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

[overgeeked]

And again, I point out the rules don't matter at all, as a savvy clever DM can just alter reality.

Exactly. So why bother with the middle man in the first place? Chuck the rules and just play.

This has the unfortunate side effect of training players to shun having to ask the DM if they can perform some cool feat, and scan their character sheets first, rather than just spontaneously saying "I want to do cool thing!".

Right. Trouble is, this is all because of the rules. See the discussion about battlemasters and superiority dice "ruining" martials. The rules defining action X as an ability for class Y de facto means that no one else can attempt that thing. Spread that across 13 classes, 40-some subclasses, scores of feats, hundreds of spells, etc and you end up with a very tiny window of things the PCs can simply declare they try without having to stop the game and looking things up.

This is the tension. Players want predefined things they can do because they think it empowers them to do more stuff, but it doesn't. It limits their creativity. It trains players to think of their character sheet first instead of putting themselves in their character's shoes, imagining the fictional environment, and simply trying something. Even with the most forgiving and easy-going referee, players still start with the buttons on their character sheet. I fought against this constantly when running 5E. Legit nothing I did got players to be creative and move beyond just pressing buttons on their sheet. They'd just smash buttons until they won. Nothing more involved than that.

I tried house rules to encourage some kind of creativity. Inspiration for trying something not on their sheet? Nope, didn't work. Free advantage for trying something not on their sheet? No roll required, just describe what you do in a cool way and get advantage on your attack. You run up the stairs and jump off to attack the ogre from above, here's free advantage on your attack. But nope, didn't work either. A lot of players want tabletop RPGs to be video games. Predefined inputs, outputs, and no alterations. My sheet says I can do X, so I can do X. My sheet doesn't say anything about Y, so Y might as well not even exist.

Instead, train everyone to look beyond the rules think about the genre and the setting, how the character is interacting with the environment, etc. And have the referee make a call based on that. It doesn't matter than last time the call was different because last time the circumstances were different. The situations are not going to precisely repeat. Being fair is infinitely more important than some illusion of consistency.

Relevant article:

The Invisible Rulebooks

When asked to explain the Invisible Rulebooks in person, I usually start with this scenario. If it's any consolation, it rambles in person, ...

rolltop-indigo.blogspot.com

There are always invisible rulebooks at the table, and there is no way for the design of a game to account for how those invisible rulebooks get used and leveraged at the table. I would add that this includes the social contract at the table, including how the players (GM included) know each other, how they communicate (or not) about the game, their shared references, and how they interact in general. It's a mistake to think that "good" game design can design away the 'problem' of human interaction.

One of my favorite D&D blog posts. So true. The referee being a thinking person with a brain who can make calls and decisions is the killer app, it's the feature of RPGs. It's not a bug. When players think it's a bug, that's a problem.

 

[Malmuria]

And yet the very article you cite says:



Not exactly a strong argument when the thing you are citing--in favor of a very clear "rules are inadequate, don't bother" position--explicitly says both extremes are laudable and that they're found at the heart of proven, excellent works of RPG design.

You have undercut your own thesis. The very thing meant to defend your thesis denies it.

1. My argument is that the question we are discussing in this thread is not resolvable purely via game design. There will always be factors that exceed the ambit of a game's formal mechanisms. What one table or person finds empowering another will find limiting. That doesn't mean there can't be better or worse attempts to address the topic; principles, advice, and discussion do a lot of work here.

2. In linking to a "relevant article" I was not presenting it as indomitable truth, nor as evidence in favor of a particular approach. I linked to it to possibly provide nuance to our discussion.

 

[bloodtide]

I tried house rules to encourage some kind of creativity. Inspiration for trying something not on their sheet? Nope, didn't work. Free advantage for trying something not on their sheet? No roll required, just describe what you do in a cool way and get advantage on your attack. You run up the stairs and jump off to attack the ogre from above, here's free advantage on your attack. But nope, didn't work either. A lot of players want tabletop RPGs to be video games. Predefined inputs, outputs, and no alterations. My sheet says I can do X, so I can do X. My sheet doesn't say anything about Y, so Y might as well not even exist.

In contrast this worked great in my game. I added a ton of OSR style rules an it worked great. The big D30: once a game a player can roll the D30 instead of the D20. And the Simple Combat Maneuver: make an attack and if you hit state the maneuver to effect the target. The hit target gets to choose the damage or the maneuver. Both of the above rules work great in my game.


Though I run an extremely hard game (many players would say "impossible"). I expect the player to be engaged, figure out things and use real life skills to play the game. Players that go "by the book" often get into trouble, or get a dead character.

It might help to mix players. Find a player that likes and uses the house rules and put them with the others. When they watch a player use some inspiration vantage luck hero points to move around a battle and kill five orcs......they might feel different about doing the By The Book "stand in a spot and make an attack action each round".

And again, I point out that this is false, unless "mattering at all" requires that one have a faultless, impregnable defense against problems.

Sorry, guess I should have been more clear.

The player has the 5.5E Ultimate Guide to Climbing and is all ready to use the rules. Then the DM sets an encounter in a field of tall grass....with nothing to climb on around.

Or, the character approaches the dark vile fortress of the drow......and notices every inch of the walls are covered with fist sized red and black spiders. Well...maybe no climb that wall....

 

[DEFCON 1]

Instead, train everyone to look beyond the rules think about the genre and the setting, how the character is interacting with the environment, etc. And have the referee make a call based on that. It doesn't matter than last time the call was different because last time the circumstances were different. The situations are not going to precisely repeat. Being fair is infinitely more important than some illusion of consistency.

I feel for you... because it appears to my eyes like you are in an unwinnable situation. Because I don't really think it * is * possible to "train" players really. Not in this day and age. Even players new to D&D are probably coming from other gaming avenues or theater avenues or entertainment avenues etc. where they have already established their own quirks, needs, desires, go to's, and tricks of their trade. And when they jump into the D&D and roleplaying space, they will go in those directions instinctually while learning the "rules" and I think it is exceedingly hard (if not virtually impossible) to get them to reverse course. (At least in my experience.)

I'm from an improv and theater background and I know the kind of game I run. Even if I was requested to just "play the board game" as it were... my instincts would override that on many a scenario within the game and going "narrative" would end up happening whether I intended to or not. Thus I've realized over time that my only course has been to cull and cultivate a playerbase for my games that feeds in and feeds off of this style of mine. And many times I've had players come to my table, play my game for some amount of time, and then bounce off in the middle or at the end of a campaign and never ask or desire to come back. And I realize it's because my style of game doesn't work for them. But hey, no harm, no foul.

In terms of this "Mother May I?" question of style... I know full well that I am in the "narrative" camp. When it comes to questions regarding the dice, I almost always default to "What is happening in the scene? And is there a rule that applies here to use, and if there isn't a rule then what kind of ruling makes the most sense for what is happening narratively?" As a result... if I'm ever in the situation where I made one ruling one way and then made a ruling the exact other way at another time... my reasoning would be "I'm pretty sure it's because the narrative situation was actually different-- the PC was trying to do different things in the story each time." The corner-case of a particular Rule might seem like it should have seen the same Ruling because the corner-case seemed the same... but in my mind if the narratives were different, then the Rulings would be too. So establishing a "new rule" for this corner-case would not be something I'd ever bother or even try to remember for next time, because next time the process would be the exact same thing-- what does the story tell us of what is happening in our mind's eyes... and thus what is the most logical Ruling to represent this very unique situation? And I'm pretty sure this would drive a lot of the folks here up a wall me running a game like this.

 

[GSHamster]

Here is an example, not taking for an existing game, for discussion;

1. Seductive; spend an inspiration point to gain advantage in a social situation where the NPC finds your character attractive.
2. Unusually attractive: spend an inspiration point to gain advantage in a social situation by exploiting your good looks.

So, the first example is a mechanic that relies, obviously, on GM interpretation. The player will always have to ask if it is applicable. The second example, is just a mechanic the player can activate when they have the currency and everyone knows how it works. There is no condition for the second mechanic. Folks sensitive to MMI would likely prefer the second mechanic.

I think this is a very good example, because it illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. Since @payn has gone over the strengths of (2), let's go over the weaknesses.

(2) implies that attractiveness is universal. That someone who is unusually attractive is attractive across all species and cultures. The DM can't have dwarves who prize bushy beards and disdain clean-shaven bards. Or one culture which sees facial scars as highly disfiguring, and another culture which sees them as proof of virility or strength.

(1), on the other hand, says that attractiveness is highly context-specific. That it varies according to species, culture, gender, social class, and even personal preference. Therefore it is necessary for the DM to make a ruling if the context is close enough that the ability applies.

The more context-specific an action is, the more it requires GM interpretation. But a lot of actions are context-specific, especially non-combat actions, and making them universal ends up constraining the possibilities even more.

 

[payn]

I think this is a very good example, because it illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. Since @payn has gone over the strengths of (2), let's go over the weaknesses.

(2) implies that attractiveness is universal. That someone who is unusually attractive is attractive across all species and cultures. The DM can't have dwarves who prize bushy beards and disdain clean-shaven bards. Or one culture which sees facial scars as highly disfiguring, and another culture which sees them as proof of virility or strength.

(1), on the other hand, says that attractiveness is highly context-specific. That it varies according to species, culture, gender, social class, and even personal preference. Therefore it is necessary for the DM to make a ruling if the context is close enough that the ability applies.

Good discussion. I agree that is a weakness in number 2 on the attractiveness front. Could be strengthened by removing the looks feature, and say going with unusually charismatic instead. This implies more of a general attractiveness that folks find appealing in the character and takes the strength off appearance. The PC then explains how exactly the character acts in the scene.

The more context-specific an action is, the more it requires GM interpretation. But a lot of actions are context-specific, especially non-combat actions, and making them universal ends up constraining the possibilities even more.

True, but this is a limited resource that a player gets to cash in to override the typical authority. I think the issue of universal constraint is sufficiently kept in check this way. YMMV.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is the tension. Players want predefined things they can do because they think it empowers them to do more stuff, but it doesn't. It limits their creativity.

'Limited creativity' is not the opposite of 'empowered to do things'.

People are going to go for reliable options rather than unknow factors. If I have an ability that says if I do X, Y happens, Why in the world would I do Z in the hopes of Y happening, especially if I'm well aware that even if Z worked before, it won't necessarily do Y.

And further, creativity is something applied, not done constantly in every aspect. None of us, I think get up in the morning and decide maybe this time we'll slap our bacon real hard in hopes that it will cook just because it's the creative choice.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't think I've ever heard a game referenced as a 'Mother May I' game.

My gut reaction when I heard it was that the phrase indicates a bad match between the players and the DM. It has the sound of a player that is being snide and disrespectful in the face of a situation where a DM has set limits the player does not like. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that is what I took away when I first read the title of this thread.

 

[Malmuria]

Here's another interesting article relevant for this discussion by Jason Tocci, author of the game 2400. It intersects with the discussion here in that he describes the social context in which a game with a lot of player-facing rules might be preferable

Three layers of RPG rules

When I think about what rules I want to put into and emphasize in 2400, I tend to think about rules in three “layers.” I suspect somebody else has already written something like this (a…

pretendo.games

RPGs with a dense layer of abstract rules work best, I find, when you play them regularly, frequently, and deeply. When you play a game on the same night every week, and especially when you get so into it that you do “prep” or “homework” between sessions, you internalize its abstract rules and procedures. Those rules then come to you as intuitively at the table as the rules in the social and fictional layers.

I can’t really do that these days. My gaming time is limited by health needs and my parenting duties. And when you play an RPG with an unfamiliar rule set irregularly and infrequently, few (if any) people at the table will internalize the abstract rules.

In the absence of that internalization — that eventual promise of “getting it,” when the game “sings” — the game experience demands some combination of rules-referencing (which is dull for all involved) and technical communication (because even if somebody memorized the rules, they’ve still got to explain it to the rest). I can do rules-referencing and technical communication, but those feel more like work than fun to me.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't think I've ever heard a game referenced as a 'Mother May I' game.

My gut reaction when I heard it was that the phrase indicates a bad match between the players and the DM. It has the sound of a player that is being snide and disrespectful in the face of a situation where a DM has set limits the player does not like. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that is what I took away when I first read the title of this thread.

Or it could be a reaction to a totalitarian DM who sets unreasonable limitations as well. Like what happens when almost anyone casts a phantasmal force spell, lol.