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

[pemerton]

Apposite to the OP, was it a case of MMI?

Me: Mother May I avoid the battle with the Duke’s men?

GM: Nope!

There's your answer.

 

[Umbran]

Who said it was snark? Did you read the posts involved?

If you did, why are you blatantly misrepresenting them?
If not, why are you blatantly misrepresenting them?

Mod Note:
What you did here is unlikely to make things better. It is likely to make things worse.

So, how about we stop making things worse, okay?

Thanks, everyone, for remembering to remain respectful, even in the face of persistent disagreement!

 

[clearstream]

My contention is that the GM didn't honour the use of the ability. Reference to "cromulent worlds" in my view does no work here: the use of the ability by the players is meant to select between those worlds.

I mean, suppose the PCs charge into a commoner's house demanding shelter while dire wolves yap at their heels. That would be a case of the PCs showing themselves to be a danger, and/or placing the commoners' lives at risk. But that didn't happen in this case.

In this case, the GM made a decision, based purely on his own imagination about various NPCs, that the duration of the ability was over. It's the most naked of GM fiat.

Up thread @hawkeyefan explained the DM ruling that they gained the benefit of a rest. That satisfies the feature's rule due to "or". Had the DM given none of the benefits, only then would the question of risking their lives matter.

The play loop doesn't expressly address what I've just said, but is the playloop not meant to be supplemented by principles? Given that the Basic PDF says this on p 2, I think the answer is that there are relevant principles here:

The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. . . . There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game - at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. . . . The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

There are two key sentences there - together, the DM and the players create an exciting story and everyone . . . created a memorable story. These don't, to me, suggest that the GM is the unilateral storyteller.

The same page refers to the GM as "the game’s lead storyteller and referee". This doesn't entail that the GM is the sole storyteller.

How do the players do their bit in creating an exciting and memorable story? By declaring actions and using the abilities they get from their characters. Like Rustic Hospitality.

Agreed. I think that is very appropriate text to quote; pointing to railroading, rather than MMI. The DM had a scene they wanted to deliver, so followed the rules in a way that railroaded the players.

 

[clearstream]

Me: Mother May I avoid the battle with the Duke’s men?

GM: Nope!

There's your answer.

This seems to come back to an argument @overgeeked was making. If accurate, the player asked for an outcome. They wanted the result of their feature use to be that battle was avoided.

Under this framing, MMI would be the case where - independently of whether the game rules are followed - the result sought by the player isn't what the DM narrates. All versions of D&D play that this is sometimes true, so it seems to me too broad. What narrows it?

Another framing in this thread has been something more like

Player: "Mother May I use Rustic Hospitality in this situation?"

GM: "Yes"

But here the player was not satisfied with the result, and felt subject to MMI (perhaps conflating that with railroading.) One option is to assert that "DM narrates results" implies that all game text following play of D&D is MMI.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This seems to come back to an argument @overgeeked was making. If accurate, the player asked for an outcome. They wanted the result of their feature use to be that battle was avoided.

Under this framing, MMI would be the case where - independently of whether the game rules are followed - the result sought by the player isn't what the DM narrates. All versions of D&D play that this is sometimes true, so it seems to me too broad. What narrows it?

Another framing in this thread has been something more like

Player: "Mother May I use Rustic Hospitality in this situation?"

GM: "Yes"

But here the player was not satisfied with the result, and felt subject to MMI (perhaps conflating that with railroading.) One option is to assert that "DM narrates results" implies that all game text following play of D&D is MMI.

Player: Mother may I get off the railroad?

DM: Nope!

See, I used the words so it must be MMI.

 

[FrogReaver]

Mod Note:
What you did here is unlikely to make things better. It is likely to make things worse.

So, how about we stop making things worse, okay?

Thanks, everyone, for remembering to remain respectful, even in the face of persistent disagreement!

Piggybacking off this. If I have said anything anyone has felt was too snarky I apologize and hope we can move forward more productively.

 

[Umbran]

Player: Mother may I get off the railroad?

DM: Nope!

See, I used the words so it must be MMI.

Mod Note:
You are also choosing to make things worse, rather than better.

Right after I told someone not to do that. Did you think, somehow, you were excused from treating folks well? Rhetorical question - you aren't.

Do better, please.

That goes for everyone - Do Better. That isn't optional.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Up thread @hawkeyefan explained the DM ruling that they gained the benefit of a rest. That satisfies the feature's rule due to "or". Had the DM given none of the benefits, only then would the question of risking their lives matter.

And, again, I reject the idea that this is anything more than lip service. It is very clearly violating the spirit of the feature and barely even qualifies as sticking to the letter of it (read: IMO it doesn't.)

Agreed. I think that is very appropriate text to quote; pointing to railroading, rather than MMI. The DM had a scene they wanted to deliver, so followed the rules in a way that railroaded the players.

¿Porqué no los dos?

You seem to be under the impression that the presence of identified railroading excludes the possibility of MMI. What prevents this scene from being both things, whether separately or concurrently?

Because I grant you that it is railroading. I also see this action as...let's call it "rug pull" MMI. That is, in "normal" MMI, the players directly ask for permission and directly get told yes or no. But a lot of DMs quickly realize that this annoys players. So it moves a step of abstraction further along: the DM gives the appearance of allowing players to do what they have elected to do, but subverts the substance of the action. It becomes a hidden denial, like playing an RPG from one of Franz Kafka's novels, but a denial-unless-approved nonetheless. And with that denial being made secret, the players are even further stripped of their ability to actually engage with things; they're still just as walled in, but the walls are invisible, and can only be discovered by running into them.

And yes, there is (and will always be) some connection between railroading and MMI. They are both bad DM behavior which limits player agency with the ultimate result of forcing players toward only those actions which the DM wishes them to take; that's a lot of things in common. If feeling memelord-y, one could argue that MMI is just the "multi-track drifting" version of railroading: there doesn't have to be a single track, but no direction you can travel on is one that hasn't been signed in triplicate. And, just as railroading is a recognized, bad form of linear adventure design/running, MMI (or whatever we choose to call it, since my "Red Light/Green Light" proposal seems to have remained in flight about as well as a blue whale would) is pretty clearly a degenerate case of DM adjudication, regardless of whether freeform or rules-focused, where players are repeatedly stymied and deterred unless and until they do approved things.

You could also instead say that railroading is the fundamental problem, whatever we wish to call it (obstructive DM behavior?), manifesting in overall adventure design, while MMI is that problem manifesting at the level of individual character actions and their consequences.

 

[Ovi]

¿Porqué no los dos?

You seem to be under the impression that the presence of identified railroading excludes the possibility of MMI. What prevents this scene from being both things, whether separately or concurrently?

Because I grant you that it is railroading. I also see this action as...let's call it "rug pull" MMI. That is, in "normal" MMI, the players directly ask for permission and directly get told yes or no. But a lot of DMs quickly realize that this annoys players. So it moves a step of abstraction further along: the DM gives the appearance of allowing players to do what they have elected to do, but subverts the substance of the action. It becomes a hidden denial, like playing an RPG from one of Franz Kafka's novels, but a denial-unless-approved nonetheless. And with that denial being made secret, the players are even further stripped of their ability to actually engage with things; they're still just as walled in, but the walls are invisible, and can only be discovered by running into them.

And yes, there is (and will always be) some connection between railroading and MMI. They are both bad DM behavior which limits player agency with the ultimate result of forcing players toward only those actions which the DM wishes them to take; that's a lot of things in common. If feeling memelord-y, one could argue that MMI is just the "multi-track drifting" version of railroading: there doesn't have to be a single track, but no direction you can travel on is one that hasn't been signed in triplicate. And, just as railroading is a recognized, bad form of linear adventure design/running, MMI (or whatever we choose to call it, since my "Red Light/Green Light" proposal seems to have remained in flight about as well as a blue whale would) is pretty clearly a degenerate case of DM adjudication, regardless of whether freeform or rules-focused, where players are repeatedly stymied and deterred unless and until they do approved things.

You could also instead say that railroading is the fundamental problem, whatever we wish to call it (obstructive DM behavior?), manifesting in overall adventure design, while MMI is that problem manifesting at the level of individual character actions and their consequences.

Railroading effectively requires MMI.

 

[FrogReaver]

Perhaps we are a bit overly focused on a single example - and while interesting as it has been - perhaps talking through a different example would shed some light.