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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

GMless games may be fine... I haven't yet played Ironsworn without a GM, but I'd certainly be interested in giving it a try. But the thing is... I don't have a problem with the GM role. I just don't think it functions best with absolute authority. Is it really that hard to understand? That if I say "The GM's authority should be limited in ways" the natural next conclusion is that I want to be rid of the GM?

I mean, no one thinks that wanting player authority to be limited is about hating players.

Well, now that I type that out, maybe some people feel that way.... but I mean the rational ones!

Of all the problems that 5e players cite with the game—they are innumerable—MMI as a problematic form of action resolution is not one of them, or if it is, it is articulated as a problem of DMs lacking support, not in terms of player agency.

Actually, I would say it is both. It certainly impacts agency, and it largely happens because of lack of support for the GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well as you know I think it has these - background abilities. But judging from this thread, GM's apparently ignore or override them on a regular basis! In which case, what would be gained by adding more of them?

Well they keep adding spells every chance they get! But those are okay cuz magic.

 

[Maxperson]

With all due respect, I think reading distant lands as including across the entire multiverse is putting hyperbolic words in their mouth.

Even a noble in an distant land isn't going to learn the heraldry of a minor noble. They MIGHT(depending on how much distance "distant" is) recognize the king, princes and dukes, but less than that no. It's too far away.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is the tricky part. Players have to want to be integrated into the world, want to have connections that are meaningful, etc. Every. single. player. in every single campaign I have run has done the opposite: loner, no family, no home, no connections to anyone. Just adventuring and the party (and even then, their connection to the party is usually tenuous). My players don't want anything that can potentially be used against them, ever. (I think it has to do with their early experiences with our former-forever DM)

Without wanting to explore the world, ask questions, engage with people, etc., its very difficult to run a sandbox.

I have had a handful of players who want to get involved & be a part of the world like you mention but they are very much not the norm. Orphan loners make up the bulk of most groups. The other group who consider themselves "involved" IME tmsre the ones who ignore the gm during the oitch/session zero and say nothing of substance to establish any thing then come back next game with a multipage "bsxkdtory" to push off at a gm or similar.

I hope that 5.5 does a better job of expressing that this kind of thing often needs to be done at the table during play and will be shaped by the world the gm runs. That would be a very welcome change. Nit having that kind of guidance really contributes to a lot of these mmi problems where f/ex the player sees their pc as the favored scion of the God King or something and the GM sees them as a level one impoverished fallen noble 's seventh son or something

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Frankly, my reaction to that would be if I was going to not have an ability work as it says on the tin just to say upfront its not available. There seems no virtue in bait-and-switch.

 

[Xamnam]

Even a noble in an distant land isn't going to learn the heraldry of a minor noble. They MIGHT(depending on how much distance "distant" is) recognize the king, princes and dukes, but less than that and no. It's too far away.

Sure, I don't disagree with any of that on its face. But if the character can invoke the name of those people in credible way (especially if it's their own name), not wanting to start an international incident is also a plausible reaction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I realise that you can read the same words and come to different conclusions, and I'm not saying that your conclusions are wrong or even particularly out of the ordinary. Rather I suggest that there is quite a different way to read them, that falls squarely within what the words actually say, and is very far from Rule Zero.

Well said. I agree. I would add that there's something that seems fundamentally flawed about arguing against Mother May I by constantly citing the passages in the book that one believes point to the GM as the absolute authority as @Maxperson is doing.

It goes beyond even that. @pemerton is essentially saying that a noble from the Known World of Mystara who ends up on Toril should be put up by nobles who would automatically recognize him. Every noble in the multiverse knows this guy is a noble, and not some imposter claiming to be one.

Can't these examples ever be kept to like a reasonable and likely sort? Do we really need to add in world-hopping just in an attempt to win some kind of technical win?

But, setting that ridiculous leap aside, let's just look at it and see what we come up with.

Is it possible that the Toril noble would find the Mystara noble in their court, and dismiss them out of hand as an imposter of unknown name and house? Sure.

Is it possible that when the Mystara noble speaks, their bearing and poise clearly communicates something that the Toril noble recognizes... and that despite their concern, the Toril noble senses some form of kindred and decides to follow the practices of hospitality and treat this person as if they are the noble they claim? I would say sure.

So given that either of these things is possible, what does it say that a GM, when faced with this example, does not seek some way to make the ability work, but instead does whatever they can to shut it down?

It says that they love Mother May I and they want to drink it and bathe in it and rub it under their armpits!

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, I don't disagree with any of that on its face. But if the character can invoke the name of those people in credible way (especially if it's their own name), not wanting to start an international incident is also a plausible reaction.

Maybe, but a minor noble(or someone claiming to be one) showing up so from far away is going to be highly suspect. Why would they believe the story and not think that it's someone posing as a noble to get free room and board, or perhaps even rob the place? Plus, turning away a minor noble from a kingdom that is distant from you is NOT going to cause an international incident. Turning away a duke, prince or king? Sure. That could easily cause one.

 

[Manbearcat]

I liked much of your post greatly, and my main call out would be to ask why on Earth we cannot agree to use a term other than one that some find replete with negative, somewhat pejorative, and typically dismissive and belittling, connotations?

As a second concern, the listed motives for a style or culture of play are all "limitations". Why not "preferences", "choices", "differences", "priorities"... all the many non-judgemental characterisations our language affords? EDIT To list "cognitive limitations" and "social limitations" I feel sure based on all our previous conversations was without ill intent, but I hope you will reconsider and retract.

For me, "Mother May I" has its place in our vernacular solely as a non-neutral label.


Note minor edits to hopefully better explain my concerns.

You appear to have misread my post.

I was citing a particular cohort for which MMI, Force, and Railroading not only do not yield dysfunctional play, but they achieve desirable play.

Those 3 cohorts are folks with cognitive, social, or investment limitations.

They either don’t want the burden of mental processing/can’t manage the burden of mental processing/can’t manage the social demands of being aggressively in the spotlight/don’t care to be responsible for the trajectory of play. Precisely because of this, for that aggregate cohort, the dynamics of play that MMI/Force/Railroading engender are desirable (not dysfunctional).

 

[hawkeyefan]

You seem to think a DM ruling this way is an affront to the player or at least his creative choice.
Meanwhile the common place view would be to appreciate the setting and the table's fiction.

I don't see how a player is not part of the table.

Like identified, the potential disagreement regarding background features relates to them requiring and assuming very specific sort of fiction. How will the people on a faraway continent, let alone in another dimension know of your folk hero? Will the commoners everywhere respect your noble, even in lands where there is no noble class or anything analogous to it? Even in France 1789?

Now one answer is that the GM simply should not introduce any fiction that would cause such a conflict, but I certainly understand why this doesn't sit well with a lot of people. For example I really am not comfortable with the idea that simply by one player choosing noble as their background we are now locked playing in a world where commoners showing deference to aristocrats is universal.

Another is that the GM uses their imagination and judgment to see if there is some way they can think of to make the ability work.

I feel that this being so unobvious a solution to the problem says a lot about how we've been conditioned to approach these ideas.

In most d&d groups the players don’t expect or even desire their character choices to constrain the dm to create world where they will be useful.

If the player culture changed such that they expected and desired their character choices to constrain the DMs world building choices then I’m absolutely sure most 5e DMs would accommodate them.

So. to answer your question above - everyone’s creativity would be stifled. In 5e player creativity isn’t expressed by world building, it’s expressed by reacting to the world that is built.

So would you then say that Mother May I is limited to world building in 5E?

I think it's a shame that WotC didn't push harder on the elements of 5E design that actually do give the players some ability to worldbuild, most notably Backgrounds, but also Bonds. That so many people ignore all that stuff in favor of being given such options by the GM also says a lot.

I would expect my choice of background to matter to play or, if it won't, then it should not be an option.