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

[Malmuria]

I get what you're saying, but how is this not a defined mechanic?

Position of Privilege​

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.​

If you need to secure an audience with a local noble, you can.

The contrast (in the post you quoted) is between “defined mechanic” and something that is “up for the DM to interpret.” What counts as ‘need’ or an ‘audience’ or ‘local noble’ is not translated into the other mechanics of the game. The contrast would be, “you have advantage on cha checks in x and y situation.”

Similarly, inspiration is a mechanic but they are changing it from it being awarded whenever the DM wants to (in response to the player’s ‘good’ roleplaying to when you roll a natural 20). Whatever people think of the change, it is clear that the latter is more defined.

 

[clearstream]

Upthread I posted this imagined example:

@clearstream said that the rules of 5e D&D require the GM to invoke the combat mechanics in these sorts of contexts:

And subsequently Maxperson posted the following example, which appears to entail the same thing:
But I take it that you (Bedrockgames) don't agree?

I can add that so far as I know there isn't a rule zero in 5e. Perhaps someone else has spotted that text? In many places, DM authority to interpret the rules is stated (hence one of my principles for 5e, "Say what the rules mean and stick to it.")

In theory, a DM could squint at the rules and "interpret" them to not invoke combat. This would be a stretch and far from norms! And I feel they would be effectively suspending the rules in that case because they will have set aside any means within the rules to resolve the action described.

I do think the rules, and not DM, have final say in the case you described. Which I gather to be your point, right?

 

[Maxperson]

@pemerton Here's an example of the difference between that ability and a mechanic.

"FIREBALL

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame."

That is the same as the Noble ability. They're just words that describe something that happens.


"3rd-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 150 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat
guano and sulfur)
Duration: Instantaneous

Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd."

THOSE are the mechanics. They dictate how the description works.

 

[FrogReaver]

one example where many 5e players wouldn’t invoke combat rules (initiative and all) would be in assassinating a sleeping commoner.

 

[Maxperson]

I can add that so far as I know there isn't a rule zero in 5e. Perhaps someone else has spotted that text? In many places, DM authority to interpret the rules is stated (hence one of my principles for 5e, "Say what the rules mean and stick to it.")

In theory, a DM could squint at the rules and "interpret" them to not invoke combat. This would be a stretch and far from norms! And I feel they would be effectively suspending the rules in that case because they will have set aside any means within the rules to resolve the action described.

I do think the rules, and not DM, have final say in the case you described. Which I gather to be your point, right?

Rule 0 exists. The DMG repeats it a half dozen times at least.

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. That says that the DM can change the rules as he sees fit. That said, the DM can't just invoke an auto miss for such an attack without abusing his authority and breaking the social contract.

He could say yes and rule that it's an automatic hit that kills the innkeeper, but short of that the mechanics are going to happen as invoked by the player's declaration.

 

[pemerton]

Would it be bad for 5E if there were rules where the player gets to say "This is what happens" and the GM has to accept it?

Well as you know I think it has these - background abilities. But judging from this thread, GM's apparently ignore or override them on a regular basis! In which case, what would be gained by adding more of them?

This seems to be primarily world building, not a matter of Q&A. The DM world builds a miserly NPC and makes him the town smith. He world builds a kindly old Mayor. And so on. He doesn't know if the players will even encounter these NPCs, or what the players might do when they meet them.

Often a GM does know if the PCs will encounter a NPC. Or has an intention as to whether or not the PCs will encounter certain NPCs. The last NPC I designed (for Torchbearer, which at a sufficient level of abstraction can be said to play somewhat similarly to Moldvay Basic D&D) was dead, but his thoughts and dreams lived on in a dream-haunted Elfstone. I didn't know whether or not the PCs would encounter this NPC, but I certainly hoped that they would! (And they did.)

But whatever exactly the GM's expectation in respect of some particular setting element, the GM is still designing components of a game. The GM, as the designer of those components, seems to me clearly responsible for whether or not they produce enjoyable, worthwhile play.

no one is arguing the DM should on a whim ignore the rules. There should be a good reason, often based on the fiction not aligning to genre/setting expectations due to the game mechanics producing fiction against those expectations in this situation.

Whose expectations about the genre/setting? The GM's?

The fact that a person's experience with 5e has so much table variance never felt like a good thing to me, since it means if you play under multiple DM's, you can never really know what to expect.

I don't see it as a problem that experiences vary from table to table. I'm pretty sure playing Prince Valiant with the late Greg Stafford would be a different (probably better!) experience than playing it with me. I've played 4e D&D with @Manbearcat GMing. It was different from what I ran with my players.

RPGing is a creative pastime. The individuals, plus the way they come together as a group, should make a difference in my view. My personal dislike of "Mother may I" GMing isn't the fact that it affects the play experience, but that it makes for a poor one.

I mean, to look at your jumping example, what's the deep cause of the problem? The fact that D&D measures distances in such a granular fashion! - and therefore requires the GM to be able to form opinions about how hard or easy it is to jump, throw things, hear things, etc at those various specific distances. The issue wouldn't even come up in Prince Valiant, because I'd just say "It's a pretty hard jump - obstacle 3" and then the player would roll Brawn + Agility applying any appropriate penalties for their PC's armour.

 

[Maxperson]

one example where many 5e players wouldn’t invoke combat rules (initiative and all) would be in assassinating a sleeping commoner.

That invokes the attacking an incapacitated target rules. Then it wakes up if it isn't dead. Alternatively, if the PC is an actual assassin using the Assassinate ability, it invokes those rules. After initiative and surprise are determined of course, which are invoked by the combat initiated by the attack.

 

[clearstream]

MMI is a player's feeling of needing the DM's permission to do something in the game.

Great post, and this is for me a straightforward and appealing definition. Where I expect we still will founder is for some, all players are prone to this feeling and so MMI can be objectively ascribed to certain rules and principles (or their lack). Rather than ascribed as subjective (if for many, normal) qualities.

Perhaps we can find easier agreement that expectations and tolerances differ sufficiently that a game designer may reasonably consider what is exchanged in balance depending on the audiences and purposes they have in mind for their system?

 

[clearstream]

Rule 0 exists. The DMG repeats it a half dozen times at least.

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. That says that the DM can change the rules as he sees fit. That said, the DM can't just invoke an auto miss for such an attack without abusing his authority and breaking the social contract.

He could say yes and rule that it's an automatic hit that kills the innkeeper, but short of that the mechanics are going to happen as invoked by the player's declaration.

Can you find specific game text. The DMG has some examples that I find pretty reckless, and one has to decide how to take, but I have not yet found an actual rule zero. It's actually something I would like to clear up, in part because for me personally, the authority to interpret is more than sufficient as regards the extant text.

Additionally, where the text is silent, DM must speak. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of?

 

[pemerton]

IMO, such abilities work perfectly fine as long as the setting is specific enough to go along with them. The problem tends to arise when such abilities don't make sense in some part of the created world. One answer to that would be to create a different world and let the ability work, but that does potentially stifle alot of creativity.

Whose creativity would be stifled?

Another answer to that would be to not have the ability work in the world where fictionally it doesn't make sense. Probably best cared for in session 0, but the issue may not feasibly become apparent until visiting some distant land where nobility works differently.

According to whom?

To me, the most natural reading of your post is that the answer to both questions is the GM. In which case, I don't see how you're setting up a strong argument that the structure of play is not "Mother may I"-inclined.

I mean, if a player chooses as their ability that they are a noble whom other nobles will recognise, then aren't they already positing that there is a fundamental respect in which nobility is not different in distant lands? That's a creative choice too. Why is it not worthy of respect?