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

[EzekielRaiden]

Again, suggesting that the GM is the final arbiter rulings doesn't mean players don't have a say - that's a huge over-exaggeration of what I'm saying. As I said, dialogue is part of the process. A player says "I want to do this," and if there isn't a clearcut rule to follow, the DM adjudicates with a ruling. I have found that 99.9% of the time (if not 100%) this is a smooth process.

Whereas I have seen it (both in-person and vicariously) explode into rather serious problems more than once. And have several times (many of them in person) seen it not explode, but slowly simmer and build up resentment pressure, in the various ways I previously cited: bad understanding of probability, offering what are thought to be good deals but are actually really really horrible deals, making it incredibly risky to do cool things, balancing the game around the rare lucky few rather than the extremely common dead, etc.

Meaning, it isn't a statement of "absolute authority" as much as a clarification of the GM's role as referee.

Then why do so many people make such an intense, overt, explicit point of emphasizing exactly how absolute and inviolate their authority is? That their word is law? Because yes, I have had people straight-up say this. On this forum. I won't name names because I consider that rude. But there are specific people on this forum that I could explicitly name, who have repeatedly asserted their authority is explicitly absolute, and have to some extent or another revelled in the absoluteness of that authority, the degree to which they are the Dungeon Master and the players are there to be led along.

I think what I've found confusing is that this aspect of the GM's role somehow implies some kind of tyranny to some, as if the GM being the final arbiter on rulings inherently leads to bad decision-making or worse, malicious intent. That hasn't been my experience - except in rare instances.

I don't think this specific thing inherently leads to bad decision-making. I think that several extremely common human faults or errors, indeed faults or errors that are essentially universal in humans, lead to bad decision-making in humans generally when certain contexts are relevant (such as mathematics, statistics, and observational data collection.) These nigh-universal issues get magnified greatly when the context involves unilateral decisions that affect other people. DMs who speak of "absolute authority" or the like are, very specifically, making unilateral decisions; hence, bad decision-making is an extreme risk. I cited several specific errors, such as the "roll to conceal yourself every single round you sneak" issue, in order to demonstrate that these problems are real and, at least for some of them, have been notorious for ages.

So yeah, I'm advocating for a "The GM is the world" approach. I'm not saying it is the only way, or the best way, but it works for me and 99% of people I've played with.

My issue was that you were saying not "this is my approach," nor even "this is a highly effective approach," but rather that "The GM is the world" is the only approach for immersive gaming--that the closer one gets to deep immersion, necessarily the closer one gets to "The GM is the world."

Yes, agreed. My approach has been slightly different, but I've never had complaints of unfairness and it has always been clear to my players that they are only limited by their own imagination and what makes sense for their character. We all buy into the verisimilitude of the world, and try to make decisions that make sense within that context, whether GM or players.

Sure. And what I'm saying is, well-made rules are in fact extremely useful for ensuring that that respect is sustained, and that players are not given unexpected perverse incentives (whether to avoid fun things or to do dull things). Well-made rules are difficult to produce, and require significant testing and revision, things which a single DM running for their friends will struggle to replicate. That's why we pay others for their rules; because they have the time and resources to collect the data and perform the analysis.

Unfortunately, many designers...don't actually do that, and may not even know how. Even WotC. I've dug into the education credentials of the vast majority of people who make D&D. 90% or more of them have humanities degrees (mostly Communications, but Art, Music, History, and, in the interesting case of Mr. Heinsoo, Theology are also in there.) People with any kind of formal STEM education are extremely rare, and not one that I could positively identify had explicit, formal training in statistics. In other words, the people who make D&D, in general, don't know very much about math or statistical analysis....which are the things you really, really need to know if you're going to be designing a mathematical framework that depends on both analyzing survey data and checking for statistical behavior.

Of course, a big part of this is that most people who get a STEM degree can get into a career that is more likely to pay big bucks than "TTRPG Designer" is. But it has always frustrated (and confused) me that even WotC, the BMOC when it comes to TTRPG design, never consults with a statistician (for the underlying math stuff) or a psychologist/sociologist/etc. (for how to design and interpret survey data.) The things that would help make rules that work rather than rules that suck are completely ignored, and then people complain that the rules suck, so obviously we have to have DMs that do all the heavy lifting all of the time. It's this incredibly frustrating self-fulfilling prophecy.

Again, I think that's bad GMing - and not about the style of play, but lack of clarity about the style. If the GM is clear on rulings and such from the get-go, they're not altering the deal if they're adjudicating rulings in a manner consistent with their style.

My issue is those last four words: "consistent with their style."

I find that there are a lot of DMs whose style is fundamentally inconsistent, and they don't realize it. Often, though not always, this arises in the form of a failure to understand how their style incentivizes players away from the things they want the players to do. Hence why I so often speak of "perverse incentives." 3rd edition, for example, was designed by people suffering from pretty extreme "functional fixedness": they conceived of D&D as only being played one way, and thus created rules that weren't THAT bad if played that way, e.g. Clerics who use almost all of their spell slots on healing, Wizards who almost always play as blasters, etc. But once players, not subject to functional fixedness, got ahold of those rules, they played them based on what the rules actually did incentivize--and it led to lots and lots of problems and complaints. I find most people suffer from issues of this kind in one form or another; humans are often very poor at picking up absolutely all possible incentives created by their behaviors. This issue becomes even more severe when it is abstractions, rather than real physical objects or people, which induce the incentives.

I'm not assuming anything...just speaking hypothetically to make a point, re: the importance of human connection and rapport.

It's more than a little odd for you to do so, then, when the thrust of the rest of your post is "please don't assume being overly reliant on DM adjudication." That is, you seem to be doing the very thing you had just asked me not to do: predicating an argument on the presumption of being overly reliant on rules, rather than practically reliant on them. Unless you mean to say that any reliance whatsoever on rules is "overly" reliant...?

“Mother May I” should be seen as a warning, something you probably want to avoid in your games. It’s not an indictment of using GM judgment or anything so severe. It’s about not relying almost entirely on GM judgment.

Exactly this.

Fate is a system of aspects within aspects & the bonus types+gm's best friend lends itself well to doing that even while players are ignorant of the method. Unlike skill challenges where you need a certain number of successes fate aspects pretty much just need plausible & I don't need to track success/failure.

So...you're...not really playing 5e very much when you do this? Because that's what you seem to be saying here. You're basically playing a hybrid where combat is more or less 5e, while non-combat is more or less Fate. That's....not exactly a ringing endorsement for heavy DM adjudication.

Otherwise, all you really seem to be saying here is "the framework is different and I prefer this different approach," which is completely tangential to my point. My point was that you're using a framework, any framework, for the task. Or "method," if you prefer your term.

@Malmuria Your quotation there includes the phrase "and invite players to do likewise" (that is, to "fast-forward, pause, or rewind/undo scenes for pacing and safety.") I do not see how players having the capacity to do this is even remotely compatible with DM absolute authority, to say nothing of "mother may I" problems. The instructions there explicitly give the players at least SOME of the same authority given to the DM, and explicitly instruct to review and "revise unsatisfying rulings as a group." There isn't even a cop-out phrase like "listen to your group and then make a decision," it's very clear that this is a whole-group effort, not one where the DM has absolute unilateral authority and players are merely optionally-consulted advisors.

 

[Cadence]

Then why do so many people make such an intense, overt, explicit point of emphasizing exactly how absolute and inviolate their authority is? That their word is law? Because yes, I have had people straight-up say this.

Maybe because they think the DM is the final authority by RAW, and yet others keep saying it isn't - over and over and over again - with no quotations from RAW to back it up? And it's annoying to be repeatedly told something that isn't true. And who doesn't like to keep posting back to win imaginary internet argument points because the other person finally gave up?

* In some editions, pretend I'm addressing people talking about those editions.

and have to some extent or another revelled in the absoluteness of that authority, the degree to which they are the Dungeon Master and the players are there to be led along.

I haven't run into many people on here who act like they revel in leading the players along (like sheep? like cattle?). But I have run into several people on here who treat everyone who says the DM is the final authority like they want to just order the players about (like sheep? like cattle?) and act like their games must be painful if only the players in them would recognize what they're missing. (Even after the DMs say how they look at and regularly incorporate player suggestions and things like that...)

 

[tetrasodium]

So...you're...not really playing 5e very much when you do this? Because that's what you seem to be saying here. You're basically playing a hybrid where combat is more or less 5e, while non-combat is more or less Fate. That's....not exactly a ringing endorsement for heavy DM adjudication.

Otherwise, all you really seem to be saying here is "the framework is different and I prefer this different approach," which is completely tangential to my point. My point was that you're using a framework, any framework, for the task. Or "method," if you prefer your term.

I very much am, 5e just ejected all of the structural rules for noncombat social & exploration stuff while tossing it to the GM to finish doing otherwise. The recap I described is not the norm, i's just the way to run the scenario I quoted in #209 because d&d 5e makes all sorts of sacrifices to still fail miserably at the very sort of game it supposedly sacrificed to empower. It was actually easier to do in past editions where players didn't have PCs built with battle of helms deep type combat density expectations & epic boon levels of survivability baked into the core because simply having somewhat over-leveled guards roaming the halls forced the players to rely on other areas of the rules that still existed.

 

[Malmuria]

@Malmuria Your quotation there includes the phrase "and invite players to do likewise" (that is, to "fast-forward, pause, or rewind/undo scenes for pacing and safety.") I do not see how players having the capacity to do this is even remotely compatible with DM absolute authority, to say nothing of "mother may I" problems. The instructions there explicitly give the players at least SOME of the same authority given to the DM, and explicitly instruct to review and "revise unsatisfying rulings as a group." There isn't even a cop-out phrase like "listen to your group and then make a decision," it's very clear that this is a whole-group effort, not one where the DM has absolute unilateral authority and players are merely optionally-consulted advisors.

I agree! To make that 6-sentence running the game section work in practice requires a communicative and thoughtful group, but the game itself largely leaves the establishment of those dynamics to individual tables. And while 24xx is excellent in quality, in this aspect it does not seem to be that different from a lot of the FKR/xtra rules-lite games out there, even those that vest more authority in the dm (implicitly or explicitly). That is, the potential for arbitrariness and poor gm judgement is a known quality and something that is designed around, whether the game is minimalist or maximalist in its mechanics.

Let me try to phrase it differently: I can see MMI (or a less derisive phrase) as a critique of a particular style of play, but I am not understanding how it could be used to classify and critique entire games themselves

 

[hawkeyefan]

What responsibility do you think players have to buy into the GM's style, even if it doesn't 100% suit their own? I've always felt that when I'm a player, I have less of a say in how the game is run - and I'm OK with that, because it is a show of respect for the GM and the far greater share of work they put in. I mean, it is sort of like being a guest at someone's house: I don't complain about the snacks on offer or the music that's played (unless I've had a few, then I might commandeer the turntable .

I’m sure this is something that varies by group. Personally, I prefer when it’s a group decision what play style or what rules we’ll use. Sure, sometimes one of our group will be excited about a specific idea, and they’ll put it to the group. Most recently, in one of my groups, a buddy of mine got the Goodman Games version of Temple of Elemental Evil. He said he’d like to run it, and was excited. Everyone in that group was onboard.

Came to character creation and the GM had made some comments about a more old school approach, but the comments weren’t very specific. Two of our players in particular made characters using elements from Tasha’s Cauldron and other expansions. The GM wasn’t crazy about it given his goal for a more old school feel, but he realized the players were excited by their characters, so he didn’t make them change their characters or anything like that.

Again, this just seems to be a difference in play style. That might work for some groups, not as much for others.

Sure. Like I said, I think Mother May I is a bad thing. That it takes the idea of heavily GM directed play to the extreme. Players are along for the ride rather than steering things.

If a game doesn’t go that far with it, oreven if it does but everyone’s fine with that, then I expect my comments wouldn’t matter to them at all.

I think the reason people are defending a certain style of play is because they haven't experienced problems with the style of play that is being criticized ("heavily-GM-directed play").

Sure, that’s possible. I would think that those people would be able to offer some examples as to why heavily-GM-directed play is not vulnerable to Mother May I.

Meaning, if the criticism doesn't hold true for my experience, is it in any way valid? Experiences differ, after all.

Valid to whom? As you say, experiences differ. It’s very valid to me. We’re never going to all agree. So I’ve stated my opinion and why I hold it. If you don’t agree… which it certainly seems like, and which is totally fine… I’d rather hear why than “hey that’s just your opinion”.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Let me try to phrase it differently: I can see MMI (or a less derisive phrase) as a critique of a particular style of play, but I am not understanding how it could be used to classify and critique entire games themselves

It (or a less-derisive equivalent) would be useful for critiquing a game, rather than a style, by way of examining how the game does or does not actually support using it in that way. As @tetrasodium mentioned earlier, for example; they have said that, in their experience, 5e does less to enable this kind of game/gaming, despite explicitly claiming that that is one of its goals, than previous editions that were more rules-y than 5e (or 24XX). That would seem to be a very valid and meaningful line of criticism.

Another, separate line would be calling out those parts of what rules do exist that may in fact be antagonistic to it, rather than supportive of it, despite desiring to support it. E.g. I have seen at least some folks who find 5e is less a Goldilocks zone of "just enough rules to rely on, just enough rulings to fit wherever" and more like "a number less than 5 and greater than 7." That is, on the one hand, the rulings side left so utterly open-ended, and with so little advice, that the DM is left floundering if they have problems. But then the rules side is so full of intentional lacunae or poorly-constructed tools** that there's really nothing to rely on (e.g. the many complaints raised about how there's nothing to do with money once the players get it--it just sits there, piling up, uselessly.)

Perhaps, as an offering of a less-loaded phrase, "Red Light/Green Light" gaming? It carries much the same idea, at least to my mind, but might not feel as hostile to someone who enjoys absolute-authority DM gaming.

If so, then I think RL/GL gaming can be useful for pointing out games which fail to enable or support effective DM adjudication, or undercut the implementation of absolute-authority DMing in one way or another, or include features or attributes that heighten the risk of problematic DM and/or player behaviors.

*Consider the incredibly tedious threads we used to see all the time where someone would ask a rules question, and within the first five responses you were guaranteed to get at least one person saying, "Just ask the DM!" only to then be told, "I am the DM, I'm looking for help," or to skip straight to the next reply, "You're the DM, figure it out yourself!" As if any of those responses to the question were remotely helpful.

**Such as encounter builder stuff, lots of people have criticized that aspect of 5e, even people who really like it frequently describe the CR system as mostly useless and that they get better results from just eyeballing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What's an example of a game where this is inherently a problem? That is, assuming you have good and communicative table dynamic and a minimally thoughtful GM, when is MMI still a problem. I can see how the above will be a problem if you have a gygaxian "gotcha" DM, or if other things about the social dynamic of the players is off. But then, even a card or board game will be unfun if the social dynamic is not good.

I think it’s a problem in 5E. There’s an inconsistency in how the rules are presented and how they are played. There are multiple ways to interpret the rules (and although that’s likely true of most rules, it’s especially true of 5E D&D).

Rulings not rules. There’s an advantage to the concept. You don’t need to write a rule for every single possibility that may come up.

There’s a disadvantage to the concept. When we don’t have a rule (or process), ideas may vary about what would be a reasonable ruling.

It’s not terrible on its own. I don’t think 5E as a game must always be a game of Mother May I (I wouldn’t play it if I did). But combined with many other possible play approaches and fuzzy processes and unspecific procedures… I can see it being a problem.

And that’s before we even get to the question of how the players perceive the world as their characters and all the potential pitfalls there.

Let's take a popular (within it's micro-niche) contemporary rules lite game, 24xx. The rules are basically two pages, and contain a "Running the Game" section: RUNNING THE GAME: Lead the group in setting lines not to cross in play. Fast-forward, pause, or rewind/redo scenes for pacing and safety, and invite players to do likewise. Present dilemmas and problems you don’t know how to solve. Move the spotlight to give everyone time to shine. Test periodically for bad luck (e.g., run out of ammo, or into guards) — roll d6 to check for (1–2) trouble now or (3–4) signs of trouble. Offer rulings to cover gaps in rules; double back during a break to revise unsatisfying rulings as a group.

I mean, it’s a rules lite game that’s like 3 pages long. There’s a lot of gray area in there. But, a lot of that seems tempered by either input from the dice or input from the players.

I mean, if a ruling is unsatisfying, you go back and revise them as a group. That’s specifically not about the GM as sole authority.

How something is deemed unsatisfying and when such a revision should take place is unclear, but it’s in there.

Is that too minimal for you?

In what sense? I’m not advocating for a high number of rules. What I’m saying is that rules need to do the work. If the rules mostly do the work of saying “it’s up to the GM” then I think it’s an issue.

These don’t seem to do that. But I won’t pretend to have fully grasped all the working bits with one quick glance at the rules.

 

[James Gasik]

My first post in this thread referred to an actual game element with a toggle completely under the DM's control, the Wild Sorcerer's Tides of Chaos.

Without Tides of Chaos, the entire Wild Sorcerer subclass boils down to "5% of the time you cast a leveled spell, you have a roughly 1/3 chance to do something cool, something weird, or something detrimental". Oh and another way to use Sorcery points, as if you didn't have a lot of competition there already.

Tides of Chaos, when used, guarantees that the next leveled spell you cast causes a surge, which again, has that 33% chance of actually being useful.

Then the game says you don't recover it until you either rest or the DM gives it back to you. This makes the entire subclass play experience vastly different if you have a DM who "loves the chaos", "is on the fence about it", or "hates the chaos". Not to mention DM's who just can't remember that their Sorcerer is chomping on the bit to get their ability back online.

I posited this as an example, despite it not having to step out of the rules at all, like most examples of this style of play, because I don't really like having to pester the DM about when/if I get to use my cool thing.

I mean what's the proper etiquette for that? How often should you ask? When should you ask? When/If are you allowed to get upset that you're not getting more out of your subclass, compared to others that grant benefits that function without the DM's adjudication?

I don't know, and as a result, I had a miserable experience playing my Sorcerer.

Expanding this kind of scenario to the rest of the game, you run into things like, "I want to hogtie the Goblin". How do you do that? Well the PHB says (on page 177), that "Your DM might call for a Dexterity check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following: Securely Tie Up a Prisoner, *Wriggle Free of Bonds."

Instantly, any DM is now a game designer. What's the Dexterity check DC/TN? Does it set the difficulty to escape it? Can you use Strength to escape? Does being a Sailor help you tie knots? Does the opponent have to be restrained to be tied up? Can I lasso enemies in combat?

A lot of questions, and I don't believe all DM's have the answers. A bad ruling can mean the difference between "we give no quarter because bad guys always escape" and "my Fighter is known as Roper McRoperson, who has left a trail of hogtied enemies across the Sea of Fallen Stars!".

So this is a problem, obviously, even without bad actors being involved. That bad actors exist is a separate problem- and while it can make this issue much worse, bad players or DM's make so much else about the game worse that it should be excised from this discussion.

 

[Malmuria]

Instantly, any DM is now a game designer. What's the Dexterity check DC/TN? Does it set the difficulty to escape it? Can you use Strength to escape? Does being a Sailor help you tie knots? Does the opponent have to be restrained to be tied up? Can I lasso enemies in combat?

I don't see why this fundamental dynamic is a problem, and if it is, what hard coded ruleset solves it. Why are we investing so much authority in the "game designer" who doesn't know you or your friends or what you enjoy at your table? Particularly since the example you cite (Tides of Chaos) clearly shows game designers not doing a good job? Doesn't critique of this design (rightly) imply that you, you at home, can do better?

Personally, I'd rather work things out among my friends than ask Jeremey Crawford or whomever on twitter what the "correct" rule is supposed to be.

(btw, for all its flaws, the 1e dmg includes probability tables precisely for this reason (the DM is a game designer))

 

[Hussar]

I don't see why this fundamental dynamic is a problem, and if it is, what hard coded ruleset solves it. Why are we investing so much authority in the "game designer" who doesn't know you or your friends or what you enjoy at your table? Particularly since the example you cite (Tides of Chaos) clearly shows game designers not doing a good job? Doesn't critique of this design (rightly) imply that you, you at home, can do better?

Personally, I'd rather work things out among my friends than ask Jeremey Crawford or whomever on twitter what the "correct" rule is supposed to be.

(btw, for all its flaws, the 1e dmg includes probability tables precisely for this reason (the DM is a game designer))

Again, it's not so much that we need coded rules for it.

What we do need, though, IMO, is better guidance for GM's.

Although, to be fair, I don't think it would hurt to have some coding for fairly common in game actions.

If we're going to leave it up to DM's, and I don't think that's a bad thing, we do need to spend a considerable amount of time teaching DM's what is and what is not a good idea at the table. For example, that "hog-tying" the goblin, presuming the goblin is resisting, should be called out as an opposed check resulting in a target being restrained.

IOW, it's not a bad idea, if you're going to leave it in the DM's hands, to give the DM the tools to be able to take advantage of the bajillion hours of play experience behind game design and suggest possible solutions. OTOH, 5e has largely left this sort of thing to places like online forums and Discord channels and whatnot to sort of let players and DM's sort this out for themselves, mostly because when WotC actually did make suggestions, people lost their poop. So, now WotC just rarely takes anything even remotely like a stand on how to run the game.