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

[FrogReaver]

I think it may be hindering our discussion in that the primary example we have discussed leverages the notion of player intent vs dm decision to say no.

What if we are in a system where intent doesn’t matter? How does that change things? What if the players only intent in using that ability was to ‘see what happens’.

Maybe we have been focusing too much on GM principles and not enough on Player principles when discussing MMI.

 

[clearstream]

As best I can recall the thread, no one has posted an actual example of Mother May I play from 4e D&D, from Apocalypse World, from In A Wicked Age, from Agon or from Burning Wheel.

It's been awhile since I ran 4e, but the designers provided us with a case that came up at the time as an example of MMI. "The Negotiation" sample Skill Challenge gives this DM ruling

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Auto-fail on whatever you try using Intimidate. I think that squarely qualifies as MMI to some players.

 

[Ovi]

I have not been following this thread, so apologies if this is out of context with the current discussion. However, I saw this on twitter and it made me think of the earlier discussion here. RAW, 5e is very dm-centric, and there was discussion of how more codified rules, procedures and subsystems, or dm principles might give more agency to players. However, when I look at what people say about the experience of DMing 5e, it's actually the opposite: that 5e play culture is very player-centric, and it is rather the DM that needs more mechanics and subsystems (crafting, etc) for the sake of more consistently enforcing their authority at the table.

The system is DM centered and initially built to support trad play, but there's been a strong intrusion of neotrad into the player base. Most of these complaints are described clearly by the differences in play culture between a trad GM and neotrad players. And 5.5 looks like it's following the playerbase and leaning more into neotrad. The progression of the splats has moved in that direction clearly with the last three or four.

 

[Malmuria]

The system is DM centered and initially built to support trad play, but there's been a strong intrusion of neotrad into the player base. Most of these complaints are described clearly by the differences in play culture between a trad GM and neotrad players. And 5.5 looks like it's following the playerbase and leaning more into neotrad. The progression of the splats has moved in that direction clearly with the last three or four.

Yeah, it's just interesting that analyzing RAW, we can come to the conclusion that 5e might be predisposed to MMI, and one way to solve this might me more codified rules, procedures, principles, etc. But looking at the actual play culture, people describe the complete opposite experience.

 

[Ovi]

I don’t play those games so I don’t have an example. I’d be willing to work together with you to craft a hypothetical example but this is very much something that has to go both ways.

You can't assign homework to others to prove your own claims. They're yours; the only burden to show them correct is on you.

 

[Ovi]

I think it may be hindering our discussion in that the primary example we have discussed leverages the notion of player intent vs dm decision to say no.

What if we are in a system where intent doesn’t matter? How does that change things? What if the players only intent in using that ability was to ‘see what happens’.

Maybe we have been focusing too much on GM principles and not enough on Player principles when discussing MMI.

What if the sky was red? Unsupported counterfactuals don't actually do work to disprove things.

The push that players should be the ones constrained such that they should have no expectations of play except to receive what the GM presents is interesting, but I don't see how it avoids MMI -- it leans into it more heavily with a "players should just expect this and like it."

 

[FrogReaver]

What a strange concept, that a DM needs help to enforce their authority. You just say "this is my ruling". If your players aren't happy, they can try their hand at being DM.

Granted, I tend to be much more open about the reasoning behind my rulings, and I try to stick to the rules as written unless they are demonstrably inane, but what do you need, THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT printed on the top of each page in bright red ink?

This all depends on the social contract at the table. The DM is only right so long as the players consent to that. The DM can try to force the issue by saying ‘fine I won’t dm, you do it’ or he can be more open with players about his DMing to build but in to agreeing to abide by his decisions.

 

[tetrasodium]

What a strange concept, that a DM needs help to enforce their authority. You just say "this is my ruling". If your players aren't happy, they can try their hand at being DM.

Granted, I tend to be much more open about the reasoning behind my rulings, and I try to stick to the rules as written unless they are demonstrably inane, but what do you need, THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT printed on the top of each page in bright red ink?

I I think @Malmuria hit the nail on the head. 5eis heavy on rulings not rules & that's fine in theory but there is precious little supporting the gm in actually making rulings alongside boatloads of rules in favor of the players .

Take the new long rest. 8 hours minus two of light activities but interrupted by combat. Sounds great yea.... Then you have trance now Bob only needs six but they aren't asleep so are they awake & keeping watch? But bob only needs six so can cut that to four right? Oh alice & Dave have trance too so 3/5 of the group only need 4 hours & the watch cycle pretty much includes the entire group....

• If you are going to have the ability for a player to stay on guard during a long rest then spell it out rather than making the gm declare if it happened when alice or bob was outside of their window, that's especially true as more races get this kind of thing.
• If you are going to have a thing that allows a player to ignore penalties for not sleeping after x or X+y hours of activity there needs to be a rule for what they are & when they kick in so the GM can transparently point to them rather than have players glaring daggers at them when they make up a penalty.
• If a race is going to be immune to the sleep spell make a sleep condition for it to be immune to & similar effects can impose it.

The don't need sleep thing worked in 3.5 for warforge because they were pretty often spending that time using tools to repair the damage they suffered & had difficulty being healed not by dumping a tangled mess of "you are the gm, you make it work" on the gm

Then there's the foul cherry on top of the whole mess. Notice the only areas in that left to the GM are "huzzah be extra permissive to this player" vrs "run as normal to that player & say you don't care about their ability". If 5e gave a lick about empowering the GM instead of

Spoiler: new long rest as written

LONG REST
A Long Rest is a period of extended downtime at least 8 hours long during which a creature sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch.

we would have

Spoiler: Something like this

LONG REST
A Long Rest is a period of extended downtime commensurate with the adventuring activities since the last long rest during which a creature sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch. Then stick a sentence somewhere in the dmg explaining "8 hours is normally fine but the demands of story & hazards of adventuring can significantly extend that to days or even weeks but you are encouraged to be vague with timeframes like several hours a few days & week or so rather than specific to keep from encouraging gamified metagaming" or something

This kind of change shifts it from the GM clinging to "at least" & mincing words to expand it & arguments over if they are being fair to a thing where the players need to ask the GM "can we take a rest here & how long would it take?". That's important because taking a long rest out in the wilderness or stuffed in a broom closet to save the trek back to town is not so appealing if any combat during the next few days/weeks rather than 8 hours resets the clock

 

[Thomas Shey]

Between these two effects, you have the DMs genuinely believing they are fully acting in accordance with the rules--alignment can change, Paladins have a code, if Paladins cease to be LG or violate their code they instantly cease to be Paladins--and yet there was a huge pattern of forcing Paladins to fall, specifically by giving characters a situation where there were only two choices, a Good one that required breaking the law, and a Lawful choice that required doing something evil. If the Paladin chooses to do Good, they have broken their (unstated) Paladin oath, and thus fall. If the Paladin chooses to obey the Law, they've knowingly done an Evil act, which causes them to fall.

I used to refer to this as "Cuhullin's Dilemma". Fortunately, the majority of GMs I knew considered the Good element to trump the Lawful one for paladins, and thus provided an exit from that box, but what you say is literally how the explanation can be read.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Obviously you'll have to ask the GM if you try something not covered in the rules. Calling it a Mother may I playstyle is predetermining that it's wrong and childish. (bad way to start a conversation)

The problem is that to some this approach is problematic even with the best intentions on the part of the GM; that's because there's no assurance that any plans or assumptions they make will actually work or even have a chance of working until they consult with the GM. This means, at best, it can become about reading the GM, and at worst its about the GM primarily with the players' choices only relevant to the degree they match the GM's expectations.
So to many people its intrinsically problematic; "Mother May I" is a sarcastic, but not inaccurate way to describe how it feels to them. And this is more and more problematic the less ground where rules are relatively hardcoded (or where the GM involved ignores them frequently).

That doesn't make it a completely invalid approach, but it does mean to some people it really is pretty much anathema, and they're not going to view it any other way.