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

[Ovi]

To my reading, different posters have different ideas in mind when they talk about making contributions to a shared fiction. For some, those go beyond simply declaring actions for a particular character, to include how those actions are resolved, and as we have discussed up-thread the outcome of those actions. For that reason inter alia I feel "hoping to play a game" doesn't do the work needed to capture the diversity of expectations that players can have upon entering the magic circle.

Not really. In 5e, a player's contribution to the shared fiction is in making a suggestion to the GM. The GM is the sole gate through which changes to the shared fiction occur. Except for spells, but that's been covered. In combat, the GM is expected to be more constrained that out of combat, but even in combat the levers the GM has for the fiction compared to the players is overwhelming. Infinite dragons on tap, to borrow the common phrase.

This is exactly the structure that strongly suggests MMI. I don't think anyone's really confused about this. The points about different ways that players might be able to contribute to the shared fiction aren't arguing that this is the case in default 5e, but rather there to get people to think about how play is happening and if it might be different. Not better -- different. Then discussions about what is actually going on in play, and who is making the decisions, and how that shapes play are better seated on a wider foundation. This isn't a matter of a "better way" or an argument that you'll like this different way if just you try it. It's pointing out that the D&D model isn't the only way, and really shouldn't be considered the default or "normal" way. Just like how Coke isn't the "normal" or "default" soft drink. It's just the most prevalent.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, but every edition has had situations that allow for an easy win. And GMs in every edition have often, when faced with such, sought any way to undo them.

That's only half my point though. A permissive GM undoes some of the hard/difficult/not easy/risky/dangerous* elements in favor of player agency & cool story. 5e as a system went further though & pretty much eliminated all of them outside of expecting the GM to strictly enforce an excessively densely packed adventuring day. That expectation comes complete with nall the problems caused by packing it that full while still giving players the impression that a great gm will empower them around risk if they just get creative because only a monster of a GM will be shutting down their agency or introducing problematic hurdles. Worse players aren't given any real impression that it's on the player to find reason for their character to fit within & flourish in the GM's world . Some of the d&d is about telling "your story" rhetoric in 5e even actively sabotages the GM by empowering borderline but well meaning & outright toxic players the impression that it's on the GM & other players to get on their page with an expectation that any amount of effort to reciprocate from the problematic player as unreasonable in the extreme



*take your pick of wording

 

[clearstream]

I find making a clear and consistent distinction between players and characters is critical to useful discussion about how games play.

I do differentiate between players and characters! What I am saying is that in forum conversations, it is quite normal to use them as synonyms and that is what I thought @EzekielRaiden was doing, until they clarified otherwise.

Separately, I pointed out a simple fact: characters cannot "know" things. Not in the normal sense of the world. They don't have functioning cognitive systems. That doesn't mean that there cannot be imagined facts that are implied in how we imagine those characters. We as players may know, or not know those imagined facts. Some of them may not have been decided on yet.

Had you made it clear that you do not see any difference between what a character might know about the setting and what the player knows about the setting, this would have been an entirely different conversation from the start. Instead, you got frustrated and had an unproductive set of exchanges with multiple posters. So, it appears very useful to make this distinction or call out that you do not.

It didn't occur to me until - I think it was your post - that the argument could possibly turn on "PCs" being not a synonym for "players". I then called out that I made a distinction similar (probably not identical) to that others were making.

I will admit that many do routinely swap, but I don't view that as an indication of underlying ideology (as you seem to)

For avoidance of doubt, I do not view using player as a synonym of character as indicating any underlying ideology.

And, given how the discussion with others has progressed, your admonishment to me that characters cannot know things because they're fictional seems increasingly like a semantic point rather than one useful to discussion of play.

Something I've noticed is that I generally write something meaning in a far more narrow way than many posters only what it says. Where I am silent, there I have not spoken.

So then, would you honestly contend that characters can know anything that we haven't brought into our thougths about them? Rather, we have sets of parameters, imagined facts, and most importantly implied imagined facts. The latter are all those imagined facts that seem to us as if they are very likely true, given that we have some parameter, fact or question already in mind. Suppose we picture our character holding a kettle. In our world, kettles must be manufactured, so a manufacturer of the kettle is implied for us when we picture our character. However, until and unless we decide to get to that detail and form in our thoughts something about that manufacturer, we "know" nothing about them. Our characters cannot (literally) know. And we do not yet know.

What we have instead is a rather fascinating class of implied imagined facts, worth reflecting on for their own sake.

I say this because you're now allowing for thinking that the characters can be imagined to know something that the players do not. I believe you have to do this, because otherwise when the Druid wildshapes we need to ascertain if the player knows how to wildshape first. Or casts a spell. Or when an INT (nature) check is successful to gain some bit of setting information that the player doesn't already know. I'll admit to being guilty of a shorthand in talking about the character knowing things the player does not -- clearly the character is fictional and so we only imagine they know things the player does not. That this was seized upon as if it wasn't obvious is, frankly, a bit bizarre to me.

Those are perceptive thoughts. Indeed we picture that our Druid "knows" say, how to wildshape even though we do not. But in fact, we have no actual knowledge of how to wildshape. Try writing it down? See if your druid (character) can tell you? They can't right? So even though it is certainly true that there are imagined facts about how to wildshape implied by our Druid's ability to do so, we can't really say much about it. In some cases, shortfalls in our knowledge become evident as we play. For instance, can a Druid wildshape into a creature they have never heard of or seen? If you use XGE, the answer would in some cases be no. If you use only Core, the answer might well be yes.

I think this is obvious, and you do too, right? It's surprising how often the obvious gets overlooked, however.

I disagree with some of the points you're raising and I'm engaging in conversation about those. This isn't an exercise in finding fault with you, it's a discussion.

Okay let's focus on those points, but also please do not dismiss my honestly stated feelings about what I have experienced.

Note edit.

 

[clearstream]

Not really. In 5e, a player's contribution to the shared fiction is in making a suggestion to the GM. The GM is the sole gate through which changes to the shared fiction occur. Except for spells, but that's been covered. In combat, the GM is expected to be more constrained that out of combat, but even in combat the levers the GM has for the fiction compared to the players is overwhelming. Infinite dragons on tap, to borrow the common phrase.

Can you clarify what "Not really" refers to? Were we not speaking of the expectations folk may have when entering the magic circle of play? I have experienced and read testimony on these forums to a very wide diversity of expectations.

It feels like we may here be speaking at cross-purposes.

 

[Ovi]

That's only half my point though. A permissive GM undoes some of the hard/difficult/not easy/risky/dangerous* elements in favor of player agency & cool story. 5e as a system went further though & pretty much eliminated all of them outside of expecting the GM to strictly enforce an excessively densely packed adventuring day complete with the problems caused by packing it while still giving players the impression that a great gm will empower them around risk if they just get creative & that only a monster of a GM will be shutting down their agency or introducing problematic hurdles. Worse players aren't given any real impression that it's on the player to find reason for their character to fit within & flourish in the GM's world . Some of the d&d is about telling "your story" rhetoric in 5e even actively sabotages the GM by empowering borderline but well meaning & outright toxic players the impression that it's on the GM & other players to get on their page with an expectation of any amount of effort to reciprocate from the problematic player as unreasonable in the extreme



*take your pick of wording

This reads very much like a Trad GM being upset at the incursion of Neotrad. Which is extremely valid -- 5e was already built to engage neotrad while keeping lots of trad around, but over it's lifespan it's gone much more heavily into neotrad spaces. I don't doubt 5.5 will do so even more. This isn't much of a surprise, though, as things like CR are heavily neotrad and are having a huge impact on the playerbase.

You should really look at OSR stuff, tetra. That started in part as a reaction to the neotrad incursion in 3e, and there's some really good stuff in there that's very much aligned to strong trad play and classic play. But, even there, there's some neotrad leaking in around the edges. The current zeitgeist is very neotrad.

 

[tetrasodium]

This reads very much like a Trad GM being upset at the incursion of Neotrad. Which is extremely valid -- 5e was already built to engage neotrad while keeping lots of trad around, but over it's lifespan it's gone much more heavily into neotrad spaces. I don't doubt 5.5 will do so even more. This isn't much of a surprise, though, as things like CR are heavily neotrad and are having a huge impact on the playerbase.

You should really look at OSR stuff, tetra. That started in part as a reaction to the neotrad incursion in 3e, and there's some really good stuff in there that's very much aligned to strong trad play and classic play. But, even there, there's some neotrad leaking in around the edges. The current zeitgeist is very neotrad.

No I think that's oversimplifying things & overlooking the tangent I quoted back in #821. I didn't bring it up to vent, it came up to explain why a shame on those bad gm's type behavior gets forced by design choices made in the structure of 5e itself.

Spoiler: here it is

I’m often amazed at how many GMs… myself included… will not want to allow what might be considered an “easy win”.

As if any given challenge is going to be the final challenge.

If they get an easy win, especially through clever play or resource use… best to allow it. There’s always the next adventuring day and infinite tarrasques.

It's a severe problem for 5e how even pointing out how 5e causes that & other issues with deliberate design choices it made results in "go find a different game." defending those design choices by blaming the GM as simply being incompatible with 5e & suggesting some other system rather than admitting that there even is a line players need to meet even unreasonable mindset to push on GMs. When a subset of those players were described as "outright toxic" that mindset calls into question if the players are even capable of using agency & character story iin a toxic way against the gm & their fellow players.

 

[Ovi]

I do differentiate between players and characters! What I am saying is that in forum conversations, it is quite normal to use them as synonyms and that is what I thought @EzekielRaiden was doing, until they clarified otherwise.

Separately, I pointed out a simple fact: characters cannot "know" things. Not in the normal sense of the world. They don't have functioning cognitive systems. That doesn't mean that there cannot be imagined facts that are implied in how we imagine those characters. We as players may know, or not know those imagined facts. Some of them may not have been decided on yet.


It didn't occur to me until - I think it was your post - that the argument could possibly turn on "PCs" being not a synonym for "players". I then called out that I made a distinction similar (probably not identical) to that others were making.


For avoidance of doubt, I do not view using player as a synonym of character as indicating any underlying ideology.

I'm unclear what was gained by the fisking. Your opening response about synonyms was covered in my response four sentences later. You broke up my post to respond and tell me something I offer freely within the same paragraph. In fact, a large part of my point was that using them synonymously is something that happens often and leads to unclear communication.

Something I've noticed is that I generally write something meaning in a far more narrow way than many posters only what it says. Where I am silent, there I have not spoken.

So then, would you honestly contend that characters can know anything that we haven't brought into our thougths about them? Rather, we have sets of parameters, imagined facts, and most importantly implied imagined facts. The latter are all those imagined facts that seem to us as if they are very likely true, given that we have some parameter, fact or question already in mind. Suppose we picture our character holding a kettle. In our world, kettles must be manufactured, so a manufacturer of the kettle is implied for us when we picture our character. However, until and unless we decide to get to that detail and form in our thoughts something about that manufacturer, we "know" nothing about them. Our characters cannot (literally) know. And we do not yet know.

What we have instead is a rather fascinating class of implied imagined facts, worth reflecting on for their own sake.

I would absolutely argue that characters can be imagined to know things that we haven't yet imagined them knowing. I mean, this is how it works, right? Even in a normal 5e approach to gating information through the GM, a player may ask if their character knows something about the fiction in play, the GM may ask for a check, and on a success, the GM, having not previously imagined this detail, could ad lib it on the spot. Do we assume, then, that the character suddenly had this knowledge spring into existence fully formed in their imaginary mind, or do we assume that we just discovered that this character knew this detail all along, even though we had not yet had occasion to imagine that they did so? This happens all the time in 5e, a game that's already structured so that players cannot assert facts about the setting without the GM's invitation and approval. Facts that their characters would then know.

The corollary to this is the alien argument, where characters are treated as if they are aliens visiting the setting of the game and do not know anything about it unless granted by the GM.

Those are perceptive thoughts. Indeed we picture that our Druid "knows" say, how to wildshape even though we do not. But in fact, we have no actual knowledge of how to wildshape. Try writing it down? See if your druid (character) can tell you? They can't right? So even though it is certainly true that there are imagined facts about how to wildshape implied by our Druid's ability to do so, we can't really say much about it. In some cases, shortfalls in our knowledge become evident as we play. For instance, can a Druid wildshape into a creature they have never heard of or seen? If you use XGE, the answer would in some cases be no. If you use only Core, the answer might well be yes.

I think this is obvious, and you do too, right? It's surprising how often the obvious gets overlooked, however.

We can say that we imagine that the Druid knows how to do something that the player doing the imagining does not. And since we can then continue play based on this imagining, reaching the metaphysical question you seem to have about passing that knowledge back across the imagination into the real is not very probative.

Okay let's focus on those points, but also please do not dismiss my honestly stated feelings about what I have experienced.

Note edit.

You made a claim about my motivations in responding to you. I disputed that claim. I didn't tell you how you should feel about it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I had sole authorship of the fiction, those particular story element would not have turned up. But there seemed to be no need to contradict what the players were introducing. It's their fiction too!

This is where the GM’s conception of the setting is a huge part of it. If you decided “these elements are too silly or anachronistic for my super serious setting” then you’d likely have shot them down.

Which is something I think many folks posting in this thread may well advocate, though I can’t say for sure.

GMs being precious about their setting… their world… is a big part of many MMI issues.

To my reading, different posters have different ideas in mind when they talk about making contributions to a shared fiction. For some, those go beyond simply declaring actions for a particular character, to include how those actions are resolved, and as we have discussed up-thread the outcome of those actions. For that reason inter alia I feel "hoping to play a game" doesn't do the work needed to capture the diversity of expectations that players can have upon entering the magic circle.

Well yes. When I declare an action for my character, I want to understand as a player how that action is resolved. I don’t think this is an unrealistic expectation to have. Again, see combat and magic… very clear ways to resolve that the player understands (even if not always privy to every detail, like an AC or DC).

There’s really no need for it to work so differently out of combat. Yes, there can be differences in how things work, but the actual process can be known. We should be able to “show the work” if necessary.

There is no mystic element to these things, so the idea of a “magic circle” is problematic, I’d say. It implies an unknowable process which is the breeding ground for the kinds of mismatched expectations (which is like the one thing almost all of us seem to agree on is problematic). That we can’t examine our process, it’s beyond our understanding. I don’t believe that’s true at all, though I do think it can at times be difficult to examine our own play in such a curious manner.

That's only half my point though. A permissive GM undoes some of the hard/difficult/not easy/risky/dangerous* elements in favor of player agency & cool story.

I don’t think I can agree with this. I don’t think that a “permissive GM” must be softballing things all the time. Far from it. I often give my players what they ask for and take that opportunity (it’s key to view these things as an opportunity) to make things complicated.

Look at @pemerton ’s thread aboutFighter Praying to Heal his ally. Look at the variety of responses in that thread. I don’t think you’ll find much evidence of the correlation you’re asserting here. Or if you do, you’ll also find an equal amount of contradictory evidence.

My take was that I’d allow it to work, but then I’d have the fighter beholden to that deity in some way. It would complicate things for him. So that’s me being “permissive” but the consequences of the action certainly seem more harsh than the 5 GP a healer’s kit would cost.

 

[Ovi]

No I think that's oversimplifying things & overlooking the tangent I quoted back in #821. I didn't bring it up to vent, it came up to explain why a shame on those bad gm's type behavior gets forced by design choices made in the structure of 5e itself.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow at all. The game isn't saying "bad gm's" players are, so we need to look at what players want versus what they get to evaluate why they may feeling a gm is "bad". And looking at the cultures of gaming is a useful tool.

It's a severe problem for 5e how even pointing out how 5e causes that & other issues with deliberate design choices it made results in "go find a different game." defending those design choices by blaming the GM as simply being incompatible with 5e & suggesting some other system rather than admitting that there even is a line players need to meet even unreasonable mindset to push on GMs. When a subset of those players were described as "outright toxic" that mindset calls into question if the players are even capable of using agency & character story iin a toxic way against the gm & their fellow players.

Um... if 5e structurally is creating the problem you're saying it creates (ad arguendo) then if the GM is violating that structure and players are calling them bad GMs for doing so, how is this not a case of the GM not being aligned to the game? I'm having trouble following you, here.

 

[Ovi]

Can you clarify what "Not really" refers to? Were we not speaking of the expectations folk may have when entering the magic circle of play? I have experienced and read testimony on these forums to a very wide diversity of expectations.

It feels like we may here be speaking at cross-purposes.

The rest of my post is clarifying the 'not really.' Did you have any questions about it outside of the first two words?