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

[Hussar]

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.

That is not what I said. What I said is that all RPG's will have someone, at some point during play, be able to determine the results of an action. Who that person or persons may be will change depending on the system, but, in all RPG play, there will come a time when someone at the table will be able to say, "You do X, and thus Y happens". Sometimes that will always be the same person - in trad games like D&D that's the DM. Sometimes it varies around the table. Sometimes it will be by group consensus. But, at the end of the day, SOMEONE or SOMEONES will have to play Referee and make the final call.

Which means that in all systems, you can have Mother May I. As soon as you have someone make that call, it's possible for that person or persons to put their thumb on the scale and influence the result in such a way that other players might not agree with. Do it enough times or egregiously enough, and you wind up with a MMI situation. System doesn't really change the ability to do it. It simply changes when and how.

 

[chaochou]

Which means that in all systems, you can have Mother May I.

It's a rubbish theory, but you're welcome to do the work to prove it, with reference to the full game texts of Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Agon and In a Wicked Age (the games referenced by @pemerton )

I'm not minded to disprove this nonsense. Demonstrate it. I expect reference to the full game rules - not selected cherry picking - and with extended examples from your own play.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Here is the text for Tricks of the Trade (DW p 138):

When you pick locks or pockets or disable traps, roll+DEX.

✴On a 10+, you do it, no problem.
✴On a 7–9, you still do it, but the GM will offer you two options between suspicion, danger, or cost.​

Applying Apocalypse World principles (I don't know Dungeon World so well, but think it's more-or-less the same), when you do it, the GM makes a soft move. It's no different from any other time when the table looks to the GM to say something.

Looking at the list of GM moves on DW p 165, here are the ones that seem to me most apposite:

• Use a monster, danger, or location move
• Reveal an unwelcome truth
• Show signs of an approaching threat
• Offer an opportunity, without cost​

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.

In Burning Wheel, on a successful check the player narrates the results - or, rather, has already narrated them because action declaration consists in stating intent and task, and success means that the task succeeds and the intent is realised.

In Apocalypse World, a declared action either triggers a player-side move - which can in turn trigger a soft or a hard move from the GM, often under a constraint imposed by the outcome of the roll - or, if it doesn't trigger a player-side move (of which the list is finite) then the GM makes a move in response, generally a soft move. This structure deliberately creates an incentive for play to tend towards the declaration of actions that trigger player-side moves that in turn have the potential to generate constraints on what the GM says next.

So long as results have to be narrated by someone at the table, then you can have Mother May I.

I think you are assuming a degree of freedom to that narration which isn't the case in the systems I mentioned. (That's why I mentioned them.)

4e D&D would be another example. In a skill challenge, once the stakes have been set, if the players get their N successes then the PCs get what they wanted. The GM's narration is constrained by the fact of success.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here is the text for Tricks of the Trade (DW p 138):

When you pick locks or pockets or disable traps, roll+DEX.​

​

✴On a 10+, you do it, no problem.​

✴On a 7–9, you still do it, but the GM will offer you two options between suspicion, danger, or cost.​

Applying Apocalypse World principles (I don't know Dungeon World so well, but think it's more-or-less the same), when you do it, the GM makes a soft move. It's no different from any other time when the table looks to the GM to say something.

Looking at the list of GM moves on DW p 165, here are the ones that seem to me most apposite:

• Use a monster, danger, or location move​

• Reveal an unwelcome truth​

• Show signs of an approaching threat​

• Offer an opportunity, without cost​

IMO. Going back to the Duke's men surrounding the barn. That to me sounds more like a soft move than a hard move. To contrast, a hard move in D&D would be something more like, Duke's men attack, roll initiative! Thus, I believe soft moves can still feel to players like they are 'negating' their actions. Do you? (Potentially play principles like letting success be success might mitigate this, but maybe not entirely for all players).

There's also the possibility that a player could disagree with the particular soft move chosen from the list above or the fictional application of the chosen move. So even though everyone is technically following the rules, that could still feel bad for such a player. (Compare this to what's been said about believing the DM of the Duke's men technically followed the rules and it still led to an outcome that felt bad for the player). I don't know that this would be mother may I but it could be a different form of dysfunctional play. However, there's typically fewer applicable DM moves and potential fiction as the DM principles do tend to constrain many DM options to the degree that there is often an obvious best DM move.

Then there's the dice roll that determines success or failure. Coming from a place where the DM could just say yes, having the dice potentially turn what could have been a straight yes into a failure - that can sometimes feel like 'dice may I'.

IMO, I think it depends precisely on how one defines mother may I, but I can see many similar aspects coming into play. That said I think the mechanics + principles of such games do a solid job of mitigating such experiences.

 

[Ovi]

IMO. Going back to the Duke's men surrounding the barn. That to me sounds more like a soft move than a hard move. To contrast, a hard move in D&D would be something more like, Duke's men attack, roll initiative! Thus, I believe soft moves can still feel to players like they are 'negating' their actions. Do you? (Potentially play principles like letting success be success might mitigate this, but maybe not entirely for all players).

There's also the possibility that a player could disagree with the particular soft move chosen from the list above or the fictional application of the chosen move. So even though everyone is technically following the rules, that could still feel bad for such a player. (Compare this to what's been said about believing the DM of the Duke's men technically followed the rules and it still led to an outcome that felt bad for the player). I don't know that this would be mother may I but it could be a different form of dysfunctional play. However, there's typically fewer applicable DM moves and potential fiction as the DM principles do tend to constrain many DM options to the degree that there is often an obvious best DM move.

Then there's the dice roll that determines success or failure. Coming from a place where the DM could just say yes, having the dice potentially turn what could have been a straight yes into a failure - that can sometimes feel like 'dice may I'.

IMO, I think it depends precisely on how one defines mother may I, but I can see many similar aspects coming into play. That said I think the mechanics + principles of such games do a solid job of mitigating such experiences.

A soft move is a threat. The players wanted to avoid the Duke's men, so the range of soft moves would stop before getting to being found by the Duke's men. Thwarting the goal is a hard move -- you can no longer avoid the Duke's men now. Hard moves close doors or deliver direct costs. Soft moves threaten hard moves.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The idea that all games are equally susceptible to MMI is a stretch. Pondering the Rustic Hospitality example through this lens, I've looked to similar abilities from another game I ran recently, Spire: The City Must Fall.

Here are some examples of class abilities that work similarly to Rustic Hospitality, except they go a bit further in that they just work. The player decides to use them, and the GM is bound to honor them (although in some cases, the GM may have some opportunity for input). I don't know how these abilities really leave room for MMI in most cases. I've included several that work slightly differently.

CUT A DEAL. You know anyone who’s anyone... Once per session, set up a meet with an NPC who can acquire you pretty much anything available in Spire. It won’t be free, though, and odds are they’ll want a favour or a cut too.

HEART’S DESIRE. ...And you know what they want. Once per situation, pick an NPC that you can observe for a while. The GM will tell you what they want most of all right now.

SURPRISE INFILTRATION. Nothing can keep you out. Once per session, insert yourself into a situation where you are not currently present, so long as there’s some conceivable way you could get in there.

LAY OF THE LAND. You are a trained hunter, and others would do well to heed your words. When you enter a dangerous situation, you can name up to three features or opportunities that your allies can take advantage of. The first time you or an ally uses an opportunity, they roll with mastery (for example: cover with a good view of the battlefield, an exit, a badly-guarded door, a stack of barrels, etc).

DRAW A CROWD. You can pull together a crowd at a moment’s notice. Once per session, you can draw a crowd to you in a matter of minutes. People will stop what they’re doing, so long as it isn’t life-or-death, and listen to what you have to say.

PUBCRAWLER. You bear an encyclopedic knowledge of where to get drunk. Once per game, name a nearby bar, pub or inn where you know the landlord (whether they like you or not is up to the GM).

FIND CONNECTION. [Occult] You use the unique capabilities of the Vermissian Vault to unlock secrets about a target. Once per session, declare that two NPCs are connected somehow – ask the GM in what way.

With the exception of "Find Connection", these are all core abilities that come with different classes. They will come up in the game. As characters advance, they gain even more powerful abilities along these lines. I've kept my examples to these earlier ones to keep things simple, and to show the range of player capability using just the core abilities.

It's hard to see how these abilities could be made to be MMI. At least, not without just abandoning any attempt at principled GMing. The game expects the GM to honor these abilities and facilitate them, not allow or approve them. They happen, and the GM can't override them.

I think that's likely the big difference. With MMI, the GM is choosing to allow actions or not, to allow them to succeed or not, to use dice to decide or not. It's all up to the GM. With the examples above, that's simply not the case. The player is declaring what happens, and the GM needs to respond in some way. The game gives the players these abilities allowing them to declare facts about NPCs, the presence of a nearby pub, to relevant strategic features of a given area, to insinuate themselves into a situation.... just so much that the players can declare that obliges the GM.

In that sense, they work much like spells in D&D. The D&D player declares they're casting a spell, and the rules give a specific process for what happens as a result. The GM is meant to honor the results. However, not all the abilities in Spire are magical in nature. Some of them are simply there to give players authority over the fiction to represent character-based knowledge (the player-characters are not "strangers in a strange land" but rather denizens of the city in which the game takes place).

 

[clearstream]

Here is the text for Tricks of the Trade (DW p 138):

When you pick locks or pockets or disable traps, roll+DEX.​

​

✴On a 10+, you do it, no problem.​

✴On a 7–9, you still do it, but the GM will offer you two options between suspicion, danger, or cost.​

Applying Apocalypse World principles (I don't know Dungeon World so well, but think it's more-or-less the same), when you do it, the GM makes a soft move. It's no different from any other time when the table looks to the GM to say something.

In my example, the - let's say halfling - has said what outcome they want. They find the dirt in the chest. But the move doesn't resolve that: it only resolves whether you "pick locks or pockets or disable traps". A 10+ for sure picks the lock... but who decides what's in the chest?

Like @FrogReaver, I do agree with you that these systems have lessened vulnerability. Maybe even much lessened. Yet I feel morally certain that under each system, rule-following or not-following, inadequately principled or misaligned on expectations, participants may still experience MMI.

 

[Cadence]

@hawkeyefan Thank you for the great examples! (I'm definitely going to look up Spire to steal some ideas from to hack and splice into stuff).

Moved this one out of order to frame things

It's hard to see how these abilities could be made to be MMI. At least, not without just abandoning any attempt at principled GMing. The game expects the GM to honor these abilities and facilitate them, not allow or approve them. They happen, and the GM can't override them.

CUT A DEAL. You know anyone who’s anyone... Once per session, set up a meet with an NPC who can acquire you pretty much anything available in Spire. It won’t be free, though, and odds are they’ll want a favour or a cut too.

Who decides what is "available" and what is "pretty much anything"?
Who decides how much of a favor is appropriate? Is it an actual deal if the price is really high?
"I want them to get me the kings magic sword that he always has with him" feels bad?

HEART’S DESIRE. ...And you know what they want. Once per situation, pick an NPC that you can observe for a while. The GM will tell you what they want most of all right now.

It feels like there is a lot of room between really wanting a slice of chocolate cake and someone to talk to right now, and wanting not to be an orphan. Is there something constraining the GM to make it a desire useful to the player? (Is this supposed to just be insight into the NPC or something obviously actionable? What rules constraints are on the GM to make it useful?)

SURPRISE INFILTRATION. Nothing can keep you out. Once per session, insert yourself into a situation where you are not currently present, so long as there’s some conceivable way you could get in there.

Who decides what's conceivable?

Can I get into the locked guarded vault in the heavily guarded high security government facility as easily as I get into the local sheriffs records room?

PUBCRAWLER. You bear an encyclopedic knowledge of where to get drunk. Once per game, name a nearby bar, pub or inn where you know the landlord (whether they like you or not is up to the GM).

Need to remind myself this game is all set in the one city!

FIND CONNECTION. [Occult] You use the unique capabilities of the Vermissian Vault to unlock secrets about a target. Once per session, declare that two NPCs are connected somehow – ask the GM in what way.

All set in the one city. Are there tourists/out-of-towners? It feels like there is a big difference from "they both come from poor families", "they both arrived in town five years ago", and "they both played on the championship youth soccer team under coach Smith back in '14". What in the rules constrains the GM to make it useful?

 

[Umbran]

It's a rubbish theory...

I'm not minded to disprove this nonsense.

Mod Note:
Hey. You realize that your personal disdain is not a meaningful point of reason, right? Being mean about it doesn't strengthen your point, and we have little use for the interpersonal aggression implied.

Even if folks have "rubbish ideas" we expect you to treat them well.

 

[Manbearcat]

Elsewhere I’ve written briefly about one of the great virtues of Apocalypse World design is that it bins moves in one of 3 buckets:

* Know/establish stuff

* Offense

* Defense

Then you bring in the basic outcome scheme:

10+ you get what you want

7-9 you get what you want but it’s complicated/there is a cost (which may be reduced effect; you get some of what you want)

6- GM makes a move as hard as they like (constrained by all of the rest of system/fiction)


The way AW’s matrix (including the rest of the system) undermines a situation like has been discussed in this thread is that a Background Trait like @hawkeyefan ’s PC possessed falls into one of those bins above and then dice are rolled to determine the the narration constraints upon move resolution.

So, it seems to me that the Folk Hero’s move was the equivalent of the below move from The Fox (Rogue) playbook of Stonetop:

THE PRODIGAL RETURNED

You left long ago, travelling far and living by your wits. Why did you leave? What deeds do you boast of, and which do you regret?
You always longed to return to Stonetop, and return you have. You’re a bit of a celebrity now, and you’ve got friends (or close enough) strewn about the known world.

When you declare that you know someone outside of Stonetop, someone who can help, name them and roll +CHA: on a 10+, yeah, they can help (tell us why they’re willing); on a 7-9, they can help but pick 1 from the list below; on a 6-, the GM chooses 1 and then some.

• They still hold a grudge
• They’re going to need something from you first
• They swore off this sort of thing long ago
• You can’t exactly, y’know, trust them

---

The following should be clear when evaluating the situation:

* The help that @hawkeyefan was looking for was Defense (hide us away in this barn to foil our pursuit).

* If this situation was in a game of Stonetop, on a 10+ (a) the player gets their (Defense) intent realized and then (b) gets to establish stuff about both the setting, the characters, and the situation.

* On a 7-9, they have narrational rights on the constraints over how their situation is complicated meaning they get what they want with reduced effect or strings attached or a differently oriented conflicted situation (player’s call).

This is before even getting into all the constraints that the GM persists under when running the game. So if you’re making a move that Establishes Stuff (which you’ll then use for Offense or Defense after), then the stuff is established (now put it to use). If you’re making a move that Defends you from threat/trouble, the threat/trouble doesn’t come to bear upon you. If you’re making a move to go on the Offense against a threat/trouble, then you change the situation positively (which could be removing HP, establishing a controlling effect, or enticing an NPC toward your sought end). Now in each of these, there are going to be constraints/prerequisites (eg Establishing Stuff can’t violate already established stuff, you can’t Persuade someone without leverage/addressing their Instinct, you can’t Defend someone without being there to intercept the blow…etc), but these constraints aren’t gated behind GM-facing extrapolation of backstory/ecology/mythology/complex physical & social systems colliding in myriad ways. They’re table-facing and/or trivially knowable to the table.

So I would hope that the disparity between what happened in hawkeyefan’s game draws a stark and easy contrast. Hawkeyefan thought he was using THE PRODIGAL RETURNED and that it was a 10+ result. His GM turned the player-perceived 10+ result (by either GM-facing extrapolation or by GM Force because he wanted the conflict with the guard) into a 6- result OR the 7-9 result and THEN chose the complication for the player; You can’t exactly, y’know, trust them (he got a rest out of it, but didn’t get the full “escape from pursuit” that he would have gotten on either a 10+ or any 7-9 result that isn’t complicated by You can’t exactly, y’know, trust them.

That is a huge difference in MMI-itude.