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

[FrogReaver]

Alright. Are you then willing to abandon the line of argument I chose the analogy against, namely, the whole "it's not guaranteed" thing?

Because that absolutely is a huge sticking point for me. It is extremely frustrating to be met, at every turn, with the statement that "well because it isn't 100% guaranteed to happen, it MUST be due to other factors, with constitutive elements playing either no part whatsoever, or at least so little a part as to be completely negligible, and this we can completely ignore them and focus on the participants alone."

Because yes, I grant that it isn't 100% guaranteed to happen. The fact that it is not 100% guaranteed does not mean that the structures themselves can be treated as completely negligible. I have used analogies because they demonstrate real examples where it is true that a certain undesirable outcome is not 100% guaranteed, and yet we all recognize that there are constitutive elements (rather than purely user characteristics) which contribute risk, sometimes a lot of risk, to that outcome occurring. If we can accept that "well it isn't 100% guaranteed not to happen" is not a tenable response to the kinds of criticism I am bringing, then I will gladly retract the analogy and never use it again.

Regardless, I apologize for causing offense.

Thank you. A quick response to your concerns above. I think @clearstream has proposed a theory which held that system elements would impact the ‘likleyhood’ of MMI (as well as certain aspects of the player). I agree with his theory and think it’s the biggest development in this thread as of yet.

I think you may already have what you desire.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thank you. A quick response to your concerns above. I think @clearstream has proposed a theory which held that system elements would impact the ‘likleyhood’ of MMI (as well as certain aspects of the player). I agree with his theory and think it’s the biggest development in this thread as of yet.

I think you may already have what you desire.

Perhaps the clearest water between us is the matter of degree. Based on the evidence I possess and can find, 5e (and 3e ftm) are unlikely to invoke MMI. The greater factor is the tolerance, or it might be characterised as the sensitivity of the participant.

This seems to indicate otherwise. As I said, it makes participants the only relevant factor, be it tolerance or sensitivity, while relegating system to such a secondary state that even systems I consider very prone to MMI (albeit for nearly opposite reasons) are "unlikely to invoke MMI," emphasis in original.

Game design matters. Game design plays a major role in participants determining what their expectations should even be. It is the source of both mechanical and policy/procedural methods for addressing all sorts of issues, MMI among them. Policy and procedure can also be introduced in a post-design situation, but they will necessarily be harder to implement, because the design won't necessarily follow them. You may run into situations where your efforts are good but conflict with the rules, at which point you either become an amateur designer yourself (with the costs and benefits thereof) or you take a step which pushes things even more toward MMI, namely, reducing the rules to being merely suggestions, undercutting the intended goal.

I mean, the literal actual children's game, Mother May I, is an example of a designed game! It is certainly a simple game, but it is a game nonetheless. It has design (as anything produced by a human must, though there is no guarantee of quality or consistency.) To say that game design is irrelevant, or even just to say it is negligible, is to deny that the very origin of the phrase is a game in the first place.

 

[Malmuria]

This seems to indicate otherwise. As I said, it makes participants the only relevant factor, be it tolerance or sensitivity, while relegating system to such a secondary state that even systems I consider very prone to MMI (albeit for nearly opposite reasons) are "unlikely to invoke MMI," emphasis in original.

Game design matters. Game design plays a major role in participants determining what their expectations should even be. It is the source of both mechanical and policy/procedural methods for addressing all sorts of issues, MMI among them. Policy and procedure can also be introduced in a post-design situation, but they will necessarily be harder to implement, because the design won't necessarily follow them. You may run into situations where your efforts are good but conflict with the rules, at which point you either become an amateur designer yourself (with the costs and benefits thereof) or you take a step which pushes things even more toward MMI, namely, reducing the rules to being merely suggestions, undercutting the intended goal.

I mean, the literal actual children's game, Mother May I, is an example of a designed game! It is certainly a simple game, but it is a game nonetheless. It has design (as anything produced by a human must, though there is no guarantee of quality or consistency.) To say that game design is irrelevant, or even just to say it is negligible, is to deny that the very origin of the phrase is a game in the first place.

how would you change 5e to better suit the play culture? Let’s say that critical role or dimension 20 are, for many players, the platonic ideal of role play, what extra mechanics, support, etc would you add to the game to facilitate that style while minimizing MMI?

 

[pemerton]

how would you change 5e to better suit the play culture? Let’s say that critical role or dimension 20 are, for many players, the platonic ideal of role play, what extra mechanics, support, etc would you add to the game to facilitate that style while minimizing MMI?

I realise this question was not addressed to me. And I'm no 5e D&D expert. But I would start by looking at Fate - not just mechanics but also principles, expectations etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

how would you change 5e to better suit the play culture? Let’s say that critical role or dimension 20 are, for many players, the platonic ideal of role play, what extra mechanics, support, etc would you add to the game to facilitate that style while minimizing MMI?

A significant amount of effort would have to go into rewriting the not-exactly-rules text of the PHB and DMG. Some of this of stuff I've already spoken about previously. I'm not really qualified to just unilaterally rewrite the mechanics themselves (that's a difficult task that requires testing, as I've said many times elsewhere), so I'll confine myself to mostly non-rules stuff.

• Emphasizing the "toolkit" nature of most things. E.g., rewriting large portions of the preamble for races and classes in the PHB, to emphasize that these things are part of a conversation, building up a theme and concept for a world. Conversely, emphasizing in DMG stuff that while the DM may have final say on things, it is critical that they give as much consideration as possible to player requests in order to build and maintain trust.
• Adding a section to the DMG specifically about "session zero" and how critical it is for effective play in 5e. Specific guidance (perhaps even instructions) on important topics to cover, questions to ask, and commonly-overlooked details that can derail or create problems.
• Taking a leaf from that document I linked earlier about DW Player Agendas: trying to find what areas players do have authority over, and finding ways to make distribution and application of authority more equitable.
• Providing suggested methods for how authority can be more equitable; for example, delegation (e.g. the DM trusting a particular player to track initiative) or giving specific circumstances under which the players can overturn a decision (e.g. "If a majority of players still disagree with a ruling after the end of session, we'll talk it over and set up a precedent for the future.")
• Repeatedly, at every opportunity, emphasizing the need for clear and open communication between all sides. Communication is the most important tool for averting MMI.
• Taking a leaf from 4e and emphasizing something along the lines of, "If it's even a little bit plausible, let the players try."
• Explicitly telling DMs that it's a crappy move to "allow" something, but then give it a sky-high DC and/or paltry benefits, because that's effectively forbidding it while trying to sound "fair." If you're opposed to something, say that, don't try to have it both ways.
• Explicitly instructing DMs about the faults of things like "roll Stealth every round you continue doing things" and other common breakdown cases that can happen even when DMing in good faith. This would include instructions along the lines of "let it ride" and "if you do it, you do it," just adapted to 5e's milieu and language.
• Trying to nail down what the actual principles are of 5e, for both DMs and players, and actually stating these things openly and explicitly. This would almost certainly get a lot of pushback because a number of the people who were particularly vocal during the 5e public playtest are allergic to the very idea of pre-defined principles etc., but such things are the second most-important tool for averting MMI.
• Emphasizing to DMs that players really do value their characters and, if things are going well, they usually also value their position within the fictional space (as you say, the Critical Role way of doing things.) That leads to emotional investment, but it also leads to resentment if the player feels powerless, at the mercy of a fickle overlord. It is absolutely vital that the DM genuinely respect their players and what they value, even if they disagree with what the players value. This is probably the single most easily overlooked error the DM can make, one encouraged by the excessive emphasis on DM empowerment above all else.*
• Just...building better tools. Scapping the CR system and rewriting it so it is actually functional and significantly superior to eyeballing encounters. Revamping the whole magic-item-economy thing because it's bad as it stands. Useful, specific skill DC tables. Information on how to support creative player actions that aren't normally covered by other rules ("stunts" and the like.) Advice on how to reskin existing options. Better options for addressing beneficial scenarios than just "apply Advantage; if Advantage already applies...oh well, guess that extra prep was wasted!" Specific, clear discussion of the benefits and costs of things like railroading, fudging, "winging" it, etc.: DMs may have power, but using it unwisely leads to issues, and we can inform them better about how to use that power wisely.

That should cover pretty much everything that can be done without actually rewriting the system.

*Seriously. The amount of flagrant disrespect for the preferences of others I see from 5e DMs is appalling.

 

[tetrasodium]

A significant amount of effort would have to go into rewriting the not-exactly-rules text of the PHB and DMG. Some of this of stuff I've already spoken about previously. I'm not really qualified to just unilaterally rewrite the mechanics themselves (that's a difficult task that requires testing, as I've said many times elsewhere), so I'll confine myself to mostly non-rules stuff.

• Emphasizing the "toolkit" nature of most things. E.g., rewriting large portions of the preamble for races and classes in the PHB, to emphasize that these things are part of a conversation, building up a theme and concept for a world. Conversely, emphasizing in DMG stuff that while the DM may have final say on things, it is critical that they give as much consideration as possible to player requests in order to build and maintain trust.
• Adding a section to the DMG specifically about "session zero" and how critical it is for effective play in 5e. Specific guidance (perhaps even instructions) on important topics to cover, questions to ask, and commonly-overlooked details that can derail or create problems.
• Taking a leaf from that document I linked earlier about DW Player Agendas: trying to find what areas players do have authority over, and finding ways to make distribution and application of authority more equitable.
• Providing suggested methods for how authority can be more equitable; for example, delegation (e.g. the DM trusting a particular player to track initiative) or giving specific circumstances under which the players can overturn a decision (e.g. "If a majority of players still disagree with a ruling after the end of session, we'll talk it over and set up a precedent for the future.")
• Repeatedly, at every opportunity, emphasizing the need for clear and open communication between all sides. Communication is the most important tool for averting MMI.
• Taking a leaf from 4e and emphasizing something along the lines of, "If it's even a little bit plausible, let the players try."
• Explicitly telling DMs that it's a crappy move to "allow" something, but then give it a sky-high DC and/or paltry benefits, because that's effectively forbidding it while trying to sound "fair." If you're opposed to something, say that, don't try to have it both ways.
• Explicitly instructing DMs about the faults of things like "roll Stealth every round you continue doing things" and other common breakdown cases that can happen even when DMing in good faith. This would include instructions along the lines of "let it ride" and "if you do it, you do it," just adapted to 5e's milieu and language.
• Trying to nail down what the actual principles are of 5e, for both DMs and players, and actually stating these things openly and explicitly. This would almost certainly get a lot of pushback because a number of the people who were particularly vocal during the 5e public playtest are allergic to the very idea of pre-defined principles etc., but such things are the second most-important tool for averting MMI.
• Emphasizing to DMs that players really do value their characters and, if things are going well, they usually also value their position within the fictional space (as you say, the Critical Role way of doing things.) That leads to emotional investment, but it also leads to resentment if the player feels powerless, at the mercy of a fickle overlord. It is absolutely vital that the DM genuinely respect their players and what they value, even if they disagree with what the players value. This is probably the single most easily overlooked error the DM can make, one encouraged by the excessive emphasis on DM empowerment above all else.*
• Just...building better tools. Scapping the CR system and rewriting it so it is actually functional and significantly superior to eyeballing encounters. Revamping the whole magic-item-economy thing because it's bad as it stands. Useful, specific skill DC tables. Information on how to support creative player actions that aren't normally covered by other rules ("stunts" and the like.) Advice on how to reskin existing options. Better options for addressing beneficial scenarios than just "apply Advantage; if Advantage already applies...oh well, guess that extra prep was wasted!" Specific, clear discussion of the benefits and costs of things like railroading, fudging, "winging" it, etc.: DMs may have power, but using it unwisely leads to issues, and we can inform them better about how to use that power wisely.

That should cover pretty much everything that can be done without actually rewriting the system.

*Seriously. The amount of flagrant disrespect for the preferences of others I see from 5e DMs is appalling.

This sounds like you are saying that GM's feeling handcuffed & disempowered by 5e's stripped back tools need advice on how to be even more disempowered so they can embrace just say yes no matter what .

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This sounds like you are saying that GM's feeling handcuffed & disempowered by 5e's stripped back tools need advice on how to be even more disempowered so they can embrace just say yes no matter what .

The only way to resolve the problems you cite is for DMs to cease to emphasize how absolute their power is and try to create equitable, respectful spaces where grievances can be aired without rancor. So that the social contract can be used productively rather than pushing and pushing and pushing until players feel they have no course but to wield it like a bludgeon.

What else can one do? This post sounds like you are saying the players feeling manipulated and powerless by 5e's stripped back rules need advice on how to be even more powerless so they can embrace meek submissiveness no matter what.

 

[Umbran]

Regardless, I apologize for causing offense.

This was 100% the right thing to do. Thank you.

Now next time, folks should realize that analogizing how we pretend to be elves with things that kill millions of people - including goodness knows how many of our collective loved ones - is just a bad move that should be avoided.

 

[tetrasodium]

The only way to resolve the problems you cite is for DMs to cease to emphasize how absolute their power is and try to create equitable, respectful spaces where grievances can be aired without rancor. So that the social contract can be used productively rather than pushing and pushing and pushing until players feel they have no course but to wield it like a bludgeon.

What else can one do? This post sounds like you are saying the players feeling manipulated and powerless by 5e's stripped back rules need advice on how to be even more powerless so they can embrace meek submissiveness no matter what.

I don't think that you are even offering advice or suggesting solutions for the same problem. Neo-trad including the extreme version being advocated is good in some systems, but 5e doesn't even provide 5e GM's the sort of push tools present in those games.

 

[pemerton]

Emphasizing to DMs that players really do value their characters and, if things are going well, they usually also value their position within the fictional space (as you say, the Critical Role way of doing things.) That leads to emotional investment, but it also leads to resentment if the player feels powerless, at the mercy of a fickle overlord. It is absolutely vital that the DM genuinely respect their players and what they value, even if they disagree with what the players value. This is probably the single most easily overlooked error the DM can make, one encouraged by the excessive emphasis on DM empowerment above all else.*

<snip>

*Seriously. The amount of flagrant disrespect for the preferences of others I see from 5e DMs is appalling.

This post sounds like you are saying the players feeling manipulated and powerless by 5e's stripped back rules need advice on how to be even more powerless so they can embrace meek submissiveness no matter what.

I think 5e is pretty clear that it is the GM who takes the lead in deciding what play is to be about. I'm not aware of any analogue to (say) 4e D&D's player-authored quests.

How to create space within that framework for player preferences to manifest themselves is not easy. It's something that GMing advice for 5e could usefully address. I agree with you that telling player just to suppress and subordinate all of their preferences probably isn't a sustainable approach.