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

[Cadence]

And over at Google, something I never knew...

"Mother Mae-Eye is a haggish witch with candy-themed magical powers and a mass-produced army of gingerbread cookie soldiers. In her human form, she appears as a plump, rosy-cheeked and kindly woman dressed in a red, white and pink outfit, but she is actually a three-eyed, ugly, wart-nosed witch capable of growing and shrinking in size. Mae-Eye feeds on the "sweet, nourishing affection" of her victims; she then traps and bakes them within a gigantic pie in a giant potbelly stove under the guise of their "5:00 bedtime" when their love reaches its maximum. She becomes angered when her victims either come out of the spell on their own, or refuse to eat her pies; in addition to the pies, she is armed with a magical wooden spoon that she uses for most of her fantastical powers.'

 

[Ovi]

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.

I'm using it. I disagree with your usage, because what it mostly does is allow those that feel it's bad look at their play and say "my play isn't bad (to me) so it cannot be MMI" and then not look at the actual structure of play and gain understanding that can help improve their craft. If I point out how your play is engaged in structures where the GM is gating actions through their fiat permission and backstory authorities, and use a shorthand to describe that like the children's game MMI, you get to dismiss and ignore anything I've said because you stop at 'MMI is negative, full stop.'

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

Pixel bitching doesn't actually have to engage MMI at all. If I have a map and key dungeon, and arbitrate that as written, you can easily have pixel-bitching moments but the GM isn't gating play through their fiat permissions. If I have a secret door that the mcguffin is behind, and you have to, by the rules, search the correct area and succeed at the necessary check, this is a form of pixel-bitching but it doesn't necessarily implicate MMI. I'll freely admit that the two things are often paired, but that's more because game systems that support pixel-bitching also have a high correlation to game systems that support MMI.

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.

Railroad is neutral, if you're describing what's happening in play. You can see this because I can absolutely identify something as a railroad (say, the opening of Descent into Avernus) but many tables may have no problems with the play there. If it was negative, then the average table should find it a problem, but this doesn't show. But the structure of DiA at the beginning is effectively 'this guy pressgangs the party, intimidates them, and gives them a job they cannot refuse (they are killed/imprisoned if they do). If the PCs do not pursue the job diligently enough, the NPC sends goons to kill them for failing to do the job. The NPC has infinite goons, and escalates the number sent if the party survives the first (or second or third) wave sent. That's a railroad, straight up -- the PCs have not choices and must perform intended actions to get to the intended conclusions (or die). But this isn't often complained about, and similar structures to play are often suggested to others in threads here in good faith. So, yeah, you can use railroad negatively, just as you can use MMI negatively, but you can also use both without the negative intent as shorthand to describe complex play structures. For railroading, it's Forcing outcomes regardless of whatever players do. That can be a blast for a lot of people. For MMI, it's gating outcomes behind the GM's fiat authority such that action declarations effectively become asks for results. Again, this can be a blast in play for a lot of people, especially if the GM is skilled at other aspects of play such that the MMI structure is not noticed.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

I think this kind of hits on why the term itself causes such friction. The term is also how a player acts when they dislike it & choose to act in a way that causes it to crash into a ditch or collapse. With no real responsibilities expected on the player side & a system that strips the gm of once present soft power cards to play the GM has little recourse while still getting kneecapped like the rustic hospitality/duke's men example when they use what remains .

 

[Vaalingrade]

And over at Google, something I never knew...

"Mother Mae-Eye is a haggish witch with candy-themed magical powers and a mass-produced army of gingerbread cookie soldiers. In her human form, she appears as a plump, rosy-cheeked and kindly woman dressed in a red, white and pink outfit, but she is actually a three-eyed, ugly, wart-nosed witch capable of growing and shrinking in size. Mae-Eye feeds on the "sweet, nourishing affection" of her victims; she then traps and bakes them within a gigantic pie in a giant potbelly stove under the guise of their "5:00 bedtime" when their love reaches its maximum. She becomes angered when her victims either come out of the spell on their own, or refuse to eat her pies; in addition to the pies, she is armed with a magical wooden spoon that she uses for most of her fantastical powers.'

And the source of the best Starfire quote ever:

"Friends, awaken! Alarm! The Mother Mae-Eye is not truly our mother but an evil witch who's tricked us all and invaded our home and forbidden our missions and stolen our boogers and keeps under her spells with frequent and plentiful helpings of enchanted pie!"

So in conclusion, if you want to exert control over your players, at least give them frequent and plentiful helpings of enchanted pie.

 

[Hussar]

f I point out how your play is engaged in structures where the GM is gating actions through their fiat permission and backstory authorities, and use a shorthand to describe that like the children's game MMI, you get to dismiss and ignore anything I've said because you stop at 'MMI is negative, full stop.'

If you are pointing to my play without my having any problems with my group or my players, then you're deep into BadWrongFun territory. Why would you look at someone's game who isn't having any problems, who has happy players and then decide to try to tell them they are playing wrong? After all, "gating actions" and whatnot will never be a positive criticism.

Railroad is neutral, if you're describing what's happening in play.

Again, this ignores context. No one has ever, in the history of the game, said, wow, that adventure was a fantastic railroad. Well done you DM for presenting such a glorious railroad. Railroad is never neutral. It's a negative criticism, full stop.

 

[clearstream]

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.

The OP does not seem to exactly match the part I bolded above. It reads

This has come up again and again, so here’s a thread about it. 5E players and referees, how do you define “mother may I” style play?

The problem comes up repeatedly. I think that would include your case (comes up for DM), and other cases (comes up for player), as well as erroneous cases (putatively comes up, but is some other dysfunction.)

This thread has led me to feel we are describing not one phenomenon, but multiple. Additionally, these phenomenon are not wholly objective: without denying that they arise, when they do so is partly determined subjectively.

Some posts suggest ways to mitigate MMI. Notwithstanding my view that rules are unlikely to succeed without principles, I think good arguments have been made that rules can do some work, given principles are in place. Principles are not static and can be informed by inter alia rules. Neither rules nor principles can be effective when they are not shared, so we must consider too expectations.

Additionally there are techniques that possibly don't fall under rules or principles, that are likely to be valuable. Something that can be said in their favour is that they can succeed even when one-sided. What perhaps we have inadequately explored is what techniques player can bring to bear? Perhaps it is with concerns in that direction that @tetrasodium's posts can be read even while you may reserve agreement.

 

[clearstream]

@Hussar one other thought. I have this notion or self-imposed guide that I should try not to overlook the obvious. I am sure that I do not always succeed, but that doesn't make it a bad guideline.

@tetrasodium appears to say that to them, @hawkeyefan's case may not be MMI. Of course we can try and debate the angles, each hoping to dissipate errors in reasoning and - perhaps - that the other might come to see it differently. Or at least, just to be heard.

Another approach is to say, well, @tetrasodium is a player and/or DM and we are interested in defining a phenomenon involving players and/or DMs. We're forced by the evidence of @tetrasodium's words to notice the obvious: not everyone defines cases the same way. Ad arguendo lets consider just you three. A majority would call the case MMI. A minority do not. Are the minority perforce mistaken, or might it be that there is a subjective element to the phenomenon under study? Having gone round and around a few times, it seems the minority are convinced of their views so perhaps the evidence we can say we most robustly have is: definitions of MMI differ.

 

[clearstream]

This has come up again and again, so here’s a thread about it. 5E players and referees, how do you define “mother may I” style play?

I want to offer a partial definition.

MMI is a social and cultural phenomenon, associated with diverging applications of rules and principles, and influenced by techniques. It manifests as a dysfunction in the interactions and expectations of participants.

What this definition implies is that - as an extreme example - there may be cultures of play in which MMI is not experienced. There may be cultures of play in which MMI is experienced in circumstances in which it would not be experienced in another culture of play.

This definition isn't complete. It doesn't go on to say enough about what MMI looks like, when it manifests, and what kinds of interactions etc it is most often associated with or put at risk of being experienced. What I think this definition does that we could find helpful, is that it points out that you might decry "MMI" in a case that I would find very surprising, or even damaging to my purposes in play. I think we have ample examples of those sorts of divisions in this thread.

@tetrasodium To my mind your arguments feel very much in the above ballpark. @FrogReaver, @hawkeyefan and @pemerton for vis. As perhaps salient to your positions.

 

[Hussar]

@Hussar one other thought. I have this notion or self-imposed guide that I should try not to overlook the obvious. I am sure that I do not always succeed, but that doesn't make it a bad guideline.

@tetrasodium appears to say that to them, @hawkeyefan's case may not be MMI. Of course we can try and debate the angles, each hoping to dissipate errors in reasoning and - perhaps - that the other might come to see it differently. Or at least, just to be heard.

Another approach is to say, well, @tetrasodium is a player and/or DM and we are interested in defining a phenomenon involving players and/or DMs. We're forced by the evidence of @tetrasodium's words to notice the obvious: not everyone defines cases the same way. Ad arguendo lets consider just you three. A majority would call the case MMI. A minority do not. Are the minority perforce mistaken, or might it be that there is a subjective element to the phenomenon under study? Having gone round and around a few times, it seems the minority are convinced of their views so perhaps the evidence we can say we most robustly have is: definitions of MMI differ.

Again, not important. Do not care. It doesn't matter.

MMI is not the problem. It's just a symptom of a problem at the table. Typically it's a symptom of a disconnect somewhere between the players and the GM about how to resolve things at the table. For a table with @tetrasodium and @hawkeyefan, this would mean that the table is dysfunctional and someone at that table is unhappy. Who cares what the actual definition is? This ultra-pedantic need for nailing down a single definition is largely the reason why these conversations go round and round in circles because you will never, ever find a single definition of nearly anything in the English language that all people will agree about, let alone a made up bit of gaming slang.

Worrying about who is correct, who thinks it means this and who thinks it means that is completely and utterly missing the point. The point is, the table where someone is tossing out MMI as a criticism of play is an unhealthy table. Or, conversely, if someone says, "Hey, I play my game like this." and someone else replies, "Oh, I don't think I'd like that. Sounds too MMI to me", then those people should not play together.

It's the endless search for "what's right" and "who's wrong" that turn these kinds of conversations into the total train wrecks that they become. It's the reason why dropping anything like Forge speak into a thread is just chumming the water. Or dropping a Tolkien reference as well. Off folks will go merrily trying to gainsay the other, meanwhile, all sorts of noise signifying nothing.

I do not care. I could not possibly care less about a "proper" definition of Mother May I. When used in context, nearly everyone knows exactly what it means and what it refers to. There really isn't any need to make a clearer definition. The reason it has come up "again and again" is because people absolutely refuse to accept the idea that some problems are self inflicted.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that typically, when used to describe RPGing, "Mother may I" has negative connotations.

But I agree with @Ovinomancer that there is a type of RPGing in which player action declarations are, effectively, suggestions to the GM which the GM incorporates (or not) into the shared fiction as they see fit. It would be useful to have a short-hand label for this sort of play, both for those who enjoy it (to describe what they like) and for those who wish to avoid it (to describe what they wish to avoid).

It doesn't help anyone to pretend that there aren't different approaches to play which can be distinguished from one another at least in general terms.