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

[chaochou]

I think that's likely the big difference. With MMI, the GM is choosing to allow actions or not, to allow them to succeed or not, to use dice to decide or not. It's all up to the GM.

The GM is meant to honor the results.

I agree with all that... but to make it a little bit more robust... the GM isn't just meant to honour the results. In many games the GM is actively harming the game - deliberately and wilfully undermining it - if they try to exercise authority which isn't granted to them by the game text.

An extraordinary number of D&D players seem to think that all rpgs secretly conform to D&Ds 'GM has sole and full authority over all content at all times plus can change or ignore any rules at will'. It's laughable.

What they think happens when someone hasn't played D&D and actually uses the text of other games as written is anyone's guess. But to answer that - games play properly, as their designer(s) intended.

 

[tetrasodium]

A soft move is a threat. The players wanted to avoid the Duke's men, so the range of soft moves would stop before getting to being found by the Duke's men. Thwarting the goal is a hard move -- you can no longer avoid the Duke's men now. Hard moves close doors or deliver direct costs. Soft moves threaten hard moves.

Yes it's a threat, but the players don't get to "want to avoid the duke's men" because the players get to

Spoiler: do this

2. The players describe what they want to do. Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

Spoiler: not this

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.

This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal com bat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is m ore structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.

Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM ’s verbal descriptions to set the scene. S om e DMs like to use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different
voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involved in a scene to help the players keep track of where everyone is.

That even notes the way it can directly lead to another decision point & step1.

Spoiler: The barn being surrounded is step 1

1. The DM describes the environment.
The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room , what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

The players don't get to choose "avoid the duke's men" as an action because they need to state what action they take with their character(s) in hopes of avoiding them. Once the players do that the GM describes the results & possibly reverts to step1. You may as well be saying "the players choose for their characters to take the action of the duke's men give up searching as the NPC's action" but that fails so badly at parsing because the logic is all twisted where you have player A with PCA & NPCs B on foul terms but player A is choosing to make PCA take the action of deciding what action NPCsB takes even though NPCsB are under the DM's control.

The players wanted to setup watch in a barn with tall wooden doors & take a long rest, that is their action. They hoped to avoid the guards too but hopes only go so far,

 

[Ovi]

Yes it's a threat, but the players don't get to "want to avoid the duke's men" because the players get to

Spoiler: do this

2. The players describe what they want to do. Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

Spoiler: not this

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.

This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal com bat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is m ore structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.

Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM ’s verbal descriptions to set the scene. S om e DMs like to use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different
voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involved in a scene to help the players keep track of where everyone is.

That even notes the way it can directly lead to another decision point & step1.

Spoiler: The barn being surrounded is step 1

1. The DM describes the environment.
The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room , what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

The players don't get to choose "avoid the duke's men" as an action because they need to state what action they take with their character(s) in hopes of avoiding them. Once the players do that the GM describes the results & possibly reverts to step1. You may as well be saying "the players choose for their characters to take the action of the duke's men give up searching as the NPC's action" but that fails so badly at parsing because the logic is all twisted where you have player A with PCA & NPCs B on foul terms but player A is choosing to make PCA take the action of deciding what action NPCsB takes even though NPCsB are under the DM's control.

Right, which is why the basic structure of 5e is heavily weighted towards MMI. The concept of soft and hard moves doesn't make sense in that structure because the GM isn't expected to be held to intents or action results so it doesn't make sense as a tool. But if you're talking about what is a soft move vs what is a hard move, then you're bringing in the kinds of play that do engage these concepts and what I posted above is true about the difference between a soft and hard move.

There's a common effort to borrow terms from other systems but leave the context and even meaning of those terms behind. This seems to be done to try and claim that D&D (usually, although I've seen it for things like Vampire and other systems as well) also do those things because the borrowed and redefined term is deployed. Like here where the Duke's men surrounding the barn without any further play (and despite "actions" taken to warn against that) is being labeled as a "soft move." That's a straight hard move, the door to avoiding the Duke's men closed and cannot be reopened -- you failed to avoid them.

 

[FrogReaver]

The idea that all games are equally susceptible to MMI is a stretch. Pondering the Rustic Hospitality example through this lens, I've looked to similar abilities from another game I ran recently, Spire: The City Must Fall.

I haven’t said they are equally susceptible. In fact I used the word minimizes in relation. @clearstream has explicitly said they are less susceptible.

I’m sure there’s someone that believes what you made a case against but I’ve not seen that sentiment expressed in this thread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Given my view that the term labels a dysfunction, and that dysfunction is not inevitably present in games emphasising DM judgement, then as I look at it MMI cannot label those games.

As I said, its only dysfunctional if the GM handling is dysfunctional. It can, however, be undesirable to someone even if that handling is not dysfunctional. As I said, its a pejorative term, but that's because for people using it, its an undesirable experience.

 

[Ovi]

I haven’t said they are equally susceptible. In fact I used the word minimizes in relation. @clearstream has explicitly said they are less susceptible.

I’m sure there’s someone that believes what you made a case against but I’ve not seen that sentiment expressed in this thread.

@Hussar made the claim that any game where someone is narrating outcomes is suspectable to MMI in his last post. I agree with @pemerton and @hawkeyefan that I don't find this to be true. It's not narration of outcomes that's the issue, but the authority structure that vest the majority or all of such narration into one player and also doesn't have strong system constraints on that narration. 5e has both -- vested fiat over outcomes in the GM and no strong system constraints on that fiat (excepting spells, to a degree). Other systems do not have this structure, and so are not suspectable to MMI just because someone is narrating an outcome.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So I would hope that the disparity between what happened in hawkeyefan’s game draws a stark and easy contrast. Hawkeyefan thought he was using THE PRODIGAL RETURNED and that it was a 10+ result. His GM turned the player-perceived 10+ result (by either GM-facing extrapolation or by GM Force because he wanted the conflict with the guard) into a 6- result OR the 7-9 result and THEN chose the complication for the player; You can’t exactly, y’know, trust them (he got a rest out of it, but didn’t get the full “escape from pursuit” that he would have gotten on either a 10+ or any 7-9 result that isn’t complicated by You can’t exactly, y’know, trust them.

That is a huge difference in MMI-itude.

One issue that people often have when trying to discuss game concepts is ... well, just this. You take a game that you are critiquing (in this case, 5e) and ascribe to it a "bad play example." Then you contrast this with another game and assume that everyone in that game is acting correctly.

....which doesn't work. It's why most of the thoughtful 5e players don't engage in these lengthy ... threads ... with the same conversations. It's pointless to try and discuss a bad example (with some people who don't even play the game) with exemplars from other games.

That said, other people can view games with similar mechanics and come to different conclusions. I am often reminded of an early review of BiTD that stuck with me. Here's the excerpt-

They seem to have been written with little thought to how they would actually work. For example, on page 30 the rules say not to negate a PCs goal with the consequences of a partial success. That’s good advice, but then it goes on to say that if the PCs goal was to corner their enemy, the consequence could be that the enemy is in the corner, but now they have the PC’s gun.

What? That is a level of semantic trickery I would expect from the mythical Sphinx. If a GM did that to me, I would certainly feel like my goal had been negated or that the GM was messing with me. Sure, I technically put my enemy in the corner, but they have my gun now so that doesn’t even matter!

This is hardly the only bizarre example in the book. Page six says that the players have final say over which skill can reasonably be used to solve a problem. That sounds ripe for abuse, but okay, that’s how the game wants to play it. But then page 25 contains an unintuitive workaround through which a GM can declare that an action simply won’t work. So players don’t actually have the final say; they’re just told they do. That’s a recipe for conflict at the table if ever I heard one.

On the bright side, none of these examples dictate how the game is played. They’re examples, and an experienced group can just ignore them. But less experienced GMs won’t know it’s a bad idea to manipulate their players’ intent or tell the players they have final say over something when they do not.

Now you might look at this and think to yourself ... well, this is just the opinion of someone who didn't get the game. If the person ran the game a lot using the proper principles, they'd understand why this isn't that big of an issue! Heck, if everyone at the table is communicating and following the Players' Best Practices and the GM Goals/Actions/Principles/Best Practices/Bad Habits, then everything is fine!

Of course! And there are advantages to having written principles (as opposed to unwritten principles or heuristics or guidelines). But fundamentally, when the comparison is always, "Your bad play experience as opposed to my game where everyone is doing the right thing," then there will be nothing to discuss. This is why, on the very first page, so-called "MMI" was correctly diagnosed not as a playing style but as a critique.

 

[Ovi]

As I said, its only dysfunctional if the GM handling is dysfunctional. It can, however, be undesirable to someone even if that handling is not dysfunctional. As I said, its a pejorative term, but that's because for people using it, its an undesirable experience.

I agree 100% with the first sentence here, but I don't the second. I play 5e while firmly believing that it is necessary to embrace MMI to do so, and use that knowledge that it is necessary to inform how I deploy it to serve the agenda of the game (which can vary by table and game).

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan Thank you for the great examples! (I'm definitely going to look up Spire to steal some ideas from to hack and splice into stuff).

It's a great game, I'd recommend it. Definitely worth playing, but it's also just a book crammed with ideas on every page. And excellent GM advice (though a lot of it is lifted from other games).

A lot of the questions you've asked can be answered by looking at the GM advice offered in the book under "Running the Game". These are the kinds of clearly presented principles that, in my opinion, are absent from 5E. Here they are:

GENERAL GM ADVICE

• YOU NEVER ROLL DICE. Well – you roll dice to see how much stress you inflict on players, but that’s it. You never have to roll a dice to make something happen: you just say that it does, and it does. Players can resist, or fight back, if they want – that’s where the dice come in.
• DON’T MAKE PLAYERS ROLL DICE UNLESS THEY HAVE TO. The rules of the game are intended to sit in the background, and the majority of a session will be spent having a conversation in which you tell a story. If you feel the story moving a certain way, let it – you don’t need to roll dice.
• SOMETHING’S ALWAYS AT STAKE. Don’t ask the player to roll dice unless there’s something at stake – that is, unless you can envisage a way the task would mark stress against one of their resistances. If you can’t figure out what could go wrong, and if you can but it’s not interesting, don’t bother asking for a roll.
• MAKE NOTES, THEN REFER TO THEM. They don’t have to be exhaustive, but try to write down whatever you or your players say that you find interesting or that you think will come up again in play. You won’t use all of it, but it helps to have it there.
• SAY YES. When a player asks a question, it’s an indication they want the game to go in a certain way. Try to say yes to queries when you can, because it moves the story and play onwards rather than stopping it in its tracks.
• FAIL FORWARD. A failed roll isn’t a block in a storyline, it’s a different branch – something always happens. Whenever a player rolls the dice, change the world in some way as a response, or give them some information.
• RE-USE BEFORE YOU INVENT. Always try to use old material (characters, locations, etc) that the players have interacted with before rather than inventing new material, because re-using established facts is how improvised stories gain traction and weight. If the players establish a church as their home base in the first game, call back to it every time they have a meeting. If they go shopping and meet a particular trader, have that trader crop up again next time they go shopping. It’s easy, and it works.
• ASK QUESTIONS, AND LISTEN TO THE ANSWERS. If you don’t know precisely what’s what in a particular situation (i.e. if a player asks “Are there any dealers in the occult round here?”) then feel free to turn the question back on the players (“Tell me, are there any dealers round here? If there are, what are they like? If not, why not?”). Use their answers, everyone will feel more engaged with the story, and you didn’t have to do any work.
• DON’T BE AFRAID TO CHANGE STUFF. The players are going to change things – the city will not be the same at the start of the campaign as it is at the end if you all do your jobs right. To that end, if you want to rewrite part of the setting on the fly, go for it. Maybe all your Knights are hollow suits of armour animated by sentient wasps. Maybe your Carrion-Priests flooded New Heaven with vultures, not hyenas. Maybe the rivers are full of giant carp that people ride around. Maybe the gods descend to the streets and walk among their worshippers. It’s all up to you – whatever gets you and your players excited is the “right” way to play, not sticking slavishly to canon

Moved this one out of order to frame things

Who decides what is "available" and what is "pretty much anything"?
Who decides how much of a favor is appropriate? Is it an actual deal if the price is really high?
"I want them to get me the kings magic sword that he always has with him" feels bad?

When this came up in our game, it was the player who suggested what it was that he wanted. I took "available" to mean that if it's in the book in some way, then it's available. The item in question was the specific suit of armor of a Paladin that had been killed during play (a Paladin is like an elite law enforcer of the city, tasked with dealing with treason and insurrection). So in that sense, we knew the armor existed, so it must be available, right? Perhaps not for sale, but it exists and so it can be obtained.

One of the PCs had previously killed the Paladin in a public duel. So, I decided that the armor was on permanent display in the district of Amaranth (the seat of power of the ruling High Elves of the city). Basically, the player wanted this contact to steal the armor. I said that this would be a very risky proposition, and that this would require a roll, using the ability of the contact to determine the outcome. He agreed and rolled, and got a Success With Stress. He took the Stress damage to his Shadow Resistance (his anonymity, essentially). This was enough to result in Fallout and so I selected the one below, which seemed fitting and thematic and also interesting as hell:

• WRATH OF THE SUN GODS: [Shadow] Your operations are uncovered by the Solar Guard, the grand inquisitors of the aelfir church, and you are hunted. Many of your NPC bonds are dragged out into the street and shot. Your friends dare not speak your name.

So quite the cost, ultimately. Not decided by GM fiat, though. I don't want to get into all the mechanics of the game, but this was all determined following the rules of the game. I chose the specific consequence from a list based on the rolls and the severity.

It feels like there is a lot of room between really wanting a slice of chocolate cake and someone to talk to right now, and wanting not to be an orphan. Is there something constraining the GM to make it a desire useful to the player? (Is this supposed to just be insight into the NPC or something obviously actionable? What rules constraints are on the GM to make it useful?)

The principles of play. "Something's always at stake" and "say yes" seem most suited here. Having these principles, even when they don't correlate perfectly to a specific situation, really helps the GM understand the nature of his role in the game, and what he should be striving toward. In this case, embracing the ideas of the players, not trying to thwart them as "unearned" or anything like that.

When this came up in our game, the player asked this about Mother Moon, the matron of a gnoll crime family, during a meeting they were having to try and broker a truce among some of the warring crime factions of the city. Given the context of the situation, I told the player what Mother Moon was hoping to get out of the meeting; that she wanted to ally with the Church of the Gun in order to destroy their mutual enemy, Mr. Winter.

If I'd said something like "She's really in need of a nap" that's me as GM being a total weasel, and not honoring the play.

Who decides what's conceivable?

Can I get into the locked guarded vault in the heavily guarded high security government facility as easily as I get into the local sheriffs records room?

Conceivable is likely decided by consensus, if needed. But I think most often, conceivable is pretty clear.

You've compared two possible places, and while I would agree there would be a varying degree of difficulty involved, neither seems inconceivable for someone to make their way inside.

I should clarify that "situation" is an ctual game term, like a "scene" or "scenario". Many abilities are "once per situation". So in this case, the action will already be taking place in the location in question, and the character using the ability is able to turn up, as long as it's remotely conceivable.

Need to remind myself this game is all set in the one city!

Yes, it's the eponymous Spire, a miles-high city that once belonged to the Drow, but has been taken over by the Aelfir (high-elves). The PCs are all Drow revolutionaries, trying to covertly thwart/oppose Aelfir rule.

All set in the one city. Are there tourists/out-of-towners? It feels like there is a big difference from "they both come from poor families", "they both arrived in town five years ago", and "they both played on the championship youth soccer team under coach Smith back in '14". What in the rules constrains the GM to make it useful?

Again, the principles of play help guide the GM here to make things interesting. "Something's always at stake" does a lot of lifting... two NPCs being childhood friends could matter quite a bit. I don't think the GM must know exactly how useful this may be, but they have to offer something that could at least conceivably matter.

One of the times this came up in our game, the player linked a city watchman and a university professor. I decided that the two were both infatuated with the same student. I didn't know exactly how that would be interesting to the characters or how they'd use it, but it was something that offered leverage of some kind.

All in all, still plenty of input from the GM. But far less approval needed by the GM for basic abilities to work. It's more "player does this, then GM does that" and less "player does this, then GM decides if it works and how".

 

[Thomas Shey]

What they think happens when someone hasn't played D&D and actually uses the text of other games as written is anyone's guess. But to answer that - games play properly, as their designer(s) intended.

Of course this has a set of assumptions baked into about how reliably that happens. All kinds of people play games in ways that are, if read carefully, clearly not running by the actual intentions of the design, so if you include those situations in the example, how strong the design is in avoiding a problem is not an automatic trump card in how often it actually occurs.

Edit: To make it clear, I am not saying that such things are equally likely in all games; the structural features of a game can absolutely make it more or less likely. But the fact a game says "Don't do X" does not, in the end, actually tell you someone won't do it; it doesn't even really tell you how often someone will do it. All it says is that one can presume it occurs less frequently than in a game where the system actively encourages it.