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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

When people level comparisons like "it's an MMO on paper" or "it's too much like WoW," they should be met with similar responses, no? Especially since these claims are rather inaccurate?

 

[overgeeked]

It’s really bizarre how this phrase is basically an indictment of referee authority as a whole along with any and all games that have referee authority. An RPG isn’t a video game. An RPG isn’t a boardgame. The players can go anywhere and try anything, even stuff not on their character sheet and stuff not covered by the rules. To make that possible the human running the game has to be able to make decisions. That’s literally why the role exists. To run the world and to make calls. This division of authority exists across almost all RPGs. Even indie darlings like PbtA games, the referee is just given a few more explicit tools to work with, but ultimately, the referee is still in charge, framing scenes, and running the world. Even supposedly referee-less games like Fiasco have referees. You just have to read the rules about who’s in charge of a spotlight scene to see it.

I’m curious where the line is on this. If the referee making a call or setting the DC in regards to player actions is bad, where is it acceptable for the referee to make decisions, calls, or rulings? NPC names? Improv dialog? Adventure design? House rules? Should the referee be eliminated entirely so the players can run themselves through canned adventures? An entire category of games exist that work this way. They’re boardgames. Assuming people want an RPG and not a boardgame...what happens when someone tries something not on their character sheet? Does the game stop so everyone can check the books? When they find that the books say if it’s a reasonable, in-genre action, set a reasonable DC and call for a skill check, who sets the DC? The table? Okay. What happens when the players disagree? Does the game stop until they all agree? Should players simply not be permitted to even try things not explicitly on their character sheet? Things not programmed into the rules ahead of time are strictly forbidden? An entire category of games exist that work this way. They’re video games. Assuming people want an RPG and not a video game...what happens when the rules don’t explicitly cover something? The table makes a call? Okay. What happens when the players disagree? Does the game stop and everyone pings Crawford on Twitter and waits for him to respond?

Yes, it went silly at the end. That’s intentional. There are a thousand ways the role of the referee is required to have something like the shared delusion we call roleplaying to even be possible, much less work, to say nothing of working well.

Yes, the referee might tell you no. Yes, the referee might make a call you don’t like. That’s part of the game. Without the referee there to make thousands of calls, the genre we call RPGs simply doesn’t work. Yes, even most of those indie games. Yes, even Fiasco.

As an aside, I absolutely am interested in a non-derogatory, non-insulting working definition of this. If that matters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

People keep pointing out that it's extremely "vulnerable" to it because mother may I from a player plays out as a destructive & toxic protest aimed at undermining the entire gamestyle that the GM is running rather than a mere disconnect. There was a great blogpost on the alexandrian earlier pointing out a number of ways it can be done & it even notes how the problem is one that more railroady gms are unlikely to ever see or even notice it if it happens at their table.

When I said "vulnerable" I didn't mean to imply anything stronger than "prone to". Just that this is an area of concern with such rules systems (assuming it's a concern at all for the participants).

As I said, for me Mother May I is when things have gone wrong in some way. When things veer too far into GM control for the participants. Other folks have other ideas of what it means, but for me, I'd say it's something that will have gone wrong and it's something to be avoided.

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.

In fairness, the thread asked people to describe what the term means to them in context of 5E. Obviously, the conversation has morphed a bit as they always do... but I don't see the issue with use of Mother May I since people were specifically asked here to explain what it means to them.

I think I've been clear that for me, it's a critique. I've stated why. What I'd like to see is people who feel the critique is inaccurate actually explain why, rather than just tell me I'm wrong or that the phrase is pejorative.

What does 5E do that makes it not a case of Mother May I? I've mentioned a couple of things, but I haven't elaborated. I'd like to hear others do so. What do other games do that prevent them from becoming a case of Mother May I?

As I said before, most people who play games that rely on "GM Judgment" (such as OSR games and FKR games, or, to use the instant example, D&D and 5e) think that this is not an accurate statement. That this is simply a possible failure state of the game. Played correctly, these games (for the people that prefer them) are the best way to reliably engage in the fiction.

When we see this term, then, we know (because it's always the same, and has been since it was introduced by Mearls) that it can't stop at a description of a Bad DM; instead, it's going to be indictment on a whole section of games.

My use of "games" in that context was not about specific rules, but specific instances of games. I do think that specific rules systems may be more vulnerable to MMI than others, but I wasn't indicting any specific rules systems with that comment.

However, I play many games that rely on GM judgment. I mean, I would say that all TTRPGs rely on it to varying degrees. But I play plenty of games that come down more on the GM side as far as authority goes. I don't play any games that I'd classify as FKR, but I play 5E weekly, and have played several OSR games. I don't have a problem with the phrase in and of itself.

I mean, is there a perfect rules system? Don't all systems have drawbacks, or potential points of concern? This is just a case of that.

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

What is the world if not the rules? Many would say "the GM", as you did here:

DMs are responsible for the world.

But if someone said "Play the GM" you'd probably not like it because it would seem to veer very close to the idea of "Mother May I".

So what does "Play the world" mean? What advice would you give a new GM who asked that question?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, the referee might tell you no. Yes, the referee might make a call you don’t like. That’s part of the game. Without the referee there to make thousands of calls, the genre we call RPGs doesn’t work. Yes, even most of those indie games. Yes, even Fiasco.

Would you say that a game that requires thousands of calls would feel different than a game that requires only dozens of calls?

The issue is not with GM authority or GM judgment. It's about the volume of each, and how they may or may not be limited.

To use 5E as the basis for an example, if I'm attacking an orc, there are specific numbers in play that will determine success or failure, and what happens in each case. If I succeed, I roll damage and reduce his HP by that amount. If I fail, I miss and nothing happens. This is all super clear and defined ahead of time, and is understood by the participants, even if some particulars are kept from the player (such as the orc's AC). I am able as a player to make an informed decision to attack the orc, with reasonable understanding of my odds of success. And, the dice are what will determine if I succeed or not. Not the GM.... the dice. (Yes yes, the GM has total authority and can change anything and all that, but that's not the way anyone typically plays, so I think we can set that aside and look at how 5E actually plays). If I roll high enough, I hit. I don't need the GM's "permission" to do so. It's not up to them.

If instead of attacking, I try to convince the orc to put down his weapon and run... we have a far less specific structure. So much of what needs to be determined is up to the GM. The ability to be used, any applicable skill, any other factors that may apply ("Your friends are currently killing his, so you have Disadvantage for Persuaion" or alternatively "Your friends are currently killing his, so you have Advantage for Intimidate"), the DC of the roll and how that's determined.... all of that is up to the GM. And what amount of this information, if any, is shared with me may also vary from table to table, and group to group. More and more of GM input here moves us closer and closer to me needing the GM's "permission" to succeed. Not "permission" in a literal sense... but in the sense that the GM is responsible for my understanding of the fictional situation, the GM is responsible for the factors that may influence the situation, the GM is responsible for selecting the relevant Ability and Skill, the GM is responsible for the DC, the GM is responsible for deciding to share any of this information with the player, the GM is responsible for determining what happens on Failure or Success. They have so much say on the process, that it's really up to them.

What about this attempt to get the orc to run isn't a case of Mother May I?

What can a game do to prevent it feeling that way? How often does this happen in a game? In what ways? Why allow combat to work so clearly with less GM judgment being needed, but not actions taken outside of combat?

There may be little things that can be done to help within the 5E structure. Other rules systems take more severe efforts to mitigate this. There's no one answer.

 

[Aldarc]

I’m curious where the line is on this.

"Line drawing" is an impossible ask that isn't particularly productive IME, particularly when it's followed by what feels like a gish gallop of heated questions. It's hard to engage or give a rebuttal to a paragraph of rambling questions and assertions. Would you mind phrasing your point or question more concisely and a little less heated?

I also don't think that it's help to try conflating any exercising of GM authority to making rulings with MMI behaviors.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s really bizarre how this phrase is basically an indictment of referee authority as a whole along with any and all games that have referee authority. An RPG isn’t a video game. An RPG isn’t a boardgame. The players can go anywhere and try anything, even stuff not on their character sheet and stuff not covered by the rules. To make that possible the human running the game has to be able to make decisions. That’s literally why the role exists. To run the world and to make calls. This division of authority exists across almost all RPGs. Even indie darlings like PbtA games, the referee is just given a few more explicit tools to work with, but ultimately, the referee is still in charge, framing scenes, and running the world. Even supposedly referee-less games like Fiasco have referees. You just have to read the rules about who’s in charge of a spotlight scene to see it.

I’m curious where the line is on this. If the referee making a call or setting the DC in regards to player actions is bad, where is it acceptable for the referee to make decisions, calls, or rulings? NPC names? Improv dialog? Adventure design? House rules? Should the referee be eliminated entirely so the players can run themselves through canned adventures? An entire category of games exist that work this way. They’re boardgames. Assuming people want an RPG and not a boardgame...what happens when someone tries something not on their character sheet? Does the game stop so everyone can check the books? When they find that the books say if it’s a reasonable, in-genre action, set a reasonable DC and call for a skill check, who sets the DC? The table? Okay. What happens when the players disagree? Does the game stop until they all agree? Should players simply not be permitted to even try things not explicitly on their character sheet? Things not programmed into the rules ahead of time are strictly forbidden? An entire category of games exist that work this way. They’re video games. Assuming people want an RPG and not a video game...what happens when the rules don’t explicitly cover something? The table makes a call? Okay. What happens when the players disagree? Does the game stop and everyone pings Crawford on Twitter and waits for him to respond?

Yes, it went silly at the end. That’s intentional. There are a thousand ways the role of the referee is required to have something like the shared delusion we call roleplaying to even be possible, much less work, to say nothing of working well.

Yes, the referee might tell you no. Yes, the referee might make a call you don’t like. That’s part of the game. Without the referee there to make thousands of calls, the genre we call RPGs simply doesn’t work. Yes, even most of those indie games. Yes, even Fiasco.

As an aside, I absolutely am interested in a non-derogatory, non-insulting working definition of this. If that matters.

I think your opening comparison is missing some critical rigor. You're comparing GM description of situation as if this is tge point of contention -- it is not. It's about outcomes. A player declaring an action in 5e is, by the system, submitted a proposal to the GM who has fiat to determine how it works out according to the GM's thinking. Tge other games you mention don't have that feature in their systems. Instead, actions often require checks, those checks have known success/failure rates, and the checks determine who gets the say as to what happens -- on a success, the GM is required to give that success and cannot undercut or reverse it until and unless play puts it at stake again. These are different structures at the system level.

 

[Manbearcat]

It’s really bizarre how this phrase is basically an indictment of referee authority as a whole along with any and all games that have referee authority. An RPG isn’t a video game. An RPG isn’t a boardgame. The players can go anywhere and try anything, even stuff not on their character sheet and stuff not covered by the rules. To make that possible the human running the game has to be able to make decisions. That’s literally why the role exists. To run the world and to make calls. This division of authority exists across almost all RPGs. Even indie darlings like PbtA games, the referee is just given a few more explicit tools to work with, but ultimately, the referee is still in charge, framing scenes, and running the world. Even supposedly referee-less games like Fiasco have referees. You just have to read the rules about who’s in charge of a spotlight scene to see it.

Here is the thing though. Just because two GM's brains are juggling the same number of balls doesn't mean they're juggling the same types of balls nor does it mean that the juggling they're doing is for the same reason!

Running RC D&D is very different than 5e D&D is very different than 4e D&D is very different than Torchbearer (D&D) is very different than Dungeon World (D&D).

Different types of balls and different reasons for the juggling (with RC and Torchbearer, imo, also having more balls in the air than the rest).

And that is just brand-name and off-brand D&D! You're doing a lot of divergent things for divergent purposes. Like take your statement of "running the world" with respect to PBtA games. Lets take AW specifically. The incarnation (what your brain is doing and what is being demanded of it and in the process at the table and in the experience of the play) of that version of "running the world" is dramatically different than the "running the world" in the sort of game this thread is about. That is why "Play the World" isn't helpful in distinguishing the character and shape of play for TTRPGs. We're all doing that but that version of it is wildly different from one game to the next.

 

[chaochou]

It’s really bizarre how this phrase is basically an indictment of referee authority as a whole along with any and all games that have referee authority.

No, that's a fundamental mis-statement which obfuscates the issue.

Referees can have limited and constrained authority, and games can also apportion different types of authority to different participants, or change who has what authority at different moments in gameplay, and still function perfectly well.

MMI is all authority with one person all the time.

You're welcome to demonstrate that all authority resides at all times with the MC / Referee / GM in the following games: Dungeon World, Burning Wheel, Diaspora - but of course you won't even try.

Discussions about railroading always end up with someone saying 'railroading isn't a thing because everyone does it' and here we see the same tactic again. You're essentially trying to claim that MMI isn't a thing because everyone does it.

 

[Aldarc]

I said it before, and I will say it again: I think of MMI as an overarching TTRPG problem rather than a FKR/OSR problem. I likewise said that I that "play worlds, not rules" is distinct from what "MMI" describes. And I think that MMI can be antithetical to FKR rather than a pejorative describing FKR. There are two places where I think that MMI can rub clearly against MMI's principles: (1) play worlds, not rules, and (2) tactical infinity.

@overgeeked is correct that we are playing a RPG and not a boardgame or a video game. We are presmably playing a roleplaying game. Part of that entails roleplaying a character in a shared fictional world.

Where I have issue with MMI - regardless of what gaming culture it shows up in - lies in how it interferes with the ability to roleplay my character(s). It is not just the world that I would want to play with fidelity in OSR or FKR, but also my character. If things like what my character knows is constantly being gated behind GM permissions then (A) it will start feeling less and less like my character and more like a character that the GM has loaned me; (B) it will likewise feel less and less like my play and more and more like the GM's play, and (C) I will likely feel less and less immersed in the world that my character inhabits and the shared world I am playing. I also think that MMI runs counter to FKR, as MMI can turn FKR less into an expression of "tacitcal infinity" and more into an expression of "GM-approved tactics."

I think that GM rulings are not really what's at stake here for me when we are talking about MMI. It's about my agency as a player to play my character in the game. Can I know this? Can I do this? Can I do anything with my character without the GM's gated permission? What actual autonomy or agency do I have to roleplay my character in this world that isn't subject to requiring the GM's permission or unilateral veto? Can I know or do anything regarding my player character without the GM's permission and not be accused of being an entitled player?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think I've been clear that for me, it's a critique. I've stated why. What I'd like to see is people who feel the critique is inaccurate actually explain why, rather than just tell me I'm wrong or that the phrase is pejorative.

I'm sure this has occurred in other threads. I just popped in and saw this one point and responded to it (I don't have enough time today to sit down to a discussion about the definition of mother may I, and to refute the critique it represents: and like I said, if people want to use it as a critique, I think that is fine, they are just going to get a response from people who disagree). But I have vague memories of discussion mother may I and why I think it isn't a valid criticism (though I think in those discussions we were talking about very specific play styles and not 5E in general). I think that topic would be its own thread, and probably one that would be a lot of us rehashing arguments we've made before. At this point there is surely standard arguments and rebuttals (and rebuttals to the rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals of the rebuttals). Honestly I think that would be a more interesting thread to me, a kind of gathering of all the arguments for and against different criticisms so we can just go and reference them rather than repeat ourselves lol