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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Does the connection have to be inevitable in order to be relevant?

Is it truly impossible for the connection to simply be highly correlated, and for alterations to drastically reduce that correlation?

 

[clearstream]

Does the connection have to be inevitable in order to be relevant?

That depends very much on what you mean by relevant.

Is it truly impossible for the connection to simply be highly correlated, and for alterations to drastically reduce that correlation?

That's an interesting question and many concerns and areas for response come to mind, but first to clear up something I think might be important. I will frame it in similar language for emphasis -

Is it truly impossible for the connection to simply be highly correlated with the individual player and for alterations to their expectations to drastically reduce that correlation?

For me that provokes intuitions that are revealing of problems I perceive with the question as asked.

 

[pemerton]

Any system can be turned into MMI. It’s not that hard.

I don't think this is true. I'm not sure how you would turn Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel or In A Wicked Age or Agon (just to name a few systems) into "Mother may I?".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That depends very much on what you mean by relevant.

Bearing upon or connected to the matter at hand; pertinent. (Credit to Dictionary.com.)

That's an interesting question and many concerns and areas for response come to mind, but first to clear up something I think might be important. I will frame it in similar language for emphasis -

Is it truly impossible for the connection to simply be highly correlated with the individual player and for alterations to their expectations to drastically reduce that correlation?

Impossible? No. Have I said otherwise? Has anyone here said otherwise?

It is your position, as I had understood it, that these things are the only considerations that matter. That they are not only correlated, but causative; not only possible, but that they exhaust the possibility space. That there are not, and cannot be, any other considerations than "it's your fault, you did it to yourself" and "stop having bad expectations and you'll never be unhappy you didn't get what you wanted."

For me that provokes intuitions that are revealing of problems I perceive with the question as asked.

I don't really understand how there can be "problems [you] perceive with how the question was asked." It's literally just: Are you saying it is truly impossible for the game itself, for the rules and their function (and possibly presentation), to play a leading role in encouraging or inducing MMI?

If you have a problem with the question as asked, that would seem to indicate that yes, you really do think it is impossible for a game's rules to encourage or induce MMI, in any fashion, whatsoever. That is a position I rather strongly disagree with. I think it is not only quite possible, but demonstrable with games that most of us have actually played. And, conversely, I think it is not just possible but demonstrable that there are other games where the rules themselves discourage or restrain MMI. But, just as the existence of certain rules does not carry an unassailable guarantee of issues, the existence of defenses and countermeasures doesn't guarantee there will never be problems. Yet I'm pretty sure no one here would willingly destroy their own immune system solely because immune systems are not 100% perfect at preventing illness (nor even at preventing death by illness), even though those immune systems often cause all sorts of problems like allergic reactions.

Let me phrase my criticism in an analogy. Let's say I said to you, "Cancer isn't an inherent result of smoking. There are many people who smoked for their entire adult lives and never developed cancer, and many people who never touched a cigarette and still developed cancer." It seems to me that you, like most reasonable people, would respond to that with something like the (much simpler than my above phrasing) argument: "Why does the cancer have to be an inherent result? Can't it just be highly correlated? Can't it be a risk factor without being a guaranteed problem? You seem to be saying that smoking is irrelevant for the question of developing cancer."

To respond to an argument like that with "I perceive problems with the way you've asked those questions" is...well, confusing at best.

 

[clearstream]

I don't think this is true. I'm not sure how you would turn Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel or In A Wicked Age or Agon (just to name a few systems) into "Mother may I?".

An example I can think of are moves like Tricks of the Trade (DW). These can easily snag on expectations around results.

"I want to pick the lock and get the dirt." How is it decided that the dirt is in the chest? The move isn't written in a way that seems to cover that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

An example I can think of are moves like Tricks of the Trade (DW). These can easily snag on expectations around results.

"I want to pick the lock and get the dirt." How is it decided that the dirt is in the chest? The move isn't written in a way that seems to cover that.

I think I may be missing some context. What "dirt"? I haven't been paying careful attention to the last...several-odd pages.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think this is true. I'm not sure how you would turn Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel or In A Wicked Age or Agon (just to name a few systems) into "Mother may I?".

Is there not someone, anyone at the table at any point in time which determines the results of actions in those system? When a player makes a declaration, who narrates the results? Because as soon as someone narrates the results, then you have the ability to turn the game into Mother May I.

It doesn't matter if results are narrated by one person, a different person each time or by the group. So long as results have to be narrated by someone at the table, then you can have Mother May I.

-----

However, I think that others have taken the right approach here. I've sufficiently answered the question and I learned a few things, so, I thank everyone for the discussion, but, it's time for me to bow out. This is a conceptual road block that is just not going to get resolved, so, yeah, I'm not adding to the conversation.

 

[clearstream]

Bearing upon or connected to the matter at hand; pertinent. (Credit to Dictionary.com.)


Impossible? No. Have I said otherwise? Has anyone here said otherwise?

It is your position, as I had understood it, that these things are the only considerations that matter. That they are not only correlated, but causative; not only possible, but that they exhaust the possibility space. That there are not, and cannot be, any other considerations than "it's your fault, you did it to yourself" and "stop having bad expectations and you'll never be unhappy you didn't get what you wanted."


I don't really understand how there can be "problems [you] perceive with how the question was asked." It's literally just: Are you saying it is truly impossible for the game itself, for the rules and their function (and possibly presentation), to play a leading role in encouraging or inducing MMI?

If you have a problem with the question as asked, that would seem to indicate that yes, you really do think it is impossible for a game's rules to encourage or induce MMI, in any fashion, whatsoever. That is a position I rather strongly disagree with. I think it is not only quite possible, but demonstrable with games that most of us have actually played. And, conversely, I think it is not just possible but demonstrable that there are other games where the rules themselves discourage or restrain MMI. But, just as the existence of certain rules does not carry an unassailable guarantee of issues, the existence of defenses and countermeasures doesn't guarantee there will never be problems. Yet I'm pretty sure no one here would willingly destroy their own immune system solely because immune systems are not 100% perfect at preventing illness (nor even at preventing death by illness), even though those immune systems often cause all sorts of problems like allergic reactions.

Let me phrase my criticism in an analogy. Let's say I said to you, "Cancer isn't an inherent result of smoking. There are many people who smoked for their entire adult lives and never developed cancer, and many people who never touched a cigarette and still developed cancer." It seems to me that you, like most reasonable people, would respond to that with something like the (much simpler than my above phrasing) argument: "Why does the cancer have to be an inherent result? Can't it just be highly correlated? Can't it be a risk factor without being a guaranteed problem? You seem to be saying that smoking is irrelevant for the question of developing cancer."

To respond to an argument like that with "I perceive problems with the way you've asked those questions" is...well, confusing at best.

I'll try and explain it another way. My position is comparable in abstract to saying that the phenomenon is liable to occur when A and B are true.

Your question seems to ask if the phenomenon is highly liable to occur when A is true? That's incomplete, as it will not be liable to occur when A is true and B is false.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'll try and explain it another way. My position is comparable in abstract to saying that the phenomenon is liable to occur when A and B are true.

Your question seems to ask if the phenomenon is highly liable to occur when A is true? That's incomplete, as it will not be liable to occur when A is true and B is false.

What, then, is B supposed to be? Because if you're asking players to never ever have expectations of any kind, you're certainly asking for squared circles.

 

[chaochou]

Because as soon as someone narrates the results, then you have the ability to turn the game into Mother May I.

Only if one presupposes that GMs of all roleplaying games have all the authority types at all times, as well as the the lack of any responsibility to adhere to any rules, that are the hallmarks of D&D GMing.