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

[Bedrockgames]

In D&D generally, the change to fiction players control is what their character does. Supposing one is satisfied with that, then MMI doesn't arise from how the results of that are narrated. Supposing one isn't satisfied with that, this happy picture changes.

but again this is a lot less I think to do with something called MMI, and a lot more to do with play style and preferences. Some people like RPGs where you change things by acting through your character and what your character does, some people like having more external control over the things. Some people like a blend. And some people don't care about this concern one way or another (they just don't even think about when they are playing).

One thing I don't get about these discussions is why people care so intensely about it anymore. I don't play 5E. It doesn't hit all the buttons for me in terms of what I want out of D&D. But I don't feel the need to attach some negative label to things it is doing. It is just clearly not an edition designed for a GM or player with my tastes in mind, and that is perfectly okay. Many people I know love 5E, many times because it has the very things in it I don't like. There are just so many options now. It sounds like most of the posters who have issues with 5E have found games that meet all the criteria they are concerned about. I think in these circumstances people are a lot better off promoting the games they like, then ripping down a popular system because it isn't enough like those games or isn't enough like a previous edition of D&D that they preferred. I just don't think you are going to persuade people with the MMI argument because it basically is a 'your tastes are bad' argument. It is like the magic tea party debate or like the narrative games 'aren't RPGs' debate. It positions a system or style of play as inferior and flawed, using label that is powerful (again Mother May I is a child's game where people have zero control over their own bodies, it isn't a flattering term, and it is a label people would want to repel off them because it is emotionally charged).

 

[FrogReaver]

5e by default already lacks the derogatory "Mother May I." If I want my PC to try and jump across the pit, I'm going to tell the DM what I am doing and barring a social contract violation the attempt will happen. If I want my PC to go north to try and unite the norther barbarian tribes under my leadership, I'm going to tell the DM that's what I am doing and barring a social contract violation, that is what will happen.

At no point am I asking the DM's permission for what I want my PC to attempt.

If I may interject. Everyone here agrees with your last statement 'at no point are you asking the DM's permission for what you want your PC to attempt'. No one here is claiming that MMI exists with respect to the attempt.

So if the MMI being talked about here isn't about freedom to attempt then what do you think it might be about?

 

[clearstream]

Can you also see how this relates to @hawkeyefan's remark way upthread that combat and spell-use in D&D 5e are less vulnerable to "Mother May I" than other domains of play?

I see exactly how, for those with the expectations @hawkeyefan has, that MMI was incurred. The dysfunction is in the interaction. It's multi-factorial. @Bedrockgames nailed it, and the tolerance and expectations factors (Tv and Xv) in my construct speak to it.

For avoidance of doubt. I believe the barn case followed the rules of 5e. Not as I would have followed them, and you offered a very good technique for moderating it. Given @hawkeyefan's tolerance and expectations, I would predict that techniques like that which you suggested will reduce the incidence of MMI. I'd also find the resulting play more enjoyable. For a different participant, one with a different tolerances and expectations, I would instead predict no change.

Unnoted by whom?. When do you think it is fair for the GM to decide that an anti-magic zone applies? And how might that relate to "Mother May I?"

Unnoted by the character in question. Is it fair for a DM to have something that players are not yet aware of? That depends on the culture of play. The expectations of the group. In some circles it would not be fair. In others - in many of the cultures by which 5e is played - it would be fair. The example is so bare of context however, that it's impossible to say.

It is remarks like this, in which you appear to assert that the GM is entitled to narrate whatever they like, that give the impression that you are not aware of the possible principles that might operate to constrain the GM's narration.

...

* Hence, you appear to deny the possibility of constraining principles.​

I am aware of such principles and do not at all deny the possibility (nor in fact the desirability) of constraining principles. Where we disagree is on what that implies for MMI. As @Bedrockgames outlined - who decides, and how, is not always at issue.

Something that we haven't touched on much yet is that the factors also aren't static.


Note EDIT to correct my habitual synonymous use of player and character! Additionally, deleted an explanation that failed to put properly what I wanted to explain.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you accept that that the players have some say in that process? And hence have some control over what results follow from their declared actions?

Can you also see how this relates to @hawkeyefan's remark way upthread that combat and spell-use in D&D 5e are less vulnerable to "Mother May I" than other domains of play?

Unnoted by whom?. When do you think it is fair for the GM to decide that an anti-magic zone applies? And how might that relate to "Mother May I?"

I liked your post here because I thought it was a good question and highlights something I think I and @clearstream have been guilty of doing. To avoid MMI, it's not enough to just claim the DM said X is (in this case an antimagic field) and have outcomes logically flow from that fictional position. We also have to look at how that X was determined to be in the fiction, and I would also add, how the participants view that X being added to the fiction.

From my point of view, even if that X came into being solely by DM fiat - a player isn't going to experience MMI so long as he accepts the DM's right to put it there. There's plenty of reasons he might not accept that right in a particular situation and context (some are listed below)

• DM, you are always shooting down my plans (final straw)
• DM, this development was far to convenient (suspected finger on the scales)
• DM, you are railroading us (all moves are blocked except those that push the player along the railroad)

There's no doubt in my mind that players who have such feelings are going to experience MMI. Now consider a player who experiences the same stimulus (above it was the DM placing an antimagic field), but instead his feelings are more like one of the below:

• It makes sense this would have happened
• I love how the DM has crafted a world that's challenging and surprising to me
• I trust there are good reasons I'm not yet privy to for why the DM blocks me

It's hard to see this player experiencing MMI - or if the claim is that MMI occurred for both, then reactions to it are going to be fundamentally different.

 

[Ovi]

MMI cannot hinge on a player accepting GM authority. Look at the children's game. The players accepting the "mother's" authority is the very crux of the game, and why it's titled as it is!

If the players are accepting of the GM's authority, this just means that they don't have a problem with the play. It's still MMI, because the authority is necessary to have MMI -- it's the reason it's MMI.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do you believe most D&D players have experienced MMI when playing D&D?

• If so, do you believe it often occurs within their games?
• If so, how do you explain them coming back to the game again and again?

To me there are so many players that seemingly play and enjoy D&D that it's hard to believe MMI is a significant problem for most of them. That's why I believe D&D overall is not very prone to MMI, even if it is more prone to it than other games.

As an old-timer, this reads like "Why did so many players put up with hyperauthoritarian GMs?" as was expressed about a lot of GMs in the early part of the hobby, and the answer is pretty much the same:

Because they figure that's just how it is, don't like it but still want to play, and don't think they'll get anything different elsewhere.

I know "no gaming is better than bad gaming" is a common view, but for many people, depending on how how bad "bad" is, that's simply not true; they'll put up with things that annoy them significantly because they still get enough value out of gaming to do so. Its easy to forget that just because something isn't a deal-breaker for someone, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

 

[Maxperson]

There's the rub, though. We discussed earlier the chain of resolution, and formed a notion that where there is agreement on who owns what along the chain then as @Maxperson testifies to, groups won't hit MMI.

In D&D generally, the change to fiction players control is what their character does. Supposing one is satisfied with that, then MMI doesn't arise from how the results of that are narrated. Supposing one isn't satisfied with that, this happy picture changes.

The "definition" was also coined by a side that tends to describe the other playstyles in negative ways. It's like they sit there and ask themselves, "How can we describe a process of traditional play that will upset the most people? Aha! We'll use the pejorative Mother May I to describe it."

Mother May I does not exist in default D&D, regardless of whatever process they are trying to describe. Mother May I is when you are not able to do something without the DMs express permission and have to keep asking until you get to something he will approve.

In D&D players do not have to ask the DM's permission to have their PCs try or do something.

 

[FrogReaver]

As an old-timer, this reads like "Why did so many players put up with hyperauthoritarian GMs?" as was expressed about a lot of GMs in the early part of the hobby, and the answer is pretty much the same:

Because they figure that's just how it is, don't like it but still want to play, and don't think they'll get anything different elsewhere.

I know "no gaming is better than bad gaming" is a common view, but for many people, depending on how how bad "bad" is, that's simply not true; they'll put up with things that annoy them significantly because they still get enough value out of gaming to do so. Its easy to forget that just because something isn't a deal-breaker for someone, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

That's fair, but it's not just that it's not a deal breaker. You don't really see many 5e threads anywhere where actual 5e players gripe about feeling like they have to ask the DM's permission to do something. You will see complaints about most everything else. Common ones are railroading, game balance, specific rules issues, authoritarian DM's, and even on occasion you will see someone describe a table so dysfunctional that you can't even begin listing all the issues there.

IMO, At some point if something is the way it is and most aren't complaining about it despite complaining about everything else imaginable, I really don't think the best takeaway is that 'they just don't know it's bad'. IMO, that comes across as not really considering such evidence on it's own terms.

 

[Maxperson]

That's the problem. You are expecting an absence of social contract violations, as you define your end of the social contract.

Yes I am. Except that it's not "my end." The social contract is both sides. That's why it's a CONTRACT.

Many DMs either do not consider this to be a violation of the social contract, or believe that it is inherently, and implicitly, actually encoded into that contract. They think this is so fundamental, so unquestionably core, that they don't even think it needs to be mentioned.

It doesn't matter what they think. The social contract is more binding and important than any rule in the game and violating it a greater offense to those playing. DMs that violate the social contract are bad DMs and will lose their players.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If the players are accepting of the GM's authority, this just means that they don't have a problem with the play. It's still MMI, because the authority is necessary to have MMI -- it's the reason it's MMI.

Problems with the nomenclature aside (and I tend to agree with @Maxperson on this one), this is at least good because we are focusing on an issue that is meaningful: GM authority. But the problem with this argumen is any number of things can be a a prerequisite for dysfunction, that doesn't make it bad or undesirable, and it can overlook the benefits. For example people falling out of trees and breaking their arms is a real problem. No one wants people breaking their arms. A prerequisite for that is the existence of trees. But eliminating trees, while it surely would solve the problem of people falling out of them and breaking their arms, is clearly not a good solution. We need trees for certain things (like oxygen production), and trees are useful for many things. Now that doesn't mean trees need to be ubiquitous, in every yard, or that every house needs to be made from trees. But it would be shortsighted to say trees must go because they are a prerequisite for falling out of them and breaking a limb. Or to take a more relevant example: fire is a prerequisite for forest fires. That doesn't make fire bad on its own.

The basic problem here seems to be that (and I understand this is not what everyone is saying but it is what Ovi is saying in this post and that is what I am responding to): GM authority can lead to players feeling frustrated or thwarted. And that is true. One result of having a person empowered in that way is they make choices people don't like, or even that the whole structure of power and play just doesn't work for some players. I get this complaint. It is a problem for some people and it is why some people solve that problem by making new games that work around it. But it isn't a problem for everyone. For many it is a feature. And I can't really speak to 5E as I don't play it (see my other post), but I do remember the discussions leading up to it, and I think what they were probably responding to do was a sense that rules were constraining imagination too much for many players in recent editions (I know I felt this way in 3E and I quite liked 3E). So the zeitgeist shifted in a more rulings oriented direction. You can see that in the conversations we were having online here, in other forums and in many of the games coming out around that time and shortly after. But zeitgeists change.

I feel with RPGs there is always a thesis-antithesis that happens (rules light gives way to rules heavy, and then we go back to rules light or maybe rules medium; story focus gives way to focus on something else like focusing on dungeons, and then story comes back into fashion, etc). I don't know where D&D is at, or needs to be at at this time. Maybe it needs more rules and guidelines for GMing, maybe the rulings thing is working for most people. One of the main reasons I have been pushing back a bit on the premise in this thread is because in life the people I know and encounter who play 5E aren't really making this complaint (or at least I am not hearing it). My circle might be too narrow. I do hear criticisms and concerns, just not this particular one. And I think with any edition of D&D, it is very easy for the designers to react to a concern that is well expressed online but doesn't reflect a real concern by most players. But again, this doesn't really impact me as I don't play 5E, and I don't plan on playing One D&D. To me it looks like most of the issues that are generating intense discussing are outside this one though.