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.
I'm not doing so though. I'm providing a criticism.
You're the one bringing in this idea that it needs to be a universal theory of strong DM authority. I am not saying that
literally all possible forms of DM authority are this. I'm saying it is an extremely common problem, which can and should be addressed, and which many advocates of absolute DM authority overlook (or, worse,
desire.)
I think it is obvious why benevolent dictator is not a good term. I mean mother may has bad connotations, but I at least understand why its used in these conversations. Invoking dictatorship to describe a style of game you dislike is of course going to get you push back.
I'd say traditional GM authority, or virtually any other term, other than benevolent dictatorship captures it. See my example about telling players what to do. A dictator tells people what to do and makes rules they have to follow. A GM doesn't tell players what to do, and still is expected to abide by the system. If the GM suddenly says, we are going to resolve this using the GURPS mechanics now, the players are likely to stop letting that person GM. People let you be their GM. You don't just remain GM because you want to even though no one is having fun.
And what I'm telling you is, actual living DMs are doing
that specific thing. A lot. (Usually more in the form of telling people what they
can't do, or levying penalties for things they have done/attempted, but still.) And claiming 5e directly supports them doing so. Further, if anyone
isn't on board for that, they are (again, openly) told they know where the door is. Your confidence that people will give up a game when there is social pressure from other players to stay, and when it can be incredibly difficult to find a DM (believe me, I would know...), seems rather misplaced. Sometimes people
do remain GM because they want to, even though at least one player isn't having fun. Because sometimes, it's that hard to find a DM. I've rescued a friend from such a situation, and the game I rescued him from was, in fact, 5e.
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.
How would that be a
benevolent dictatorship? I don't associate
benevolence with "behaving in an abusive way and berating people." A dictator is someone with absolute power. The word has a strong negative connotation in English because such absolute power has a tendency to manifest very negative behaviors in human beings, but its literal meaning is nothing more and nothing less than "a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession." The "especially" clause is important because that means it's optional but very commonly intended unless common sense says otherwise. I think we can agree that common sense here indicates that a DM is not exercising absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession, so only the part before "especially" is relevant here. A
benevolent dictator, then, is someone who exercises absolute power benevolently, with good intent, trying to produce a positive situation. That would seem to be the exact antithesis of "behaving in an abusive way and berating people." Certainly they might
manipulate people, but abuse and berate? No.
I don't play 5E. Maybe they do have sucky advice. I can't say. But I seriously doubt this is what they say about rulings and fiat. I've never played an edition where there wasn't some set of principles behind why and when you countermand a rule. Yes the GM has the power to countermand rules, but you are expected to do that in service to the game, not on a whim.
"Expected." "Should." "Not supposed to." These
are the problems, because they are never mentioned. They go unsaid. By comparison, several well-designed games, some "light," some "heavy," some "old-school," some "modern," etc. etc., actually DO discuss these things, sometimes spending entire chapters on the subject, and are so much better for it.
And again, the GM doesn't have full power over the group when it comes to deciding these matters. If a given GM decides he doesn't like levels 11-20 and only wants to run campaigns levels 1-10, he has to make the case to that to the group. They aren't going to buy into it otherwise.
And, as I've said several times, the presentation from numerous 5e DMs--claiming to have the explicit support of the game books and designers--is that they do have that power and can do such things, and that the one and only recourse players have is to vote with their feet.
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.
Fully agreed on both counts. Hence why I keep talking about things like "perverse incentives," bad advice, poorly-designed rules, etc. Being inflexible and capricious does not
require malign intent. Malign intent will often produce such things, particularly in a game where GM authority is so central and emphasized, but they can happen even with someone intending to do right by the players. Like that video that Malmuria recently posted, where the presenter openly admitted that he
used to say "no" most of the time and laments having done so. He did not have malign intent when doing that.
Blindly springing consequences like that on players is bad refereeing. Full stop.
And yet early D&D has this sort of thing
all over the place. No-warning instant death traps. Cursed items specifically made to
resemble beneficial items. Letting players taste potions to identify them....and then introducing dangerous potions with similar flavors.
Ear seekers, for God's sake. Things specifically and intentionally designed to be "gotchas." This wasn't just
Tomb of Horrors stuff, tournament modules taken out of context. This was bog-standard play.
Is it any wonder why players wanted some ground rules?
...I asked you a question, complained when you answer it in the vaguest way possible and then you flip the question back at me while still not providing any real substance in the answer. I'm not sure how to take that.
Then, if I may, allow me.
Maybe it is better to say,
if MMI describes more than the fail state then what is it actually criticizing?
Because i don't believe those using the term believe it's only applicable to a failed state.
One way it can be used is to look at situations that have already failed, yes. Another way is to look at things
at risk of failure, and ask how these concerns can be addressed. A third way is to look for alternative approaches (whether within the DM-authority-maximalist space, or not) which forestall the issue before it even begins, perhaps a DM striving to implement preventative measures. A fourth way is to look at the rules and presentation in a ruleset, asking whether those things encourage or discourage this kind of situation, making it a question of game design rather than DM practice, and one of considering how play is likely to occur, not how it has occurred at a specific table.
And, a final way, as demonstrated by Ovinomancer in this thread, is just...to speak of DM-authority-maximalist gaming in general, without any criticism applied at all. That's technically not an answer to your question because you asked for critique, but it's worth noting nonetheless.
