Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Do you have any idea how arrogant and condescending that sounds?
D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
- Status
Manbearcat
Legend
Perhaps it may sound that way on the surface, but is it actually though?
Consider this:
I GM 3 weekly games (Blades and Stonetop x 2), a 4th perhaps every 3 weeks (Torchbearer), and a 5th every 8 weeks or so (5e). That is a whole lot of players and a whole lot of minds beyond my own (17).
Now and again in those games, I’ll ask something like “anyone have a good Consequence, Twist, Discovery, or Devil’s Bargain here (that makes sense/is interesting) (?)” and then someone will offer up an idea and I’ll tidy it up as needed to make sure it’s properly mechanized (so opposition integrity is intact).
It’s basically the same deal as above except that instead of an action declaration, it’s me subbing in post-resolution or setting/situation framing fiction because there will certainly be cases at all of those tables where a player (or multiple players) will have a more vibrant imagination than my own in that moment. I can still edit if required (to make sure the opposition integrity is intact).
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I guess the question to ask is:
Can people imagine a sort of world where being a noble means their is a certain nobility and grace that is instantly recognizable by everyone? Basically where the divine right of klngs is very real. I would contend that Middle Earth is such a place as a very prominent example. That Aragorn was the right person to rule because he was the rightful king.
This is not my personally favorite sort of setting, but I think that trope is what the background ability is meant to embody.
Can people imagine a sort of world where being a noble means their is a certain nobility and grace that is instantly recognizable by everyone? Basically where the divine right of klngs is very real. I would contend that Middle Earth is such a place as a very prominent example. That Aragorn was the right person to rule because he was the rightful king.
This is not my personally favorite sort of setting, but I think that trope is what the background ability is meant to embody.
Changing Nobility to Numenorean Heritage might fit that really well.
Having a player picking a background rewrite the entire religio-political standard of the campaign seems pretty strong.
(I'm not assuming you're advocating it. I'm just pretty sure there are some folks who think it should if it hasn't come up in play yet and was just against the DM head-canon, and others who would find having to do so ridiculous, and others it never occurred to).
Last edited:
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
If the DM doesn't want to have players meaningfully interacting with the nobility, or they don't want to put a lot of work into developing noble society, maybe they should not allow the Noble Background.
I wonder if a DM who did really develop the nobility (and knew all the relations and alliances) might also really want to alter the Noble background in a bunch of cases [bigger benefits and maybe obligations for some groups of nobles they were visiting, standard for others, and watch your back for a third].
Encouraging custom backgrounds if the DM or players have strong visions seems like a good thing to encourage.
Last edited:
Both of these.
I mean, if I want to run a fantasy RPG in which there are not divinities or spirits, I don't let players build cleric and paladin PCs and then randomly nerf their abilities as I see fit: I look for a system that will allow the players to build the right sorts of PCs. A good example is the way the 4e D&D Dark Sun books have rules for building PCs that fit with that setting.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I can imagine that, but I also understand why everyone wouldn't want to imagine that!
Not that I believe the noble background requires such. It can just mean the character is part of entitled old boys club and the commoners will keep their heads down if they want to keep them.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
Yep. Frankly, the backgrounds as written are incredibly minor element. You can create your own, and a lot of people do. What is the rules benefit then? Also, some of the associated features are just ill defined or weird. Sure, a sailor being able to book a passage on a ship is clear enough, but what on earth does hermit's discovery even do? Also, why is criminal's benefit limited to conveying messages? I thought I was a criminal, not a postal worker! This is why I am willing to be pretty flexible with them. And I don't by this mean inventing reasons why they wouldn't work, I mean accepting the background of the character informing the fiction thus informing rules adjudication more holistically than just in these very specific situations. And by "background" I mean whatever fiction the player had come up for their character, not just fixed things from a predefined list.
Last edited:
I think this is a key point. At a shared gaming table, people won't have equally vibrant imaginations...it's frustrating to see a black-on-white game benefit from the core rulebook get ignored because the person who is in the role of GM has a more limited imagination. That a player would have to ask "Mother May I?" for a ability that comes straight from the rulebook...makes the player wonder why they bothered with that particular background.
This is the argument for more crunchy systems: outcomes are less reliant on whether or not the final authority can imagine those outcomes, and more about the RAW (though in the example above about securing an audience, it seemed pretty RAW to me...)
- Status
