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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

The failed state here has nothing to do with MMI but rather with a mismatch in expectations followed by a choice to complain. MMI might have been the cause of the difference in expectations, but that doesn't cause a failed play state. It was working just fine for the table otherwise.

And this is why I say MMI isn't a failed play state and calling it such just leads to blaming it for other, actual problems.

 

[Bedrockgames]

About the term "Mother May I" I think it's a little pejorative, but it's also a really good descriptor.

I would disagree that it is a good descriptor. I think it describes a feeling of frustration that arises when the GM doesn't let you do anything except the one thing they had planned, or the one thing they think is acceptable in the moment (or the handful of things). So using it as a descriptor would be bad in my view because it automatically encourages a style of play where the GM isn't open minded, fair and welding their power responsibly. If you say "This style is mother may I", then you are going to have GMs leaning into that aspect of it, rather than facilitating play in an open and interesting way. In my mind, a mother may I GM is someone who says no to most things the players propose. And there is also an implication in the name that the GM derives pleasure from denying players whatever it is they were seeking to do.

 

[Aldarc]

I would disagree that it is a good descriptor. I think it describes a feeling of frustration that arises when the GM doesn't let you do anything except the one thing they had planned, or the one thing they think is acceptable in the moment (or the handful of things). So using it as a descriptor would be bad in my view because it automatically encourages a style of play where the GM isn't open minded, fair and welding their power responsibly. If you say "This style is mother may I", then you are going to have GMs leaning into that aspect of it, rather than facilitating play in an open and interesting way. In my mind, a mother may I GM is someone who says no to most things the players propose. And there is also an implication in the name that the GM derives pleasure from denying players whatever it is they were seeking to do.

That makes it sound like a good descriptor, much as "railroading" is a good descriptor for player frustration.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would disagree that it is a good descriptor. I think it describes a feeling of frustration that arises when the GM doesn't let you do anything except the one thing they had planned, or the one thing they think is acceptable in the moment (or the handful of things). So using it as a descriptor would be bad in my view because it automatically encourages a style of play where the GM isn't open minded, fair and welding their power responsibly. If you say "This style is mother may I", then you are going to have GMs leaning into that aspect of it, rather than facilitating play in an open and interesting way. In my mind, a mother may I GM is someone who says no to most things the players propose. And there is also an implication in the name that the GM derives pleasure from denying players whatever it is they were seeking to do.

I don't use it like that and I don't think that is a particularly good use of it.

Its about (a) the process of play, (b) how authority over content introduction orbits around that process, and (c) how a + b inform the cognitive state of the participants whenever they're orienting themselves to a situation > navigating their decision-space > declaring an action.

When one participant has absolute veto over every single thing (or nearly every single thing) + when that same party has a deep role in mediation of action resolution AND determining when a scene has met its end...

Well, that creates that (c) above where the player is thinking as follows during the loop of orient > navigate > declare:

Orienting to Scenario: "What is the GM's conception of this situation they've laid out before us...how can I tease that out (via questions and proposing declared actions)?"

Navigating Decision-Space: "What actions will the GM allow me to perform and what actions will they veto based on their conception of my PC and the scenario in question" > winnowed down to that subset of feasible actions > "What actions will the GM give me a better vs worse risk profile and better vs worse odds of success and (perhaps) what actions will the GM reward me for threading the thematic needle?" >

Action Declaration: Winnowed down further to the desirable subset that subsumes risk profile + odds + rewards for thematic needle threading (if any) > "Which of these remaining actions is most interesting to me (if any...if not go backwards)? > Choose action.

---

Only at the very end in Action Declaration (that italicized bit) does your cognitive loop pass over something that is entirely your own. And you may not even get to that stage because the rest of your cognitive loop may converge on a subset (perhaps even just one) choice that doesn't include "which of these remaining actions is most interesting to me?"

So its the GM's conception of setting/mythology/backstory/causality/genre tropes that ultimately (i) introduces all setting/situation content into the imagined space, (ii) forbids content that might be introduced into the imagined space, (iii) vets pending content to be introduced into the imagined space, (iv) dictates/mediates resolution of conflicting interests, and (v) dictates and winnows the players' orienting to the situation and navigation of their decision-tree. Only at the very end of all of that does a player have something that they have complete autonomy over ("is this interesting?") and that subset of their decision-tree may not "hit."

To me, that looks like the phenomena of MMI at play.

 

[Campbell]

A more neutral way to phrase it (from my perspective) would be the world is the main character. The focus of play is focused on finding out more about and exploring the setting above and beyond all else. Your characters have minimal connections or access to information because the fun is supposed to be in the finding out of these things, rather than dynamic situations or exploration of character. Characters are basically self inserts enabling the players to explore the setting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That makes it sound like a good descriptor, much as "railroading" is a good descriptor for player frustration.

It is a good descriptor for bad GMing. I don't it is a good descriptor for games where the GM has the kinds of powers Manbearcat is talking about. Because again, when you call it mother may I, you are framing how that power gets used, not just that the power relationship exists. And to top it off, its a negative. Again, if you find that style of play to be 'mother may I', I think that it's fair to have that reaction but it isn't an objective description of what is going on.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't use it like that and I don't think that is a particularly good use of it.

Its about (a) the process of play, (b) how authority over content introduction orbits around that process, and (c) how a + b inform the cognitive state of the participants whenever they're orienting themselves to a situation > navigating their decision-space > declaring an action.

When one participant has absolute veto over every single thing (or nearly every single thing) + when that same party has a deep role in mediation of action resolution AND determining when a scene has met its end...

Well, that creates that (c) above:

Orienting to Scenario: "What is the GM's conception of this situation they've laid out before us...how can I tease that out (via questions via declared actions)?"

Navigating Decision-Space: "What actions will the GM allow me to perform and what actions will they veto based on their conception of my PC and the scenario in question" > winnowed down to that subset of feasible actions > "What actions will the GM give me a better vs worse risk profile and better vs worse odds of success and (perhaps) what actions will the GM reward me for threading the thematic needle?" >

Action Declaration: Winnowed down further to the desirable subset that subsumes risk profile + odds + rewards for thematic needle threading (if any) > "Which of these remaining actions is most interesting to me (if any...if not go backwards)? > Choose action.

---

Only at the very end in Action Declaration (that italicized bit) does your cognitive loop pass over something that is entirely your own. And you may not even get to that stage because the rest of your cognitive loop may converge on a subset (perhaps even just one) choice that doesn't include "which of these remaining actions is most interesting to me?"

So its the GM's conception of setting/mythology/backstory/causality/genre tropes that ultimately (i) introduces all setting/situation content into the imagined space, (ii) forbids content that might be introduced into the imagined space, (iii) vets pending content to be introduced into the imagined space, (iv) dictates/mediates resolution of conflicting interests, and (v) dictates and winnows the players' orienting to the situation and navigation of their decision-tree. Only at the very end of all of that does a player have something that they have complete autonomy over ("is this interesting?") and that subset of their decision-tree may not "hit."

To me, that looks like the phenomena of MMI at play.

I can't understand a single word here. You are going to have to put this into plain English if you want me to respond

 

[Bedrockgames]

A more neutral way to phrase it (from my perspective) would be the world is the main character. The focus of play is focused on finding out more about and exploring the setting above and beyond all else. Your characters have minimal connections or access to information because the fun is supposed to be in the finding out of these things, rather than dynamic situations or exploration of character. Characters are basically self inserts enabling the players to explore the setting.

Except I would quibble and say it isn't just exploration: the players can also shape the world. Through the powers they posses as characters, through the choices they make, through the ideas they come up with to explore, etc. The GM may have veto power in this sort of play, but what that veto power is in service to really does make the difference in my view between something like mother may I and an experience where the players are empowered and have a sense of freedom.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't use it like that and I don't think that is a particularly good use of it.

The main use I am familiar with is when GMs default to 'no' too much, when it starts to feel like a game of mother may I (instead of the GM honestly considering what the players are doing, saying yes, asking for more information from the player before giving a decision, turning it into a multi-step process, etc). Expanding this to encompass an entire style of play, I don't think that is a useful description (especially when people who play in this style never describe it this way, never see mother may I as the desired goal of play or as the core process). Again, I really don't understand your explanation (and I don't mean that as an insult, I just can't follow the language you are using). But it sounds like you've taken this term as a label for a style of play you think it matches. And that would be fine, except it isn't how most people use the term, the term itself has seriously negative connotations, but more importantly, and this for me is what really makes it a terrible way to describe the style of play: if you use that descriptor as a guidepost for people trying to engage that form of play you are setting them up for an awful campaign. Framing it as mother may I, encourages the GM to lean into no, to take pleasure in being the one who gets to decide what happens (that is what mother may I is---its a game that gives one child power over many other children----and it is all about very binary actions "mother may I take a step back"), and I think really misses the point of having this kind of arrangement between the GM and the players. It just seems like a very dysfunctional analogy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The failed state here has nothing to do with MMI but rather with a mismatch in expectations followed by a choice to complain. MMI might have been the cause of the difference in expectations, but that doesn't cause a failed play state. It was working just fine for the table otherwise.

And this is why I say MMI isn't a failed play state and calling it such just leads to blaming it for other, actual problems.

I don't think anyone sits down with the expectation of a game of mother may I though. It's a negative descriptor. It's a reaction. It is like tasting someone's carbonara and saying it tastes awful. "Tastes awful" isn't the style of food the person is shooting for. If there is a mismatch of expectations, you have to drill down way further than 'tastes awful' or 'mother may I'.