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

[Hussar]

Those sound like super ideas and play experiences (and helped me start my EN day with a smile).

Tying in to some other topics upthread, how was it decides it should to take a full subplot to get the skeleton declared a citizen instead of just letting it be an easy win?

This was a few years ago, so, my memory was hazy.

But, I believe that I floated the idea to the player as a consequence of playing the skeleton. Now, nothing was ever done to the PC - it was just something that could have happened. The PC was never turned or anything like that, but, there were a few NPC comments along the lines of, "Get that walking corpse out of my bar" sort of thing. Obviously playing in on some pretty low hanging fruit themes.

By the same token, this is a player that I've played with for a very, very long time, so, we have built up a rapport that means I get get my dirty fingerprints all over his character and he's groovy with it. ((Our current campaign saw me do a HUGE amount of backstory to his character but, again, it's something I will do with this player but I'd be REALLY reluctant to do it with other players)) And, it works both ways. Years ago in a 4e Darksun campaign, he was DMing and I was playing and he did terrible things to my character's backstory that were both horrifying and glorious.

But, like I said, we've been playing together for going on fifteen years or so. I just had a new player join my group today. I wouldn't dream of doing that sort of thing to him. So, when he came up with a Flumph bard using a homebrew class that he won a contest for (for the Solasta game), I said, yuppers and didn't even bat an eye.

 

[clearstream]

It's no more absurd or misleading to talk about Sherlock Holmes knowing what Watson looks like or knowing what colour the ceiling of his bedroom is than it is to talk about Sherlock Holmes leaving Baker Street to investigate a crime or Sherlock Holmes asking Watson to bring him such-and-such a piece of equipment.

Of course these are all fictional events and states of affairs. Holmes, Watson and the hijinks they get up to are all imaginary. But there is nothing distinctive about imagining someone knowing things as opposed to imagining someone doing things.

That's a nice way of getting at it. We can certainly imagine someone knowing things. And that is distinct from the possibility that, that someone does indeed know those things.

Suppose you imagine Sherlock knowing his bedroom ceiling is white, and I imagine him knowing his bedroom ceiling is blue. There is no fact of the matter about what Sherlock knows, only about what you know about Sherlock and what I know about Sherlock.

 

[Hussar]

That's a nice way of getting at it. We can certainly imagine someone knowing things. And that is distinct from the possibility that, that someone does indeed know those things.

Suppose you imagine Sherlock knowing his bedroom ceiling is white, and I imagine him knowing his bed room ceiling is blue. There is no fact of the matter about what Sherlock knows, only about what you know about Sherlock and what I know about Sherlock.

Well, that's the heart of the issue really isn't it?

If one of us is the DM and one of us is the player, why should the color of the ceiling default to the DM? And, as a DM, why would it possibly bother me if the player declares that? There's no particular gain in saying no, and the only reason I might say no is because "I said so". OTOH, allowing the players the freedom to make declarations like this without any sort of oversight from the DM allows the game so much more freedom and flexibility. And it tells the players that their ideas are not only going to be listened to, but defaulted to. It really engages the players in a way that me (as DM) just infodumping doesn't.

 

[clearstream]

Well, that's the heart of the issue really isn't it?

If one of us is the DM and one of us is the player, why should the color of the ceiling default to the DM? And, as a DM, why would it possibly bother me if the player declares that? There's no particular gain in saying no, and the only reason I might say no is because "I said so". OTOH, allowing the players the freedom to make declarations like this without any sort of oversight from the DM allows the game so much more freedom and flexibility. And it tells the players that their ideas are not only going to be listened to, but defaulted to. It really engages the players in a way that me (as DM) just infodumping doesn't.

Why would it default to any one participant?

One reason is when the group have given that participant a role in their play. Addy is playing the druid: we normally look to Addy to say what's true about the druid. Robin is playing the orcs: we look to Robin to say what's true about the orcs.

That is not the only arrangement, just one (incomplete) example.

 

[Hussar]

Why would it default to any one participant?

One reason is when the group have given that participant a role in their play. Addy is playing the druid: we normally look to Addy to say what's true about the druid. Robin is playing the orcs: we look to Robin to say what's true about the orcs.

That is not the only arrangement, just one (incomplete) example.

That's my point.

In many views espoused in this thread, the game should always default to one participant - the DM. The players can voice objections or ideas, but, ultimately, the decision is always based on what the DM thinks is best for the game. So, no, I do not believe it should default to any one participant. That's largely the heart and core of MMI play - that all play defaults to one participant.

 

[clearstream]

That's my point.

In many views espoused in this thread, the game should always default to one participant - the DM. The players can voice objections or ideas, but, ultimately, the decision is always based on what the DM thinks is best for the game. So, no, I do not believe it should default to any one participant. That's largely the heart and core of MMI play - that all play defaults to one participant.

Possibly, although I dislike that this again borders on conflating MMI with DM-curation when it is not my (or as I understand it, several other posters') experience that there is such a conflation.

Another thought I had then, prompted by our current exchange, is that it arises when roles aren't respected. So where one participant expects to be able to say X, another overrides that X. In the barn example, the player expected to be able to say "We are successfully hidden from the Duke’s men" and that was overridden.

For roles to be respected, there must be common definition, so lack of that too is culpable.

 

[pemerton]

IMO. I would say the person in that did 1 thing which caused 3 other things to occur. It's simply a causality chain. We generally attribute events within a causality chain to the initial actor provided the distance between cause and effect is small - one might even refer to this as assigning responsibility. So if someone says, 'I turned on the light', what they really mean is I was responsible for the light turning on. We could then trace back the steps of electrons reaching the light, electrons moving through the closed circuit, the circuit being closed, the switch being flipped that closed the circuit. Yet, the only action the person actually performed was flipping the switch, even though they were responsible for so much more.

I think this is probably a bit off topic - I just wanted to gather my thoughts on the topic.

To bring it back on topic: when a player declares an action for their PC, how far down the "responsibility chain" are they allowed to go? Clearly they can go beyond "I move my arm" or other very basic bodily motions. Can they go all the way to "I kill the Orc" or "I escape the soldiers"?

The other part of this inquiry is, if the action declaration fails, how far up the chain can the GM go in their narration? Eg can they narrate "You go to strike the Orc with your sword, but misjudge the timing and swing wildly?" That negates the player's presentation of their PCs' bodily motion.

I think 5e D&D is fairly ambiguous on this. My view is that it will generally improve game play to allow participants more rather than less liberal movement up and down the chain - with the dice rolls determining whose preference for the chain prevails. This won't work for the relatively large number of significant action resolutions in 5e that don't use dice - much spellcasting, Rustic Hospitality, etc - but those are the cases where I think soft moves that happen towards the further rather than the closer end of the responsibility chain, and hence that leave the players plenty of latitude for further moves of their own, are preferable.

 

[pemerton]

That's a nice way of getting at it. We can certainly imagine someone knowing things. And that is distinct from the possibility that, that someone does indeed know those things.

Suppose you imagine Sherlock knowing his bedroom ceiling is white, and I imagine him knowing his bedroom ceiling is blue. There is no fact of the matter about what Sherlock knows, only about what you know about Sherlock and what I know about Sherlock.

Suppose that you imagine Sherlock getting dressed in the morning and putting on socks. But I, based on my beliefs about how eccentric Victorian gentlemen might dress, imagine him putting on hose.

To the best of my knowledge of the Holmes stories, nothing has ever turned on which of our imaginings might be a correct account of the fiction. But in a RPG it might turn out to matter: if the character is wearing hose they can use them to bind a NPC's hands; but socks are a bit short for that purpose. In that case, how do we settle this?

My view is: the same way we settle what a character might know about the colour of the ceiling (of their inn; of their childhood bedroom; of the king's throne room; or whatever other bit of unspecified detail suddenly turns out to matter in play).

I think the default is a check. Or the GM can easily enough yield to the player, who probably has more at stake - after all, if it has turned out to matter in play than a PC is probably in trouble, or trying to achieve something. I think a GM who unilaterally imposes their conception is running needless risks.

 

[clearstream]

To bring it back on topic: when a player declares an action for their PC, how far down the "responsibility chain" are they allowed to go? Clearly they can go beyond "I move my arm" or other very basic bodily motions. Can they go all the way to "I kill the Orc" or "I escape the soldiers"?

Thinking specifically of the 5e game text, I think it leans away from declaring the result or outcome. But there are many cases where more than one result and outcome fit the action and system, and may fit the fiction. In those cases, the rest of your post applies quite well.

The other part of this inquiry is, if the action declaration fails, how far up the chain can the GM go in their narration? Eg can they narrate "You go to strike the Orc with your sword, but misjudge the timing and swing wildly?" That negates the player's presentation of their PCs' bodily motion.

Again thinking of the 5e game text, player describes their character's actions and so I lean to saying DM cannot in following the rules undo that description. "Describe to live" in the words of TB2.

I think 5e D&D is fairly ambiguous on this. My view is that it will generally improve game play to allow participants more rather than less liberal movement up and down the chain - with the dice rolls determining whose preference for the chain prevails. This won't work for the relatively large number of significant action resolutions in 5e that don't use dice - much spellcasting, Rustic Hospitality, etc - but those are the cases where I think soft moves that happen towards the further rather than the closer end of the responsibility chain, and hence that leave the players plenty of latitude for further moves of their own, are preferable.

For sure. With the caveat that I experience participants having differing preferences and sensitivities about these things. I am thinking of one member of our group who vocally advocates for what has been described up thread as curmudgeonly DMing. They describe feeling most satisfied when they feel sure no inch is given. To them it is not MMI, it is a test of their skill.

 

[pemerton]

Having read on, I see that @Hussar ninja'd my post just upthread.

Why would it default to any one participant?

One reason is when the group have given that participant a role in their play. Addy is playing the druid: we normally look to Addy to say what's true about the druid. Robin is playing the orcs: we look to Robin to say what's true about the orcs.

That is not the only arrangement, just one (incomplete) example.

Another thought I had then, prompted by our current exchange, is that it arises when roles aren't respected. So where one participant expects to be able to say X, another overrides that X. In the barn example, the player expected to be able to say "We are successfully hidden from the Duke’s men" and that was overridden.

For roles to be respected, there must be common definition, so lack of that too is culpable.

Who is responsible for I (as my PC) kill the Orc - which implicates both the PC and the Orc - or We (the PCs) avoid a confrontation with the Duke's men - which, again, implicates both the PCs and the NPCs (both the Duke's men and, given the details of Rustic Hospitality, the commoners)?

That is part of the point of action resolution mechanics - to settle questions of who is in charge when different areas of authority/responsibility overlap.

In my view, the GM asserting that because they're NPCs, I get to decide - and then pushing that all the way up the chain of responsibility (to use @FrogReaver's phrase), so that the players' desire for their action which was grounded in their good-faith reading of their background feature - is in my view a recipe for unsatisfactory play. I agree with @Hussar on this, and have now posted a couple of times my view as to a reasonable way to handle it in 5e D&D, given there is no fortune mechanic in a lot of these cases.