Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7558913" data-attributes="member: 29398"><p>Interesting - you see this sequence as a (or the) definition of mother-may-I where I just see it as close to how play normally occurs.</p><p></p><p>I'd throw in a few other clauses however, so it'd end up something like:</p><p></p><p>2a. and 2b. - as above; also lob in a relevance and-or possibility factor to summarily deal with "I jump to the moon"-style stuff.</p><p></p><p>2c. Does the action declaration fit in with the general level of detail or granularity in play at the moment? This one's hard to pin down sometimes, but often situations will arise where different people at the table (including but not always the GM) are viewing and-or want to resolve a situation at different levels of detail. The [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] story with the Frost Giant is a perfect example: the player gives a low-granularity action declaration where the GM wants - and then has to ask for - something more detailed.</p><p></p><p>2d above is redundant - IMO if the player has deemed something important enough to declare an action over, and that declaration otherwise doesn't violate the clauses above, it's on the GM to deal with it whether she sees it as relevant or not (and if a GM is instead dismissing declarations as irrelevant then yes, we're into MMI territory). This falls in with 2c. above - it doesn't matter whether the declaration makes complete sense as long as it fits in with the current fiction. Maybe the PC who is trying to woo the barmaid in mid-combat really does see winning her affections as more important than the condition of the side of his head - he's hoping that if he gets knocked out she'll be the one who nurses him back to health, perhaps; and 2.c.i. might bring this out (or not, if the player/PC is trying to keep his affections secret for whatever reason). Put another way, the player/PC is changing the priorities.</p><p></p><p>2e. - as above.</p><p></p><p>Even 2e. could be nixed if a GM decides to overrule or ignore the mechanics, but that probably puts us into bad-faith territory again.</p><p></p><p>The GM has to provide the relevant and-or critical information, no question there. However I see her as also free to lob in whatever other not-so-important imformation she likes, leaving it to the player(s) to sort the wheat from the chaff - never mind that information that is superfluous to one player might turn out to be critical to another e.g. the actions and reactions of the barmaid in the brawl example.</p><p></p><p>As for the player, I'm not sure what you mean here. What is "too much" or "too little"? Too broad/not broad enough actions? Too lofty/not lofty enough goals? Too little/too much detail or granularity? Please elaborate.</p><p></p><p>Were I the DM that would not be an action declaration in any sense. It would be a statement of a goal, and I'd probably first ask whether those words were being said in or out of character as what came next would be quite different based on the answer. </p><p></p><p>If "Yes" the FG's response might be "Oh really? I don't think so", leading to a potentially difficult (and maybe dangerous!) role-play for the PCs. </p><p></p><p>If "No" my response would be something like "How?" or "What do you do or say?"</p><p></p><p>System dependent, and even then only after digging for more detail and-or some actual role-play. Were I the DM it'd be no anyway, as my game has no such mechanics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7558913, member: 29398"] Interesting - you see this sequence as a (or the) definition of mother-may-I where I just see it as close to how play normally occurs. I'd throw in a few other clauses however, so it'd end up something like: 2a. and 2b. - as above; also lob in a relevance and-or possibility factor to summarily deal with "I jump to the moon"-style stuff. 2c. Does the action declaration fit in with the general level of detail or granularity in play at the moment? This one's hard to pin down sometimes, but often situations will arise where different people at the table (including but not always the GM) are viewing and-or want to resolve a situation at different levels of detail. The [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] story with the Frost Giant is a perfect example: the player gives a low-granularity action declaration where the GM wants - and then has to ask for - something more detailed. 2d above is redundant - IMO if the player has deemed something important enough to declare an action over, and that declaration otherwise doesn't violate the clauses above, it's on the GM to deal with it whether she sees it as relevant or not (and if a GM is instead dismissing declarations as irrelevant then yes, we're into MMI territory). This falls in with 2c. above - it doesn't matter whether the declaration makes complete sense as long as it fits in with the current fiction. Maybe the PC who is trying to woo the barmaid in mid-combat really does see winning her affections as more important than the condition of the side of his head - he's hoping that if he gets knocked out she'll be the one who nurses him back to health, perhaps; and 2.c.i. might bring this out (or not, if the player/PC is trying to keep his affections secret for whatever reason). Put another way, the player/PC is changing the priorities. 2e. - as above. Even 2e. could be nixed if a GM decides to overrule or ignore the mechanics, but that probably puts us into bad-faith territory again. The GM has to provide the relevant and-or critical information, no question there. However I see her as also free to lob in whatever other not-so-important imformation she likes, leaving it to the player(s) to sort the wheat from the chaff - never mind that information that is superfluous to one player might turn out to be critical to another e.g. the actions and reactions of the barmaid in the brawl example. As for the player, I'm not sure what you mean here. What is "too much" or "too little"? Too broad/not broad enough actions? Too lofty/not lofty enough goals? Too little/too much detail or granularity? Please elaborate. Were I the DM that would not be an action declaration in any sense. It would be a statement of a goal, and I'd probably first ask whether those words were being said in or out of character as what came next would be quite different based on the answer. If "Yes" the FG's response might be "Oh really? I don't think so", leading to a potentially difficult (and maybe dangerous!) role-play for the PCs. If "No" my response would be something like "How?" or "What do you do or say?" System dependent, and even then only after digging for more detail and-or some actual role-play. Were I the DM it'd be no anyway, as my game has no such mechanics. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
Top