A DM by any other name

[Scylla]

(My apologies in advance, this is long.) I've noticed that coinciding with the arrival of the D&D-Next playtest a new sentiment has arisen regarding the overall DM role and DM houseruling. People have decried the so-called "Mother May I?" ability of a DM to make rules calls. This sentiment (which I'll refer to as NMMI for "no Mother-May-I") surprised me, and I even find it somewhat disconcerting, as I always viewed the DM role and his or her ability to make judgement calls and houserules as both long-eastablished, inviolate, and necessary.

I'll start by admitting I'm a grognard of sorts, and I started playing in 1977. That no doubt shaped my D&D worldview, so to speak. But I enjoy all editions (I'm currently DMing a successful 4e campaign and having a ball).

I chalk up this new NMMI attitude to two things primarily: A) the rules-heavy nature of latter editions and perhaps B) bad experience with DMs.

Regarding A:
Third edition put forth rules for almost everything, it seemed. 4e largely continued this trend. In the old days, if you fighter wanted to move a certain distance and tumble past an enemy, the DM had to house-rule that on the spot. (This could unfortunately lead to wildly differing calls from different DMs, or even varied calls from the same DM if he or she is not consistent.) The newer editions spelled out that type of action more clearly in the rules, and players could draw confidence from that—they knew what their characters were capable of. This does strike me as more realistic in some ways; if in real life you suggest I leap across a gap between two buildings, I can visually asses the gap and make a reasonable guess as to my chance of success without word from on high.

On the downside (for me at least), plentiful rules eroded one of the DM's main functions—house ruling actions—and players grew used to this. This newfound "there's a rule for it in the book" mindset has evidently led some to believe DMs are growing redundant, or to resent losing some rules "back to the DM" with D&D-Next.
To me, one of the biggest 4e mistakes in this regard was putting magic item descriptions right in the Player's Handbook and encouraging magic wish lists—to me it weakened the wonder and mystery of magic items. (Yes, I know, players in older editions could access DMGs and a DM can still vary magic items through their descriptions and details, but why put them in the PH to start?)

Regarding B:
Reading a lot of the NMMI complaints, my first thought is usually "Wow, you must have encountered some really bad DMs." If that's the case, I sympathize. I've had bad DMs too; heck, I've had them all—DMs that played running their own super-powerful NPCs, DMs that weren't happy unless a requisite number of PCs died every adventure, you name it. But is that the culprit? Could so many players have "bad DM trauma"?

I don't believe in any DM-versus-player type nonsense, something even Gygax seemed guilty of at times. For me the role of DM, which I take very seriously, is to entertain, challenge, amuse, and mystify my players, while at the same time allowing for my own enjoyment, much as an NFL referee may enjoy a job well done or a stage actor enjoys a good performance in no small part because of the audience's enthusiastic reaction. I never "keep players down" but I do try to challenge them, and thereby their PCs.

I'm against the erosion of the DM's power and ability to houserule.
Why?

— The DM knows the whole picture, the players don't. Sometimes players can undertake actions against their own interest or against the interest of the overall plot/adventure. Yes, a good DM rolls with player actions to a point (I certainly do), but there are times when a DM needs to make things a little harder or easier to move the plot along, etc., and freedom to make rulings without being book-bound facilitates that. No long-running, successful campaign exists without occasional course corrections.

– Maintaining the challenge. I strongly believe that a challenging game makes for a fun game. Sadly, some players don't understand this. Having a PC able to easily conquer anything he meets sounds like great fun, but in practice it wears thin quickly. (Ever see the Twilight Zone episode about the criminal who thought he was in heaven?) The really memorable combats that you remember years later aren't the easy kills (though smashing through a horde of kobolds is admittedly fun) but rather those times when the player really needs to make that high roll or critical to save the day and does it.

Latter editions have—strictly in my experience—led to an explosion of power gaming and "PC engineering." Building a super character is a mission for some players, and the many power combos and feats and other PC abilities in latter editions facilitate this. Building an effective PC can be fun; indeed, I enjoy selecting 4e powers myself. But the erosion of DM power makes it harder to limit the abuses of the rules or prevent one character from shining above the rest because that player is (at best) very knowledgeable or (at worst) a dedicated min-maxer.
Having one character stronger than the rest leads to many problems, and ultimately as DM I'm either forced to find a way to "de-tooth" that PC a bit or I'm forced to escalate the challenges to match, which puts the weaker PCs in serious jeopardy. The erosion of DM power and the increase in the "rulification" of everything enable power abuses.

– DMs want and deserve to have fun too. DMing is a tough craft, and it's work. It isn't for everyone. But the feeling gained from sharing your world with others and challenging and surprising your friends is priceless. It's a different experience from playing a PC, but it's great fun. Reducing the DM to a robot that merely spits out room descriptions and monster rosters is wrong. The greatest challenge for a DM, and I think the most rewarding, is ruling on the fly. A PC wants to swing across the room, kick the bad guy's face, and land on the bar seat next to the baron? Houserule it! Wandering monsters show up? Create the encounter!

At times the charge has been leveled that latter edition fans prefer a videeogame-style D&D. I've always felt this charge was unfair. But reading some of the "Mother may I" complaints I can't help to feel that some NMMI players now do want that kind of experience, and if they could do away with a DM and simply have an automated system present the mission, Modern Warfare or Uncharted style, they'd seize that option. It runs contrary to the very essence of D&D for me: a unique synergy between a referee/storyteller and players wherein both sides have fun and both sides have the power to shape play. The wonder and thrill for me comes from the result of that very special union. I hope all future versions of the game preserve it.

Your thoughts?

 

[Steely_Dan]

Tasty, very tasty, I like the way you think.

 

[El Mahdi]

It's been my experience that the level of adjudication and campaign control for DM's are different from group to group, based on each groups preferences...as it should be, and as it should remain.

The "Erosion of the DM's Power" is a myth.

A rules system can be written and designed any way it wants to in this regard and it won't matter. Each group is still going to play the way they've always played with regards to this.

If you're DM'ing for a group that doesn't want to allow the level of authority one wants as DM, then if it's something that one can't live with, then that DM should find a different group.

It's 100% about group preference, and "The Rules" are not going to change that.

To me, it's a non-issue.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That's a lot of words to try to tell me my D&D philosophy is badwrongfun.

 

[drothgery]

I've always thought of 'mother-may-I' problems as something completely different -- rules that require a lot of fiddly little checks to do something.

i.e. 1e fans bemoan that 3e eliminated a lot of balancing factors for casters (casting was much harder to disrupt between the concentration skill and the five foot step, random failure events were toned down a lot) but that happened for a reason -- those mechanics were annoying; they didn't reappear on the much more balanced 4e casters (and in fact 4e ditched the last vestige of that in killing off the spell resistance mechanic) -- and in more casual tables, those mechanics were either actually ignored or effectively ignored (because the DM wouldn't have the monsters rush the casters or because buff spells put the casters in positions where disrupting casting would be difficult or impossible).

 

[TwinBahamut]

Reading a lot of the NMMI complaints, my first thought is usually "Wow, you must have encountered some really bad DMs."

You know, let's just stop you right here.

I hate it when people twist my views of weakening the role of DM and removing "mother may I?" mechanics into this particular phrasing. People who are expressing concern over this subject are not doing so out of some kind of trauma born of distrust of the DM. They're doing so because they honestly believe it will make for a better game, even with a "good" DM.

Putting these kinds of words into people's mouths is just plain rude. These kinds of discussions would be a lot more polite and constructive if you didn't create these fantasy motivations for people who have different interests and ideas than you.

Anyways, on to the main subject...

First, I'll say that you might be misunderstanding what the "mother may I?" insult is supposed to be targetting. It rather specifically refers to the uncertainty faced by the players due to an abstract game environment where they can't rely on certain facts of the game world. For example, tracking detailed positioning without a grid, where the positions of characters and availability of targets is mostly in the realm of DM fiat, so any action requires the player asking the DM if the action is, in fact, possible. This act of asking permission from the DM to perform any action whatsoever is the "mother may I?" part. It applies just as much to things like the game using abstract stunt mechanics rather than rigidly-defined powers, and the like.

Example of "Mother May I?" gameplay:
Player: We need to take out that ogre. Is he in range?
DM: Yes. (Yes you may)
Player: I want to jump on his back. Is it possible?
DM: Err... No, he's moving around too much and is too high for you to reach. (No, you may not.)
Player: Darn. I rush in and attack him with my sword.
DM: Go ahead. (Yes, you may.)
*dice rolling*

Example of the opposite:
Player: I'm 25 feet from the ogre, and I have enough move, so I move into range and try to grapple him.
DM: *listens patiently and plans the ogre's next move because he doesn't need to get involved*
*dice rolling*

Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, but I prefer the latter, by a big margin. The biggest reason is that the former style leads to all kinds of problems because of different expectations on the part of the player and DM. Different people have different ideas of what is possible, so Mother May I gameplay leads to more disappointment and friction between people at the table. Dropping the Mother May I also speeds up the game and reduces the overall burden on the DM, freeing up time and mental energy that can be better used elsewhere.

As for your specific points... Apologies up front if my responses don't make a lot of sense because I'm responding to both your words and my own perception of the Mother May I issue.

"The DM knows the whole picture, the players don't."

Disagree. I don't want the DM to be making "course corrections to move the plot along" as you put it. Besides, most of this can be done without houseruling, a strong Rule Zero, and certainly without "mother may I?" abstraction. Moving the game along isn't a DM skill that is being challenged by this, so I consider it a non-issue. Also, the DM doesn't know the whole picture. What goes on inside the player's minds is just as important as whatever is going on in the DM's mind, so this is simply untrue.

"Maintaining the challenge"

I've seen many people argue that it is easier to challenge the players if the DM simply takes the kid gloves off and stops interfering with the rules. For the most part, any challenge created by the DM interfering with the rules, rather than from the rules themselves, is what I'd consider an unfair challenge. "Mother may I?" gameplay hurts the ability of players to understand the basic situation and make complex plans and strategies.

"Power gaming"

I think this is an unrelated issue. Power gaming (as you define it) is a problem of the character creation rules, which is a different beast than Dm involvement. Also, you're kind of making a badwrongfun argument there... If people want to have fun optimizing, let them.

"DMs want and deserve to have fun too"

I don't think Mother May I gameplay is exactly fun for the DM... I DM a bit myself, and I much prefer relying on the rules and removing ambiguity, rather than factoring in a lot of ambiguity and making tons of judgement calls. I prefer to just roll the dice and see how they fall. Also, most of the stuff that is fun for DMs is unrelated to Mother May I as well.

"Videogame-style D&D"

You make a silly point here. Mother May I has nothing to do with automating the DM's role. Sure, it removes the DM from certain parts of the game, but that is irrelevant for the most important parts of the DM's role. The DM isn't a calculator or combat referee, the DM is a world-creator and storyteller. You also make a few more rude characterizations and put words into people's mouths again. You need to work harder to avoid that.

 

[Minigiant]

it's all about Player DM Synchronization.

If the DM expectation and Player expectation are not very much in sync, open style play MMI style breaks down fast. VERY fast.

Player 1: I stab the ogre in the arm and focus my gaze on the brute. Every time it swings at my way, I automatically stab it back in the arm.
DM: You can't do that as an action.
Player 1: Why not?
DM: Because it is ridiculous. You can't just give yourself extra attacks.
Player: But my rogue is a stalker. He is darkness. He is the night.... with daggers.
DM: Fine. You can get the extra attacks wit a -15 to hit penalty. And only if the ogre misses or hits for no more than 10 damage.
Player 1: Fine (I aint coming back next week). Jinxed dice. Nat 1.
DM: Amongst the dust and darkness, your rogue's blade hits nothing but air.
Player 2: My turn. My swordsman swings his blade but instead of damage, his intentional miss lets the rogue get another stab in.
DM: No giving other people turns.
Player 2: What?

vs

Player 1: I stab the ogre in the arm and focus my gaze on the brute. Every time it swings at my way, I automatically stab it back in the arm. That is Clever Riposte by the way. Jinxed dice. Nat 1.
DM: Amongst the dust and darkness, your rogue's blade hits nothing but air.
Player 2: My turn. My swordsman swings his blade but instead of damage, his intentional miss lets the rogue get another stab in.

In the first game, the DM and two players are not in-sync. Because there is no rules for certain things, they must ask ahead of time or wait for DM banning/adjustment when the situation occurs. And the players may or may not be happy with the result. When there are rules, there is at least a point of agreement where DMs and Players can start.

But if expectations don't match, there is a chance of a broken game if they do not sync up later or come to a compromise.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've noticed that coinciding with the arrival of the D&D-Next playtest a new sentiment has arisen regarding the overall DM role and DM houseruling.

I think that's the key point there. Much as when 4e was announced and suddenly 3e became "unbalanced". It seems to be a relatively small group of relatively loud people who have something to say when a new edition comes around. With 4e, they listened to the loudest complainers and no one else; hopefully WotC will cast a wider net this time.

This sentiment (which I'll refer to as NMMI for "no Mother-May-I") surprised me, and I even find it somewhat disconcerting, as I always viewed the DM role and his or her ability to make judgement calls and houserules as both long-eastablished, inviolate, and necessary.

You and me both. (For the record, I was not born when you started playing.)

I chalk up this new NMMI attitude to two things primarily: A) the rules-heavy nature of latter editions and perhaps B) bad experience with DMs.

I think that's where a lot of these kinds of attitudes come from. People have a bad experience, and they blame it on the game system (not the people at the table). The reverse is also true; people have a good experience, and they praise the game system. A lot of these debates are about people being unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions. To add to that:

Could so many players have "bad DM trauma"?

Yes. DMing is hard. There are not many people in this world who have leadership skills, creative vision, number-crunching ability, conflict resolution skills, introspective awareness, charisma, confidence, etc. etc.

The basic role of DM posited by this game is extremely challenging, and I suspect many people either take significant time to learn a basic level of competence or simply fail at it. I know I've grown a lot over the past decade because of all the challenges of DMing, and I had to learn from abundant mistakes.

Similarly, how many people have management positions but shouldn't be managers? How many of you have had a bad experience with a doctor who aced the boards but was a jerk (or who wasn't a jerk but was otherwise not up to the task)? How many teachers are actually good at teaching?

Life is hard.

On the downside (for me at least), plentiful rules eroded one of the DM's main functions—house ruling actions—and players grew used to this. This newfound "there's a rule for it in the book" mindset has evidently led some to believe DMs are growing redundant, or to resent losing some rules "back to the DM" with D&D-Next.

Definitely feels that way.

For me the role of DM, which I take very seriously, is to entertain, challenge, amuse, and mystify my players, while at the same time allowing for my own enjoyment, much as an NFL referee may enjoy a job well done or a stage actor enjoys a good performance in no small part because of the audience's enthusiastic reaction. I never "keep players down" but I do try to challenge them, and thereby their PCs.

Well said.

The DM knows the whole picture, the players don't.

Very good point.

Latter editions have—strictly in my experience—led to an explosion of power gaming and "PC engineering."

I don't entirely agree with that; this has a lot to do with individual disposition of players and DMs as I talked about above.

There is more to min-max in 4e than there was in 3e, more in 3e than in 2e, and probably more than in 1e. I think the real issue is less about the editions and more about the internet. The internet allows those people who want to engineer their PCs to do so more easily, and it allows the rest of us to hear about their exploits. I think that most D&D players don't really do this, but those that do have a very strong voice in the rpg community as a whole.

DMs want and deserve to have fun too.

No kidding.

At times the charge has been leveled that latter edition fans prefer a videeogame-style D&D. I've always felt this charge was unfair. But reading some of the "Mother may I" complaints I can't help to feel that some NMMI players now do want that kind of experience, and if they could do away with a DM and simply have an automated system present the mission, Modern Warfare or Uncharted style, they'd seize that option. It runs contrary to the very essence of D&D for me: a unique synergy between a referee/storyteller and players wherein both sides have fun and both sides have the power to shape play. The wonder and thrill for me comes from the result of that very special union.

I'm with you. Charges that "4e is an MMO" because of its rules are, as you say, unfair. But, ignoring the editions and speaking in a broader sense, some elements in the gaming culture seem to be pushing away from the notion of D&D as a creative medium first and a game second and are trying to flip the two. I agree that this is contrary to the essence of D&D.

When I explain to people what D&D is, I find myself having to defend against a number of judgmental preconceptions. No, there's no devil worship, but there's also no miniatures on a grid, no costumes, and no computers. At its heart, D&D is storytime around the campfire.

 

[Emerikol]

It's been my experience that the level of adjudication and campaign control for DM's are different from group to group, based on each groups preferences...as it should be, and as it should remain.

The "Erosion of the DM's Power" is a myth.

A rules system can be written and designed any way it wants to in this regard and it won't matter. Each group is still going to play the way they've always played with regards to this.

If you're DM'ing for a group that doesn't want to allow the level of authority one wants as DM, then if it's something that one can't live with, then that DM should find a different group.

It's 100% about group preference, and "The Rules" are not going to change that.

To me, it's a non-issue.

I think the rules can support a style. If the rules are very strictly designed and specifically constructed to prevent improvisation by the players then less DM adjudication will come into play. Yes the game can be houseruled but that doesn't make the game prior to change a game that fascilitates a style of play.

 

[Mercule]

I believe in very strong power for the DM, including the ability to operate outside the published framework. I prefer TTRPG rules should be written in such a way as to not impede this option. In my opinion, this is one of the most core principles of the D&D game, specifically.

I also believe the DM should not flex that power except as it improves the game. Everyone screws up, sometimes, but you should stick with the RAW unless you actually have a reason not to. Considering the DM can always teleport (random deity) to the PCs' location, call it a "plot hook" and smite them all, breaking the rules to lord your power over the players really only proves you're a jerk.