A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

Ovinomancer said:

Only if you're insisting on formal English in phrasing declarations. If my players say, "I kill the orc," I take that as the intent of their action and apply resolution mechanics.

But, that aside, only the first two lines of my response involved declarations, the rest was about resolutions.

Click to expand...

Yes, the "try to" is often assumed at the table but for purposes of discussions like these - where nothing can be safely assumed - it's probably best to put it in.

I think you may not have been paying attention. The mechanic of "GM decides" is a large part of MMI.

Click to expand...

Then "I [try to] kill the orc" was probably a poor choice of example, as rare indeed is the system that lets a GM - without recourse to some sort of combat mechanics - outright decide how combat resolves when said combat involves PCs.

Where that mechanic gets employed is the operative part, I think. If it's universal, then you're in MMI, if it's more limited, you may not be.

Click to expand...

Perhaps.

S'mon said:

I was wondering if Ovinomancer was saying that the GM saying "No, Roll to hit" would be Denial of "I Kill the Orc" and thus "Mother May I". (Frankly I'm still wondering).

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that you're using "I kill the orc" as a declaration here, and not a resolution? Okay. In that case, absolutely not. A denial of the declaration, "I kill the orc" (or "I try to kill the orc," for [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]), would be, "No, you don't, because X,Y,Z" or, less obviously, "You try to but fail." The latter only becomes MMI if you have to use the GM's approved actions to progress.

I find this MMI concept very confusing. It definitely seems to be a derogatory term but I can't get a clear idea of what it's supposed to mean. It seems to be applied to the normal processes of playing an RPG.

Click to expand...

MMI, simply put, is the GM having the power to deny action declarations. In other words, anything you try to do must first receive GM permission. This is often implied, as in you don't actually ask permission, but the GM has the authority to negate outright. D&D prior to 4e largely has this quality, and it's an assumed mindset in the crowd that insists a game is owned by the GM. However, if players can declare actions freely, and the fiction then reflects their action attempt, you're not doing hard MMI. If the GM then has authority over the resolution system, and uses that to effect the same result as hard MMI, ie, making DCs impossible or denying success outright to disapproved actions, then you're into soft MMI. Principled play by the GM in this latter system can dispel MMI, and I think many games use such principled games even in earlier editions.

MMI is closely related to railroading, and, as I think on it, at least soft MMI is largely required for railroading. If you can't force the rails, you aren't in MMI territory. If you can, then you kinda are, because you're making the play go only along approved directions by using your authority as GM.

So, no, MMI is not the normal process of playing an RPG, but it may be A process.

Lanefan said:

Yes, the "try to" is often assumed at the table but for purposes of discussions like these - where nothing can be safely assumed - it's probably best to put it in.

Then "I [try to] kill the orc" was probably a poor choice of example, as rare indeed is the system that lets a GM - without recourse to some sort of combat mechanics - outright decide how combat resolves when said combat involves PCs.

Perhaps.

Click to expand...

I can think of a few instances where "I kill the orc" is both the declaration and automatic resolution, even in old school D&D. If the orc is tied up and helpless, for example, this may be a foregone conclusion and, I think, would be quickly resolved via declaration at most tables. Some systems may, depending on the scene, accept this declaration as resolution without engaging formal mechanics to do so. Some systems, even, would welcome this as declaration and resolution (these, though, are more storytelling games). It's hard to pin down what declarations might result in automatic resolutions.

In a combat, though, yes, I agree a declaration of "I kill the orc" would be tested in almost all systems.

S'mon said:

I find this MMI concept very confusing.

<snip>

It seems to be applied to the normal processes of playing an RPG.

Click to expand...

As used in the OP of the other thread, which is the usage I was borrowing in the OP of this thread, it means the GM decides the way in which action declarations and action resolution change the fiction. The salient changes in the fiction that were being considered were both more-or-less immediate outcomes, and also downstream consequences.

The reason for calling it "Mother may I" is because, in order to produce a desired outcome or consequence in the fiction, the player has to guess what sort of action declaration will lead the GM to decide to make such a change to the fiction.

The contrast is with an action resolution system that is used to determine whether an action declaration produces the change in the fiction the player would like it to, or rather some adverse change in the fiction that the GM has in mind.

pemerton said:

As used in the OP of the other thread, which is the usage I was borrowing in the OP of this thread, it means the GM decides the way in which action declarations and action resolution change the fiction.

Click to expand...

So you could just call it "GM decides"? I would think that would be a lot more neutral terminology.

S'mon said:

So you could just call it "GM decides"? I would think that would be a lot more neutral terminology.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the existence of GM decides is sufficient for MMI. Necessary, but not sufficient. For instance, 5e uses GM decides for it's core game loop, but it's not necessarily MMI if played in a principled manner. 5e's core loop removes approval of player action declarations from the GM, so no hard MMI, but if the GM uses the GM decides loop to force his approval, then you're back into MMI, again.

I don't see the existence of a degenerate play like MMI to be cause to not discuss how it occurs. I've also said, in posts you've quoted but snipped, that most tables don't engage in MMI. It's more like talking about railroading -- clearly a degenerate playstyle, but one that can be discussed without saying everyone does it. Noting which systems put GM approval at a foundational tier in the ruleset is valuable in knowing that you should approach using that system from a principled stance to minimize it's impact. I don't think older D&D editions intentionally placed MMI as a foundation, nor do I think most games played with those systems suffer from MMI, but that's in spite of the ruleset, not because of it.

GM decides is a method of play that isn't inherently MMI or not. It's just how some systems resolve actions in play, they rely on a GM to apply their best judgement to the evolving play and adjudicate fairly. When I run 5e, as I'm doing right now, I play this way, because that's how that system operates. I pay attention to my play, though, and strive to avoid reaching into MMI by gating player actions by my preferences. I think plenty of other GMs do this as well. Discussing the issue is not casting aspersions.

Maxperson said:

A "practice" implies that it is common. It's not. It's rare. There are very few DMs who will engage in trying to control every aspect of what the players want to do

Click to expand...

Let's say that it's common enough of a phenomenon to warrant the creation of a moderately-circulated pejorative to describe it and a 900+ thread of people debating the scope of its applicability.

The social contract is stronger than any rule system.

Click to expand...

Maybe if I remind you of this post often enough, then maybe your words will transform into an actual conviction that you put into practice:

Maxperson said:

In your opinion. You shouldn't be presenting your opinion as if it were fact, because it's not.

Click to expand...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

5e tells the DM to discourage metagame thinking.

Click to expand...

It depends on how you read the imperative. Is it prohibitive? Commanding? Instructive? Advisory? Suggestive? Nowhere though does it explicitly say that metagaming is disallowed. Discouraging a thing is not prohibiting a thing. We see this, for example, in "Discourage swearing by establishing a swear jar," which does not prohibit swearing or imply illegality. And if we are in a system that lives by "rulings not rules," then what extent can we say that metagaming is illegal in the rules?

Furthermore, discouraging a thing does not make the thing illegal or cheating. The book may note how a GM would possibly want to discourage the creation of a chaotic evil PC among a bunch of Lawful Good PCs due to disruption it may cause the game. But in itself, it is not prohibited.

And along similar lines, discouraging a thing does not inherently make it an invalid part of play. Fouling is technically illegal in basketball. There are explicit rules to discourage excessive fouling and what may be regarded as unsportsmanlike conduct. However, fouling is an intentional and strategic part of how basketball and many other sports (such as football/soccer) are played. Players are even trained about how to foul other players and how to draw fouls. It's almost as if the metagame is a fundamental part of the game.

But let's also consider this. I am a player reading the player's handbook, which tells me, the player, how to play the game. As a humble player, I do not have access to the DMG, because I am not the Dungeon Master. Where is my prohibition against metagaming in the PHB? If this is a player issue, then why is this issue of "foul play" entirely absent in the player's manual where a player, who would obviously need to know of its illegality as part of play, could find it?

All that said, I'm of a similar mind as the Angry GM when it comes to metagaming. Metagaming is more often than not a symptom that the social contract already broke down between players and the GM, and it's not always the player's fault: "Dear GMs: Metagaming is YOUR Fault."

BTW, Max, I am still awaiting your alternative term for Mother-May-I that you think would be more suitable to describe the practice. If you don't like the term "practice," for reasons you have already provided, then substitute "practice" with "this particular aspect of dysfunctional play that jerk DMs do." You have definitely had more than a second of thought to come up with one by this point.

Edit:

S'mon said:

So you could just call it "GM decides"? I would think that would be a lot more neutral terminology.

Click to expand...

Dear [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]: This is an example of a person providing an alternative term. We can of course debate the merits of this alternative term, but they have nevertheless proposed one, and that should be lauded.

S'mon said:

I was wondering if Ovinomancer was saying that the GM saying "No, Roll to hit" would be Denial of "I Kill the Orc" and thus "Mother May I". (Frankly I'm still wondering).

Click to expand...

GM: "Let's roll to find out."

It's not as if the GMing principle is called "Say yes or it's Mother-May-I." Please remember that a critical part of SYORTD lies in the second part of the phrase: "or roll the dice."

Aldarc said:

Let's say that it's common enough of a phenomenon enough to warrant the creation of a moderately-circulated pejorative to describe it and a 900+ thread of people debating the scope of its applicability.

Click to expand...

I don't think online threads really indicate how big of a problem something is. This thread has what, 5-10 posters keeping it alive? Starting a thread takes one poster. I think it is difficult to glean a lot from that kind of information.

Bedrockgames said:

I don't think online threads really indicate how big of a problem something is. This thread has what, 5-10 posters keeping it alive? Starting a thread takes one poster. I think it is difficult to glean a lot from that kind of information.

Click to expand...

Thankfully I did not use this thread as the sole determiner of its prevalence, though it certainly pertains to its current relevance.

pemerton said:

As used in the OP of the other thread, which is the usage I was borrowing in the OP of this thread, it means the GM decides the way in which action declarations and action resolution change the fiction. The salient changes in the fiction that were being considered were both more-or-less immediate outcomes, and also downstream consequences.

The reason for calling it "Mother may I" is because, in order to produce a desired outcome or consequence in the fiction, the player has to guess what sort of action declaration will lead the GM to decide to make such a change to the fiction.

The contrast is with an action resolution system that is used to determine whether an action declaration produces the change in the fiction the player would like it to, or rather some adverse change in the fiction that the GM has in mind.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

I don't believe the existence of GM decides is sufficient for MMI. Necessary, but not sufficient. For instance, 5e uses GM decides for it's core game loop, but it's not necessarily MMI if played in a principled manner. 5e's core loop removes approval of player action declarations from the GM, so no hard MMI, but if the GM uses the GM decides loop to force his approval, then you're back into MMI, again.

I don't see the existence of a degenerate play like MMI to be cause to not discuss how it occurs. I've also said, in posts you've quoted but snipped, that most tables don't engage in MMI. It's more like talking about railroading -- clearly a degenerate playstyle, but one that can be discussed without saying everyone does it. Noting which systems put GM approval at a foundational tier in the ruleset is valuable in knowing that you should approach using that system from a principled stance to minimize it's impact. I don't think older D&D editions intentionally placed MMI as a foundation, nor do I think most games played with those systems suffer from MMI, but that's in spite of the ruleset, not because of it.

GM decides is a method of play that isn't inherently MMI or not. It's just how some systems resolve actions in play, they rely on a GM to apply their best judgement to the evolving play and adjudicate fairly. When I run 5e, as I'm doing right now, I play this way, because that's how that system operates. I pay attention to my play, though, and strive to avoid reaching into MMI by gating player actions by my preferences. I think plenty of other GMs do this as well. Discussing the issue is not casting aspersions.

Click to expand...

These two posts together probably organize the concept as well as it can be organized so I'm quoting them here.

Another aspect of this (which you see me typically invoke) is:

"How Force-enabling is this ruleset?"

There will be some correlation with the MMI concept there.

In my opinion, there are three things that stand out above all others to enable Force (though there are others). These are:

1) Inclusion of a Golden Rule derivative that stipulates that the GM may ignore, change rules, or change action resolution outcomes at their discretion to facilitate an overly broad/nebulous social play goal (eg the idea of, and invariably the GM's interpretation of, the "table state of fun"). This sort of power as a central pillar of a game's GMing ethos literally trumps anything else that comes after it. It not only places full veto power of every moment of of the gamestate in the GM's hands, but it also casts the GM as interpreter of a likely complex collective state (which is virtually never unified)...and not erringly interpret that state through the prism of their own cognitive bias.

2) The game's machinery to change the gamestate is significantly (or overwhelmingly) opaque and/or GM-facing rather than transparent and consistent or player-facing.

3) Lack of systematized, high resolution GMing principles and focused + specific (rather than unfocused and broad) play goals, that serve to constrain GM overhead and guide refereeing, which the table is collectively conscious of that writ.