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

[EzekielRaiden]

This is where we aren't going to agree I think. In my view, his concept is flawed. Is he going to expect to be able to start a fire underwater or in a vacuum? I don't think he is, so "under any conditions" becomes "under many conditions."

Don't be ridiculous. Clearly "under any circumstances he could physically reach." This kind of sophistry in argument is, again, exactly what MMI-favoring DMs use to undercut perfectly reasonable ideas specifically so they can gut things they don't approve of without sounding like they're literally just shutting the player down. It's an almost perfect demonstration of covert MMI by way of making something impotent. "Oh, you thought you could use your wilderness survival skills to survive in this desert wilderness? Sorry honey, this isn't that kind of game. You can only use your wilderness survival skills in safe wilderness. Shouldn't have expected to be able to use it in dangerous places! That's just silly of you."

Using unreasonable extremes to justify other unreasonable extremes isn't kosher.

 

[Maxperson]

These two paragraphs sound absolutely contradictory.

"You have no right to expect the game to change!"
"If you have a minor issue, ask about it later and see if it's important. If you have a major issue, bring it up quickly, hopefully it can be changed."

Not contradictory at all. Discuss politely afterwards and see if everyone is on board is not "expect it to change for me."

 

[Maxperson]

Don't be ridiculous. Clearly "under any circumstances he could physically reach."

Exactly. He cannot physically reach making a fire in a baren wastelands without fuel. Glad we are in agreement, because that's exactly what I am saying.

 

[tetrasodium]

Don't be ridiculous. Clearly "under any circumstances he could physically reach." This kind of sophistry in argument is, again, exactly what MMI-favoring DMs use to undercut perfectly reasonable ideas specifically so they can gut things they don't approve of without sounding like they're literally just shutting the player down.

Using unreasonable extremes to justify other unreasonable extremes isn't kosher.

Quite a few PC races are amphibio0us & can breathe water. The waterbreathing spell is even a ritual spell. How hard is it for one of those to be underwater & want to take a rest? If the ability is worded too favorably towards giving the PC authority to seize step 3 from the gm it creates those problems max raised in both obviously impossible as well as borderline cases where the gm needs to "mmi enforce the rules" over the hopes of a player given unreasonable expectations

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My experience(admittedly limited) with those kinds of flexible rules is that generally those rules that cover lots of situations don't cover them completely. So if a rule covers 4 situations, it might cover one of them 100%, another of them 85% accurately, the third 75% accurately, and the last 80% accurately. I'd rather there be 4 different rules and cover all of them better. Or leave it to the DM to make rulings.

A rule that covers four situations isn't the kind of rule I'm talking about.

I'm talking about a rule that covers a nigh-infinite set of conceptually related concepts.

As was noted above, the idea of the ability check is in that direction, but it's too vague. Bare ability checks with no further information aren't enough to meet the standard. You need:

1. Ways players can hook into it so they can represent salient situations (advantages, training, contextual benefits or costs, etc.)
2. Clear baselines for the meaning of the actions involved (e.g. Athletics DCs for breaking down doors of various materials, DCs to determine how difficult it is to lie to someone or to sneak past someone etc. based on the level of the person lied to or situation, etc.)
3. A consistent mathematical structure for extrapolating what you could do from what you already know you can do, and
4. Clear descriptions (with examples) of how broad and applicable the rule is to a variety of situations.

4e's Page 42 is an example of this. It provides target numbers for both skills and combat improvisation. Add in 4e's specific and explicit intent to keep skill use extremely open-ended (as opposed to 5e's closed-ended skill uses, resulting from its overall 3e-based way of describing and adjudicating skills), plus the specific advice to let players expend their resources (items and powers) to affect their results, and you've got it made. The Skills Challenge rules then add yet another extensible framework, as applicable to complex skill-based encounters as attack rolls are to complex physical-action encounters (e.g. many exploration challenges can make use of "combat' rules like initiative, ranged and melee attacks, cover, etc. despite not being about "fighting" anyone.)

Skill Challenges work just as well for chase scenes as they do for negotiation scenes or puzzle-solving or "casing the joint" or "sneak through undetected" or "MacGuyver up a jury-rigged solution" etc. One rule, which covers a nigh-infinite variety of situations in a consistent and effective way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Exactly. He cannot physically reach making a fire in a baren wastelands without fuel. Glad we are in agreement, because that's exactly what I am saying.

BS. How is he reaching this "barren wasteland" that is SO barren it literally has no plant life whatsoever? How did he get to this place without DYING FIRST?

Like I said: this is the logic used to justify covert MMI.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not contradictory at all. Discuss politely afterwards and see if everyone is on board is not "expect it to change for me."

Why on earth would you discuss it if you don't expect it to change?! That's lunacy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Quite a few PC races are amphibio0us & can breathe water. The waterbreathing spell is even a ritual spell. How hard is it for one of those to be underwater & want to take a rest? If the ability is worded too favorably towards giving the PC authority to seize step 3 from the gm it creates those problems max raised in both obviously impossible as well as borderline cases where the gm needs to "mmi enforce the rules" over the hopes of a player given unreasonable expectations

....

This is exactly what I mean, Max.

This is exactly covert MMI, in action, before our very eyes.

"I don't like the idea that an amphibious being would try to take a rest in the water, despite that being the clear result of the text as written. I am forced to simply tell the player they can't do that even though that's what their abilities tell them they can do."

How on earth is this anything like "wasteland so barren it has literally nothing in it"? This is straight-up "there's water, I can breathe water, why can't I rest in it?" And Tetrasodium dislikes that, so the answer is no. Doesn't matter what the rules say. Doesn't matter that it's perfectly plausible (note, @Maxperson, I have ALWAYS said things like "plausible" or "reasonable" here, so your harping on patently ridiculous things was already and consistently addressed long ago.) All that matters is, Tetrasodium doesn't like it, so it doesn't fly.

What other thing could this possibly be?

 

[tetrasodium]

....

This is exactly what I mean, Max.

This is exactly covert MMI, in action, before our very eyes.

"I don't like the idea that an amphibious being would try to take a rest in the water, despite that being the clear result of the text as written. I am forced to simply tell the player they can't do that even though that's what their abilities tell them they can do."

How on earth is this anything like "wasteland so barren it has literally nothing in it"? This is straight-up "there's water, I can breathe water, why can't I rest in it?" And Tetrasodium dislikes that, so the answer is no. Doesn't matter what the rules say. Doesn't matter that it's perfectly plausible (note, @Maxperson, I have ALWAYS said things like "plausible" or "reasonable" here, so your harping on patently ridiculous things was already and consistently addressed long ago.) All that matters is, Tetrasodium doesn't like it, so it doesn't fly.

What other thing could this possibly be?

The hypothetical ability max was referencing and suggested better wording to is what opened the door & rolled out the red carpet for the water breathing player to make an unreasonable action declaration of starting a fire under water. 5e is full of things like that

 

[Maxperson]

BS. How is he reaching this "barren wasteland" that is SO barren it literally has no plant life whatsoever? How did he get to this place without DYING FIRST?

Walked, teleported, whatevered, but if he didn't take fuel with him, it's not there per the DM description of the environment. So why is the player acting in bad faith and trying to light a fire without fuel? Even if there are a few plants, you aren't making a fire out of them. Even if you could get them lit, the fire would burn out in about 3.2 seconds. You need sustainable fuel for a fire.