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

[Hussar]

Actually, thinking about it, I have a perfect example of the DM using skill rolls for MMI in the game I played last Friday night.

In the scenario, we are guards in a wagon train and there are some shifty characters in amongst the merchants and whatnot traveling with us. So, the rogue, being a sneaky type, decides to hide near their campfire and eavesdrop on their conversation. Note, the rogue also has a cloak of elvenkind (advantage on stealth checks, disadvantage on opposed perception checks from enemies).

This results in the following rolls:
1. Stealth check to approach within hearing distance.
2. Stealth check to approach within easy hearing distance.
3. Perception check (with advantage because of #2) to hear the conversation
4. The DM then announces after the NPC's talk for a while that they "stop talking and suddenly look around - one claims to have heard something." The player says that he stays still and doesn't do anything. After a moment, a raccoon or something wanders out of the bushes, the bad guys relax and finish their conversation.
5. Stealth check to move away from the campfire.

FOUR checks to do this. Any one of which would most likely have been a catastrophic fail point where the PC was spotted or failed to learn the information. If we had simply had a familiar in the party (there's only two PC's, so, no familiar), this would have been an automatic success. Heck, with a familiar, we could have monitored the baddies every single night without any chance of failure.

I'm sorry, but I do not think that this is a rare, corner case. This is how D&D has been played with virtually every single DM I've ever played with. Endless checks, all in the idea that we should be "realistic" or "this should be a challenge" which results in teaching hte players to never, ever rely on anything other than hard coded rules.

Earlier I got brushed off for suggesting "Yes And" because D&D isn't "improv theater". But, in my mind, since the above is the most typical way that D&D gets played, leaning a heck of a lot closer to "improv theater" will resolve so many of the problems that people are having at their table. Let's not forget here. We're not the ones who have unhappy players. If your players are unhappy, continuing to do the same thing as before and just blaming the players for problems will not resolve anything.

If your players are happy, then by all means, don't change anything. But, if you have unhappy players, it falls to the DM to change, AFAIC. That's the DM's job - to make sure that the table is having fun. To me, that's the number one job of the DM and I cannot enjoy a game where I know that I have unhappy players. Heck, I just dissolved my last group precisely because I couldn't find a consensus on the game despite trying for several years and at least three different campaigns. Having unhappy players just led to me getting more and more frustrated. So, I finally had had enough and fired myself from the group.

Not because they were bad players. They absolutely were not. They were great players. Just not great players for me. Our styles just clashed too hard and I just could not find the right approach where we were all going to enjoy the game. It happens. There's no point in me pointing fingers at them. This is just as much my fault as theirs. I was not flexible enough to alter my playstyle to match theirs. So, leaving the group and finding new players was absolutely the best solution all the way around. I've managed to build a fantastic group where everyone is very happy to play together.

Sorry, rambling on here too much. But, my basic point is that if your group is unhappy, even if it's just one player, and they're dropping comments like MMI, it may very well be that they aren't articulating the issue very well, but it really isn't the problem. The problem is that you (generic you) have players that are not happy. What are you going to do about it?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

FOUR checks to do this. Any one of which would most likely have been a catastrophic fail point where the PC was spotted or failed to learn the information. If we had simply had a familiar in the party (there's only two PC's, so, no familiar), this would have been an automatic success. Heck, with a familiar, we could have monitored the baddies every single night without any chance of failure.

I'm sorry, but I do not think that this is a rare, corner case. This is how D&D has been played with virtually every single DM I've ever played with. Endless checks, all in the idea that we should be "realistic" or "this should be a challenge" which results in teaching hte players to never, ever rely on anything other than hard coded rules.

Yep, this is exactly the kind of thing that bothers me so. As I said before: it is entirely possible for a well-meaning DM to do this sort of thing, without any intent to do something untoward. As you say, the demand that every PC action must "be a challenge" has an unfortunate tendency to encourage "covert" MMI, where actions are "permitted" but unlikely to succeed.

Worth noting: Even if your friend had had 80% chance of success on all those rolls, they'd have just shy of a 60% chance to fail at least one of those four rolls, at which point the action would be wasted, and possibly even become a liability rather than a benefit.

 

[Manbearcat]

Actually, thinking about it, I have a perfect example of the DM using skill rolls for MMI in the game I played last Friday night.

In the scenario, we are guards in a wagon train and there are some shifty characters in amongst the merchants and whatnot traveling with us. So, the rogue, being a sneaky type, decides to hide near their campfire and eavesdrop on their conversation. Note, the rogue also has a cloak of elvenkind (advantage on stealth checks, disadvantage on opposed perception checks from enemies).

This results in the following rolls:
1. Stealth check to approach within hearing distance.
2. Stealth check to approach within easy hearing distance.
3. Perception check (with advantage because of #2) to hear the conversation
4. The DM then announces after the NPC's talk for a while that they "stop talking and suddenly look around - one claims to have heard something." The player says that he stays still and doesn't do anything. After a moment, a raccoon or something wanders out of the bushes, the bad guys relax and finish their conversation.
5. Stealth check to move away from the campfire.

FOUR checks to do this. Any one of which would most likely have been a catastrophic fail point where the PC was spotted or failed to learn the information. If we had simply had a familiar in the party (there's only two PC's, so, no familiar), this would have been an automatic success. Heck, with a familiar, we could have monitored the baddies every single night without any chance of failure.

I'm sorry, but I do not think that this is a rare, corner case. This is how D&D has been played with virtually every single DM I've ever played with. Endless checks, all in the idea that we should be "realistic" or "this should be a challenge" which results in teaching hte players to never, ever rely on anything other than hard coded rules.

Earlier I got brushed off for suggesting "Yes And" because D&D isn't "improv theater". But, in my mind, since the above is the most typical way that D&D gets played, leaning a heck of a lot closer to "improv theater" will resolve so many of the problems that people are having at their table. Let's not forget here. We're not the ones who have unhappy players. If your players are unhappy, continuing to do the same thing as before and just blaming the players for problems will not resolve anything.

If your players are happy, then by all means, don't change anything. But, if you have unhappy players, it falls to the DM to change, AFAIC. That's the DM's job - to make sure that the table is having fun. To me, that's the number one job of the DM and I cannot enjoy a game where I know that I have unhappy players. Heck, I just dissolved my last group precisely because I couldn't find a consensus on the game despite trying for several years and at least three different campaigns. Having unhappy players just led to me getting more and more frustrated. So, I finally had had enough and fired myself from the group.

Not because they were bad players. They absolutely were not. They were great players. Just not great players for me. Our styles just clashed too hard and I just could not find the right approach where we were all going to enjoy the game. It happens. There's no point in me pointing fingers at them. This is just as much my fault as theirs. I was not flexible enough to alter my playstyle to match theirs. So, leaving the group and finding new players was absolutely the best solution all the way around. I've managed to build a fantastic group where everyone is very happy to play together.

Sorry, rambling on here too much. But, my basic point is that if your group is unhappy, even if it's just one player, and they're dropping comments like MMI, it may very well be that they aren't articulating the issue very well, but it really isn't the problem. The problem is that you (generic you) have players that are not happy. What are you going to do about it?

The problem here is (i) granular task resolution w/ (ii) binary results + (iii) no fail forward + (iv) no means of mitigating consequences + (v) you likely didn't have a player facing DC + (vi) no ability to "push yourself."

The problem with granularity is that 2 is straight-up a problem and 3 is almost surely a problem. Yeah, Perception (whatever) for more info, sure. But just to hear normal conversation after you've skulked the distance? Nope.

Contrast this exact same scenario with a Blades in the Dark Stealth Score w/ a capable Lurk. The only thing that goes away is 2 in terms of granularity. I'll use @Campbell 's Lurk in the current Blades game I'm running because @hawkeyefan 's Lurk was the the Blades version of "end game." I'll frame some adverse situation where the Crew is punching a bit above their belt (they're Tier 1...let's say they're infiltrating a Tier 2 Gang's safehouse for whatever reason).

Blades’ spread of results is 1-3 = Complication, 4-5 = Success w/ Complication, 6 = Success, 6x2 = Success and clear 1 Stress or another boon.

1. Stealth check to approach within hearing distance.

GM: Its after hours but the Gray Cloaks' smoke shop is seeing "customers." These don't look like the typical rabble the buy their product. These two gents are dressed in tweed suits, deerstalker caps, and have holstered pistols; official like. They're standing over a rectangular table and seem to be going pouring over some documents under hanging light fixture. You've squirmed through the dog door with a host of obstacles between you and them, so plenty of cover. Its on the other side of the studio smokeshop, so about 200 ft to cover however. Engagement Roll says Controlled Position (dice pool to start the Score to determine danger of first situation/obstacle - Controlled = nonthreatening...they have no clue the Lurk is there).

Lurk: I don't want to get on top of them. We came here to surveil what their next move is for the Bluecoats' Captain Darmot. Lets just Prowl (action roll) over to listening distance.

GM: Cool, they're not talking loud, but they aren't whispering. Cover half the distance and you can hear them no problem. Standard Effect will do it and you're Standard and you're at Standard with Prowl for that distance. Controlled Position, Standard Effect.

Lurk: If I get closer can I identify who those tweed suit-wearing gents are? I'll tick a box of Loadout for my Fine Shadow Cloak for + Effect so Great Effect.

GM: Sounds good. Controlled : Great.

Lurk: 3d6 on Prowl. Got a 5 (meaning Success w/ a minor Complication because Controlled Position). GM tells player the complication > Player doesn't want it > Resists with Prowess 3d6 > gets another 5 so 1 Stress and Controlled Complication resisted.

2. Perception check (with advantage because of #2) to hear the conversation and find out identifying stuff about the tweet suit guys.

<GM tells them the conversation that they're having and then reframes>

GM: Alright, hanging light fixture is casting a flickering dome of light upon the table and the figures perusing the documents. Lets get a look at these tweed-suit guys. They have no idea you're here, you've got your Fine Shadow Cloak, lots of cover so Controlled position still. You're close. Maybe 3 paces away.

Lurk: I want to see if there is something identifying that pistol. Maybe a gunwright or its standard issue or something? Going to just Survey from here.

GM: Sure. The place is dimly lit outside of the splash of light from hanging fixture. You're Controlled : Standard. Standard will get you what you want, but if you get a complication here, its going to be reduced effect so you'll get some of what you want but not the whole thing (the Dungeon World equivalent of "interesting" but not "interesting & useful")...so you'll have to make due and act on what you have. Maybe the shifting shadows make it difficult to see or they move to the other side of the table. And given the conversation and the tone, they're wrapping up soon, so this is your only shot to identify these two guys in this present situation.

Lurk: Alright...I'll move a few paces closer to get a better look and put myself in increased danger; Risky Position for Great Effect. Only 1 die in Survey so I'll spend the 2 Stress to Push. Gets a 4 (4-5 is success with complications).

4. The DM then announces after the NPC's talk for a while that they "stop talking and suddenly look around - one claims to have heard something." The player says that he stays still and doesn't do anything. After a moment, a raccoon or something wanders out of the bushes, the bad guys relax and finish their conversation.

GM: I tell them its Inspectors (think Scotland Yard) standard issue and he can make out a clearly official badge on a lanyard with a name (I give it to him). I also escalate the situation w/ a "Discovered" Danger Clock 4 and I'm putting 2 ticks on it due to the Risky complication so its 2/4. The player doesn't want to Resist it down 1 Tick to 1/4 so it stays at 2/4. I describe another Gray Cloak enters the room by sliding down the pole behind him (its an old Brigade firehouse repurposed for a smoke shop). The Lurk is in a bit of a "cross-fire" w/ the Gray Cloak walking over to the table and saying this or that to the other fellas...but hasn't seen the PC yet.

Things are more dangerous now so Risky position.

5. Stealth check to move away from the campfire.

Lurk: Alright, I know what they were talking about. <let's say the Inspector is going over a fraudulent case that the Bluecoats are working up against the leader of the Gray Cloaks and they're going over the scrawled notes of the "evidence" that the Inspectors were able to copy while in the Bluecoat's precinct. The original case file is in one of the magistrates' clerk's offices and will be reviewed next week for a warrant...they handed off the schematic to the building to hit earlier in the conversation before the Lurk arrived...its upstairs in the strongbox...he needs that for the name of the building and the clerk's office to be hit> Alright. I need to sneak around that guy and clamber up that pole.

Flashback: I know these guys send kid-courtiers for food when they get the munchies late night. I grease the palms of a kid to bring them falafel from the all-night food cart on the next block. He's going to rap on the door to get this guy's attention while I clamber up the pole.

GM: Sure, sure. 1 stress Flashback. There will be a bit of danger here because these folks are loyal to the Gray Cloaks, but you're slick so they probably won't say anything. Just Controlled w/ the threat being a tick on that Discovered Clock because they sense something is up. If you're successful, you can have Controlled Position for your pole-clambering because you're no longer in a "cross-fire."

Lurk: Yeah, I'm just a sympathizer for the good fellas in the neighborhood; The Gray Cloaks. Everyone buys them late night munchies so no big deal! Consort 2d. <Gets a 4 > Resists the 1 Tick of the "Discovered" Clock by playing up the typical "I'm just paying my respects to the Gray Cloaks" in the conversation in the kid in the Flashback > 3d Resolve Resist > another 5 so 1 Stress>.

GM: You can have your +Effect from your Cloak here. Controlled Position. You've got plenty of time because the guy answering the door is well far away. The pole is about 4-5 paces away, but its a full-on clamber to get up. You're going to need Great Effect to get there and all the way up to the next floor above in one go. You're Great Effect w/ Skirmish (player has 2d) but only Standard Effect w/ Prowl (player has 3d).

Lurk: I'll risk it, I'll hustle up but like a skulking shadow. Trading Position for Effect w/ Prowl for Risky : Great. I need this one. Do you have a Devil's Bargain for me (+1d for some kind of complication...I offer <"when you were listening before, the Inspectors mention something about your Crew...they're actually investigating your last Score...starting a Clock "Investigate the calamity at the Docks" 1 Tick on an 8 Clock...when this goes off, you're getting an entanglement...the Inspectors are Tier 3 so I'll be rolling 3d every loop to fill that Clock up unless they do something about it">)? Cool, I take it. We'll handle that problem later. 4d. Got a 6!

5 out of 9 Stress and the player needs to find the strongbox up here > open it (PC ignored Tier when dealing with security measures and they also have 0 Load Fine Lockpicks for + Effect so that will be a cinch) and retrieve the schematic > egress.

---

That is basically what it would look like in Blades. Lots of levers, gears, transparent and codified action resolution, negotiation, and everything is table-facing.

 

[clearstream]

On my reading you've changed @EzekielRaiden's example and point.

Here is what EzekielRaiden posted:

EzekielRaiden replies to your suggestion by pointing out that there was no established fiction, and hence nothing that the players could know about how places of power might relate to magic and the like involving spirits.

EzekielRaiden says nothing about what the PCs may or may not know. And says nothing that would block or postpone a player's action declaration. The very fact that the players know nothing about this aspect of the table's shared fiction leaves it open for them to suggest, or stipulate (depending on how authority is distributed at EzekielRaiden's table) something about spirits and places of power.

But you reply thus:

There is no shared fiction that establishes the ignorance and incapability of the druid. You propose the GM deciding, unilaterally, that the PCs have no knowledge and no relevant ability, and that the players will have to declare actions that generate more knowledge of the GM's fiction before they can declare the action they are actually interested in.

As I posted upthread, I don't understand why. Why postpone the play the players are interested in, in order to foreground the GM's imagination?

I mean, in this case what is the point of the system having an INT stat and associated skills if those are not going to be used in this sort of situation to determine the outcome of the action declaration (thereby perhaps also settling what the PC does or doesn't know).

And to push the point more strongly: the upshot of your approach here is that the players can never take the lead. Because every time there is a blank slate - which by default there always will be, given that fictions don't write themselves - you infer to PC ignorance, and the need for the players to declare actions that will oblige the GM to have the setting yield up its secrets to the PCs in play.

This is an instance of "Mother may I", at least in general structure - it leaves the players dancing to the GM's tune.

You write as one determined to find fault, reaching predictably false conclusions.

@EzekielRaiden thumbed up my reply and I believed appreciated that I took care to indicate that their post was vulnerable to interpretation as illusionism (and it was subsequently that way interpreted). I gave examples of what might avoid that, and in one case @EzekielRaiden clarified their preestablished fiction. I therefore rewrote that example to show that clarification being given to the player. Further, being a hypothetical it is rightly written as if that prior fiction was in place even if I misunderstood ER.

Those who thumbed your post - @EzekielRaiden @heretic888 @hawkeyefan should reread the exchange up thread.

 

[clearstream]

The problem here is (i) granular task resolution w/ (ii) binary results + (iii) no fail forward + (iv) no means of mitigating consequences + (v) you likely didn't have a player facing DC + (vi) no ability to "push yourself."

The problem with granularity is that 2 is straight-up a problem and 3 is almost surely a problem. Yeah, Perception (whatever) for more info, sure. But just to hear normal conversation after you've skulked the distance? Nope.

From discussion in other threads my belief is 5e DMs are calling for checks far more often than would be meet for the game system. The advice on rolling doesn't exactly instruct to do it, but it unfortunately in its implications encourages it. The same is true of the way the salient rules are divided between PHB and DMG. As I have said elsewhere, it is only once a group use the whole of core that the complete system emerges.

5e contains the ability to use limited resources to push yourself, but that is uneven. It depends on choices made by the group. The designers may have felt it was a choice between a general game system or character-specific mechanics, and leaned into what they may have seen as more interesting characters abilities. If so, then BitD shows that's a false dichotomy, albeit I have read posters expressing dislike of BitD's "opinionated" play.

 

[Ovi]

You write as one determined to find fault, reaching predictably false conclusions.

@EzekielRaiden thumbed up my reply and I believed appreciated that I took care to indicate that their post was vulnerable to interpretation as illusionism (and it was subsequently that way interpreted). I gave examples of what might avoid that, and in one case @EzekielRaiden clarified their preestablished fiction. I therefore rewrote that example to show that clarification being given to the player. Further, being a hypothetical it is rightly written as if that prior fiction was in place even if I misunderstood ER.

Those who thumbed your post - @EzekielRaiden @heretic888 @hawkeyefan should reread the exchange up thread.

Um, that's not at all what @pemerton was asking after. As in, he wasn't asking about if @EzekielRaiden liked your post about possibly assuming illusionism, but rather drilling into your response about making the players have to take additional actions to have their PCs know something, which was in the same post as you pointing out that you thought EZ was vulnerable to an assumption of illusionism.

@pemerton made a good point -- as someone who has done it quite often in the past, and who has experienced it in many D&D games with multiple GMs, the immediate block to player actions to require some intermediate step when nothing has been established in the shared fiction to indicate such is very common. For me, recognizing it took exposure to other game systems that don't have this kind of feature, specifically the GM being the only gate through which actions can succeed. Contrast your suggested moment of play with the Druid with a Bard casting Legend Lore to learn the necessary steps -- the Bard is deploying a fiat tool (the spell) to skip past whatever intermediate step the GM might have had in mind (or was scrambling to create to slow the pacing and prevent early completion).

D&D, and 5e with it, all suffer from the general need for extensive GM prep time. This causes a lot of, very warranted, attachment to play and an extreme vulnerability to pacing -- if the prepped material is gone through too fast, there's not more game for the moment and the session has to end or the GM is forced into uncomfortable ad libbing. I say uncomfortable because there are no tools in D&D to support good ad libbed play; some GMs may be very comfortable with this but you usually see this paired with a willing abandonment of the rules to go with GM Says as the only viable mechanic (even more so that 5e has as default!). So there is a valid pressure to control the pace through which the prep is moved through. I know I feel this when I run (although I've gotten better at the ad lib and I'm also good with saying "well, great plan, good play, but I'm outta prep. Next week?"). The 5e GM HAS to control pacing, it's a critical function of the GM, and that pacing is measured against the prepared material or the comfort with ad libbing. So, it's very unsurprising that a tool to reach for for most D&D GMs is going to be the imposition of additional steps when a play is made that short circuits too much of that prepared material (or comfort in ad libbing). It's the nature of Trad play in geeneral, nothing at all wrong with it, but knowing it's a pothole can help steer around it or be on notice for the bump.

 

[clearstream]

Um, that's not at all what @pemerton was asking after. As in, he wasn't asking about if @EzekielRaiden liked your post about possibly assuming illusionism, but rather drilling into your response about making the players have to take additional actions to have their PCs know something, which was in the same post as you pointing out that you thought EZ was vulnerable to an assumption of illusionism.

Read my whole reply.

 

[Ovi]

From discussion in other threads my belief is 5e DMs are calling for checks far more often than would be meet for the game system. The advice on rolling doesn't exactly instruct to do it, but it unfortunately in its implications encourages it. The same is true of the way the salient rules are divided between PHB and DMG. As I have said elsewhere, it is only once a group use the whole of core that the complete system emerges.

5e contains the ability to use limited resources to push yourself, but that is uneven. It depends on choices made by the group. The designers may have felt it was a choice between a general game system or character-specific mechanics, and leaned into what they may have seen as more interesting characters abilities. If so, then BitD shows that's a false dichotomy, albeit I have read posters expressing dislike of BitD's "opinionated" play.

I find this a hard sell, given that one of the three recommended paths in the DMG for play is 'roll for everything, all the time.' It's clearly not just an intended mode of play, but one specifically called out in the limited actual play guidance provided (the three paths section of the DMG is where, I find, the largest extent of useful advice on play exists).

 

[Ovi]

Read my whole reply.

I did. What do you think I should have noted, because I've clearly missed whatever you think is obvious.

 

[clearstream]

I did. What do you think I should have noted, because I've clearly missed whatever you think is obvious.

Is it your contention that a DM should never draw to the player attention the imagined facts about their shared fiction? Do you say that whenever they do so, they are egregiously protracting?

What do you think the Druid says next, and how do you think their DM responds to it?

Essentially, determined to find fault, the poster has filled my silence with their suspicions.