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

[hawkeyefan]

This is where we aren't going to agree I think. In my view, his concept is flawed. Is he going to expect to be able to start a fire underwater or in a vacuum? I don't think he is, so "under any conditions" becomes "under many conditions."

I’m not gonna argue the minutiae of an example that I had expected would be clear.

The point is, the GM is the person who gets to decide what’s impossible, right? But he could also decide it’s possible, right? It’s up to him.

Compare that to a roll of the dice. Maybe a skill check is required. Maybe the possibility of a fire isn’t a predetermined thing. Maybe we see how the roll goes and then determine what’s possible or impossible based on the results.

These are two different methods. One is more prone to mother may I than the other.

I can see if they are enjoying the game. Even if there's a issue, that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that they did not enjoy themselves, which is the goal of the game. I think that even if someone could have enjoyed themselves more, that doesn't make the game a loss(from a goal of having fun perspective).

I guess I wish I had your certainty of being able to read people so perfectly.

There have been many games that I have played in where there was some minor aspect or aspects that I didn't like, but the good/great ones dwarfed those and I had a blast. I don't have a right to expect the game to change for me. That's a very arrogant position to take as the changes I want can very easily be ones that another player or players find annoying or an issue.

Of course you have a right to want the game to change for you. Of course that should be tempered by the impact on others.

Everyone in the game has that right and there’s nothing at all selfish about having such a desire.

It’s everyone’s game.

Thank you for a considerate reply which I honestly and without any desire to be proven right, can't help but see as a confirmation of my analysis. Perhaps reflect on "they know it, but don't want it to be so"? "Mother May I" cannot accurately describe their play, because it literally describes a guessing and begging relationship, and their interactions don't feature that. Insisting on it being a characteristic rather than a feeling is exactly the divide I described.

Well I think you made some valid points. I just don’t think that there was a divide between the two definitions, or that they were oppositional as you described.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m not gonna argue the minutiae of an example that I had expected would be clear.

The point is, the GM is the person who gets to decide what’s impossible, right? But he could also decide it’s possible, right? It’s up to him.

Yes and no. If the group is going through an area that is so barren that there is nothing to use as fuel and I decide that it's possible, I'm running the game in bad faith. I'm obligated to run the game as fairly and impartially as I can and ruling that the clearly impossible to all who are playing the game is possible runs contrary to both fairness and impartiality.

Compare that to a roll of the dice. Maybe a skill check is required. Maybe the possibility of a fire isn’t a predetermined thing. Maybe we see how the roll goes and then determine what’s possible or impossible based on the results.

If I've described the environment as being so barren that there isn't so much as a bush, then it's predetermined based on the description of the environment. That's the basic D&D play loop. The DM describes the environment, the players declare what they do, and the DM narrates the results.

What you seem to be talking about is that method of play where things are determined as you go, and in that case, were I running such a game I wouldn't declare something to be impossible since I couldn't know that in advance.

I guess I wish I had your certainty of being able to read people so perfectly.

I've had girlfriends that I've amazed with my ability to tell them what they are thinking, essentially having a conversation with their thoughts. Facial expressions, body language and eyes reveal a lot about what goes on inside.

Of course you have a right to want the game to change for you. Of course that should be tempered by the impact on others.

I didn't say want, I said expect. Talk to the group, but if someone doesn't like what you are proposing, you don't have a right to expect that the group will change it for you and against what that player wants.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've had girlfriends that I've amazed with my ability to tell them what they are thinking, essentially having a conversation with their thoughts. Facial expressions, body language and eyes reveal a lot about what goes on inside.

Wow is that a class ability or a background feature?

 

[Maxperson]

Wow is that a class ability or a background feature?

Background. Not trained.

 

[Malmuria]

My primary concern here is addressing the competitive integrity of play space. Is our ability to achieve the aims of our characters determined by skilled play of the game?

In terms of early dnd, here is where you get the idea of the "DM" actually being the "referee." I get the criticism of this position--that the DM can't both play the 'opposition' and disclaim responsibility--but my preferred way of solving it would be through a) table-facing procedures, b) other table-facing (at least partially) randomization and c) principles and communication at the table. By contrast, other games suggest that the GM should be "a fan of the PCs," and conversely that PCs should be open to "falling in love with trouble," ie. putting themselves in a perhaps intentionally more precarious situation.

So I think the concerns that stem from MMI can take us in a variety of different directions; I hesitate to say that any one system is better than another compared to the extra-system things that can be done to address MMI as a problem.

Compare that to a roll of the dice. Maybe a skill check is required. Maybe the possibility of a fire isn’t a predetermined thing. Maybe we see how the roll goes and then determine what’s possible or impossible based on the results.

Everyone in the game has that right and there’s nothing at all selfish about having such a desire.

It’s everyone’s game.

How do you feel about GM-less games? It seems that if the concern is so strongly about authority, that a game without a GM would in fact be the ideal. Per the above, for all the ways in which non-dnd games can and have approached player agency and GM resolution, the model of several players taking on a single character, and one player (the GM) taking on all the NPCs mostly sticks. For example, in Blades in the Dark, setting position and effect is a huge deal, as is interpreting what a complication looks like and framing the next obstacle. Meanwhile the mechanics of players to affect the shared fiction often come at significant cost in a way that has actually seem quite punishing for players coming from 5e.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thank you for a considerate reply which I honestly and without any desire to be proven right, can't help but see as a confirmation of my analysis. Perhaps reflect on "they know it, but don't want it to be so"? "Mother May I" cannot accurately describe their play, because it literally describes a guessing and begging relationship, and their interactions don't feature that. Insisting on it being a characteristic rather than a feeling is exactly the divide I described.

I actually think there are 3 core definitions of MMI in this thread. IMO there's also been quite a bit of conflation and jumping from one of these definitions to another mid discussion.

• MMI is a criticism of the reliance on DM adjudication for PC action success/failure present in some RPG's.

As you note above, those that enjoy and play such RPG's don't find that this definition of MMI describes their games. The children's game MMI is about asking permission, but that's not present in such RPG's as the games don't actually give the player the ability to ask the DM's permission. Instead, these games only grant the player the ability to declare actions. IMO, the conflation of 'declaring an action' with 'asking the DM's permission' is the easily seen failure point of this criticism.

• MMI is strictly certain dysfunctional state(s) of RPG's reliant on DM adjudication for PC action success/failure.

IMO, whether everyone adopts this definition of MMI, we all agree that reliance on the DM for adjudication of success/failure can factor toward dysfunction at some tables. Thus, I don't think this definition is invalid. It just lacks explanatory power for what we are seeing in this thread. If MMI was really primarily about something external to a player then we would expect to see broader agreement around the external situations where it occurs. We don't see that though. And it's not just around 'sides'. There's significant nuance and difference of opinion on many examples, even from those whose core positions mostly fall on the same 'side'.

• MMI is a player's feeling of needing the DM's permission to do something in the game.

I believe this is the best valid definition of MMI based on the full context of this thread. It explains why there are such differences of opinion around what gets called MMI by various posters. It explains why all objective definitions fail to reach any kind of consensus. It explains why we can have non-dysfunctional play examples that still get called MMI. IMO, this thread is exactly what we could expect if MMI was really about the player's feelings and their individual interaction to external circumstances.

 

[pemerton]

abilities with defined mechanics are far more likely to matter at the table than those that are completely up to the DM to interpret (see spells vs. skills debates for other example of this).

I get what you're saying, but how is this not a defined mechanic?

Position of Privilege
Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.​

If you need to secure an audience with a local noble, you can.

 

[pemerton]

Again, compare to an example where more clear-cut mechanics are involved. Did I hit the troll with my sword? Did I charm the noble with my spell? These aren't really up to the GM to say yes or no.... they're up to the play process of rolling dice and so on.

But even in these cases the GM has final say. That's what things like rule zero are all about. And it need not be about what the GM has in mind (though it could be) it might also be to maintain fidelity with what has been established in the last five minutes of play, to fix a weird moment in the game where the mechanics feel like they pop out of place and aren't producing a sensical result, etc

Upthread I posted this imagined example:

Consider the following, imagined, episode of 5e D&D play:

The PCs are high level (20th or thereabouts). They have planned to assault Orcus on the Abyss. They have teleported (via some appropriate magical effect) into Orcus's throneroom. And the GM describes a Balor demon standing not far from them, obviously Orcus's personal bodyguard.

The player of the fighter PC declares "I charge at the Balor, ready to cut it down!" The PC has good AC and hit points for a character of that level, is equipped with a +1 Demon-slaying sword, and has been buffed a bit by the PC spellcasters and some potions.

The GM replies straight away (ie no dice are rolled or anything like that) "The Balor ducks your charge, and pulls to the floor with its whip about your legs. Then it decapitates you with its flaming sword!"​

@clearstream said that the rules of 5e D&D require the GM to invoke the combat mechanics in these sorts of contexts:

It's markedly different mechanically because it will fall within the rules for combat. In order for the Balor's whip (can result in pulling 25') and sword attack to be legitimate per 5e rules, initiative would need to be rolled.

And subsequently Maxperson posted the following example, which appears to entail the same thing:

If I tell the DM that I swing my sword at the barkeep, not only do I do it, but I have invoked the combat rules. The DM has to ask me to roll initiative and roll for the barkeep, as well as anyone else who will be in the fight.

But I take it that you (Bedrockgames) don't agree?

 

[FrogReaver]

I get what you're saying, but how is this not a defined mechanic?

Position of Privilege​

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.​

If you need to secure an audience with a local noble, you can.

IMO, such abilities work perfectly fine as long as the setting is specific enough to go along with them. The problem tends to arise when such abilities don't make sense in some part of the created world. One answer to that would be to create a different world and let the ability work, but that does potentially stifle alot of creativity. Another answer to that would be to not have the ability work in the world where fictionally it doesn't make sense. Probably best cared for in session 0, but the issue may not feasibly become apparent until visiting some distant land where nobility works differently.

 

[Maxperson]

I get what you're saying, but how is this not a defined mechanic?

Position of Privilege​

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.​

If you need to secure an audience with a local noble, you can.

What's the mechanic? I can see it being a rule, but there's nothing mechanical to it.