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

Bedrockgames said:

If this bothers you, it bothers you. My reasoning for doing it this way is 1) an idea about the post occurs to me after the first response I give, so I weigh in again, 2) I like posting things in their full context most of the time (I've been increasingly moving away from isolating one point, quoting it and responding). This has just become how I am comfortable posting. By all means, if it bothers you, feel free to stick to the first post, but I feel kind of like you are issuing a command here, which makes me even more reluctant to alter how I am responding.

Click to expand...

I understand. I shall remove the problem.

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...

"I look for sect members in the tea house" is pretty much the same as "I search the tea house" or "I investigate the tea house", if one assumes there's other things to potentially discover there beyond evidence of the sect. (some simple examples might be: gaining a useful ally or informant, or the realization that the tea house is a front for some group that isn't the sect, or that the whole thing is a trap to lure in nosy adventurers, or whatever)

And sure, saying you're specifically looking for sect members gives the DM something to focus on, which is great; but my worry is that you would have this also inform the DM to ignore everything else about the tea house regardless what - or how potentially relevant - it might be.

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.

Click to expand...

All this means is that you passed responsibility for that particular decision over to player-side dice rolls rather than making it yourself either in prep or by on-the-fly roll or fiat.

Immortal Sun said:

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

Click to expand...

Immortal Sun said:

But declaring "I want to take over the Thieves Guild." is not the same as saying "I shoot fireball at the orc!" As the OP belabors to explain (and I honestly think his biggest problem is he's got himself mixed up over this) that the potential results of declaring "I want to take over the Thieves Guild." are unknown.

Click to expand...

What is the context of the OP? What system is the OP playing? That information hasn't come to light in this thread.

One thing that I think is reasonably clear from the OP is that no player has declared the action I take over the thieves' guild. (That has been stated as a goal for the PC, but not an action declaration.) The OP doesn't actually describe any action declarations, which was why my first post in this thread asked what actions the player in question is declaring for his PC.

There are RPG systems in which "I take over the thieves' guild" could be a legitimate action declaration. (Eg test Intimidate augmented by Thieves-wise, City-wise and Streetwise with help from a NPC contacted via Circles and with an advantage die resulting from a successful Resources check.) Even in D&D, in 4e at least "I take over the thieves' guild" might be resolved as a low or moderate complexity skill challenge.

The fact that it is an action that is extended through time and space isn't a reason it can't be resolved as a single action or via a system's complex skill check method (which in 4e is the skill challenge).

Bedrockgames said:

by forcing people to defend their preferences

Click to expand...

No one has forced anyone to defend their preferences. It was clear in the OP what the issue was that was being raised. I addressed it, and the OP both XPed my post and referred to what I said a couple of times as a useful answer for the problem raised.

You are the one who wants to argue about playstyles, apparently because you have play preferences that differ from mine and the OP's and so get irritated by a discussion that presupposes our rather than your preferences.

pemerton said:

You are the one who wants to argue about playstyles, apparently because you have play preferences that differ from mine and the OP's and so get irritated by a discussion that presupposes our rather than your preferences.

Click to expand...

I have found the OP very reasonable and don't have any issue with the OP. I have an issue with the argument you've been making, and the way you have been making it. And I don't have a problem with your play style or you having a different play style from me. I have a problem with you always framing this particular style of play (traditional, sandbox, where GM makes rulings) as inferior. You do it on virtually every thread I've engaged you on. Here you are insisting on labeling it Mother May I which isn't a neutral term at all if you are applying it to a whole style.

Bedrockgames said:

I have found the OP very reasonable and don't have any issue with the OP.

Click to expand...

This is you replying to the OP some way upthread, making exactly the same point as you made in the post I am replying to:

Bedrockgames said:

I think this doesn't quite capture what it is like in practice. I feel like people use Mother-May-I as a bit of a rhetorical bludgeon to argue against a play style.

Click to expand...

In that earlier post you then go on to say the following:

Bedrockgames said:

What this sort of game doesn't typically have are mechanics for handling GM rulings and judgements. In my mind this is generally a good thing. It is not needed in every system. But for me the advantage RPGs have always had over other types of games (including computer games) is you have a human there who can consider any requested action and think through what might actually occur as a result, which creates this sense of being in a real place.

Click to expand...

That appears to equate non-"traditional" RPGing with computer games, and to suggest that they don't take advantage of the presence of a GM in the game. Which is obviously nonsense, but does cast some doubt over your claim to not have a problem with other playstyles, and only be interested in avoiding misdescriptions of playstyles.

pemerton said:

That appears to equate non-"traditional" RPGing with computer games, and to suggest that they don't take advantage of the presence of a GM in the game. Which is obviously nonsense, but does cast some doubt over your claim to not have a problem with other playstyles, and only be interested in avoiding misdescriptions of playstyles.

Click to expand...

I wasn't doing that at all. Even in a lot of non-traditional RPGs, you usually still have humans making judgements. I prefer games that really lean on that aspect of the medium. My point was just that RPGs as a medium are distinct from computer games and movies because you have the game master managing the setting. In some games GM responsibilities get shifted to players, but again you still have humans making judgements to maintain an expansive sense of place you just can't get in a film or video game.

pemerton said:

This is you replying to the OP some way upthread, making exactly the same point as you made in the post I am replying to:

In that earlier post you then go on to say the following:
.

Click to expand...

Jeez Pemerton, this is some really fine toothed combing you are doing here. I honestly don't know what you are trying to prove with this. I think it is entirely feasible for me to say what I said about Mother May I being used as a rhetorical bludgeon in that post, and feel like I am having a genuine conversation with the OP that isn't having the difficulties you and I are running into.

pemerton said:

Which is obviously nonsense, but does cast some doubt over your claim to not have a problem with other playstyles, and only be interested in avoiding misdescriptions of playstyles.

Click to expand...

I never said I had zero preferences about play style. I said I have not problem with other play styles. I fully expect people to advocate for their style, to promote it, and to see things from their gaming point of view. What bothers me is criticism masquerading as analysis, insults masquerading as terminology.

Bedrockgames said:

I wasn't doing that at all. Even in a lot of non-traditional RPGs, you usually still have humans making judgements.

Click to expand...

So then why bring it up as a point of contrast? What would you consider an example of a game that has "mechanics for handling GM rulings and judgements"?

pemerton said:

So then why bring it up as a point of contrast? What would you consider an example of a game that has "mechanics for handling GM rulings and judgements"?

Click to expand...

Because I was saying not having mechanics for rulings on these kinds of things leans into one of the strengths of an RPG in my opinion. You describe this as mother may I play, I think it is just a solid approach to RPGs that works well for the medium. I am not saying it is the only approach, or the best one (using mechanics to determine those things could have their own benefits). But I think there is value in the approach you keep labelling mother may I, and I think Mother May I fails to capture what that approach feels like. Look you can go over everything i say with a fine tooth comb if you want, and we can be here all day while I defend every corner statement I make. But I am not on trial, and the level of grilling you bring to peoples' posts feels more appropriate to a court room than a conversation. Like I said, I don't have a problem with other ways of playing the game. But I have approaches I like, and if you are going to dismiss them as Mother May I, I will explain why I don't think the label fits and why the style I like works well. I just feel like all of your characterizations of this style of play are wholly uncharitable and partisan.