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

[EzekielRaiden]

So this play excerpt strikes me as about as quintessential GM Setting Solitaire as I can concieve. You've got a myriad of moving setting parts that were in no way systemitized...the GM in no way divested themselves of the liability of their priors and inability to remotely objectively model the collisions of an enormously complex situation (the capability of the antagonists, the loyalty/fear matrix of the people, the capability of your watch, the distance/people required to canvas/search in order to find the PCs).

Howso? It's specifically scene-framing arising out of actions the players took. It is not, as in the Rustic Hospitality case, the DM granting something (with no rolls, no discussion, no adjudication involved), and then preventing the players from knowing or doing anything about a consequence they've decided must happen (an attack by the Duke's guards.)

Yes, it can be argued that certain aspects of this result are "meta." But a skill challenge is a way to allow binary pass/fail checks, which is an expectation in D&D design, to produce spectra of results. E.g. even official 4e Skill Challenges (such as in Remains of the Empire) give examples of how to weight SCs based on how many failures the party gets before they succeed, so a "barely won" SC is only a partial success, while a "flying colors" SC might give a small bonus. The further down the success scale you go, the worse the final result will be, until finally it's failure--and perhaps the issue at hand will be whether your few successes mitigate that failure or not.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Page 42 actions were less powerful and reliable than powers. So why use them.

We were speaking about math before. Math need "some" rescaling can mean hell of a difference:

DCs were originally so high, that your chances were too low to succeed if you ever had to use a not prime non proficient skill.

One thing that was sadly true was that that the math of 4e was obvviously very rushed out in some important aspects of the game, exactly those that allowed to do noncombat stuff or creative things in combat. Also math of a lot of monsters did not check out in the first MM.

So when they finally had it right, it was sadly just too late to save 4e.

I think we may just...have different understandings of the facts involved here. As I understood it, the adjustments to the math for SCs were relatively small--a couple points at most for anything but extremely difficult rolls. Further, Page 42 absolutely gives you benefits which are supposed to be on par with either at-will (highly repeatable), encounter (repeatable, but only with conditions/limits), and daily (single-use, generally potent) effects. No, they won't be absolutely perfectly equivalent to powers, but they absolutely should be worth doing--because that's literally what page 42's math was made for, to make improvised powers worth using.

 

[Manbearcat]

Howso? It's specifically scene-framing arising out of actions the players took. It is not, as in the Rustic Hospitality case, the DM granting something (with no rolls, no discussion, no adjudication involved), and then preventing the players from knowing or doing anything about a consequence they've decided must happen (an attack by the Duke's guards.)

Yes, it can be argued that certain aspects of this result are "meta." But a skill challenge is a way to allow binary pass/fail checks, which is an expectation in D&D design, to produce spectra of results. E.g. even official 4e Skill Challenges (such as in Remains of the Empire) give examples of how to weight SCs based on how many failures the party gets before they succeed, so a "barely won" SC is only a partial success, while a "flying colors" SC might give a small bonus. The further down the success scale you go, the worse the final result will be, until finally it's failure--and perhaps the issue at hand will be whether your few successes mitigate that failure or not.

I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing here?

I’m talking about hawkeyefan’s excerpt where his Background Trait employment got blocked by his GM’s opaque Setting Solitaire move so that they were surrounded in the barn?

Are you talking about that or something else?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IMO, no one is averse to saying yes sometimes. The confusion lies in there not being any clear cut boubdaties on when a DM can say no lest it be viewed as mother may I. If there are times this is acceptable it feels completely arbitrary to complain about some and not others - at least without establishing the boundaries that explain the difference.

I don't see how it can possibly feel "completely arbitrary." I've said, numerous times now, that being reasonably informative, talking with the players, and being willing to give a fair shake to any idea that isn't egregiously inappropriate* is the standard here. What other standard could there possibly be? How can this even remotely be a "walking on eggshells lest I enrage the players" situation?

The DM is the one with the position of authority That means the DM will have expectations placed on them. That's how positions of authority work. I genuinely cannot believe you think that this is some weird, bizarre logic that cannot be divined without rigid specification.

*Something egregiously inappropriate would violate the spirit of the game, or in some other way be exploitative (disruptively "grubbing" for advantage, hunting for "I win" buttons, etc.), coercive (manipulating or strong-arming other players into doing what you want, no matter what they might want), or abusive (being hurtful or unpleasant to other players.)

I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing here?

I’m talking about hawkeyefan’s excerpt where his Background Trait employment by his GM’s opaque Setting Solitaire block so that they were surrounded in the barn?

Are you talking about that or something else?

I thought you were speaking of @pemerton's described SC. My mistake.

 

[Manbearcat]

Page 42 actions were less powerful and reliable than powers. So why use them.

We were speaking about math before. Math need "some" rescaling can mean hell of a difference:

DCs were originally so high, that your chances were too low to succeed if you ever had to use a not prime non proficient skill.

One thing that was sadly true was that that the math of 4e was obvviously very rushed out in some important aspects of the game, exactly those that allowed to do noncombat stuff or creative things in combat. Also math of a lot of monsters did not check out in the first MM.

So when they finally had it right, it was sadly just too late to save 4e.

I think we may just...have different understandings of the facts involved here. As I understood it, the adjustments to the math for SCs were relatively small--a couple points at most for anything but extremely difficult rolls. Further, Page 42 absolutely gives you benefits which are supposed to be on par with either at-will (highly repeatable), encounter (repeatable, but only with conditions/limits), and daily (single-use, generally potent) effects. No, they won't be absolutely perfectly equivalent to powers, but they absolutely should be worth doing--because that's literally what page 42's math was made for, to make improvised powers worth using.

ER has it right.

The math was patched instantly at release.

Then monsters were patched about 18 months after release when there was another small patch for Skill Challenges.

And p42 was usable right out of the box with the guidelines and the transparent control effects by tier and the triviality of discerning the damage expression budget for AoE and control effects.

Making Terrain Powers and general Stunts couldnt be easier in 4e.

You give me any situation with a character level and I’ll resolve a terrain stunt/gen stunt no problem.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Your 2 and 3 are correct but that isn’t what I’m saying at all in 1. Your 1 does the following:

* It constrains player protagonism exclusively to the domains of in-character decisions/expressions and build decisions and represents them as suggestions to the GM that will hopefully influence..

* …the GM’s unconstrained prerogatives and privileged position (GM Storytelling).

You may have misread the tone of my 1, it is less ‘i have high dex and stealth proficiency, i hope i get to use it’ and more ‘I have high dex and stealth proficiency, I expect the GM to cater to this and create a situation where stealth is the expected solution’, character build choices not as limitations of what they only can do but as another way to express where they want the game content to head towards.

I’m imagining something quite different. GM isn’t in that privileged, unconstrained position. GM’s prerogatives are constrained by system-input (rules/procedures/principles/best practices), by direct/meta player-input (not character…from build to actual overt signaling/conversation), AND by the stuff you mentioned; “character decisions…in-character expressions of interest/intent.” Because that stuff makes up the premise of play (and not GM prerogative to nearly unilaterally decide on the premise and/or veto system/player input at their discretion), the GM is obliged to introduce content that engages with all of that stuff (rather than GM Storytelling prerogatives to do entirely as they will and perceive in-character/build expressions and “system’s say” as “input to be considered for game content but subject to GM veto”).

If I’m reading this correctly this sounds like what i thought i was saying 1 was

In my vision of 1, its the GM who may have the Main Character Syndrome (and that could be meta from "I'm the most important participant at the table and my input is inviolate and prioritized" or it could be that their setting or their antagonists become the protagonist - Main Character - in violation of the social contract...if its not in violation of the social contract then all good).

But then you loose me here wherein you seem to perform a conceptual 180, unless you are talking in reference to Hawkeyefan’s GM from the previous post saying that they are the one with MCS in that situation that their movie scene re-enactment is more important than the player’s actions and intent.

 

[Manbearcat]

…unless you are talking in reference to Hawkeyefan’s GM from the previous post saying that they are the one with MCS in that situation that their movie scene re-enactment is more important than the player’s actions and intent.

You’ve got it.

That is exactly what I’m saying.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think we may just...have different understandings of the facts involved here. As I understood it, the adjustments to the math for SCs were relatively small--a couple points at most for anything but extremely difficult rolls. Further, Page 42 absolutely gives you benefits which are supposed to be on par with either at-will (highly repeatable), encounter (repeatable, but only with conditions/limits), and daily (single-use, generally potent) effects. No, they won't be absolutely perfectly equivalent to powers, but they absolutely should be worth doing--because that's literally what page 42's math was made for, to make improvised powers worth using.

I don't disagree about the intentions and what they were supposed to be doing. Problem was: it did not work well.
As you wrote before: math has to be correct because 80% chance of success and 70% make a big difference if you have to make more than a single roll.
So even if the corrections were small, the effect of how good it felt was very big.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ER has it right.

The math was patched instantly at release.

Then monsters were patched about 18 months after release when there was another small patch for Skill Challenges.

And p42 was usable right out of the box with the guidelines and the transparent control effects by tier and the triviality of discerning the damage expression budget for AoE and control effects.

Making Terrain Powers and general Stunts couldnt be easier in 4e.

You give me any situation with a character level and I’ll resolve a terrain stunt/gen stunt no problem.

Terrain powers came later.*
I don't remember when the tweaks came.
A first day patch is still a patch and the math in the printed book was off.
Essentials had it finally right, even if I did not like parts of their solution.

*IIRC or maybe i am wrong here.

 

[Manbearcat]

Terrain powers came later.
I don't remember when the tweaks came.
A first day patch is still a patch and the math in the printed book was off.
Essentials had it finally right, even if I did not like parts of their solution.

We’ll just have to disagree on this.

Pretty much everyone had DDI (nearly a necessary precondition to play…that could certainly be complained about.

You had:

* Immediate math patch so (outside of C4 and C5 Skill Challenges) the game was just fine in 3rd quarter ‘08.

* Terrain Powers introduced 10 months later in Dungeon Mag 165 and continued support for duration. Then DMG 2 release 14.5 months after release with further updates and Terrain Powers.

* Monster math and damage expressions update shortly after that.


Yes, it would have been nice if DDI wasn’t a precondition of play + the immediate patch was in the books (rather than DDI) + all the math was perfect at release, but my experience running it out-the-box was pretty seemless and intuitive.