba? World designers, can Waterdeep just not exist? Dice, can I jump that pit? Friends around the table, can my medieval fantasy knight have a laser blaster? Ludicrous examples, possibly, but these questions and decisions do truthfully fall on a spectrum.

You're offering alternatives to Mother May I here in that your citing rules, fiction, dice, genre, and the play group as having a say in the decision making process.

That's the opposite of having one person decide all that.

I think it was @Hussar that mentioned not too far upthread that players influence this as well. Obviously, players asking for absurd things is going to factor in to a GM having to say no. Players should keep genre and tone and tropes in mind when they're declaring an action. Things that run counter to genre tropes and the like shouldn't be blamed on the GM.

@FrozenNorth gave an example that they felt some DMs would say no to: shift that example up a notch - DM, can I heal my fallen allies with my Intimidate skill (because it's my biggest skill bonus!) Would a greater number be predicted to say no?

I agree @FrozenNorth offered a good example by citing the thread started by @pemerton about the fighter praying for aid to help his fallen ally.

So if we take that example, and then ask the questions I've posed, I think maybe that helps us here.

What's preserved by denying the action?

What does denying this action cost?

What do you think the answers to these questions may be for that example?

 

[pemerton]

I think there's a few different things being called Mother May I in this thread.

• The players lack of any control over outcomes in the resolution process.
• The oldschool Gygaxian playstyle of you didn't say precisely you did this or didn't do that and so I as DM am free to insert into the narrative that you actually did one of those things that lead to a negative outcome.
• The DM too often says NO (either hard or soft - soft being too highly negative consequences compared to the benefit of the action) leading to the players feeling the only way they can legitimately interact with the game is either through explicit rules based actions like spells or by first establishing the DM's permission that an action they are attempting can actually be worth doing.

Perhaps there's a few more things Mother May I is being used to denote as well.

I think your first and third are closely related. Three may even be a special case of one.

Your second seems closer to what is sometimes called "pixel bitching". I think that sort of play is quite vulnerable to becoming adversarial, which is something it has in common with one and three; but personally I wouldn't call it "Mother may I".

I think it would be beneficial to be more explicit about the type of Mother May I we are intending to discuss when we post as it becomes very difficult to have a group discussion on the topic otherwise.

The OP did ask posters to share their thoughts, which means that a plurality of conceptions is an unavoidable outcome!

For my part, I've tried to be pretty clear about the authority structures I'm talking about in my posts in this thread.

 

[clearstream]

So if we accept that this caveat is not about granting the DM absolute authority, then we must accept that the rules have authority. That the rules should work as we expect them to work, barring some form of exception.

A normal situation is that principles are also in play. So most likely MMI represents DM-curated + some shortfall in those principles, of the sort you are describing. For example, among those I uphold when DMing D&D are

• Apply the game rules
• Say what the rules mean and stick to it
• Have no hidden rules

The rules will not cover every case, and there is our fiction to consider: what we know to be true. In another discussion I put forward that 5e is silent on what principles each group will put in force for themselves. I believe that is intentional, with a view to embracing a wide audience.

Vulnerability doesn't entail actuality, and I don't take hawkeyefan to be saying that 5e D&D is inevitably going to "Mother may I" play. But if the authority structure is going to remain unchanged, then maybe the vulnerability could be reduced by setting out some principles more clearly than is currently done. (See hawkeyefan's post 436 upthread.)

If I read your comment here correctly, then I would agree with the intuition that where one participant is legislated in the game text to have greater authority over agreeing what becomes true then that could create a vulnerability. My thought is that the divider is the principles they habitually bring to their table. That this explains why some groups (e.g., those in my experience) do not experience MMI (degenerate exercise of a right of agreement).

To some extent I read @hawkeyefan's critique as pointing out the omission of those principles from the game text, which as noted above I believe is intentional and perhaps serves a useful purpose (i.e., one accepts the possibility of degenerate play just because it makes the game work for more people.)

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm looking at it as it relates to the outcomes. A player indicates what they want to see happen by declaring an action for their character. How is the outcome of that action determined?

Okay, just as long as we are acknowledging there is a significant difference in saying, "Mother may I even do this thing" and "Mother may I have the outcome I desire".

*Of important note: Mother May I as the children's game is played is a game about even doing the thing, not a game about obtaining your desired outcome.

Between steps 2 and 3. It's not about being allowed to declare any action they like. It's about the actions they declare being allowed to be effective.

Okay, but should every action they declare be allowed to be effective?

As I've said, when we look at combat actions, we are fully aware (or should be) of what is happening between steps 2 and 3. The player is making a roll, the DM is comparing the result to the target's AC, and then they declare if the attack was a miss or a hit and then tells the player to roll damage.

What about determining advantage/disadvantage?

There's no ambiguity there. Not unless the DM abandons the rules and just starts narrating results at whim.

With non-combat actions, however, there is a whole lot of ambiguity between steps 2 and 3.

I would say that the only way out of ambiguity is to have a closed set of action declarations. As long as the players can do things not codified in the rules then this is going to be a reoccurring thing. For example, what if the player was a Paladin and wanted to use their action to keep the enemy from attack their ally, possibly by inserting themselves between them. How do the rules handle that?

It's not the DM judgment that makes it unclear. It's the mechanics of the game. Do you think if you poll several people about how to adjudicate a social action like trying to get a guard to turn a blind eye to some PC-related shenanigans, you'd get responses that are consistent? Would they be anywhere near as consistent as if you polled several people about how to handle an attack on the guard? Or a spell cast at the guard?

Having a consistent process does not mean you have a consistent outcome.

They won't be. Because the actual process is far less clear. The NPC doesn't have some kind of social saving throw to roll against such attempts. What would likely be brought to bear, if any roll is allowed at all because the DM can just declare the attempt a failure, would be some kind of Ability check for the PC, with a skill applying.

The process is very clear, the DM describes the environment, the players declare their actions, the DM determines the outcome (often using ability checks but not always). That the process can yield different results because DM's can judge differently, that doesn't mean the process isn't clear in how it works.

In such a case, here's what happens between steps 2 and 3.

• The DM can declare the action is impossible, and the attempt fails outright. A DM can also declare the action is automatically successful.
• If the DM decides the outcome is uncertain, a roll is typically called for. The DC of such a roll is set by the DM. The applicable Ability and Skill are decided by the DM.
• The applicable traits of the guard that may shut down a roll or may inform the DC are decided by the DM.
• Environmental factors are decided by the DM.
• The DM also has the authority to apply Disadvantage or Advantage on the roll. Many would also claim the DM can further alter the results, if they decide to.
• The DM then also has complete authority to declare what happens on a success or a failure; they can make a success less potent or a failure more severe based on whatever criteria they want.

Taking all this into consideration, the question is "Can I convince this guard to ignore what we're up to?" Filtered through the process above, is it really surprising that many may consider this "DM, may I convince the guard to ignore what we're up to?"

in D&D the player doesn't ask that. He simply says I want to persuade this guard to ignore us. Or if he wanted more information before doing that he might say I approach and talk to the guard trying to gauge whether I could convince him to ignore us.

The question you are concerned about are not D&D questions. They are questions from other games superimposed onto D&D. I have no doubt that makes it look to be Mother May I, but it's really not an objective and fair evaluation.

Again, compare to combat and spellcasting where the DM has far less input on the outcome. If I exceed the AC with my attack roll, I hit. If the guard fails his saving throw against the spell, he's Charmed.

Maybe, but just like with the underwater fireball example, there are circumstances where fictionally it might make the most fictional sense to rule things work differently.

Again, no one is saying there should be no DM judgment in the game. I agree, this caveat in the rules is more for edge cases where how the rules apply is unclear. In such cases, the DM needs to figure out how to make the situation work. That's a perfectly reasonable application of DM judgment.

IMO, it's not just edge cases, it's how the rules interact with any given fictional circumstance. If the fictional circumstances are such that the rule makes little sense then the D&D goal (or at least 1 playstyle goal) is to make the judgement that the rules don't apply exactly as written in this particular circumstance.

I'm going to pause here for a moment. I'll get to the rest later.