This seems obviously false.
The phrase is an indictment of a particular mode of GM/referee authority.
And I see I've been ninja'd by @chaochou.
D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?
- Status
The phrase is an indictment of a particular mode of GM/referee authority.
And I see I've been ninja'd by @chaochou.
If someone is so clearly not actually listening to what you have to say... why are you engaging with them? Didn't they already prove that there isn't much point arguing with them?
hawkeyefan
Legend
I’d add a step between your 2 and 3. Something like “The GM applies the appropriate rules to the situation.”
I feel like that’s an expected step in most cases and skipping over it explains the continued tension.
Again, it’s about the amount of authority placed with the GM and how that authority is or is not limited. So all of those elements of the game that you listed are areas where the GM may exercise their authority.
How is the DM’s authority limited in those areas? What can the players do in those areas that is not subject to the DM’s approval?
overgeeked
B/X Known World
Awesome.
No, it's not the only way. But any honest examination of RPGs will reveal we have basically three options. Referee authority. Shared-player authority. Or mixed. D&D and PbtA games are far closer together than apart on referee authority. Games like Fiasco are sold as shared-player authority, but they default to temporary referee authority in places. A referee having authority is how the vast majority of games handle this however, so that should be acknowledged.
Hmm. In FKR games the referee is the authority of the game. They are the sole deciding factor in basically every regard. The players are expected to have familiarity with the world, setting, genre, etc, but (as you say), the referee is the final authority. The players are free to play and RP and act in character as much as any other game, but the rules are basically non-existent in most cases almost completely replaced by the referee. The player can create their character, with referee approval. The character can act and think and respond as the player wishes. But as with D&D, the referee is the final say on the fiction. Some referees do give players control of the narrative in places. What's your sister's name? Who's your contact in city hall? Who's your nemesis? Referees and players can collaborate on the setting in the same sense as most PbtA games do at the start of the game. However much more control the players have than that is entirely the purview of the referee.
Nor do I. That's session 0 or pre-session 0 stuff.
A lot of people in the thread seem to equate MMI with adversarial refereeing. It may not be your definition, but it seems to be a common one.
Even going to the extreme edge of high referee-authority style gaming, the player is still in control of what their character thinks (barring telepathy, mind control, etc). The player/character has tactical infinity and can try anything. The character's success however is not up to the player. So while they have control over their actions, they have no control over the outcomes. They can certainly influence the outcome in various ways (bribing the guard, stacking the odds in their favor, etc), but not control. The referee narrates the outcome and/or calls for a roll.
But, as I said above, the only way the player has to interact with the world is through the referee. That's just how most RPGs work on a basic level. What the character thinks is up to the player, but what the character sees...is up to the referee. What the character tries is up to the player, but what the outcome of that action is...is up to the referee. Basically, the player controls the character's internal world while the referee controls the external world. The referee is free to cede control over certain aspects of the external world, of course, but is not required to.
Pick one please.
People in this thread have argued for knowing things their characters could not possibly know in the name of making well-informed game decisions.
Established world. The referee will tell you at some point what fantasy world the game is taking place in. They will generally inform the players of any changes made to the world, if they're things the characters would know and/or if the players assumptions need to be curtailed (for example: FR but no elves), but otherwise rely on player knowledge of that world (or easily accessible books, wikis, etc). So, by definition, what you know about the world is gated by the referee.
Homebrew world. The referee created the world. What does the player know about the world? Whatever the referee tells them. How do you, the player, find out what your character knows about the world...you have to find out from the referee. Either ask or they'll tell you (for example: "what's common knowledge about topic X?" vs "here's the one-sheet of common knowledge for my world"). So again, by definition, what you know about the world is gated by the referee.
Collaboratively-created world. Everyone involved in the design process knows what's in the world. Someone might forget and need a reminder now and again. So the player gets to decide what their character knows about the world.
Then we're back to needing a working definition of what MMI even means.
Some games have a paragraph about how the GM should be a fair and impartial arbitrator of the situations that arise in play, and that players should avoid metagaming and solely act based on what their character would know. Other games have a paragraph saying that the GM should be a "fan of the PCs" and tell the players to "keep the metachannel open." These are all examples of how games manage the potential for arbitrariness not with formal constraints over authority, but rather with principles they hope the GM and players will keep in mind. In other words, it's not the fact of having authority that automatically creates a MMI situation, but rather the soft practices on how authority is deployed in a given context.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I don't know if every game puts forth principles like that. Or if they do, they don't state them in a clear and straightforward manner.
To look at 5E as an example, as you mention it has a paragraph about the GM being fair and impartial. It has that bit about players avoiding metagaming. If it has principles of play, they're buried in the text, and are not presented as such in a clear manner. For many games that have such principles, they're very easy to list. With 5E, I don't know if that's really possible. Or, you're likely to get a multitude of different lists of what different people perceive to be the principles of play.
But principles of play aren't what I was really talking about. They're a good thing in my opinion, and they can be examples of what I'm talking about, but they aren't always.
What I'm talking about is limits on GM authority. If Mother May I is a case of total GM authority, then what will prevent it is limiting the GM's authority.
Again, if we look at combat as an example, we can see where the rules... the mechanics of the game like armor class and to hit bonus and so on... are what determines the outcome. On my turn, I attack the enemy and I make a roll, and the rules tell us what happen. There is no GM judgment in that moment. The GM judgment factored into the situation in other ways... the presence of the enemy, its position after its turn, environmental elements, and so on. But in that moment, on my turn, the GM doesn't get to say how it goes. He's bound by the dice result.
Imagine if the GM was not bound by the dice result in combat. Imagine if the enemy's AC was not set beforehand, but was instead decided in the moment. This would undermine my ability as a player to effect change in the fiction. I don't think many people would like to see this be the way the game worked for combat.
Yes, this is what I've been saying. The idea that Gm authority or GM judgment is the issue is flawed.... no one's really been saying that. It's not just about GM authority, but the amount of GM authority, and how that authority is limited.
Hussar
Legend
Heh. Ok. Fair enough.
I have most certainly resembled that remark in more than a few occasions.
Aldarc
Legend
Several points here that I would like to highlight in this pertitent section:
(1) MMI =! "the referee is the final say on the fiction"
I think that many people will agree that the DM/GM/Referee/MC/Lorekeeper/etc. is the final arbiter/facilitator of the fiction, rulings, rules, etc. However, I think that MMI entails the idea that players require asking for the GM's explicit permission for knowing things or doing things, especially those things that are not laid out in the rules. This is to say, I think that there is a difference between (a) players getting knowledge from the GM's scene framing, negotiating the fiction, or asking questions of clarification so they can make informed in-character decisions AND (b) the players having to repeatedly ask for the GM's permission to know or do things for their character.
(2) I believe that your questions here get close to the rub when it comes to character knowledge. This is is something that @Campbell talks about here: i.e., the dissonance of playing a character who inhabits the world who has to "earn" that common knowledge from the GM.
- Question: Can referees and players collaborate on the setting during the session rather than only at the start of it? For example, something comes up that the player feels is pertinent to their character but that neither the GM nor player could have thought about prior to the session.
I don't think that negotiating the fiction is session 0 or pre-session 0 stuff. IMHO, it's a major part of how the game is played at the table as part and parcel of play. IMO, GM and players having a conversation about what's going on in a scene isn't MMI.
If my choice is between you misrepresenting my argument or you grossly misrepresenting everyone's argument then I pick the former; however, my actual preference is that you represented everyone's argument fairly and accurately instead.
I think that you want to apply the idea of a GM gating character knowledge a little too liberally where you basically turn nearly everything into being about the GM gating knowledge to the point of banality rather than actual insight. Also, I don't think that "by definition" really is "by definition." This is not really what I think of when I think of when it comes to a player character's knowledge of the setting being gated by the GM.
If you want a working definition of what MMI means, then I would suggest a definition that avoids equating MMI with GM authority or the GM framing a scene. That is too vague and broad to be functionally useful. I don't think that it does an adequate job of defining my sense of it. I don't think that does a good job of describing what Mike Mearls meant when he coined it nor do I think that is what is meant by those who have since evolved the term. For starters, I think that a good clue about the meaning rests in the term "Mother May I?" which comes from a well-known children's game. (FYI, I don't think that MMI being a children's game makes it a derogatory term as I don't think that children's games are somehow lesser or insulting.)
MichaelSomething
Legend
Mother May I is to FKR as Railroad is to Adventure Path...
overgeeked
B/X Known World
According to you. Some others in this thread have defined it exactly so.
Okay. Instead of talking around it give me concrete examples. One that's MMI and one that's not MMI. Make them as similar as you possibly can to clearly demonstrate exactly what the different is between MMI and not MMI.
- Status
