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

[Aldarc]

I don't think it needs to be spelled out. But there are innumerable examples, from the incredibly serious to the utterly banal, of one group choosing to name another group over the other group's objections. And that is completely different than a group naming itself, even with deprecating language.

I'm not sure, "I hear that you're objecting to my language when it's applied to what you do, and I acknowledge that it's negative language, but I don't really care because I don't find your objections serious enough to me," is a normal response.

You may not be spelling things out, but I feel that your argument is still trying to equate real world issues with gaming terms and pejoratives in an incredibly unhelpful, if not offensive, manner. So I would suggest taking a massive step back because I don't think that this is a good or productive route to take the discussion.

 

[Manbearcat]

The difference ... is that you, as someone who chooses to play those games (for the first two), call them that.

Whereas for the last one, you are being told by the people that play and enjoy the games you are criticizing and categorizing that they do not want you to use that term.

There are a lot of real-world analogies here; I trust you don't need it spelled out.

Yeah, I do not agree with your particular employment or real-world implication of Standpoint Epistemology here (given what you wrote at the top and your veiled implication at the bottom). It has both its place and its limits. I don't remotely agree that it is in play here in any meaningful way. There is no serially aggrieved party here with significant stakes and structural problems that need redress and the real inability for "the other side" to draw inferences that reasonably rise to the merit of the individual's personal experience.

So you can indict me and bin me in whatever "this guy is a jerk for denying my lived experience" category you'd like but, I don't agree with your application or implication of Standpoint Epistemology in this case, I don't agree that I'm a jerk, and I don't agree that I'm "criticizing" the form of play. I'm not criticizing. It is a form of play that depends upon the features I've depicted above. Those features could be depicted as "GM's Formulation" or "Play the GM" or "Play the GM Who is Playing the World" or "Play the GM Who is Playing the World So That is the Exclusive Domain of Resolving Player-Formulated Decisions/Actions."

There are trade-offs to everything label-wise and time-investment-wise (when it comes to deciding on whether to play a game or sit it out). Some folks may love the paradigmatic, most virtuous form of this play. Some folks may balk at their concerns over the degenerate form. Same thing with other games (like who the hell wants to play Spinning Plates or Embrace the Suck). Some folks may think a game is "all degenerate form" and who am I to deny them that? I can 100 % see the overwhelming % of players finding Torchbearer totally unpalatable because "Embracing the Suck...well...it sucks." Cool. No problem. I get it.

You can call the games I like whatever you want to call them...just be accurate about what is going on under the hood. If you don't want to call Blades Spinning Plates or Torchbearer Embrace the Suck...that's cool, just make it sufficiently depict play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think it needs to be spelled out. But there are innumerable examples, from the incredibly serious to the utterly banal, of one group choosing to name another group over the other group's objections. And that is completely different than a group naming itself, even with deprecating language.

I'm not sure, "I hear that you're objecting to my language when it's applied to what you do, and I acknowledge that it's negative language, but I don't really care because I don't find your objections serious enough to me," is a usual response.

People can use the term mother may I to describe games they don't like if they want (I use negative language to describe movies I don't like for example). But I think mother may I really doesn't work as a term for a style of gaming, because no one who plays in the styles that get labeled as such, uses the term. And I think it also isn't a particularly accurate term as well. What bothers me is when people invoke these kinds of terms to describe a style and act as if its an objective analysis of the style (which I don't think mother may I is at all). It is a critique. And I don't object to people leveling criticisms, but they should also understand when they wield a term that is a critique, naturally the people who disagree with them will argue and debate.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You can call the games I like whatever you want to call them...just be accurate about what is going on under the hood. If you don't want to call Blades Spinning Plates or Torchbearer Embrace the Suck...that's cool, just make it sufficiently depict play.

Yeah, there is a term. Playing the world. Or, play the world, not the rules.


See how easy that is? I know, WOW! Look, an actual descriptive term that encapsulates how people want to play. And doesn't use infantilizing and negative language.

I mean ... do you wonder why a certain group of people use this term, and is so invested in defending it? If you want to have a conversation with people that are playing different games, maybe start by not using that term to describe their games.

Jus' sayin'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I routinely have called various Powered By the Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark Games "Spinning Plates." I've called Torchbearer "Relentless Grind" (which isn't a big surprise because one of its most foundational mechanics is "The Grind"). As I'm sure most people know, I love those games. And I'll absolutely defend both of those phrases as "as information-dense as a phrase can get to describe a play experience."

A lot of these kinds of criticisms though are targeting either things we find annoying about a game, or the worst state that a particular game can reach. For example for me, I would call a lot of d20 boom to 4E D&D a relentless grind because of how combat tends to function (It seems longer, to be more of a focus, etc). It is a perfectly valid criticism, but it isn't an illuminating label: relentless grind isn't the point of play or the desired goal of anyone who enjoys those systems. The issue I would be raising when I call it a relentless grind is just that the pacing of combat is protracted and boring to me. A fair reaction, but not an accurate description of the game or its mechanics

Again, no issue with criticisms. I like using plain and honest language to describe my reaction to certain types of movies. I just don't think my reaction can be used as the descriptor of those movies or as the genre label.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, there is a term. Playing the world. Or, play the world, not the rules.


See how easy that is? I know, WOW! Look, an actual descriptive term that encapsulates how people want to play. And doesn't use infantilizing and negative language.

I mean ... do you wonder why a certain group of people use this term, and is so invested in defending it? If you want to have a conversation with people that are playing different games, maybe start by not using that term to describe their games.

Jus' sayin'.

The problem is how does Play the World differentiate it from any other game?

Just take those 3 words...nothing more. How does it distinguish play from play?

What am I doing in Blades? I'm playing the world.

What am I doing in Torchbearer? I'm playing the world.

What am I doing in Dogs in the Vineyard? I'm playing the world.

What am I doing in Dread? I'm playing the world.

What am I doing when I write up a one-off dungeon for D&D and the players are in token/pawn stance? I'm playing the world.


That phrase just obliterates any characteristics of paradigmatic play that could distinguish it from nearly any other game.

EDIT - @Bedrockgames , I don't disagree. I mean like I said above, call whatever game whatever...just make sure it (a) represents what is going on under the hood (process and play) and (b) sufficiently distinguishes it from other games that it is clearly different than.

Again, like Spinning Plates with Blades. That absolutely can have a big time negative connotation but it fits (a) and (b). Relentless Grind or Embrace the Suck for Torchbearer also has negative connotations but fits (a) and (b) nicely. I mean...I would say for 4e you could cheekily call it "Skip the Gate Guards"...but that would be way too inside joke for people so something like "Cut to the Action" would be better.

Personally...I don't feel like Mother May I is the best for what we're describing...its not bad in terms of "under the hood", but its not the best. I feel like Play the GM is a better pithy descriptor (though they're both doing different things...the first is talking about authority distribution and the second is talking about the deep responsibility of the GM to conceive and run complex models and resolve player input).

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, there is a term. Playing the world. Or, play the world, not the rules.


See how easy that is? I know, WOW! Look, an actual descriptive term that encapsulates how people want to play. And doesn't use infantilizing and negative language.

I mean ... do you wonder why a certain group of people use this term, and is so invested in defending it? If you want to have a conversation with people that are playing different games, maybe start by not using that term to describe their games.

Jus' sayin'.

Others may have a different opinion, but I don't think that "play the world, not the rules" and "Mother May I" are the same phenomenon or even trying to describe the same phenomenon, so I am not sure if one is a valid substitute term for another and vice versa.

There may be overlap of some sort at some points, but I also think that these are distinct, because "play the world, not the rules" is often an OSR/FKR thing, but MMI is not exclusive to OSR/FKR as it can be found in a number of rules heavy games or with non-OSR/FKR GMs who play the sort of games that OSR/FKR fans also criticize.

The fundamental issue, for me, with MMI rests in play paralysis produced by how the GM may gate character knowledge and actions that the players can use to make informed decisions for interacting with the world or inhabiting their character for roleplay behind permissions. You want to make this an indictment against OSR/FKR for some reason and I don't believe that it is an indictment against any game. I do believe, however, that some games and systems can enable MMI more so than others. This is NOT to say that these games are immune to GM judgment or rulings. And sometimes MMI is a player-formed habit rather than a Bad GM problem.

My own approach is not to say "MMI is a problem in FKR/OSR so CURSES and ETERNAL INDICTMENT to these games!" but, rather, "MMI can be a problem that describes X play patterns with GMs and player relations, so how can we address when we find it wherever we find it?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

My use of MMI is not describing a playstyle but rather system. 5e as a system places almost all authority in tge hands of them GM as to outcomes. That players have authority to declare actions isn't much when the GM is deciding if it's possible, how to adjudicate it, adjudication of it, and determination of outcomes, and finally how permanent those outcomes are. Thus isn't a rip against 5e, it's intentionally designed to enable a wide spread of applications in play, leaving it up to the table as to how much constraint the GM is under while exercising system authorities.

The parts of 5e that push back against this at the system level are mostly spells and the combat engine, areas where adjudication and outcomes are far more clearly established by the system.

 

[Umbran]

See how easy that is? I know, WOW! Look, an actual descriptive term that encapsulates how people want to play. And doesn't use infantilizing and negative language.

So, setting aside how earlier in this thread folks were asked to stop trying to drive the conversation to one form of use....

Delivering this message in such a snaky and condescending tone is highly ironic.

Being disrespectful while telling others to be respectful? That doesn't sound like a constructive strategy at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you go back to 'rulings not rules' B/X D&D, there was a structured exploration turn of the dungeon. Wandering monster checks were rolled every other turn. In 5e, the DMG says this:
Worse than useless. It also suggests that one of the reasons you might use one is because the players 'are getting off track'. So, when it comes to random encounters, 5e encourages and relies upon arbitrary use of DM authority, while B/X has rules which the DM must implement and adjudicate. B/X does not encourage MMI, while 5e actively encourages the DM to punish the players with random encounters for not following the (secret, to them) script. It's built-in dysfunction.

Thank you! This is a wonderful example of what I've been trying to show as a demonstration of this issue as a point of game design rather than as a point of DMing style. Because sometimes, the rules themselves can in fact encourage or empower capriciousness, or can make it difficult to avoid being capricious, even though that's something most DMs (even the not-so-great ones) don't want to engage in.