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

[pemerton]

If a DM is being a neutral adjudicator, a curious explorer of the fiction and playing the world with integrity then it's not going to be long before the players push play toward something that he at best can provide a high level detail about. But players will typically then ask about lower level details - which forces the DM to have to fill such details in. One example might be, you've encountered a small band of orcs (DM can fairly make this adjudication based on the players geography, their stealthiness, etc). Questions will arise: How many orcs, how far away, are orcs typically hostile, can I identify what group these orcs belong to, etc.

At this point the DM really only has one course of action - make up the number of orcs and other relevant details, being as faithful as he can to the integrity of the world. Sometimes a world might have a specific answer, but most won't (at least not for all such questions). In this instance it's my opinion he can be both neutral and actively pick a challenging number as neither the integrity of the world nor his neutral adjudication is going to be compromised by having 8 orcs (a challenge) instead of 4 (a cakewalk). I do think there's a limit on how much number of enemies can be chosen.

I think it's also important to note that randomness alone cannot resolve this problem as the DM would also be responsible for setting the random table of results

It's possible for the game rules to set the random table. That's what classic D&D does. And there are rules for adjusting the result relative to the dungeon level. So within the limits of the randomness of the roll, and the possibility of a trap or trick taking the PC to an unintended level, it is the player who gets to choose between challenge and cakewalk, by choosing dungeon level.

But if the GM is making that call, then I don't see how they are also being neutral.

When you start making those decisions guided by what would make the best story or what would challenge players in the middle of the session the skill of navigating the fictional environment basically means nothing. If GM is free to stop being a referee at any moment they deem necessary that's exactly what causes that sense of Mother May I? because there is no telling on what basis from moment to moment decisions are going to be made.

I understand your point here.

In practical terms, what tools - other than an impossible degree of prep - do you think can solve the "how many Orcs" problem? In my Torchbearer adventure design on the weekend I used the adventure creation procedure to make a general decision about the number of obstacles of various degrees of difficulties, and built my creature numbers within that framework.

If the GM is going to act with an agenda for play than we need some other way to maintain competitive integrity because the GM is not doing so, not even attempting to do so.

Maybe the adventure design guidelines count as an example of this? I'm trusting that the designers have got their numbers right to make the game work, just like a classic D&D GM needs to trust that Gygax or Moldvay has got their "number encountered" spread basically right.

 

[FrogReaver]

But if the GM is making that call, then I don't see how they are also being neutral.

Does being neutral really mean you cannot adjudicate? That you cannot make any meaningful decisions? If it does we have a vastly different conception of neutral.

I understand your point here.

In practical terms, what tools - other than an impossible degree of prep - do you think can solve the "how many Orcs" problem? In my Torchbearer adventure design on the weekend I used the adventure creation procedure to make a general decision about the number of obstacles of various degrees of difficulties, and built my creature numbers within that framework.

That's a great question!

 

[pemerton]

I don't think you'll find any rules support for that ability to constrain the DM's ability to adjudicate whether the common folk helping you fear for their lives at any point during which they are helping you.

I think it if doesn't, then the ability is pointless. On the premise that background features are not intended to be pointless, it must generate some constraint.

 

[pemerton]

Does being neutral really mean you cannot adjudicate?

No. But neutrality - following on from @Campell's post - means your adjudication must follow from the fiction. And if it's not to be arbitrary from the players' point of view, the fiction from which it follows must be knowable or ascertainable in some fashion.

This sort of neutrality is important in exploratory play. For instance, yesterday I had to make a decision about how many pack slots a stirge fills (when the PCs bagged two stirges in our Torchbearer game). On the principle that a full waterskin fills one pack slot, I decided that a stirge also fills 1 pack slot. So two stirges could fit in a small sack (capacity: 2 slots). This follows from fiction (that stirges are small critters), which the players are already familiar with. And it fits with the rulebook stating that domestic cats (another sort of small critter) taking 1 pack slot. And it is not too punishing to the PCs, and hence isn't likely to put any pressure on consensus over the adjudication.

Another example I already gave was my decision to go along with a player's suggestion that he would use his Elven, Dreams-wise sword to help abjure a dream haunt (in mechanical terms, this counted as an improvised weapon which thereby avoided the penalty for being unarmed). It had been established in the fiction that the sword was aware of, and leading the PCs towards, the dream haunt (which was located within an Elfstone). Is it consistent with that fiction that the sword should be a useful implement for abjuring the haunt? The player clearly thought so, and it seemed to me that there was no reason to contradict that.

In general, I think GMs have strong reasons to go along with the players' understanding of the fiction. I think this helps neutral exposition of the fiction: the GM can build on non-contentious foundations and elaborate on them.

 

[Hussar]

At this point the DM really only has one course of action - make up the number of orcs and other relevant details, being as faithful as he can to the integrity of the world.

I'm going to disagree here. The number of orcs will almost certainly depend on the notion of challenging the PC's and "integrity of the world" will almost certainly take a very far back seat.

For example, it's pretty rare that a 1st level party would meet 30 orcs. Or 50. Or a hundred. That's not much different than "rocks fall, everyone dies!" It's a pretty rare DM that will do that, even if it makes perfect sense in the setting (after all, why is that marauding band of orcs conveniently sized to be faced by a party of X level characters, only growing in size when the PC's gain levels?)

And, again, you can't have it both ways. If we're presenting a world, then concepts of "challenging the PC's" don't have any place. So, choosing the scenario like ambushing the PC's in the barn makes very, very little sense. There are a hundred other things that could have happened that are equally as likely from the Duke looks in the wrong area, guards get confused by orders, or any number of equally plausible scenarios that don't result in the party being ambushed in the barn.

But almost universally, DM's will choose the "challenging/interesting story" option. However, "challenging/interesting story" most certainly isn't being faithful to the integrity of the world.

 

[Hussar]

if the player thinks that that makes sense in the shared fiction then why would I as GM contradict it?

Just to carve out a point here from a conversation, but, I think this point right here gets so much right to the heart of the disagreement. The idea that there is no real reason for the GM to contradict the player so long as the player sees no contradiction in the shared fiction. This gets right square to the heart of things because in MMI situations, the DM has complete control over the shared fiction. Nothing in an MMI set up is allowed to be true unless the GM expressly okays it.

What I think @pemerton and certainly myself are suggesting is that this isn't a particularly useful or even needed way to play. That it creates far more problems than it solves. If the players aren't having a problem with things, then why does the GM, who is supposed to be the neutral arbiter here, step in to stop a player from doing something? Who is being served here?

Let's take the extreme (and ridiculous example) of the player whipping out his helicopter to travel from A to B. Now, let's be honest here, that's not something the other players are going to be groovy with, so, it's perfectly understandable that the DM steps in. But, let's stipulate that the players all think this is a great idea and it's tons of fun. At that point, who is being served when the DM says, "Nope, no helicopters"? It's making the DM happy and making everyone else unhappy.

Again, as I've mentioned a few times, MMI isn't the actual problem. It's the symptom of a problem - a mismatch in players to GM. A mismatch in play styles. And ignoring that in order to address the symptoms by claiming that the DM has the power or the players have the power or some variation in between doesn't actually do anything to resolve the problem at the table which is that the player(s) and the GM are not playing the same game.

 

[clearstream]

Just to carve out a point here from a conversation, but, I think this point right here gets so much right to the heart of the disagreement. The idea that there is no real reason for the GM to contradict the player so long as the player sees no contradiction in the shared fiction. This gets right square to the heart of things because in MMI situations, the DM has complete control over the shared fiction. Nothing in an MMI set up is allowed to be true unless the GM expressly okays it.

Perhaps another way to frame that sentiment is that "if the player thinks that it makes sense in the shared fiction, then there must be a reason based on our shared fiction and system for me as GM to contradict it?" Maybe "shared purpose in playing" should go in there, too?

And that can be supplemented with a statement like "when players put you on the spot (as GM) to say what's true, say what's true and stick to it; including saying to yourself what's true off-camera." I think this idea is quite generalisable, although I'm thinking of course of cultures of play that look to GM for significant aspects of their fiction.

Again, as I've mentioned a few times, MMI isn't the actual problem. It's the symptom of a problem - a mismatch in players to GM. A mismatch in play styles. And ignoring that in order to address the symptoms by claiming that the DM has the power or the players have the power or some variation in between doesn't actually do anything to resolve the problem at the table which is that the player(s) and the GM are not playing the same game.

Thank you! That captures something I was trying to write out earlier and couldn't quite formulate. MMI is in part about expectations. And this is something we consistently see in player behaviour (i.e. the impact of matches/mismatches between expectations). Speculatively, it may be to do with the magical nature of stepping into the circle of play. The rules of the normal world may well be suspended, so that extra weight rests on our expectations about what we have all agreed to.

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps another way to frame that sentiment is that "if the player thinks that it makes sense in the shared fiction, then there must be a reason based on our shared fiction and system for me as GM to contradict it?

Not sure if I would go as far as "must". That's pretty strong and maybe stronger than it needs to be. But, I would certainly agree with "there should be a reason" for the GM to contradict it beyond simply "well because I think so."

It does go back to the point I made way earlier about letting the players just win. Not every time. Heck, not even the majority of times. But, sometimes, just let the players have their way and let them lead. One thing that I found doing this is when you place the game in the hands of the players, it makes the game so much more fun. When the players know that they not only have the power to actually make declarations in the game, but, also the responsibility that comes with that, they will do such fantastic things.

In my current game, I have a sentient dream of an aboleth character (from some 3rd party something or other). It has been a fantastic idea that has led to some great role play. When the players got involved with the Raven Queen, the aboleth that was dreaming the PC went absolutely berserk. A god that eats dreams would have an absolute picnic on a more or less immortal being made of dreams. Was such a blast. Something I never, ever could have come up with on my own.

Or the player who played an awakened skeleton. Not a lich or anything like that. Just a skeleton. In a Waterdeepragon Heist game. A major sub-plot became getting this character declared an actual citizen of Waterdeep so that he could stop getting turned by every bloody cleric he met and of course actually being treated as a person and not property. Some very obvious allusions going on there. But a huge barrel of fun that really drove the campaign. Again, something I never would have even dreamed of doing on my own.

 

[clearstream]

Not sure if I would go as far as "must". That's pretty strong and maybe stronger than it needs to be. But, I would certainly agree with "there should be a reason" for the GM to contradict it beyond simply "well because I think so."

True. Perhaps principles should generally avoid "must" in their wording.

It does go back to the point I made way earlier about letting the players just win. Not every time. Heck, not even the majority of times. But, sometimes, just let the players have their way and let them lead. One thing that I found doing this is when you place the game in the hands of the players, it makes the game so much more fun. When the players know that they not only have the power to actually make declarations in the game, but, also the responsibility that comes with that, they will do such fantastic things.

Where we will probably go round and around is understanding the razor between judgements. Nitpicking for the sake of example, I glitch slightly at "letting". Supposing we're talking about DM-curated play, then the DM shouldn't be thinking in terms of letting or not letting. What does their fiction say? What do the rules say? What are their principles?*

*Up thread their seemed to be a question, concern or doubt about whether principles were in play if not spelled out in a game text. I'd like to make clear my view that principles are always in play. And I believe that is the normally accepted position, in game studies.

 

[Cadence]

Not sure if I would go as far as "must". That's pretty strong and maybe stronger than it needs to be. But, I would certainly agree with "there should be a reason" for the GM to contradict it beyond simply "well because I think so."

It does go back to the point I made way earlier about letting the players just win. Not every time. Heck, not even the majority of times. But, sometimes, just let the players have their way and let them lead. One thing that I found doing this is when you place the game in the hands of the players, it makes the game so much more fun. When the players know that they not only have the power to actually make declarations in the game, but, also the responsibility that comes with that, they will do such fantastic things.

In my current game, I have a sentient dream of an aboleth character (from some 3rd party something or other). It has been a fantastic idea that has led to some great role play. When the players got involved with the Raven Queen, the aboleth that was dreaming the PC went absolutely berserk. A god that eats dreams would have an absolute picnic on a more or less immortal being made of dreams. Was such a blast. Something I never, ever could have come up with on my own.

Or the player who played an awakened skeleton. Not a lich or anything like that. Just a skeleton. In a Waterdeepragon Heist game. A major sub-plot became getting this character declared an actual citizen of Waterdeep so that he could stop getting turned by every bloody cleric he met and of course actually being treated as a person and not property. Some very obvious allusions going on there. But a huge barrel of fun that really drove the campaign. Again, something I never would have even dreamed of doing on my own.

Those sound like super ideas and play experiences (and helped me start my EN day with a smile).

Tying in to some other topics upthread, how was it decides it should to take a full subplot to get the skeleton declared a citizen instead of just letting it be an easy win?