A DM by any other name

[Libramarian]

First, I'll say that you might be misunderstanding what the "mother may I?" insult is supposed to be targetting. It rather specifically refers to the uncertainty faced by the players due to an abstract game environment where they can't rely on certain facts of the game world. For example, tracking detailed positioning without a grid, where the positions of characters and availability of targets is mostly in the realm of DM fiat, so any action requires the player asking the DM if the action is, in fact, possible. This act of asking permission from the DM to perform any action whatsoever is the "mother may I?" part. It applies just as much to things like the game using abstract stunt mechanics rather than rigidly-defined powers, and the like.

Example of "Mother May I?" gameplay:
Player: We need to take out that ogre. Is he in range?
DM: Yes. (Yes you may)
Player: I want to jump on his back. Is it possible?
DM: Err... No, he's moving around too much and is too high for you to reach. (No, you may not.)
Player: Darn. I rush in and attack him with my sword.
DM: Go ahead. (Yes, you may.)
*dice rolling*

Example of the opposite:
Player: I'm 25 feet from the ogre, and I have enough move, so I move into range and try to grapple him.
DM: *listens patiently and plans the ogre's next move because he doesn't need to get involved*
*dice rolling*

Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, but I prefer the latter, by a big margin. The biggest reason is that the former style leads to all kinds of problems because of different expectations on the part of the player and DM. Different people have different ideas of what is possible, so Mother May I gameplay leads to more disappointment and friction between people at the table. Dropping the Mother May I also speeds up the game and reduces the overall burden on the DM, freeing up time and mental energy that can be better used elsewhere.

It's like this. Those of us who don't mind the first exchange between player and DM disagree with your characterization of the DM's responses as meaning the same thing as "yes, you may". It doesn't feel like that. It feels like my mental map of the battleground has a tangible, objective reality that I am consulting. I'm not just pulling an answer out of my butt. I am NOT making the decision based on whether the player "deserves" the answer they're looking for, as characterizing it as "yes, you may" implies. I am following facts previously established about the gameworld. If I do get the "I'm pulling this out of my butt" feeling, and the stakes are significant, then I roll dice to decide. I feel that I am making the judgement fairly, and I endeavor to make sure that the players feel that way too.

The DM is in the best position to be combat referee for two reasons: one, they don't have a character so they don't have a conflict of interest; and two, their judgement ought to be the most accurate and consistent because it's their job in general to build, maintain and describe the setting. To me this sort of combat refereeing follows straightforwardly out of that. It's not out of step with the general role of the DM at all.

"Mother may I?" gameplay hurts the ability of players to understand the basic situation and make complex plans and strategies.

No, not really. You can ask the DM to make these judgements, and thus set the facts about the gameworld in stone, as early and often in your tactical decision-making process as you want.

I don't think Mother May I gameplay is exactly fun for the DM... I DM a bit myself, and I much prefer relying on the rules and removing ambiguity, rather than factoring in a lot of ambiguity and making tons of judgement calls. I prefer to just roll the dice and see how they fall. Also, most of the stuff that is fun for DMs is unrelated to Mother May I as well.

I enjoy being active in the "referee" role. I find it makes the mental "movie" of what's going on more vivid for me.

 

[Libramarian]

I'm trying to understand what seems—to me, emphasis there— to be a newish phenomena or attitude shift.

My thinking is that during the development of 3e they came up with the economic argument that the game should be focused on the players instead of the DM, because you have 4 or 5 potential customers for a PC focused product for every 1 for an adventure or setting or otherwise DM focused product.

This "insight" -- I think it's questionable even considering short term profits much less the long term health of the game -- I think is a significant source of this whole modern skepticism of DM-as-referee. It's because the company that makes D&D doesn't know how to monetize it.

In general I think it takes an unusual amount of intellectual integrity to not have your philosophy just follow where your money goes.

What it reminds me of is how Google and Facebook executives all have strange theories about how much humanity would benefit if we were all more open and sharing and less obsessed with privacy. Of course it's just a coincidence that their businesses make billions of dollars coordinating advertisements with their users personal information.

 

[Manbearcat]

First, I'll say that you might be misunderstanding what the "mother may I?" insult is supposed to be targetting. It rather specifically refers to the uncertainty faced by the players due to an abstract game environment where they can't rely on certain facts of the game world. For example, tracking detailed positioning without a grid, where the positions of characters and availability of targets is mostly in the realm of DM fiat, so any action requires the player asking the DM if the action is, in fact, possible. This act of asking permission from the DM to perform any action whatsoever is the "mother may I?" part. It applies just as much to things like the game using abstract stunt mechanics rather than rigidly-defined powers, and the like.

Example of "Mother May I?" gameplay:
Player: We need to take out that ogre. Is he in range?
DM: Yes. (Yes you may)
Player: I want to jump on his back. Is it possible?
DM: Err... No, he's moving around too much and is too high for you to reach. (No, you may not.)
Player: Darn. I rush in and attack him with my sword.
DM: Go ahead. (Yes, you may.)
*dice rolling*

Example of the opposite:
Player: I'm 25 feet from the ogre, and I have enough move, so I move into range and try to grapple him.
DM: *listens patiently and plans the ogre's next move because he doesn't need to get involved*
*dice rolling*

Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, but I prefer the latter, by a big margin. The biggest reason is that the former style leads to all kinds of problems because of different expectations on the part of the player and DM. Different people have different ideas of what is possible, so Mother May I gameplay leads to more disappointment and friction between people at the table. Dropping the Mother May I also speeds up the game and reduces the overall burden on the DM, freeing up time and mental energy that can be better used elsewhere.

<snip tons of great stuff>

Besides the offense taken at the original post (I suppose its inevitable and understandable given the frayed feelings within our gaming culture), I think I agree on most of this. I would xp TwinBahamut if I was able.

The only thing I will add is that I think there is actually a (growing?) set of DMs out there who are very weary of the ad-hoc rules adjudication lifting of a rules-light system as they feel that it takes their concentration/focus away from what they enjoy;

- improvising and maximizing the leveraging of their creative reservoir while collectively composing fiction, via a set of conflict-resolution mechanics, with their friends.

Further, there may be other variables such as;

- awareness of the limits of your own perspective/multi-tasking capabilities

- the rules light system being randomly engaging in some areas, antagonistic in other areas while far too deferential in others

- perhaps most importantly, issues inherent to a rules light system whereby it may not be focused or robust enough to support certain elements that are required for your specific tastes to become manifest.

 

[Raith5]

This sentiment (which I'll refer to as NMMI for "no Mother-May-I") surprised me, and I even find it somewhat disconcerting, as I always viewed the DM role and his or her ability to make judgement calls and houserules as both long-eastablished, inviolate, and necessary.

I have too many bad memories of DM's abusing their position during my school years 25 years ago to easily accept this. Sure the DM has always had a wide discretion in terms of what monsters and NPC do etc but there needs to be some common rules and a common social contract between the people playing and the DM, in order for the DM to operate with any legitimacy and the game to have some cordiality. Put another way, the power to control frame and pace adventures should be the role of the DM, not changing rules arbitrarily.

My sense is that the idea of DM fiat with regards to rules is not some abstract philosophical position but a sheer practical reality of early editions of D&D. To play 1st level D&D you had to give the DM considerable license to DM for the game to work well. As others have indicated 3rd and 4th edition, not so much. I dont see this as bad thing for roleplaying and is not something that should disappear from D&D going forward.

 

[TwinBahamut]

It's like this. Those of us who don't mind the first exchange between player and DM disagree with your characterization of the DM's responses as meaning the same thing as "yes, you may". It doesn't feel like that. It feels like my mental map of the battleground has a tangible, objective reality that I am consulting. I'm not just pulling an answer out of my butt. I am NOT making the decision based on whether the player "deserves" the answer they're looking for, as characterizing it as "yes, you may" implies. I am following facts previously established about the gameworld. If I do get the "I'm pulling this out of my butt" feeling, and the stakes are significant, then I roll dice to decide. I feel that I am making the judgement fairly, and I endeavor to make sure that the players feel that way too.

The problem with this is that there is always going to be a difference between the reality as the DM imagines it and the reality as the players imagine. It is simply impossible to express every nuance of a complex situation to multiple people with only vocal cues. This is simply because, regardless of what you may feel, you are not creating "tangible, objective reality", you are creating a virtual, subjective reality, and the subjectiveness is going to cause discrepancies and disagreements, simply because of human error, miscommunication, and different interpretations and imaginations that different people have.

This is why people do things like play with actual miniatures and grids, rather than the theater of the mind. Unlike the subjective reality of theater of the mind, a grid has actual objective reality. It doesn't different between different perspectives and is always going to be consistent.

Also, as much as people try to play fair, "mother may I" play tends to introduce the DM's biases into the game. For example, a DM who prefers that Fighters emulate historical warriors will tend to rule against a player who likes flashy techniques if the reliability of such techniques is left to DM fiat, rather than concrete rules. A player who enjoys such techniques will be stifled by such a situation, even without the DM being inconsistent or deliberately unfair.

The reason people even have rules in the first place is to clearly establish the way the game will work from the beginning. Having actions require judgement, rather than rules, works against the entire point of having rules in the first place, and undermines the ability of a group to build genuine consensus about critical elements of the game.

The DM is in the best position to be combat referee for two reasons: one, they don't have a character so they don't have a conflict of interest; and two, their judgement ought to be the most accurate and consistent because it's their job in general to build, maintain and describe the setting. To me this sort of combat refereeing follows straightforwardly out of that. It's not out of step with the general role of the DM at all.

This subject isn't really about removing the DM's role of combat referee. The DM is indeed the best person for being the combat referee. If I were to remove powers from the DM, it would be the DM's monopoly of world design and story control, rather than the role as referee.

Instead, the real issue is about how much power, responsibility, and freedom the DM should be allowed in that role. Basically, the question is whether the DM should act as a combat referee the same way referees work in other sports (only making clear judgements when the rules say they should, otherwise just letting the players play the game and trusting them to be able to play on their own), or whether the DM should be empowered in a way beyond that, and be given the power to control all information given to players, have veto power on all actions in the game, and have the ability to bend or change the rules on the fly.

Really, "mother may I?" play is based on the DM having far more power than is necessary or needed by a simple referee.

 

[Li Shenron]

The "Mother, May I?" phenomenon is caused both by DMs who behave like a mother and players who behave like children.

I totally agree with [MENTION=32833]Scylla[/MENTION] that a RPG is a cooperative experience between DM and players to shape the game towards a fun experience. It's possible for a group to enjoy both a rules-light game with lots of adjudication and flexibility or a rules-heavy game where everything is written down and automatic, but personally if a game steers too much towards the latter I would get the feeling of "why aren't we playing a MMORPG instead"? If everything should be automatic then let's get the fully automated experience of a computer-run game. Or at least a board game...

 

[Minigiant]

A near perfect analog is baseball umpires.

Umpire says "Strike and Out"
Hitter says "Tat was a Ball"
Umpire says 'Out!"
Hitter yells
Manager yells
Umpire throws them both out
Fans call for instant replay to wrangle the Umpires (WHO ARE BLIND! ARE YOU KIDDING ME! LOL)


It's all good until the umpire and the hitter disagree.

 

[pemerton]

I've noticed that coinciding with the arrival of the D&D-Next playtest a new sentiment has arisen regarding the overall DM role and DM houseruling. People have decried the so-called "Mother May I?" ability of a DM to make rules calls.

<snip>

I chalk up this new NMMI attitude to two things primarily: A) the rules-heavy nature of latter editions and perhaps B) bad experience with DMs.

<snip>

plentiful rules eroded one of the DM's main functions—house ruling actions

<snip>

For me the role of DM, which I take very seriously, is to entertain, challenge, amuse, and mystify my players

<snip>

The DM knows the whole picture, the players don't. Sometimes players can undertake actions against their own interest or against the interest of the overall plot/adventure.

I think GM adjudication is an important part of the game. I like the description on p 8 of the 4e PHB, though other descriptions might do just as well:

The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters the players must overcome. . . [and] controls the monsters and villains the player characters battle against, choosing their actions and rolling dice for their attacks. . .

When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.​

Where I see the GM as having an important role is (i) in scene framing, and (ii) in adjudicating those aspects of action resolution that are not settled by the mechanics. In 4e this often means choosing what NPCs say, or what they do. (Not always: if a player uses Come and Get It, for example, s/he gets to choose what some of the NPCs do.) Just as importantly, it means adjudicating consequences of successful or unsuccessful checks by players. This is not such a big deal in a simple jump or tumbling check - the mechanics often dictate the full consequences of such checks. But it is very important in skill challenges (see the discussion here[/url).

It's not a big part of this that the GM design house rules or fiat action resolution mechanics on the fly: in fact I much prefer the 4e approach of level-appropriate DCs, damage, conditions etc, because this makes the question of whether the check succeeds or fails easier to determine, leaving the GM to focus on complications and consequences.

These preference are not due to experiences with bad GMs. They're about having a rules framework in which unexpected outcomes will regularly occur. Because I don't think the GM is in charge of the plot, or has some special power or authority to tweak action resolution "in the interests of the story". In a system whose PC build rules produce interesting characters, and with good action resolution mechanics, a worthwhile story will result from play without anyone needing to worry about it, provided everyone does their bit properly: the GM frames worthwhile scenes, the players engage them via their PCs, and the GM adjudicates the consequences and reframes in response.

To me, one of the biggest 4e mistakes in this regard was putting magic item descriptions right in the Player's Handbook and encouraging magic wish lists—to me it weakened the wonder and mystery of magic items. (Yes, I know, players in older editions could access DMGs and a DM can still vary magic items through their descriptions and details, but why put them in the PH to start?)

As a side point: if you want wonder and mystery from items in 4e, you use artefacts. That's excatly what they are for.

Ordinary magic items, though, are in the PHB because they are one facet of the PC build mechanics. It's a bit like in Champions, where if you're playing Captain America you don't wait to find your shield in a villain's lair - you pay for it out of character build points.

People who are expressing concern over this subject are not doing so out of some kind of trauma born of distrust of the DM. They're doing so because they honestly believe it will make for a better game, even with a "good" DM.

<snip>

I don't want the DM to be making "course corrections to move the plot along" as you put it.

<snip>

I've seen many people argue that it is easier to challenge the players if the DM simply takes the kid gloves off and stops interfering with the rules.

I agree with this. Including the bit about challenging the players: as a GM I want the action resolution rules to be robust enough, and the encounter buildig guidlines to be reliable enough, that I can frame the scene I want and then let my NPCs and monsters go! I don't want to have to second-guess my play in these situations with worries about whether or not I'm being unfair to the players.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have too many bad memories of DM's abusing their position during my school years 25 years ago to easily accept this.

Sure seems like the OP was right about bad experiences.

Sure the DM has always had a wide discretion in terms of what monsters and NPC do etc but there needs to be some common rules and a common social contract between the people playing and the DM, in order for the DM to operate with any legitimacy and the game to have some cordiality.

I think the social contract requires the DM to change around the rules. Quite often this is happening because a player asks to do something off the book, and the DM comes up with a way to allow it. Another common reason is to change things behind the curtain if it looks like the PCs are in trouble in order to ease up on them. Given that a good DM will change things in such a way that makes things more fun for the players, good players are not likely to consider it a "contract violation". If anything, players have a right to be pissed off when a DM enforces an on-the-book rule that makes no sense instead of exercising his discretion (and there are always going to be lots of bad rules).

My sense is that the idea of DM fiat with regards to rules is not some abstract philosophical position but a sheer practical reality of early editions of D&D.

I think this is true. D&D grew organically.

As others have indicated 3rd and 4th edition, not so much. I dont see this as bad thing for roleplaying and is not something that should disappear from D&D going forward.

This I don't agree with. I think 3e has more of a learning curve because you have to really know the rules to figure out where they are and how to fix them. 4e is far more limiting; trying to start a DM on that is like trying to teach a child to walk using crutches. I learned a lot about what a game should "feel like" and how to DM during my relatively brief 2e experience, and I think it's a problem that newer gamers than I may not have that experience (and frankly rather scary that people who have learned how to DM these systems think they know how to DM). I'd rather see people start with simpler and more vague rules to learn how to DM.

 

[Umbran]

A rules system can be written and designed any way it wants to in this regard and it won't matter. Each group is still going to play the way they've always played with regards to this.

Well, that dodges the question of people new to the hobby, who are apt to be strongly influenced int ehri style by the first rules they pick up.

I think the rules can support a style. If the rules are very strictly designed and specifically constructed to prevent improvisation by the players then less DM adjudication will come into play. Yes the game can be houseruled but that doesn't make the game prior to change a game that fascilitates a style of play.

Indeed. The rules design can certainly make satisfying play of one form or another difficult to achieve. The question isn't, "Can it stop me?" but, "How much of a pain in the neck will it be for me to do,?"