Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game

[Alexander Kalinowski]

Just skimming over the thread, I am confused by the discussion.

Due to the very nature of the RPGs, the GM has broad discretion with regard to what's happening. Under normal circumstances, I expect a GM simply to determine what's going to happen based on his understanding of the game world. Of course that is not the same as a real simulation - but it needn't be. So if you're going to a bar or whatever and want to see if a member of some organization is present, I would expect the GM to determine the likelihood of that being the case and giving the dice a roll (which, btw, is part of why I consider percentile dice the best). 30% chance of one or more members present? Alright, let's roll d100.

Now, the tricky part is (and this is where I think MMI comes in) that the GM sometimes needs to (subtly) steer the flow of the game. If the players are endlessly stuck in an investigation, then it might be alright to help them out. In such a case, a GM in the above situation might make a covert d100 roll, disregard the results, and declare a member of super-secret organization present any way - to advance the plot.

So, the GM

1. simulates the game world based on his subjective understanding; and,
2. needs to be given some leverage to ensure the game remains on-track.

The problem is that #2 can be abused (by bad, whimsical GMs). But so can be accusations of Mother-May-I (by bad players).

I don't think it makes sense to look at an abstract situation and call it MMI or not. The question is if a concrete GM in a concrete situation is being whimsical or has good reasons for not strictly sticking to impassionately and impartially simulating the game world.

 

[Sadras]

To me that just suggests bad mechanics!

I don't see how.

Ah yes. The Mother-May-I One-True Wayist manifesto.

I'm not the one ascribing another style with a pejorative but hey we all see what we want to.

Can a player use any skill check/ability to get the shard back? If not, why not?

I have bolded the bits which, to me, suggest that the player's success in persuading the giant to return the shard was conditional on the GM's opinion about what makes for good or bad fiction (here expressed in terms of reasonable cause of action for the frost giant).

You're suggesting it is better that the GM cannot roleplay the NPCs he/she introduces into the game world, and when I mean roleplay, I mean free of any mechanics (i.e. die rolls). I admit I find that odd.

Could the FG in your game talk the PC out of wanting the shard returned i.e. the FG makes a diplomacy/persuade roll?

Also like @billd91 mentioned in the other thread, isn't the DM ascribing a lower or higher DC to a roll reflecting his/her opinion on what makes good or bad fiction?

EDIT: MMI kicks in if there is 0% or less chance of success on the player's action declaration, but 1% possible success or higher is ok?

I think that is the sort of thing the OP is trying to avoid when using the phrase "without forcing players to play the "Mother may I" game".

Ah, you mean without forcing players to provide further details for their action declarations so as DMs we can adjudicate the likely chance of success. Such Bad DMs.

Eric: I try get my shard back from the Frost Giant without starting a fight.
DM: How do you go about that, she has already placed it back in her hair?
Eric: I use diplomacy, I'm proficient.
DM: Cool, what do you say to her?
Eric: Well, I ask nicely, smile a lot and bow often?
DM: Is there something specific that you say?
Eric: Nah, I have a +7 on my Diplomacy roll. My character is really good at persuading people.
Matt: Yeah, but this is a giant, a Frost Giant, who has recently been annoyed with humans for lying to her and her kin. They've been sent on a wild goose-chase, we are lucky they don't kill us.
Eric: All the same, besides who cares about that backstory. My character is a really good talker.
DM sets the DC, Eric rolls a 25 after modifiers.

Eric: I roleplayed the crap out of that!
Liz: You sure did E. (They high-five each other and then, picks up her dice and turns to the DM) I also want to roleplay.

One interesting consequence of using action resolution mechanics that go beyond GM decides is that, if the player's attempt succeeds, then someone - often the GM - has to establish a reason why. That can produce richer fiction, eg a reason why this Frost Giant would engage in an act of reciprocity or even generosity.

It puzzles me that such an approach should be characterised as involving less roleplaying.

Of course, the DM roleplays by creating narrative to line up with the die number rolled by the player, because that is roleplaying, not actual roleplaying.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Says who? In AD&D, a legitimate action declaration for a 4th level paladin is "I meditate and pray for my warhorse". And for a magic-user is "I spend three weeks in my tower researching this spell." AD&D also allows spending a day traversing a hex to be resolved as a single action (check for getting lost, check for encounters).
\

I get all this. Not everyone runs games RAW, and, more importantly Permerton, everyone runs games differently. This is honestly the part you seem to have the largest trouble understanding. In the other thread you appear to see people expressing their preferences as them calling into question the beauty and richness of your own explored world (or calling into question your ability to label that exploration). I don't think anyone is doing so. Here is an example of peoples' brains and styles just dealing with things in different ways. And it isn't necessarily about system. I always assume players can declare any action they want, regardless of class or the exact details of the system. If a wizard wants to declare he tries to grab the chandelier and swing into the fray, I let him try whether the system clearly lays that out or not. But when someone proposes a long terms series of actions, a prefer to break them down to their individual components. Especially when people are investigating. Now that is not 100% the case. Someones the game is clearly in a space where time is elapsing differently (i.e. if I have a game where I am glossing over huge expanses of time as players travel, and encounters along the way are not an important feature of the campaign or less frequent, I may just say "what do you guys do during the 2 week journey---and they could give a list of things, which we might play out at the ground level in some instances). I think the key is when do you focus on the 1-1 details, where what the character says specifically is key, what the character does specifically is key. There are just some places in the game, we don't want to automatically cede to a processes, mechanic, etc. The reason is quite simple, this is how, for us, we preserve the sense that the players actions have a clear cause and effect in a world that feels external to them. You don't do it this way. That is fine with us. But you keep going back to the same points, insistenting we are doing things we don't believe we are doing, and lording your results over others like this is some kind of competition (again in the other thread you are literally holding up your explored worlds against anyone else). I don't particularly doubt that your worlds or awesome or that your GMing abilities are great. Nor do I really care to be honest. I never claimed to be a great GM. In fact I'd say I am an average GM. Some sessions are great, some aren't, some I am not as clear headed as I'd like. And because of that, I find I like to have a reliable approach that works for me at the table. I've tried every approach under the sun I can finding my 30+ years of gaming. This is the one that works for me. And your description of this approach just doesn't reflect the nuance of what I see at the table.

I genuinely do not understand why you can't just adopt something approaching a live and let live attitude on this. Someone says they like the GM to decide what is at a teahouse and you launch a whole thread on whether the game world and the real world can ever be said to be similar in any way. You insist on labeling this approach in dismissive language, even when people point out why it clearly doesn't even match those labels, and why it is not productive for conversation. It doesn't feel like you really have an interest in convincing people about your ideas at this point. Because your whole approach just puts people on the defensive. Believe me, we are fully capable of turning the tables on you with our approaches. I've learned long ago that isn't the way to understand other approaches to play. I'm genuinely interested in the procedures someone like you follows. I am genuinely curious what you want out of the game. But, if you are going to be a jerk about it and cast negative terms on me while you promote your style, it is going to be very hard for me to listen to you charitably. That is just human nature. This is why I can disagree in a friendly way with Innerdude, who really doesn't hold that different of a position than you, but keep clashing with you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

​

To be frank, the tea house example in which the GM simply decides, unilaterally, that there are no sect members at the tea house, seems like a version of "the sect can be found only on one spot on the map" - the spot might be bigger than a single 30-yard hex, but apparently doesn't include the tea house!
.

That doesn't even make sense. The sect can be found in any number of reasonable locations they'd be found. The GM makes the call ultimately, and may lean on a roll if deemed necessary. But for the most part, I think if you are familiar with the setting, the organization, you can handle this stuff by deciding. But if you can't see the difference between 'the group can only be found on this one spot on the map', and the 'group can potentially be found anywhere on the map, with some places being more likely than others', I really don't know what to say. I'll give you points for fancy logic, but this is argument you are making here is totally specious. Your playing with space here. A city exploration means, for lack of a better model to explain, you are now zooming in and you have a new hex map. Maybe I have a map where the city is in a hex that includes Bone Breaking Sect for example. But once the players get to that hex, if the exploration is sufficiently small scale, then they are exploring the 'hexes' within that hex. Some people want this. They don't just want to find bonebreaking sect because they've enter a 30 mile hex. Some do though and that is fine. When my players reach a city, they want to explore that city in this way. But again, in that city, it isn't mother may I, because I am not saying to myself "they can only find mother may I if they go to this one spot on the map. I am thinking in terms of living breathing city, a living breathing organization, that all move around. Importantly I, the GM, am the mechanic for determining where these things. You have very little faith in that as a mechanic. Fine. Okay. We understand. And we don't think you need to. But I just wish you could appreciate some people have a totally different experience with this than you, and it doesn't feel like a childhood game of mother may I. Nor are we seeking enlightenment from you about better ways to run the game.

 

[Aldarc]

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], it seems like this topic is somewhat system dependent. As I have been reading through a lot of DW and Blades in the Dark, those systems come to mind more readily when reading through some of this discussion. In Blades of the Dark, task resolution rolls lack DCs since success and failure is baked into the result of the die pips. Instead, the player decides which Action ("skill") to use, and then the GM sets the PC's position (Desperate, Risky, Controlled) and the Action's effect (Limited, Standard, Great). But the GM may set the Position or Effect based upon what the PC is attempting, and the PC also has the option of trading their Position for greater Effect. But a lot of the positioning and effect transpires through the roleplay in the fiction as well as the GM/player conversation.

And I think it would be interesting then, [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], if you were to imagine for yourself how might the Frost Giant and the Shard episode could play out under such a system. You could even establish a Countdown clock or two representing the PCs or Frost Giants in the encounter.

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

Says who? In AD&D, a legitimate action declaration for a 4th level paladin is "I meditate and pray for my warhorse".

Players don't declare actions, they declare intent. The GM decides if that intent translates into a corresponding action and what the outcome of that action is.
So, if there's a lot of noise in the tavern behind that wall, the paladin might not be able to focus on meditation. And if the rogue was to declare that he's going to mediatate and pray for his warhorse, even if he could do so, his prayers would probably not have much of an effect.

I have bolded the bits which, to me, suggest that the player's success in persuading the giant to return the shard was conditional on the GM's opinion about what makes for good or bad fiction (here expressed in terms of reasonable cause of action for the frost giant).

I have to disagree. "Good or bad fiction" is a narrativist argument. You're concerned with the entertainment value of the fiction. "Reasonable cause of action" is a simulationist line of reasoning: you're caring less about whether the outcoming fiction maximizes fun or not - you're going with what is the most plausible to you.

Instead, the critcism *I* would give voice to here is that the GM has been way too hell bent on the world simulation side and hasn't paid enough to the game side, where it might be desirable to give the PC at least a chance to recover his item. Maybe the PC has a way to demonstrate his might to the FG - or maybe just a way to pretend to have such strength.

On the other hand, I cannot entirely blame the GM: giving a prescious magic item to a powerful, evil being is kinda foolish. The player has only himself to blame in the end.

 

[Numidius]

I don't see how.



I'm not the one ascribing another style with a pejorative but hey we all see what we want to.

Can a player use any skill check/ability to get the shard back? If not, why not?



You're suggesting it is better that the GM cannot roleplay the NPCs he/she introduces into the game world, and when I mean roleplay, I mean free of any mechanics (i.e. die rolls). I admit I find that odd.

Could the FG in your game talk the PC out of wanting the shard returned i.e. the FG makes a diplomacy/persuade roll?

Also like @billd91 mentioned in the other thread, isn't the DM ascribing a lower or higher DC to a roll reflecting his/her opinion on what makes good or bad fiction?

EDIT: MMI kicks in if there is 0% or less chance of success on the player's action declaration, but 1% possible success or higher is ok?



Ah, you mean without forcing players to provide further details for their action declarations so as DMs we can adjudicate the likely chance of success. Such Bad DMs.

Eric: I try get my shard back from the Frost Giant without starting a fight.
DM: How do you go about that, she has already placed it back in her hair?
Eric: I use diplomacy, I'm proficient.
DM: Cool, what do you say to her?
Eric: Well, I ask nicely, smile a lot and bow often?
DM: Is there something specific that you say?
Eric: Nah, I have a +7 on my Diplomacy roll. My character is really good at persuading people.
Matt: Yeah, but this is a giant, a Frost Giant, who has recently been annoyed with humans for lying to her and her kin. They've been sent on a wild goose-chase, we are lucky they don't kill us.
Eric: All the same, besides who cares about that backstory. My character is a really good talker.
DM sets the DC, Eric rolls a 25 after modifiers.

Eric: I roleplayed the crap out of that!
Liz: You sure did E. (They high-five each other and then, picks up her dice and turns to the DM) I also want to roleplay.



Of course, the DM roleplays by creating narrative to line up with the die number rolled by the player, because that is roleplaying, not actual roleplaying.

While at the same time declaring "i attack the FG" would be a legal action?
Or you'd need more details before allowing dice rolls?

In my opinion this is the big shorcoming of d&d: combat triggers too easily, everything else not so.

Anyway in your example I might suggest asking the player not to "roleplay IC", but a motive, a leverage by which allow a reaction check of some kind.
Or asking for a WIS check to give away info about it.

Or just checking CHA and in case of success the FG might ask for a barter, or another FG might start a fight for the shard since they're Chaotic Evil, because the PC grabbed the attention of bystanders.

Don't wanna start a debate on the psychology of CE FG, it's just examples to discuss different options

 

[Imaro]

Also like @billd91 mentioned in the other thread, isn't the DM ascribing a lower or higher DC to a roll reflecting his/her opinion on what makes good or bad fiction?

EDIT: MMI kicks in if there is 0% or less chance of success on the player's action declaration, but 1% possible success or higher is ok?

I'd really like to see @pemerton or those who subscribe to his playstyle address this particular issue, how it relates to the avoidance of "Mother May I" play and how it is resolved in the preferred playstyle without creating said effect.

IMO only specific/niche game engines can get around this such as Shadow of the Demon Lord or PbtA where there is no GM determined difficulty (thought even then SotDL allows banes and boons to be added through GM discretion and I think some iterations of the PbtA game engine allow modifiers which can create the same effect)... but for the vast majority of mainstream rpg's the GM is deciding the chance that something exists even when he is letting the dice decide the outcome.

 

[Sadras]

Ok this is interesting.

@Sadras, it seems like this topic is somewhat system dependent. As I have been reading through a lot of DW and Blades in the Dark, those systems come to mind more readily when reading through some of this discussion. In Blades of the Dark, task resolution rolls lack DCs since success and failure is baked into the result of the die pips. Instead, the player decides which Action ("skill") to use,

Diplomacy say for 5e

and then the GM sets the PC's position (Desperate, Risky, Controlled) and the Action's effect (Limited, Standard, Great).

This sounds like the DM sets DC with degrees of failure - just in the different format. Correct me if I'm wrong, since I have not read the material.

But the GM may set the Position or Effect based upon what the PC is attempting, and the PC also has the option of trading their Position for greater Effect.

Okay so player can negotiate to increase the DC to obtain a higher degree of success. I would even allow that in D&D, depending on the situation.

But a lot of the positioning and effect transpires through the roleplay in the fiction as well as the GM/player conversation.

Ok, so depending on what the character says or does the DM might decrease/increase the DC or degrees of success of failure. Again based on DM opinion on the fiction, right? Which is something the anti-MMI crowd dislike.

And I think it would be interesting then, @Sadras, if you were to imagine for yourself how might the Frost Giant and the Shard episode could play out under such a system.

Agree it does make a stark difference for the character to be allowed an opportunity for every action declaration made. Does that make sense to you though? For there never to be a hard no. Essentially you can always attempt to talk down your enemies. Always! Can you negotiate with zombies? Where is the limit, if there is one? It is hard for me to critique it properly since I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics.

You could even establish a Countdown clock or two representing the PCs or Frost Giants in the encounter.

I'm lost with the countdown clocks.

 

[Sadras]

Instead, the critcism *I* would give voice to here is that the GM has been way too hell bent on the world simulation side and hasn't paid enough to the game side, where it might be desirable to give the PC at least a chance to recover his item. Maybe the PC has a way to demonstrate his might to the FG - or maybe just a way to pretend to have such strength.

Just as an aside. The only thing the PC did was draw the FG's attention to him and hold out his hands, as if receiving the item back. The giant ignored this gesture and carried on with main negotiation. That is all that happened. The player was stumped - he did not attempt/declare anything further at that point as he did not want to jeopardise the primary negotiation with the Frost Giants.

He has every intention of getting the artifact back when and if they next meet, including the giant's own shard (I'm sure). Right now they are travelling to the Misty Forest and the FG are north of Icewind Dale.