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

[pemerton]

I think it’s always going to feel more unfair when it’s your own ideas that get unexpected resolutions, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were unfair,

Where has @hawkeyefan said anything about what's fair? He's talked about what's fun - what makes for a satisfying shared fiction in which he is playing one of the protagonists.

 

[pemerton]

This sounds a lot like railroading to me.

It's outrageous railroading. But last time I said that in a thread in relation to this same play example, I got a lot of pushback.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's outrageous railroading. But last time I said that in a thread in relation to this same play example, I got a lot of pushback.

IMO. There's a fine line between scene framing and railroading.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think you can do that in D&D terms, at least not fairly. If he had skipped ahead he would be accused of railroading and not giving you the chance of avoiding that encounter. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

That's why it has been called illusionism.

The obvious solution is to not decide, in advance of the action declarations and their resolutions, what will happen next.

In the D&D context, the best-developed way of handling this is via skill challenge. When the players at @Hussar's table fail their third check (while doing reconnaissance or whatever) the GM narrates the consequence. That might be an immediate attack; or the GM could say - "OK, you've set up your positions, but after an hour or two of waiting no one's turned up yet - and then suddenly you hear the sound of soldiers approaching from behind you!" It is the mechanical failure that gives the GM licence to narrate without railroading.

 

[pemerton]

IMO. There's a fine line between scene framing and railroading.

What examples do you have in mind?

 

[FrogReaver]

That's why it has been called illusionism.

I know what that is but don't see how it applies here.

The obvious solution is to not decide, in advance of the action declarations and their resolutions, what will happen next.

I think you are envisioning this scenario quite a bit differently than I.

In the D&D context, the best-developed way of handling this is via skill challenge. When the players at @Hussar's table fail their third check (while doing reconnaissance or whatever) the GM narrates the consequence. That might be an immediate attack; or the GM could say - "OK, you've set up your positions, but after an hour or two of waiting no one's turned up yet - and then suddenly you hear the sound of soldiers approaching from behind you!" It is the mechanical failure that gives the GM licence to narrate without railroading.

In D&D the DM shouldn't really be telling the PC's they've waited there for 2 hours. I understand that works well in many of the games you prefer but it really is the DM stepping out of his lane in D&D.

 

[pemerton]

IMO, the DM granted success of your ability. The Rustic Hospitality feature of the Folk Hero background states people will shield you from the law or anyone searching for you, though they will not risk their lives. You were shielded for enough time to benefit from a long rest - at least 8 hours. During which time the DM determined that off screen some towns people were threatened and thus eventually gave you up - playing into the 'will not risk their lives for you' aspect of the ability.

Are you saying the DM should have had towns folk risk their lives for you (i don't think you are)? Are you saying the DM shouldn't have had the Duke's team threaten town members at all (i don't think you are)? Are you saying town members should have been threatened in such a way that you could have intervened (i don't think you are)? So what part here do you think should have been different?

Did @hawkeyefan say anything about threats to the townsfolk?

In any event, what you're defending here is GM solitaire play. The GM decides that his characters - the Duke's men - threaten the townsfolk. Then he decides that those townsfolk - who are also his characters - snitch on the PCs. Maybe he also decides how the townsfolk learn where the PCs are - more solitaire play, as he imagines another one of his characters having seen the PCs move to the shelter of the friendly NPCs - or maybe he doesn't, and just glosses over that bit in his mind. Regardless of that bit of detail, he then makes another decision about his characters - they surround the home of the friendly PCs without anyone spotting them or sounding the alarm in respect of them. He decides, for instance, that none of his characters - having noticed the Duke's men throwing their weight about in the town - comes to inform the PCs in the night.

What is the role of the players in this sort of play, other than to respond to whatever the GM decides it would be fun to see them respond to? I think that's why it seen as being in the general ballpark of "Mother may I?" Because it's all the other participants dancing to one participant's tune.

 

[Hussar]

In this situation we don't know if there was or wasn't a chance to avoid it some other way. All we know is that the rustic hospitality feature followed by a long rest and a watch was not enough. Perhaps if they had spent those 8 hours doing something else?

And that’s where it becomes Mother May I. The players did not satisfy the DM’s ideas of what would avoid the encounter so they have the encounter because that’s what the dm wants to happen.

The encounter was 100% under the control of the dm. The only reason they had this encounter or in my case, the enemy was ready, was because we didn’t find the magic combination of ideas to satisfy the dm.

This is MMI by definition.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To be clear, I did not say you were an unreasonable player or a sore sport. I said you had unreasonable expectations. If you’re going to be upset that I said something, fine. But be upset about what I actually said, not what you changed it to.

I’m not upset, I’m saying if you want to level a critique at how I play, or at my expectations of play, have the courtesy to do so directly to me.

Honest question: under what specific circumstances would you be okay with this plan not working as intended?

There would be many. As ling as they didn’t amount to the GM deciding it and nothing more.

Like, if he wanted to have the risk of discovery still be in play, then establish that risk and ask the players what we want to do. Some ability checks to determine if we notice activity out in the town or the weasely neighbor or that the farmer’s wife won’t make eye contact. Some rolls by the GM to see if we’re noticed by either townsfolk or guards.

Honest question: what would be the reason to not narrate these things and prompt the players to declare some actions? The only reason I can see would be to maintain the GM’s idea about what’s going to happen.

Put another way… why hide the game from the players?

 

[pemerton]

In D&D the DM shouldn't really be telling the PC's they've waited there for 2 hours.

This isn't correct. In a hexcrawl, if the players declare We walk through the forest the GM is entitled to say OK, after two hours of walking you encounter <whatever>.

In city-based play, if the players declare We take our positions and wait for our target to come by, the GM is entitled to say OK, after two hours of waiting you hear a noise behind you.

The permissibility of the above doesn't change if the players fail a check or three in the process of preparing and setting up their positions. Once they declare actions and roll the dice they're committed, even if the checks fail. They're not entitled to backsies.