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

[Bedrockgames]

I think it really sounds like this argument is more about people wanting 5E to be more like AW and Burning Wheel. If that is the case, I say it is way better to talk about what those games do that 5E doesn't and why 5E would benefit from it. Because I think getting to that argument first by way of Mather May I, is just a bad way to have these discussions. Again, it is essentially a pejorative. No one wants mother may I in their games, so if you introduce that as a problem, particularly if you are using an expansive view of it that includes any game where the GM has authority over outcomes, I don't know, doesn't seem a very good faith discussion to me

 

[pemerton]

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?

I would not agree.

There's a number of reasons. A few are noted below:

All the reasons you note seem to involve actually not adopting the principle:

The GM may not know the players goal/intention.
Another principle may come into conflict and the DM prioritizes the other principle.
The DM may simple chose to ignore this principle at times for 'pick good reason'
The DM may have the failure affect something the player feels should be outside the scope of the check
Etc.

If following a principle about not negating players' goals/intentions, a GM who doesn't know them will ask.

If following that principle, a GM won't not follow it (by prioritising some other principle, or by choosing to ignore it).

And I don't quite see how narrations of failure relate to "Mother may I?"

Due to the players ability to determine outcomes can the DM be left feeling like he's playing 'mother may I' with the player being mother?

I don't follow this question. You're suggesting that a rule that means the player gets what they want on a successful check, or if they deploy a fiat ability, leaves the GM playing "Mother may I?" Does this candidate GM think that they are entitled to narrate everything that happens in a RPG? What do they think the players' role is?

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?

I've played sessions of AD&D where the rules were followed and the play was "Mother may I" - we (the players) were not using Rustic Hospitality-style fiat abilities, we were just engaging the fiction. And the GM used their authority over the fiction - setting, NPCs, backstory, etc - to mean that the things we were trying to do failed, unless they were the things to which the GM was inclined to say "yes".

 

[Ovi]

I think it really sounds like this argument is more about people wanting 5E to be more like AW and Burning Wheel. If that is the case, I say it is way better to talk about what those games do that 5E doesn't and why 5E would benefit from it. Because I think getting to that argument first by way of Mather May I, is just a bad way to have these discussions. Again, it is essentially a pejorative. No one wants mother may I in their games, so if you introduce that as a problem, particularly if you are using an expansive view of it that includes any game where the GM has authority over outcomes, I don't know, doesn't seem a very good faith discussion to me

Not even a little bit. For me it's acknowledging how 5e is structured so I can best avoid any potholes while running/playing at my table. I don't have an issue with 5e's intentional structure -- I understand what it's doing and why and how that can result in a good game. Others may not have the same preferences and dislike the structure. I understand that as well. I absolutely do not want 5e to become AW -- they are different game I play to get different things out of play.

Look it's not terribly controversial to point out how Monopoly plays vs Risk. Mentioning that the Monopoly system does things that Risk doesn't isn't an argument for making Risk more like Monopoly.

 

[clearstream]

I've played sessions of AD&D where the rules were followed and the play was "Mother may I" - we (the players) were not using Rustic Hospitality-style fiat abilities, we were just engaging the fiction. And the GM used their authority over the fiction - setting, NPCs, backstory, etc - to mean that the things we were trying to do failed, unless they were the things to which the GM was inclined to say "yes".

Following my thought that MMI is cultural and social, and predominantly or entirely about mismatched expectations. MMI in this case was a mismatch between the concerns and sensitivities of the players, and the game rules and/or whatever principles the GM was following.

It could be resolved in the following ways

1. Change the rules / play a different game (which seems advocated by some as the sole solution)
2. Change GM's principles
3. Change players' expectations

Note here that I am absolutely not saying that players were wrong in their expectations, but clearly there was a mismatch between those expectations and that ruleset and/or GM. This would then allow simultaneously other groups to be playing AD&D with no experience of MMI, such as the several of us who gathered at one of our friend's places for a long-running campaign (in which I played a Paladin IIRC, who in the end a mountain fell on.)

 

[pemerton]

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


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


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

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

Who decides when?

I don't think your suggested adjudications conform to the AW principles, including some of the ones you've stated. In the President example, you're not looking through crosshairs. In the Driver example, you're not honestly considering what the Driver's player has done to prove that the other character doesn't own the Driver. And in most of your examples, you are assuming that the GM has unilateral authority over what is conceivable, legitimate etc - without having any regard to fictional positioning, and how that might be established.

 

[pemerton]

Following my thought that MMI is cultural and social, and predominantly or entirely about mismatched expectations. MMI in this case was a mismatch between the concerns and sensitivities of the players, and the game rules and/or whatever principles the GM was following.

It could be resolved in the following ways

1. Change the rules / play a different game (which seems advocated by some as the sole solution)
2. Change GM's principles
3. Change players' expectations

Note here that I am absolutely not saying that players were wrong in their expectations, but clearly there was a mismatch between those expectations and that ruleset and/or GM.

The actual solution in both cases was that the players sacked the GM.

 

[FrogReaver]

The actual solution in both cases was that the players sacked the GM.

Did the new GM improve your experience with that system?

 

[clearstream]

I don't think your suggested adjudications conform to the AW principles, including some of the ones you've stated. In the President example, you're not looking through crosshairs.

I considered first killing the President, and upon consideration decided not to.

In the Driver example, you're not honestly considering what the Driver's player has done to prove that the other character doesn't own the Driver.

I am morally certain I honestly considered that.

And in most of your examples, you are assuming that the GM has unilateral authority over what is conceivable, legitimate etc - without having any regard to fictional positioning, and how that might be established.

The fictional positioning in all cases allowed for decisions in several possible directions, of which I have indicated that which the MC chose.

I hope that you see here that my point is not to say that AW should be run this way, but that on game text alone it can be run this way.

 

[pemerton]

Did the new GM improve your experience with that system?

I haven't played AD&D 2nd ed again.

 

[nevin]

I think the initial question made the whole thread more combative than it needed to be.

You have "lawful" players/GM's who want a rule for everything some because it's easier some because it stops arguments.
You have "Chaotic" players/GM's who want a more freeform "theatre of the mind" experience and they don't want or need rules for everything.
Obviously you'll have to ask the GM if you try something not covered in the rules. Calling it a Mother may I playstyle is predetermining that it's wrong and childish. (bad way to start a conversation)
You have "neutral' players/GM's who just go with the flow but ditch the rules they don't like.

All are equally valid and all can be very enjoyable games. Though I'd say the rule for everything over time begins to choke out the fun. But that's just my opinion.