D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree to the first paragraph.
I disagree with the premeise of the rest.

"Mother May I" accusations won't repair the broken down communication.

The point is not, necessarily, to repair it. Sometimes, you can only make things better by breaking old patterns and replacing them.

As others said, using deregatory terms don't help.
Instead you should start talking about why you are not on the same terms.

And when such attempts consistently fail because the DM is convinced there is nothing wrong and nothing to be fixed or changed?

If one thinks, the 5e framework is not firm enough, that is a valid opinion. As I said, sone people want to have a strict framework of action resoultions.
Others like it more freeform, because they think it is not worth interrupting the flow with rules.
Both approaches need faith between players and DM that noone tries to break the system. The deragatory term used within the stricter system is "rules lawyering", the more loose system has favoritism and MMI.

And yet people speak of "rules lawyering" all the time, and you don't hear adamant insistence that people should never use that term ever, even though it is just as derogatory as "Mother May I." Why does the one derogatory term get a pass, and the other get condemnation?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And yet people speak of "rules lawyering" all the time, and you don't hear adamant insistence that people should never use that term ever, even though it is just as derogatory as "Mother May I." Why does the one derogatory term get a pass, and the other get condemnation?

Just to be clear: I did not give it a pass.
Both terms are bad.

If you agreed to rules, you should be allowed to reference them. If the DM disagrees in a particular situation they should tell yoi the reasons (at least after the gaming session).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem with a much more open ruleset is that it becomes much harder for the DM (let alone the players) to remember what the Ruling was the last time it was made (because the system doesn't ask for really tight rules, so why should Rulings be any different). So on the off-chance a similar corner-case appears at a later point, the DM is going to have to just make up a Ruling again... and for all we know it might very well be the exact opposite of the Ruling they made last time (because reasons). Thus the players have no real foundation on which to make informed decisions. And for a lot of players this is not how they wish to play the game.

This is certainly my position (and, from the looks of it, Tetrasodium's as well.)

I need to be able to make informed decisions, at least up to a reasonable limit of being informed. Part of that means having a good idea of what I can and can't do. If the rules are ever-shifting, if literally all cases are corner cases and I cannot know whether this corner case will work out like the previous, or form a new and unexpected precedent, or be a one-off solution that should be ignored. This makes making informed decisions extremely difficult, if not impossible. As a result, I will approach every situation with extreme caution--I can never be sure, so I have to be ready for everything to go pear-shaped because this time the DM rules that fire spells actually can't set anything on fire unless the spell explicitly says so, or some other such thing. My desire to improvise or pursue stunts or the like will dry right up.

The "freedom" of rulings becomes a prison of uncertainty. And given that error (or worse, failure) has an uncomfortably high likelihood of taking away my character permanently, and a near-certainty of at least causing problems that my fellow players will have to clear up...well, better to always play it safe then. Rely only on those things I can absolutely trust, never deviate from the path, never experiment. Far from opening the whole world, this "freedom" chains me much more tightly than any rules could ever do.

Just to be clear: I did not give it a pass.
Both terms are bad.

If you agreed to rules, you should be allowed to reference them. If the DM disagrees in a particular situation they should tell yoi the reasons (at least after the gaming session).

While I can appreciate your own consistency, the prevalence of the term was more my focus. "Rules lawyer(ing)" is a widely-used term, and I haven't seen major pushback against it or people (obviously not you) saying "it's just used for ragging on a particular style."

 

[clearstream]

Hmm, its close but not exact. I see it more as a player doesn't want to have to plead their case to the GM for a ruling on one or more subjects. Solicit authority?

The phrases I use rather than "Mother may I" are

• "GM decides" - meaning just that
• "Players invoke" - meaning players simply invoke the mechanics they want to use

They're not mutually exclusive, because they operate under principles. For example, we might uphold a principle that ordinarily players invoke, but agree that GM wears the hat of final interpreter of the game text, and so holds a veto where a choice will be at odds with that text.

 

[clearstream]

Further to my above, and relevant specifically to @Campbell's comment, our principle might be that DM decides on game mechanics, but player has authority over non-rule elements of their background.

I guess that means I might have to extend "player invokes" to include any element that they can make true by fiat.

 

[clearstream]

This is certainly my position (and, from the looks of it, Tetrasodium's as well.)

I need to be able to make informed decisions, at least up to a reasonable limit of being informed. Part of that means having a good idea of what I can and can't do. If the rules are ever-shifting, if literally all cases are corner cases and I cannot know whether this corner case will work out like the previous, or form a new and unexpected precedent, or be a one-off solution that should be ignored. This makes making informed decisions extremely difficult, if not impossible. As a result, I will approach every situation with extreme caution--I can never be sure, so I have to be ready for everything to go pear-shaped because this time the DM rules that fire spells actually can't set anything on fire unless the spell explicitly says so, or some other such thing. My desire to improvise or pursue stunts or the like will dry right up.

The "freedom" of rulings becomes a prison of uncertainty. And given that error (or worse, failure) has an uncomfortably high likelihood of taking away my character permanently, and a near-certainty of at least causing problems that my fellow players will have to clear up...well, better to always play it safe then. Rely only on those things I can absolutely trust, never deviate from the path, never experiment. Far from opening the whole world, this "freedom" chains me much more tightly than any rules could ever do.


While I can appreciate your own consistency, the prevalence of the term was more my focus. "Rules lawyer(ing)" is a widely-used term, and I haven't seen major pushback against it or people (obviously not you) saying "it's just used for ragging on a particular style."

One of my favourite modes of play is freeform. It doesn't feel like what you describe, perhaps because a principle of mutual respect for what we want to add to the fiction is upheld?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’m not complaining about anything. I just don’t think derogatory labels are valuable communication tools.

The problem with this is that sometimes a merely accurate term is espoused to be "derogatory". In fact this happens constantly. People hate it when racism gets called racism for example. And there's no question that calling something racism is "derogatory". It's just often also accurate and there's no accurate non-derogatory alternative.

"Mother-may-I" is frankly, often accurate, and vastly more precise than any alternative I've seen proposed in this thread (if I've missed a good one, I'm open to that). For example "DM decides" does not delimit itself to the describing a specific situation. "DM decides" can mean that the DM is the ultimate arbiter but might have a tight/clear framework to work within, as with Spire/Heart, for example, but it could also mean stuff where there's virtually no framework and the DM can just do "whatever".

Therefore attempting to substitute it for "Mother-may-I" is essentially the worst kind of euphemism, the cheapest kind of "political correctness" (in the old, pre-culture-war sense) - one that actively obfuscates the issue, and confuses matters. Which, let's be real, if often the exact purpose of using a euphemism.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One of my favourite modes of play is freeform. It doesn't feel like what you describe, perhaps because a principle of mutual respect for what we want to add to the fiction is upheld?

But with genuine freeform stuff, there is no DM. There is no central arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable. Everyone shares equal authority, unless they willingly concede something to someone else under known conditions. There is no extant ruleset to be adhered to; there isn't even the possibility of "I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it further" because there is no deal.

It would be like responding to a complaint about poor enforcement of contract law with "well my favorite thing is barter economy, how does that square with all of that?" The simple answer is, the two are a world apart, they don't have any relation to each other.

 

[clearstream]

But with genuine freeform stuff, there is no DM. There is no central arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable. Everyone shares equal authority, unless they willingly concede something to someone else under known conditions. There is no extant ruleset to be adhered to; there isn't even the possibility of "I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it further" because there is no deal.

Hmm... "genuine freeform"? I think the FKR folk feel their freeform is genuine. I'm not really FKR, but I "GM" freeform. I think my freeform is genuine. I've never encountered identical role / identical authority freeform.

It would be like responding to a complaint about poor enforcement of contract law with "well my favorite thing is barter economy, how does that square with all of that?" The simple answer is, the two are a world apart, they don't have any relation to each other.

I guess we see this in a worlds-apart way

 

[overgeeked]

Hmm... "genuine freeform"? I think the FKR folk feel their freeform is genuine. I'm not really FKR, but I "GM" freeform. I think my freeform is genuine. I've never encountered identical role / identical authority freeform.

I guess we see this in a worlds-apart way

Yeah, that poster's notion of what "genuine free-form" is doesn't mesh at all with my experiences of free-form.

And FKR isn't always free-form. FKR games absolutely can and often do have rules, though they're typically minimalistic rules. They most often defer to the genre and setting that the game is set in. And FKR most definitely has a referee with authority. That's the basis of the style of play.