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

[AnotherGuy]

What in the world are you on about here?

You’re escalating this pretty crazily and challenging my integrity (vile?) and I’m starting to get really annoyed, so you need to mea culpa or take measures to resolve this that don’t contain communication with me. I’ll spoil the below:

Spoiler: Spoiled stuff

You need to understand who you’re talking to (and perhaps reread what I wrote in light of that).

Understand that you’re talking to someone that has dealt with chronic Insomnia since age 4. Not a sleepless night. Not “here-and-there.” Not consecutive sleepless nights. Not a few months worth. Not a spate with it for a year. DECADES. I’ve worked through this with cognitive therapy and tons of various (ultimately ineffective) regimes…but I’m persistently cognitively impaired to one degree or another because of it and I do the best I can (despite 2-3 hours of sleep a night…maybe 4 once every few weeks…and then a complete Narcoleptic spiral).

Understand you’re talking to someone working through the progressive cognitive (and more) limitations of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy due to dozens of concussions from age 3 onward.

Understand you’re talking to someone who has cared for multiple people with low-functioning Autism, some of which we attempted various games with (including games that have cognitive loops akin to TTRPGs).

Understand you’re talking to someone who has cared for (and loved deeply as she was my sister) a severely impaired (cognitively and emotionally) drug addict for a decade until her suicide.

Understand you’re talking to someone who carried for his mother…every day (complete care with virtually no Hospice help)…through 22 months of grade 4 glioblastoma, the last 4 months of which were total body Neuropathy and cognitive decline until collapse.

Understand you’re talking to someone’s whose partner is a PHD Chemist yet wakes up routinely with night terrors because of her childhood (one that included a long term regime of self harm which we still deal with).

Understand you’re talking to someone who two of his closest friends run games for someone (his brother) with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the other with Congenital Hydrocephalus (his best friend’s brother). I have also run multiple games for them both.

Understand you’re talking to someone who worked within and adjacent to cognitive science and field work for nearly a decade and have multiple colleagues who still work in the field and keep me abreast of research.

Understand you’re talking to someone who has the deepest possible empathy and well-practiced understanding for people beset by such things.

But also…

Understand that I’m not just talking about these things. Cognitive and behavioral impairment ranges significantly in its impacts and frequency. Infrequent, mild, impairment might be sufficient for someone to OPT-INTO a game that features (what might others might label as dysfunctional…but is not only 100 % FUNCTIONAL FOR THEM…BUT THE INVERSE WOULD YIELD DYSFUNCTIONAL PLAY) MMI, Force, and/or outright Railroading because they are personal aware of the limits of their mentally processing on Thursday evenings for the next 2 months.

My point in this…again…is that MMI/Force/Railroading are not objectively dysfunctional features of play. And those 3 cohorts I mentioned might prefer them to alternatives for those reasons I mentioned. I’m not speaking to any other cohorts…just those 3.

None of this was me saying “Only cognitively impaired people enjoy MMI/Force/Railroad games.” That isn’t even close to what I said. That shouldn’t be close to your takeaway. I spoke in defense of those 3 modes of play exclusively for a particular collective of cohorts…nothing outside of them.

Whatever you think is happening in this exchange…I hope it’s abundantly clear that you’re not only profoundly wide of the mark but boy do you have the wrong target. This was shaping up to be a good, clear series of exchanges and conversation and you’ve just completely nuked it by weaponizing some misbegotten grievance out of nowhere and tried to shame me for it. I am not playing ball with that.

I mean this. If you want to have any exchanges with me in the future you need to apologize and course correct asap. If you think I’m going to back down at your impugning my integrity with “this argument is vile” (utterly wrong) public commentary…man do you have the wrong person.

If an apology and course correction isn’t in the cards on your end, we should go our separate ways permanent-like. I have never blocked anyone on here and never reported anyone ever (nor will I). But say the word and I’ll put you on block so we don’t have any future interactions.

I do believe after reading some of the exchange he wildly misunderstood you and took it in the worst possible light.

@clearstream in an attempt to provide an easy example
You have the battlemaster and you have the champion both valid subclasses of the 5e game. Some people just want to play champions, and it doesn't mean they are cognitively impaired but it also doesn't exclude players who are cognitively impaired to select simple classes to play. Why do you think WotC made such a subclass in the first place?

 

[clearstream]

I do believe after reading some of the exchange he wildly misunderstood you and took it in the worst possible light.

I carefully read back over each post and, furnished with the most recent clarification, gave what I think was the intended weight to the "particular cohorts" part. So misunderstood, yes - I think so.

Yet I sincerely feel we should avoid drawing cognitive, social, or even investment limitations into these discussions. At least the first two are far too complex and sensitive. There is space for conversation on (for e.g.) cognition in study of play and games. I don't believe this thread is that space. They require care and nuance that I believe it's fair to say are often not sustained in our short written back-and-forths about MMI.

@clearstream in an attempt to provide an easy example
You have the battlemaster and you have the champion both valid subclasses of the 5e game. Some people just want to play champions, and it doesn't mean they are cognitively impaired but it also doesn't exclude players who are cognitively impaired to select simple classes to play. Why do you think WotC made such a subclass in the first place?

I dislike and am wary of characterising neurologically divergent or folk who interact differently socially, as impaired. And in my experience such differences don't inevitably play out as essential commonalities in preferences. There is an additional concern that whatever one thinks on that topic, MMI/Force/Railroading are put forward as objective qualities, when MMI at least (the focus of this thread) is subjective. I wouldn't try to make any argument that neurodivergence is/is-not associated with that subjective experience: a given individual may well experience feelings of "Mother May I" regardless of where they sit in relation to cognitive or social norms. Again, this doesn't seem to me an appropriate space to debate that.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

I think you and others focus way too much on words and definitions and not enough on the actual phenomenon. If the GM is making decisions based on where they want the story to lead who cares if it's railroading? The phenomenon is what matters. If the GM is changing their basis for how they make decisions moment to moment who cares if it is Mother May I? The phenomenon is what matters.

The focus on being technically correct instead of actually dealing with what is happening at the table basically feels a rhetorical dodge to me - a way to treat the concerns and experiences many of us have had as essentially invalid. In general this entire thread has been largely about getting down on players who express frustration. Any time people are vulnerable and bring in actual play examples (where they actually seem to be showing some empathy for their GMs) they have been told they are essentially wrong to feel the way they do and the actual phenomenon at hand have been massively downplayed. I find that far more hurtful than any particular word choice.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the GM is making decisions based on where they want the story to lead

What do you actually mean by this? I'd argue that for a human being making decisions about fiction this is always part of the process. Now we of course can have opinions about how prominent part it should be.

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream

I think you and others focus way too much on words and definitions and not enough on the actual phenomenon. If the GM is making decisions based on where they want the story to lead who cares if it's railroading? The phenomenon is what matters. If the GM is changing their basis for how they make decisions moment to moment who cares if it is Mother May I? The phenomenon is what matters.

The focus on being technically correct instead of actually dealing with what is happening at the table basically feels a rhetorical dodge to me - a way to treat the concerns and experiences many of us have had as essentially invalid. In general this entire thread has been largely about getting down on players who express frustration. Any time people are vulnerable and bring in actual play examples (where they actually seem to be showing some empathy for their GMs) they have been told they are essentially wrong to feel the way they do and the actual phenomenon at hand have been massively downplayed. I find that far more hurtful than any particular word choice.

Suppose that some folk were to have the following idea

• MMI describes a negative feeling that some of them experience from some kinds of interactions in play (subjectively)
• They all agree that given individual concerns and preferences, it's perfectly valid for some to feel that way: no one denies their feelings
• They go on to converse productively about features of interactions that regularly do/do not produce those feelings in those individuals
• For these folk, MMI is a negative feeling and the ongoing behaviours it might evoke

I think those folk are acknowledging the validity of experiences, and they're able to dig into what drives them. At the same time, they're not saying anything about whomever in their group doesn't have those feelings. They're not saying that they should, or must have those same feelings, or that they just haven't thought about it enough, or are expressing it through other behaviours. They're not saying that a change to a game system that will benefit those subject to the negative feelings, will necessarily make any difference at all to those who aren't.

Does that sort of oblique example help explain? Absolutely your concerns are valid. I acknowledge that. And what I am saying is that they are valid for you, not me. For me, my concerns are valid. I respect your concerns, but I need not share them. What produces a given feeling in you, might not in me. The "objective" view seems to say that I must share them - I must be going to be prone to MMI - because its intrinsic to the interaction itself. Rather than the individual subject to that interaction. I dislike that. It seems to straightjacket and speak for me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What magical power gives nobles the ability to instantly and unerringly tell the difference between a noble from anywhere in the world and someone who is impersonating a noble?

We don’t know because the ability in question belongs to the PC.

No one said the player is not part of the table.
A player is not THE table. Big distinction.
I'm pretty sure you knew that reply was coming yet you felt the need to reply which I found strange. Anyways.

I commented because the idea of the player not getting what he wants so that the table gets what it wants seems contradictory, at least as far that player goes.

How is such conflict resolved?

The "objective" view seems to say that I must share them - I must be going to be prone to MMI - because its intrinsic to the interaction itself. Rather than the individual subject to that interaction. I dislike that. It seems to straightjacket and speak for me.

So your “objective view” was based on things that I said. And here you’re saying that I was speaking for you. I hope you see how problematic that may be, from my perspective. You’re taking my words and saying they mean something other than what I intended, while complaining how you don’t like others to speak for you.

Beyond that, I think the main issue is that you’re misapplying the term “objective”. Yes, I attempted to define how elements of play could cause MMI rather than relying on how people feel about it. I did so not to create an objective stance of good or bad, but rather to show it without the good or bad label.

I am not saying that MMI is good or bad.

This is why your “subjective” and “objective” definitions don’t work. They aren’t in opposition, yet you’ve proceeded as if they are.

To clarify, the GM’s ability to deny use of Background Features is an example of the system being prone to MMI. It simply is so. It’s objective in that sense.

How any person feels about that is entirely up to them.

The GM in my game allowed MMI to happen based on the system’s vulnerability, and that led to my dissatisfaction with play. Your “objective” and “subjective” are linked. One lead to the other. They are not opposites.

Someone else in that game may not have minded the system’s vulnerability to or the GM’s use of MMI. They subjectively don’t care, or perhaps even enjoy it.

 

[FrogReaver]

We don’t know because the ability in question belongs to the PC.



I commented because the idea of the player not getting what he wants so that the table gets what it wants seems contradictory, at least as far that player goes.

How is such conflict resolved?



So your “objective view” was based on things that I said. And here you’re saying that I was speaking for you. I hope you see how problematic that may be, from my perspective. You’re taking my words and saying they mean something other than what I intended, while complaining how you don’t like others to speak for you.

Beyond that, I think the main issue is that you’re misapplying the term “objective”. Yes, I attempted to define how elements of play could cause MMI rather than relying on how people feel about it. I did so not to create an objective stance of good or bad, but rather to show it without the good or bad label.

I am not saying that MMI is good or bad.

This is why your “subjective” and “objective” definitions don’t work. They aren’t in opposition, yet you’ve proceeded as if they are.

To clarify, the GM’s ability to deny use of Background Features is an example of the system being prone to MMI. It simply is so. It’s objective in that sense.

How any person feels about that is entirely up to them.

The GM in my game allowed MMI to happen based on the system’s vulnerability, and that led to my dissatisfaction with play. Your “objective” and “subjective” are linked. One lead to the other. They are not opposites.

Someone else in that game may not have minded the system’s vulnerability to or the GM’s use of MMI. They subjectively don’t care, or perhaps even enjoy it.

Are you now defining MMI as ‘dm adjudication of success/failure’? That’s the only definition that I’ve seen provided that can be good/neutral.

If not, I think you are saying it’s bad even if you don’t use those precise words. IMO its badness is an implication of all the other definitions I’ve seen provided.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I commented because the idea of the player not getting what he wants so that the table gets what it wants seems contradictory, at least as far that player goes.

How is such conflict resolved?

I don't see how this is a contradiction. If there are 5 players + a GM and 4 players say they think a particular ability of 1 player doesn't seem like it fits or is meant to work in that moment, and the GM agrees, that is a pretty fair way to handle things in my opinion. Obviously specifics are going to matter, frequency is going to matter (if a player is being singled out and they keep getting shut down by the group for trying to invoke a standard ability, that seems pretty crappy). But I have been in tons of groups where a consensus emerges among players about something and the GM signs off on it. I don't see an issue with that. Usually when I've been the player who was in disagreement I understand my opinion is out of sync with the majority of players and I can accept that. I will say it is also very, very rare to see a standard ability get flagged and not used in this way. But a scenario where I try to use a particular spell and all of the other players say 'but casting A is absurd because of B' or if they say to the GM 'if he casts that there should at least be a chance of C because B*'. Or I could see a situation where being able to take a particular action strains credulity because of the situation (how can he swing a sword, his arms were just chopped off). Those are extreme cases obviously. But any ability where the facts on the ground could cause peoples suspension of disbelief to fall apart could be subject to that kind of situation.

*For instance A is fireball, B is the room is filled with explosive gas, C everyone catching on fire

 

[Maxperson]

Another way to look at it might be this

• It does not matter if the person is a noble or an imposter: they present the same. The noble feature just means you're also not an imposter (no risk and consequences of being found out... you're the real thing.)
• Elites often have more in common with their peers in other countries, than with the other social classes in their own country. Thus, I think it would be okay for a group to decide that the trappings and habits of wealth and power, are recognised everywhere.

I do get the idea that, as on Earth, maybe nobility in profoundly different cultures might not treat each other as they would other nobles within the same culture. This runs into the Favoured Enemy problem which motivated the coining of MMI. Essentially, if a mechanic has a narrow application, it needs to be sufficiently powerful that although it seldom matters, it matters enough when it does to be worth bothering with. But that in turn can result in volatile levels of challenge which can be harder to manage... and unfortunately less times it's useful (can feel bad if someone else is deciding when it's useful.)

Solutions then have to hit the balance of

• I can see why I would take this... and what it would say about my character (I'm a noble), because either
• It almost always counts, so does not have to be all that powerful (always-on or no-cost-to-use features are generally lower power)
• Or, it hardly ever counts, but when it does we really value it (conditional or limited-use features are generally higher power)

5e Nobility seems to me to be intended to be almost always on (relatively free to use, although... noblesse oblige and all that). If a group changed that - per the notion that elites are more diverse in their world - then they might prefer to be generous with the effect when it does apply.

Most of the time the party isn't going to travel all that far until mid to high level, which most groups never reach. Working in the kingdom you are from plus neighboring kingdoms(assuming not enemies) is working the vast majority of the time.

Most of the players I have played with wouldn't have an issue with it not working if they travel halfway across the world or into an enemy country.

Of course, I play with more realism than the game starts with, so the added realism there is what feels right to my game. That said noble is MUCH better than the background in the book because of that added realism. Nobles are going to have land, incomes, wealth in their castles, castles, servants, guards, perhaps soldiers and so on. To be a noble in my game you have to make a successful roll, because of that.

Some campaigns ago during 3e, a player in my game had a female PC that rolled nobility and ended up a princess(daughter of a duke in line of succession). At one point the PC was back home talking to her father about a fate of the world issue that she and the party were working on and he said, "This was going to be yours when I passed from life, but your need necessitates that I give you this inheritance early." and then he gave her a powerful magic item that was a family heirloom.

I'm not looking for ways to say no. Quite the opposite. They just have to make sense in-fiction as well. I'm not going to allow ridiculous situations to occur just because a rule says something. That's the purpose of the very repeated advice to the DM that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. It's an admonition to the DM to follow the rules until the rules hit a snag, and then to unsnarl them the way the DM feels is best for the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Are you now defining MMI as ‘dm adjudication of success/failure’? That’s the only definition that I’ve seen provided that can be good/neutral.

If not, I think you are saying it’s bad even if you don’t use those precise words. IMO its badness is an implication of all the other definitions I’ve seen provided.

Not precisely, no. I've been saying that I tend to view MMI as a negative all along. However, the things that cause it are not negative.... they simply are.

Like, for me, the outcome of it is negative. That's how I tend to think of it, and what I've been saying. However, others may not feel that way. We've all said there are many players who, for whatever reason, aren't concerned about it at all. They will not feel the negative of MMI the way I would. That's their subjective opinion.

However, them having that opinion doesn't mean that their 5E game isn't prone to MMI due to the way the system works. The cause of the MMI is there, regardless of their feelings.

Again, I get why the words "objective" and "subjective" have come into it, but @clearstream is, in my opinion, setting them at odds in some way, and I think it's confusing the issue.

I don't see how this is a contradiction. If there are 5 players + a GM and 4 players say they think a particular ability of 1 player doesn't seem like it fits or is meant to work in that moment, and the GM agrees, that is a pretty fair way to handle things in my opinion. Obviously specifics are going to matter, frequency is going to matter (if a player is being singled out and they keep getting shut down by the group for trying to invoke a standard ability, that seems pretty crappy). But I have been in tons of groups where a consensus emerges among players about something and the GM signs off on it. I don't see an issue with that. Usually when I've been the player who was in disagreement I understand my opinion is out of sync with the majority of players and I can accept that. I will say it is also very, very rare to see a standard ability get flagged and not used in this way. But a scenario where I try to use a particular spell and all of the other players say 'but casting A is absurd because of B' or if they say to the GM 'if he casts that there should at least be a chance of C because B*'. Or I could see a situation where being able to take a particular action strains credulity because of the situation (how can he swing a sword, his arms were just chopped off). Those are extreme cases obviously. But any ability where the facts on the ground could cause peoples suspension of disbelief to fall apart could be subject to that kind of situation.

*For instance A is fireball, B is the room is filled with explosive gas, C everyone catching on fire

So I'll start by saying that nothing you've said above is anything I'd really disagree with.

Here was the example:

So the man is a noble within the Known World of Mystara (essentially the Gazetteers). It is far more certain that when a PC noble meets other nobles from far away nations (Red Steel, the unchartered continents Davania and Skothar and even the lands in Brun not covered within the Gazetteers as well as the Hollow World) or even those from another setting altogether) they won't recognise each other.

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.

Nothing in the example says anything about anyone having a problem. It's certainly implied, but the details are missing. What prompted my comment was the assumption that the player's idea would in some way be bad. Why is that always assumed?

So you've taken that assumption into your explanation (which is understandable based on the implication from @AnotherGuy 's original comment). And I think what you've suggested as a solution... table consensus... makes sense.

What if it was a case where most participants are on board with the player's idea? Let's say 4 players are for it, the other is unsure, and the GM is against it... what happens then? Majority rules consensus? Something else? Does the GM's opinion carry more weight than any other participant's? If so, does that say anything about Mother May I?

I don't think there's really one answer because folks' opinions will vary wildly, and group dynamics will be different from table to table. But it's an interesting thought.