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

[FrozenNorth]

Again, no one is saying there should be no DM judgment in the game. I agree, this caveat in the rules is more for edge cases where how the rules apply is unclear. In such cases, the DM needs to figure out how to make the situation work. That's a perfectly reasonable application of DM judgment.

However, many cite that caveat actually grants the DM the ability to alter or ignore any rules they like for any reason. I think that's an overly broad interpretation, and absolutely places things into Mother May I territory. I don't even know how it can be argued otherwise.

So if we accept that this caveat is not about granting the DM absolute authority, then we must accept that the rules have authority. That the rules should work as we expect them to work, barring some form of exception.

I think it is six of one, half dozen of the other. On the one hand, “rulings not rules” gives DMs the encouragement to empower their players. Compared to 3.5, there is no rule that the Folk Hero background gives you advantage on your Investigation check to find out what’s bothering the common folk, and including this tupe of circumstancial rule would make the PHB overly long and unwieldly.

The flip side is that a player cannot invoke defined, concrete rules against a DM that minimizes the usefulness of the Folk Hero background.

Since both sides are a direct consequence of “rulings not rules”, I am uncomfortable only referring to the second as MMI.

 

[clearstream]

This is a good example! I think the book ruins it a bit by making it all optional.

The way I parse these sections of the DMG is this. Some of the rules are labelled expressly "optional". Others are labelled expressly "variant". Others, like the social interaction rules, are not labelled. So that

Some DMs prefer to run a social interaction as a free form roleplaying exercise, where dice rarely come into play. Other DMs prefer to resolve the outcome of an interaction by having characters make Charisma checks. Either approach works, and most games fall somewhere in between, balancing player skill (roleplaying and persuading) with character skill (reflected by ability checks).

This is an observation about the frequencies of checks depending on chosen DMing style (DMG236), not the optionality of the rule.

This section adds to that material by providing a structured way to resolve a social interaction. Much of this structure will be invisible to your players in play and isn't meant to be a substitute for roleplaying.

This is a reminder of the priority of roleplaying - it's in every aspect of the game (PHB185) - and is not about the optionality of the rule.

These spoil it for me. It offers a structure that the players can use in a social interaction, but makes it entirely optional and suggests to not even let the players be aware of a lot of it.

If DM never commits NPCs to hostilities, then one never uses the combat rules. We should not conflate our forms of optionality!

As such, I don't think it fits your idea of "Clarifying" information.

As it's my idea, I feel I can say authoritatively that it does

If the structure was known to the players, and was allowed to be evoked by the players when applicable, then I'd consider it a good step to move the game away from Mother May I. I use this in my play regularly, giving the players the option to learn a Bond, Ideal, or Flaw of the NPC and then using that to leverage their attempts to persuade/convince the NPC. There's still a lot of leeway for the DM in the form of starting attitudes and determining DCs and other factors, but at least it gives a clearer process.

I think the rules in the DMG are for more advanced play. Consider for instance the simpler PHB174 rule on ability checks with the advanced DMG237 rules. After all, the game text one needs to have absorbed at that point runs into hundreds of pages.

You're offering alternatives to Mother May I here in that your citing rules, fiction, dice, genre, and the play group as having a say in the decision making process.

That's the opposite of having one person decide all that.

Please recall that my position is that I resist a straight conflation of MMI with "one person deciding." If MMI just means "one person decides" then as @FrogReaver pointed out, it becomes tautologically true in every case where one person decides.

I agree @FrozenNorth offered a good example by citing the thread started by @pemerton about the fighter praying for aid to help his fallen ally.

So if we take that example, and then ask the questions I've posed, I think maybe that helps us here.

What's preserved by denying the action?

What does denying this action cost?

It is more important to my mind to consider my stepped-up example, of using Intimidate. What are your answers to those two questions, replacing Religion with Intimidate?

 

[FrogReaver]

If I read your comment here correctly, then I would agree with the intuition that where one participant is legislated in the game text to have greater authority over agreeing what becomes true then that could create a vulnerability. My thought is that the divider is the principles they habitually bring to their table. That this explains why some groups (e.g., those in my experience) do not experience MMI (degenerate exercise of a right of agreement).

This has been my most recent thought as well. For most of us currently involved in the discussion it seems we agree that D&D can be played in a way we all agree can fairly be called Mother May I.

To me the interesting question isn't how often this occurs, but why this sometimes occurs and sometimes does not. I think you are spot on that principles and also execution towards those principles are usually the places this breaks down.

I don't think D&D would be a better game if it codified a specific set of principles for DMing and Playing. However, I think it could be better to elaborate on principled DMing and Principled play and give example of different sets of principles and how they can effect the gameplay and then ask players and DM's to think long and hard about their gaming principles. IMO. Part of being able to work for many different styles is also the ability to have different principles.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would suggest that @pemerton other thread gives a very good example: a fighter leverage their in-play devotion and training in the Religion skill to stabilize a fallen ally.

While I personally would absolutely allow it, there are many DM’s that wouldn’t.

This is where I think the term mother may I, is not particularly useful. Unless there is something in the rules about devotion that make it so it has to be allowed (I am not familiar with them), if it is just an ambiguous mechanic that can be applied in a range of ways, I expect the GM to have some amount of control over what are possible outcomes. But this is just one aspect of play, and the point again isn't to keep the player guessing. GM's are going to make this call based on how much something like that makes sense. The classic: can I use this ability to do X thing that is a bit outside the normal scope of said ability. That very much boils down to helping establish a consistent setting, tone, genre, and level of believability (which will vary by things like setting and genre). If the GM is just saying no, because, I can see the player feeling like its is mother may I. I don't think that particular arrangement, where the GM has the power to interpret the scope of a mechanic, and potentially expand it, is described well by mother may I.

 

[pemerton]

should every action they declare be allowed to be effective?

What is the point of play?

If the core of play is exploring and beating the dungeon, then "no". But (as Moldvay and Mike Carr recognise in their advice in the Basic rulebook and module B1) this sort of play puts a big demand on the GM to be fair in their adjudication of the fiction. Faithful adherence to the map and key becomes important. Limiting the scope of play, and hence putting GM adjudication within reasonable constraints is also important - this is why wilderness play is highly vulnerable to losing the integrity of dungeon-crawling play, not out of any sort of ill-will but because the constraints evaporate and the fiction becomes almost impossible to adjudicate in a way that is different from just making things up.

A lot of city-based play or "event"-based play (CoC is a paradigm, but this sort of play is also seen in D&D) presents itself as explorative like dungeon play, but because of the lack of constraint on the scope of the fiction it becomes vulnerable in the same way that wilderness play is. Consider @hawkeyfan's example of trying to get a guard to turn a blind eye - it's almost impossible to resolve this, and all the similar sorts of action declarations that go with city-based or event-based play, simply by adjudication of the fiction. The GM is almost forced to make things up more or less ad hoc. And thus there tend to be two options: the players work their way through the GM's conception of events, prompting the GM to make decisions via their action declarations for their PCs, but with the GM taking the lead in establishing the fiction; or, the players are allowed to impact the fiction via their action declarations (eg if they roll high enough, or if they spend the right resources), and it is no longer the GM's conception of events that is solely dominant.

These patterns are manifested in the history of RPG development, and in the various preferences one sees from RPGers about different approaches to RPGing. No particular approach is required. But the GM-lead, GM-mediated approach does have an evident vulnerability, I think, to the players' role being rather limited or cabined within the GM's conception of the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

Unless there is something in the rules about devotion that make it so it has to be allowed (I am not familiar with them), if it is just an ambiguous mechanic that can be applied in a range of ways, I expect the GM to have some amount of control over what are possible outcomes. But this is just one aspect of play, and the point again isn't to keep the player guessing. GM's are going to make this call based on how much something like that makes sense.

Isn't the prior question Whose view as to what makes sense is the authoritative one?

Classic Traveller doesn't talk about praying, but it does talk about rolling random worlds, and that this process might produce results that require some imagination to make sense of. And it gives the following advice (Book 3, p 8):

At times, the referee (or the players) will find combinations of features which may seem contradictory or unreasonable. Common sense should rule in such cases; either the players or referee will generate a rationale which explains the situation, or an alternative description should be made.​

This was in 1977!

If the players are meant to be solving a GM-authored puzzle (whether a closed-solution one like a crossword, or an open-ended puzzle like White Plume Mountain) then of course it is the GM's conception of things that sets the parameters for an acceptable solution. But once we move beyond that paradigm, it's up for grabs whose "common sense" should decide things.

 

[FrogReaver]

What is the point of play?

Excellent Question. I think their are many and varied points of play, especially for D&D players. Some want a power trip, some want to hang out with friends, others want to see cool and crazy things happen in the fiction, others want to really dig into experiencing their character and the game world and most players want some degree of each of those things, etc.

This is really where the differing D&D principles from table to table comes into full scope.

If the core of play is exploring and beating the dungeon, then "no". But (as Moldvay and Mike Carr recognise in their advice in the Basic rulebook and module B1) this sort of play puts a big demand on the GM to be fair in their adjudication of the fiction. Faithful adherence to the map and key becomes important. Limiting the scope of play, and hence putting GM adjudication within reasonable constraints is also important - this is why wilderness play is highly vulnerable to losing the integrity of dungeon-crawling play, not out of any sort of ill-will but because the constraints evaporate and the fiction becomes almost impossible to adjudicate in a way that is different from just making things up.

I agree with the assessment at least to some extent.

A lot of city-based play or "event"-based play (CoC is a paradigm, but this sort of play is also seen in D&D) presents itself as explorative like dungeon play, but because of the lack of constraint on the scope of the fiction it becomes vulnerable in the same way that wilderness play is. Consider @hawkeyfan's example of trying to get a guard to turn a blind eye - it's almost impossible to resolve this, and all the similar sorts of action declarations that go with city-based or event-based play, simply by adjudication of the fiction. The GM is almost forced to make things up more or less ad hoc. And thus there tend to be two options: the players work their way through the GM's conception of events, prompting the GM to make decisions via their action declarations for their PCs, but with the GM taking the lead in establishing the fiction; or, the players are allowed to impact the fiction via their action declarations (eg if they roll high enough, or if they spend the right resources), and it is no longer the GM's conception of events that is solely dominant.

Same here.

These patterns are manifested in the history of RPG development, and in the various preferences one sees from RPGers about different approaches to RPGing. No particular approach is required. But the GM-lead, GM-mediated approach does have an evident vulnerability, I think, to the players' role being rather limited or cabined within the GM's conception of the fiction.

IMO. Sometimes what the players want is to have the external game world function independently of them and that's more important to them than the kinds of potential vulnerabilities you list here.

 

[tetrasodium]

He said you should strive to not say no. Work with players to try and get their ideas to work via the game mechanics.

It’s excellent advice.

However players are responsible for tempering those ideas within the boundaries of what is already established & that's all too often ignored.

The video is about convincing people to try RPGs. If that’s the goal, why would you list a bunch of responsibilities of the player?

Especially ones like these:

They are pretty relevant to the discussion at hand in this thread where the video was tossed in.

I’d almost agree with the first one until the need to describe “Main Character Syndrome”. I don’t know if not wanting to conform at all times to the GM’s ideas means you have “main character syndrome”. Nor do I think that citing such needs is much of an argument against Mother May I.

Yes it can be. In my most recent campaign I told everyone before & during session zero "do not write a backstory. Your character has no memories of their past & you will find out why next session & the campaign will put a lot into recovering memories". Everyone agreed but one player showed up to session zero with a backstory & a second spent session 1&2 trying to give me one. Of those two there was one who was telling the group his character's backstory & how if they get out of this mausoleum & cultist robes they can use their connections to fix this.

So yes.... the player must conform to the game they agreed to play in find some other game or bring it up before starting the game rather than joining the game they agreed to play & expecting it to be something else if they just keep disruptively pushing.

Again, I don’t know how what you’re saying here is an argument against Mother May I. It all sounds very “my way or the highway” to me.

Yes that's the way it works in any type of d&d game. If the GM says they are running a game set in X setting/location with these themes... it's on the player to work out any issues before starting or find another game. Agreeing then trying to force it to conform to what they wish it was instead of what they agreed to is not reasonable & should be treated as such.

From there on the GM has dramatically more authority to shape the world the player's character needs to live within as long as they continue playing with that gm. The GM has that power because that is required in order to run the game & create challenges for the PCs to interact with & overcome.

As for going about it the wrong way, I don’t know how asking for examples from @overgeeked ’s (or anyone else’s) actual play is a bad way to go about it. Such an example would seem to actually help explain why they feel Mother May I is a bad descriptor.

It would be except there is trouble with that. Specifically you seen to want the GMs who run these type of heavy player agency games to exhaustively & explicitly mark out the limits they place on themselves while also giving the indication that players themselves lack any responsibilities or that those responsibilities should be so gently worded as to be mere lip service.

The limits a gm puts on themselves & become responsible for meeting are going to be heavily influenced by the limits & responsibilities the players are expected to uphold. If you aren't willing to seriously discuss those beyond declaring them too much how can discussion be anything but criticism of a particular playstyle?

 

[Manbearcat]

@tetrasodium What does “Main Character Syndrome” entail? Something about disputes or issues with something below?

* Players don’t get to dictate what the dramatic needs of their characters are as it will be chosen for them.

* Play will not be about PC dramatic needs but it will be about resolving the dramatic needs of the setting/archvillain (eg Strahd in Ravenloft)?

* Players do get to dictate what their dramatic needs are but play will only be incidentally/tangentially/infrequently driven by/related to them?

* Players do get to dictate what the dramatic needs of their characters are but no player has disproportionate table time spent on engaging with and resolving their PC’s dramatic needs (play will engage with these things but it will be proportionate table time between players)?

* Something else?

 

[overgeeked]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

In a thread from a couple months back, I shared an example of my Folk Hero Ranger attempting to avoid the evil Duke's men by taking shelter with the common folk of a town the PCs were in. The Duke's men were hunting the PCs and we knew they were on their way to the town. I used the Folk Hero feature to gain us shelter.

My expectation was that we would avoid an encounter with the Duke's men. The DM instead decided that the Duke's men learned of our presence and surrounded the farmhouse where we were hidden. His reasoning was that my use of the ability let us get a full rest, and so he felt he honored my action. But he still decided a battle was going to happen.

He wasn't specifically trying to undermine my idea... there was no ill intent... but it was unsatisfactory for me because I didn't feel that my choices mattered. His decision was about preserving his plans more than about allowing my choices to meaningfully influence the events of play.

When I say that...

A lot of the MMI examples provided in the thread sound like the player wanting to not only describe their character's attempted action (#2) but also narrate the outcome (#3) and being upset when it doesn't work out how they want it to. The player gets to declare the character's attempt (#2), not narrate the outcome (#3). The referee gets to narrate the outcome (#3), not declare the character's attempt (#2). If the player declares something impossible, the referee should clarify by describing the environment (#1) and give the player another pass at their description of what they want to do (#2). If the player persists in an impossible or consequence-ridden declaration (#2), the referee is perfectly justified in saying it fails or that the character faces the consequences, i.e. narrating the outcome (#3).

The player in this example wanted to both describe what they wanted to do (#2) and narrate the outcome (#3), violating the play loop. But when the referee followed the play loop and narrated the outcome (#3), the player was dissatisfied.

Player: "I want to use my Folk Hero feature to find shelter with the common people (#2) and successfully hide from the Duke's men thereby avoiding a confrontation (#3)."

Referee: "Okay. You find shelter with the common people. But as the feature explicitly says, 'They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you.' The Evil Duke's men are threatening to massacre the townspeople unless they surrender you, so someone gave you up to save the lives of all the innocent people in the town."

This is also why being explicit rather than implicit about goals when making declarations is a great idea. If the player had said their goal up front, the referee could have the opportunity to clarify the situation and the player could have the opportunity to rethink or rework and restate their declaration. It sounds like a mismatch of (unstated) expectations. In the player's head things should logically play out one way but in the referee's head things logically played out another. That's why you openly communicate your goals as a player up front, so you can talk with the referee about the likelihood of the outcome you're after.

(Sidebar: This is one big reason I love the new background system in the UA. No more arguments about whether Noble is peasant mind control or any of the rest.)

He wasn't specifically trying to undermine my idea... there was no ill intent... but it was unsatisfactory for me because I didn't feel that my choices mattered. His decision was about preserving his plans more than about allowing my choices to meaningfully influence the events of play.

This quote begins with a claim of no ill intent, but ends with the claim that the referee is negating the player's agency to preserve the referee's plans...all because an attempted action did not play out exactly as the player wanted.

Again, the play loop is:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

The player doesn't get to narrate the outcome, the referee does. As above, many of the examples in this thread come down to "the referee didn't let me narrate the outcome of the thing I wanted to do, so it's MMI." The player gets to try to hide as their declaration, not declare that they successfully hide. The success of that attempt is up to the mechanics or the referee. As stated so many times in this thread, that is the killer app of RPGs. It is the distinctive feature of RPGs, not a bug. It's the thing that separates RPGs from video games and boardgames and wargames. But, as mentioned above, it does cut both ways. The players get the benefits of having tactical infinity along with the "drawback" of sometimes not having things always work out exactly how the players want them to.