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

[Hussar]

Functionality relies on there being no objections on either side.

Since a criticism of MMI relies on one side or the other raising objections, I would say that dysfunction is one of the defining traits of MMI play.

 

[FrogReaver]

Functionality relies on there being no objections on either side.

Since a criticism of MMI relies on one side or the other raising objections, I would say that dysfunction is one of the defining traits of MMI play.

It sounds an awful lot like you are saying all dysfunction is Mother May I.

 

[Ovi]

Functionality relies on there being no objections on either side.

Since a criticism of MMI relies on one side or the other raising objections, I would say that dysfunction is one of the defining traits of MMI play.

What do you call play where everything is gated through GM approval but no one complains about it?

 

[Hussar]

It sounds an awful lot like you are saying all dysfunction is Mother May I.

Other way around. MMI is dysfunctional play but not all dysfunctional play is MMI.

 

[Hussar]

What do you call play where everything is gated through GM approval but no one complains about it?

If no one complains why would I call it anything? If the table is happy, what need is there for any sort of labels to identify problems?

 

[tetrasodium]

Having a goal is not an attempt to seize control from the GM. It's a goal.

Again, put it into combat terms. If I say "I want to disarm this guard" that's me stating my goal. We have a pretty good idea how things will proceed from there.... what kinds of rules and processes will be applied, and also what's at stake. There'ss nothing at all strange about a player stating their goal.

What I would have wanted in that scene was not some kind of guarantee of success, but if Rustic Hospitality hadn't been sufficient, then the understanding that it wasn't enough in and of itself, and then discussion about what additional actions our group would like to take.

The expectation of the plan succeeding completely as desired by the goal does however because it reaches past areas of player control into step3 TThe disarm analogy is misplaced simply because unlike asking a GM to decide if you can use an ability towards a specific plot element involving the world & NPCs within it the disarm is a simple if then else set of mechanical steps. Even the wording of RH includes stipulations about NPCs & risk that are entirely left to the GM while disarm is simply a ,atter of consulting statblocks & rolling dice.

wanting the GM to tell you if A particular plan like use RH>escape was insufficient is literally the quantum action I've mentioned a few times. The 5e system itself insulates PCs from risk and resource attrition that they no longer have safeguards like "your PC is experienced enough to know about this very dangerous overlooked thing" so the GM no longer has cards to play as forewarning that don't seize "step2 players describe what they want to do" from the players & the players are effectively playing poker with an unlimited bank thanks to the sidelining of resource attrition. All that's left is your call for a quantum action that double checks & locks in step3 for an action before doing it as a result.

This is the main area where you're wrong. The GM did not do the bold. He did not ask if we want to do anything else. The watch was set, we looked to him for narration, and he went to the morning and the surrounding of the barn.

I acknowledged in the post you linked to that we didn't state any additional actions and perhaps we could have, but there was no additional information from the GM prompting any action on our part. No "What do you do?" moments.

This is kind of getting into a secondary side topic so I'm splitting the post. Your right on D, that was my mistake in misreading the linked post this morning.

I run many of my games in the previously described style in 209 545 & others where often the most important thing the players can do to keep a plan on the track they want is to keep moving without stopping even when things are upside down & spinning sideways, Getting players to realize that & state/party brainstorm additional actions is an extremely difficult hurdle to shove them over in 5e. In 2e things were looser & players had to get creative while continuing to rush forward till they were running low. In 3.x I could flip to dmg21/dmg30 & suggest they get creative in doing things to use them... 5e just has an effectively meaningless other duties as assigned equivalent ask your gm & rulings not rules. I can't speak for every GM, but there's always something else you can do & most GM's will point out when you've succeeded at a plan they've been told about provided it's not interrupted by "lets take a short/long rest" to end all momentum in a way that often causes all of the spinning plates to collapse... You can always ask if something counted as a long rest for some/all of the party after the fact

 

[Ovi]

If no one complains why would I call it anything? If the table is happy, what need is there for any sort of labels to identify problems?

Because it's not a label for a problem but a label to describe how play is functioning. Some may have reasons to dislike a moment of such play while others can be fine with it. Assuming MMI can only be available if dysfunction exists, can we call this dysfunctional because one player at the table dislikes it? Is one scintilla enough or is there some threshold? This is the problem with insisting MMI can only be dysfunctional.

However, if one is looking to quickly describe play structures, there's use in such terms without worry if some dislike it while others do. Because the term is describing something that isn't keyed to liking it.

 

[Hussar]

Because it's not a label for a problem but a label to describe how play is functioning. Some may have reasons to dislike a moment of such play while others can be fine with it. Assuming MMI can only be available if dysfunction exists, can we call this dysfunctional because one player at the table dislikes it? Is one scintilla enough or is there some threshold? This is the problem with insisting MMI can only be dysfunctional.

However, if one is looking to quickly describe play structures, there's use in such terms without worry if some dislike it while others do. Because the term is describing something that isn't keyed to liking it.

Shrug. I have zero interest in that level of pedantry. Where the line is and such issues is just not important. Who cares? Everyone will draw the line at a different point and every group will as well.

MMI describes a situation where the players and dm are unhappy. AFAIC, that’s the primary criteria. The unhappiness stems from the feeling that the players are being forced to jump through endless hoops in order to satisfy the dm.

Note, the players could easily be 100% wrong and the source of the problem just as easily as the dm.

But this thread is predicated on a dm having this problem repeatedly. So finding just the right word for the problem is rather pointless. Some dms are blaming the system. Some are blaming the players. Some are pointing at the dm. The truth is, the proper solution to the problem is likely a bit of all three and will vary strongly from group to group.

 

[Ovi]

Shrug. I have zero interest in that level of pedantry. Where the line is and such issues is just not important. Who cares? Everyone will draw the line at a different point and every group will as well.

MMI describes a situation where the players and dm are unhappy. AFAIC, that’s the primary criteria. The unhappiness stems from the feeling that the players are being forced to jump through endless hoops in order to satisfy the dm.

Note, the players could easily be 100% wrong and the source of the problem just as easily as the dm.

I don't find it pedantic at all to say that you have some necessary threshold to cross (whether or not you're interested in crossing it) in your usage, whereas mine does not because it's purely descriptive of the play and has no need of polling likes and dislikes. I'm pointing out the flaw in your usage.

As for MMI being only negative, the children's gane is not negative but describes how play occurs.

Finally, for this point, there's already a usage for the case you describe here -- pixel-bitching or pixel-hunting. MMI describes having to seek GM approval, which doesn't require hoop jumping or finding the right action to succeed. It nay also include these, but they are not necessary.

But this thread is predicated on a dm having this problem repeatedly. So finding just the right word for the problem is rather pointless. Some dms are blaming the system. Some are blaming the players. Some are pointing at the dm. The truth is, the proper solution to the problem is likely a bit of all three and will vary strongly from group to group.

MMI speaks to the system. I'm not looking to solve it , but describe it. I don't think it is something to be solved, largely because Trad play leans on MMI structures as a core component of it's play. That's not at all a bad thing, and I disagree with the requirement that MMI be negative. That requires too much special pleading in its assertion.

 

[Hussar]

I’ve been pretty consistent throughout this thread. To me, MMI is negative. Full stop. Pointing to the childrens game misses the point and context of how it is being used.

Pixel bitching is a great example of MMI but not the only one.

But, AFAIC, trying to pretend that a criticism of MMI is neutral is like pretending that calling something a railroad is neutral. In context it is never a neutral term, nor is it ever used to describe a positive.