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

[Ovinomancer]

So Mother May I is more likely to happen when there's poor communication??

Only if you're going with the idea MMI is a failed play state. If you're looking at it as a descriptor of the allocation of authority in play (as I suggest) this makes quality of communication orthogonal, ie doesn't make a difference.

 

[Hussar]

Only if you're going with the idea MMI is a failed play state. If you're looking at it as a descriptor of the allocation of authority in play (as I suggest) this makes quality of communication orthogonal, ie doesn't make a difference.

I’ll admit, I largely see MMI as a failed play state. I can see how various approaches in different systems may lead to it or away, but, at the end of the day, I would say that a Mother May I situation is a failed play state.

And as an additional point I’d say that “failed play state” is really table dependent. If no one is having an issue with how the game is being played then there is no real value in calling it a Mother May I situation.

 

[payn]

I’ll admit, I largely see MMI as a failed play state. I can see how various approaches in different systems may lead to it or away, but, at the end of the day, I would say that a Mother May I situation is a failed play state.

And as an additional point I’d say that “failed play state” is really table dependent. If no one is having an issue with how the game is being played then there is no real value in calling it a Mother May I situation.

Some folks slap the MMI tag on rules and design philosophies themselves. To those folks, it doesn't matter who the GM is.

 

[Hussar]

Some folks slap the MMI tag on rules and design philosophies themselves. To those folks, it doesn't matter who the GM is.

And, honestly? I'm probably guilty of that myself. My back and forth with @Snarf Zagyg is an example of this. And I'd be wrong actually. It's not an issue with the mechanics themselves. I do feel that certain mechanics lend themselves towards dysfunctional results, but, that's never guaranteed.

IOW, I think it's very important to keep context in mind as well as being very exact when talking about stuff. When I look at, say, AD&D, and talk about Mother May I in the mechanics, I should specifically point to specific parts of the game which, IMO, lead to dysfunctional play. A very simple example is the lack of any sort of codified mechanics for resolving out of combat tasks in AD&D. How far can your character jump? Well, it's ask your DM. Which can result to some pretty serious friction in the game between a DM and a player, both of whom are arguing earnestly and not trying to "get one over" on the other.

I mean, the whole "Can I swim in armor" is a meme for a reason. In a pre-Internet game, that question wasn't easy to answer and was pretty much entirely up to the DM's "gut" to answer. It totally depended on whose table you sat down at.

But, regardless of any specific answer at any specific table, if the table is content with the answer the DM gives, then, well, it's not really Mother May I at all because, well, there's no problem. I do think that when people point to rules and design philosophies though, it's not an unreasonable thing to say, "Well, the game gives largely no actual support in resolving this, and it's 100% dependent on the person running the game, which can result in MMI play".

The problem is, people start typing too fast and omit that "can" part and state it as a fact. (I know that I am absolutely guilty of this)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I’ll admit, I largely see MMI as a failed play state. I can see how various approaches in different systems may lead to it or away, but, at the end of the day, I would say that a Mother May I situation is a failed play state.

And as an additional point I’d say that “failed play state” is really table dependent. If no one is having an issue with how the game is being played then there is no real value in calling it a Mother May I situation.

If this is the case, then it's not a very useful term. I say this because it can be easily reached via misunderstanding rather than intent. Also, I generally find discussion of failed play states to not be terribly illuminating of anything much.

On the other hand, if it's describing a structure of authority, it's useful in that it quickly conveys an understandable concept.

 

[pemerton]

One of the reasons to use a known setting like Star Wars or Greyhawk is that there is a lore that already exists and it's fun to engage with that lore. Shutting down that knowledge so that the "characters learn on their own" is, in my opinion, really boring and I'd put in the effort to avoid that kind of thing.

Right. In my Burning Wheel Greyhawk game, the PCs were stranded in the Bright Desert. The player of the sorcerer says "Everyone knows that Suel nomads are thick as thieves here in the Bright Desert!" I didn't ask How would your character know that? (Perhaps triggering some sort of knowledge check.) I said, "OK, then, roll your Circles!"

 

[Malmuria]

A very simple example is the lack of any sort of codified mechanics for resolving out of combat tasks in AD&D. How far can your character jump? Well, it's ask your DM. Which can result to some pretty serious friction in the game between a DM and a player, both of whom are arguing earnestly and not trying to "get one over" on the other.

Interesting, this exact example came up in a recent-ish Questing Beast video at 25:30

Right. In my Burning Wheel Greyhawk game, the PCs were stranded in the Bright Desert. The player of the sorcerer says "Everyone knows that Suel nomads are thick as thieves here in the Bright Desert!" I didn't ask How would your character know that? (Perhaps triggering some sort of knowledge check.) I said, "OK, then, roll your Circles!"

In my OSR game, we are playing through Lorn Song of the Bachelor. The adventure references 13 animal-based river spirits, but doesn't detail them at all. It came up during play, and I gave a player a book called "Wildlife of Southeast Asia," and told the to flip through and figure out what the 13 river spirits were. So he randomly chose them, and I duly noted them down. The wildlife book that I had didn't have any fish or aquatic animals, so I might add some, but basically the random flip through is now canon in this world that we are building together.

 

[GSHamster]

About the term "Mother May I" I think it's a little pejorative, but it's also a really good descriptor. Pretty much everyone grasps the point immediately. It would be nice if there was a less pejorative descriptor, but I don't think anyone has given a good one.

I think one of the problems with MMI is that it affects different classes/archetypes differently. I would list, from most affected to least affected in D&D:

1. Illusionists
2. Mundane social "face" characters
3. Mundane skill monkeys
4. Mundane warrior types
5. Non-illusionist magic users

Playing a regular wizard or cleric is pretty much the same experience regardless of DM. However, I wouldn't want to play an illusionist unless I knew the DM was lenient/partial/willing to let illusion strategies succeed.

 

[Mercurius]

A question for @Hussar (and maybe one you've already answered but I can't bring myself to spend an hour going back over the thread): Let's say you join a group that has been going for some time - maybe a colleague or friend invites you to join when there's an opening. You quickly find that the default mode involves a "MMI-esque" play style with tons of GM adjudication and rulings left and right, which everyone is happy with and seems to work well for the group, but you don't like. Is it still a "failed play state?" Meaning, at what point is it on an individual player to adapt to a group's style of play? And in such a situation, would you adapt or say, "thanks, but no thanks"?

 

[Hussar]

It would be a failed play state if I kept playing with the group but bitched about it constantly and repeatedly resisted the gm and the table.

Would such a game be for me? Probably not. I find this style of game too frustrating. And, if asked, yeah I’d probably say the reason is too much MMI.

But no I’ve no interest in playing like this anymore because I’ve had far too many bad experiences with it.