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

[Bedrockgames]

I’m saying that there is a subset of those who prefer GM driven play who do so, at least partly, for the reasons I cited.

Fair enough, but is fixation on this subset helpful. I mean I've met plenty of collaborative players whose style seemed to have negative origins or come from a negative space, but I don't see how invoking that here would be useful for us sorting out some of the stylistic differences. I definitely don't think it would shed much light on what you are interested in at the table if I brought up these sorts of examples. It isn't like one side in this only has a negative subset of players and GMs. There is always going to be that in any style (I think often you are just more likely to perceive it when you find yourself in a play style conflict).

 

[Maxperson]

I would say engage with tha actual point instead of using some perceived slight to dodge.

Oh, right. I should just let someone saying that I don't have as vibrant an imagination as he does go by, because..........why exactly? Sorry, but I don't grant people free reign to insult me, which is what I would be doing if I didn't respond.

Why should a player’s choice be rendered less meaningful because a GM can’t figure out a way to make it work?

That's the wrong question in my opinion. I can "figure out a way" to make anything work, regardless of how ridiculous making it work would be. So that's not the question. The question is "Should the DM throw away fictional consistency to make something work?"

I can’t say how it is for most groups, but I would say for some. It’s absolutely something I needed to get over as a GM. And it’s something that other folks in my longstanding gaming group are still working on.

It's a playstyle preference. Some want more realism. Some want less. Some want fictional consistency. Some don't care if fictional consistency is preserved. Some wants lots of fights. Some want few. Some want puzzles. Some hate puzzles. What it's not, is something the DM needs to "get over."

 

[tetrasodium]

I would say engage with tha actual point instead of using some perceived slight to dodge.

Why should a player’s choice be rendered less meaningful because a GM can’t figure out a way to make it work? (edit: before they describe an action the gm might have reason to nix in some manner/



I can’t say how it is for most groups, but I would say for some. It’s absolutely something I needed to get over as a GM. And it’s something that other folks in my longstanding gaming group are still working on.

As for not happening in this thread, I think it very clearly has. Not by everyone, but certainly by some.



Nope! I’m not saying that it must always be the case. Or that GM driven play is a negative or anything like that.

I’m saying that there is a subset of those who prefer GM driven play who do so, at least partly, for the reasons I cited.

A character creation option does not usually do something without an action of some form being taken. Who is playing this character? Why should the GM be expected to make a character's action work? Should we not expect the player to work with the gm in order to figure out how they can make their own ability work within the confines of the world they get to enjoy (not run) as a player.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fair enough, but is fixation on this subset helpful. I mean I've met plenty of collaborative players whose style seemed to have negative origins or come from a negative space, but I don't see how invoking that here would be useful for us sorting out some of the stylistic differences. I definitely don't think it would shed much light on what you are interested in at the table if I brought up these sorts of examples. It isn't like one side in this only has a negative subset of players and GMs. There is always going to be that in any style (I think often you are just more likely to perceive it when you find yourself in a play style conflict).

I think so yeah, just because so much of the actual text of the 5E books actively reinforces the mindset.

Like, this is the way plenty of people play and GM and don’t consider there to be anything wrong with it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh, right. I should just let someone saying that I don't have as vibrant an imagination as he does go by, because..........why exactly? Sorry, but I don't grant people free reign to insult me, which is what I would be doing if I didn't respond.

Again, it was a hypothetical.

That's a bogus question in my opinion. I can "figure out a way" to make anything work, regardless of how ridiculous making it work would be. So that's not the question. The question is "Should the DM throw away fictional consistency to make something work?"

But that’s just it… the examples aren’t ridiculous. They’re all reasonable by other peoples’ reckoning.

It's a playstyle preference. Some want more realism. Some want less. Some want fictional consistency. Some don't care if fictional consistency is preserved. Some wants lots of fights. Some want few. Some want puzzles. Some hate puzzles. What it's not, is something the DM needs to "get over."

None of these things is at risk by honoring the background ability in all but the extreme examples.

It sounds more and more like pure setting ownership on the part of the GM.

Who is playing this character? Why should the GM be expected to make a character's action work?

Because the ability says it works?

Like, if my character casts waterbreathing on himself, he can then breath underwater. It just happens. Barring either some really specific fictional circumstances or the GM being a real jerk, it just works.

within the confines of the world they get to enjoy (not run) as a player.

I think this phrasing is very telling.

 

[Cadence]

Why should a player’s choice be rendered less meaningful because a GM can’t figure out a way to make it work?

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this one and failing. Can't make work in what way?

Don't fit previously established facts? Don't fit the genre? Don't fit head canon that has influenced other things in play? Doesn't fit the thoughts of what he thinks is coming next? -- the last anyway does feel a poor excuse for making a choice less meaningful to me. I can see debates on the third. Only rare exceptions on the first two?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think so yeah, just because so much of the actual text of the 5E books actively reinforces the mindset.

Perhaps this is just the lens through which you are reading that text?

 

[Maxperson]

Again, it was a hypothetical.

This is excusing what he said. His "hypothetical" was of a DM doing exactly what more than one person in this thread has been arguing for, so it directly says that his imagination is more vibrant than ours. I had hoped better of you than to excuse an arrogant and condescending comment like that, aimed clearly at those who don't agree with his views on playing the game.

But that’s just it… the examples aren’t ridiculous. They’re all reasonable by other peoples’ reckoning.

The fiction isn't one where a noble on the other side of the world is going to 1) magically recognize your PC, 2) automatically have the same values of what it means to be nobility just because you took that background, and 3) be friendly to your PC because of it. Unless the DM established such things at the outset of the campaign.

Expecting fictional consistency to change for you just because you took a background with a minor ability(and all of them are minor and won't work under all circumstances).

Because the ability says it works?

So does fireball, but other abilities say they don't work. Try casting one on a creature immune to fire. Oh, and flying works, unless you are tied down. And A-ZZZZZZ work, unless...

Because the ability says something is not sufficient to have it break the fictional consistency of a setting.

Like, if my character casts waterbreathing on himself, he can then breath underwater. It just happens. Barring either some really specific fictional circumstances or the GM being a real jerk, it just works.

The bolded is the important part. Yet when we say there are some specific fictional circumstances regarding this ability that limit it, you fight against it and use the pejorative Mother May I to describe it.

 

[Cadence]

Because the ability says it works?

Like, if my character casts waterbreathing on himself, he can then breath underwater. It just happens. Barring either some really specific fictional circumstances or the GM being a real jerk, it just works.

As a semi-tangent, I wonder if thinking through how some things would affect the world if used generally makes it hard to see that the rule or ability isn't a problem if used once in a while in the story.

Getting shelter at this one noble household doesn't mean you'll try it all the time or with nobles who hate you, for example. Being a hero of the people doesn't mean you'll try to have the villager hide you in their barn, accept your offered money to go on a vacation, and so the world famous bounty hunter can never find you. Fireball not needing one to make saves for everything they carry every time doesn't mean a carried 7' radius half sphere of paper that goes to the ground is complete protection from the spell (or at least saves your friends if you're hit). The simplified encumbrance rules to enable adventuring doesn't mean the party will exploit them in ways with their henchmen that will completely revolutionize the economy. That Apes have a 16 strength doesn't mean that typical human wrestlers should safely be able to regularly trounce gorillas in exhibitions. etc...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this one and failing. Can't make work in what way?
Don't fit previously established facts? Don't fit the genre? Don't fit head canon that has influenced other things in play? Doesn't fit the thoughts of what he thinks is coming next? -- the last anyway does feel a poor excuse for making a choice less meaningful to me. I can see debates on the third. Only rare exceptions on the first two?

Well, the examples have largely revolved around background features. One of the small slices of input in 5e that gives the player any authority about the setting.

People seem to be doing anything they can to render what would seem to be a standard use of said abilities and find ways that make them “absurd” or “unrealistic” or “inconsistent with the setting”.

If genre is a concern, then the background shouldn’t even be in play. If the fictional positioning makes it insensible (we’re wanted for killing the duke…pretty sure his son isn’t going to grant us an audience) then it’s easily explainable.

What makes it an issue is that you have what the player sees as a reasonable situation to use the ability, and the GM deciding it is not reasonable without sufficient reason other than his own preference.

Perhaps this is just the lens through which you are reading that text?

Have I been quoting passages from the books that explain how the DM has all the authority?