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

[clearstream]

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.

Exactly! And I am asking - what does this look like if we suspend judgement about who is right and wrong, and notice concretely that there are differing views?

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.

So what I am suggesting is the idea that at some tables, those supposed problems don't exist.

Say in my culture we view wearing purple to amount to a claim to great executive power, so that if you wear purple and are not an appropriate person (i.e. a person who rightly should have that power) it is a terrible offence... one that outrages those observing it. While in your culture, purple is just a colour: no offence is given, no outrage provoked, by wearing it.

We can each argue all kinds of angles around the justice of restrictive or permissive purple-wearing, but in the end it's down to our cultural expectations and perceptions.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I put a like because I agree with you that we can distinguish different approaches to play, and we can in doing so describe approaches that we may wish to embrace or avoid.

Some groups play as you describe. "Classic" from Six Cultures of Play probably includes examples, with arguments such as "Don't give up on illusionism". That said, they would probably call their play "skilled play" and say that they do not themselves experience MMI.

To me, MMI is defined by dysfunction. It is most useful as a negative term and should not be applied to arrangements that - while not to our taste - are not dysfunctional for those who embrace them (even knowing that were we to enter those arrangments, dysfunction would speedily arise.) There are problems with that position, but I think it has potential as a baseline.

 

[FrogReaver]

I put a like because I agree with you that we can distinguish different approaches to play, and we can in doing so describe approaches that we may wish to embrace or avoid.

Some groups play as you describe. "Classic" from Six Cultures of Play probably includes examples, with arguments such as "Don't give up on illusionism". That said, they would probably call their play "skilled play" and say that they do not themselves experience MMI.

To me, MMI is defined by dysfunction. It is most useful as a negative term and should not be applied to arrangements that - while not to our taste - are not dysfunctional for those who embrace them (even knowing that were we to enter those arrangments, dysfunction would speedily arise.) There are problems with that position, but I think it has potential as a baseline.

I find it revealing that in this thread, even from those claiming it’s a neutral term - they almost always cite negative examples for it. The only time neutral examples seem to get brought up is when someone asks them as part of the discussion if this is also Mother May I.

 

[pemerton]

I find it revealing that in this thread, even from those claiming it’s a neutral term - they almost always cite negative examples for it.

Huh? The only poster consistently claiming it is a neutral term is @Ovinomancer, and he has used the term to describe his own GMing!

 

[clearstream]

I find it revealing that in this thread, even from those claiming it’s a neutral term - they almost always cite negative examples for it. The only time neutral examples seem to get brought up is when someone asks them as part of the discussion if this is also Mother May I.

Where I land is to accept it as a negative term, and resist its application to neutral cases (or preface by acknowledging the cultural lense in place.)

Frex, if the culture in play is Classic, then DM-decides does not produce MMI, as MMI is defined by dysfunction.

 

[Ovi]

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.

No, I can describe the way play without rendering judgement on it's quality of if it's wrong. I mean, you should probably recall that I 100% state that when I run 5e there's a lot of MMI involved. Has to be, the system is pretty much built that you can't avoid it. It's endemic in the core play loop. The GM is the gateway to adjudicate player action declarations and there's no required system checks necessary (outside of spells, but even those are open to the GM in a lot of ways). Combat is a place where there's a strong expectation, but people in this thread are pretty open that the GM doesn't actually have to use the combat engine if they choose not to.

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.

I have. Enjoyed a game of 3.5 that was literally pitched as "this is a railroad, but I promise it will be fun." It was. Actually the best D&D game I ever played in.

 

[Ovi]

I find it revealing that in this thread, even from those claiming it’s a neutral term - they almost always cite negative examples for it. The only time neutral examples seem to get brought up is when someone asks them as part of the discussion if this is also Mother May I.

I've brought up a few examples that are not negative. I believe you've argued for a few where the GM is making the choice about how player actions resolve using GM fiat and that this is a good thing. I believe it very much is.

So, as the one person currently claiming it neutral, I don't find that you're accurately representing this or my contributions to the thread on this matter.

 

[Ovi]

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.

Hmm. "[U.]ltra-pedantic need for nailing down a single definition" seems to be a weird thing to say when you're arguing so strongly for a definition that is singular in that it is bad.

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.

I use MMI when I GM. I do not feel that my play is unhealthy. I'm keenly aware of the structure of authority, and that I, as GM, am responsible for gating player action declarations to align with my understanding of the fiction, and this keen awareness lets me run a better game because I can take active steps to mitigate problems that might arise from this structure of play. And to lean into it when it benefits play (and I think MMI can benefit play).

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 don't really care about right and wrong, I mostly care about useful.

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.

I argue that people know what it means as well -- it's a reference to a children's game where players have to ask the mother player for permission to do things. In 5e, the GM has the clear authority to determine how action declarations resolve. The effect of this is that players are essentially asking permission of the GM to allow what they want to transpire to be the outcome of their action declarations. There's a reason a lot of 5e play is players declaring actions to prompt the GM to give more detail so that the players can successfully align their actions and intended outcomes to align to what the GM is prepared to approve. And I don't think this is bad play at all -- sounds pretty much like how 5e is intended to play! It's how I run and structure my games, and is a good description of a lot of discussion about games you can find on the 5e forum, especially looking at asks for advice and the advice given for plotting, story, and resolving of actions in 5e. It's not bad at all -- it's the structure of the game, and MMI is a quick shorthand that shared enough similarity for someone to immediately grasp that this is what's happening. The problem, in my estimation, is really that people have a romanticized view of play that laying it out this barely is a shock and therefore rejected. I'm reminded of the opening to Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock, by TS Eliot --

Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;

The sudden brutality of the unexpected blunt analogy does the same work here as MMI does for 5e.

EDIT -- weird underline tag got applied. Figured it out.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I humbly ask you to not underline every single word in the post. My eyes hurt now.

 

[tetrasodium]

Having a name for a thing as the description of the negative state of dysfunction would be like describing adventure design/building simply as railroading & insisting that railroading is a neutral term. Since there's some acceptance that mother may I as a term is a negative thing describing dysfunction it makes a term for the non-dysfunctional side somewhat justified. I've been thinking about it off & on while the thread has been going on & the best that comes to mind is stealing jargon from the business world for something like Just In Time (JiT) adventuring*. The world reacts & to some degree builds itself as the players move about doing things. That all happens with little if any regard for the idea that the PCs are THE heroes (or THE villains) simply by virtue of being an entity controlled by godlike entities known as players. If the PCs are nobodies heroes or villains that is accomplished through their own (mis)deeds & the various fractalized npcs/groups/etc world reacts as expected for those (mis)deeds.



* or adventure/world/story/plot/encounter building whatever