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

[clearstream]

So what seems to have just happened is that @clearstream assigned a motive to those who’ve disagreed with him, that they want to imply ignorance on his part. Then you’ve taken that and implied that perhaps those who do see the issue here (me being one such person) are ignorant.

I can say with confidence I’m not ignorant of what’s going on in 5E. Nor have I accused anyone else of such. I’ve described my opinion of my play and GMing. I’ve offered examples and reasons for such.

To be casually dismissed as ignorant by these kind of subtle backhanded comments seems unwarranted.

In turn, I was resisting the similar implication. Made not of me, just to correct that, but 5e players generally. To have this flipped feels unjust.

So earlier in the thread, a couple times, I asked folks who play and run 5E regularly what they do to avoid Mother May I. So I’ll ask if you’re willing to share such an example from your actual play experiences of a situation where MMI could have been a problem of some kind, and what steps you took to avoid it.

What did I do to stop beating my partner? Do you see what I mean? The question contains a bad assumption, that everyone has the same preferences.

If the world contained no commoners, then I’d be annoyed that when I said I wanted to be a folk hero, the GM didn’t say “that background isn’t suitable to this game because it will be utterly useless.” A folk hero cannot exist without folk.

If the GM allowed me to pick the background, and then decided after play began that there are no commoners… well I’d say that’s just about the most extreme instance of MMI that I can imagine.

Of course! But this was Mearls' concern. Say with favoured enemy, it was on DM to include that foe. For RH this would equate to commoners.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If the world contained no commoners, then I’d be annoyed that when I said I wanted to be a folk hero, the GM didn’t say “that background isn’t suitable to this game because it will be utterly useless.” A folk hero cannot exist without folk.

If the GM allowed me to pick the background, and then decided after play began that there are no commoners… well I’d say that’s just about the most extreme instance of MMI that I can imagine.

I think this is a very fair expectation in play. But I also think it is something that doesn't need to be handled by the mechanics of the system. It might be nice if advice addresses it, but it is also one of those things that I can understand it not being specifically addressed. I see it as being more about the individual group and how they manage these sorts of expectations.

But an ability that is entirely useless in a campaign, definitely something the GM might want to point out or at the very least, if the GM didn't realize there was a problem, allow the player to pick another ability when it becomes clear that one won't be useful. I do think though there is a lot of middle ground here that is much less clear than a player choosing an ability the GM knows will never be useful. Some abilities you take gambling they will be useful and it might simply never become a viable option in play for a variety of reasons if it is very situation dependent. Again, how a group manages that is going to vary (and I think leaving it to each group to arrive is usually the better approach since this isn't very once size fits all).

 

[hawkeyefan]

It feels like each "side" in this (and a lot of threads on here) has a variety of views and approaches to conversation in it. We're rightfully asked by the mods to not make things personal... but then sometimes it looks like someone is brushing the entire other side when they didn't mean to.

In any case, I think I'd qualify as "other side" from you on this one if forced to make it binary, but have appreciated your posts.

Appreciated! And likewise!

And to clarify, I don’t want to categorize anyone as ignorant. I just don’t like the implication made of me when I’ve made some pretty strong efforts to dhare my opinion and experiences, and why I feel the way I do.

What did I do to stop beating my partner? Do you see what I mean? The question contains a bad assumption, that everyone has the same preferences.

No, not at all. I’m not assuming any bad faith in your part. The question is “how do you prevent or remedy MMI in your games?”

If you don’t think the question is relevant, you’re not obliged to answer. However, I’d say that folks answering that question would be a great way to shift the conversation more toward a productive path.

Much earier in the thread, you had offered some Principles you apply to your play. This is the kind of thing I’m asking for. If you can also connect those principles to an example if actual play and how it all went, that’d be even better.

But no, there’s no assumption of bad faith.

I think this is a very fair expectation in play. But I also think it is something that doesn't need to be handled by the mechanics of the system. It might be nice if advice addresses it, but it is also one of those things that I can understand it not being specifically addressed. I see it as being more about the individual group and how they manage these sorts of expectations.

But an ability that is entirely useless in a campaign, definitely something the GM might want to point out or at the very least, if the GM didn't realize there was a problem, allow the player to pick another ability when it becomes clear that one won't be useful. I do think though there is a lot of middle ground here that is much less clear than a player choosing an ability the GM knows will never be useful. Some abilities you take gambling they will be useful and it might simply never become a viable option in play for a variety of reasons if it is very situation dependent. Again, how a group manages that is going to vary (and I think leaving it to each group to arrive is usually the better approach since this isn't very once size fits all).

Sure, conversation is always going to go a long way to help alleviate any issues with the group. All I would add here is that if I’m running a game and one of my players picks something like a Folk Hero background, I’m gonna try and make that relevant in play, to offer situations where it matters.

If I don’t, then I think it very likely says something about whose ideas on the content of the game take precedence, which I think certainly plays a part in MMI.

 

[Malmuria]

You don’t have to ask the GM’s permission to “try to do something” nor “to get something done” in the overwhelming abundance of D&D combat situations; if I want to move forward 3 squares (15 ft) and use action x and bonus action y…I just do it.

The times when I've most experienced what I would call a "mother may I" dynamic is actually precisely in this situation but in theater of the mind. Usually when the DM's description of the space and the actors/objects within is unclear or difficult to understand in some way. @EzekielRaiden suggested some changes to 5e to prevent MMI, though I don't know that any of them would quite solve this particular problem.

There's also the possible issue of "Rulebook May I." Rulebook, may I drink a potion as a bonus action? etc

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, conversation is always going to go a long way to help alleviate any issues with the group. All I would add here is that if I’m running a game and one of my players picks something like a Folk Hero background, I’m gonna try and make that relevant in play, to offer situations where it matters.

If I don’t, then I think it very likely says something about whose ideas on the content of the game take precedence, which I think certainly plays a part in MMI.

There is nothing wrong with this approach or preference. A lot of people like approaching player abilities this way. Usually with D&D which way this goes seems more cultural and implied than explicit in my experience. But I would push back on says something about whose ideas on the content of the game take precedence" aspect of this. I remember during 3E for example, which is a time I would say was very oriented around players having things like wishlists, having the expectation that if they wanted a particular class or prestige class or option from one of the complete books, it would be allowable in the setting. Whereas prior to that, there was much more of an emphasis on the GM curating setting flavor and filtering options and abilities so they fit things or weren't disruptive for everyone. I don't see this difference as being about the players ideas not mattering and the GMs mattering in either instance.

One of the problems that emerged in 3E was that other players often felt like they got a lack of spotlight, they weren't able to drive the direction of the campaign, and they were underpowered compared to players who made better mechanical decisions during character creation. A GM who was empowered to adjust those issues on the spot or prior to play, could help ensure everyone's ideas mattered. Whereas one who just allowed the smartest player to make the best, strongest most effective character, because the abilities said so, could make the other players feel like their ideas were not being heard. This applied to setting too. I remember players feeling the tone of a particular setting we were playing was disrupted because a player wanted to use a particular prestige (which introduced something very out of character for the tone and feel of the setting in question). That happened quite a bit actually and it often because a point of contention, not between the GM and the player, but among the players themselves because they had signed up for setting A and felt they were getting a setting that wasn't quite A or B.

And but the same token, there area lot of players who don't want to feel like introducing ideas out of character, makes them so in the setting. Especially at something like character creation. Not everyone will agree on this. I don't know where the present zeitgeist is on this issue for mainstream D&D. But I have definitely been in groups other players would be annoyed by this sort of thing, because they want to explore a world, or a story or just a dungeon and they need that sense of competing against a setting and its environment. Their ideas still matter, there are just different constraints on how their ideas get introduced to the setting. A GM who doesn't treat a character ability chosen at the start of play as needing to be part of the campaign or story, isn't necessarily uninstersted in the players ideas. Again in a sandbox, you very likely wouldn't have that expectation that just because you chose something it will later become relevant in the game, or it will introduce setting or story elements the GM didn't think were part of the campaign, but the same GM will likely be all ears when the players propose whatever wild direction their PC want to go during the campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

Does everyone agree that this entire conversation (and any kindred conversation) turns on formulating the above quoted sentence with the bolded “try to do something” vs “get something done.”

That's still not Mother May I. The DM assigns a DC and the players need to beat it or not. The rules of the game dictate try vs. decide to succeed.

It’s a different sentence when you sub out the latter for the former is it not? Which formulation is the one we’re working off of for the conversation (and contrast)?

If the player wants his PC to do something that isn't guaranteed, he needs to make a successful roll. The DM does not dictate what number the die will show, so he has no control over whether that attempt succeeds or not. Not unless he violates the social contract and assigned DCs that are unreasonably high in order to dictate the outcome, but that's a bad DM issue, not the result of either the game or playstyle.

Now, the DM can also determine automatic success, and he's supposed to do so if there is no meaningful consequence for failure or when the PCs do something that warrants auto success. Same with impossibility. If the PC tries to jump a 100 foot chasm, the DM doesn't stop the player from having his PC try the jump, but does say that he failed to make it and falls. There is still no Mother May I involved.

I would also say that its insightful (and relevant) to do the same thing (sub those two in/out for each other) in D&D combat vs noncombat resolution. You don’t have to ask the GM’s permission to “try to do something” nor “to get something done” in the overwhelming abundance of D&D combat situations; if I want to move forward 3 squares (15 ft) and use action x and bonus action y…I just do it.

Same with non-combat. You don't have to ask the DM if you can open the door, pick up the chest, throw a rock into the pool, open the dresser drawer and root through the clothing, etc. The vast majority of non-combat acts also are just done.

If I consort with the common folk of the town to hide me in the barn until the patrol canvasses the area, fails in their search, and moves on (employing Rustic Hospitality) it’s quite a different scenario. I’m not asking the GM if I can “try to do something”…I’m asking “can I get something done?”

I disagree. You are stating that your PC is trying to talk the common folk into something. That's not a request of the DM. What is happening is.

1) You state an action. "I am trying to talk the common folk into hiding me in the barn."
2) The DM decides if the outcome is in doubt and there is a reasonable consequence for failure, if so he sets a DC. "The DC for success is 15."
3) You roll to see if you can get something done or not. "17!"

At no point has a request been made to the DM asking if you are allowed to accomplish that goal. The rules and dice determine if you can get it done, not the DM.

Edit: I'm altering #2 because I overlooked the Rustic Hospitality portion.

2) If you have not shown yourself to be a danger and their lives are not at risk, the commoners hide you. I would need many more details to figure out if you had shown yourself to be a danger somehow or if their lives were at risk, but barring those two conditions which you would be aware of, they will hide you because that's your ability.

You are telling the DM what your PC is doing, not getting his permission to do it.

 

[Ovi]

Problems with the nomenclature aside (and I tend to agree with @Maxperson on this one), this is at least good because we are focusing on an issue that is meaningful: GM authority. But the problem with this argumen is any number of things can be a a prerequisite for dysfunction, that doesn't make it bad or undesirable, and it can overlook the benefits. For example people falling out of trees and breaking their arms is a real problem. No one wants people breaking their arms. A prerequisite for that is the existence of trees. But eliminating trees, while it surely would solve the problem of people falling out of them and breaking their arms, is clearly not a good solution. We need trees for certain things (like oxygen production), and trees are useful for many things. Now that doesn't mean trees need to be ubiquitous, in every yard, or that every house needs to be made from trees. But it would be shortsighted to say trees must go because they are a prerequisite for falling out of them and breaking a limb. Or to take a more relevant example: fire is a prerequisite for forest fires. That doesn't make fire bad on its own.

The basic problem here seems to be that (and I understand this is not what everyone is saying but it is what Ovi is saying in this post and that is what I am responding to): GM authority can lead to players feeling frustrated or thwarted. And that is true. One result of having a person empowered in that way is they make choices people don't like, or even that the whole structure of power and play just doesn't work for some players. I get this complaint. It is a problem for some people and it is why some people solve that problem by making new games that work around it. But it isn't a problem for everyone. For many it is a feature. And I can't really speak to 5E as I don't play it (see my other post), but I do remember the discussions leading up to it, and I think what they were probably responding to do was a sense that rules were constraining imagination too much for many players in recent editions (I know I felt this way in 3E and I quite liked 3E). So the zeitgeist shifted in a more rulings oriented direction. You can see that in the conversations we were having online here, in other forums and in many of the games coming out around that time and shortly after. But zeitgeists change.

I feel with RPGs there is always a thesis-antithesis that happens (rules light gives way to rules heavy, and then we go back to rules light or maybe rules medium; story focus gives way to focus on something else like focusing on dungeons, and then story comes back into fashion, etc). I don't know where D&D is at, or needs to be at at this time. Maybe it needs more rules and guidelines for GMing, maybe the rulings thing is working for most people. One of the main reasons I have been pushing back a bit on the premise in this thread is because in life the people I know and encounter who play 5E aren't really making this complaint (or at least I am not hearing it). My circle might be too narrow. I do hear criticisms and concerns, just not this particular one. And I think with any edition of D&D, it is very easy for the designers to react to a concern that is well expressed online but doesn't reflect a real concern by most players. But again, this doesn't really impact me as I don't play 5E, and I don't plan on playing One D&D. To me it looks like most of the issues that are generating intense discussing are outside this one though.

Starting with an agreement that I'm acting in bad faith is not a good start.

Following by insisting that MMI be dysfunction, when that is a contested point and one I vehemently disagree with isn't getting better.

A discussion about GM authority framed in saying it's dysfunction first and then looking to identify play that causes it is the reverse of my approach. I want to analyze play, then see how/if it can devolve into dysfunction so as to avoid doing so. 5e, and similarly structured games, put nearly all authority to determine outcomes on the GM, provide no constraints on that authority (leaving such to the social contract), and have no guidance on the use of that authority. This is what the 5e system presents. Noting this has strong similarities to the children's game "Mother May I" is descriptive of the authority structure, not an indictment of it. And I, personally, say this because I freely admit to MMI in my own play and GMing of 5e and yet still seem to enjoy the exercise (I honestly do not see how you can avoid it without completely changing the core system).

Noting what the system does isn't a claim to how a table plays because that table may have a social contract that sets constraints around use of GM authority or the table may have some strong guiding principles of play to do the constraining. That's been my through-line point the entire thread:

5e has strong MMI structure, be aware so you don't step in that pothole at your table.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Starting with an agreement that I'm acting in bad faith is not a good start.

Following by insisting that MMI be dysfunction, when that is a contested point and one I vehemently disagree with isn't getting better.

It is a terrible choice of a term for supposedly neutral descriptor of non-dysfunctional state, and it is no wonder if people have hard time believing that person who insist that they're using it so is not arguing in good faith.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To me, supposing that it's actually degenerate and they just haven't noticed, seems less probable (and less productive) than supposing that folk have differing preferences... something we know to be true in practically every other form of cultural activity!

I'm not saying they haven't noticed. I'm saying that either it happened and it wasn't egregious enough to bother, or they experienced it but couldn't identify what the issue was, or they did understand what the issue was and deployed a coping strategy to deal with it.

Because this theory explains things like Tetrasodium's frustration over being a DM—explicitly the one with all the power in your theory—and yet feeling powerless, browbeaten, and coerced into never doing anything merely disliked for fear of player revolt. It explains how a game can be so thoroughly DM-centric and yet leave DMs feeling "depowered" (Tetrasodium's term), feeling bludgeoned by the social contract, "if you don't give me everything I want you're a MONSTER" type stuff.

As far as I can tell, your view is incapable of explaining how a DM could fall into such a situation, other than by airily waving it off as "oh that's just different preferences, the game itself has nothing whatsoever to do with it." Which is, as I said, a sticking point: I am simply not going to accept any position which refuses to grant a meaningful consideration of the structure of the game itself. Play-culture and participants matter, I recognize that. But game design does too. Game design is one of the most important factors for what kind of play-culture develops, and participants (and their preferences) often change contextually dependent upon game design. When I play 4e, I only "optimize" to the extent of trying to do my job well or trying to mitigate any weaknesses I have knowingly taken on (e.g. I like playing Paladins with 16 Str and 16 Cha as their post-racial starting stats, because that gives me higher secondary stats, so I compensate by using accurate weapons and attacks.) I do so because 4e is balanced and teamwork-focused. When I play PF1e, I go balls-to-the-walls gonzo, because the system isn't remotely balanced and is absolutely focused in juicing up your personal contributions, not on teamwork nor synergy.

And to directly address the thread title: this position, which to me you seem to keep coming back to, is how I would define "Mother May I" in 5e D&D.

Extremely well said. Only quoting this last bit to keep things shorter.

There's no doubt in my mind that players who have such feelings are going to experience MMI. Now consider a player who experiences the same stimulus (above it was the DM placing an antimagic field), but instead his feelings are more like one of the below:

• It makes sense this would have happened
• I love how the DM has crafted a world that's challenging and surprising to me
• I trust there are good reasons I'm not yet privy to for why the DM blocks me

It's hard to see this player experiencing MMI - or if the claim is that MMI occurred for both, then reactions to it are going to be fundamentally different.

Note, though, that only one of these things actually rests on player preferences or culture of play: "I love [what the DM has done.]" Both of the other two are specifically about the DM constraining herself, active actions on the DM's part. One is by scrupulously sticking to what makes sense, which is one of DW's Principles: "Make a move that follows." (It's also connected to others, e.g. "Start and end in the fiction," and to more general stuff like "exploit your prep.") The other is self-restraint by way of getting, and keeping, player trust, coded into DW rules by such things as the direct admonishment to obey the rules (DW does not have a Rule Zero), and written into the Principles and Agendas with stuff like "Be a fan of the characters" and "Play to find out what happens."

So...you basically seem to be admitting that the DM needs to be running the way a good DW GM would run, but they do so as they like, with no guidance or assistance for achieving that, and no guardrails to keep them on the path. It is that "as they like" which is my problem, and the rather dogged insistence that the presence of this stuff (principles etc.) actually in the rules never ever has any impact on the experience of play, that bothers me about the "perception-centric" model.

As an old-timer, this reads like "Why did so many players put up with hyperauthoritarian GMs?" as was expressed about a lot of GMs in the early part of the hobby, and the answer is pretty much the same:

Because they figure that's just how it is, don't like it but still want to play, and don't think they'll get anything different elsewhere.

Indeed. Ignorance of an issue is not required for putting up with said issue even when one truly does have an issue. It can be a host of reasons.

I know "no gaming is better than bad gaming" is a common view, but for many people, depending on how how bad "bad" is, that's simply not true; they'll put up with things that annoy them significantly because they still get enough value out of gaming to do so. Its easy to forget that just because something isn't a deal-breaker for someone, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Yep. I've said pretty much exactly this, though perhaps not as concisely!

In D&D players do not have to ask the DM's permission to have their PCs try or do something.

My experience of 5e and the experiences I have heard of from a great many people indicate that it is in fact played this way, where the DM expects players to always ask if they are allowed to do things. This is why every single advice thread started by a player gets a warning to "ask your DM." Because asking one's DM is in fact required.

Yes I am. Except that it's not "my end." The social contract is both sides. That's why it's a CONTRACT.

Except it isn't. Did you, or anyone, sign it? Agree to it before witnesses, in the case of oral contracts? Does it have clauses and definitions and prescribed behavior, with penalties for failure to behave as such? Does it have proscribed behavior, with penalties for engaging in such behavior?

This is the fundamental flaw of social contract theory. It tries to apply an area of law and philosophy built around explicit definitions and explicit consent, but uses something presumed, undefined, and (most importantly) not actually involving explicit consent. You cannot be bound by a contract you never explicitly agreed to! That's literally one of the most fundamental concepts in contract law.

It doesn't matter what they think. The social contract is more binding and important than any rule in the game and violating it a greater offense to those playing. DMs that violate the social contract are bad DMs and will lose their players.

I agree that it is more binding and important. But did you actually talk it out with them? Did you specify what parts of the agreement were or were not present? Because if you didn't, if you left it up to interpretation, or (so-called) common sense, or (so-called) respect, or whatever else, then yes, it DOES "matter what they think." Because you entered with your expectations of what should be in that contract, and they entered with theirs, and neither of you actually confirmed that those expectations were the same. Yet you handed over trust and authority to them anyway.

It's possible some participants would be fine with that and see it as all very parsimonious and rule-abiding, and that just the same other participants will with perfect justice by their lights see it as egregious.

Again, this emphasis on perspective über alles seems to completely dismiss any part that game design could even possibly have, and fails to address the issues brought up by Tetrasodium and Malmuria.

If the GM allowed me to pick the background, and then decided after play began that there are no commoners… well I’d say that’s just about the most extreme instance of MMI that I can imagine.

Yep, absolutely. This is covert MMI, pretty cut and dried, especially if the DM knew that there would never be any commonfolk in his game. It strains the bounds of credulity that one could run a D&D game with even a remotely "typical" tone (fantasy adventures in pseudo-medieval faux-Europe) and yet purely by accident never have even a single commoner appear in any context that could be useful to the player. Either I am expected to just meekly accept that the DM totally accidentally neutered an important choice I made, or...what, leave? Or else, as noted, push back, make demands, actually try to enforce the social contract in the open.

This reflects a pattern I've seen a lot here. There is a degree of mandated trust expected in almost all of these conversations that I just don't believe is warranted. If you intend to be a dungeon master, you must earn your players' trust, and you must maintain that trust. You cannot then turn around and say, "come on, don't you trust me?" Trust cannot simultaneously be something earned and something demanded.

 

[tetrasodium]

I do think much of the disagreement surrounds how player declarations are made in the game (whether you are trying to do something or setting up a broader conclusion). But I think that very much connects to notions surrounding GM power and the role of players and GMs.



I think this actually varies a lot and there is an implied "I try" here in the vast majority of cases. If you are using miniatures you might just move your mini 15 feet. But the GM can always say 'you can't because x" and if the game doesn't use miniatures, you may well see players taking more of an "I try" phrasing. And again even if they aren't literally saying a try, that is implied when you say something like "I hit it with my sword". You know that saying you hit it with your sword isn't making the attack automatically succeed in any way, the GM and dice still ultimately determine whether your blow lands.



Part of the issue may be this Rustic Hospitality ability is clouding things because it seems to be giving players clear powers (if I understand the ability). I am honestly still trying to understand what this ability is and how it is normally used. And I would say even in the most rulings over rules game, you would tend to not invoke it to countermand a player ability like a spell unless there was good reason (for example if a player tries to use lighting, I wouldn't suddenly say to them "this never came up but by the way the room is filled with flammable gas so you take 6d10 damage in the attempt and it fails to hit its target" unless that was something that was clearly established). But certainly something like a PC power isn't a thing I would consider inviolable in that respect if the situation warranted the GM intervening (and I think the two chief reasons for doing that usually are something like "it makes no sense or contradicts something that happened OR it goes against the spirit of the game: I.E. the rules don't say you can't combine those two things for that crazy outcome you are seeking but I doubt that was the intention of the design)."

You do seem to understand the ability but what it does is much worse than RH simply giving players" powers".

Spoiler: Folk Hero & Feature: Rustic Hospitality

Folk Hero
You come from a humble social rank, but you are destined for so much more. Already the people of your home village regard you as their champion, and your destiny calls you to stand against the tyrants and monsters that threaten the common folk everywhere.

Since you com e from the ranks of the com m on folk, you fit in among them with ease. You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate am ong other commoners, unless you have show n 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.

The problem is a subtle one that comes from 5e's toxic blending of trad & neotrad gameplay for players & players only. Often that crashes into violations of the gameplay loop spelled out on page 6

Spoiler: Here that is

1. The DM describes the environment. The DM
tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s
around them, presenting the basic scope of options that
present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room ,
what’s on a table, w ho’s in the tavern, and so on).

2. The players describe what they want to do. Some
tim es one player speaks for the whole party, saying,
“We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times,
different adventurers do different things: one adventurer
might search a treasure chest while a second examines
an esoteric sym bol engraved on a wall and a third keeps
watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take
turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides
how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer
wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM
might just say that the door opens and describe what
lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor
might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance
might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete
a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens,
often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results
of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’
actions. Describing the results often leads to another
decision point, which brings the flow of the game right
back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cau
tiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or
locked in mortal com bat against a mighty dragon. In
certain situations, particularly combat, the action is
m ore structured and the players (and DM) do take turns
choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time,
play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances
o f the adventure.
Often the action of an adventure takes place in the
imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM ’s
verbal descriptions to set the scene. S om e DMs like to
use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the
mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different
voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other
characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM
might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures
to represent each creature involved in a scene to help
the players keep track o f where everyone is.

RH violates the play loop with implied flavortext & to some degree the mechanics themselves but only does so in one direction. When you break it down it falls like this:

• You come from a humble social rank, but you are destined for so much more.
  • Ok, nothing exciting so far, this could be said of almost any PC so is fluff for the sake of filling whitespace with no consequence.
  • .
• Already the people of your home village regard you as their champion
  • Wow this is a thing limited to your home village and no further right? Sounds like a pretty limited but maybe useful level 1 ability that might be good for a game that draws out & really focuses on the newbie experience unless the game is going to be focused there... right?
• and your destiny calls you to stand against the tyrants and monsters that threaten the common folk everywhere
  • Wait. The play loop is 1:dm describes the environment>2: Player describes an action>3:dm describes the results. This background has not even gotten to mechanics and is already violating the play loop with an inversion of step1 by implying that tyrants & monsters exist in sufficient quantities for commonfolk "everywhere" are so desperate for you specifically to do those things to the point where that alone makes you a "folk 'hero'," with serious mechanical benefits. Sadly it gets worse as RH continues.
• .
  • No that's not a typo, the rest of the fluff after the word everywhere was a period. No neotrad type responsibilities or complications but plenty of implications inverting the playloop & it's going to get worse.

After that there's a defining moment & some examples, none of that's really an issue in this case & it's not really relevant so on to the RH feature itself

• Since you come from the ranks of the common folk, you fit in among them with ease.
  • Really? what page is "common folk" defined on? does this also mean that you don't fit in among the nobility? What about the aristocratic professional & merchant class?.. it's simply a vague blank cheque assigned to the player that's been issued by everyone in the world but nobility & probably also the staff of nobility.
• You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners,
  • When was this ever a thing players could not do? Why is this totally mundane activity such a special thing that it needs a special ability to call it out? Here's the second inversion of the play loop however. It doesn't say that you know good ways of doing that or similar, RH simply jumps to step3 and allows the player to describe the result of the player handwaving steps 1 & 2 simply because there are "commoners" around.
• unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them.
  • Did the author of this ability never play d&d before? D&D PCs are effectively the equivalent of a modern Carrier Strike Group capable of intimidating rescuing or leveling towns cities & perhaps entire nations simply as a thing they do during their 9-5 job. Murderhobo is a term given form by d&d, weirdly we can skirt around that for a bit in this repeat inversion of the playloop & copntinue to the more egregious part.
    
    How far does this go though? Is the player showing themselves to be a threat simply by existing & walking around with enough power to slaughter this entire town like when theydid so in Thundertree after declaring the inhabitants "cultists" in service to an "evil" dragon(lmnop)? Are we just going to all pretend that NPCs in the world don't realize that you regularly Act. Like. Kore. What about the fact that you might need the rest because you just did this or this for regular work?
• They will shield you from the law
  • Wow! By choosing this background the player has defined a pretty key bit of motivations & lines of what an NPC considers acceptable. In a Trad game that alone would be a huge boon as an ability. In a neotrad game that would almost certainly come with a lot of responsibilities strings & themes/tropes that limit it but it comes with none of that & it's already imposed mind control on NPCs while defining a lot of the world & repeatedly inverting the play loop. This world spanning character creation level ability firmly launches into the territory of a ninth level spell.
• or[shield you from] anyone else searching for you,
  • Wow.... Remember that time the barrista hid Thor in the back room from Thanos's troops?... yea I don't either.. This is just getting worse & it's still not done
• though they will not risk their lives for you.
  • We are almost back to the normal playloop where the GM describes something as step2 but we've already established the player action long ago when we started inverting the playloop & jump straight to step3 where the gm now gets to narrate the results after the player became temporary gm for the purposes of allowing them to hit & probably complete the command console style long rest button.
    • The new long rest wording of "at least 8 hours", but it's still phrased in a way where the GM needs to claw back when it makes sense rather than allowing the GM to be benevolent when it makes sense.

5e is rife with these kind of social contract backed clubs that sideline the GM to invert the playloop at no cost or responsibility to the PC. The new (and old) elven trance is a good example that I covered earlier in 1108. There's often plenty of ambiguity baked in for the player to leverage when expanding these kind of abilities but the area left to the GM is often limited to"no I'm disallowing/nullifying your ability"