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

[Ovi]

Spoiler: Charm Person

You attempt to charm a humanoid you can see within range. It must make a Wisdom saving throw, and does so with advantage if you or your companions are fighting it. If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it. The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance. When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 1st. The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them.

Charm Person

You attempt to charm a humanoid you can see within range. It must make a Wisdom saving throw, and does so with advantage if you or your c...

www.dndbeyond.com

Player:"I cast charm person DCxx">GM: "it fails the save">????? underpants ???? >GM: "It backstabs you"

The answer to if it's acceptable or not for the gm to use the backstab thing depends on underpants. I either don't understand at all what you are asking. Alternately I understand the question but need details for underpants that might lead to the backstab or need details for what the backstab is that skips over underpants. Possibly some combination of all 3.

The example explicitly states there are no underpants that appear in play. Is this chain okay to you if underpants includes the GM engaging in solo imagination of things happening in the fiction that cause the backstabbing to occur?

 

[Hussar]

I would point out something to clarify.

At no point did I say that "all systems are equally susceptible to MMI". That's something that got added in by something else.

What I did say, and @Snarf Zagyg nicely quoted the necessary text from a critique of one of the games, was that all RPG's will inevitably have someone at the table who will determine the outcome of situations where the outcome is in question. That's just how all RPG's are played. So, all RPG's can have MMI play, when play is dysfunctional. When someone at the table is playing in bad faith, that's when you have true MMI situations.

Now, bad faith might be entirely unintentional. It's true. You can have perfectly well intentioned rulings on results that lead to MMI. It happens. Which means that MMI situations occur IN PLAY. They are not the consequences of playing this or that system. MMI is the consequence of dysfunctional play.

 

[Ovi]

I'm not sure "Assuming everyone will put the same priority on following the rules in every situation" doesn't seem any better. One ignores the design present, the other assumes the design is sufficient in almost all cases. Neither seem likely to be assessing the reality in the wild very well.

Yeah, people might choose to ignore the rules. Then what they do can't be attributed to the rules. So if we're looking at what the rules do for play, how can someone choosing to do a different thing in violation of those rules be probative at all on what the rules do?

I'm terribly confused by this line of argument. I feel like I keep saying "if you want to evaluate a system, you need to actually use that system as it's presented to see what it does." And that's getting countered by, "but what if you don't follow the system, then what can you say about the system?" I... so very confused.

 

[pemerton]

At no point did I say that "all systems are equally susceptible to MMI". That's something that got added in by something else.

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

The degree of difficulty seems like it may not matter that much, if none of those difficulties is hard. But in any even, I've nominated some systems which I don't think can be turned into "Mother may I?"

all RPG's will inevitably have someone at the table who will determine the outcome of situations where the outcome is in question. That's just how all RPG's are played. So, all RPG's can have MMI play, when play is dysfunctional.

If the player is determining the outcome, how can there by "Mother may I?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, people might choose to ignore the rules. Then what they do can't be attributed to the rules. So if we're looking at what the rules do for play, how can someone choosing to do a different thing in violation of those rules be probative at all on what the rules do?

Its not. But how games actually end up being played are composed of a number of elements, and while rules can be an important one, they're not necessarily the dominant one.

I'm terribly confused by this line of argument. I feel like I keep saying "if you want to evaluate a system, you need to actually use that system as it's presented to see what it does." And that's getting countered by, "but what if you don't follow the system, then what can you say about the system?" I... so very confused.

Well, in my case its likely because the discussion I'm having is not quite the one you are; your posts are simply a springboard.

 

[Hussar]

The degree of difficulty seems like it may not matter that much, if none of those difficulties is hard. But in any even, I've nominated some systems which I don't think can be turned into "Mother may I?"

If the player is determining the outcome, how can there by "Mother may I?"

Look, @pemerton, I'm sure you know these systems far better than I. Fair enough. But, are these completely refereeless systems? Is there a referee? If yes, then there is someone, at some point, who can determine outcomes. Even the player's narration of outcomes can be influenced by a referee simply by altering the input states. There are just so many ways that the referee, if they want to, can force MMI situations.

Is it harder in these systems? Maybe. I have no idea. I don't play those games and I'll take your word for it. But, it seems in this thread that people insist that an obviously negative term, MMI, is somehow neutral and it's not. It's always a negative term. And, in play, where MMI is found, not between the covers of a book, but in actual play, I find it extremely difficult to believe that it's impossible to devolve play into MMI.

 

[Ovi]

It suggests that games that place their principals heavily on one kind of output here are somehow different in kind and result than those that don't. I don't think that even follows from acknowledging there's a difference in their priorities. Further, associating them with D&D suggests that some of these games are more like D&D than Dungeon World is, which is, at best, a bit of a reach.

Yes, they are different in kind. This is a separate point from my claim that treating the system as suggestions in all parts was born with D&D, and is still a strong theme in the D&D community. This is trivially proven by exploring a number of threads on this board.

I'm arguing that Dungeon World is as D&D-inspired in any general meaning as any number of non PbtA games. D&D, among other things, at one time had no particular expectation that the GM would direct things toward a "story" than does PbtA. That was a relatively latter-day evolution. In that respects, games that actively direct things toward a story are as alien to OD&D as anything in PbtA is, just in a different direction. As such, calling them "D&D-born" either understates the influence on both or overstates the influence on one.

I... how did we get here. I've never once spoken about story in this thread. The bits this thread have followed have been about principles being an integral part of some RPG systems and not integral to others, and that the overall D&D culture has a strong streak of viewing rules as non-binding. I'm not going to respond to claims involving stories, or that DW is inspired by D&D in some way. Not relevant.

Its not an argument that people like total chaos; its an argument that even among people who play games with avowed principals, only a limited subset consider sticking to those under all circumstances compelling. And that becomes more and more true the farther away you get from a game with a more specific play-cycle intention. There are going to be plenty of people who buy Apocalypse World to run games in a post-apocalypse setting; to the degree staying within its intended principals serve their needs, they'll do so, and to the extent it doesn't, they won't. Any assumption that the majority of people will not ignore your design at least some of the time is a misperception of how games are treated by the majority of people--as tools to an end. And its anything but clear that's a failure of process as long as they mostly get the result they want out of it.

The initial claim here is extraordinary, and therefore needs some evidence to back it up. Everyone I've seen that dismisses the intended principles of play in, say, DW also has a high correlation to reporting a poor experience with the game because the system didn't work for what they tried to do.

As an example in point, maybe they're using Apocalypse World because they want the relative simplicity, the die range and the making-things-snowball elements, and no one could really care less about the player facing nature of the rules. If so, they'll ignore the latter without a qualm and probably get just what they want out of it.

They aren't playing AW at that point. They're playing some hack that has little to do with how AW is designed, and they probably have a number of kludges in place to mitigate how the remainder of the system fails to produce coherent play.

Not my argument at all. At worst you could reframe my argument as "Tools are used as they're used." I consider the hobby full of people using the wrong tool for the job they're trying for (if you search for the phrase "You can pound nails with a wrench" you'd probably find my name pop up more than once), but its also full of people using systems in ways absolutely not intended who get good value out of it. The issue is how much thinking the end user has done with what he wants the rules to do and what set he chooses for that purpose, not what the designer of those rules thought would and should be done with it. But that does not mean I think every use of rules does that.

That's "system doesn't matter." If you look at a system as a set of tools where you use what you want to when you want to and make up the rest as needed, then you can do this with any system with the same level of success. You're also playing the same game regardless of the system, which is going to be 'what the GM says.'

(That said, as an aside, for people genuinely dedicated to "rulings not rules", rules usually don't matter, because all they're using them for is a framework to hang their decision making on them. In extreme cases, they could probably just have people write down a summary of their character concept and roll some die set when questions of success came and adjucate it from their internal model and understanding of the characters and the situation and move on. This is about as far away from what I want that you can't even see it from there, but its clearly result that is both desirable and functional to some people).

Right, system doesn't matter.

Whereas I think system quite matters, but that does not make it unitary in how high a priority it is in what you're doing. Among other things, to make that true requires a fair more schematic system than I want to be in play for it to apply 100% of the time and work properly.

Your arguments have been to explicitly argue that actually using a system as designed is uncommon (needs evidence) and/or that people would feel too constrained by doing so (also need evidence).

No, it assumes that there's no meaningful middle ground here that is defensible. That requires people to defend specific positions they do not share because of the excluded middle. I am not a fan of a take on running a game that considers mechanics simply a tool of convenience, but neither am I going to be in the corner with assuming they cannot be ignored when they aren't serving the game and players purpose, either.

There is no middle ground between "uses the system as designed" and "ignored parts of the system as convenient." These can't coexist and so can't create a "middle ground" where you do both. This should be as obvious as the fact that there's no middle ground between having teat and having no tea.

 

[Ovi]

Its not. But how games actually end up being played are composed of a number of elements, and while rules can be an important one, they're not necessarily the dominant one.

And, if that's the case, you're ignoring the system when convenient, so in an argument about how the system works and what play it produces, this input is not probative of anything.

Well, in my case its likely because the discussion I'm having is not quite the one you are; your posts are simply a springboard.

Wait, your claim here is that you're not responding to my points? I'm extra confused now. That doesn't appear to be the case at all.

 

[pemerton]

it seems in this thread that people insist that an obviously negative term, MMI, is somehow neutral and it's not. It's always a negative term.

I don't see how you can assert that a term is always negative when a poster in this thread - @Ovi - is asserting that their 5e play is "Mother may I?" and that this is one of the things that make the play successful.

Look, @pemerton, I'm sure you know these systems far better than I. Fair enough. But, are these completely refereeless systems? Is there a referee? If yes, then there is someone, at some point, who can determine outcomes. Even the player's narration of outcomes can be influenced by a referee simply by altering the input states. There are just so many ways that the referee, if they want to, can force MMI situations.

Is it harder in these systems? Maybe. I have no idea. I don't play those games and I'll take your word for it.

<snip>

And, in play, where MMI is found, not between the covers of a book, but in actual play, I find it extremely difficult to believe that it's impossible to devolve play into MMI.

Mother May I depends upon the GM having permission to narrate an outcome independently of the players' desire for how it will resolve and independently of whether or not the player succeeds on a check or expends a "fiat" ability (like a D&D spell, or Rustic Hospitality). If the GM doesn't enjoy that permission, they can't do the Mother May I thing!

This is why, in this thread, so much attention has been focused on the 5e play loop, which states that the GM narrates outcomes and doesn't state any constraints on that narration.

Now consider 4e D&D. The rules say that the players can establish quests for their PCs, and tell the GM to "try not to say no". The rules provide a system for resolving conflicts based on a certain number of successful checks. So a player establishes a quest for their PC, the skill challenge starts, and the players succeed on their checks. Where is the Mother May I? going to come into this?

If you're now going to tell me the GM can break the rules, ignore the priciples etc - OK, whatever. @hawkeyefan and his fellow players can do that to, ignoring the GM's narration of the Duke's soldiers and just keeping playing their PCs safely hiding in the barn.

The point is that @hawkeyefan's GM didn't have to break any rules or depart from any express principles to make the call they did.

 

[Ovi]

Look, @pemerton, I'm sure you know these systems far better than I. Fair enough. But, are these completely refereeless systems? Is there a referee? If yes, then there is someone, at some point, who can determine outcomes. Even the player's narration of outcomes can be influenced by a referee simply by altering the input states. There are just so many ways that the referee, if they want to, can force MMI situations.

Is it harder in these systems? Maybe. I have no idea. I don't play those games and I'll take your word for it. But, it seems in this thread that people insist that an obviously negative term, MMI, is somehow neutral and it's not. It's always a negative term. And, in play, where MMI is found, not between the covers of a book, but in actual play, I find it extremely difficult to believe that it's impossible to devolve play into MMI.

The system is entirely player facing -- the GM has no secret information that can influence play. So, if the GM is using secret info to impact play, that's noticeable and can be called out -- and is also a violation of the rules of play.

The mechanics state who's outcome occurs, not the GM. The GM cannot choose autofailure, period. Some systems allow autosuccess (the ones that use 'say yes or roll the dice'). So, if there's a question of if something happens, the system says what happens. All stakes are open, and negotiate prior to the roll, and the rules require that whoever narrates must honor those stakes and cannot walk them back or mitigate them without more play.

So, in this case, everything about resolution is in the open, and the system says who gets the say and under what constraints, and everyone is required to honor the results of the system. So, unless someone is already engaged in bad faith by ignoring or breaking the rules of the game, it's impossible for one person to have to approve of an action for it to occur. The GM lacks that authority. The players lack that authority.