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

pemerton said:

This is very system dependent. In D&D, it's not generally true for the player of a magic-user or wizard declaring that s/he casts a spell, nor for the player of a fighter declaring that s/he draws his/her sword.

In Classic Traveller, if the players are playing a starship crew, and an accurate equipment list indicates that the starship is fully-fuelled, then the players don't need to ask the GM if it is possible to make a jump. They can declare the jump, and then the rules establish how to determine whether a misjump occurs, whether there is some other sort of engine failure, etc.

Many other examples, from a range of more-or-less well known systems, could be given. Or in other words, not all action resolution takes the form of "GM, tell me how this turns out."

Click to expand...

Well, no - sometimes it takes the form of "Dice, tell me how this turns out"....and it could be the player or GM or both who are saying/thinking this depending on the situation.

The teahouse example (assuming little or no DM prep):

The player might ask her dice how good or successful her investigations are.
The GM might ask her dice what's possible to be found there (if anything) and then narrate the results if any based on both that and the player's roll(s).

In D&D, oftentimes a player whose PC is casting a spell needs to ask either her own dice or the DM's how it turns out, via an attack roll or a saving throw depending on edition.

Lanefan said:

pemerton said:

In this particular sect-in-teahouse example, assuming that the system is more like Gygax's AD&D than the other ones I mentioned, whether or not the player's attempt to find sect members in the teahouse succeeds depends primarily on a decision taken unilaterraly by the GM. So the player's action declaration is, essentialy, GM, will you please decide that there are some sect members in the teahouse for me to make contact with/spy on/whatever it is the player hopes his/her PC will do.

Click to expand...

In your eyes, perhaps. To me it says "GM, I'm trying to find out about what goes on in the teahouse, please tell me what I learn".

<snip>

the GM is - or certainly should be - free to come up with whatever answer suits the situation, be it something made up on the spot or taken from carefully prepped notes (or, most commonly, something in between); and "You learn nothing" is of course also a valid answer should the PC's investigations not go so well.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing the difference between (my) GM, will you please decide that there are some sect members in the teahouse for me to make contact with and (your) GM, I'm trying to find out about what goes on in the teahouse, please tell me what I learn plus <GM comes up with whatever answer suits the situation>. "Comes up with" is a synonym for decides. Of course, you've rephrased the action declaration not as I look for sect members in the teahouse but I search the teahouse, but I take it that that is just a minor error on your part. If in fact you think I look for sect members in the teahouse is not a valid action declaration, then that's a whole different thing, as it is valid in every version of D&D I'm familiar with.

Lanefan said:

On a broader scale, pretty much all exploration play - which includes information gathering a la the teahouse example - boils down to "GM, please tell me about this particular bit of the setting that I [as both player and PC] haven't seen before".

Click to expand...

This claim isn't true.

Here's a very simple counterexample: in the first session of my current Classic Traveller campaign the PCs wanted to find a broker to help them offload some interstellar ambergris. I quickly came up with a system for making an Admin check to determine the skill of broker located. The check was made and a broker thus retained.

pemerton said:

I'm not seeing the difference between (my) GM, will you please decide that there are some sect members in the teahouse for me to make contact with and (your) GM, I'm trying to find out about what goes on in the teahouse, please tell me what I learn plus <GM comes up with whatever answer suits the situation>. "Comes up with" is a synonym for decides. Of course, you've rephrased the action declaration not as I look for sect members in the teahouse but I search the teahouse, but I take it that that is just a minor error on your part. If in fact you think I look for sect members in the teahouse is not a valid action declaration, then that's a whole different thing, as it is valid in every version of D&D I'm familiar with.

Click to expand...

All the GM is deciding is what is at the tea house when the players get there. He isn't necessarily weighing in on their desire to see sect members there. He can, that could be something that informs his decision, but it doesn't have to be. By the way, this is one of the reasons many of us rejected the whole "Just say yes" advice when it first emerged, because we felt it effectively let the players decide what is present. Whereas, for a lot of us, or at least for a lot of us much of the time, that isn't the kind of game we are interested in running. We don't see the players declaring their actions as part of shaping what is going on in the setting beyond their character. And again, a big problem with this discussion is the binary nature of 'yes' or 'no'. What is at the tea house isn't a yes no situation. Some of us even occasionally have Inn and Tea House encounter tables to help spark interesting possibilities (Inn Encounters: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/wuxia-inspiration-inn-encounters.html). What is going on at the tea house, doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with the player's original intention for going there. In many games, the GM is running the world, and he or she is running it using consistent logic (which could be an effort to emulate the real world, an effort to emulate a more genre-oriented world, etc---but the key is the same person is making these rulings so there is a degree of consistency).

Besides, the yes no binary, as well as non-related interesting scenarios, the DM may use the in-game fiction to provide further hints related to the PCs goals.

Bedrockgames said:

All the GM is deciding is what is at the tea house when the players get there. He isn't necessarily weighing in on their desire to see sect members there. He can, that could be something that informs his decision, but it doesn't have to be. By the way, this is one of the reasons many of us rejected the whole "Just say yes" advice when it first emerged, because we felt it effectively let the players decide what is present. Whereas, for a lot of us, or at least for a lot of us much of the time, that isn't the kind of game we are interested in running. We don't see the players declaring their actions as part of shaping what is going on in the setting beyond their character. And again, a big problem with this discussion is the binary nature of 'yes' or 'no'. What is at the tea house isn't a yes no situation. Some of us even occasionally have Inn and Tea House encounter tables to help spark interesting possibilities (Inn Encounters: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/wuxia-inspiration-inn-encounters.html). What is going on at the tea house, doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with the player's original intention for going there. In many games, the GM is running the world, and he or she is running it using consistent logic (which could be an effort to emulate the real world, an effort to emulate a more genre-oriented world, etc---but the key is the same person is making these rulings so there is a degree of consistency).

Click to expand...

If the players want to find sect members to advance their agenda in game, but the GM has failed to provide a lead to the point that they're going to the Teahouse in hopes of finding them, how is this not like asking the GM if they can do their thing?

There's a point that certain play principles exist that reduce the "mother may I" effect in, for lack of a better term, "traditional" games just like principled play is used to avoid degenerate "story now" play , but your examples are driving straight into showing how trad play is very much the players hoping the GM allows what they want. I think you might want to be try to not give examples of play that showcase the behavior that's at the root of others' characterizations.

On the other side, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] really dislikes GM plotted games and so tends to characterize them negatively (or gleefully use provided terms that do so). That many players actually enjoy a well-crafted GM plot is beside the point. In fact, this preference for using degenerate play examples and negative connotations is my largest issue with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (I'm sure he cares) as I think he has interesting things to say.

Both sides here could afford to be more charitable. Especially sonce if you trot out an example of degenerate story now play, you'll immediately (and correctly) be rebuffed with how principled play avoids this. Sadly, in "trad" games, the general principles floated are often degenerate themselves, so there's less of a coherent defense and it's easier to characterize play with thise degenerate examples. Heck, some of the defenders can be counted on to do it themselves.

Ovinomancer said:

If the players want to find sect members to advance their agenda in game, but the GM has failed to provide a lead to the point that they're going to the Teahouse in hopes of finding them, how is this not like asking the GM if they can do their thing?

There's a point that certain play principles exist that reduce the "mother may I" effect in, for lack of a better term, "traditional" games just like principled play is used to avoid degenerate "story now" play , but your examples are driving straight into showing how trad play is very much the players hoping the GM allows what they want. I think you might want to be try to not give examples of play that showcase the behavior that's at the root of others' characterizations.

Click to expand...

I acknowledged that play can devolve to a mother may I like situation. I think the OPs point was much more sound in that respect than many of pemerton's responses. But he is asserting whole styles of play are mother may I (which becomes useless as a term to describe gaming in that case because you are effectively just calling a play style child's play). in my example, i am assuming other things are going on leading up to the decision to go to the Tea House. Obviously these things are not being done in a vacuum, and the players may or may not have good reason to assume the Tea House is a likely spot to find members of Bone Breaking Sect. But the reason I used the example is because what matters is what guide's the GM's decision. He or she isn't answering a question the PCs raised, if that isn't part of the consideration in determining what is there. The players can say "we go to the Inn to see if Donald Trump is there" all they want, but if he doesn't exist in my setting, it doesn't matter that they floated the idea. I think people don't seem to get a lot of groups don't see their declared actions as attempts to insert or float anything in the setting itself. Their simply trying to explore (and yes they may be exploring for a purpose, but they don't assume the GM is giving them something as a result). And this is not at all about pre-plotted ideas. My example comes from an actual campaign, where I ran everything as a drama sandbox, and made most of my decisions based on what I knew of the setting (particularly its geography), what I knew of the sects and groups involved, what I knew about recent developments in the martial world, occasionally using tables and other tools, etc. It would have been fairly easy for me to figure out what is at that Tea House. I am not averse to letting players do something like go into town and roll a Survival (City) Skill to see if they find people they are looking for. But the success or failure isn't going to determine what is in the city, it is going to determine whether they find out if the group is in the city. It is just a style coming from a different perspective than Pemerton assumes, and he is painting it as a caricature to advance a position about play styles. Perhaps my example was imperfect. I deliberately chose one that was meant to superficially seem like what he was talking about. But I don't think it is mother may I at all. It could become mother may I, if all the players do is keep going to places looking for Bone Breaking sect members, and the GM keeps saying no until they find the exact right spot. But I think that is more indicative of a dysfunctional group, where the players and the GM are both not dealing well with the game.

Ovinomancer said:

I Sadly, in "trad" games, the general principles floated are often degenerate themselves, so there's less of a coherent defense and it's easier to characterize play with thise degenerate examples. Heck, some of the defenders can be counted on to do it themselves.

Click to expand...

Posts like this are why we have such trouble having real discussions. I try to be charitable in my assessment of other peoples posts and play styles. But there are also patterns of behavior here where it becomes difficult to ignore the shade being thrown at your preference (even if it is couched in theory or jargon). If you are going to characterize playstyles as degenerate, rather than really look at what people are saying they want and are experiencing, you are going to have conflict. I would never label a playstyle or taste in gaming degenerate (partly because that is an enormously loaded term, and doesn't at all seem useful for analyzing game play). This is an equivocation. I am acknlowedging play can degenerate (just like a conversation can degenerate---i.e. using it as a verb). But that is different from using degenerate as an adjective. There is a sense of superiority coming across here that is immensely off-putting. I personally have no problem with Pemerton's style of play. And I think it meets a need that is out there. Nor do I have a problem with people looking for other various kinds of play. I do take issue when I see something I see work at the table mischaracterized (no matter how well made the argument). It is very easy to push someone into a rhetorical corner in an online discussion about playstyles. But what I am seeing just doesn't match what I see live at the table.

Ovinomancer said:

On the other side, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] really dislikes GM plotted games and so tends to characterize them negatively (or gleefully use provided terms that do so). That many players actually enjoy a well-crafted GM plot is beside the point. In fact, this preference for using degenerate play examples and negative connotations is my largest issue with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (I'm sure he cares) as I think he has interesting things to say.
.

Click to expand...

He very well might. Like I said, his style seems to meet a need that is out there. But what I don't think he, or you, realize, is by forcing people to defend their preferences, by casting it in a light where his style is always the most favorably described (in virtually everything thread his approach is the one that maximizes whatever ideal of play is being floated, and the style he doesn't like is the one that minimizes it---for example the player agency and freedom thread), he is ensuring people dig their heels into the ground and defend every inch of rhetorical space he lays down. Someone who might have been open to trying one of his ideas, suddenly sees using his ideas as the antithesis of their preferred play style because he has framed the conversation that way. It becomes an all or nothing proposition because in order to defend their playstyle, they are being pushed to attack his. But most people and most groups are more complicated than that. Few playgroups adhere to a platonic ideal of play style that you see so often online. I am sure there are plenty of groups who might be traditional or run sandbox for instance, who would be open to using some of what he is suggesting as occasional tools. But they are not going to throw out the sandbox or the traditional role of the GM the majority of the time. The conversation creates a sense of false choice, where there can be only one way that is good and wholesome, and the other way is 'degenerate', 'mother may I', etc.

Sadras said:

Besides, the yes no binary, as well as non-related interesting scenarios, the DM may use the in-game fiction to provide further hints related to the PCs goals.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. This stuff is happening in the context of a campaign, of an adventure, a session of play, etc. I am assuming the players didn't just randomly pick the tea house (though they certainly could have done so if they wanted to). You could have a situation where the players came to town knowing that Bone Breaker Sect likes going to that Tea House, and if that is the case in the setting, as a GM I am going to consider that fact when deciding what is in the tea house. I might resort to a roll if I feel it helps, but I might just decide, given what I know, they are or they aren't there, or someone who knows them is there, or a person who is their enemy is there, or something entirely unrelated but equally interesting is going on (or a mix of these things). It is not as simple as it is being reduced to.

pemerton said:

This is very system dependent. In D&D, it's not generally true for the player of a magic-user or wizard declaring that s/he casts a spell, nor for the player of a fighter declaring that s/he draws his/her sword.

Click to expand...

But that isn't the context of the OP and isn't what my post was talking about.