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

[clearstream]

It seems to me that the people saying this have a sampling problem.

Everyone has a sampling problem. I suspect that's why we see such divergent takes on questions like "What is it like to play D&D?"

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I define "mother may I" as a thread that cost me a player.

 

[clearstream]

Seeing as I say that MMI is the experience of a dysfunctional interaction, that yields something like the following...

1. P1 makes a decision
2. P2 and P1's expectations are aligned, so P2 does not experience MMI and there is no MMI in this case
3. P3 and P1s expectations are not aligned, so P3 experiences MMI and there is MMI in this case

Another view is that MMI is a quality of the decision, so that...

1. P1 makes a decision that has the quality of being MMI-invoking
2. P2 and P3 are both liable to experience MMI, because P1's decision has the quality of being MMI-invoking

These views combined present a multi-dimensional picture of MMI, that could look like this (in shorthand, to get at the ideas)

1. P1 makes a decision that has a quotient of MMI-liability (Mv, where v is value)
2. P2 has a tolerance to MMI (Tv) and there exists a degree of match in expectations between P1 and P2 (Xv)
3. If Tv is above Mv, P2 won't experience MMI (because the MMI-liability is below their tolerance)
4. If Xv is above Mv, P2 won't experience MMI (because the decision was made within their tolerances as translated into their shared expectations)

If I introduce the chain - act-result-outcome - I quickly see that the picture above is very complex. Each location on the chain can (and probably will) have a different set of values for M, T and X. If right, this would suggest a theory of MMI that accomodates the views expressed in this thread (insofar as I have understood them.) It would predict that

• Rules can reduce Mv, so that it is more likely Tv will be above Mv
• Principles can increase Xv, so that it is more likely Mv will be within Tv; but they must be shared to be effective, either tacitly or expressly (on this, there is far greater harmony on principles than disharmony, it's just that we notice the disharmonies!)
• Tolerance is a property of the participant, so it does not matter what rules and principles are in play after they reach an Mv within Tv
• Expectations are in the social contract and culture at the table, and where a participant goes along with (or does not articulate) expectations that in truth above their tolearnce, they are at risk of MMI, but not if the Mv is within their tolerance for other reasons

Something like that. Not yet fully worked out, but I like the way it could work to sustain multiple perspectives. Say I have a low tolerance for MMI-liable decisions (this is distinct in the construct from MMI, so do not confuse them!) Then an RPG with rules and principles that reduce the Mv could suit me well, as it makes it more likely that one way or another the Mv will never go over my tolerance. But then suppose I have other purposes that I prioritise, and my tolerance is high? It doesn't make any sense to say my sessions are MMI-prone in that case. I and my group can reliably enjoy MMI-free play so long as one way or another - even tacitly, as a matter of shared culture - our aligned expectations ensure decisions are always well within our tolerance.

Again, I see the definition of MMI as an experience of a dysfunctional interaction, as the linchpin of this theory. MMI does not exist where it is not experienced. A participant's tolerance may be such that they are at no risk of MMI regardless of what others might think about how they play. MMI is not inherent in decisions, it exists in interactions.

Freeform RPG sessions can be MMI-free: the absence of rules does not condemn them to continuous MMI. I think of it like this: suppose I randomly choose participants, principles and rules. In that case, I might as many posters do predict that I will observe MMI more often under some rulesets over others. But (and this is a pretty large but) I will also observe MMI more often given some participants over other (i.e. those with low tolerances.) Do I then say the fault is the participants... or is it the rules?

And most importantly, we do not choose randomly. We don't join random games, or if we do and they cannot be negotiated to our suiting, we move on... just as some posters have attested to. At the same time, vastly more combinations of participants (along with their cultures) join 5e games. With the obvious ramifications.

 

[FrogReaver]

Seeing as I say that MMI is the experience of a dysfunctional interaction, that yields something like the following...

1. P1 makes a decision
2. P2 and P1's expectations are aligned, so P2 does not experience MMI and there is no MMI in this case
3. P3 and P1s expectations are not aligned, so P3 experiences MMI and there is MMI in this case

Another view is that MMI is a quality of the decision, so that...

1. P1 makes a decision that has the quality of being MMI-invoking
2. P2 and P3 are both liable to experience MMI, because P1's decision has the quality of being MMI-invoking

These views combined present a multi-dimensional picture of MMI, that could look like this (in shorthand, to get at the ideas)

1. P1 makes a decision that has a quotient of MMI-liability (Mv, where v is value)
2. P2 has a tolerance to MMI (Tv) and there exists a degree of match in expectations between P1 and P2 (Xv)
3. If Tv is above Mv, P2 won't experience MMI (because the MMI-liability is below their tolerance)
4. If Xv is above Mv, P2 won't experience MMI (because the decision was made within their tolerances as translated into their shared expectations)

If I introduce the chain - act-result-outcome - I quickly see that the picture above is very complex. Each location on the chain can (and probably will) have a different set of values for M, T and X. If right, this would suggest a theory of MMI that accomodates the views expressed in this thread (insofar as I have understood them.) It would predict that

• Rules can reduce Mv, so that it is more likely Tv will be above Mv
• Principles can increase Xv, so that it is more likely Mv will be within Tv; but they must be shared to be effective, either tacitly or expressly (on this, there is far greater harmony on principles than disharmony, it's just that we notice the disharmonies!)
• Tolerance is a property of the participant, so it does not matter what rules and principles are in play after they reach an Mv within Tv
• Expectations are in the social contract and culture at the table, and where a participant goes along with (or does not articulate) expectations that in truth above their tolearnce, they are at risk of MMI, but not if the Mv is within their tolerance for other reasons

Something like that. Not yet fully worked out, but I like the way it could work to sustain multiple perspectives. Say I have a low tolerance for MMI-liable decisions (this is distinct in the construct from MMI, so do not confuse them!) Then an RPG with rules and principles that reduce the Mv could suit me well, as it makes it more likely that one way or another the Mv will never go over my tolerance. But then suppose I have other purposes that I prioritise, and my tolerance is high? It doesn't make any sense to say my sessions are MMI-prone in that case. I and my group can reliably enjoy MMI-free play so long as one way or another - even tacitly, as a matter of shared culture - our aligned expectations ensure decisions are always well within our tolerance.

Again, I see the definition of MMI as an experience of a dysfunctional interaction, as the linchpin of this theory. MMI does not exist where it is not experienced. A participant's tolerance may be such that they are at no risk of MMI regardless of what others might think about how they play. MMI is not inherent in decisions, it exists in interactions.

Freeform RPG sessions can be MMI-free: the absence of rules does not condemn them to continuous MMI. I think of it like this: suppose I randomly choose participants, principles and rules. In that case, I might as many posters do predict that I will observe MMI more often under some rulesets over others. But (and this is a pretty large but) I will also observe MMI more often given some participants over other (i.e. those with low tolerances.) Do I then say the fault is the participants... or is it the rules?

And most importantly, we do not choose randomly. We don't join random games, or if we do and they cannot be negotiated to our suiting, we move on... just as some posters have attested to. At the same time, vastly more combinations of participants (along with their cultures) join 5e games. With the obvious ramifications.

You forgot the Q.E.D.

 

[Campbell]

Fundamentally what moves a given game away from feeling like Mother May I to me is accountability. At the end of the day something needs to be binding - whether it's fictional positioning, rules or principles of play. If we're not accountable to one another what's the damn point? By accountability here I'm not just talking about feelings of responsibility, but genuine accountability where if expectations are not met we can have an actual conversation without any gaslighting or accusations of entitlement being thrown around. If we cannot reach an accord at that point we should be able to walk away without any sort of talk about rage quitting and the like.

I have similar feelings about players also being accountable to the group and have spoken at length about it on these boards. I think we all should be expected to respect each other's time and effort.

 

[chaochou]

Just to be clear, I view Mother May I as a game with a specific authority structure, and its use with regard to RPGs as describing games which mirror that authority structure.

Whether the resulting play is good or not, satisfying or not, functional or not are not answered by the classification as MMI.

However, in the Venn diagram of playstyles, MMI does not overlap with character-driven play or player-sided protagonism at all. So it is useful to be aware of the incompatabilities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Freeform RPG sessions can be MMI-free: the absence of rules does not condemn them to continuous MMI. I think of it like this: suppose I randomly choose participants, principles and rules. In that case, I might as many posters do predict that I will observe MMI more often under some rulesets over others. But (and this is a pretty large but) I will also observe MMI more often given some participants over other (i.e. those with low tolerances.) Do I then say the fault is the participants... or is it the rules?

I again turn to my "degenerative disease (such as cancer) is a dysfunction of cellular machinery" analogy. Cancer is what happens when cells cease to follow the "I'm part of a multicellular life form" model and instead begin to realign toward an "I'm a single-celled life form" model.

Certain people will have a high personal risk of developing cancer (e.g., those who have a family history of certain cancers), while others will have a low risk. Certain materials (foods, additives, consumables like cigarettes, construction materials like asbestos) have a quotient of cancer-liability, which we usually call "being w cercinogen." I want to stress that they don't contain cancer, cancer can ONLY occur in living cells.

Etc. I doubt I need to spell out the whole argument here. The fact that people don't randomly eat food or smoke or fly in airplanes (social and familial patterns exist) doesn't diminish the fact that tobacco smoke or continuously going to get a tan massively increases your risk of cancer, to the point of "it's less if and more when." The fact that some folks have a naturally lower risk of developing cancer is irrelevant to whether compounds can be carcinogenic. It matters for whether an individual person will develop cancer, which is of vital importance for managing health especially as we age. The fact that some folks can expose themselves to all sorts of carcinogens and die of "old age" rather than developing cancer is similarly irrelevant to whether substances or activities can be carcinogenic. It would be foolish in the extreme to conclude from these facts that diet, activities, and environment can be neglected.

Some rules have extremely high risk for MMI, but have or develop strong protection against these concerns. Some of these protections are formal and enforced, albeit not part of the mechanics themselves, analogous to nurses limiting the amount of X-ray exposure someone experiences as a result of medical examinations. Some of them are informal but highly recommend, analogous making sure to put on sunscreen if you're going to be out in the summer sun for an extended period and wearing a good hat that can protect your scalp. And some are a lot fuzzier and dependent on people being vigilant about small details that can easily be missed, analogous to being really careful about one's diet or the like. Finally, some may be entirely tacit and presumed, like smoking being generally understood to be bad for the smoker now (to the point that it is now used as a trope to indicate that a character does not care about their safety or well-being.)

Meanwhile, other systems are less susceptible to MMI because of their design. MMI depends on faults in communication (usually centered on deficient understanding of expectations, as you noted), sustained concentration of authority in a single specific participant, and an inability to address or correct issues other than by interrogating that authority. There may be other factors, but those seem to be the salient ones. This, a system which explicitly requires steps that contradict these things will avert or even eliminate MMI. If communication is heavily required simply to play the game, you will already cut off a lot of these risks. If authority is explicitly shared, then you forestall anyone becoming a "mother" in the first place; this sharing does not need to be symmetrical either, it just needs to be sufficiently complementary such that each participant has agency and a clear part to play in the process. If the game provides pre-defined structures and options which enable the lower authority participants ("players") to deal with and respond to issues without having to always jump through invisible hoops, then the "may I" side is curtailed, e.g. things like the X-card for meta level issues and things like spells or powers for IC situations. These rules design elements are separate from, but work in tandem with, the aforementioned policies, procedures, etc. that a game can develop to defend itself against this type of dysfunction.

I find that 5e does little to nothing of any of these actually-in-the-rules defenses against MMI, and in fact tends to go out of its way to avoid or undercut them. It encourages DMs to avoid direct communication, to conceal things and play fast and loose with what has been communicated. The game absolutely pushes the DM as the central and all-encompassing authority, with little to no cyclic exchange of authority and a strong emphasis on "you ask me, then I tell you" DMing. Other than spellcasting, which as in pre-4e editions is essentially the one bastion of respected player influence, everything is left so deeply in "ask your DM" territory that the rules themselves are reduced to suggestions.

Further, I find that of the non-mechanical policies, procedures, etc. that are meant to mitigate these issues, none of them are of the first two types. There are no formal steps for addressing these concerns outside of the rules, and at best minimal informal but highly recommended steps. Instead, it relies almost entirely on DM vigilance, players being willing to speak out, and the presumption that if something goes wrong, the DM will fix it.

That, to my mind, is exactly the recipe for a game to be rife with MMI problems. Both game design and game policy have had every formal, shared, open structure for addressing this issue removed or downplayed as much as humanly possible, leaving only soft-touch options, implications and social contract stuff, which is really, really easy to screw up or forget about or go overboard with.

And, as a result, I now have a better response for something mentioned upthread.

It's hard to know for sure, but it's certainly a running theme from 5e DMs. The author of the tweet I posted above also posted this a few weeks ago which got a lot of traction. Every time I check in on dndnext on reddit there are people complaining about the unbalanced power options on the character side and the expectations and lack of support on the dm side. It seems a lot of people who play pathfinder 2e feel that system offers more DM support, and thus recommend it to solve this problem.

My problem is, as I have only now realized, these DMs are putting the cart before the horse. They have confused cause and effect.

The fundamental underlying cause is, as they have noted, the hyperdependence on DMs to fix everything, everywhere, all at once, to be the clearinghouse, to adjudicate everything all the time. Initially, this led to a resurgence of what I'll call "Lite Viking Hat" DMing, in that it's still a dictatorship of the DM, but it was viewed as a liberation from stifling confinement "so things can finally get done," as it were, rather than the declaration of martial law. But all too quickly, this led to poor behavior on the part of DMs, and unfortunately, the old-timers collectively provided no help on this front. As this person notes (and as I have highlighted many times), the DM side of the culture of play was radically unhelpful; every rules-question thread would almost instantly get a ("We can't help you, ask your DM"/)"I am the DM and want help"/"You're the DM! Just do whatever you like!" interaction. This repeatedly reinforced on a cultural level that the DM should do whatever they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like.

This hit a problem when D&D started growing a fanbase much, much larger than the old one. Because the new players are not conditioned to meekly defer. They have no reason to; if they wanted to meekly defer to ironclad determinations, they could go play WoW or FFXIV or Elden Ring or whatever else. So they advocate for themselves. They talk back. When they're pushed, they lay down requests, and they do get upset when their requests are ignored or overruled, and they cry foul at the level of social contract and interpersonal respect. They have to. There is no other level to which they can appeal; the rules are but suggestions, the culture of play is DM power über alles, and the principles (and other policies/procedures) have been intentionally gutted of any formal content that can be drawn upon or referenced.

The fans of the oldest school stuff have gotten exactly what they asked for. You only have conversation between adults as the solution to any problem. The DM is the absolute, unquestioned and unquestionable, universal, unilateral authority, with the game being but her plaything to use or break as she sees fit. All game function exists solely on and by her will. And now a number of people are finding that no, players-in-general are not particularly happy with that state of affairs. Worse, when things go wrong, to their shock and horror, the consequences fall upon the person with all the power, the DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

I again turn to my "degenerative disease (such as cancer) is a dysfunction of cellular machinery" analogy. Cancer is what happens when cells cease to follow the "I'm part of a multicellular life form" model and instead begin to realign toward an "I'm a single-celled life form" model.

IMO, on so many levels that is a bad/offensive analogy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IMO, on so many levels that is a bad/offensive analogy.

Why? We agree that MMI is a dysfunction. We agree that it can only "actually happen" in the active state (play.) And we agree that risk factors, both thise inherent to particular things and those idiosyncratic to individuals being examined, contribute to that active state becoming dysfunctional.

If MMI really is inherently bad and inherently dysfunctional, as so many have argued here, why is the analogy offensive? If it captures all of these salient details in a clear and concise way, why is it a faulty analogy?

 

[pemerton]

I find that 5e does little to nothing of any of these actually-in-the-rules defenses against MMI, and in fact tends to go out of its way to avoid or undercut them. It encourages DMs to avoid direct communication, to conceal things and play fast and loose with what has been communicated. The game absolutely pushes the DM as the central and all-encompassing authority, with little to no cyclic exchange of authority and a strong emphasis on "you ask me, then I tell you" DMing. Other than spellcasting, which as in pre-4e editions is essentially the one bastion of respected player influence, everything is left so deeply in "ask your DM" territory that the rules themselves are reduced to suggestions.

Further, I find that of the non-mechanical policies, procedures, etc. that are meant to mitigate these issues, none of them are of the first two types. There are no formal steps for addressing these concerns outside of the rules, and at best minimal informal but highly recommended steps. Instead, it relies almost entirely on DM vigilance, players being willing to speak out, and the presumption that if something goes wrong, the DM will fix it.

That, to my mind, is exactly the recipe for a game to be rife with MMI problems. Both game design and game policy have had every formal, shared, open structure for addressing this issue removed or downplayed as much as humanly possible, leaving only soft-touch options, implications and social contract stuff, which is really, really easy to screw up or forget about or go overboard with.

And, as a result, I now have a better response for something mentioned upthread.

It's hard to know for sure, but it's certainly a running theme from 5e DMs. The author of the tweet I posted above also posted this a few weeks ago which got a lot of traction. Every time I check in on dndnext on reddit there are people complaining about the unbalanced power options on the character side and the expectations and lack of support on the dm side. It seems a lot of people who play pathfinder 2e feel that system offers more DM support, and thus recommend it to solve this problem.

My problem is, as I have only now realized, these DMs are putting the cart before the horse. They have confused cause and effect.

The fundamental underlying cause is, as they have noted, the hyperdependence on DMs to fix everything, everywhere, all at once, to be the clearinghouse, to adjudicate everything all the time. Initially, this led to a resurgence of what I'll call "Lite Viking Hat" DMing, in that it's still a dictatorship of the DM, but it was viewed as a liberation from stifling confinement "so things can finally get done," as it were, rather than the declaration of martial law. But all too quickly, this led to poor behavior on the part of DMs, and unfortunately, the old-timers collectively provided no help on this front. As this person notes (and as I have highlighted many times), the DM side of the culture of play was radically unhelpful; every rules-question thread would almost instantly get a ("We can't help you, ask your DM"/)"I am the DM and want help"/"You're the DM! Just do whatever you like!" interaction. This repeatedly reinforced on a cultural level that the DM should do whatever they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like.

This hit a problem when D&D started growing a fanbase much, much larger than the old one. Because the new players are not conditioned to meekly defer. They have no reason to; if they wanted to meekly defer to ironclad determinations, they could go play WoW or FFXIV or Elden Ring or whatever else. So they advocate for themselves. They talk back. When they're pushed, they lay down requests, and they do get upset when their requests are ignored or overruled, and they cry foul at the level of social contract and interpersonal respect. They have to. There is no other level to which they can appeal; the rules are but suggestions, the culture of play is DM power über alles, and the principles (and other policies/procedures) have been intentionally gutted of any formal content that can be drawn upon or referenced.

The fans of the oldest school stuff have gotten exactly what they asked for. You only have conversation between adults as the solution to any problem. The DM is the absolute, unquestioned and unquestionable, universal, unilateral authority, with the game being but her plaything to use or break as she sees fit. All game function exists solely on and by her will. And now a number of people are finding that no, players-in-general are not particularly happy with that state of affairs. Worse, when things go wrong, to their shock and horror, the consequences fall upon the person with all the power, the DM.

To summarise this:

* What might look like rules in 5e D&D are widely treated as suggestions to the GM as to how to decide what happens next;

* What might look like player-side moves in 5e D&D (ie action declarations for PCs) are widely treated as suggestions to the GM as to how to decide what happens next;

* The only determiner of what suggestions get taken up is social contract;

* Thus, if players don't like what the GM tells them happens next this creates immediate social contract pressure/escalation, that falls on the GM who made the decision in relation to what was suggested;

* Furthermore, many contemporary players have strong, non-deferential, non-"Viking hat"-tolerant preferences for what happens next (ie they are neo-trad, not trad);

* Thus, this social contract pressure/escalation is becoming more common.​

To me this seems plausible. Upthread I've made some suggestions - about drawing on principles I regard as implicit in 5e - that might ameliorate the first two points. Whether the resulting play will please neo-tradders I'm not sure. Maybe some of them really need to switch to Fate!