hawkeyefan
Legend
So I've been watching this thread and reading along, and there has been some very thoughtful discussion at times. There has also been the usual argument about terminology and how it's used, where people start talking about the labels rather than the ideas behind the labels. This post caught my eye for a couple of reasons.
First, I very much agree with it. I think that the intent of the OP by [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] in the thread that spawned this one was clearly not to put down any style of play. I don't think he was using Mother May I as a pejorative so much as a style that he was hoping to avoid, or at least minimize. I think his intent was clear, and that we would be better served speaking about his intent rather than the phrase Mother May I and what it may mean.
Second, I feel like this post could have been made in reply to the OP of this thread. Or at least the intent. I feel like you willfully ignored the intent of the post by [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], who was clearly speaking about attempting to adjudicate a game with a sense of real world causality in the game's fiction. So that, in the fiction, if a bad guy was hiding in the warehouse, then that is where he would be found, much like in the real world. I think that intent was also very clear. And if it wasn't, it was not long before the poster jumped over to this thread to elaborate, and to clarify.
So I find this call for context and speaking to a poster's intent rather than their chosen words to be a bit incongruous with how you began this thread, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].
Having said that, I otherwise agree with a lot of what you say, and your post has generated a lot of discussion, so there is that.
And for the record, I think that D&D absolutely fits the Mother May I description...I just don't think that's a bad thing. Not as long as there is some kind of thought given to how the DM handles the game. I look at the phrase as simply meaning that the game primarily runs through the DM, which D&D most certainly does. But I think that, as with many other games that have been cited, the DM should be acting with some principles that would prevent the game from becoming an example of the worst that Mother May I could be. Those principles should likely be clear at the start of the game, or discussed by the DM and group. As long as that's the case, then things should proceed just fine.
If a DM is acting purely on whim, denying some actions while allowing others with no principle to guide him, no consistency in what is allowed and what is not, then yes, the game would be horrible. For many, this is likely what Mother May I means....the worst version of that. And that's what's caused all the argument back and forth on that. But I feel like with any game, it's possible for a GM to ignore principles and have the quality of play suffer. Seems pretty self evident.
I think perhaps the big difference with D&D and some other games, is that many other games describe the principles that they expect a GM to use, where as D&D seems to hint at a wide variety, and over many editions of the game, over forty-odd years, to the point where there is no set expectation on what principles will guide a given game. But, that doesn't mean there are none.
