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

[Bedrockgames]

Given one of my complaints has been, more than once, that DMs treating the rules as merely suggestions is to blame for a significant chunk of MMI stuff, that's not exactly encouraging.

I think there are a few sets of preferences here, but I don't think people are largely arguing for the rules being mere suggestions. You have a large number of posters saying they like the GM always having the ability to be able to overide a rule or come up with a solution ad hoc to fit the situation, but I think you will also find these same people are largely following the rules. This position is more about edge cases with rules or specific actions the players take that rules don't seem to handle adequately. And in cases like mine, when I make such rulings, and I've said this here many times, I am transparent with my players and ask if they think the ruling is a fair way to go (i.e. player describes what they are trying to do, it is a little outside the box but seems like it would yield a bigger result than a mere swing of the sword or athletics roll, so I say "okay the is how I think it should be handled: make an X check, followed by a Y roll, and if you succeed on both, Z happens, if you just succeed on 1, Q happens. Does that seem reasonable?"). In this group it is largely about empowering the players by giving the GM authority to go beyond the rules to address specific actions, and it can also be about things like setting fidelity or having results that make sense. I think another position that isn't very present on this thread but is one you encounter and one people have alluded to, is there are groups where they just aren't as into system mastery and for them expediency of play is the most important thing. You will see groups like that where the rule of thumb is if they recall the rule off the top of their head they use it as written, but if not they let the GM just decide how to resolve it (an example of this might be groups who find it frustrating to read the entry on grapple in 3E every time it comes up and they just let the GM resolve it through opposed strength checks or some other method on the fly). I suppose in the latter they are sort of treating sections of the rules as suggestions, but overall they follow the rules, it is just a matter of prioritizing speed of play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Accreditation is obviously not required which is the point. The fact that some GMs can claim expertise about a fictional world - as likely can some Players! - does not mean the GM has expertise by virtue of being the GM.

I wouldn't frame it as being an expert, but the idea is the GM is the one who curates the setting and usually in these sorts of groups what people like is that feeling of externality the setting has (this is something I have had players specifically say to me when running games this way, so I am quite sure that is one of the reasons some people enjoy it). Obviously making a world doesn't make you an expert in whatever history or literature the world is analogous to. But the arrangement is simply the GM is the one who knows who the kind of place X will be, or if that king has a brother or a rival. That isn't a matter of expertise, but a matter of what role the GM is playing in the group. But I will also say there is usually an expectation in these games that the GM has put some amount of thought into the setting and some amount of prep so that their decisions about these things, even when made on the fly, are fitting into a broader logic.

In terms of expertise, while I do often run games where the GM is the one who handles these kinds of setting elements and there is a line between players and the setting, when something comes up that I don't know much about, I am happy to ask my players for input. I still make the final call, but if we are playing in a game set in a place analogous to 15th century Venice, and they go to a feast, and I realize I know nothing about 15th century Venetian cuisine, I'll freely pick the brains of the player and ask what they think would be available. That is obviously not a terribly consequential example (at least in most cases it probably wouldn't be) but this also applies to more significant setting elements too. You can have this kind of GM authority and still seek player input about things

 

[AnotherGuy]

Because that's what the rules of the feature say? It posits joint authorship - player and GM working together. The idea that players and GM might work together to establish elements of the setting and situation that pertain to a player's PC is not an uncommon thing to find in RPG rulebooks, in my experience. Just as one example, the 4e PHB says (p 258):

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. . . . Quests can also relate to individual goals . . . . Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

The earliest example I can think of in a D&D rulebook is in the original OA, in the rules for the Yakuza class's contacts ability. That's nearly 30 years prior to 5e.

(I would also note: "work with your GM" isn't synonymous with "ask your GM".)

Let me assist.
Work with your DM because your DM frames the setting (and not just the scene) i.e. sets the limits and boundaries. Which at the end of the day means - player requests, suggests and possibly even negotiates. DM approves. That is MMI according to the rough definition. Therefore your comment about some people playing it wrong is clearly incorrect, and this therefore lines up with the upthread quotes from the core rulebooks by @Maxperson as well as with people who indeed have been playing the game such as @Ovinomancer who has played games on both sides of the isle.

It is fascinating you like you call THIS joint ownership but once the DM makes a ruling against the PC on the nobility feature, well that is MMI as if the DM cannot say no when the player is working with him/her

MMI on your Comment: So 5e D&D in its core rules accepts the proposition that the GM should enjoy sole authority over setting. Clearly some people don't enjoy the rules of 5e D&D in that respect. Of course that's their prerogative to do so.

 

[clearstream]

Because that's what the rules of the feature say? It posits joint authorship - player and GM working together. The idea that players and GM might work together to establish elements of the setting and situation that pertain to a player's PC is not an uncommon thing to find in RPG rulebooks, in my experience. Just as one example, the 4e PHB says (p 258):

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. . . . Quests can also relate to individual goals . . . . Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

The quote does not seem to ideally support your argument.

 

[FrogReaver]

Being perfectly frank: I find it very frustrating that you are so nitpicky about tone when it comes to things like "Mother May I" and "freaking out" from folks who are in favor of...whatever terms you prefer to use instead, but you see absolutely no issue with using terms like "player entitlement."

Apparently, I failed my diplomacy check My intent was not to be harsh toward you but it appears you have taken it as such. Anyways, thank you for being frank.

I'm going to try to respond to what I view as the meat and potatoes here while trying to avoid topics/phrases/tones and wording that I take issue with. I'll be frank as well.

1a) You are the one that asked about and brought up 'player entitlement' to me. How am I supposed to respond to your post without using the term 'player entitlement'?

1b) I don't really care what term we use for 'player entitlement' so long as the term encapsulates the same concept. Do you have a better one?

1c) I don't actually understand the issue with the term 'player entitlement'. Talking about entitled behavior is common in many contexts.

Because yes, that is really insulting to players. It is dismissive of their legitimate grievances. It is portraying a style of play--where players actually get to have a say, and expect respect, mutual cooperation, and consensus-building--in the worst possible light. And I have yet to see you even once take issue with it.

Okay, I get this. I would just say I don't think this is an issue with 'player entitlement' but the misuse of 'player entitlement' to describe behaviors it really shouldn't. I'm all for opposing that with you.

But I also think the tone in which those views are often shared is quite antagonistic to the traditional D&D authority split playstyle. To me that's mostly why you are getting such pushback and not for such playstyles themselves.

This is exactly why so many folks get so belligerent about it. We have already endured mockery and derision, and when we finally push back, we're told we are demanding, or petulant, or insulting.

I understand. I don't believe either side has been great in communicating without making the other feel that way. So I get it. But we need less of the same, not more of it.

Perhaps, then, they shouldn't use phrases like "player entitlement" or how they must "walk on eggshells" (a phrase actually used in this thread! One you did not criticize, as I recall.)

I addressed player entitlement above. Much like above, I don't really get the issue with someone expressing that they feel like they have to walk on eggshells. To me the response to that from me if I was on your side of the issue might be - 'that's exactly how I feel about excessive DM authority!' Emotional common ground is a great starting point IMO!

These same emotions--outrage at being called out, demands for respect and contrition and conciliatory talk--are mostly the same ones tyrannical DMs would also convey.

I was with you until contrition and conciliatory talk. Those aren't behaviors I would associate with Tyranical DM's.

This tone-policing works both ways, and I'm pretty tired of it only applying to one side and not the other.

2a) What is tone-policing?
2b) I believe all sides need to be mindful of their tone. I've even called out many on my own side in this very thread when they step over the line.

Sure. I can also see how these exact approaches are the kind frequently used by the powerful to silence valid criticism and dismiss legitimate grievances, to intentionally delegitimize those grievances, once they can no longer be outright ignored.

Ummm, this is a discussion forum where we are all on equal footing. Who exactly do you view as powerful here?

There are. But there are also cons. It's pretty frustrating to have "but there are some good things, right?" brought up when the problems are real, pervasive, and have been dismissed for ages as not a problem.

I fully agree there are cons. I think everyone does. When you solely focus on the cons, you are going to have people remind you there are pros by only mentioning the pros which in turn is going to be countered by someone only mentioning the cons and we end up in a vicious cycle. Let's break that cycle?

 

[Campbell]

On entitlement:

The idea that setting certain boundaries for your participation in a given activity is entitlement does not sit well with me nor does the idea that certain desires are unreasonable for a person to have. In my view entitlement only enters the picture when you fail to respect other peoples' boundaries for participation.

I say this regardless of which side of the screen you are on. When I run games I have certain expectations of the people I play with. That includes not being willing to run a game for passive players who are there just for the ride or who are self inserting. I respect that wanting to play casually / passively is a valid desire as is a desire for self-insert power fantasy. It's not unreasonable to want those things, to ask for those things or to leave a game where your expectations are not being met. I don't see it as a reasonable thing to ever shame someone for the boundaries they choose to set.

There is a lot of shame on these boards for such things. People will speak in terms of entitlement, rage quitting, et al. When people like @pemerton talk about taking over GM duties when the current GM was not meeting player expectations they get massive pushback. There's also been fairly massive pushback when I have suggested expecting players to come to the table with players who like want things and who will provide me with material to work with as a GM. It is not unreasonable to have any of these expectations or boundaries for participation. It only becomes unreasonable when you do not respect other peoples' right to set their own boundaries.

 

[FrogReaver]

On entitlement:

The idea that setting certain boundaries for your participation in a given activity is entitlement does not sit well with me nor does the idea that certain desires are unreasonable for a person to have. In my view entitlement only enters the picture when you fail to respect other peoples' boundaries for participation.

I say this regardless of which side of the screen you are on. When I run games I have certain expectations of the people I play with. That includes not being willing to run a game for passive players who are there just for the ride or who are self inserting. I respect that wanting to play casually / passively is a valid desire as is a desire for self-insert power fantasy. It's not unreasonable to want those things, to ask for those things or to leave a game where your expectations are not being met. I don't see it as a reasonable thing to ever shame someone for the boundaries they choose to set.

There is a lot of shame on these boards for such things. People will speak in terms of entitlement, rage quitting, et al. When people like @pemerton talk about taking over GM duties when the current GM was not meeting player expectations they get massive pushback. There's also been fairly massive pushback when I have suggested expecting players to come to the table with players who like want things and who will provide me with material to work with as a GM. It is not unreasonable to have any of these expectations or boundaries for participation. It only becomes unreasonable when you do not respect other peoples' right to set their own boundaries.

Just walking away is a good example. Some people do that for solely personal reasons with no expectations, while some people do that as a negotiating tactic to try to get more of what they want from the group (I think and hope much fewer here).

So while I agree with your post 100%, I think there's a very fine line when it comes to evaluating what someone's actual behavior means and then applying the wrong label based on the wrong evaluation. That doesn't make it right, but understanding why it's happening is important to addressing the problem. IMO.

 

[clearstream]

On entitlement.

The idea that setting certain boundaries for your participation in a given activity is entitlement does not sit well with me nor does the idea that certain desires are unreasonable for a person to have.

I see some parallels in this to resisting "Mother May I" as a label. It's reasonable to have some expectations, but "player entitlement" seems to cast that as unreasonable. It's reasonable for groups to enjoy DM-curated play, but "Mother May I" seems to belittle that preference.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I fully agree there are cons. I think everyone does. When you solely focus on the cons, you are going to have people remind you there are pros by only mentioning the pros which in turn is going to be countered by someone only mentioning the cons and we end up in a vicious cycle. Let's break that cycle?

I've tried to acknowledge there are going to be downsides. Every design choice, every mechanic, every procedure, has a down side. I think most people pick a system or style by eyeballing a pro and con list on these things

 

[Bedrockgames]

There is a lot of shame on these boards for such things. People will speak in terms of entitlement, rage quitting, et al. When people like @pemerton talk about taking over GM duties when the current GM was not meeting player expectations they get massive pushback.

I don't recall this one coming up, but that for me would largely depend on how it is being done (are you taking the GM seat in a socially acceptable way). Sometimes GMs just don't work out. There isn't much point in people punishing themselves if the GM isn't providing a fun session. I've seen that handled well, and I've seen it handled poorly. I think it would also be a question of whether the player taking over the GM seat is reflection the wishes of the other players or if the player in question is imposing himself. I've seen GMs who, for lack of better language, bully a group to get what they want, but also seen players who do that too. Generally, more than play styles, that kind of behavior is what causes me to not play with people.

I will say, while I think it is totally fair for a player to step in if the players feel the GM isn't meeting their expectations, I would expect a certain amount of tact here because it is a delicate area (just as it would be delicate to have a conversation with a player not meeting expectations).