innerdude
Legend
The issue of "Mother May I?" is muddy, obviously. That said, from my perspective there's a clear set of procedural steps, or sequences, that seem to be common to it:
1. Player proposes an action/intent for his or her character
2. GM makes a determination of some kind about how to resolve the action declaration.
2.a. Is the stated action declaration even possible in the context of the agreed upon genre conventions? E.g., the player isn't asking for the Millennium Falcon to come out of hyperspace and destroy the Tarrasque if we're playing a Forgotten Realms campaign.
2.b. Even if theoretically possible, is the stated action declaration congruent with prior play state(s)? E.g., a player declaring, "I use the Knife of Ogre Slaying +7 I found in my pocket to attack the two ogres on my right" when no prior fiction established the presence of the +7 weapon.
(For the record, I don't think 2a or 2b constitute violations of the "Mother May I?" principle, it's just general bad form on the part of the player to make these kinds of declarations. After eliminating the general potentiality of the absurd, things get a bit trickier.)
2.c. Does the stated action declaration properly address relevant fictional positioning? For example, the player declares that their character wishes to persuade a minor noble who the character previously insulted, which should at the very least involve some complication to the attempt. Or, say a player expresses that their character tries to woo the barmaid in the middle of a tavern brawl. Certainly possible contextually, but not directly addressing the current obstacle (not getting the character's head bashed in).
--2.c.i. If 2.c. doesn't appear congruent on the surface, is it something that can be clarified by the GM providing more information/context around the current fictional positioning?
2.d. Does the GM deem the action declaration important enough and relevant enough to the current stakes to warrant taking the time to adjudicate the success or failure? In other words, is a simple "Yes!" response from the GM sufficient?
2.e. Does the action declaration have a mechanical "plugin" that can adjudicate the declared action? In come cases this may supersede point 2.c.
But truthfully, anywhere down the decision tree until point 2.e. could theoretically be nixed outright by the GM, for whatever perceivable reason(s) he or she deems. So just how much negotiation happening between points 2.a. and 2.e. would be considered "Mother May I?" How much of the onus is on the GM to provide relevant, critical information regarding the current fictional state, and how much of the onus is on the player to find the right balance between asking for too much vs. asking for too little?
This is an interesting example, because as a player, my first instinct would be to immediately declare, "I would like to recover my shard without instigating violence." Would you have seen this as a possible action declaration? Why or why not? Would the PC in question have been allowed to make a diplomacy/persuasion check of any kind to resolve that action?
1. Player proposes an action/intent for his or her character
2. GM makes a determination of some kind about how to resolve the action declaration.
2.a. Is the stated action declaration even possible in the context of the agreed upon genre conventions? E.g., the player isn't asking for the Millennium Falcon to come out of hyperspace and destroy the Tarrasque if we're playing a Forgotten Realms campaign.
2.b. Even if theoretically possible, is the stated action declaration congruent with prior play state(s)? E.g., a player declaring, "I use the Knife of Ogre Slaying +7 I found in my pocket to attack the two ogres on my right" when no prior fiction established the presence of the +7 weapon.
(For the record, I don't think 2a or 2b constitute violations of the "Mother May I?" principle, it's just general bad form on the part of the player to make these kinds of declarations. After eliminating the general potentiality of the absurd, things get a bit trickier.)
2.c. Does the stated action declaration properly address relevant fictional positioning? For example, the player declares that their character wishes to persuade a minor noble who the character previously insulted, which should at the very least involve some complication to the attempt. Or, say a player expresses that their character tries to woo the barmaid in the middle of a tavern brawl. Certainly possible contextually, but not directly addressing the current obstacle (not getting the character's head bashed in).
--2.c.i. If 2.c. doesn't appear congruent on the surface, is it something that can be clarified by the GM providing more information/context around the current fictional positioning?
2.d. Does the GM deem the action declaration important enough and relevant enough to the current stakes to warrant taking the time to adjudicate the success or failure? In other words, is a simple "Yes!" response from the GM sufficient?
2.e. Does the action declaration have a mechanical "plugin" that can adjudicate the declared action? In come cases this may supersede point 2.c.
But truthfully, anywhere down the decision tree until point 2.e. could theoretically be nixed outright by the GM, for whatever perceivable reason(s) he or she deems. So just how much negotiation happening between points 2.a. and 2.e. would be considered "Mother May I?" How much of the onus is on the GM to provide relevant, critical information regarding the current fictional state, and how much of the onus is on the player to find the right balance between asking for too much vs. asking for too little?
We recently had a session where the party tracked down the group of Frost Giants hoping to negotiate some sort of deal with them (long story).
Anyways one of the PCs was carrying one of the shards of the Rod of Seven Parts (modified) which also happens to be the PC's heirloom. The PC noticed that one of the Frost Giants (Frost Giant Everlasting One, VGtM) had a similar shard but was using it as a hairpin (stolen idea).
The above PC managed to gain the Frost Giant's attention and showed him his shard, holding his upwards in open palms for the FG to inspect. The FG, intrigued, took the PC's shard and removed her hairpin and with little difficulty joined the two shards. Satisfied, she then placed the now unified piece back in her hair. The PC, then in desperation, made an attempt with his hands and a loud cough that he desired his piece returned. The FG, unperturbed began chatting to her fellow kin. The negotiation with the FGs ended successfully and the two groups parted ways.
Needless to say, the PC was annoyed, but was unwilling for the party to take on the 7 FG's in order to retrieve the artifact he had had from 1st level (party is currently level 10).
None of that was rolled for, except for the negotiations which were a separate exercise. None of that was planned for obviously. The PC declared his actions. I as DM adjudicated the interaction. No dice was necessary for the FG response in relation to the PC wanting his shard back. I determined the reasonable course of action for the FG based on the actions declared by the PC and my knowledge of FGs. I do the same with anything else in the setting. If I decided the outcome was uncertain I would let the dice decide. I don't consider any of this a Mother-May-I play-style.
This is an interesting example, because as a player, my first instinct would be to immediately declare, "I would like to recover my shard without instigating violence." Would you have seen this as a possible action declaration? Why or why not? Would the PC in question have been allowed to make a diplomacy/persuasion check of any kind to resolve that action?
Last edited: