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

[FrogReaver]

I don't really disagree with you. And I don't want to seem like I'm some kind of anti-GM radical who's always looking for flaws. The whole Rustic Hospitality thing didn't ruin play for me. I continued in that game for months after that, until the campaign ended. Then another one of our group took up GMing a new 5E campaign after that one. I've been enjoying that just fine.

Out of curiosity, how many more times during those months of play did something you would consider MMI come up?

Note: I’ll try to respond more thoroughly to the whole post when I’m at the computer instead of the phone.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Now, none of this is to say that one way is better or anything. But the more a game divides authority among the participants and the system, the less likely it will be that you have one avenue of authority. MMI is essentially "all must pass through the GM", right? So if some passes through the players and other processes are enforced by the system through rules and processes, the less likely there is one source of authority.

Here I think what these two approaches offer though is more than whether the game falls to mother may I. When I hear about games like Spire or when I play games like it, and again the closest game of that sort I play is Hillfolk, what I like about them is they seem to offer a path to the promise of the storytelling that was in the air in the 90s, without the railroading. What I liked about Hillfolk specifically was to me it felt like we were all in one of those classic Miniseries like I, Claudius or Shogun, but it was all very organic and centered around dialogue. And it was deeply immersive. The other aspect is using the collective as fuel for the campaign so things can be more spontaneous (and forgive me if I am misunderstanding anything about Spire as I haven't played it and I may have missed your posts on it).

GMing is an enormous burden, so I would see this as a huge, huge selling point. To me that is a much more powerful sales pitch than the mother may I issue (because mother may I is a problem I don't really have: not saying others don't have it, just in these conversations it isn't an area where I'm in search of a solution)

Whether this is going to be something that you see in large order in D&D, I don't know. Just like you probably won't see old school style sandbox and high lethality in the current version of D&D, I would imagine anything from something like Spire or Hillfolk is going to be done in a way that it appeals to the broadest range of fans. I would imagine that is likely how an ability like Rustic Hospitality arose.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I liked your post. I said this was a side note. Of course your point still stands. It was never in dispute.

I wasn't trying to argue with you, just kind of address the point that your side note made! I sometimes word things in absolutes, but there are always exceptions!

I didn't mean for my response to you to seem argumentative.

Out of curiosity, how many more times during those months of play did something you would consider MMI come up?

Note: I’ll try to respond more thoroughly to the whole post when I’m at the computer instead of the phone.

That's a good question. A little hard to answer, though.

So this campaign started when I told my group I wanted to take a break from GMing all the time. So they came up with the idea that we could have a campaign where we'd rotate GMs. Everyone would have a turn in the seat (unless if they really didn't want to, for whatever reason). So we came up with a setting that we designed together, and populated the initial area with some NPCs. We kept certain things loose, and we agreed that there would be nothing precious... no ownership of NPCs by one GM and so on. We created a kind of quasi-historical, low magic setting with an iron-age kind of vibe. So a pretty extensive bit of "session zero" type stuff before play began.

What we didn't do was talk about processes and GMing techniques in any kind of attempt to bring consistency there. We're longtime friends and so I think we all generally trust each other as far as gaming goes.

So the Rustic Hospitality thing was from one GM. No bad faith or anything like that, just a judgment call that wasn't great, and that he didn't even realize was an issue until after the fact.

Some other instances came up here and there under this GM, but relatively minor stuff; an obvious solution to an obstacle being very clearly favored and that kind of thing. Nothing too drastic.

Then another player took over as GM. He picked up on a lot of the threads that had been established. And the next few sessions were very good. It all felt dynamic and that our choices mattered and it was interesting how he built no what the other GM had established. Then we came to a bit of a natural point where he should have handed things off to another GM. But for some reason he didn't.

Instead, what he did was he decided to run us through The Wilds Beyond the Witchlight. So as the characters were returning to their town from a visit to the capital city of the kingdom, we came across the Witchlight Carnival.

It was so incongruous with the setting and situations we had established, that it was jarring. There was no real reason for us to care at all about the carnival. We had pressing obligations and responsibilities to get back to. Instead, we found our kind of gritty characters thrust into this surreal scenario with whimsical characters straight out of Alice in Wonderland.

In retrospect, I should have just had my ranger say "I don't want to deal with these strange people, I want to go home" and hope that the GM picked up on that as a cue. But he purchased the book, so that's what was going to happen.

It was nothing any of the players wanted. We all tried to play along and engage, but it was so jarring that it was difficult. Then the GM would get frustrated by the lack of engagement, and it became a cycle, and things got worse. It got to the point a few sessions in where we discussed it as a group, and things improved a bit, long enough for us to finish the Witchlight part of the adventure.... but that was it. We didn't continue with the campaign after that.

 

[Maxperson]

So this campaign started when I told my group I wanted to take a break from GMing all the time. So they came up with the idea that we could have a campaign where we'd rotate GMs. Everyone would have a turn in the seat (unless if they really didn't want to, for whatever reason). So we came up with a setting that we designed together, and populated the initial area with some NPCs. We kept certain things loose, and we agreed that there would be nothing precious... no ownership of NPCs by one GM and so on. We created a kind of quasi-historical, low magic setting with an iron-age kind of vibe. So a pretty extensive bit of "session zero" type stuff before play began.

I'd like to probe this a bit deeper. Did you guys just go to a stopping point and then switch, say "Okay Bob, you have 8 weeks until Jay takes over," or use some other method of switching? Also, what about things that one DM might have had in the works when the reigns were turned over? Did the old DM step back from things he would know or was that thread delayed until he got back into the chair?

I'm wondering if this could work with my group, where we have 3 DMs that all have different styles of running the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Here I think what these two approaches offer though is more than whether the game falls to mother may I. When I hear about games like Spire or when I play games like it, and again the closest game of that sort I play is Hillfolk, what I like about them is they seem to offer a path to the promise of the storytelling that was in the air in the 90s, without the railroading. What I liked about Hillfolk specifically was to me it felt like we were all in one of those classic Miniseries like I, Claudius or Shogun, but it was all very organic and centered around dialogue. And it was deeply immersive. The other aspect is using the collective as fuel for the campaign so things can be more spontaneous (and forgive me if I am misunderstanding anything about Spire as I haven't played it and I may have missed your posts on it).

No, you've got the gist. I've never played Hillfolk, but I've looked at it after you've mentioned it a few times, and they seem to share some of the same kinds of methods and goals. Very much in the Story Now vein.

GMing is an enormous burden, so I would see this as a huge, huge selling point. To me that is a much more powerful sales pitch than the mother may I issue (because mother may I is a problem I don't really have: not saying others don't have it, just in these conversations it isn't an area where I'm in search of a solution)

This is the thing, totally. As described (or maybe implied) the GM's role is insanely involved. It's honestly rather absurd that we would expect so much from one person toward a group activity, and also expect them to not steer things.

Very often the suggestion to share some authority with players is viewed as "not trusting the GM" and so on. But as a long time forever-GM, I can say that's not what it's about. Yes, it involves giving the players more authority, but a lot of that is to simultaneously ease the burden on the GM. There are two benefits to it, in that regard.

Whether this is going to be something that you see in large order in D&D, I don't know. Just like you probably won't see old school style sandbox and high lethality in the current version of D&D, I would imagine anything from something like Spire or Hillfolk is going to be done in a way that it appeals to the broadest range of fans. I would imagine that is likely how an ability like Rustic Hospitality arose.

Oh, I doubt it. Aside from spells, the Background Features seemed to be the major way for a player to declare something and the GM be obliged by it. It seems they'll be doing away with them in place of Feats. Which may accomplish the same thing, but I think the Feats tend to have a looser theme (generally speaking) than many of the Background Features (all of which were not great, I'll add).

Hopefully, they design some Feats that potentially fill that gap. We'll have to see.

 

[Malmuria]

Sure, I think this is really all I've been saying. To take your idea of open spaces, some games give the GM all the authority there (either by design or by table agreement, or some combo), other games spread those open spaces around so that there is room for player authority or system authority.

I talk a lot about Spire: The City Must Fall. That game gives the players lots of options to determine facts in the game world... beyond just through declaring actions for their characters. And many of these are very obvious (I listed several earlier in this thread). The GM is not the sole authority in this regard.

When I see 5e players talking about the game world, it is discussed as the DM's responsibility. There's less a sense of the the DM "gets to" have authority over the world than the DM "has to" have authority over the world. They are also, per rules and play culture, responsible for entertaining the players, keeping them engaged, and centering the PCs. The DM, after all, is the only one who has to do "prep," keep notes for each PC and the world, arrange everything in the VTT, often even do the scheduling. Not only are the players uninterested in authority over the game world, but in some cases they will even pay a professional DM to take over the responsibility of creating/running the game world.

Now, I think what players want is for their characters to no be arbitrarily and unnecessarily stymied, which in some cases could be seen as an expression of wanting authority over the world, but mostly is about the GM matching their content to the style of the players (that quoted section from the 5e dmg is entitled "knowing your players"). Other games say things like "be a fan of the PCs."

Now, none of this is to say that one way is better or anything. But the more a game divides authority among the participants and the system, the less likely it will be that you have one avenue of authority. MMI is essentially "all must pass through the GM", right? So if some passes through the players and other processes are enforced by the system through rules and processes, the less likely there is one source of authority.

The potential problem with MMI for me is not the fact of a single authority but rather the arbitrariness and uncertainty that can come when that figure is not clear and consistent in relaying information to the players. In fact, the more the GM has a singular, consistent vision for their world, the less you get problems associated with MMI. The lack of clarity could be about a particular situation, setting details the characters would/should know, or the theme of the game. Now, let's say you have 4 players, including GM; if you split that authority for the game world among the 4 players, now you have potentially 4 competing understandings about a situation/setting/theme. To make this work you need a game that has a very strongly focused theme and players who buy in to the premise and work together to realize it. Recently this came up for me playing John Harper's Lady Blackbird. If the players ask the gm "can I do x," the appropriate response would be, "I don't know, can you?" The only thought I expressed as GM up front is that I thought the game would work best if everyone played their characters very sincerely and with an eye toward what would make a good story.

 

[Xamnam]

MMI is essentially "all must pass through the GM", right? So if some passes through the players and other processes are enforced by the system through rules and processes, the less likely there is one source of authority.

I think that's why I personally balk at this definition, of MMI on a system/game level in regards to 5e. The DM is the primary world creation/scene description/action adjudication source, absolutely. But, they're not the authority on player action. Result of player action, sure, but that's a salient difference to me. If a player were to say "I insult the king/I close my eyes/I walk towards the guard" and the DM said "Actually, you don't," (barring a justified in-fiction reason) that feels like a complete abdication of the basic rule of "The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' action."

In the children's game, the referee is the complete and total arbiter of what you do. You must ask permission to do anything, and they have the absolute unimpeached right to deny you. In addition, their rulings are not bound by logic or circumstance. They can say one player may take five steps forward, and then deny the next player that same ability through mystery, arbitrariness, capriciousness. What makes that a game at all is that the player has no idea what will be approved, and has to hope they guess right more than they other players.

If that's the state of affairs at a TTRPG table, I struggle to see how that would be enjoyable for me for any extended duration. Maybe for a one-off puzzle, but folks have most likely not sat down for the evening just to play a rule discovery game. That's why I agree with the others who have said prior that this term is best used as a description of a specific dynamic between player and DM. To answer the thread question myself, it is when a player lacks confidence in their ability to state their own actions, such that feel that they must ask permission to accomplish anything. Not questions (to verify their understanding of the world, their abilities, the rules of the game, etc.), but permission specifically. Now, that can be brought on by either the players or DM, and can be done unconsciously/non-maliciously. But if it's not about being forced into asking permission to do what you want to, due to uncertainty or confusion, I personally struggle to see why that name would be used to invite the comparison.

Like others, I somewhat struggle to apply MMI to the Rustic Hospitality example specifically. Mismatched expectations, for sure. Not how I would have run it, I don't think. But, the player said what they wanted to do, the DM described the outcome of that action to a degree that they thought respected the text of the ability, and then described what they saw as the next salient world state for the players to act on.

(Want to be super clear here, I'm not trying to tell anyone they are playing wrong, really trying to center these thoughts in my perspective alone)

 

[Ovi]

That's why I added "as a problem"! I get your stance, and I don't really disagree with it, but I'm talking about when MMI is a problem. Or if it suits your stance, maybe "the drawbacks of a system that functions on MMI".

Hmm, maybe "potholes you should be aware of so as to try and not hit them."

 

[Maxperson]

Very often the suggestion to share some authority with players is viewed as "not trusting the GM" and so on. But as a long time forever-GM, I can say that's not what it's about. Yes, it involves giving the players more authority, but a lot of that is to simultaneously ease the burden on the GM. There are two benefits to it, in that regard.

I think there's some resistance to that on the part of some players as well.

Several campaigns ago in 3e I introduced the group as demigods(children of mortal and deity, not the divine rank). I gave them undefined power associated with their divine parent's portfolios and encouraged them to get creative with its use. We played to 20th level and I can count on one hand the number of times they used their power to do something that wasn't just "Copy spell X."

This 5e campaign I introduced the plot points alternate rule AND I changed inspiration. I use a fate deck when a 1 is rolled. A card is drawn from a large deck of magic cards with hundreds of different cards in it, then I interpret the card drawn for or against the group as would be most likely given the situation. If the card just plain doesn't fit it goes behind my screen and one of 4 cards drawn at the beginning of the session is used instead. This campaign I'm giving them cards to interpret in their favor as inspiration.

The group started at 5th level and is now 10th level. In 5 levels the 4 of them have used a combined 5 plot points, meaning 15 of them have gone to waste as you get them at level up and can't have more than 1. Very few of the inspiration cards have been used. The group, despite saying these are cool things and wanting these new rules, just doesn't seem to want to use shared authority that the inspiration and plot points give. It's a bit disappointing.

 

[Ovi]

I think that's why I personally balk at this definition, of MMI on a system/game level in regards to 5e. The DM is the primary world creation/scene description/action adjudication source, absolutely. But, they're not the authority on player action. Result of player action, sure, but that's a salient difference to me. If a player were to say "I insult the king/I close my eyes/I walk towards the guard" and the DM said "Actually, you don't," (barring a justified in-fiction reason) that feels like a complete abdication of the basic rule of "The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' action."

In the children's game, the referee is the complete and total arbiter of what you do. You must ask permission to do anything, and they have the absolute unimpeached right to deny you. In addition, their rulings are not bound by logic or circumstance. They can say one player may take five steps forward, and then deny the next player that same ability through mystery, arbitrariness, capriciousness. What makes that a game at all is that the player has no idea what will be approved, and has to hope they guess right more than they other players.

If that's the state of affairs at a TTRPG table, I struggle to see how that would be enjoyable for me for any extended duration. Maybe for a one-off puzzle, but folks have most likely not sat down for the evening just to play a rule discovery game. That's why I agree with the others who have said prior that this term is best used as a description of a specific dynamic between player and DM. To answer the thread question myself, it is when a player lacks confidence in their ability to state their own actions, such that feel that they must ask permission to accomplish anything. Not questions (to verify their understanding of the world, their abilities, the rules of the game, etc.), but permission specifically. Now, that can be brought on by either the players or DM, and can be done unconsciously/non-maliciously. But if it's not about being forced into asking permission to do what you want to, due to uncertainty or confusion, I personally struggle to see why that name would be used to invite the comparison.

Like others, I somewhat struggle to apply MMI to the Rustic Hospitality example specifically. Mismatched expectations, for sure. Not how I would have run it, I don't think. But, the player said what they wanted to do, the DM described the outcome of that action to a degree that they thought respected the text of the ability, and then described what they saw as the next salient world state for the players to act on.

(Want to be super clear here, I'm not trying to tell anyone they are playing wrong, really trying to center these thoughts in my perspective alone)

So, I really like this treatment. What I think is missing here is that you're considering the system inside the framework of a social construct that has placed additional constraints and expectations on how the GM will use their fiat. If you just consider what the system says, there's none of this requirement. The GM can be as capricious as they wish.

You can actually see this in a lot of the threads on GM advice here at ENW. You'll see a gamut of responses to a question about how to make a ruling or how to engineer an encounter or what how to rule on a situation that has occurred. The response vary widely, some (sometimes popular) responses are pretty much "you're the GM, just say what you want." This isn't ever challenges on a rules basis, only on a preference one, where challengers site reasons other than the rules to not follow that advice. No one sites the 5e rules to refute a GM call, no matter how capricious -- even if the call directly thwarts a rule, there's often the hedge of "that's not what the rules say, but it's your game."

This is a large part of why I'm separating my analysis and looking at the system in isolation and then acknowledging what the social contract of individual GMs might do to affect that. As a system, 5e is written with strong MMI leanings. Other systems have structures that don't engage MMI in the same way, even before allowing for individual tables and GMs.