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

[Bedrockgames]

What would you consider an example of a game that has "mechanics for handling GM rulings and judgements"?

Not sure why this is all that important as I wasn't attacking or even trying to characterize these games. I was just defending the style you identified as not having mechanics for GM judgements about these matters (frankly I find that a very broad description). I am honestly not sure how broadly or narrowly you are applying this concept, but I think even a game like 3rd edition D&D has this to some degree. Savage Worlds might even have it in the way things like bennies get used (and I love Savage Worlds). Any game with a comprehensive system of skills arguably has it to some degree as well (because those can become the levers that the GM needs to go to when players explore). Games that definitely don't have it would be more like classic D&D or other systems where these areas were left open. I would argue AD&D for example is defacto open in this way (there are mechanics you can find for certain things, but the GM is under no obligation to use them and the mechanics are often opaque enough or obscure enough that many never even used them). I personally noticed a very big difference in the transition from 2E to 3E, where a lot of what had been handled by players actively prodding, interacting with and exploring the setting, suddenly could be boiled down to a roll. Which often had the result of doing what we are talking about here. Still though, 3E is largely a traditional game. So I don't see it as a purely indie versus traditional RPG thing (unless you are strictly taking about games where the GM doesn't have the ability to create content when the players declare their actions and must interface with some kind of subsystem or clearly laid out procedure). I see it more as a matter of stemming from concepts like comprehensive rules systems, a desire for something like 'players rights' to be present in the game, etc.

But I played Hill Folk not too long ago and that seemed to be structured in a way that fit having mechanics for handling GM judgements, in that players could assert things and that would make them somewhat real (I don't own the book so I am just going by how the sessions we played were run). I quite liked the game, and I found that rule worked well for creating drama in a way that was immersive. I had no problem with it at all. If I were trying to do a campaign that felt like I Claudius for example, that is a system I might take and attach to my regular game in order to amp up the dramatic tension. Games like Blades in the Dark and Dungeon World seem to have features of this as well. I am less familiar with them. If you have some examples you want to raise, by all means go ahead and I will weigh in.

Again though, I don't have any issue with these games. And I don't think they are less RPG-liked than a more traditional RPG. I just think games that don't have mechanics for GM adjudicating what is behind door number 1, play to a strength of the RPG medium that I really like (in a way that I really like). But, and this is really important, I am always wary of building RPG design principles out of these kinds of arguments where we identity our reasons for liking or disliking something out of a heated discussion. All I know is I like these kinds of games. You have pushed me to explain why they are good, so I have given the best explanation I can. I am not interested in creating good principles of play or design out of that, because my reasons might not be fully explored or they could be half baked explanations. I wouldn't want to paint myself into a corner based on a discussion with Pemerton on En World.

For me it really depends on what kind of game I am trying to run whether I would want this sort of thing. For my bread and butter, long term, weekly games, I prefer what I was defending (and what you labeled Mother May I). For more episodic play I am much more open to other types of systems).

 

[pemerton]

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

No. If you've read my posts upthread, you'll have seen quite a detailed one about how Burning Wheel handles action resolution and consequences.

GM judgement is central to that, but it is not "mother may I" in the sense that I (following the OP) am using that term in this thread.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No. If you've read my posts upthread, you'll have seen quite a detailed one about how Burning Wheel handles action resolution and consequences.

GM judgement is central to that, but it is not "mother may I" in the sense that I (following the OP) am using that term in this thread.

Haven't read that post, or at least don't recall that detail of it if I did. I'll look for your example but it is an 8 page thread at this point.

But okay, then how are you defining mother may I play exactly? Because anytime I've mentioned using GM judgement that seems to be a sticking point for you. If we don't disagree there is no point in debating. If not having mechanics for this sort of thing isn't even an issue for you, it is unclear to me what you are arguing with me about exactly.

But my sense leading up to this point is that any game where the GM is free to decide (or at least free how to decide) what is present when the players go somewhere or try something, is mother may I.

 

[pemerton]

Haven't read that post, or at least don't recall that detail of it if I did.

The post is number 13 in the thread, so prior to your first post in the thread. It was XPed by the OP and referred to by him a couple of times as offering a good part of the solution to his problem.

Here it is again:

[sblock]

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], I read your post as setting out an outline for prep, not a sketch of the form that play might take. If I got that wrong, sorry. If I got that right, read on!

I think that any pre-set sequence of events for the game creates "Mother May I" or similar sorts of issues - ie the GM has already decided how things will go, and deviating from that is at the GM's sole discretion.

I may have misunderstood [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]'s post, but I took it that he is looking for a method of establishing and signalling consequences as part of the setting up of situations in the game and then resolving the actions that the players declare for their PCs. To me, this is a system problem (using a fairly liberal conception of "system"), but not a planning problem.

I'm focusing especially on this from the OP:

I don't want to turn the game into a game of escalating consequences, for which the player(s) have no recourse other than to cow-tow to what I'm presenting. I want them to have avenues for success, while still balancing the need to present challenges.

So how do I do this better? How do I introduce consequences/complications that are A) interesting, B) have real dramatic heft within the fiction, and C) don't require the party to start finagling with me as the GM?

As I read it, the worry about "kow-towing" to the GM and its close neighbour (c) "finagling with the GM" (= Mother May I, I think) is this: if consequences are set which (i) have heft, but (ii) aren't clearly integrated with player-side action resolution mechanics, then the players (iii) will want to avoid them (because of (i)) but (iv) won't see any player-side/mechanical-type way to do that (because of (ii)). Hence the game will degenerate into kow-towing and Mother May I as the players try and avoid the consequences in the only way that seems possible to them.

If I've got this right, then the solution is to more clearly frame action declaration and the surrounding context in a way that both makes the consequences clear to the players, and makes it clear how they're an outgrowth of play rather than a GM's arbitrary stipulation. DungeonWorld provides a clear model for this that is fairly well-known on these boards; but I'll got to Burning Wheel instead because personally I know it better.

BW actually offers two approaches: the official one; and the one the designer actually uses, which he discusses in the designer notes section of the Adventure Burner.

Official BW: on the player side, an action declaration involves stating task (ie what am I (as my PC) doing) and intent (ie what am I (as my PC) hoping to achieve, given the context of my action declaration). (Note how this contrasts very much with a certain type of classic D&D/wargame-y type play where players delcare tasks while keeping the intent secret from the GM, hoping thereby to establish buffers against GM-narrated consequences.)

On the GM side, an action declaration requires making sure the player is clear about the surrounding fiction, so that intent and task make sense, and so that the appropriate skill can be determined; requires establishing the skill to be checked; and requires making clear to the player what the consequence of failure will be. The GM, in doing the last thing, is advised to focus more on the intent then the task, so that the result of failure will be that the player (and PC) doesn't get what s/he wanted to out of the situation.

The GM has to make the consequences clear before the dice are rolled, so the player has the chance to use player side resources to boos the chances of success that seems warranted to him/her in light of what is at stake.

BW as played by Luke Crane: on the player side it's the same. But on the GM side, the first and third steps are merged: that is, the consequences of failure are taken to be implicit in the GM's narration of the context for the action declaration, which should be drawing heavily on the prior play of the game. This drifts BW closer to DW as far as this particular aspect of play techniques is concerned.

On this approach, the player has to make the decision about committing resources without having any definitive statement of what is at stake, and instead depending on a shared intuition with the GM about how the current situation and its imnplicit stakes fit within the broader and unfolding content and trajectory of play.

Notice how, on this unnoficial approach, if the player and GM come apart in their understanding of the context and trajectory of play, then the player might feel blindsided and/or railroaded by narrated consequences of failure. Which starts to push towards the Mother May I problem [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] wants to avoid. And conversely, if I've understood innerdude's problem right, the first step is to improve the degree to which the GM is communicating what is at stake in the way that situations are framed and action declarations resolved.

(For what it's worth, I mosty use the second, non-official approach when I GM Burning Wheel.)

A second thing that has just occurred to me is this: both BW approaches take for granted that once a sittuation is properly described by the GM, and once a task is properly described by a player, the correct mechanical approach will be evident. If that part of action declaration is breaking down, though, then Mother May I problems can arise.

A simple example: if the situation in an AD&D game is that the gang leader wants to kill the hostages, but its known he will be generous if he is given a nice cake for his birthday, then we are heading in a Mother May I direction. Because AD&D has no rules to resolve a player declaring that his/her PC makes a nice birthday cake; and has no rules to resolve a player declaring that his/her PC goes out and buys a nice birthday cake.

So as well as thinking about how framing is conveyed, innerdude may also want to think about how actions and consequences in the situations being presented to the players map onto the range of mechanical options that are available to the players, given the RPG the group is playing.

[/sblock]

But okay, then how are you defining mother may I play exactly? Because anytime I've mentioned using GM judgement that seems to be a sticking point for you.

No. You've talked about the GM deciding the outcome. That is not synonymous with GM judgement. It's a particular form that GM judgement might take. Another approach to action resolution is that on success the player gets his/her intent, and on a failure the GM decides what consequence ensues. That's how (eg) Burning Wheel and Dungeon World work, and that's how I run 4e D&D and Classic Traveller and Prince Valiant.

The two key techniques that have come out of Forge-y type RPG design are say 'yes' or roll the dice and fail forward. The first means that either the player gets his/her intent, or else action resolution mechanics are deployed. And the second means that, on a failure, the onus falls on the GM to establish some consequence for failure that honours the failure and that provides the players with a clear and compelling framing for play.

I always get puzzled when discussions about RPG techniques seem to assume that the only two options are GM decides things unilaterally or player exercises "narrative control". Because that's not how core elements of D&D (eg combat, searching for secret doors, thieves hiding in shadows, etc) work. They work on dice rolls. And dice rolls remain (I think) the most common means of action resolution across RPGs. They're key to action resolution in games like DW and BW, neither of which involves the GM "just deciding" what happens when a player declares an action for his/her PC.

But my sense leading up to this point is that any game where the GM is free to decide (or at least free how to decide) what is present when the players go somewhere or try something, is mother may I.

I've never heard of anyone playing D&D where the GM is simply free to decide what happens when a player declares that his/her PC attacks an orc. There's an expectation that the combat resolution mechanics will be used.

If the focus of the game is not about killing orcs but (say) intriguing against cultists, then the mechanics can address that. Players declare actions: if they succeed, the PCs get their intent; if they fail, the GM establishes consequences of failure. It's a pretty straightforward way of playing and adjudicating a game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The post is number 13 in the thread, so prior to your first post in the thread. It was XPed by the OP and referred to by him a couple of times as offering a good part of the solution to his problem.

Here it is again:

[sblock][/sblock]

No. You've talked about the GM deciding the outcome. That is not synonymous with GM judgement. It's a particular form that GM judgement might take. Another approach to action resolution is that on success the player gets his/her intent, and on a failure the GM decides what consequence ensues. That's how (eg) Burning Wheel and Dungeon World work, and that's how I run 4e D&D and Classic Traveller and Prince Valiant.

The two key techniques that have come out of Forge-y type RPG design are say 'yes' or roll the dice and fail forward. The first means that either the player gets his/her intent, or else action resolution mechanics are deployed. And the second means that, on a failure, the onus falls on the GM to establish some consequence for failure that honours the failure and that provides the players with a clear and compelling framing for play.

I always get puzzled when discussions about RPG techniques seem to assume that the only two options are GM decides things unilaterally or player exercises "narrative control". Because that's not how core elements of D&D (eg combat, searching for secret doors, thieves hiding in shadows, etc) work. They work on dice rolls. And dice rolls remain (I think) the most common means of action resolution across RPGs. They're key to action resolution in games like DW and BW, neither of which involves the GM "just deciding" what happens when a player declares an action for his/her PC.

I've never heard of anyone playing D&D where the GM is simply free to decide what happens when a player declares that his/her PC attacks an orc. There's an expectation that the combat resolution mechanics will be used.

If the focus of the game is not about killing orcs but (say) intriguing against cultists, then the mechanics can address that. Players declare actions: if they succeed, the PCs get their intent; if they fail, the GM establishes consequences of failure. It's a pretty straightforward way of playing and adjudicating a game.

Pemerton you are attributing positions to me that I don't hold and statements to my posts I never made. I never assumed the only possibilities were players narrating or GM adjudicating. And I know perfectly well about Just say yes (I mentioned it in one of my earlier posts). And my final quote you completely misunderstand. I never was suggesting the GM decides what happens when players attack orcs. All I was asking in this post was what you definition of mother may I is and where you disagree with me. Instead I got another round of debate over each paragraph in the question. That post was in response to your's where it became clear we might have a misunderstanding. Because I thought you were defining mother may I as a particular thing, and you seemed to be saying you were not. You keep quibbling with my use of words like judgement. I don't seem to be having trouble communicating with other posters using the language I use. I feel like you are deliberately taking a fine tooth comb to my words and reading them as uncharitably as possible. Either way, this post was just a request for clarification on mother may I not an invitation for more grilling on terms.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I always get puzzled when discussions about RPG techniques seem to assume that the only two options are GM decides things unilaterally or player exercises "narrative control". Because that's not how core elements of D&D (eg combat, searching for secret doors, thieves hiding in shadows, etc) work. They work on dice rolls. And dice rolls remain (I think) the most common means of action resolution across RPGs. They're key to action resolution in games like DW and BW, neither of which involves the GM "just deciding" what happens when a player declares an action for his/her PC.
.

No one is saying this. At least I don't think that is what is being said. Obviously you can resolve anything in the game however you like and plenty of games let rolls determine outcomes or have various procedures (even D&D does this). But there are play styles where, when things like exploring the world are concerned, people want the players to declare what they try to do and the GM decide what the outcome is. Sometimes a roll might be called for. The key thing here is usually the GM has the freedom to choose whether he or she is going to simply state the outcome, call for a roll or choose some other tool to figure out the result (like a random table for example). Same with things like roleplaying conversation. In combat you roll to hit someone. But in some types of campaigns, social interactions never require a roll of any kind unless the GM calls for it, because the group wants to maintain the flow and realism of a conversation happening between characters (and they want the content of the conversation to be the driving factor in the outcome). There are places in the game I don't want the dice to determine things. For combat it is great. For some levels of exploration it can add to the experience (for instance calling on players to make a survival roll to see if they can get around a wilderness encounter). But for others, I vastly prefer (at least in most campaigns) for the GM to make the call about what happens when players do or say X. Again it is very situation dependent. I am not going to sit here and say 100% of the time it needs to happen because it really does depend on what the player is saying and how incrementally each step of what they are trying to do is being handled. I don't feel any of this is all that difficult to understand or accept as a legitimate approach to play. Nor to I feel any of it qualifies as Mother May I (and perhaps you don't either, because like I said in my previous post, I was now a little unclear on how you are defining it). Obviously we speak a slightly different gaming language. I use a lot of plain speech, not much theory language. Perhaps we are just not communicating well*.

*Just a not about this, I had to read your Burning Wheel example five times to understand it. Maybe I was just tired, as I was falling asleep, but I think there is a pretty big communication gulf in just the words we use.

 

[Sadras]

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.

 

[pemerton]

I know perfectly well about Just say yes (I mentioned it in one of my earlier posts).

"Just say yes" as you described it is not "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Just say yes is exactly that: advice to agree to player intent/desire. Say 'yes' or roll the dice is exactly that: a technique of action resolution, whereby either the player (and PC) gets his/her intent, or an appropriate check is called for.

I thought you were defining mother may I as a particular thing, and you seemed to be saying you were not. You keep quibbling with my use of words like judgement.

I'm not quibbling with your use of the word judgement. It's a fine word. I'm disagreeing with your apparent equation of GM judgement with GM unilaterally decides outcome of an action delcaration such as "We go to the teahouse to look for cultists."

Because there are other forms that GM judgement can take, and I've presented one: the action declaration We go to the teahouse to look for cultists is resolved by framing a check and seeing how it turns out. If the players succeed, their PCs find cultists. If the players fail, the GM narrates an appropriate consequence.

That second form that GM judgement can take is not "Mother may I" as used by me following the OP: it does not gate player success with GM decision-making. Whereas the first form, which appears to be your preferred form of deciding whether or not an action declaration to look for cultists in a teahouse is resolved, does. Perhaps you think that difference is trivial. But for many RPGers (including, it seems, the OP) it is pretty fundamental.

there are play styles where, when things like exploring the world are concerned, people want the players to declare what they try to do and the GM decide what the outcome is. Sometimes a roll might be called for. The key thing here is usually the GM has the freedom to choose whether he or she is going to simply state the outcome, call for a roll or choose some other tool to figure out the result (like a random table for example).

<snip>

There are places in the game I don't want the dice to determine things. For combat it is great. For some levels of exploration it can add to the experience (for instance calling on players to make a survival roll to see if they can get around a wilderness encounter). But for others, I vastly prefer (at least in most campaigns) for the GM to make the call about what happens when players do or say X.

I realise all this: you have made it clear from your first post in the thread. You have also equated it with "GM judgement" and have suggested that those who use other techniques are rejecting a role foir GM judgement.

My point over the past couple of posts is that there are other forms that GM judgement can take, which don't invovle gating outcomes behind a GM decision about what happens. If you appreciate my point in this respect, then you'll be able to see that I am not equating GM judgement with "Mother may I".

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Just say yes" as you described it is not "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Just say yes is exactly that: advice to agree to player intent/desire. Say 'yes' or roll the dice is exactly that: a technique of action resolution, whereby either the player (and PC) gets his/her intent, or an appropriate check is called for.

I'm not quibbling with your use of the word judgement. It's a fine word. I'm disagreeing with your apparent equation of GM judgement with GM unilaterally decides outcome of an action delcaration such as "We go to the teahouse to look for cultists."

Because there are other forms that GM judgement can take, and I've presented one: the action declaration We go to the teahouse to look for cultists is resolved by framing a check and seeing how it turns out. If the players succeed, their PCs find cultists. If the players fail, the GM narrates an appropriate consequence.

That second form that GM judgement can take is not "Mother may I" as used by me following the OP: it does not gate player success with GM decision-making. Whereas the first form, which appears to be your preferred form of deciding whether or not an action declaration to look for cultists in a teahouse is resolved, does. Perhaps you think that difference is trivial. But for many RPGers (including, it seems, the OP) it is pretty fundamental.

I realise all this: you have made it clear from your first post in the thread. You have also equated it with "GM judgement" and have suggested that those who use other techniques are rejecting a role foir GM judgement.

My point over the past couple of posts is that there are other forms that GM judgement can take, which don't invovle gating outcomes behind a GM decision about what happens. If you appreciate my point in this respect, then you'll be able to see that I am not equating GM judgement with "Mother may I".

I am not equating the two, I am just talking casually and most folks are picking up my meaning in context. Look again, it appears what you are saying is the way I choose to resolve the tea house issue is mother may I, which I would strongly disagree with. I am not denying there are other ways to figure that out, other methods, etc. And I am not suggesting any of those methods are bad. I just like doing it the way I've laid out, and I feel it is pretty far from a mother may I experience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Just say yes" as you described it is not "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Just say yes is exactly that: advice to agree to player intent/desire. Say 'yes' or roll the dice is exactly that: a technique of action resolution, whereby either the player (and PC) gets his/her intent, or an appropriate check is called for.

I really don't understand why you are parsing everything I am saying so finely. And at this point, I honestly don't know why I am even responding to this. I understand there are different variations of Just Say Yes, and I understand what they are. I don't care for either approach. If others find enjoyment in them, that is fine. One in my view just green lights what the players suggest, the other either green lights it or shifts it to a probability. I'd much rather the possibility be open for the GM to decide something because it is reasonable that it be the case. I think taking that out, at least for the style of play I enjoy, would be a mistake.