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

[Maxperson]

What if the GM decides that an anti-magic zone is present? Which is an example discussed in this thread over the past few pages.

If it was there for some reason, then the attempt will fail. If the DM just decides to put one there in order to say no, then he is acting in extreme bad faith and violating the social contract.

Here are some: in 5e D&D the player has no authority to invoke the mechanics

How do you figure? If I tell the DM that I swing my sword at the barkeep, not only do I do it, but I have invoked the combat rules. The DM has to ask me to roll initiative and roll for the barkeep, as well as anyone else who will be in the fight. If I tell the DM that I am jumping over the 10 foot pit and I have a 15 strength, I have invoked the jumping rule which says that I automatically jump 15 feet with no roll.

in 5e D&D the GM is not obliged to set a DC and call for a check - the GM is authorised to say "yes" or "no" having regard to their view of what is likely or possible in the fiction

This is true, but a yes still gives the player what he was after and he achieves his goal, just the same as a successful roll does. And if the task is impossible, the player shouldn't be making the attempt in the first place. Excepting of course the player knowing he is going to fail and his PC making a deliberately futile effort as part of his roleplaying.

if a 5e D&D GM does call for a check, the core play loop does not require the GM to honour intent on a success, only task.

Why would the DM act in bad faith and not honor the intent?

 

[pemerton]

This instructs players to be proactive. And it is good advice! But I don't think that some mechanics (such as most ability checks) are in 5e technically declared by the GM rather than the player is particularly big difference in practice. In actual play the players often declare actions which effectively require the GM to either grant a check (or sometimes autosuccess.)


Is it though? In most instance it is pretty much the same. The player declares an action in order to accomplish something, the GM sets the DC, the dice are rolled to determine whether the character succeeds. Now in Burning Wheel the DCs are way more steep, so the GMs decision has higher impact on the odds of success and it is easier to set unreachable DCs.

I've already replied to @Maxperson, and you can read that reply.

What I'll add here is that I have never seen an account of 5e D&D play that looks remotely like what I experience in Burning Wheel play. And I am not surprised: 5e D&D makes the GM "the lead storyteller" and does not give players the authority (at the level of principle or mechanics) to shape the shared fiction in the way that Burning Wheel does. For instance, there is no principle in 5e D&D equivalent to "say 'yes' or roll the dice". There are no analogues to Circles, or Wises, or Relationships. (The closest we get to that last category is something like Rustic Hospitality, which you have said upthread is not a good fit with the core of 5e D&D!) There are no analogues to "Intent and Task" and "Let it Ride".

Here are some actual play examples: the GM had framed my characters (knight PC + wizard sidekick) into an encounter with some Elves. I had zero interest in Elves, but had as a goal to try and liberate my ancestral estate. So I started a Duel of Wits to try and persuade the Elven Captain to ride with me to my estate, to deal with the evil forces there. I lost the DoW, but the mere fact that I was able to start it, and thus to shift the focus of play away from the GM's concerns and onto mine, is a difference from 5e D&D.

My sidekick had a goal to find spellbooks. And so she said - in character - that she seemed to recall Evard's Tower being around here. I had the GM set the obstacle for the Great Masters-wise test, and succeeded. This established, as part of the shared fiction, that Evard's Tower was nearby. Later on, when we returned to my estate, I wanted my PC to meet with his brother. I declared (in character) that I was keeping an eye out for my brother, whom I hadn't seen since I left to join my order. I made a Circles check, which succeeded, and the GM framed us into an encounter with my brother. 5e D&D has no equivalents to these sorts of action declarations.

 

[pemerton]

Why would the DM act in bad faith and not honor the intent?

Ask @hawkeyefan's GM!

 

[pemerton]

If it was there for some reason, then the attempt will fail. If the DM just decides to put one there in order to say no, then he is acting in extreme bad faith and violating the social contract.

I don't know what you mean by "for some reason".

The GM can always make up some fiction behind the scenes that will make the anti-magic zone make sense. What are the constraints on that? According to most accounts of the core play loop in this thread, there are none!

if the task is impossible, the player shouldn't be making the attempt in the first place. Excepting of course the player knowing he is going to fail and his PC making a deliberately futile effort as part of his roleplaying.

I don't know what you mean by "if the task is impossible". Who decides that? On what basis? Is it possible for my 1st level wizard to climb the Cliffs of Insanity? Is it possible for my knight to persuade the Elven Captain to lead his forces south to liberate my ancestral estate?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Tight math doesn't point to OC play as much, as it does to OSR or classic in that it's very much focused on fair challenges for skilled play.

As someone who is pretty "neo-trad" in interests, at least from what I've read of it, I may be able to clarify the link here. "Tight math" means I can relax. I don't have to stress about whether I'm going to be a dead weight because of a dumb choice I made six levels ago. I still need to make wise choices, but those choices are usually not hard to identify and are easy to address if I did err. Much more important are the choices I make moment to moment in combat, how I help bolster my team and advance our goals.

Because I can stop worrying about performance, I can dedicate more of my time and interest to story. I can explore directions I would have ignored before, because I can be confident that either they won't hurt the team. If they create a weakness, I can address it, or coordinate with others to ameliorate it. If they spread my focus out, that's fine, because my core competencies remain. Etc.

It's less that "tight math" serves my neo-trad preferences, and more that it eliminates distractions so I can focus on those preferences more.

I am just not seeing it. I can see how it could be become a game of mother may I. I don't think "Could become" means "is" though, or naturally leads to the conclusion that "It has a strong MMI structure".

This is the argument I asked not to be used earlier. I won't respond to it as I did before, so I will try a different analogy.

Let's say you're in the house construction business. Someone, let's say me, wants a house built on some lovely beachfront property they just acquired in a bequest. I have you examine the site where I want the house, as it will give the best view of the ocean. You determine that this is a bad place to build a house, because the bedrock is very deep, and above it is a layer of pumice stone, clays, and material that is very likely to settle unevenly. You could dig deep enough to set the foundation on bedrock, but it would be an expensive and laborious undertaking. You recommend that I consider a different location.

Instead, I respond, "I understand how you could see this location that could become affected with settling and possible damage resulting from it. But just because it could become beset by those problems doesn't mean it is a place with a severely unsteady foundation."

That is my problem with this argument. You are relying on the fact that problems are not 100% guaranteed in order to dismiss any and all structural effects on this issue. Structure, game design, can still be a vital and determinative factor even when problems are not guaranteed to occur.

I just don't think is true if we understand MMI in broad sense like it seems to be applied to 5e by some posters. Examples of GM adjudication and approval for actions being required in Apoc World were provided. And IIRC in Burning Wheel the GM has to make all sort of adjudication regarding PC actions too. For example setting the difficulty for tasks which in BW scale way more steeply than in 5e, thus making that part of GM adjudication more impactful.

What examples were these? I gave DW examples and those did not involve "GM approval" for reasons I laid out. Any AW examples would have come from Pemerton himself as I understand it. Where were these you speak of?

BTW, on of the underlying trend of these discussions is that some people seem to want the rules of the game to protect the players from bad GMs. I don't need that, it is not a valuable quality in RPG for me. Why? Because I'm not a bad GM nor I would play with a bad GM in the first place. I am far more interested in the game providing tools that good (or adequate) GMs can use to make their games even better and run them smoothly.

It is a valuable quality for others. Particularly when the game is growing at the astounding rate 5e has. Why does its presence hurt you?

But there is a more fundamental issue here. You are asserting a dichotomy: that rules which "protect the players from bad GMs" are wholly different from rules/tools which "good (or adequate) GMs can use to make their games run even better and run them smoothly." I assert exactly the opposite: that most well-made rules which protect players from bad GMs are in fact rules which help good GMs, and which make it easier for merely adequate GMs to become good ones.

Again, I think getting lost in MMI as a term isn't helpful at all. We are better off talking about the things beneath why it is being used as a term. But I would still say it isn't accurate to me because MMI is pure fiat, is orientated around binary Yes and No, and leans heavily on No. D&D includes fiat as an option, but it isn't how the GM is expected resolve every actions and the GM isn't expected to act as a thwarter in chief, but more of a facilitator of play.

Can you point to the instructions in 5e which explicitly say this? That is, which tell the GM not to be "thwarter in chief"? Because a lot of people have been defending examples given here as perfectly valid play, and yet which look to my eyes exactly like being a "thwarter in chief."

Perhaps that's a useful acronym here. TIC. What do you think?

I don't know I've played mother may I, and I've played D&D for over 30 years, I don't really see much similarity between them. I can see how someone would feel in a moment of play, "This feels like mother may I" (just like might say "This feels like cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers). I don't think that is a very good analogy for the way authority is structured in the game. The GM is also expected to entertain players and there isn't an expectation that the leader in Mother May I is meant to entertain anyone.

Notice your structure of this concept: "The GM is also expected (by whom? under what authority?) to entertain the players..." So are the players passive consumers of entertainment? There to hear the GM's fantasy novel played out before them? If so then that sounds very much like MMI. Instead, as others have noted, the game seems to actually tell us that it is everyone's job to contribute to an entertaining story, not just a unilateral descent of entertainment from GM to player(s). How is this compatible with the sweeping and seemingly unilateral authority structure people have repeatedly defended in this thread (IIRC including you?), where it is completely within the GM's authority and latitude to override any contribution the player might theoretically make.

Despite the technical authority to do so, the reality is that the DM cannot stop it from happening without destroying the entire game.

Yes. That is literally our point.

The technical authority exists to do this. A meaningful proportion of actual DMs exercise that authority, and claim they are justified in doing so. That is, as you say, destructive to the experience.

 

[Maxperson]

What I'll add here is that I have never seen an account of 5e D&D play that looks remotely like what I experience in Burning Wheel play. And I am not surprised: 5e D&D makes the GM "the lead storyteller" and does not give players the authority (at the level of principle or mechanics) to shape the shared fiction in the way that Burning Wheel does. For instance, there is no principle in 5e D&D equivalent to "say 'yes' or roll the dice". There are no analogues to Circles, or Wises, or Relationships. (The closest we get to that last category is something like Rustic Hospitality, which you have said upthread is not a good fit with the core of 5e D&D!) There are no analogues to "Intent and Task" and "Let it Ride".

Yeah. I don't think anyone is arguing that the play of different RPGs looks the same, unless it's a Pathfinder situation where it's based entirely upon D&D. What we are arguing is that play looking different or even very different, doesn't make D&D play Mother May I.

You will also find some similarities, though. See my responses to you on skill checks and invoking mechanics. D&D may not do it in the same manner as Burning Wheel, but the players have more control than you are asserting and can invoke mechanics by declaring actions that invoke those mechanics.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't know what you mean by "if the task is impossible". Who decides that? On what basis? Is it possible for my 1st level wizard to climb the Cliffs of Insanity? Is it possible for my knight to persuade the Elven Captain to lead his forces south to liberate my ancestral estate?

Who decides that in Burning Wheel? Can the player declare literally anything, and if they roll well enough they get it no matter how absurd? And can't the GM set the DC so high that it is impossible for the player to hit it?

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know what you mean by "for some reason".

The GM can always make up some fiction behind the scenes that will make the anti-magic zone make sense. What are the constraints on that? According to most accounts of the core play loop in this thread, there are none!

If the presence was established prior to the party getting to that spot and rooted in the fiction, then the player will fail. The DM cannot just pop an anti-magic field into place and then coble up some fiction to explain it.

I don't know what you mean by "if the task is impossible". Who decides that? On what basis? Is it possible for my 1st level wizard to climb the Cliffs of Insanity?

The DM decides it ultimately, but the player should have a very, very good idea in advance. I mean, why would the 1st level wizard think that he could climb the Cliffs of Insanity when the best climbers in the world have been coming for generations and failing. Nobody has successfully climbed it yet. If they're lucky, they are able to climb back down and live. If not...

Is it possible for my knight to persuade the Elven Captain to lead his forces south to liberate my ancestral estate?

That one is more difficult, but presumably there were ways to find out if it would be possible or not through roleplaying with him or others. The player should still have a very good idea if it is possible or not.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. That is literally our point.

The technical authority exists to do this. A meaningful proportion of actual DMs exercise that authority, and claim they are justified in doing so. That is, as you say, destructive to the experience.

What is that proportion? I think it's rare for a DM to tell a player, "No you can't climb that easy to climb wall, because I say so."

 

[pemerton]

Who decides that in Burning Wheel? Can the player declare literally anything, and if they roll well enough they get it no matter how absurd? And can't the GM set the DC so high that it is impossible for the player to hit it?

I thought you are familiar with Burning Wheel, given your post above referring to how obstacles are set. If not, you can get the core of the rules for free here: Burning Wheel Gold: Hub and Spokes - Burning Wheel | Burning Wheel | DriveThruRPG.com

There are tables for setting obstacles based on fictional circumstances, comparable to (say) Rolemaster - those tables are not in the free part of the rules but with the skill descriptions and (in the case of Duel of Wits) in the description of the various moves permitted. And there are no difficulties that it is impossible to hit, because Fate points can always be spent to open-end 6s.