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

[hawkeyefan]

But this is also highly subjective. For me seeing that something in range doesn't translate into that sentiment for me on an immersive level. I mean, I can make the leap that my Barbarian would understand it, but it is a lot less meaningful to me than if I am not even having to think about that because the GM says to me "the goblin looks easy to hit from here". I think one of the deep divides in these conversation are between those for whom the numbers, mechanics and math are clarifying and immersive and those for whom that stuff interfere with their sense of the world. Again there is no right or wrong, I am just pointing out the path of logic you follow, which is a sound one from your reaction, is a subjective path.

Yeah, I realize it's subjective. That was largely my point to @overgeeked .

This just sounds like a slippery slope argument to me. Yes there are obviously risks with any approach you take to a game, and it is useful to be mindful of those risks, but this sort of set-up can functional perfectly fine, works great for many people, and doesn't need to lead to mother may I play. I realize you aren't explicitly saying this here, but does kind of exaggerate the danger I believe.

No, it's just an assertion that we need some amount of rules in order to have a game, and that the rules are representative of something in the fiction.

I don't think I'm exaggerating the danger by pointing out something to which 5E is susceptible. It's not the kind of thing that is talked about at all in the books themselves.

 

[Manbearcat]

Rustic Hospitality
Since you come from the ranks of the common folk, you fit in among them with ease. You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them. They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you.

Point being, anything that would let your characters have information is also a path to give up information. The only way you can get good, clear information about what's going on outside of a barn is to be outside of that barn. If you're taking watches and patrolling around that barn, you can be seen. If you're holed up inside the barn and never leave the barn, you can't see if people are approaching. If you're looking out small holes in the barn, your field of vision is quite limited. You take less risk of being seen (effectively none), but in exchange you give up all the information not directly in front of the hole you're looking out of.

If you're holed up in a barn, how would you know the soldiers were going door to door? Someone running you food and information from the outside? Why assume they're invisible? If you're outside the barn for a sketchy neighbor to see you, 1) why assume you couldn't have been spotted, and; 2) why would you assume you'd notice someone else paying attention?

There is another way to get "good, clear information about what's going on outside of a barn" in the town. There is a way "you would know."

Loyal runners/courtiers. The kind that a Folk Hero would rely upon and have access to.

So you're "playing the world," right? You're running this complex model in your head that entails parameters and parameter collisions:

• the PC's Faction Status with The Folk
• the capability of the antagonists in surveilling the people and searching the town and rural area
• the size and complexity of the search area and the number of people surveilled
• the inevitable fatigue/duress of the search and chain-of-command problems and distractions with the antagonists
• the fear the antagonists bring to bear upon The Folk to offset your Faction Status with them
• the desperation of The Folk to be liberated
• the amount of time hiding out in the barn

How do you determine what constitutes "risking their lives" and why would this be homogenous? Seems this would be heterogenous in a town and rural community based on both the internal make-up of the individual and externalities like station/caste/level of protection afforded to them. When every activity for every person is answered with "they won't risk their lives to do that"...that is likely a problem for play.

How do you determine if a single child or the primary courtier among the folk takes it upon themself to perform a runner to the barn to let the PCs know?

How do you determine if the child/courtier is successful or not if they do perform that runner?



Beyond just getting info from a sympathetic runner, what about the below aspects of "playing the world?"

How do you determine if other members of the community don't take it upon themselves to give the troops off-milk-laden-stew or otherwise poison them when the troops are quartered at their house/tavern?

How do you determine whether the antagonists have jurisdiction to search the property of the farm...and if they have to have a writ from a magistrate or something...how do you determine they have made the case successfully to the magistrate?

How do you determine if the magistrate themself isn't sympathetic to the Folk Hero and denies the writ illegally?

How do you determine whether the farmers won't stand up to a search of their property, legal or not?

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, it's just an assertion that we need some amount of rules in order to have a game, and that the rules are representative of something in the fiction.

Obviously we need some amount of rules. But how much is going to vary considerably. Also how much rules represent the fiction varies tremendously as well. Sometimes one of the issues you run into is a big disconnect from the rules and what people are imagining and trying to do (which is one reason some folks prefer leaning into rulings over rules and to having simple systems).

I know plenty of people who honestly just need a handful of rules so they can focus on character dialogue, what's going on in the setting, etc. One way of doing that is to lean into rulings very heavily. I once made a game with a page of rules, very very bare bones. I only ran it among friends and at some point I might put it out (and it doesn't particularly matter as there are plenty of 1-2 page rules systems out there). But this doesn't have anything like range in it. It is very minimalist in its approach. And when I am in the mood for a highly immersive game it works wonderfully and works well with a number of the people I game with.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Error, will repost.

 

[tetrasodium]

Rustic Hospitality
Since you come from the ranks of the common folk, you fit in among them with ease. You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them. They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you.





There is another way to get "good, clear information about what's going on outside of a barn" in the town. There is a way "you would know."

Loyal runners/courtiers. The kind that a Folk Hero would rely upon and have access to.

So you're "playing the world," right? You're running this complex model in your head that entails parameters and parameter collisions:

• the PC's Faction Status with The Folk
• the capability of the antagonists in surveilling the people and searching the town and rural area
• the size and complexity of the search area and the number of people surveilled
• the inevitable fatigue/duress of the search and chain-of-command problems and distractions with the antagonists
• the fear the antagonists bring to bear upon The Folk to offset your Faction Status with them
• the desperation of The Folk to be liberated
• the amount of time hiding out in the barn

How do you determine what constitutes "risking their lives" and why would this be homogenous? Seems this would be heterogenous in a town and rural community based on both the internal make-up of the individual and externalities like station/caste/level of protection afforded to them.

How do you determine if a single child or the primary courtier among the folk takes it upon themself to perform a runner to the barn to let the PCs know?

How do you determine if the child/courtier is successful or not if they do perform that runner?



Beyond just getting info from a sympathetic runner, what about the below aspects of "playing the world?"

How do you determine if other members of the community don't take it upon themselves to give the troops off-milk-laden-stew or otherwise poison them when the troops are quartered at their house/tavern?

How do you determine whether the antagonists have jurisdiction to search the property of the farm...and if they have to have a writ from a magistrate or something...how do you determine they have made the case successfully to the magistrate?

How do you determine if the magistrate themself isn't sympathetic to the Folk Hero and denies the writ illegally?

How do you determine whether the farmers won't stand up to a search of their property, legal or not?

You are making those runner/coutier/etc npcs sound a lot more interesting than the "pc" in the barn. Did you actively direct them to do all of that or just a quantum action left to the GM?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Point being, anything that would let your characters have information is also a path to give up information. The only way you can get good, clear information about what's going on outside of a barn is to be outside of that barn. If you're taking watches and patrolling around that barn, you can be seen. If you're holed up inside the barn and never leave the barn, you can't see if people are approaching. If you're looking out small holes in the barn, your field of vision is quite limited. You take less risk of being seen (effectively none), but in exchange you give up all the information not directly in front of the hole you're looking out of.

If you're holed up in a barn, how would you know the soldiers were going door to door? Someone running you food and information from the outside? Why assume they're invisible? If you're outside the barn for a sketchy neighbor to see you, 1) why assume you couldn't have been spotted, and; 2) why would you assume you'd notice someone else paying attention?

I didn’t assume any of these things. They should be played out. The GM should say “you see a sketchy neighbor watching as Farmer Joe leads you to his barn” or call for a roll to see if he’s noticed if it’s something we can miss.

The barn had those high double doors that gave us some view of the road and the inn inn the distance, along with a couple of houses. We specifically noted we were keeping an eye on that area.

Then fast forward to morning.

In the before times, have you ever been in a public place and later at some point a friend told you that they saw you there, maybe even called out to you, but you didn't notice? Yeah. That's a thing that happens. Just because someone sees you has no real bearing on whether you see them. As an example from the game, stealth. That's literally the point of stealth.

Yeah, and Stealth is a thing in the game that has rules used to see how things go.

This is part of that main character thing. RPGs aren't movies. They're not TV shows. The audience (the players) shouldn't get to see things that the characters don't know. Why? Because the audience is the players...the one's controlling the characters in the fiction. The players will almost certainly immediately act on that information. Like the party is separated and one person is off on their own and in trouble...magically, everyone else at the table suddenly has super urgent business with that PC. Gamers metagaming instead of roleplayers staying in the fiction.

Here’s a great example, actually.

So one person is off on their own and then gets into trouble. If you “don’t allow metagaming”, then at what point is it okay for one of the other characters to say “hey I want to go check on Jim”?

Not allowing it is equally metagaming. You are preventing something that could happen due to out of game knowledge. Sometimes when people are separated like that, they do decide to check on one another.

How does not allowing this follow the play loop that you’ve cited often? The player declares an action, and the GM says “no you can’t do that because you don’t know he’s in trouble”.

How is this not pure Mother May I?

Far better to not worry about that crap and instead let the character go check on the other. It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

That's the crux of the issue. The system is agnostic on this point. It's explicitly left up to the referee to decide. The referee railroaded you. And that sucks. That's a terrible move.

And you don’t think that a system that just let’s this happen deserves a bit of criticism?

That describes almost literally everything in the game. The referee decides that your character cannot know what's happening on the far side of the world, but that's not generally a problem as it doesn't directly affect your character. But yeah, that's how RPGs with referees work. It's up to the referee. Even in games like PbtA. Fronts and factions and NPCs continuing to exist outside the characters' ability to perceive is standard. This is also why I'm an over prepped referee rather than an improviser. The NPCs have a plan and they stick to it unless the PCs interfere. That way there's less chance of players being justifiably cranky. Some player calls me out on something and I'll have a section of notes to show them. Yes, in fact this is exactly what they had planned. They were in the middle of carrying it out and you happened to blunder in. Sorry.

You’re mistaking what I’m saying.

Given the option of the GM sharing information with the olayers, calling for rolls as needed, asking them what they want to do OR not doing that and just making all these decisions in his own head… why would anyone say the better method is the second.

You’re acting like the world is real, but it’s all make believe. Why make believe a bunch of stuff happening off screen when you can i stead make up stuff happening on screen that then can be engaged with (or not) by the players?

If it's justified in the fiction, absolutely. I'm not going to impart spot instances of omniscience to the characters. If the players want information they have to position their characters in the fiction in such a way as it would be possible for their characters to learn it. They players don't simply get information their characters could not possibly have.

If how you define MMI is the referee gets to make decisions, then I don't know what to tell you because that's the defining feature of RPGs.

I’ve clarified this often enough in this thread that I’m not going to bother again. Suffice it to say that the GM making decisions is not the problem.

If you want a game where there's either no referee or the referee cannot make decisions, you should look outside of RPGs for that.

Again with this nonsense.

If I want to hear the GM’s story, then I’ll ask him to tell me one. I won’t play an RPG.

Totally disagree. Rules just get in the way, simple as. But then this goes back to the notion of invisible rulebooks and how much a shared understanding of genre can stand in for "proper rules" to play a game. I think you can free-form RP without a single die ever tossed. I also think you can RP with only a few rolls over an entire campaign. I honestly prefer it. The dice only need to come out when there's something at stake and the outcome isn't obvious from the fiction. And even then, the dice mechanics don't need to be more involved than 2d6. But that's me.

Verisimilitude.

I’d say the GM’s conception of the setting.

What if folks differ on what is verisimilitudinous? Whose idea wins out?

Metagaming.

You keep information from the player that the character wouldn't know to increase verisimilitude and decrease metagaming. That's a trade I will gladly make every single time. If the player thinks that they cannot play an RPG without a boardgame-like god's-eye-view of the situation, well, then they are not a good fit for my table.

Not really. See the split group example you provided. No less metagaming.

Know what doesn’t seem verisimilitudinous? A world where no one ever goes to check on their friend and winds up arriving just in time to help them with some danger.

No, what’s lost is the player having input into the direction of play.

Everything you’ve described here is about placing the GM’s ideas over the players. You even cite your copious notes about exactly how things will go. Being overly devoted to those ideas.

 

[Manbearcat]

You are making those runner/coutier/etc npcs sound a lot more interesting than the "pc" in the barn. Did you actively direct them to do all of that or just a quantum action left to the GM?

For the GM to resolve while "playing the world." Rustic Hospitality gives favor from the common folk to The Folk Hero. Its still up for the GM to work out what that looks like. Do runner's go from Nottingham Forest (the barn) to let Robin Hood know of The Sherrif's doings or no runners? And how does that get modeled/resolved...and why?

 

[tetrasodium]

For the GM to resolve while "playing the world." Rustic Hospitality gives favor from the common folk to The Folk Hero. Its still up for the GM to work out what that looks like. Do runner's go from Nottingham Forest (the barn) to let Robin Hood know of The Sherrif's doings or no runners? And how does that get modeled/resolved...and why?

That's my point. If the player is leaning on that in their plans it's on the player to work that out with the gm. Based on the way they were talked about as quote:" another way to get good, clear information about what's going on outside of a barn" with specific possibilities I suspect all but the greenest of permissive GMs will say no to the player playing a swarm.

 

[pemerton]

Why is it (purportedly) fine for the GM to play all the soldier NPCs in his imagination, beating up villagers and tracking down the PCs the villagers are hiding; but it's not fine for the GM to play all those villagers in his imagination, misleading the soldiers and warning the PCs just like the background ability implies that they will?

 

[FrogReaver]

Now that…is a very good question.

I have thoughts (both system related and non system related), but I’m curious to hear yours.

I'm not going to play games about who answers first. This is a conversation, and I asked the question first.

Also, would you agree with this assessment:

“In proportion with the players being unable to tell the difference, there will be a tendency toward player decisions and actions feeling meaningless due to the looming prospect of subversion by GM hanging over every consequential moment of play.”

(Hopefully my answer to this question below demonstrates my good faith toward the discussion).

Not particularly. I don't think there's really proportionality there. There's many times where I've had very limited information while playing D&D and I still didn't feel my player decisions were meaningless.

I'd actually counter that usually any feelings I have that my decisions were meaningless come when I have enough information to form strong expectations about what was possible and the DM judgement didn't align with those expectations.

That's how I read @hawkeyefan's play example.