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

[Bedrockgames]

How else should one criticize "there are no rules except what I as DM tell you, the book is just a set of suggestions"? Because I could in fact actually name users on this forum who have said that or agreed to it. At least one who has adamantly insisted that there are ZERO limits on their authority as DM, that they have genuinely absolute power.

Again we are talking about powers in a game. Not power over the players themselves. Some games give the GM full power to ignore the rules (usually with guidance on how to use that power). I think it is fair to say you think that's a bad idea. I don't think its fair to descrribe that as benevolent dictatorship. Perhaps someone who says "There are no rules except what I say" is a bad GM. That's probably fair depending on what they mean exactly. I've certainly played with GMs who wielded the authority in a way that made the game a lot less fun and so I didn't play with them again. But as unfun as it was, it didn't feel like a dictatorship to me. Perhaps if the GM were behaving in an abusive way and berating people, I would invoke language like that. But I wouldn't invoke it for the power arrangement in a game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It doesn't. But if you are going to have a term describing a thing, it shouldn't only describe it in its failed state.

It doesn't. MMI is a game not spurned by children as a failure. The only claim now that it is bad is that it is a children's game. But the structure of play being describe could easily be categorized as a more grown up version of MMI. That you encourage benevolent use of thise authorities is laudable, but it isn't changing the underlying structure of play. If MMI is too disagreeable, then I might suggest GMMI.

 

[FrogReaver]

The OP asked people what the term meant to them in relation to 5E D&D. I don’t think that most of the takes shared here have been about stripping away all the positives and leaving only the negatives.

Can you tell me one positive of mother may I?

I don’t think we need to compare it to other games to see Mother May I in 5E.

IMO, on a fundamental level, there must be a reference point for a criticism to exist. So there must be something it's being compared to that brings out the difference between mother may I and not mother may I.

I get what he’s saying, but for me I lean toward it being a bit more problematic. I think there are enough rules in 5E that do work without GM authority (barring any of the “the DM can alter or ignore any rule at any time” claims… I don’t quite believe that, or else yes, we’d be firmly in Mother May I land) that keeps it from being fully so. I think such rules could maybe be spread more evenly across different aspects of the game, but they weren’t, so it’s up to social contract and house rules to do the heavy lifting there.

Police Officers can speed to catch criminals and thus could end up speeding at any given time.
A DM in D&D can alter/break/create rules at any given time to make the game better.

Neither case presumes either can arbitrarily use their power/authority without good cause.

I believe Mother May I is something that capable and well meaning GMs can easily fall into without realizing it. I think it’s good to talk about it as a possible pitfall of 5E based on how the game works. So in that sense, I don’t think it’s useless at all.

Why do you believe this?

 

[FrogReaver]

Again we are talking about powers in a game. Not power over the players themselves. Some games give the GM full power to ignore the rules (usually with guidance on how to use that power). I think it is fair to say you think that's a bad idea. I don't think its fair to descrribe that as benevolent dictatorship. Perhaps someone who says "There are no rules except what I say" is a bad GM. That's probably fair depending on what they mean exactly. I've certainly played with GMs who wielded the authority in a way that made the game a lot less fun and so I didn't play with them again. But as unfun as it was, it didn't feel like a dictatorship to me. Perhaps if the GM were behaving in an abusive way and berating people, I would invoke language like that. But I wouldn't invoke it for the power arrangement in a game.

Interestingly, I find the term benevolent dictator to be more of an oxymoron but not particularly offensive. I suppose that's because I link it to the concept of benevolent monarch which is alot more neutral IMO. It also was one of the major ideas that democracies had to overcome and the argument went something like, assume there are benevolent and despotic monarchs. While it would be harder to have 100 men as good as the benevolent monarch it's also much harder to have 100 men as evil as the despotic monarch and since evil can fully destroy men and their freedoms then it's better to avoid that even if it means we may never have it quite as good as we could under a benevolent monarch.

IMO there's a lot of parallels with that and the distribution of authority concepts we deal with in RPG's.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Can you tell me one positive of mother may I?

In what sense?

I mean, I think 5E can easily slip into Mother May I. Do I think that means every game of 5E must be so? A game can have problematic areas and non-problematic areas.

I was playing in a 5E campaign that ended not long ago, and I would say the GM struggled with this kind of stuff. He had ideas about how things should go, it was hard to get him to ever consider ideas other than those. He wasn’t aware of it in the moment. He didn’t mean to do it. The game was, as a result, less enjoyable for me than if he hadn’t done that. But it wasn’t without enjoyment.

IMO, on a fundamental level, there must be a reference point for a criticism to exist. So there must be something it's being compared to that brings out the difference between mother may I and not mother may I.

But that doesn’t need to be another game. I haven’t cited other games in any of my comments. I’m basing most of what I say here on personal experience with 5E D&D.

Police Officers can speed to catch criminals and thus could end up speeding at any given time.
A DM in D&D can alter/break/create rules at any given time to make the game better.

Neither case presumes either can arbitrarily use their power/authority without good cause.

I place the rules above the GM. The rules say when a GM has authority and when they don’t.

Why do you believe this?

Because of the structure of 5E. Because of the lack of advice about it in any of the published 5E material. Becauae of the lack of clarity and/or specificity in the 5E rulebooks. Because of the format of many published adventures. Because of my personal experience as a GM. Because of discussions I’ve had with my players. Because of my experience as a player with several different GMs for 5E. Because of conversations I’ve had with them. Because of conversations I’ve observed or taken part in here on ENWorld.

 

[FrogReaver]

In what sense?

I mean, I think 5E can easily slip into Mother May I. Do I think that means every game of 5E must be so? A game can have problematic areas and non-problematic areas.

I was playing in a 5E campaign that ended not long ago, and I would say the GM struggled with this kind of stuff. He had ideas about how things should go, it was hard to get him to ever consider ideas other than those. He wasn’t aware of it in the moment. He didn’t mean to do it. The game was, as a result, less enjoyable for me than if he hadn’t done that. But it wasn’t without enjoyment.

So let's start here, for you, some 5e games devolve into mother may I and some do not.

Do you think that is the stance of others that describe 5e with that term or do they view 5e as being inescapably mother may i?

Do you believe my comments have been toward those that believe 5e can devolve into mother may i or to those that believe it is always mother may i?

But that doesn’t need to be another game. I haven’t cited other games in any of my comments. I’m basing most of what I say here on personal experience with 5E D&D.

Then perhaps my comments have not been to you.

Because of the structure of 5E. Because of the lack of advice about it in any of the published 5E material. Becauae of the lack of clarity and/or specificity in the 5E rulebooks. Because of the format of many published adventures. Because of my personal experience as a GM. Because of discussions I’ve had with my players. Because of my experience as a player with several different GMs for 5E. Because of conversations I’ve had with them. Because of conversations I’ve observed or taken part in here on ENWorld.

You said alot of words here but nothing of substance that's going to further the discussion. I'll take that to mean you aren't interested in pursuing this part of the discussion further.

 

[pemerton]

To take an example from the video above, let's say a player wants their character to take just a sip of a potion. How should a game handle this to maximize player agency? How should the GM handle this to maximize player agency?

This is a very particular example, in that it rests on a premise that it is a meaningful part of play that the players will have their characters (i) discovering, and (ii) hoping to take as their own, unidentified but most likely valuable magical consumables.

Of course there is a reason that we can all recognise and not question that premise - it is implicit in a very traditional mode of D&D play, of exploring dungeons (or similar sorts of places) with the goal of taking their contents; and we know that magical potions are one important element in those contents.

But I think it is worth making the premise explicit, because it is the premise that will help us address the questions you ask: in a game of map-and-key exploration, where the players are hoping to acquire information - including information about potentially valuable magic - that is initially secret from them (ie it is in the GM's notes) but that they can oblige the GM to reveal via appropriate action declarations, what counts as appropriate? Is saying "I sip from the unmarked bottle (which I suspect is a valuable magic item)" an appropriate action declaration - you can learn about a possible treasure, at the risk of it being a poison - or a foolish one - you don't drink enough to get any magical benefit, but you sufficiently reduce the dosage such that no one else can benefit from it either?

I don't see how there can possibly be an a priori answer to this question. It depends so heavily on conventions of play. It's like asking, Is it fair for the GM to have a chest of gold coins where the coins are in fact silver coins very lightly electroplated in gold? Or, Are Mimics fair monsters? Or, Is it fair to have a secret door which can only be discovered by tapping the wall to find the hollow bit, but the wall is covered in invisible yellow mould such that as soon as you tap it you trigger the mould's deadly spores? And suppose a player decides to have their PC sniff the air near the dungeon walls to try and identify the presence of deadly moulds, is that a clever tactic to be rewarded, or a foolish tactic to be punished? - save vs the spores with a penalty to reflect the fact you're deliberately and deeply inhaling the toxic air!

On my quick review of the original D&D books I didn't see any discussion of sipping potions. But it is clear that, at some point or other, a convention emerged at Gygax's table, because his DMG says (p 125) "even a small taste should suffice to identify a potion in some way - even if just a slight urge." But then the very next sentence is "you should add a few different sorts of potions, both helpful and harmful, of such nature as to cause difficulties in identification." In other words, having decided that sipping potions counts as sensible rather than foolish play, he is immediately suggesting the GM add new elements to the fiction to reduce if not negate the informational benefits of the tactic. This is the "arms race" dynamic of one person's table, and its conventions, being presented as advice to the world at large!

Moldvay Basic (p B47) doesn't manifest the arms race, and notes the tactic only in passing: "A character can only identify the exact type of [magic] item by testing it (trying on the ring, sipping the potion, etc)."

Torchbearer is a modern game inspired by these classic games, and it has the following clear statement (Scholar's Guide, p 162):

If you sip a potion, you can discern the potion’s effect. Sipping does not diminish the number of draughts or effects of the potion. Note that if a poison potion is sipped, the character takes the full effect of the poison (as described).​

The Torchbearer designers here are not simply stating a convention of their play as if it were uniformly applicable. They're stating a rule with the deliberate goal of creating a play experience that emulates the Gygaxian experience at a certain point in the evolution of the Gygaxian conventions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Interestingly, I find the term benevolent dictator to be more of an oxymoron but not particularly offensive. I suppose that's because I link it to the concept of benevolent monarch which is alot more neutral IMO. It also was one of the major ideas that democracies had to overcome and the argument went something like, assume there are benevolent and despotic monarchs. While it would be harder to have 100 men as good as the benevolent monarch it's also much harder to have 100 men as evil as the despotic monarch and since evil can fully destroy men and their freedoms then it's better to avoid that even if it means we may never have it quite as good as we could under a benevolent monarch.

IMO there's a lot of parallels with that and the distribution of authority concepts we deal with in RPG's.

I don't consider it neutral term, but that's a much deeper discussion than GM powers. And I'm not offended by the term as much as I just immediately pick up on it as a rhetorical technique and feel the need to push back on it. I think the negative associations with terms like that, they make it easier for people to win play style debates on forums. This happens in all kinds of conversations. In some circles invoking a term that suggests you are weak for liking a particular style, would be another rhetorical tactic on the same lines. I just think rather than bring the idea of dictator into the conversation, a more good faith approach would be to focus on what the games do, what they don't do, what the pros of GM authority are, what the cons are. You get a lot further in conversation that way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It doesn't. MMI is a game not spurned by children as a failure. The only claim now that it is bad is that it is a children's game. But the structure of play being describe could easily be categorized as a more grown up version of MMI. That you encourage benevolent use of thise authorities is laudable, but it isn't changing the underlying structure of play.

Of course it isn't. But it is a complaint when applied to other games (because the speaker knows that mother may I is just endless guessing at what the person wants you to do, and being fully under their control). This is especially the case if you are talking about an RPG where the whole point is you are supposed to be able to try to do whatever you want. Again, I think we've talked in circles in this and aren't going to agree much about the label.

If MMI is too disagreeable, then I might suggest GMMI.

I would say because it is still invoking the negative, but more importantly it is still not accurate. You aren't playing a game of Game Master May I. The GM isn't expected to run the game like someone leading a game of mother may I. Not only is it inaccurate but it would be a bad descriptor because it is going to lead to more failed states of play by encouraging people to think of D&D as a game of mother may I.

 

[Bedrockgames]

IMO there's a lot of parallels with that and the distribution of authority concepts we deal with in RPG's.

I would push back pretty hard on this. I do not see my role as the GM, even as someone who prefers the standard power structure, as a benevolent dictator. I'm not there to tell people what to do, to tell them what to think and believe, or to control them in any way. I'm basically there to run a game, and to help turn their proposed actions into something meaningful at the table.