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

[Cadence]

So expecting the ability to work is written is not something I consider trolling. Playing a character who is falling to live up noblesse oblige is something I consider trolling. Like part of taking that background is the implication that your character should hold certain values. You are taking on a particular sort of fiction here - I think you should be expected to honor it or at the very least I have a very good reason for why your character would be so brazen.

It feels like that's how I view Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks and how they would be expected to interact with their deities, hierarchy, or patrons unless it was discussed in advance with the DM. Is taking the noble background with your expectations of what that means akin to taking one of those classes?

----

Anyway, if it would clearly be bad to the DM/world expectations for a noble to do that, let's imagine a party without Sir Buzz. "And so we charm/geas/seduce Sir Buzz, is that his name?, into joining us on our journey to see the Baron, and then....".

 

[Eric V]

Or...it works! Duke is dead, the get the scroll* and then there are in-game consequences. As the DM, I would say the audience is granted: that's the ability.

*Of course, "an audience" doesn't mean a non-hostile environment. It just means access to the person. If the PCs were really under suspicion, it could be in chains.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps it may sound that way on the surface, but is it actually though?

Absolutely, yes. Perhaps he's the one who lacks a vibrant enough imagination to see past his own narrow interpretation and can't picture or understand how the other factors that exist alter what he thinks should happen. He has no business talking to people that way here.

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).

That's cool(and I mean that), but it doesn't mean that you have a more vibrant imagination than someone who plays and prefers a more traditional style of play.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sure. I asked earlier what magical ability allowed that, because it would have to be something magical like an inherent divine right that is manifest in nobility and detectable by others. D&D doesn't have that, though.

This is not my personally favorite sort of setting, but I think that trope is what the background ability is meant to embody.

It can't be. Magical abilities like that are explicitly spelled out in D&D. If something is not explicitly said, it isn't there. Now you can certainly play it like that for your setting(rulings over rules), but the default is that the ability is non-magical, because nothing says that it is magical.

 

[Cadence]

Or...it works! Duke is dead, the get the scroll* and then there are in-game consequences. As the DM, I would say the audience is granted: that's the ability.

*Of course, "an audience" doesn't mean a non-hostile environment. It just means access to the person. If the PCs were really under suspicion, it could be in chains.

The * feels reasonable to me. It feels like some others might see it as the DM MMI'ing a clearly written background benefit.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Nobody here that I've seen is saying that they don't want to have the players meaningfully interact with the nobility. Some of us are saying that it just isn't going to logically be a universal ability that applies to strange cultures on the other side of the planet or other planets.

Background abilities are intended to be a minor perk that helps sometimes.

 

[James Gasik]

Sure. I asked earlier what magical ability allowed that, because it would have to be something magical like an inherent divine right that is manifest in nobility and detectable by others. D&D doesn't have that, though.

It can't be. Magical abilities like that are explicitly spelled out in D&D. If something is not explicitly said, it isn't there. Now you can certainly play it like that for your setting(rulings over rules), but the default is that the ability is non-magical, because nothing says that it is magical.

So "taking half damage from fire because I'm incredibly angry" is explicitly non-magical?

 

[Cadence]

So "taking half damage from fire because I'm incredibly angry" is explicitly non-magical?

"A cool enough mutation or gamma radiation induced power is indistinguishable from magic."?

 

[tetrasodium]

So "taking half damage from fire because I'm incredibly angry" is explicitly non-magical?

I'm on my phone but I believe that back when the system cared about making that clear rage was (Ex) for Extraordinary. Now it's ask your gm.

 

[Eric V]

The * feels reasonable to me. It feels like some others might see it as the DM MMI'ing a clearly written background benefit.

I confess I don't understand that part. From what I can tell, MMI means I need to ask permission from the DM to do something (and hope they see the narrative of the game in a similar enough way that I do). The player with this background is invoking its benefit, as written. Presumably, the players also invoked other consequences on the narrative by being obvious in their acceptance of the hit on the Duke?
If the DM just arbitrarily decided that the Duke knew the PCs were involved, then I could understand the frustration.
What this seems to revolve around more generally: Why would DMs want to frustrate PC plans?