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

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think it should be unbounded and I think everyone at the table should be accountable to everyone else.

My guess is most of us would agree on this in some sense (I'm certainly not advocating for any player or for the GM to be dismissive, rude, cruel or unaccountable to others at the table). I think we would just disagree over how formalized it ought to be, if it ought to be formalized at all. There are a lot of concepts like this I find entirely unobjectionable but I don't think need to be codified into the books because I think they are best handled by the culture of the group, and it isn't usually one size fits all.

 

[Cadence]

I am sure Pemerton or someone else can give a page number but I seem to recall page 42 was very important in 4E (can't recall exactly the details around it though).

It is the answer to life the universe and everything.


Looks like you have a good memory though, in the DMG it has the following. Thank you!

 

[Thomas Shey]

IME there is usually a problem those "social" characters who choose you automatically succeed /have a henchman to do x type abilities that directly causes them to get obliviated. Specifically the character is very much not at all "social" and the player has little if any interest in being one. From there the gm winds up with this horrible Frank Castle (punisher) /Goblin Slayer hybrid gestalted with Tony Stark & Bruce Wayne that expects to be treated as whichever of the four when one is most convenient at any given time and none when one is inconvenient but never expected to actually put in any effort or sacrifice to maintain any of the balance

You know, man, while I entirely believe you've had problems here, you do realize that responding to every thing that might empower a player as though all players (or even the majority) are massively abusive, and if not managed carefully will do the worst things for the game possible at every opportunity isn't a good look, right? Its right up there with assuming every single GM ever is looking for an opportunity to bring the hammer down and knock the players into line if they step even an inch out of what they expect.

Basically, if its not hyperbole, its pretty indistinguishable from it from the outside.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think any argument that says people like a particular style or don't because they lack intelligence or have some kind of dysfunction isn't a good one and not accurate.

This isn’t even in the same universe as what I said. Not even close.

Again, I’m speaking in defense of those modes of play for 3 particular cohorts (and their overlap).

My posts are saying NOTHING about those modes play and their merits outside of those cohorts.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This isn’t even in the same universe as what I said. Not even close.

Again, I’m speaking in defense of those modes of play for 3 particular cohorts (and their overlap).

My posts are saying NOTHING about those modes play and their merits outside of those cohorts.

I'm not accusing you of saying that (I actually went back when it first came up and tried to decipher the posts in question, and in all honesty I couldn't really understand what was being said, which is why I said I hadn't really formed any conclusion on your intentions in the post and didn't plan to think too deep on it). I merely mentioned the point about intelligence and play style to make clear to Clearstream my position on that subject: it wasn't meant to be a description of what you were saying or trying to say. So apologies on that front

 

[Thomas Shey]

Edit: You know what, never mind. I don't think my getting my oar into this exchange again is going to improve the path it seems like its going down.

 

[James Gasik]

To me, this reads like a description of how (some? many?) GMs find themselves adjudicating in a Mother May I fashion.

Now, it may be that there are some DM's out there who are quite witty and can make rulings on the fly without problem.

It's only been my experience, in the 3-ish decades I've played TTRPG's, that DM's tend to react less than 100% when someone produces an X factor they didn't account for out of nowhere. A player suddenly asks if he can use an ability or magic item in an unorthodox way, or wants to combine some abilities to pull off what they feel is a cool stunt, or aim a decanter of endless water down the throat of a white dragon as it attempts to breathe a blast of super cold air- anytime you need a ruling, especially a favorable one, again, it's been my experience that the DM's first inclination isn't so say "yes, of course".

YMMV. But I know I myself, when someone produces an unexpected variable, my brain immediately asks itself a few questions.

Does this sound plausible?
Or balanced?
Do I want to set a precedent?
Do I see any problems with this down the road?

And I'm more conservative than I want to be.

A story I remember at times like this was when my friend Eric, a new DM who would come to me for advice, would complain that players always wanted to use the powers and abilities on their sheet, and never wanted to try anything creative.

I explained to him the reasons why, but he didn't seem to get what I was saying.

So I said "Hey, remember last session, when Drew wanted his Ranger to, instead of shoot two arrows into bad guys, shoot some ropes so the net over the bad guys (we were fighting on a ship, and the netting was specifically described to us) would fall on them? And you said he had to make two difficult Dex checks, and then you let the enemies make checks, and the result was the enemies were slowed, when they were in charge range of people they could attack? Seems to me that just shooting a bad guy and killing him faster would have been more effective, no?"

I'd like to say, just like a Zen koan, "and then he was enlightened". Not sure if I got the point across, but he stopped complaining at least.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Does this sound plausible?
Or balanced?
Do I want to set a precedent?
Do I see any problems with this down the road?

This, of course, can be a big issue. Because for all of my critique of GMs who are overly conservative for no obvious good reason, your third and fourth questions are not trivial. It'd be nice if everyone was willing to accept "You know that thing I did with the situation with the forest and the oil flasks last time? That was probably a bad idea and will tend to lead to degenerate solutions to a lot of problems if it becomes a de-facto houserule, so while I'm not going to try and do any kind of take-back on it, we're not going to do that that way again if it comes up." but many people aren't. And its even worse if you don't think about it any further until the next time it comes up (and worse yet if its a different player who tries it the second time).

So perhaps some people and/or in some systems you can be really casual about this sort of thing, but its not a universal.

 

[James Gasik]

This, of course, can be a big issue. Because for all of my critique of GMs who are overly conservative for no obvious good reason, your third and fourth questions are not trivial. It'd be nice if everyone was willing to accept "You know that thing I did with the situation with the forest and the oil flasks last time? That was probably a bad idea and will tend to lead to degenerate solutions to a lot of problems if it becomes a de-facto houserule, so while I'm not going to try and do any kind of take-back on it, we're not going to do that that way again if it comes up." but many people aren't. And its even worse if you don't think about it any further until the next time it comes up (and worse yet if its a different player who tries it the second time).

So perhaps some people and/or in some systems you can be really casual about this sort of thing, but its not a universal.

Yeah, I mean, I can't judge anyone who reacts this way, as I said, I've done it more than I care to. I always tell my players to come to me first about stuff like this, and maybe I can help them make it work.

But instead, they always want to spring this stuff on me out of the blue, and then complain if I shoot it down.

 

[tetrasodium]

You know, man, while I entirely believe you've had problems here, you do realize that responding to every thing that might empower a player as though all players (or even the majority) are massively abusive, and if not managed carefully will do the worst things for the game possible at every opportunity isn't a good look, right? Its right up there with assuming every single GM ever is looking for an opportunity to bring the hammer down and knock the players into line if they step even an inch out of what they expect.

Basically, if its not hyperbole, its pretty indistinguishable from it from the outside.

I may have been less clear than I intended & caused misunderstanding, My post was talking about the reason why I usually wind up shutting down those abilities when I feel the need not the reason why players choose them. The post has been edited to reflect that. If we are talking about things that a gm should not do is there a reason that we shouldn't also talk about things that sometimes cause them to do it while behaving quite reasonably?

It's entirely possible for a player todo these kinds of things without even realizing it because 5e is written in a way that does not present any advice or responsibility to players. I don't believe that the players I've seen do those kinds of things because they want to be abusive or toxic. I think that it's more because they are often newer & given guidance from wotc that is lacking in areas that might have set them off to a better start had it not been given.

I'm not sure post #1679 reads like a "thing that might empower a player" though, it seems more "gms shouldn't do this because roleplaying is good". There's been plenty of calls for quotes from the DMG that show various things the gm is expected to do but I don't believe any for players & the PHB. Much of the quotes from the PHB seem to have been things showing why a gm is not making a bad call when they do one thing or another. Can you quote some PHB guidance that helps guide & encourage players to be positive elements working towards a well functioning game? Maybe something like the rule zero justification max posted earlier?