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

[FrogReaver]

Q. Why do you bang your head repeatedly against the wall?

A. Because it feels so good when I stop.

Q: why join us when you know it will hurt?
A: so I can feel good telling you how bad it hurts.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Im not sure your intent. So instead I’ll just bluntly ask - what prompted your comment against all games are equally susceptible to MMI, and what was the intent of that comment?

I think it was mostly the following post from @Hussar

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.

I don't think that a GM having the ability to narrate results means that play must be Mother May I. So I posted examples from a non-5E game that I recently ran that had examples of abilities similar to Rustic Hospitality in that they're player initiated and require input from the GM (and so don't "seize control" as @tetrasodium has claimed), but which, when combined with the GMing principles offered by the game's text, don't succumb to Mother May I.

Also, What can i say or do to convince you that I do not believe all games are equally susceptible to MMI?

I don't think you need to do so? You're quoting a post I made that wasn't a response to you, didn't quote you or mention you, and asking me why I made this post in relation to you. Or at least, that's how it seems to me. If I've misunderstood, let me know!

That's not what I said. If you notice, there are a large number of very, very thoughtful people who post regularly about 5e. I know this because I see them in other threads discussing these issues.

....these thoughtful people who are so prominent in other threads don't bother communicating in these threads . I'm reasonably certain you've noticed that.

I don't know, plenty of people have been involved. I haven't been worried about tracking who and how thoughtful I think they are overall. What I can say is that there has been plenty of thoughtful posting by the people who have been involved.

And even if you didn't mean to criticize those who have been involved, I just wanted you to be aware how it may seem.

That's not what I was referring to. I do think it has been repeatedly (and proudly) pointed out that at least one regular contributor to these conversations about the deficits of 5e doesn't play 5e, and never has.

So you want to discard the entire conversation because there's one person involved who hasn't played 5E? Or do you just want that one person to not be involved?

If I've followed your thinking correctly (and I certainly may not have), you don't like how @Manbearcat took an example of 5E play (an actual example from a game I played in) that contained a bit of questionable GMing... the severity of how questionable seeming to be in contention among many here... and then showed how using the more specific process that Apocalypse World has in place for determining these things, makes it more obvious how things went wrong, or why they felt wrong to the player involved?

I don't think there's anything wrong with using other games to help us shed light on GMing issues, or processes of play, and the like. I know sometimes this stuff may not always be clear to all involved, but that doesn't mean it can't help the conversation, even if clarification is needed.

I just posted a whole bunch of stuff from Spire. I don't expect that it will all be crystal clear to everyone reading, but I can clarify as needed.

As I wrote- it's a critique. It's been a critique since Mike Mearls first coined it to announce the superiority of 3e to other styles of play, and it continues to be a critique today.

If you want to have a true "5e conversation," then perhaps it would be a good idea to ... have a conversation about 5e? With other people (I can think of quite a few here!) that play and DM a lot of 5e, and have a lot of experience discussing and detailing the issues with DM adjudication in 5e games and how they handle it, and best practices.

Something tells me that this would be a very different conversation. I don't think that's the conversation people are having. I'm not the boss of the thread though, and the OP (in relation to 5e) was answered in the first few pages, so I assume you're happy with the thread drift.

Having a conversation about 5E with others who play it is literally what I've been doing. I've been talking about my experiences both running and playing 5E, with a significant bulk of that being the example of the Rustic Hospitality feature of the Folk Hero, and how it played out in my game, and how it could have been done differently. I've recently shared some examples from my Spire game to contrast things a bit.

Why is it not a "true 5E conversation"? Do you feel 5E has not been sufficiently represented? Why would it be so different if others were involved?

The OP asked people what they thought MMI meant in relation to 5e. I wouldn't say that the OP was, or can be, "answered" in the sense that each person may have their own take on what it means to them.

My contention has been that it is indeed a critique (others have said they feel that it's simply the default structure of 5E, and although I can see why, I tend to think of it a bit differently), but it's a valid critique. Not to place 3E or any other system above any other, but simply as a pitfall that is to be avoided. I think I've been clear on that.

 

[clearstream]

Heh. To be fair, maybe the mark of thoughtfulness is not being involved in a discussion that is now over 1,000 comments.

And to be even more fair, your comment was aimed at me, wasn't it. A barb for that one time I didn't agree with you about FKR.

FKR... have we discussed MMI in FKR yet?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And to be even more fair, your comment was aimed at me, wasn't it. A barb for that one time I didn't agree with you about FKR.

FKR... have we discussed MMI in FKR yet?

Needz moar acronymz.

 

[clearstream]

I don't think that a GM having the ability to narrate results means that play must be Mother May I. So I posted examples from a non-5E game that I recently ran that had examples of abilities similar to Rustic Hospitality in that they're player initiated and require input from the GM (and so don't "seize control" as @tetrasodium has claimed), but which, when combined with the GMing principles offered by the game's text, don't succumb to Mother May I.

I've argued all through that principles, and not rules, are the greater part of avoiding MMI. What do you think? Does that sound right to you?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've argued all through that principles, and not rules, are the greater part of avoiding MMI. What do you think? Does that sound right to you?

I think having a clear set of principles is a big part of it. I think that's something 5E lacks.

I don't know if I agree that it's more important than rules, though. I mean, in most of the other games I run or play, we tend to treat the principles as if they were rules. Like, they're not really optional, even if they're not as specific or codified as rules tend to be.

But I don't know if I would disagree either. I feel they're equally important, or that the importance of one over the other will likely vary depending on circumstances.

 

[Ovi]

I think having a clear set of principles is a big part of it. I think that's something 5E lacks.

I don't know if I agree that it's more important than rules, though. I mean, in most of the other games I run or play, we tend to treat the principles as if they were rules. Like, they're not really optional, even if they're not as specific or codified as rules tend to be.

But I don't know if I would disagree either. I feel they're equally important, or that the importance of one over the other will likely vary depending on circumstances.

In other games, like PbtA or FitD or BW derived games, the principles ARE rules. It's only if you come from the D&D-born mindset that anything in the book is just a suggestion that you get to anywhere that you'd consider them not rules.

ETA -- this is supporting your points, not disputing them.

 

[Campbell]

My personal feeling is that the following are all rules and you need them all to make a game work:
1. Mechanics
2. Procedures
3. Principles

I feel like when we regard principles as distinct from rules we might not regard them as prescriptively as we should.

 

[tetrasodium]

My argument has nothing to do with your claims of soft power as a failing of 5e. I don't agree with your position, but I see where you're standing there, and it's rather orthogonal to the points I'm making.

That might be your "argument", but it's missing a lot & skipping more. to make that claim. The player assuming that they were capable of seizing responsibilities from the GM is why the example became an example of MMI. In that case the PCs are insulated from risk & attrition to a degree wildly beyond past editions causing the players to react with nonchalance to take a long rest even while the duke's men are actively searching for then. The GM's inability to telegraph risk multiple steps out without needing to make that risk crash into the PCs directly caused them to disregard that risk & assume they could seize the GM role as part of their action. In other cases the inability for NPCs in the world to reward PCs with anything they might need causes the players to do similar or opt out refusing to proactively take actions without being forced in some way. In both cases the GM is unable to use that soft power to guide players away from making bad assumptions & attempting to seize roles not granted to players.

D&d5e is not a shared narrative story focused game like some of the ones referenced recently in the last couple pages, it just problematically pretends with incomplete shared narrative style features like BIFTs & various background features dumped on the gm to finish while absolving players from any responsibility or consequence in the way it neglects to include gm side push tools from shared narrative games or (dis)incentive tools standard to past editions of d&d.

In other games, like PbtA or FitD or BW derived games, the principles ARE rules. It's only if you come from the D&D-born mindset that anything in the book is just a suggestion that you get to anywhere that you'd consider them not rules.

ETA -- this is supporting your points, not disputing them.

Exactly d&d5e is lacking both the gm side of those shared narrative game tools as well as the traditional d&d style risk/reward (dis)incentivizing tools d&d is known for. The GM is still expected to provide them because it's d&d but the players don't need to care if either of those are telegraphed in unfavorable ways so the GM winds up in this figurehead role.

 

[Ovi]

That might be your "argument", but it's missing a lot & skipping more. to make that claim. The player assuming that they were capable of seizing responsibilities from the GM is why the example became an example of MMI. In that case the PCs are insulated from risk & attrition to a degree wildly beyond past editions causing the players to react with nonchalance to take a long rest even while the duke's men are actively searching for then. The GM's inability to telegraph risk multiple steps out without needing to make that risk crash into the PCs directly caused them to disregard that risk & assume they could seize the GM role as part of their action. In other cases the inability for NPCs in the world to reward PCs with anything they might need causes the players to do similar or opt out refusing to proactively take actions without being forced in some way. In both cases the GM is unable to use that soft power to guide players away from making bad assumptions & attempting to seize roles not granted to players.

D&d5e is not a shared narrative story focused game like some of the ones referenced recently in the last couple pages, it just problematically pretends with incomplete shared narrative style features like BIFTs & various background features dumped on the gm to finish while absolving players from any responsibility or consequence in the way it neglects to include gm side push tools from shared narrative games or (dis)incentive tools standard to past editions of d&d.

Exactly d&d5e is lacking both the gm side of those shared narrative game tools as well as the traditional d&d style risk/reward (dis)incentivizing tools d&d is known for. The GM is still expected to provide them because it's d&d but the players don't need to care if either of those are telegraphed in unfavorable ways so the GM winds up in this figurehead role.

I'm curious how far this goes. If a player declares their PC casts, say, Charm Person at a target, and the GM says that it works, is it a failure on the part of the player to expect things if the GM then says that the charmed target stabs the PC in the back without any more play occurring?