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

[Bedrockgames]

I have to admit @Ovi is persuading me towards his usage of the phrase. If an ability as anodyne (to my eyes) as Rustic Hospitality is upending of the authority structures in the core play loop, it's hard not to see that Ovi's description of that loop is accurate. At which point the authority structure is the same as in the children's game.

Again, I think getting lost in MMI as a term isn't helpful at all. We are better off talking about the things beneath why it is being used as a term. But I would still say it isn't accurate to me because MMI is pure fiat, is orientated around binary Yes and No, and leans heavily on No. D&D includes fiat as an option, but it isn't how the GM is expected resolve every actions and the GM isn't expected to act as a thwarter in chief, but more of a facilitator of play. I don't know I've played mother may I, and I've played D&D for over 30 years, I don't really see much similarity between them. I can see how someone would feel in a moment of play, "This feels like mother may I" (just like might say "This feels like cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers). I don't think that is a very good analogy for the way authority is structured in the game. The GM is also expected to entertain players and there isn't an expectation that the leader in Mother May I is meant to entertain anyone.

 

[Ovi]

Again, I am not saying you are intentionally using a pejorative. You might legtimately not see it as a pejorative. And frankly pejorative is probably too strong here. I think a better term would be 'emotionally charged': it tends to get people to agree with a point because they don't want to be labeled as playing mother may I or think of their style as mother may I. But I am not saying you are doing so intentionally. I am just pointing out this is is how people feel about it. And I am not saying you are bad, or being cruel or mean for using it to be clear. It is just, in my experience, not very useful in gaming discussions to use terms like this if you are trying to have a fruitful discussion about a game (ones where clearly a number on one side or the other view it as a slap in the face to their style). Keep in mind, this was all from a response to the very beginning of my post, where I, as an aside, said 'nomenclature aside' (or something to that effect), in order to focus on the thing I did think was a viable way to move the conversation forward: your point about GM authority. Now it is possible I misunderstood the argument you were making because I was reading it in light of the entire thread (and if that is the case, fair enough). I may be having trouble seeing the position you are taking for example because there is an argument I am accustomed to seeing over the course of the thread.

Okay. Are you now saying that you do not agree with Maxperson's characterizations of the motives of people using the term MMI? That is where this disagreement originated. This appears to be backing away from that agreement, but I do not want to assume words for you.

 

[Maxperson]

If you're saying that use of MMI is an intentional use of a pejorative towards a style of play, then I don't see how you can escape that this is levelling the accusation of bad faith. Still not a good start.

You're assuming something that is being told to you is not present. You're assuming that @Bedrockgames is saying that you picked the phrase because you knew it was a pejorative. You might have just not considered how it would be received when using the phrase. You may not have been aware it was a pejorative. Regardless, though, it IS a pejorative and does not describe traditional play.

Yes, a number of people are saying that MMI is pejorative and dysfunctional. I am not. So, when your respond to me, you shouldn't be responding as if my posts are using MMI as a pejorative or as a stand in for some form of dysfunction. Neither is true. This is the second time you're on notice of this directly. Please stop making arguments that misrepresent my position.

It doesn't matter if you are not saying it. It is a pejorative regardless of how you think of it. Now that you know it is a pejorative, you have no excuse going forward if you keep using it. You will deliberately be using a pejorative in your posts.

Also, I'm not making an argument towards GM authority. I'm characterizing a structure of GM authority where the GM retains all authority over outcomes, has no system constraints on that authority, and no system direction in use of that authority to be equivalent to the authority structure in MMI -- which also has all of these features. That's it -- MMI is a useful shorthand to describe this authority structure.

No it's not. Not only is it a pejorative(and has been for several years at least), but it fails completely to describe what the DM having authority over outcomes means.

What you are doing is claiming that bad faith DMing(the DM saying, "No! You can't open the door unless you ask me for permission first!") is the same as a DM who runs the game as it is intended and doesn't act in that sort of bad faith.

What actually happens is that the player states what his PC is doing, and the DM narrates the outcome in good faith, which means no "Mother May I" is present.

 

[pemerton]

Its possible I got lost in the conversation at some point. I was responding to a poster who specifically brought up these things. It may be it isn't connected to Hawkeye's points (I tried to address Hawkeye's post directly and separately form that)

Upthread I referred to players exercising control over the shared fiction. In my experience on ENworld, many posters tend to assume that the only way for players to exercise control over the shared fiction, other than the mental states and bodily motions of their PCs, is by means of what you call "external control". I think that assumption is obviously wrong. In most RPGs, the overwhelming method that players use to exercise control over the shared fiction is (i) to declare actions for their PCs, and then (ii) to have those actions resolved in such a way that they produce, or at least have a chance of producing, an upshot that reflects, or is in some way constrained, by what the player was hoping for.

I've stated (ii) in pretty abstract terms because there is a wide variety of mechanical systems and associated principles that can satisfy it.

I think that 5e D&D suggests some principles that are highly relevant to (ii), and that @hawkeyefan's GM did not comply with:

is the playloop not meant to be supplemented by principles? Given that the Basic PDF says this on p 2, I think the answer is that there are relevant principles here:

The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. . . . There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game - at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. . . . The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

There are two key sentences there - together, the DM and the players create an exciting story and everyone . . . created a memorable story. These don't, to me, suggest that the GM is the unilateral storyteller.

The same page refers to the GM as "the game’s lead storyteller and referee". This doesn't entail that the GM is the sole storyteller.

How do the players do their bit in creating an exciting and memorable story? By declaring actions and using the abilities they get from their characters. Like Rustic Hospitality.

As I posted upthread, if 5e D&D really set out the view that @hawkeyefan's play experience is consistent with playing the game properly and well, that would be a sad indictment of the game. But as per the passages I've just quoted, it doesn't.

I can see how an inexperienced GM, or one who is not thinking about things, might fall into the "trap" of doing what your GM did.

But I don't see how it can be mysterious, on reflection, why it was a sour moment in play! As per my posts upthread, the rulebook has the resources to understand what has gone wrong - its references to everyone, together, creating an exciting and memorable story.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay. Are you now saying that you do not agree with Maxperson's characterizations of the motives of people using the term MMI? That is where this disagreement originated. This appears to be backing away from that agreement, but I do not want to assume words for you.

I pretty clearly stated which portion of that post I was agreeing with upthread

 

[Maxperson]

If you feel I'm using it in a pejorative sense, you're welcome to that feeling but you need to then point out how my usage is pejorative, not reference other people's usage and impute that to mine. This thread is asking for people's definition of MMI, and is not, per multiple moderation posts, a thread to enforce only one viewpoint. I disagree MMI should be viewed as a pejorative because I also disagree that it describes dysfunctional play.

It's a pejorative in every sense. You cannot use it in any way without it being a pejorative, even if you don't view it that way or mean it to be that way.

Look at it this way. You might honestly think someone is ugly and be telling the truth in what you view is a honest, non-insulting way, but you cannot call that person ugly without it there being insult there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Upthread I referred to players exercising control over the shared fiction. In my experience on ENworld, many posters tend to assume that the only way for players to exercise control over the shared fiction, other than the mental states and bodily motions of their PCs, is by means of what you call "external control". I think that assumption is obviously wrong. In most RPGs, the overwhelming method that players use to exercise control over the shared fiction is (i) to declare actions for their PCs, and then (ii) to have those actions resolved in such a way that they produce, or at least have a chance of producing, an upshot that reflects, or is in some way constrained, by what the player was hoping for.

I've stated (ii) in pretty abstract terms because there is a wide variety of mechanical systems and associated principles that can satisfy it.

I think that 5e D&D suggests some principles that are highly relevant to (ii), and that @hawkeyefan's GM did not comply with:

I may be misunderstanding your point, but we might be on the same page in that, I was in agreement that the example I was given by Hawkeye, looked like a bad GM call to me.

 

[Ovi]

Again, I think getting lost in MMI as a term isn't helpful at all. We are better off talking about the things beneath why it is being used as a term. But I would still say it isn't accurate to me because MMI is pure fiat, is orientated around binary Yes and No, and leans heavily on No. D&D includes fiat as an option, but it isn't how the GM is expected resolve every actions and the GM isn't expected to act as a thwarter in chief, but more of a facilitator of play. I don't know I've played mother may I, and I've played D&D for over 30 years, I don't really see much similarity between them. I can see how someone would feel in a moment of play, "This feels like mother may I" (just like might say "This feels like cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers). I don't think that is a very good analogy for the way authority is structured in the game. The GM is also expected to entertain players and there isn't an expectation that the leader in Mother May I is meant to entertain anyone.

The game Mother May I consists of play where one player takes the role of "mother" and other players request to perform actions to the "mother" player. The 'mother' player may either approve those actions, in which case the requesting player completes the requested action, or deny those actions and substitute a different action, which the player must then perform. The "mother's" choice to approve or replace a requested action is entirely up to the "mother" according to the rules of play.

The 5e system has only player taking the role of "dungeon master". The other players propose actions to the "dungeon master" in the hopes of achieving some result in the shared fiction. The "dungeon master" either approves that result in which case it occurs in the shared fiction, or rejects it and suggests a different result, which then occurs in the shared fiction. The 'dungeon master' player is given a number of mechanical means to aid in determining whether or not to grant the players desired outcome or the GM's, but is under no requirement to use them. The "dungeon master's" choice to approve or replace desired outcomes is entirely up to the "dungeon master" according to the rules of play.

These are extraordinarily similar in terms of structure of the rules. What usually happens at this point is that the person reading the 5e section begins to import their own social contracts and preferences in how the GM makes the choices for results and then assumes these are what the rules say to do. They are not, but they're 100% valid to do for their table (and, in fact, is the intended design goal of this authority structure).

So, when I say that the 5e system is MMI, I mean the base structure of play. How the general culture of play views this structure is going to be extremely varied in both use and acceptance. This is because the GM has ultimate flexibility in how to apply their authority (it's entirely arbitrary according to the rules of play) and so tables (and larger communities) can form additional structures of constraints and expectations that act to create more enjoyable play for those tables and communities. I 100% make adjustments to this structure when I run. But my authority to do so is enabled by the structure of play in 5e, which, again, is incredibly similar to MMI. I find MMI to be a useful quick description of this form of play. And, I'd say that versions of D&D like 3.x and 4e differed from this structure in ways that limited those distinctions to the core of MMI play. In the case of 3.x, it was the mass of exceptions to the rule that GM chooses results. In 4e, it was principles of play in place that added "say yes or roll the dice" to the application, meaning the GM could not outright refuse well formed requests (well formed here merely means in good faith with the genre and table expectations for play, eg, not asking to find a laser gun in the Duke's latrine).

 

[Ovi]

It's a pejorative in every sense. You cannot use it in any way without it being a pejorative, even if you don't view it that way or mean it to be that way.

Look at it this way. You might honestly think someone is ugly and be telling the truth in what you view is a honest, non-insulting way, but you cannot call that person ugly without it there being insult there.

No, because ugly is a value judgement. I'm not making a value judgement because I'm not saying MMI is dysfunctional or unwanted play. I'm saying that it describes the authority structure. And that I enjoy running under that exact structure. Had to claim I'm being pejorative of my own valued play.

I get that you want it to be pejorative. I don't agree and am not using it as you insist it must be used. As the thread (and multiple moderation posts) indicate that people are free to establish their own usages, I'll thank you to not accuse me of your assumptions again.

 

[pemerton]

I just don't think is true if we understand MMI in broad sense like it seems to be applied to 5e by some posters. Examples of GM adjudication and approval for actions being required in Apoc World were provided. And IIRC in Burning Wheel the GM has to make all sort of adjudication regarding PC actions too. For example setting the difficulty for tasks which in BW scale way more steeply than in 5e, thus making that part of GM adjudication more impactful.

"Mother may I" is not a synonym for the GM has some authority over the shared fiction.

It is a label for (possibly a pejorative label, although @Ovi is starting to change my mind on this) for the GM has sole authority over the shared fiction, beyond the mental states and bodily motions of the players' characters.

You, @clearstream, I think @Maxperson (if I've understood his posts correctly) and (to a slightly lesser extent) @FrogReaver, all insist that, in 5e D&D, the GM has sole authority over the shared fiction, beyond the mental and bodily motions of the players' characters.

But this is not true in the RPGs I mentioned.

Just to focus on Burning Wheel, here is an extract from the rulebooks (Revised p 269; Gold p 552), which is under the heading "Role of the Players":

Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin. Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

And of course the key principle for action resolution in BW (Revised p 32) is this:

[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - complete the task at hand in the manner the player described in the Task and Intent sections. . . . Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish on or reinforce a successful ability test.​

In Gold (p 30) it is very slightly reworded to remove any hint of ambiguity (the bolding is mine):

[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task. . . . Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish on or reinforce a successful ability test.​

The contrast with the 5e D&D core play loop, as presented in this thread by you and the other posters I mentioned, is stark.