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

[FitzTheRuke]

I honestly don't care for the very concept of "mother may I" in D&D.

All you need to avoid it is to "play nice with others" (on both sides of the screen).

 

[Cadence]

Call it "Begging the DM"

I'm mulling the gulf between "Asking the DM" vs. "Begging the DM".

 

[el-remmen]

I'm mulling the gulf between "Asking the DM" vs. "Begging the DM".

Beseech. . .
Implore. . .
Sue. . .
Plead with. . .
Solicit. . .
Urge. . .
Query. . .
Supplicate. . .

. . . the DM

 

[bloodtide]

A lot of the time it's not that the rules or lack thereof creates the problem - it's the ambiguity is handled poorly by the dm. If the dm is always consistent and fair in their rulings, MMI is rarely complained about. But the fewer rules the are, the harder it is for a dm to remain consistent and fair. lack of rules allows for MMI.

Just note the other half of the problem is the players.

Too many players make one trick pony characters, all too often ones that just do More Damage. Then twenty minutes in the game they say something like "my character wants to walk along the ledge and jump off in the middle and grab one of the ropes". But did the player make in any way an acrobatic character? Nope, just More Damage. The player could have picked more acrobatic options, but choose not too....

Then you have players that are not consistent and fair. The character will jump over a two foot wide stream and the player will be all happy that their character is now a demi god acrobat. An hour later, the character will be at a seven foot wide river with rapids of dark water and the player will be all mad that rolling a "five" does not let their character leap over the river.

And again, I point out the rules don't matter at all, as a savvy clever DM can just alter reality.

 

[James Gasik]

Is it better to have the game tell you that you can do something, or the DM to tell you you can do something is a question for the ages.

The more WotC made rules for the game to inform players as to their actions, the more some DM's (not an insignificant amount of them either) started to think they had ceded some level of agency over the games they were running.

That's why you hear so many "5e empowered DM's" comments. As I've stated before, nothing ever took power away from the DM, but when the book says "you, the player, can do X", more burden is put on the DM to explain why that might not be true in a given situation. I don't think that's a bad thing, mind you- when I make rulings or house rules, I try to explain my reasoning, because if they don't see the logic, then there's a disconnect between the game they want to play, and the one I want to run.

However, this isn't to say that leaving some things to the DM is bad- the issue is, to what degree is a given DM able to perform without guidance. I submit that new DM's may require more structure and less pressure put upon them to make decisions about scenarios the rules do not adequately cover.

An experienced DM, which includes pretty much everyone posting on this forum, can indeed make decisions for their game without the game telling them. But the DM's role is the most vital to the game, and more (and better) DM's is important.

In my experience, players are more confident taking actions that the rules spell out. A good example of this occurred in 4e. My DM at the time was less experienced, and often griped about how players insisted on using their powers instead of being creative.

He even cited the old "swinging on chandeliers" chestnut. So then I pointed out to him something that had happened in his last session- rather than using his at will to shoot two arrows into a bad guy with a simple attack vs. AC, the Ranger had asked about shooting some cargo netting suspended above us to fall on some enemies.

The DM forced him to make an ability check without the bonuses for his bow, against the enemies Reflex defenses. Then gave the enemies a saving throw to avoid the net. And the ones that failed were simply slowed for a turn.

In effect, the Ranger would have been better off using his attack power.

I'm going out on a limb here and assuming most people here have seen DM's become extremely conservative about ad hoc actions players propose, without even realizing it, because they don't want to make things too easy, set a precedent, or "let the players get away with something".

This has the unfortunate side effect of training players to shun having to ask the DM if they can perform some cool feat, and scan their character sheets first, rather than just spontaneously saying "I want to do cool thing!".

I've actually seen an instance (of admittedly terrible DMing) where a player asked if he could do something, was told to make a difficult roll, got lucky and hit the DC, only for the attempt to basically do nothing because the DM felt what the player wanted to do was "impossible".

"Mother may I" is derogatory, the same way "Killer DM" or "Monty Haul" is, but it is describing a real thing. Even if you believe otherwise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And again, I point out the rules don't matter at all, as a savvy clever DM can just alter reality.

And again, I point out that this is false, unless "mattering at all" requires that one have a faultless, impregnable defense against problems.

Rules can help. Helping is what all tools do. Tools do not prevent problems.

Your statement is equivalent to saying that locks are pointless because there is no such thing as a security measure that cannot be defeated. Security is not about absolute prevention of intrusion. It is about making intrusion too onerous to pursue for those with malign intent, and for those of more benign intent, to push them toward productive ends.

Good rules design is not about absolute prevention of bad behavior. It is about making it too onerous to pursue for those with malign intent, and for those of more benign intent, to push them toward more productive ends. These things, rules can achieve.

The fact that perfection, that absolute defense, is not possible is not relevant. No one is asking for that in the first place.

 

[el-remmen]

"Mother may I" is derogatory, the same way "Killer DM" or "Monty Haul" is, but it is describing a real thing. Even if you believe otherwise.

I think you are right on "Monty Haul," and "Killer DM" can be derogatory in some contexts, but my own personal experience is DMs being self-ascribed "Killer DMs."

 

[Malmuria]

Relevant article:

The Invisible Rulebooks

When asked to explain the Invisible Rulebooks in person, I usually start with this scenario. If it's any consolation, it rambles in person, ...

rolltop-indigo.blogspot.com

There are always invisible rulebooks at the table, and there is no way for the design of a game to account for how those invisible rulebooks get used and leveraged at the table. I would add that this includes the social contract at the table, including how the players (GM included) know each other, how they communicate (or not) about the game, their shared references, and how they interact in general. It's a mistake to think that "good" game design can design away the 'problem' of human interaction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Relevant article:

The Invisible Rulebooks

When asked to explain the Invisible Rulebooks in person, I usually start with this scenario. If it's any consolation, it rambles in person, ...

rolltop-indigo.blogspot.com

There are always invisible rulebooks at the table, and there is no way for the design of a game to account for how those invisible rulebooks get used and leveraged at the table. I would add that this includes the social contract at the table, including how the players (GM included) know each other, how they communicate (or not) about the game, their shared references, and how they interact in general. It's a mistake to think that "good" game design can design away the 'problem' of human interaction.

And yet the very article you cite says:

At one end of this spectrum, there is the idea that the written rules should do all that they can. Even the most thorough and explicit rulebook can't entirely supplant the need for GM judgement, but by golly, it can minimize it, providing a solid foundation on which expectations can rest, a reliable court of fair outcomes, in written form. In games at this end of the spectrum, the GM's judgement is necessary only for spackling the inevitable (but hopefully rare) gaps in the visible rulebooks.

At the opposite end, there is the idea that the rules should be constructed from the observation that GMs and players handle this stuff every day, and can do so more effectively if the rules just stand the heck out of their way (politely near, in case they're needed), leaving more brain-energy for the GM to focus on NPCs and adventures and things. In games at this end of the spectrum, the visible rulebooks are only necessary for spackling the inevitable (but hopefully rare) gaps in the invisible rulebooks.

Then there's the spectrum between, which is so roily with variables it looks less like a rainbow and more like a river of oil.

I consider both of those extremes, and all points between then, laudable. I consider them all considerate and well-meaning. What's more, they're all at the heart of proven, excellent works of RPG design.

Not exactly a strong argument when the thing you are citing--in favor of a very clear "rules are inadequate, don't bother" position--explicitly says both extremes are laudable and that they're found at the heart of proven, excellent works of RPG design.

You have undercut your own thesis. The very thing meant to defend your thesis denies it.

 

[TheSword]

Not surprised to see this particular retort again. Disappointed, to be sure, but not surprised.

You are, of course, correct, but the point is irrelevant. Clearly, rules do matter, or else systems would never be published. Certainly, we wouldn't be seeing "One D&D" if design quality didn't matter in any degree.

Good rules help make good DMs better. Crappy rules encourage or even empower crappy DMs. Mediocre rules can end up going either way--and I would certainly say that "no rules but what the DM says, no matter what the DM has previously said" would be in the "mediocre" category. This means that, yes, it is in fact possible for good rules to help against these problems--likewise, for good rules to help against problems with players. Nothing whatever can be an utterly impregnable defense against bad-faith behavior, but we can use tools that help. Rules can help us manage bad-faith behavior, call it out, isolate it, and address it. That's why we live in a nation of laws. Laws don't prevent bad behavior, but they give us a tool for addressing it, at least in part.

Of course I didn’t say rules don’t matter. Rules help make gameplay better. They help decide what an adult red dragon can do in one round and whether the PCs can defend against that. They don’t fix problems with killer DMs, or DMs that play monsters as stupid, or players that try and find loopholes in the rules.

For instance Paizo’s comprehensive and prescriptive rules around magic items and wealth per level wouldn’t fix the challenges of a magic item stingy DM… it would just create a new series of problems.

You can’t properly fix out of game problems with in-game solutions. At best rules that try are sticking plasters that sometimes make things worse.