A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Michael Silverbane]

I'm not sure "GM decides" covers the same ground though as "Mother May I".
The GM decides a lot of things in general, and so it makes the terminology a bit vague.

When someone uses "Mother May I", I'm thinking of a style of play in which the DM explicitly blocks the players from taking certain actions, or determines the outcome in such a way as to render player-actions useless. It is the direct opposite of a DM that says "roll the dice", thus allowing just about any action, but using the dice to resolve the outcome.

For example, I played in a Star Wars RPG, where the DM told me that I couldn't try to pilot a stationary X-wing in a hangar. He didn't ask for a check, even though my character had a pilot skill. That would be an example of "Mother May I" in my opinion. He could have asked me to make a skill check (not "Mother May I"), or he could have just set the DC impossibly high (soft "Mother May I", but almost just as bad). What he did not do, is allow me to just take the action and/or have a fair chance at pulling it off.

But please correct me if I'm interpreting the phrase incorrectly.

So, to me... It seems like Mother May I is the degenerate case of GM Decides.

A game where the GM has Veto power on player action declarations is GM Decides. When that veto power causes game dysfunction (such as in your example above) it becomes Mother May I.

The amount of veto power usage that will cause Mother May I will vary from table to table.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, to me... It seems like Mother May I is the degenerate case of GM Decides.
.

That is what it should be. But the problem is the way it has been framed in much of the discussion is as GM decides.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why should criticism in the field of RPGs operate by different standards from criticism in other fields?

Do they? Some of us may be critical of criticism in other fields as well if that is the case (I don't know, it isn't my field). I think terms do matter. And if terms are coined with obvious intent at mockery of the thing you are trying to analyze, my view is it taints the discussion and the analysis. If other fields engage in criticism like this, then I have to say, I am a little disappointed to hear that. Because the obvious bias produced by this kind of terminology is pretty clear to me.

 

[Numidius]

I'm not sure "GM decides" covers the same ground though as "Mother May I".
The GM decides a lot of things in general, and so it makes the terminology a bit vague.

When someone uses "Mother May I", I'm thinking of a style of play in which the DM explicitly blocks the players from taking certain actions, or determines the outcome in such a way as to render player-actions useless. It is the direct opposite of a DM that says "roll the dice", thus allowing just about any action, but using the dice to resolve the outcome.

For example, I played in a Star Wars RPG, where the DM told me that I couldn't try to pilot a stationary X-wing in a hangar. He didn't ask for a check, even though my character had a pilot skill. That would be an example of "Mother May I" in my opinion. He could have asked me to make a skill check (not "Mother May I"), or he could have just set the DC impossibly high (soft "Mother May I", but almost just as bad). What he did not do, is allow me to just take the action and/or have a fair chance at pulling it off.

But please correct me if I'm interpreting the phrase incorrectly.

Also in regard to interpretation of the personality of a Pc, or dismissing players planning inside an established setting, thus promoting a prudent, submissive, undertoned game.

I've seen it in practice enforced by the use, or menace, of super Npcs, preventing planning/execution of certain courses of action, keeping the game constrained, with a constant feeling of danger in the air. On the opposite side, the absence of significant, interesting Npc, during exploration, implying the Pc is out of tracks, or more simply the Gm is not interested in that Pc-driven situation.

I consider the above deranged forms of play, just to be clear, not related to anyone here; but even the more open and friendly Gm I know, has a consolidated habit of sometimes just saying no and moving on.

On the players side, those who play stealth or social types in those games, tend to be extremely thoughtful before declaring anything, while the combat oriented ones just wait the opportunity to unleash their dice on some opponent, hoping is not that much stronger than them.

Most of the time nothing very significant happens at the table, unless is the seldom Gm-driven stuff to shake a bit the situation.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

That is what it should be. But the problem is the way it has been framed in much of the discussion is as GM decides.

I think that the reason that some of the posters are framing any and all GM Decides as Mother May I is due to the table variance I mentioned above. For them, ANY use of GM Decides causes dysfunction, so at their tables, it is all considered Mother May I.

 

[Maxperson]

Me: Nope, metagaming opponents have no problem with MMI and its usually part of their social contract

So first, do you mean opponents of metagaming or opponents that metagame? Second, you didn't say anything about opponents or the social contract with your statement, so the above claim is just plain false.

 

[Maxperson]

MMI exists whenever the GM has authority to negate action declarations, even if a GM chooses not to. It's a matter of where a game rests authority.

So in every RPG ever. The DM can alter rules in every RPG and give himself that authority, whether the rules of the RPG "allow" it or not. Therefore, he has that authority whether he gives it to himself or not. If he chooses not go give himself that authority, he has simply chosen not to exercise it.

And then of course, the game Mother May I is about having to ask "mother" about every little thing they want to do, which defines what the pejorative means in RPGs. Since even in D&D that's not the case, regardless of where the authority lies, D&D is not Mother May I.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you may not have been paying attention. The mechanic of "GM decides" is a large part of MMI. Where that mechanic gets employed is the operative part, I think. If it's universal, then you're in MMI, if it's more limited, you may not be.

You need to read the rules for D&D again it seems. If a player decides that his PC walks behind the tree, I have no ability as DM to decide that he cannot do so. If the player decides that his PC goes to the local bar to get a drink, I have no ability as DM to decide that he cannot do so. And so on. The exception of course being an in game reason that stops the PC, like Dominate or guards arresting the PC as he heads to the bar.

The "DM decides" is only about things that have the possibility to fail or are guaranteed to fail, and if the outcome is in doubt, the DM has to decide on an appropriate DC and let the player roll. It's simply not Mother May I when the DM decides that declarations that have no chance of success, fail.

 

[Aldarc]

So in every RPG ever. The DM can alter rules in every RPG and give himself that authority, whether the rules of the RPG "allow" it or not. Therefore, he has that authority whether he gives it to himself or not. If he chooses not go give himself that authority, he has simply chosen not to exercise it.

This sort of thinking is how dictatorships are born.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This sort of thinking is how dictatorships are born.

No it isn’t. I don’t agree with Maxperson in this case, but it is demonstrably not how dictatorships get their start. We are talking smabout resolution systems for games where people pretend to be elves and dwarves. I don’t know Maxperson’s politics, but I think it is unlikely he is a fascist. You can believe in GM authority but be against of that kind of power in any one person as the head of state.