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

[clearstream]

You introduced Dungeon World. I cited Apocalypse World, and made it clear that I was looking at your DW example through the AW lens. The systems I mentioned were Apocalypse World, Agon, In A Wicked Age, and Burning Wheel.

Okay, so at least so far as the rules are concerned, MMI is possible in DW. Even a quick glance at AW turns up many examples (abstracting the conversations to focus on the behaviour we're interested in)

Fingers in every pie: put out the word that you want a thing— could be a person, could be somethin somethin, could even be just a thing—and roll+hot. On a 10+, it shows up in your establishment for you, like magic. On a 7-9, well, your people make an effort and everybody wants to please you and close is close, right? On a miss, it shows up in your establishment for you with strings wicked attached.

This is a close version of one of the barter moves, letting the maestro d’ use hot for barter. As with that move, it’s legit to tell the maestro d’ that the thing they want simply isn’t available this way, even on a 10+, if the thing they want really isn’t available this way. “Close is close” can mean that something shows up that is close to what the maestro d’ wanted, or it can mean that now what the maestro d’ wanted is closer than it was. Maybe now the maestro d’ knows who they can get it from, or maybe now one of her regulars or staff is brokering a deal. For “strings wicked attached,” think up the person who has it now and what they want in exchange for it

MMI have thing I want?
MC No it isn't available this way.

Just give me a motive: name somebody who might conceivably eat, drink, or otherwise ingest something you’ve touched. If it’s an NPC, roll+hard; a PC, roll+Hx. On a 10+, they do, and suffer 4-harm (ap) sometime during the next 24 hours. On a 7-9, it’s 2-harm (ap). On a miss, some several people of the MC’s choice, maybe including your guy maybe not, get it, and all suffer 3-harm (ap).

“Might conceivably” is a crucial piece of this move. Don’t wonder whether they actually did, and don’t let a player argue that they actually didn’t. On a miss, you can choose randomly, capriciously, or maliciously. It’s up to you.

MMI poison the President?
MC No, it's honestly not conceivable that they ate, drank or otherwise ingested anything you've touched.

If you and another character have sex, roll+cool. On a 10+, it’s cool, no big deal. On a 7–9, give them +1 to their Hx with you on their sheet, but give yourself -1 to your Hx with them on yours. On a miss, you gotta go: take -1 ongoing, until you prove that it’s not like they own you or nothing.

MC, you’re the judge of whether she’s proved it. Remember that your agenda is to make Apocalypse World seem real and to make the characters’ lives not boring, not to make the players jump through stupid hoops.

MMI prove it's not like they own me?
MC No, I honestly don't think so.
That's stupid.
MC No, I honestly don't think so.

Who decides what proves? Who decides what's stupid? Participants are making decisions and sometimes the rules give one participant authority to decide something in a way that another participant might not agree with.

It's interesting to also look at a principle

Be a fan of the players’ characters. “Make the characters’ lives not boring” does not mean “always worse.” Sometimes worse, sure, of course. Always? Definitely not.

MMI do this thing in a predictable, boring way?
MC Not this time.

Who decides when? There are too many decisions made in TTRPGs to hedge out MMI using rules alone. It's not a simple gradient - best to worst rules for hedging out MMI - because rules are just one dimension and given the other dimensions it may be irrelevant what the rules say. That could cause confusion over other things I have said. My view is that for groups whose play is vulnerable to MMI in some way, appropriate rules can mitigate that vulnerability (and would foreseeably fail in the absence of principles.) That ties to how I have defined MMI. It may be worthwhile to consider one's intuitions regarding FKR and freeform.

Suppose a 5e table adopts the principle The GM will never negate a player goal/intention unless a check has been called for and failed.

Would you agree that this means that there won't be "Mother may I?" at that table?

@FrogReaver captured some of the key objections. That principle alone might not do it. However, I will also say that I agree with you, principles can help forestall MMI. Unilateral principles probably less effectively than shared principles. Expectations are also crucial.

clearstream, in this post upthread (and it's not the only one) you appear to be defending @hawkeyefan's GM's adjudication of Rustic Hospitality:

@FrogReaver has answered this, and for avoidance of doubt I too hold in mind a separation between rule-following behaviour and MMI-invoking behaviour.

That said, I have an additional thought. Ex hypothesi I want to make an argument that rules can hedge out opportunities for MMI to a greater or lesser extent. Thus it would be helpful for me to have an example of rules being followed in a case where the rule-following failed to hedge out MMI.

If one insists that rules were not followed in that case, then it would be interesting to hear an example of a case where rules were followed and MMI occurred. Lacking such a case, shouldn't we be skeptical of agreeing that when certain rules are followed MMI is less likely to occur... seeing as we have no examples of it occuring when rules are followed?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If one insists that rules were not followed in that case, then it would be interesting to hear an example of a case where rules were followed and MMI occurred. Lacking such a case, shouldn't we be skeptical of agreeing that when certain rules are followed MMI is less likely to occur... seeing as we have no examples of it occuring when rules are followed?

I've repeatedly given the example of Paladin alignment in 3e and the "fallen Paladin" mechanic as DMs perfectly following the rules and yet falling into MMI,* but there's another very simple example if that fails to meet your standards.

The "roll every round for stealth" thing. This is 100% following the rules of skill uses in 3e. In fact, the 3.5e SRD even implies that's how things should be done:

Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

That, plus the extensive information about penalties to Hide as a result of movement, pretty strongly indicates that you should be rolling Hide checks repeatedly. Certainly, not one word or phrase present in the SRD provides any support for the notion that you definitely shouldn't do this, so it is perfectly within the text and spirit of the rules. Yet I and others have called this out as a form of "covert" MMI, of technically allowing a player to do something while practically denying them the ability to do it, often with major penalties for failure. DMs may even do this while genuinely believing they are doing something good, either making an appropriate challenge/introducing appropriate tension, or not creating undue burden! Nothing like "let it ride" appears, which itself is a principle specifically developed to address this problem.

*After all, why include specific and explicit rules for "this is what happens to fallen Paladins" if it's not supposed to happen regularly, eh? A faulty argument, to be sure, but one that a significant number of DMs have deployed over the years.

 

[clearstream]

I've repeatedly given the example of Paladin alignment in 3e and the "fallen Paladin" mechanic as DMs perfectly following the rules and yet falling into MMI,* but there's another very simple example if that fails to meet your standards.

The "roll every round for stealth" thing. This is 100% following the rules of skill uses in 3e. In fact, the 3.5e SRD even implies that's how things should be done:

That, plus the extensive information about penalties to Hide as a result of movement, pretty strongly indicates that you should be rolling Hide checks repeatedly. Certainly, not one word or phrase present in the SRD provides any support for the notion that you definitely shouldn't do this, so it is perfectly within the text and spirit of the rules. Yet I and others have called this out as a form of "covert" MMI, of technically allowing a player to do something while practically denying them the ability to do it, often with major penalties for failure. DMs may even do this while genuinely believing they are doing something good, either making an appropriate challenge/introducing appropriate tension, or not creating undue burden! Nothing like "let it ride" appears, which itself is a principle specifically developed to address this problem.

*After all, why include specific and explicit rules for "this is what happens to fallen Paladins" if it's not supposed to happen regularly, eh? A faulty argument, to be sure, but one that a significant number of DMs have deployed over the years.

Thank you! I'll take a look at your paladin example. The presence of further examples reinforces for me a lack of benefit in relitigating @hawkeyefan's case. (And I feel a sense of empathy for them, for the exhausting scrutiny that case has been under!)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thank you! I'll take a look at your paladin example. This reinforces a lack of any clear motive for relitigating @hawkeyefan's case. (And I feel a sense of empathy for them, for the exhausting scrutiny that case has been under!)

To save you any tedious combing through past posts: In 3e (and earlier, but certain things made it worse in 3e), Paladins are required to be Lawful Good and uphold a code of conduct. If they fail to retain a Lawful Good alignment, or break that code of conduct, they instantly lose all of their Paladin-specific features, and cannot regain them without going through both pre-defined and DM-defined steps; simply returning to LG alignment/making recompense for the code violation isn't enough, you also need an atonement spell (which is expensive because it's high-level, Cleric/Druid 5.)

The problem is, 3e's "rules" for alignment are poor-quality at best, and the Paladin makes it worse by having explicit "moral policeman" instructions in the class writeup. (No Paladin will willingly associate with Evil characters, be they PC or NPC; and even Neutral/Chaotic ones are implied to be someone you shouldn't willingly associate with.) The alignment rules do say that alignment isn't supposed to be a straightjacket (explicitly using that word!), but they literally say nothing whatsoever about how alignment change occurs! Hence, many DMs interpreted this as Good and Law required only a single contradictory action would cause instant loss of that alignment.

Even more egregious, the Paladin code is described in only the loosest terms, which encourages DMs to interpret it as they like--and yet that nebulous code is the main thing standing between being a Paladin and being an "Ex-Paladin." This frequently led to DMs and players running with Paladin codes that either weren't defined at all (and thus constantly shifting!), or were defined in such a way that they could not be obeyed.

Between these two effects, you have the DMs genuinely believing they are fully acting in accordance with the rules--alignment can change, Paladins have a code, if Paladins cease to be LG or violate their code they instantly cease to be Paladins--and yet there was a huge pattern of forcing Paladins to fall, specifically by giving characters a situation where there were only two choices, a Good one that required breaking the law, and a Lawful choice that required doing something evil. If the Paladin chooses to do Good, they have broken their (unstated) Paladin oath, and thus fall. If the Paladin chooses to obey the Law, they've knowingly done an Evil act, which causes them to fall.

And, again, this issue actually ran both ways. Players had a tendency to interpret Paladin codes as being expansive, utterly inflexible, and ridiculously draconian. The "moral policeman" angle, which specifically encourages crappy player behavior. It encourages disruptive PVP, judgemental behavior, bossiness, and a presumption of being inherently Lawful Good no matter what you happen to do. This isn't really "MMI," I just note it because I'm trying to emphasize that the rules regarding alignment and specifically how it intersected with the Paladin class were really really bad and really did encourage crappy behavior.

 

[clearstream]

To save you any tedious combing through past posts: In 3e (and earlier, but certain things made it worse in 3e), Paladins are required to be Lawful Good and uphold a code of conduct. If they fail to retain a Lawful Good alignment, or break that code of conduct, they instantly lose all of their Paladin-specific features, and cannot regain them without going through both pre-defined and DM-defined steps; simply returning to LG alignment/making recompense for the code violation isn't enough, you also need an atonement spell (which is expensive because it's high-level, Cleric/Druid 5.)

The problem is, 3e's "rules" for alignment are poor-quality at best, and the Paladin makes it worse by having explicit "moral policeman" instructions in the class writeup. (No Paladin will willingly associate with Evil characters, be they PC or NPC; and even Neutral/Chaotic ones are implied to be someone you shouldn't willingly associate with.) The alignment rules do say that alignment isn't supposed to be a straightjacket (explicitly using that word!), but they literally say nothing whatsoever about how alignment change occurs! Hence, many DMs interpreted this as Good and Law required only a single contradictory action would cause instant loss of that alignment.

Even more egregious, the Paladin code is described in only the loosest terms, which encourages DMs to interpret it as they like--and yet that nebulous code is the main thing standing between being a Paladin and being an "Ex-Paladin." This frequently led to DMs and players running with Paladin codes that either weren't defined at all (and thus constantly shifting!), or were defined in such a way that they could not be obeyed.

Between these two effects, you have the DMs genuinely believing they are fully acting in accordance with the rules--alignment can change, Paladins have a code, if Paladins cease to be LG or violate their code they instantly cease to be Paladins--and yet there was a huge pattern of forcing Paladins to fall, specifically by giving characters a situation where there were only two choices, a Good one that required breaking the law, and a Lawful choice that required doing something evil. If the Paladin chooses to do Good, they have broken their (unstated) Paladin oath, and thus fall. If the Paladin chooses to obey the Law, they've knowingly done an Evil act, which causes them to fall.

And, again, this issue actually ran both ways. Players had a tendency to interpret Paladin codes as being expansive, utterly inflexible, and ridiculously draconian. The "moral policeman" angle, which specifically encourages crappy player behavior. It encourages disruptive PVP, judgemental behavior, bossiness, and a presumption of being inherently Lawful Good no matter what you happen to do. This isn't really "MMI," I just note it because I'm trying to emphasize that the rules regarding alignment and specifically how it intersected with the Paladin class were really really bad and really did encourage crappy behavior.

This is the salient text, right? I ran 3rd pretty extensively. As I parse it

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Alignment: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment.

Deviating in the class preamble is defined in the feature as committing an evil act. The text to be mindful of are the three evil alignments - dominator, malefactor, and destroyer as they are characterised in 3.5.

An interesting aspect to this and my DW and AW examples, is not whether we agree much about them as examples, but that what we seem to be homing in on are spots where one participant exercises authority over the availability or results of another's choices or powers, and there is scope for differing interpretations as to what counts as rule-following decisions in that respect.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is the salient text, right? I ran 3rd pretty extensively. As I parse it

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Alignment: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment.

Deviating in the class preamble is defined in the feature as committing an evil act. The text to be mindful of are the three evil alignments - dominator, malefactor, and destroyer as they are characterised in 3.5.

An interesting aspect to this and my DW and AW examples, is not whether we agree much about them as examples, but that what we seem to be homing in on are spots where one participant exercises authority over the availability or results of another's choices or powers, and there is scope for differing interpretations as to what counts as rule-following decisions in that respect.

Well, if I may:

"Must be of lawful good alignment" = "ceases to be a Paladin if she ceases to be of lawful good alignment." The text explicitly says so, in a later section about "Ex-Paladins." "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)."

Now. What happens if a legitimate authority harms or threatens innocents? You cannot "punish" an authority you respect, nor vice-versa. To refuse to punish someone who harms or threatens innocents sounds like "grossly violat[ing]" the code. Likewise, to be so disrespectful as to openly disobey "legitimate" authority sounds like a gross violation based on the text. The code, as loosely described, can quite easily be interpreted as self-contradictory, even though it is quite obvious (from a logical perspective) that no Paladin would willingly uphold a code of conduct she knew to be logically impossible to meet. Even without inventing any new code elements, you get the "will you fall by willingly choosing to defy Law, or willingly choosing to do Evil?"

 

[clearstream]

Well, if I may:

"Must be of lawful good alignment" = "ceases to be a Paladin if she ceases to be of lawful good alignment." The text explicitly says so, in a later section about "Ex-Paladins." "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)."

Now. What happens if a legitimate authority harms or threatens innocents? You cannot "punish" an authority you respect, nor vice-versa.

Oh, I probably said more than I intended. I don't want to quibble your parsing of the text. I would guess we have different parsings. My intent was solely to agree with you that there was scope for divergent interpretations, which I think was your point, right? What I am honestly interested in is then -

An interesting aspect to this and my DW and AW examples, is not whether we agree much about them as examples, but that what we seem to be homing in on are spots where one participant exercises authority over the availability or results of another's choices or powers, and there is scope for differing interpretations as to what counts as rule-following decisions in that respect.

Can you comment on that?

 

[FrogReaver]

#3 is straight-up "break the rules whenever you feel like it," which axiomatically makes Mother May I a possibility.

I said - The DM may simply choose to ignore this principle at times for 'pick good reason'
That's a far cry from 'break the rules whenever you feel like it'.

If you are going to criticize my position, please criticize my actual position.

Why would you include it? Doing so means you are presuming system is irrelevant. It makes your argument circular.

I included it because doing so acknowledged real world D&D play.

#1 and #4 are solved by communication. The error depends on failing to communicate. Rules-design and principles which make communication paramount are critical to this, as I've said several times now.

The question wasn't about whether anything could be solved any other way. The question I was asked was essentially, 'given this constraint for this particular game can mother may I still occur' - and the answer was and still is yes.

#2 means an illogically-designed game. The principles should not conflict with one another. An area where two principles are in fact at absolute, irreconcilable loggerheads is a huge design red flag: it means you have chosen at least one principle that isn't actually a principle (at least not as stated), and should revise your principles until that is no longer the case. For comparison, here are the GM Principles from Dungeon World:

Same as above. I answered a specific question. Why are you trying to generalize my answers to some broader context?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it might help discussion to hone in on 2 different kinds of MMI.

1. MMI that occurs when expectations about how the rules/principles work are consistent across the group.
2. MMI that occurs when expectations about how the rules/principles work aren't shared by all members of the group.

On 1) I think that if the group is all on the same page about what to expect from the rules/principles then participants aren't going to feel like they are playing Mother May I. I think this is what we see from the AW and DW examples of MMI, because the rules/principles grant that authority in that specific situation clearly and explicitly then it simply doesn't feel like having to ask the DM's permission to do something. It feels more like part of the game. I believe the same can be said of D&D play at tables where everyone agrees about the rules and play is happening on a principles/mostly principled basis.

On 2) I think this is where most MMI feelings comes from. Differences in expectations about what the rules/principles are and/or what the DM is permitted to adjudicate. To me the rustic hospitality example falls in here. I certainly don't get the impression the DM tried to circumvent his understanding of the rules on that ability. And yet the player had a different understanding of the rules/principles and what they should allow. That difference in expectations led to the feeling of MMI in this instance.

IMO, of course.

 

[Ovi]

I think it might help discussion to hone in on 2 different kinds of MMI.

1. MMI that occurs when expectations about how the rules/principles work are consistent across the group.
2. MMI that occurs when expectations about how the rules/principles work aren't shared by all members of the group.

On 1) I think that if the group is all on the same page about what to expect from the rules/principles then participants aren't going to feel like they are playing Mother May I. I think this is what we see from the AW and DW examples of MMI, because the rules/principles grant that authority in that specific situation clearly and explicitly then it simply doesn't feel like having to ask the DM's permission to do something. It feels more like part of the game. I believe the same can be said of D&D play at tables where everyone agrees about the rules and play is happening on a principles/mostly principled basis.

On 2) I think this is where most MMI feelings comes from. Differences in expectations about what the rules/principles are and/or what the DM is permitted to adjudicate. To me the rustic hospitality example falls in here. I certainly don't get the impression the DM tried to circumvent his understanding of the rules on that ability. And yet the player had a different understanding of the rules/principles and what they should allow. That difference in expectations led to the feeling of MMI in this instance.

IMO, of course.

You've yet to establish how MMI is actually occurring in AW. You're asserting it, but there's not work. Please do the work and stop just asserting that you're right.

MMI occurs all the time with player/GM/game alignment is systems that intentionally place authority over outcomes with no or few constraints solely on the GM. 5e does this. AW, though, doesn't put authority over outcomes solely on the GM, includes checks and balances within the system on outcomes, and provides strong constraints on everyone for what outcomes are possible. You need to show how this structure creates a situation where players are asking for approval of the GM to achieve their goals.