hawkeyefan
Legend
I don't think that there are 3 types. I think that there are only 2. The first type you mention I don't think exists. No matter what level of authority a DM has, some will like it and some won't, and opinions will vary on how much is appropriate and how it should be used. That leaves us your number 2 and 3 as the only types out there.
My categories were already taking subjectivity into account. There are 3 types of games.
1) Games that work.
2) Games that don’t work.
3) Games that partially work.
Are you really saying that there are no games of D&D that fall into category 1?
Obviously, where a particular game is would be a subjective thing. You might think a game is working fine, and I may think it’s working okay, and yet another person thinks it’s awful. That’s all fine. But objectively there are those three categories.
Would you agree with that?
"Mother May I" and "Railroad" DMs abuse their authority and most think those are bad. The rest want to discuss the grey area that's left.
The OP may have wanted to discuss the kind of game that falls into the grey area, but by inviting people to discuss things using the pejorative "Mother May I," even if it isn't how HE would refer to the games, he caused the discussion to devolve into hundreds of pages of arguing over the term and how it should not be applied to the playstyles people are trying to apply it to. People have strong feelings about the kinds of games they like being insulted by such terms. The OP should have said that he wanted to discuss X, and that no pejorative terms should be used in the discussion as they just cause problems and derail threads.
The OP did not cause anyone to do anything. Each of us has chosen to engage in this conversation to whatever extent we have because of our own inclinations.
It’s incredibly clear at this point, and has been for tens of pages worth of comments, that the OP did not mean MMI in a pejorative manner. You’ve been arguing that for dozens of posts, and have made some really strange arguments along the way (i.e. a DM fudging a die roll is actually a DM preserving chance? Um...okay....).
As I’ve said in a couple of posts, we need to try and be aware of context and intent. If you didn’t quite grasp the fact that MMI was not really being used pejoratively in the OP, okay that’s fine....but in the subsequent clarifications and qualifications that have been made, have you realized it?
I didn't say "doesn't always exercise that power." What I sad was "doesn't exercise that power." There''s a big difference between the two. Yours involves at least some instances of the DM railroading the players. Mine involves no such abuses, yet was still being called "Mother May I."
Right. Two things on this.
First, a DM who never really abuses the authority granted to him by the default assumptions of D&D is probably running the kind of game that his players expect, and would likely fall into category 1 above. So not much to talk about there; things are going fine and they should proceed and enjoy. The issue is in games where it does come up.
Second, for some, a system where there is even a possibility that the GM can at any point in time bend the game to his desires is one that some folks don’t enjoy. Even if the DM proves to be principled in his judgment and rulings, that kind of system does not appeal to them.
As I mentioned in another recent response, during background I let the players come up with towns, NPCs, and sometime monsters if done well. During game play not so much, but it's not 100% unheard of and usually pertains to background that hasn't been fully fleshed out.
Okay, I’m almost reluctant to bring this one up but hey let’s use this old chestnut....
Our 3rd level party is attacked by strange creatures, giant green skinned monsters with long noses and wicked claws. They are vicious and what’s worse, their wounds heal before our eyes!!!
Let’s say we’re at a table of veteran players. One rolls his eyes and then declares that his character lights a torch and throws an oil flask at one of the creatures. He says “Tordek’s Uncle Elmo told him about such creatures, they’re vulnerable to flame!” The other players smile and nod.
Here the player is basically saying “I’m not really interested in a random encounter with trolls and in pretending my character doesn’t know about their vulnerability, so I’ve come up with a way around it”.
How the DM responds to this situation is what is in question. Based on your comments in this thread, I thibk you’d consider this solution cheating, and you’d deny it.
Which to me is far worse than metagaming because basically the whole group looked at the encounter and said “not interested” and the DM denied their preferences and proceeded with running things how he wanted. Which is kind of a strong example f the DM being a jerk, in my oponion.
So the MMI flaw in GM Driven game systems can surface in a variety of ways, and how it’s handled can vary greatly as well.
Such a mismatch is generally solved by leaving the game and finding players or a DM that matches your expectations. Occasionally, the players or DM can change and still enjoy the game.
Or playing a different game or having a discussion and coming to some kind of compromise that all can live with or any number of other options.
In the case of the OP in the original thread, perhaps asking others how to incorporate some player driven content in order to help engage a player.
I agree with that.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell. You seem to have a very binary view.