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

[FrogReaver]

So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.



You asked me what makes me believe that Mother May I is a possible pitfall for 5E that can happen to even capable and well intentioned GMs.

I answered that it’s the way the game is structured. The way the game is presented. My experiences with the game. Those of others I’ve talked with. My previous comments in this thread have elaborated on most of these points.

That answer gives me nothing of substance to engage with other than ask - what about the structure, the presentation, the experiences with the game - what about those things makes you believe capable and well meaning gms can easily fall into mother may I play? I mean my original question was why you believe that.... answering with 'the game structure' is only really an incomplete piece of an answer.

I shouldn't have had to ask those questions but I guess i do? If you wish to disengage I understand, but I'm not moving on from an unhelpful 'answer' only to have the details that should have been elaborated on posed as questions back to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm sure there are parallels to a lot of things that people can find. It is an analogy after all. Especially if you have specific thoughts on what benevolent dictator means. Keep in mind I was responding to a poster who was arguing that benevolent dictator is is "at best" outcome of this kind of power relationship. My point is: why this term? Of all the political terms, it has to land on dictator. Why not president, since you are presiding over a game. Again, I wouldn't use political language as an analogy for the role of the GM because I think it is too bogged down in other connotations. But one of the issues with terms like mother may I, or benevolent dictator, is they are clearly serving more as rhetoric than really illuminating what the role of GM is (and It think this is evident when you see more positive terms like president, at least for people in the US, aren't being used).

Honestly president is a better analogy, as the players do tend to have the power to vote out the DM and/or to leave themselves. But yes political analogies as a whole are never going to go over well.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well...you could choose not to take offense and simply answer?

Or someone could actually answer my question with something substantive. IMO, there's a difference in answering and simply responding.

They're good questions, and and answering would keep things going constructively!

So was mine. Providing some substance to the reply would also keep things going constructively.

Anyways it’s not worth it to keep rehashing. I’m dropping it. I’ve made my position on what i believe is the fair way to continue that conversation is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Really? Which players? How often? I've been GMing for a long time and don't recall ever seeing it.

This is a fairly strident way of paraphrasing the post you quoted, which referred to restrictions on the player that the player finds illogical and cannot be simply reconciled away AND these have fairly large repercussions on how the game is played.

@Hussar has given a clear illustration of his point: swimming in armour. Suppose that a D&D game (or, for that matter, a FKR game) is emulating Aragorn's capture of the corsairs' vessels and subsequent piloting of them to the harbour south of Minas Tirith so as to help relieve the assault from Mordor. The GM describes the boats approaching the docks, and then the player of the Aragorn-esque character describes their PC unfurling their banner; and then the GM describes the enemy soldiers on the shore unleashing volleys of arrows at the vessels. And so the player - worried that the arrows might hurt the NPC sailors and soldiers, but confident of their PC's ability to take on some 0-level NPC archers - declares that he leaps into the water and swims/wades to shore.

It's not absurd that something like this should come up in play; it's well within the scope of mainstream fantasy adventure. It's also, in my experience, not something likely to arise in "session zero": I've never had a player ask about how swimming in armour will be adjudicated at my table prior to it actually coming up in play.

There are any number of ways a table might come to a consensus on what happens to the armoured warrior who tries to swim/wade to shore. They don't all have to involve unilateral GM authority. If the GM calls for some sort of check that reflects the PC's strength, agility, and/or proficiency with armour, that would be "negatively impacting" the PC - ie it renders full success less than automatic - but hardly seems likely to provoke a "rage quit".

On the other hand, if the GM just declares "You sink to the bottom of the river and drown" - which I think is the actual example that Hussar gave - that strikes me as terrible GMing. The idea that a seasoned, heroic warrior wouldn't have a general sense of their ability to swim/wade to shore while wearing their battle harness is just absurd (or "illogical" in Hussar's words).

Why do it preferably in game? Why are we assuming that an Aragorn-esque character needs omens or foreshadowing to know what is physically possible for them while wearing amour?

But also, why is the GM's conception of what is possible to be done while armoured to be given priority? There's an obvious answer to this in the case of free kriegspiel - the referee is an expert, who is leading a training exercise. But given the wildly different purpose of RPGing, even RPGing with a wargaming flavour, I don't see the rationale at all. Table consensus (whether or not mediated via rules) seems to me the better way to go.

I think some of this falls in 'knowing what franchise you are in' but also falls under the GM not being a jerk. There are just things the characters would obviously know. For example if you tell the players they are in a beautiful meadow and off in the distance is a lush tree filled with delicious looking fruit, and then the player falls to his death when he says "I step towards the tree" because you didn't mention the ravine in the middle of the meadow, that is horrible GMing unless you have an exceptional reason for never bringing up something that would have screamed its existence to them in that scenario. I would put armor and sinking in the same boat like you mentioned: I can see it working in some campaigns, I can see it not working in some campaigns, but a person accustomed to water and wearing armor is going to have a fair idea of the safety of the action (or at the very least have a sense that 'this might be risky').

I'm also not in the camp that this needs to be telegraphed to the player in game. I think a risk the player character would know about, can be spoken directly to the player out of character without an issue (i.e. Hey you can do that if you want, but you'd also be aware that it is risky to do that in a body of water).

I think conversing with the players out of character is a very important part of helping everyone be on the same page and establishing trust. For me this goes beyond issues of character knowledge of risk. A lot of times I am transparent about the rulings I am making so the players understand what is happening isn't arbitrary. An example here I can give is when the players knew a woman was in peril and were trying to follow multiple threads to save her. There was a time crunch (on day x she was going to die, and we were using very objective travel times). So I just told them, look I am tracking the days here, if she is in fact going to die, it will happen at time I've written down (unless you do something to change that somehow), because that is when the captor is going to act). On the one hand, this could be bad because it does take the players out of their character's headspace, and it gives them very out of character knowledge. But I find in the end it is worth the problems it can create because it gives the players clarity on how much their choices matter. I was also happy to show them my day tracker at the end of the adventure so they could understand I was honoring it, and I wasn't fudging days to make things more exciting, more challenging, easier for them, etc.

I do agree that there is a conversation that happens around the game that helps establish things like what is possible, and helps flesh out the players understanding. But my quibble with the language is I see that as a conversation, not as a game of mother may I (which is highly arbitrary and very binary).

 

[Bedrockgames]

.... 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.

This isn't my experience with how GM authority usually works in practice. If someone is being shown the door, it isn't because they disagree with the GM's style and use of authority, it is because they disagree with the groups preference in that regard. Obviously some people stay in groups they don't like because of the reasons you mention, but I think that particular issue isn't one that necessitates a game completely restructure how it handles GM authority. Because you can still run into problems, since ultimately this is more often about disagreeing with the groups preferences than with the preferences of the GM. In most groups I have been in, the GM position is somewhat rotational. And while anyone can step forward to offer to run a game, people are going to propose we play something else or have someone else run the game if that person just isn't working as a GM. This isn't done in a mean way. And sometimes the decision is made in more subtle ways, but it is a problem that tends to sort itself out okay. I also tend to game with people who are open to a range of GMing styles. I for example may have my preferences which I've expressed here, but I don't refuse to have fun just because a GM takes a much different approach or wants to play a game with a different kind of power relationship or system. I always try to make a good faith effort to enjoy the game and the GM's style (I think being able to flourish in a range of GM styles is part of being a good player and I seek out players who feel the same way).

I would also push back on it being hard to find a GM. That was true before the internet. Even then though, even during my driest gaming period, I always had a selection of about 4-5 GMs I knew who were running games. I think as long as you are seeking out the hobby you will find people. You are going to run into the problems that come with this being a social game (people not having chemistry, people not liking each other or finding on another irritating). Those could be very real issues for a person. I don't think they are issues a system is going to be able to address.

But presently you can go online and find tons of online game groups, tons of game groups in your area. I agree it used to be difficult if you had a specific game you wanted to play or a specific style but no one was around to try (I remember desperately wanting to run Hong Kong Action Theatre! back in the day and I could never get my local gaming friends to have any interest. Today that isn't the case. I just start a thread somewhere, go to a forum where people are fans of the game, go to meet-up and I can find people. Part of the hobby is finding a group you work well with. I think groups staying together when their preferences are at odds and causing extreme irritation just isn't a healthy way to approach the game (and again I don't think the game itself is responsible for that being an issue because its about whether people fit into a particular group).

Also, to be clear, I don't show people the door over a play style issue. I will have a conversation though if the group plays a certain way and one person doesn't where I would explain: look I'm happy to have you on board but this is how this group likes to play the game, so there is only so much flexibility I have in catering to the type of game you are looking for. I'll do my best, but just keep in mind if you want to have a good time, this is generally how the game functions (and I would be saying this not as me setting the terms of the groups style, but as the GM trying to best reflect what the groups preferences are to that player)

 

[hawkeyefan]

That answer gives me nothing of substance to engage with other than ask - what about the structure, the presentation, the experiences with the game - what about those things makes you believe capable and well meaning gms can easily fall into mother may I play? I mean my original question was why you believe that.... answering with 'the game structure' is only really an incomplete piece of an answer.

I shouldn't have had to ask those questions but I guess i do? If you wish to disengage I understand, but I'm not moving on from an unhelpful 'answer' only to have the details that should have been elaborated on posed as questions back to me.

I felt I’ve already said it several times in this thread. The structure of the game places the vast majority of authority on the DM. The parts that don’t are mostly related to combat, where you have clear and observable rules that don’t typically require rulings… attack rolls, armor classes, hit points, saving throws… these are clear and don’t require interpretation by the DM. Also, spells… these allow players to dictate what happens, and the DM is obliged to honor it.

Compare to an ability check to convince a guard to turn a blind eye to PC shenanigans. Do you think the process to do this in game is as clear cut as it would be if a player decided to just kill him? Or to cast Charm Person? Do you not see how much of this is up to the DM and how that makes it a case of the DM deciding how things will go?

As for the advice in the books, I asked that question because it is the absence of such advice that makes me believe it can happen. There’s no advice about this specifically, and little that could be interpreted as relating. The books simply do not warn about this. In fact, given how the game functions and the role of the DM, it actually does quite the opposite at times. Look at how often in these discussions people point out that “the DM is above the rules” or “the DM can alter any rules they feel necessary”.

If you have examples from the books that warn how funneling all decision-making through the DM can lead to unsatisfactory play, I’m all ears. If you can point to the books and say “here’s the list of principles for players and DMs” or “here’s a clear list of best practices how to promote player engagement” I’d be ecstatic. But this stuff doesn’t exist.

Many folks who play 5E are aware of these pitfalls because of long time experience with RPGs. I cited some of my own experiences. In the 2E days of AD&D, I very much ran games this way myself. My experience was much like that of Quinns from the Shut Up & Sit Down video that @Malmuria posted. I’ve also played in such games and found them less than satisfactory. It still comes up in my longstanding group from time to time, depending on who’s GMing.

So all of this is what makes me feel that Mother May I is very possible with 5E, and need not be some kind of degenerate form of play. If you disagree, then what makes you feel that way?

 

[Aldarc]

I do think this is close to how the pro-D&D is mother may I posters are trying to use the term. For me, I have always seen it used as an expression of frustration, when the GM is leaning too heavily into no. Or frustration at the idea that they have to sit there and guess which way they can go to make the adventure happen, which solution to the puzzle they need to propose to get to the next room, etc. That said, even if we take this more moderate application of mother may I that you describe, I don't think it accurately describes the situation in D&D. Yes there are times in the game where the player will ask "can I" or "Do I know". But those are not the majority of instances. Most instances are saying what you try to do and the GM figuring out what happens (sometimes through rolling dice, through a different procedure, a ruling, a fiat or just referring to something like a class ability). Very rarely do I see the steps broken down to 1) player asks if they can X, 2) GM says "yes" or "no". To me that just fails to capture what is going on in this type of game. Also keep in mind in mother may I there is an added step of the leader being able to say something like "no but you can do Y". It is literally a game where you are the puppet of the person in control.

There is a lot to unpack here, so I will not address everything. I hope you don't mind. It is probably better to keep our conversation more productive without getting into he-said/she-said about what others are saying, as per the bold. Let's focus on what I am saying and what you are saying or even our respective experiences with the term. Agree?

IMHO and IME, "Mother May I" can still be an expression of frustration even if the GM says "yes, you may." The fact that one has to court the GM for their permission is the underlying issue regardless of whether they say "yes" or "no." You can play a game of "Mother May I," for example, where the "Mother" gives everyone permission without once saying no. You are still playing "Mother May I."

Do you agree that a person can still be frustrated by "yes, you can" when they have to repeatedly ask permission for their character to know or do something? Or let's even frame this on a personal level: can you sympathize with how courting the GM's permission for my character to know or do something can be frustrating for me as a player? Or are you without any sympathy to my frustration?

 

[tetrasodium]

Again, I would need to see the 5E advice to actually weigh in on this. All I can say here is this isn't what I've heard from the 5E GMs I've spoken to. But I would really need to read the 5E DMG to have anything of value to add here, and I don't have much interest in reading it at the moment

It's the essence of RuLiNgS NoT RuLeS. There was some discussion back around page 11/12 about things 5e ditched to cause the breakdown & some links about toxic player behaviors that fight it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you agree that a person can still be frustrated by "yes, you can" when they have to repeatedly ask permission for their character to know or do something? Or let's even frame this on a personal level: can you sympathize with how courting the GM's permission for my character to know or do something can be frustrating for me as a player? Or are you without any sympathy to my frustration?

Sure, I said earlier that the GM saying yes can lead to issues. And I said that when it feels like you are always trying to guess what the GM has in mind that isn't fun. For me the ideal state here is the GM has the power to make a ruling, to invoke fiat, and has rules where needed, in order to give the players the strongest sense that they are there in the world. I get that for some people this feels like mother may I. My point has been if that is your honest reaction to such systems, fair enough. That is your reaction, but you also have to understand that this doesn't feel like mother may I for everyone.

The problem I have with mother may I as a descriptor is its a highly negative one and an inaccurate one (it invokes a child's game that is about controlling other people, and as a descriptor it feels because it is all about the yes/no binary and all about playing a guessing game with the leader: who also controls your actions. The whole reason to give the GM this power is not to control your actions, but to empower the player to be able to try anything in a fantasy world or in a story that is unfolding (it is the thing that choose your own adventure promises but can't deliver, the thing that computer games, at least the ones from my time---I can't speak to present day ones---promised but failed to deliver because everything had to be programmed in advance. Life isn't programmed in advance and the point of a GM who hears what the players are trying to do, and tries to resolve how that can unfold, is to give you the sense of living in a real world or being in the shoes of a real character in a story. Mother may I is the death of that IMO.

And yes I can sympathize with any feelings you have of frustration. There have been versions of D&D that greatly frustrated me. I hated social mechanics and investigative mechanics (largely all through the skills) in 3E for example. I felt like the specific things I was trying to do (which were what give that spark of life for me mentioned in the above paragraph) were not being honored because what mattered was the system, not the 'facts on the ground'. The reality of course is, some of this was there was tremendous drift from how the rules were written and how they tended to be played (which isn't the fault of the system itself) and some of this was preference. I can still have that view, and understand why someone might feel differently about those skills. And if I were to try to describe it objectively, I would go beyond my subjective critique of it draining the life out of the game for me, and talk more evenly about what it actually does, why some people like it, and why some people don't like it. I think that is a much more fair assessment than taking my experience, largely a negative reaction, and using that as a basis for an objective description of what is going on.

That said, there is still an underlying problem with the system for me. I don't object to "I encountered this problem with the 3E social and exploration mechanics, and so here is my solution". That kind of stuff is great. Where I think we run into problems in these discussions, and where I think people get really bent out of shape, is in the effort to control D&D. Personally I am not very invested in what D&D does with any particular edition. I have too many options available if I don't like what WOTC is offering (and frankly many of the retroclones and many of the previous editions are more suited to my tastes).

So I guess my question is how big of a problem is this power arrangement for most players currently? And do you find the power dynamic that extends back through most editions of D&D to be a problem or is it something about 5E specifically ?

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's the essence of RuLiNgS NoT RuLeS. There was some discussion back around page 11/12 about things 5e ditched to cause the breakdown & some links about toxic player behaviors that fight it.

Just to be clear, are you saying the heart of the problem people have is 5E is about rulings not rules? Personally I think D&D thrives when it leans into rulings over rules. I would say, if this is the case with 5E, it is a good thing. How well they were able to describe it, that I am sure could be another story. One thing I noticed about portions of the DMG that were shown to me was some of the descriptions of things seemed wonky. Not talking about GM advice for running the game, I was mostly looking at a section dealing with setting, but I could see how that might also be a problem elsewhere in the book. Out of curiosity do you feel the 5E DMG does a good job of conveying how the game ought to be run?