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

[Aldarc]

No it isn’t. I don’t agree with Maxperson in this case, but it is demonstrably not how dictatorships get their start. We are talking smabout resolution systems for games where people pretend to be elves and dwarves. I don’t know Maxperson’s politics, but I think it is unlikely he is a fascist. You can believe in GM authority but be against of that kind of power in any one person as the head of state.

I wlll not press this point any further. However, if you disagree with Max, then maybe you can voice some of that disagreement?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This has never been a part of any edition of D&D.

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.

Even in the days of yore when I played 1e and 2e, this was never the case. Yes, we would say that the DM has the authority to do anything he wants, but that "anything" didn't include things like stopping a PC from crossing the street when the player of that PC said that's what his PC was doing. Nobody I ever played with believed that, because it's simply an absurd hyper inflation of the authority of the DM to alter, remove or create rules for the game. The Mother May I "issue" is a Reducto Ad Absurdum argument about the extent DM authority in D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

This sort of thinking is how dictatorships are born.

It's how house rules are born anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

If you think that in a 900+ post rhread, 800+ posts consisting of argument by about 6 people over whether the term is pejorative or not, or exists or not, means that the scope of the phenomenon is common, then I think you might need to step back and reassess your beliefs on the matter.

 

[Numidius]

This has never been a part of any edition of D&D.



Even in the days of yore when I played 1e and 2e, this was never the case. Yes, we would say that the DM has the authority to do anything he wants, but that "anything" didn't include things like stopping a PC from crossing the street when the player of that PC said that's what his PC was doing. Nobody I ever played with believed that, because it's simply an absurd hyper inflation of the authority of the DM to alter, remove or create rules for the game. The Mother May I "issue" is a Reducto Ad Absurdum argument about the extent DM authority in D&D.

It's not a matter of crossing the street, simple legit actions declarations etc, it's a matter of having the Gm willing to cooperate and build on players input.

Framing scenes and all that stuff.

Just leaving the PC loose hanging around without support in the fiction, is not freedom, looks more like loneliness.

Again, things I see over here, not related to d&d or your campaigns

 

[Maxperson]

When someone uses "Mother May I", I'm thinking of a style of play in which the DM explicitly blocks the players from taking certain actions, or determines the outcome in such a way as to render player-actions useless. It is the direct opposite of a DM that says "roll the dice", thus allowing just about any action, but using the dice to resolve the outcome.

This isn't a style of play, though. It's the DM being a jerk, which isn't a matter of playstyle or rules. It's simply a DM being one of the relatively few bad DMs that exist within the hobby.

For example, I played in a Star Wars RPG, where the DM told me that I couldn't try to pilot a stationary X-wing in a hangar. He didn't ask for a check, even though my character had a pilot skill. That would be an example of "Mother May I" in my opinion. He could have asked me to make a skill check (not "Mother May I"), or he could have just set the DC impossibly high (soft "Mother May I", but almost just as bad). What he did not do, is allow me to just take the action and/or have a fair chance at pulling it off.

I'm confused by this example. If the x-wing was stationary(not moving) how would you pilot it? Piloting involves movement, not stationary. If you were asking to pilot it slowly across the hanger for some reason and he told you no outright, then that's an example of bad DMing, not a playstyle or ruleset being Mother May I.

 

[Aldarc]

It's how house rules are born anyway.

Mine are done through group discussions. Sometimes I or the players will propose a house rule, and then we will usually discuss it before deciding collectively. We may even run a trial period with the rule.

I like socialism in practice, even in my games.

If you think that in a 900+ post rhread, 800+ posts consisting of argument by about 6 people over whether the term is pejorative or not, or exists or not, means that the scope of the phenomenon is common, then I think you might need to step back and reassess your beliefs on the matter.

I think that you ignore the first part of the sentence so you can isolate the second part referencing this thread, which would be more easy to debunk the point if it existed in isolation removed from context.

This isn't a style of play, though. It's the DM being a jerk, which isn't a matter of playstyle or rules. It's simply a DM being one of the relatively few bad DMs that exist within the hobby.

I wish I could have a nickel for everytime you reduced every issue down to "this issue is not a problem; it's a jerk DM." There has to be a name for this sort of "jerk DM fallacy" that you fallback on.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a matter of crossing the street, simple legit actions declarations etc, it's a matter of having the Gm willing to cooperate and build on players input.

Framing scenes and all that stuff.

Just leaving the PC loose hanging around without support in the fiction, is not freedom, looks more like loneliness.

Again, things I see over here, not related to d&d or your campaigns

To what extent? This is the first time I think I've seen that "Mother May I" is about how the DM frames scenes and builds on player input.

 

[Maxperson]

Mine are done through group discussions. Sometimes I or the players will propose a house rule, and then we will usually discuss it before deciding collectively. We may even run a trial period with the rule.

I like socialism in practice, even in my games.

Which is fine. Some house rules I implement. Others I say I want to implement and see if there are any objections. Others are ideas that I want discussion on and propose it to the group and see what everyone thinks. 9 out of 10 are in the last two categories. Rarely I will just make a change, because I feel something is too disruptive to the game that I'm running.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*