A DM by any other name

[Iosue]

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.

That's not surprising when your example portrays the former in the worst possible light, and the latter in the best possible light. The thing is, when you look at the "example of play" in the early editions, you never see it looking like that. The players never ask permission. Nor does the DM ever deny them when they state what they are going to do. The players say, "I'm going to do X," and the DM says, "Okay. Then Y happens." Or, "Roll to hit." The player never has to ask, "Am I in range?" because the DM properly describes the setting, including distance in feet, so players know if they can reach the enemy in a move, or if they are getting bonuses for close range, or what have you. The DM takes their role as the eyes and ears of the players seriously, and makes efforts so that they don't feel adrift in the fog of war.

We can certainly go the other way, using the examples of play from AD&D or BD&D, while giving an example of a WotC-era player wasting everyone's time as they pour over their character sheet and/or power cards, and then simply saying, "I Trip him," or "I do 'Sly Flourish'" with no flavor at all.

In the end, different groups have different expectations, and have different kinds of fun. So I don't even particularly agree with the OP, aside from being perfectly amenable to games that use DM adjudication over a grid, in addition to gridded games. So why am I responding?

I hate it when people twist my views of weakening the role of DM and removing "mother may I?" mechanics into this particular phrasing.

Because of this. I hate it when people twist a perfectly reasonable method of play that has brought fun to thousands, if not millions, of people over some 25 years and refer to it as a kids game that removes all agency from the players. Sure, the style can be abused -- it has weakpoints just like any other style -- and some folks may find it not to their taste even when it's done well. But "mother-may-I" is a demeaning term, not meant to encourage discussion or even to simply express preference, but explicitly to put down the preference of others. It's a term that needs to leave the discussion.

That's a lot of words to try to tell me my D&D philosophy is badwrongfun.

Yeah. "Mother-may-I" manages it in three.*

*For the record, I am not saying that TCO has used the term.

 

[TwinBahamut]

That's not surprising when your example portrays the former in the worst possible light, and the latter in the best possible light.

I don't particularly care for the tone of your post, so I'll just say this. I didn't phrase the "mother may I?" situation in the "worst possible light", not did I phrase the alternative in the "nest possible light". If I did either, my example would be very, very different. I tried my best to keep the two examples neutral in tone, and I hit some points that I considered advantages and disadvantages in both. Both examples are also pretty much identical to things I have seen in actual play.

Because of this. I hate it when people twist a perfectly reasonable method of play that has brought fun to thousands, if not millions, of people over some 25 years and refer to it as a kids game that removes all agency from the players. Sure, the style can be abused -- it has weakpoints just like any other style -- and some folks may find it not to their taste even when it's done well. But "mother-may-I" is a demeaning term, not meant to encourage discussion or even to simply express preference, but explicitly to put down the preference of others. It's a term that needs to leave the discussion.

I have no idea how what you're saying here is related to what I was saying in the line you quoted...

Anyways, we're not "twisting" anything. We're talking about the weaknesses of that style and problems inherent to it. You may not believe it, but I've seen exchanges exactly like the example I used above with my own eyes. It has clear flaws. Those flaws need to be discussed. The "brought fun to millions over 25 years" thing is meaningless, though. You have no way of knowing how much that style of play has actually been used, and by whom. You have no authority to speak for other groups and their preferences. None of us do. That said, the fact that in the past WotC has gone on the record to say that most groups prefer to use physical representation for describing character positioning indicates that "theater of the mind" play isn't the dominant playstyle.

Also, yes, you are quite correct that "Mother May I?" is a demeaning term. That term is itself the subject of this thread, though, so you can't blame me for using it in this discussion.

Finally, please don't use "kids game" as a pejorative. The best possible thing for this hobby is if D&D is a children's game. Nothing could be be better. If WotC has any real sense for what is best for both this hobby and their profits, then young kids should be their highest-priority target demographic. I'd be dissappinted with anything less.

 

[Scylla]

I can sometimes use harsh language when attacking ideas, but that is really what I was directing that word towards: your idea, not you. I hold the two apart, and when I attack one I don't intend to attack the other. I honestly didn't mean offense.

Much appreciated, good sir. We probably agree little on this particular issue, and we'll challenge it other on it. Hopefully I'll learn from the exchange. At the end of the day, we're all gamers here and brothers (and sisters) under the skin.

 

[Scylla]

The "brought fun to millions over 25 years" thing is meaningless, though. You have no way of knowing how much that style of play has actually been used, and by whom.

This is true, though I think we can reasonably assume that a great many folks have played the game in the manner Gygax and others originally laid out (often with clear examples) in early editions. I have no way to know that the thousands of folks that purchase chess games move their bishops diagonally, but given that the rules and tradition have set that example forth. I'm more than willing to bet most do. (Admittedly not the greatest analogy, but I've got a migraine today.)

Of course, as Umbran wisely pointed out, folks are influenced by what they are first exposed to. A person that started playing with 4e might well be shocked at the "lack of player power" or options in 1e. And people that learned to play with latter editions could well DM with a lighter hand.

 

[Scylla]

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*

Player 1: I stab the ogre in the arm and focus my gaze on the brute. Every time it swings at my way, I automatically stab it back in the arm.
DM: You can't do that as an action.
Player 1: Why not?
DM: Because it is ridiculous. You can't just give yourself extra attacks.
Player: But my rogue is a stalker. He is darkness. He is the night.... with daggers.
DM: Fine. You can get the extra attacks wit a -15 to hit penalty. And only if the ogre misses or hits for no more than 10 damage.
Player 1: Fine (I aint coming back next week). Jinxed dice. Nat 1.
DM: Amongst the dust and darkness, your rogue's blade hits nothing but air.
Player 2: My turn. My swordsman swings his blade but instead of damage, his intentional miss lets the rogue get another stab in.
DM: No giving other people turns.
Player 2: What?

vs

Player 1: I stab the ogre in the arm and focus my gaze on the brute. Every time it swings at my way, I automatically stab it back in the arm. That is Clever Riposte by the way. Jinxed dice. Nat 1.
DM: Amongst the dust and darkness, your rogue's blade hits nothing but air.
Player 2: My turn. My swordsman swings his blade but instead of damage, his intentional miss lets the rogue get another stab in.

The thing that strikes me about these two examples in that in both preferred instances, the DM isn't doing anything, excepts perhaps standing aside seemingly subservient as the players do as they please. (And please don't read this wrong, in my own games I allow player actions about 99.5% of the time without debate, and when I do take issue with a proposed action my players rarely if ever disagree with my rulings. I abhor DM tyrants.)

In Twinbahamut's preferred example, the DM says nothing at all. There's no interaction. I actually prefer the first exchange, because its just that—a true exchange between players and DM. And as Libramarian mentioned, I don't perceive the DM condescension that other folks might. I view it as an objective report—like a spotter giving the sniper the lay of the land so he can take action. The sniper doesn't resent his spotter, he values him as a trusted source of information. And ultimately that what it's about—mutual trust between player and DM. The DM isn't granting permission, he is relating what the character sees because the player cannot actually see through his character's eyes.

Minigiant's example seems no better to me. Here the DM merely reports the obvious and takes no real part in play, to the point of being unnecessary. (Does a player who rolled a one need the DM, however poetically, to tell him he missed?)

In these examples the DM seems like the player's manservant—someone who sets the table and then scurries out of the way while the players gorge themselves. I'd rather join them at the table as their host and share in the repast. Or put another way, these examples make it seem—to me—that the DM is more a sportscaster, merely reporting the action after it happens. But the DM is more; to continue the analogy, the DM is the other team, the field, the ball, the wind and weather, the cheerleaders, and the crowd.

Giving the DM a little less attitude than in some examples already given, I would offer my own example of play:

Player: So the trolls have us backed onto this ledge, eh? What lies below?
DM: Sharp stalagmites about eighty feet below, I'm afraid.
Player: Yikes. Anything else around, other ledges?
DM: (Smiling inwardly) Yes, there are several ledges to either side.
Player: Any I might reach with a great running leap?
DM: There's one to your left that's approximately 6 feet away and perhaps a foot lower than you.
Player: I'm going to make a running leap for it! (Grabs dice)
DM: Sure, give me a ________ check!

I'll take that synergy over being a sportscaster any day.

 

[Mark CMG]

The DM knows the whole picture, the players don't.

This really is the bottom line in a couple of ways. In many case, using any ruleset, it might be that the GM has information the player/PC does not have and should not have. Many of the complaints I hear in this regard against GMs tend to lead me to wonder what it was the player didn't know rather than jumping to the conclusion that the GM did something wrong. However, when a ruleset is created to strip away the potential for mystery in that area, it often gets to the point that the game being played would likely have been better designed as a different type of game, one where no GM was needed. GMs of any immersive RPG juggle a lot of information and can sometimes make inconsistent calls but. leaving that aside, if the system is meant to be played in such a manner that the GM is *not* truly the facilitator of the setting, the senses of the PCs whereby they gain their access to the setting and by which they make the judgement calls they have to make as players, then it might not be best to call it an RPG. I think the dilution of the term RPG, through its use in labeling videogames and computer games where no GM is involved, has much to do with the problems that have arisen over the last decde or so with tabletop RPGs, their design, the manner in which they are played, and what people expect them to be.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=32833]Scylla[/MENTION]

I think you missed the point of my post.
My post was to show the disharmony of DM and Player expectations and the gap that rules might fill for it.

In my example, the players wished to play more superheroic and mythic characters. The DM wished for more down to earth PCs. Because there were no prior instructions on improvisation, a conflict occurred when the players improvised.

It is not about the DM being a server or a rules robot. The issue is the players and DMs agreeing on what the results of the actions. The game changes drastically based on what the DM allows, bans, and adjudicates.

A long time ago, I was a player in two different games. The DMs were extremely different. One made rulings which made improvised attacks foolish. Nothing but basic attacks ever really worked. (He also ignored the Charisma ability as his game was extremely narrative and freeform but that is another thing)

The other DM pulled out so many improvised and unexpected actions in game that you really feel as a player that you could attempt anything. If his rulings and memory was any consistent, it would have been a lot more fun.

Both games had a grumbling player because of the player and DM were out of sync in a manner where a few written rules read ahead of time would have told the players not to play. And both games had players who had a ball because they and the DM were tight in mind.

Sure those are anecdotes but it cements own of my views. There are people on this very forum who probably cannot game together because they have vastly different view of the game and without a rule to bridge the gap the game would screech to a halt once somebody's fighter tries to jump 30 ft in the air.

 

[Emerikol]

[MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION]
Perhaps the middle ground is guidelines. And talk between players and DM.

I think that a game that turns the DM into purely referee isn't even a roleplaying game to me. But I'm not for 100% free form either. Everyone is comfortable with different levels of balance. I like to think I'm in the middle on this issue.

One of the biggest lessons I learned as a DM is that not all players are a good fit for all DMs and of course vice versa. I am a strong advocate that DMs need to run their games and seek players that like what they offer. Because an enthused DM will provide a better version of what they like and make those players who like it even happier. And that is the bottom line.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION]
Perhaps the middle ground is guidelines. And talk between players and DM.

I think that a game that turns the DM into purely referee isn't even a roleplaying game to me. But I'm not for 100% free form either. Everyone is comfortable with different levels of balance. I like to think I'm in the middle on this issue.

One of the biggest lessons I learned as a DM is that not all players are a good fit for all DMs and of course vice versa. I am a strong advocate that DMs need to run their games and seek players that like what they offer. Because an enthused DM will provide a better version of what they like and make those players who like it even happier. And that is the bottom line.

Advice, guidelines, and modular optional rules is the way to go.

With these, the players and DMs have a starting point for expectation and discussion. That is why i love the design goal of 5e.

I can only hope it come out as it said it would.

 

[Scylla]

I think you missed the point of my post.
My post was to show the disharmony of DM and Player expectations and the gap that rules might fill for it.

In my example, the players wished to play more superheroic and mythic characters. The DM wished for more down to earth PCs. Because there were no prior instructions on improvisation, a conflict occurred when the players improvised.

It is not about the DM being a server or a rules robot. The issue is the players and DMs agreeing on what the results of the actions. The game changes drastically based on what the DM allows, bans, and adjudicates.

I think this is fairly stated, to a point. Certainly there is a chance that player expectations may clash with DM judgement. But long experience has shown me, and perhaps I'm lucky, that with a good DM the players and DM very soon learn to mesh their expectations; the DM learns what the players desire out of play and the players get a feel for the DM's style.

Of course if you have a bad DM, that won't work. But if your DM is bad it's them to blame and not the subject of DM freedom. To use your example, if the players wished to play more superheroic and mythic characters and the DM wished for more down to earth PCs, why didn't they discuss it before playing? Your only solution for this conflict seems to be: If there's a rule for it and the player names the rule, the DM must shut up, conflict over.

Moreover, if more rules indeed eliminate DM and player clashes, why do I hear more rules lawyering and such than in the old days? Despite the many bad DMs floating around, there was no widespread complaint that the DM had too much power until now. The problem isn't a lack of rules, it's the perception of players used to rules-heavy editions that 5e is taking their power away by going more rules lite.

Such metagaming and rules quoting is sucking the soul from the game, IMHO. We're replacing interesting exchanges between DM and player with players simply reciting the recipe of powers they're using each round, and this is progress? At the end of the day, if I want a wargame there are better ones out there than D&D.