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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Right, this is part of the issue I have with it! That most of us would see this instance of GMing as flawed in some way... that the GM's ideas of what would/should happen are borne out... and the game system did nothing to stop it from happening. The texts of the book are not anywhere near specific enough (in either the way Rustic Hospitality works, or the advice to GMs on how to run games).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But this is supposing conscious malice.

Not at all. It can also come from things like the pernicious "I know what you want better than you do" belief, which is sadly very common amongst DMs today (see: most defenses of illusionism), or from realizing that blatant actions are bad without realizing that covert ones are also bad.

People all too often learn the wrong lessons from being told that a certain behavior isn't okay. If they didn't, no one would ever say things like "it isn't illegal/wrong if you don't get caught" or "it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission."

I disagree, based on the situation as told, that was at play, and neither of us can know for certain. To me, Rustic Hospitality was adjudicated in good faith by the DM, even if different people would reasonably rule it differently.

How do you square this, then, with Max's multiple citations recommending the DM say yes, consider player intent, etc.?

It was the action after that, posting a watch, that I question the DM's adjudication on given the lack of apparent direct result. But I don't know the full details, and there could be an argument that makes sense to me there.

To my eye, unless there's a pattern/consistency that leads to a fracturing of trust between the two, it's very hard for me to assign that phrase, especially in a combative sense, to what can also be called an honest misunderstanding, or just a disagreement in adjudication over a vague ability text. Per Hawkeyefan:

Which all just reads to me as "never get upset about individual instances," and thus directly leads to never being allowed to be upset at all, because patterns only form from individual instances. Breaches of trust are a reason to stop trusting; it takes one unwise choice to undo years of trust.

 

[pemerton]

Players absolutely should have expectations about what their actions are likely to achieve. That’s a big part of playing the game. I am saying they shouldn’t be concerned when some action isn’t resolved to their expectations.

But why not? If I make a move in a game, and I fail/lose on that move, why wouldn't I be concerned?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Thank you. Apologies for taking it as such.

 

[tetrasodium]

Spoiler: requote for clarity of -this-

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.

Right, this[↑] is an example of a game that doesn't follow the same authority structure as 5E D&D. Would you say that Mother May I was a concern that occurred to you as GM of Lady Blackbird?

If so, in what way? If not, why not?

That's part of what causes the problem. the situation @Malmuria brought up where the table has 4 competing understandings is front & center in 5e. A player can't even get past character creation without forming their own understanding in isolation. phb ~9-16 chapter1 step by step character creation does not even mention working with the gm or other players on anything at all until the player has a fully completed character. The GM needs to fight against that or just accept that the world they are responsible for is a thing shaped by something a player thought up or put together in isolation away from the table that might even be a quantum thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

But why not? If I make a move in a game, and I fail/lose on that move, why wouldn't I be concerned?

Because you know that you have incomplete information, and thus you know your expectations are based on incomplete information. Why would you be concerned about your expectations for an action not being met when that is the case? IMO, if you are going to play a game where some information is hidden from the players (D&D is such a game) then it should be expected that sometimes your expectations around what an action can or should accomplish may not be met.

Now if there becomes an apparent pattern, then by all means that should concern you.

 

[Xamnam]

Not at all. It can also come from things like the pernicious "I know what you want better than you do" belief, which is sadly very common amongst DMs today (see: most defenses of illusionism), or from realizing that blatant actions are bad without realizing that covert ones are also bad.

Intentionally subverting someone's goal would fall under conscious malice for me. Sure, light on the malice, but still. And if you're taking steps to hide it, that's explicitly being conscious about it. This might just be a semantic difference between us. Also, I said that unconscious behavior on both sides absolutely can lead to instances of this, so the mere existence of this sort of problem doesn't imply anything about anyone's thought process.

How do you square this, then, with Max's multiple citations recommending the DM say yes, consider player intent, etc.?

Because, to my eyes, the DM did say yes. The player proposed using Rustic Hospitality. In response, the common folk opened up a place of rest and safety, and as far as we have been told, they did not betray the party. We don't know how the guards found them. It could have been simple detective work on the part of the guards, entirely unrelated to the townspeople. That fulfills every bit of text in the ability. If player intent was to avoid a fight with the guards, then finding a full night away from them is considering that, and granting it. They did successfully avoid it, for eight hours, which allowed them to recover to 100% strength, or at least very close to it. To avoid the fight happening forever, they would either have needed to lose the guards, or given them reason to stop the hunt, neither of which is inherent to what RH provides them, in my eyes. Could I see a game where the players hid so well that the guards moved on to search completely elsewhere? Absolutely! That's where I'm saying different DMs could very reasonably have run this scene differently. But I also think what did happen here is also reasonable. I think it's reasonable for the DM to think about the situation at hand and go "Do I think the guards would lose their trail, based on RH alone? Eh, no, I don't see it. But can they hide for long enough to get a full rest? Absolutely."

Also, Say Yes, And is great general advice, great go-to advice but there are absolutely times that warrant other approaches, like Yes, But, and No, But.

Now, in the context of setting the watch, as mentioned before, that's where I can totally see the DM potentially not considering player intent. But again, I don't know why, and I don't know the layout of everything. Perhaps they had good reason to think the watch would not see this coming, based on the layout of the barn, etc., etc.. Perhaps not. More importantly though, I don't see malice, denial, or undercutting in the RH result.

Which all just reads to me as "never get upset about individual instances," and thus directly leads to never being allowed to be upset at all, because patterns only form from individual instances. Breaches of trust are a reason to stop trusting; it takes one unwise choice to undo years of trust.

With all due respect, that's absolutely not what I'm saying. First, you absolutely can get upset with a pattern of behavior without reacting to the individual instances on their own. Second, you can be alert for further problems while still extending grace on initial ones. Finally, while an egregious enough single choice can destroy trust, I don't disagree, I would also say that years of trust, to use your words, should be able to withstand some weathering, especially if it does end up being inadvertent.

But also, I do personally try not to get upset about individual instances, because I really try to use Hanlon's Razor in most cases, especially in the context of someone who I'm on good enough terms with to play a game like this, and I don't think that's a terrible attitude to have. It makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Malmuria]

But do you think this expectation on the part of the players may have something to do with how things are described in the book? And how things have often worked for D&D in the past? I think this is a huge part of it.

Hard to say. If I had to guess, I would say that people like character-building (both mechanics and narrative) more than world building. That, and I'm not sure how much thought people put into the game when they aren't actually playing.

Now when the process of play about how they may do so is clear, and can be clearly followed, then players are less likely to feel stymied. Hence, combat being very clear cut, but then ability checks for exploration and social situations being less so. The feeling of being stymied is more likely in those situations when the process is less clearly defined. So many processes in 5E D&D amount to "the DM decides this" that when players feel stymied, it's largely because of the DM, and the DM may not even realize that's what's happening or how it seems to the players. They're not violating any rules or principles!

At a design level, there is perhaps a trade off here though. Like, I don't necessarily feel stymied by not being able to use my main action to cast a "bonus action" spell, but that's because I've already accepted the rulebook making that decision for everyone, not because it makes any particular sense.

Right, this is an example of a game that doesn't follow the same authority structure as 5E D&D. Would you say that Mother May I was a concern that occurred to you as GM of Lady Blackbird?

If so, in what way? If not, why not?

There were definitely moments of MMI, but with no one to really play the mother. This game uses a dice pool system, and you get added dice if a particular character trait applies to the situation. One character has a trait called "Master Sorcerer," but it is not really detailed what sorcery means in this setting, or what particular kind of magic this character has. The scenario starts out as basically a prison break; does this character have the ability to teleport the entire group out of trouble? The game doesn't really provide an answer for this sort of question. As a GM, I could set the difficulty to be extremely high, making it unlikely. That was not appealing, so I zoomed out a little bit and asked the group if they wanted to go that direction in the story. For me, the interesting part of the scenario were to relationships between the characters and not the skillful escape from the brig of a ship. So we had a chat about that, and then zoomed back in to the fiction. There were other little moments like that, none leading to a bad experience, more like hiccups.

I think if I ran it again I would try to do it GM-less and have more of chat with everyone ahead of time were we thought about the themes of the setting/characters/scenario.

 

[Xamnam]

Right, this is part of the issue I have with it! That most of us would see this instance of GMing as flawed in some way... that the GM's ideas of what would/should happen are borne out... and the game system did nothing to stop it from happening. The texts of the book are not anywhere near specific enough (in either the way Rustic Hospitality works, or the advice to GMs on how to run games).

Heh, yeah, no, specificity is absolutely rarely the goal of this system, no argument there. Great for generating edge case discussions like this I find fascinating, though!

 

[pemerton]

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.

This is not my experience. I've played with very "Mother may I" GMs - with AD&D 2nd ed as the system - who had consistent visions of their world.

As I think @hawkeyefan posted not far upthread, and also @Pedantic, the issue was not the consistent or inconsistent vision of the world, but the way the GM exercised authority over action resolution.

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."

Players getting to declare actions for their PC is the minimum thing that needs to happen at a table for it to count as a RPG. So if we take as a premise of discussion that some RPGing might count as "Mother may I", then we can't confine the label to cases that wouldn't count as RPGing at all.

This is why I have been disagreeing with @FrogReaver (in particular) and some other posters also that the players ought to have no concern about what follows from their declared actions. The point of playing a RPG isn't just to describe the bodily motions and mental states of one's PC. It's to impact the shared fiction, through declaring actions that have consequences. And "Mother may I", used in the context of RPGing, is a label for certain ways of "gating" or arbitrarily determining those consequences, that are made possible by (though not necessarily entailed by) a particular sort of authority structure.

This is also why I regard pointing to the 5e core play loop as incomplete. I think it's obvious that the play loop is to be supplemented by certain principles, and that some of those principles will reduce the likelihood of "Mother may I" moments in play. (This is the bit of the discussion involving @Ovi and @Maxperson about trying not to say "no" and the like.)

consider this video I saw on YouTube the other day. Group is hired to take out some bandits. They head out of town and come across a camp of seedy looking men. The Bard says "hello friends, we are looking for some bandits, perhaps you can help us?".

The NPC's, being, in fact, the bandits, but not very keen on attacking powerful heroes on sight, mislead the party, then backstab them at first opportunity, even after the PC's being given checks to realize the men were wounded and had recently seen combat.

The response of the party? "BS, we had these guys on our side! You just decided they were bandits to screw us! If they were bandits, they would have attacked on sight!"

My question, reading this story, is How did the GM decide the bandits' reactions to these people they met with a friendly Bard as their herald (or leader - it's not clear)? We've got an action declaration - an attempt to befriend these men. The GM decides that the men are not befriended, that they mislead, and that they then backstab. How was that done?

Inferring from your (admittedly brief) presentation of it, it seems that the resolution method was simple GM fiat. The Gm seems to have taken for granted that the situation is a puzzle, with the fixed parameters that accompany a puzzle: these NPCs are hostile, they will attack the PCs regardless of how the PCs greet them, and the players have to figure this out by correlating (i) observations of the wounded, tired state of the NPCs with (ii) stories of bandits.

I think puzzle-type play, in a context where the GM is also rather casual about how they dispense information, and where expectations/conventions aren't clearly established, is a recipe for "Mother may I" of the highest order!

An alternative way to run the bandit scenario would involve the GM rolling for a reaction on the part of the bandits in response to the Bard's friendly greeting, with the possibility that the bandits don't attack the PCs because they like them (presumably even bandits have friends) and try to get them to realise that its the PCs' employers who are in the wrong (maybe the bandits are really Robin Hood-types). Or Princess Bride-style, the PCs make such a good impression that the bandit leader openly says "I hate to have to take you prisoner and ransom you - maybe we can duel over it!" Or whatever. There are many, many ways the amusing premise of this situation could play out which don't involve treating it as a puzzle and which might not have caused the same degree of upset to the players.

I think upthread I mentioned the difference between The Green Knight and Agon - both involve making inferences about what should be done (honour vs dishonour in the first; the will of the gods in the second), but The Green Knight is puzzle-solving (because the GM has established an answer as part of scenario design) and Agon is not (because the players interpret the signs of the gods, and the system has other ways for "punishing" them if they act contrary to their interpretation).

If the players don't even know whether they're playing Green Knight-style or Agon-style (or maybe some further, different style) that could be pretty frustrating!