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

[Ovi]

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

See edit. The attempt to use proper notation of changes to a quote was interpreted by the editor as an underline tag. Real pain.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Look I’m not sure what the problem is.

“I would not like that game/table/group because it feels like it leans much into MMI” is mostly about me.

The problem comes when people insist that I somehow state my preferences without any negative language while at the same time be able to say why I don’t like it.

Hrm….. I think I might have finally seen the pint here. MMI applied broadly to whole games is just a way to justify preferences and probably shouldn’t be used that way. It’s not productive.

I do think it could be used in specific cases - I do not like this event because of MMI. But trying to apply it to entire games is not useful.

Then again that wasn’t really anyone’s intent I don’t think. That broad brush got brought up early. Mostly it’s only applied to specific examples.

 

[FrogReaver]

Look I’m not sure what the problem is.

“I would not like that game/table/group because it feels like it leans much into MMI” is mostly about me.

That's fair.

The problem comes when people insist that I somehow state my preferences without any negative language while at the same time be able to say why I don’t like it.

That's fair too.

Hrm….. I think I might have finally seen the pint here. MMI applied broadly to whole games is just a way to justify preferences and probably shouldn’t be used that way. It’s not productive.

That sums up a whole lot of what I've been trying to say.

I do think it could be used in specific cases - I do not like this event because of MMI. But trying to apply it to entire games is not useful.

I would initially agree here as well.

Though I want to take a step back. The vibe I get when I really set down and think about what is meant by mother may I in RPG context is that to the player it feels like they are having to ask permission to do anything.

We also talked above about causality-responsibility chains. I think it might help to dig into this concept more, because I think our different opinions about MMI depends on what I'm going to call 1st Order, 2nd Order and 3rd Order causality-responsibility chains. The concept of MMI then could apply to any order of causality-responsibility chains.

Those of us claiming DM curated play as a whole isn't MMI are evaluating that statement from the 1st Order of the causality-responsibility chain, that being 1st action in the chain was able to be established by the player - but the DM determines all later causalities. Whereas some players would view 1st order causality-responsibility to be insufficient to let them feel like they are not asking permission.

2nd order would then be the initial action and those directly flowing from it.

3rd order would be the initial action and even indirect actions flowing from it.

I'll elaborate more on this later, but I think this could be a good framework for discussing within.

 

[Hussar]

No I think I’m largely in agreement with you @FrogReaver. MMI describes specific situations. Used to describe systems it’s not very helpful.

MMI is not a systemic thing. Any system can be turned into MMI. It’s not that hard. But that’s not the system’s fault. That’s the fault of the person using the system.

So looking at a specific table and describing it as MMI is useful. It describes a situation where someone at the table is unhappy about the division of power and the use of authority at that table.

Used to describe a system it’s no different than any other buzzword like video-gamey or board-gamey. Not particularly useful phrases that basically boil down to “I don’t like this thing therefore it’s bad”.

So, yeah I’m hopping the fence here. I don’t think it’s ever useful to describe a system as MMI. It’s probably useful in specific circumstances since it does frame out why someone isn’t enjoying this game with this gm. But beyond that, naw it’s not helping anything.

 

[Ovi]

No I think I’m largely in agreement with you @FrogReaver. MMI describes specific situations. Used to describe systems it’s not very helpful.

MMI is not a systemic thing. Any system can be turned into MMI. It’s not that hard. But that’s not the system’s fault. That’s the fault of the person using the system.

So looking at a specific table and describing it as MMI is useful. It describes a situation where someone at the table is unhappy about the division of power and the use of authority at that table.

Used to describe a system it’s no different than any other buzzword like video-gamey or board-gamey. Not particularly useful phrases that basically boil down to “I don’t like this thing therefore it’s bad”.

So, yeah I’m hopping the fence here. I don’t think it’s ever useful to describe a system as MMI. It’s probably useful in specific circumstances since it does frame out why someone isn’t enjoying this game with this gm. But beyond that, naw it’s not helping anything.

I find this to be a strange argument. We can look at the core play loop for 5e, and see that the GM is the only one that has authority to present outcomes of actions. So, players can suggest an action but the outcome of that action is never up to them. It's important to note that action declarations always have an intended effect by the player -- they want something to happen and are announcing the actions to do that thing. But the GM gates all of that, all the time, and has to agree to allow what the player wants to be the outcome. To that end, the GM has full authority to just say no, just say yes, or to use any of the available mechanics where the GM sets the particulars for their use and can still announce an outcome that thwarts the player's intents. I say that last because even if a GM asks for a check, they are not required to say what happens on a failure or on a success and can wait for the result to decide what happens. We have advice on these boards that advocates for asking for a check and then deciding based on what the check result is!

So, to achieve ANY intent in play, the players are always asking for the GM to approve of that intent. Even if the GM calls for a check, this is something that players have to hope works for them. At no point does the system work for the player -- it only works for the GM. The only caveat to this are spells and some limited class abilities, which is, frankly, why spellcasters are so much more powerful than classes that entirely have to rely on the GM's approval to achieve intent.

So, yeah, we can absolutely generally categorize systems. 5e is strongly MMI, as intentionally designed. You can drift it otherwise, but you have a lot of work in front of you to do so. I say intentionally designed because by putting the game so much in the GM's hands you actually open the game up to a much more broad appeal to the various different flavors of Trad and some Neo-trad play -- cultures 5e is squarely aimed at.

 

[Hussar]

So you think all 5e tables are dysfunctional? That’s a pretty hard thing to prove.

MMI is always a negative. So claiming that 5e is MMI by design is claiming that 5e is a dysfunctional game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, yeah I’m hopping the fence here. I don’t think it’s ever useful to describe a system as MMI. It’s probably useful in specific circumstances since it does frame out why someone isn’t enjoying this game with this gm. But beyond that, naw it’s not helping anything.

I don't think its an entirely inaccurate way to describe what Frogreaver in the post you were responding to describes as "1st Order causality" structured games (and some rulings, not rules games very much border on that). Its kind of pejorative, but for someone who dislikes that degree of disconnect, likely a big part of the game will land in that category. Its hard to see that as a really inaccurate way to describe a game where the majority of what you do has little or no predictable outcomes outside of GM judgment (I'd characterize most of OD&D as having been like that).

 

[Thomas Shey]

MMI is always a negative. So claiming that 5e is MMI by design is claiming that 5e is a dysfunctional game.

Uhm, I think the phenomenon its describing is always a negative for some people. I don't think you can say its generically so.

(This is not my making any claims about to what degree its true or not of 5e, just that it could be entirely true and still be functional for at least some people).

 

[Umbran]

So you think all 5e tables are dysfunctional? That’s a pretty hard thing to prove.

MMI is always a negative.

Mod Note:
Dude.

The poster has made significant effort to note that he considers the term differently than you do. If you are not going to accept that, and discuss their posts in the framework in which they are intended, it is time for you to disengage.

 

[clearstream]

I don't think its an entirely inaccurate way to describe what Frogreaver in the post you were responding to describes as "1st Order causality" structured games (and some rulings, not rules games very much border on that). Its kind of pejorative, but for someone who dislikes that degree of disconnect, likely a big part of the game will land in that category. Its hard to see that as a really inaccurate way to describe a game where the majority of what you do has little or no predictable outcomes outside of GM judgment (I'd characterize most of OD&D as having been like that).

Given my view that the term labels a dysfunction, and that dysfunction is not inevitably present in games emphasising DM judgement, then as I look at it MMI cannot label those games.

"Mother May I" describes an expectation. I expect my contribution to the fiction to come true in the respects and so far along the chain as I consider I have authority. Given another participant assumes authority over those respects or points along the chain, I experience a feeling of having to ask for their permission to make my desired contributions come true. The advanced symptom is that I end up feeling I have to guess what they would approve! It's in the interaction between me and that other participant. A change in expectations dissipates the conflict. Frex, we agree on who has authority over what, thus it is not put at issue whether I have permission... in fact, I might feel discomforted to be asked to exercise authority I'd rather not have (c.f. Czege principle.)

MMI is cultural and social. It's an experience - something a player feels - thus it does not exist where no player feels it. To my reading @pemerton quite consciously up thread related it to system in terms of "vulnerabilities", and suggested techniques that could put the player in a better position... a kind of negotiation between possible expectations, and solution to system vulnerabilities.

Expectations are often unstated or imprecise, and precisely where a moment of play sits on the chain can itself be ambiguous. These factors are compounding. Perhaps making them another good subject for session 0.


EDITED to develop my description of MMI.