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

[EzekielRaiden]

This is why we need better guidelines to apply the rules. We don't need more hard and fast rules. Otherwise we might get into exact this problem.

Okay. Skill Challenges are pretty rules-light and they very specifically serve to help reduce this problem. Likewise the opt-in skill powers and various other things 4e did. Believe it or not, 4e has some very light elements in it, despite the combat portion being on the heavy side (as every edition of D&D has been, to one extent or another.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Okay. Skill Challenges are pretty rules-light and they very specifically serve to help reduce this problem. Likewise the opt-in skill powers and various other things 4e did. Believe it or not, 4e has some very light elements in it, despite the combat portion being on the heavy side (as every edition of D&D has been, to one extent or another.)

I don't have to believe, I played it for its complete lifespan.
A problem was that in core 4e, everything outside your powers had bad scaling.
Shortly before (or with) Essentials, terrain powers were introduced to alleviate this.

Also base 4e skill challenges were famously badly balanced (too hard). Exactly the problem you described.

So even with such a structure, you can easily fail. Especially if (like in the first iteration) everyone had to roll, even on bad skills and skill DCs were just too hard.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To be honest, @hawkeyefan 's experience strikes me not as a case of MMI, or railroading, or even of anyone doing anything wrong, but as an example of the friction inherent in RPGs.

It absolutely reads like railroading to me. DM decided that a fight with the Duke's men needed to happen. Rustic Hospitality was given lip service, and then the thinnest veneer of secret, unstated, and impossible to address justification was given so the DM could ensure that the fight with the Duke's men happened anyway.

A problem was that in core 4e, everything outside your powers had bad scaling.

Page 42 should have addressed those problems. What concerns did you have that it was insufficient for?

Also base 4e skill challenges were famously badly balanced (too hard). Exactly the problem you described.

"Famously"? First time I've heard of it. The math needed some tweaking, yes, but not to the level of "we rewrote it from the ground up." Nothing like the things I cited earlier and to which you had replied.

 

[Hussar]

Or it's simply the DM playing consistently with the D&D playloop and narrating the results of the players actions. How do you differentiate when this is occurring vs the DM just having something he wants to happen?


There is no D&D encounter that isn't 100% in control of the DM. That's their role in the D&D playloop - to narrate outcomes for player actions. That's always going to leave whether an encounter occurs 100% within their purview.


Then you believe all D&D play is Mother May I?

This has been addressed by others, so, I'll quote that instead:

DM decided that a fight with the Duke's men needed to happen. Rustic Hospitality was given lip service, and then the thinnest veneer of secret, unstated, and impossible to address justification was given so the DM could ensure that the fight with the Duke's men happened anyway.

The reason I call it Mother May I is because this loop will play out EXACTLY like this every single time. DM's will not ever simply give the players the win because they are "playing consistently". No, it's not consistent. It's only done to "make a challenge". It's only done "to make the game more interesting". It's only done to "make sure the players 'earn' their victories". Pick a justification du jour.

When the players attempt anything, they can pretty much be guaranteed that any plan they make will be foiled by the DM playing "consistently" with the setting.

That's why it devolves into Mother May I so often. And, this is why the players turtle up behind the rules. Instead of bothering to invoke a background, the players simply break out the Rope Trick or the Leomund's Hut and poof, instant short rest, no fuss, no failure, and off they go. Then the DM starts to bitch and complain that the players refuse to do anything that's not written on their character sheet. Or, if the players do try to do something that isn't expressly on their character sheet, it will never, EVER succeed as well as simply using magic or some other specific effect.

After all, had the PC's just used a Leo's Hut somewhere, Duke McEvilton wouldn't be coming to find them. A couple of spells, like Pass Without a Trace, and a few bits and bobs, and poof, instant Long Rest safe place that is iron clad and DM tamper proof. So, obviously, why would a player bother doing anything else? Why bother trying something that isn't one their character sheet when the things on their character sheets will work 100% of the time and give them the results they want?

That's why it's Mother May I. Because the DM is ONLY ever choosing results based on "making the game more interesting" without ever considering whether or not the players actually WANT the game to be more interesting in this specific way. For me, MMI is always dysfunctional. In a non-MMI situation where the GM simply narrates the results of player actions, those results will not always be negative. In MMI play, the results will always be bad. The players will never actually succeed. It will never be Yes And. At best they get a Yes, But...

 

[overgeeked]

Not quite.

My point is that games teach players to expect to know the repercussions of decisions. Rpgs for all their differences are still games. And large swaths of play are very strongly governed by rules that tables expect to be followed. If a dm turns a hit into a miss, most people would have pretty strong opinions about that.

Additionally lots of rpgs allow for stronger player declarations. If the player succeeds on something the expectation of the game is that the gm will never subvert that success.

Sure. But we're not talking about things explicitly covered by the rules. Which is the problem. We're talking about situations where the referee has to make a call and players being upset by those calls. Some players want the referee to not have the authority to make those calls because they might make a call the player doesn't like. Some want the rules to cover everything. Either way, you're ripping the heart and soul out of the genre. A live person at the table able to make those calls is the killer app of RPGs.

I mean you could even turn the whole thing around. It sounds like despite the game explicitly giving the referee the authority, the referee must say things in exactly the right order, in exactly the right way, or the players get mad. Mothers May I Run the Game?

One of the best dm tips I ever read was in an old module. I cannot remember which one now. But the advice was, “so long as the players come up with something that resembles a plan, it succeeds”.

If that's cool advice to you, awesome. Everything the players come up with just succeeds? Sounds incredibly boring to me.

I prefer advice from more recent games like PbtA. Take Masks as an example.

From Be a Fan of the PCs: "When you’re saying what happens next, think about it from the perspective of a fan. What would you want to see next? Would you really want to see the Protégé, an incredibly adept fighter, look like a clumsy fool? Would you really like to see the Transformed just be accepted instantly and loved, without any trials or tribulations?

Being a fan means both that you want the PCs to be awesome, and that you want to see them pressed. They go together! Putting pressure on the PCs means they have the chance to be awesome. But it means you won’t want to see them made chumps, or look incompetent, or anything similar. Ruining the core conceits of a character, or taking away what makes them cool—that’s the epitome of not being a fan."

The only way for the PCs to get to look cool and be awesome is to face challenges. If they just succeed at everything they suggest, there's no obstacles, no tension, no drama, hell...no story. They just win. Then they just wins some more. Huzzah. Nah. I'm good without that. Being handed victory is boring, earning victory is exciting. But to be able to earn it you have to have risk of failure.

I’m not upset, I’m saying if you want to level a critique at how I play, or at my expectations of play, have the courtesy to do so directly to me.

Fair.

Honest question: what would be the reason to not narrate these things and prompt the players to declare some actions? The only reason I can see would be to maintain the GM’s idea about what’s going to happen.

If there's no way for the characters to know what's happening, there's no reason to tell the players. It's as simple as that. I get that in this exact instance you know this is what happened because you say the referee in question explicitly told you after the fact. Sure. That time. But a lot of referees would do exactly the same thing for a whole host of other reasons. Top of my list: the players shouldn't metagame any more than absolutely necessary to continue the game, so if the characters don't or can't know something, the players don't get to know it either.

Put another way…why hide the game from the players?

Because focusing on the game prevents immersion and roleplaying. The more the game is hiding in the background, the better. I love me some indie games, but I can't play Fate because it requires constantly checking in with the game and interacting with the system takes awhile depending on what you're doing. I want to get into the character, into the world, into the drama of it all. I don't want to constantly get pulled out of that with game system. At least with 5E anything outside of combat is pure conversation or one skill check at most. We talk, the referee asks for a roll, I make it, and we're back in the world. Quick and easy. Stopping the conversation and roleplaying to talk through the mechanics is tedious and dull. Hashing out all the potential futures of some decision is equally dull and tedious. Make a call, throw the dice, see what happens. Play to find out, not play to win.

 

[Hussar]

If that's cool advice to you, awesome. Everything the players come up with just succeeds? Sounds incredibly boring to me.

It's the heart of the definition of "Yes And". Ok, you infiltrated the lair of the dastardly bad guys. You wanted to scout it out so that you could make informed decisions about what to do next. Fantastic. You succeeded. Here's a map of the area that you scouted, here are the guards that you saw, here's this and that thing that you noticed and here are a few other bits and bobs that might have caught your attention along the way.

Now what do you do?

Is a FAR FAR better way to play than. "Ok, you sneak past the first guard. Roll stealth. Great. You sneak past the second guard, roll stealth. Great. You sneak past the third guard.... oops fail, the alarm is run. Roll for initiative."

See, even in your advice of being a fan, and what would a fan want, means that sometimes the fans want to see the players actually play competent characters and not fail every single thing they attempt all because the DM wants them to "face challenges".

I have infinite challenges. I will never, ever run out of challenges for the PC's. Letting them get past one for free in no way cheapens anything.

 

[Hussar]

Additionally, @overgeeked, I would point out that I'm not the one having problems at my table, you are. You are the one complaining about having player issues and having play problems. If you are insisting that all the problems are 100% the fault of the players and refusing to take any responsibility or even consider any sort of change to what you are doing, then what is the point of this thread? Every suggestion to you has been met with, "I don't want to play that way" and "it's all the fault of bad players".

Is this just some sort of weird plus thread where everyone comes in, pats you one the back and commiserates about bad players?

Or are you actually interested in fixing the problems at your table(s)?

 

[clearstream]

I agree that the ambiguous nature of the rules is largely intentional to allow multiple interpretations that can lead to different kinds of play. I think that ambiguity... while having the positive effect of reaching a wider audience... has the negative effect of being vague and imprecise in ways that can be detrimental to play.

To clarify my viewpoint. It is not that the rules of 5e are any more ambiguous than other game texts, but that they intentionally do not include accompanying written out agenda and principles. Those are for each group to add to the play at their table.

Yes, the lack of specific principles and guidance on how to avoid Mother May I is my main criticism. I think that you pretty clearly describe it in that "the possibility of degenerate play is a risk worth taking to make the game work for more people".

Until this thread, it wouldn't have been on my list of risks with omitting written out principles from the game text, so rare has been its appearance in the degenerate form at issue here.

It seems your post may have been cut off here, but I'm not sure. I think this is an interpretation of the passages. And while it's one I may understand, I don't think it's the only interpretation.

If one experiences problems from interpreting in one way, and another way is available that does not have those problems, then one might consider using that other way

If I opt to handle a scene entirely through free form roleplay, then I'm opting out of using the structure described.

I think freeform relies even more on principles, although they're intuitive.

My complaint here is not about keeping the roleplaying involved, but instead about advocating keeping the structure of play hidden from the players. This would appear to run contrary to the principles you cited at the top of the post.

The game text does not advocate keeping it hidden. It explains that it will likely go unnoticed.

You cited several different sources of authority in your examples, not just one.

So far, it does feel like there is a thread of argument in this discussion which amounts to a straight conflation of MMI with DM-curated play. I think cases of what I will call MMI-with-assent illustrate this conflation.

So if a player asked this of me, I'd say "How does Intimidate apply here?" and then see what they say. If they didn't have a reasonable explanation, then I'd ask "So do you think it's more that you're trying to Persuade the deity? Or maybe Bluff them?" and see what they thought of those. If they did come up with a reason for Intimidate, then I'd take that into consideration. I'd say something like "Okay, that may work, but the DC will be 5 higher because you're a mortal trying to intimidate a deity, and if you fail, you're going to have a god angry with you. Do you want to proceed? Or do you want to try a different approach?"

Something very much like the above. There's give and take involved. There's a discussion where we sort things out and come up with a way forward. At no point am I just shutting down their idea. If I did so, I'd never hear their idea on why intimidate might work...

Here that MMI-with-assent is in play. Notwithstanding the game text, DM has chosen to allow the use of Intimidation to heal. I think you are confident that another DM might not do that - based on your questions to me - and therefore you are I think arguing that MMI is okay, so long as DM says yes. I don't agree as the choice is impactful. Typically we value consistency, will Intimidation consistently in future heal? If we value following the rules, why are we comfortable making a ruling that goes outside them? What is the shadow cast over other abilities by this ruling, such as the cleric divine intervention and healing spells, and those spells that expressly provide for communication with entities like gods? How does the player investing in Medicine and the Healer feat feel about this? The issue is not the particulars, it is that MMI is in play here even if the DM says yes.

Contrast with the hiding-in-barn scenario. The complaint there appears to be centered on lack of explanation, rather than stepping outside the rules. It's far less a case of MMI notwithstanding that DM said no.

What is also interesting is that, despite complaints about using a pejorative term like Mother May I to label a playstyle, no one bats an eye at Main Character Syndrome, even though it’s clearly used as a pejorative.

I equally dislike the terms MCS and MMI, but only one of them is the topic of this thread. I indeed did bat an eye at the introduction of the former term to the conversation.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think that the pushback against MMI is about the GM's power to adjudicate rules or making rulings nor do I think that it's about entitled players wanting to adjudicate their own outcomes, know everything, and always succeed at everything. These are strawmen arguments that have a nasty habit of repeatedly surfacing despite evidence and statements provided to the contrary. I do think, however, that players want to make informed decisions based on their environment and utilize information that their character could reasonably have in the world of the shared fiction.

If this is how it works in other games (e.g., board games, card games, video games, war games, etc.), then it's because these are games that are played by humans and this is how humans think and like to assess situations in real life in order to make decisions. This is to say, that humans playing a roleplaying game where they are roleplaying humans and humanoids in a game of fictional worlds will likewise want to make informed decisions as humans do in real life. People like knowing the risks and the stakes of their actions as well as assessing alternatives and consequences. It may not be perfect and there may be unknown factors that cannot be accounted for, but this is how humans generally think and make decisions.

If one wants to "play worlds, not rules," then the GM needs to provide the players with ample information about the world so that the players can play and engage that world's fiction. Otherwise, it truly is playing the GM rather than the world.

 

[clearstream]

Also, "tactical infinity" here seems to have been reduced to "can make whatever suggestions they like". Actual tactical infinity would involve those suggestions having some sort of teeth in their connection to outcomes. (That's what tactics actually means, isn't it?)

Gaining a long rest is significant help in 5e. I would say rules-wise the DM played the background feature correctly. Where they erred is that when @hawkeyefan's party kept a lookout, play would have greatly benefited from the DM providing appropriate foreshadowing, that they might have acted upon. The clearest case might have been to show that the villagers were put in a position of "risking their lives".