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

[hawkeyefan]

I mean, if my PC isn't a main character then why the hell am I turning up to this game again?

Yeah, the idea that the characters are less important than the world is probably pretty telling in a discussion about Mother May I.

 

[James Gasik]

I can't imagine my players acting that way. Monsters don't always attack on sight or fight to the death.

I'd like to say mine either, but I do recall an interesting OOC discussion about the motivation of the last group of bandits I used in a game.

 

[Cadence]

Like, there's kind of half-hearted comments in the book "Try and say yes" and all that... so why not have some examples that actually promote that idea?

Amen!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Also a missed opportunity perhaps. But here the dm didn’t negate the feature, just up’d the challenge level to use it. This is similar to when a dm plans around the combat abilities of the PCs. Which I think used to be fair game, though now in the play culture the advice is opposite: dms should design encounters to let players shine.

I mean, is there really that much difference? From what we've been told here, it was quite clear to everyone involved that the DM never really wanted the player to do this, and was becoming more and more frustrated by its use...and yet never actually said that. Instead, they resorted to, as I've described before, passive-aggressive covert MMI: "allowing" the player to do a thing or use a thing, but intending to make it nigh-impossible to actually capitalize upon. Except, in this case, instead of using sky-high DCs, the DM was trying to make the knowledge impossibly far away or dangerous to reach...and the players decided to go after it anyway.

Yeah, that's frustrating. A bit of a different kind of situation, but still the GM placing his own ideas above those of his player. In this case, it's about preserving the idea of mystery and danger of the encounters he's prepared. If it was me in the GM chair, I hope I'd pick up on what you were doing and then consider that when crafting encounters or scenarios.

I really don't see it that way. It's MMI, taken a step or two further abstracted. If you can't just say no, make it impossibly hard; if you can't just make it hard, neuter its effects until it can't meaningfully change anything; if you can't neuter it, put backstory-supported obstacles in the way; if you can't just put obstacles in the way, throw distractions at the party to prevent them from pursuing it; etc. Each step is a bit further abstracted, a bit fuzzier and less obvious than just saying no. But ultimately, the goal is the same, negate player proposals that don't have pre-approval.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I really don't see it that way. It's MMI, taken a step or two further abstracted. If you can't just say no, make it impossibly hard; if you can't just make it hard, neuter its effects until it can't meaningfully change anything; if you can't neuter it, put backstory-supported obstacles in the way; if you can't just put obstacles in the way, throw distractions at the party to prevent them from pursuing it; etc. Each step is a bit further abstracted, a bit fuzzier and less obvious than just saying no. But ultimately, the goal is the same, negate player proposals that don't have pre-approval.

Oh, it's similar in that regard. I felt the difference was the ongoing nature... like the more @Campbell used the ability, the more the GM became frustrated, and made efforts to somehow diminish the returns. The Rustic Hospitality example was more a one off, without the GM frustration element.

 

[Xamnam]

Overall I'm a big fan of these features because they encourage players to engage with the world beyond the current adventure. When I ran 5e I tried to build in a lot of opportunities to make use of this stuff. I'm personally a bit sad to see them go because I found the well designed ones got players to go out and do stuff in the world which can sometimes be a struggle. It's the same reason why I love uncommon and rare spells and such in Pathfinder Second Edition because you have to go out and get them.

Oh man do I agree with this. Are all of them that useful? No. Are all of them well written? Absolutely not. But the way a player can light up when that backstory feature is actually relevant is beautiful, and one hallmark of being well and truly invested in the fiction. I do hope there's some degree of replacement feats that match their intention, I don't want that design space to just empty.

 

[FrogReaver]

I really don't see it that way. It's MMI, taken a step or two further abstracted. If you can't just say no, make it impossibly hard; if you can't just make it hard, neuter its effects until it can't meaningfully change anything; if you can't neuter it, put backstory-supported obstacles in the way; if you can't just put obstacles in the way, throw distractions at the party to prevent them from pursuing it; etc. Each step is a bit further abstracted, a bit fuzzier and less obvious than just saying no. But ultimately, the goal is the same, negate player proposals that don't have pre-approval.

To me, what you describe here sounds like bad use of GM force and not MMI.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is my point, I don't expect a GM to craft a world. Just some stuff for the characters to do, preferably with some consideration given to what the players want to do.

Everything you've said above requires as negative an interpretation as possible of both the books and player behavior that I just can't really give it much credence. It also seems to fully embrace MMI as the only solution to the problem of the players.

that sort of "I showed up, entertain me with "some stuff for the characters to do" carries with it a very high bar for the player to make "some stuff" a thing their character is interested in doing & to make sure their characters are working together. If 5e imposed the responsibility of meeting that bar on players we wouldn't have seen "just give the players what they want" or "d&d is about telling your story" & similar so often over the last eight yesrs because it would be about your character finding "something" to do.


If the players expect to show up and have the GM Find them "something" to do that turns into a more trad style than neotrad and all of this is beyond
The pale not just because it's toxic but because the player expected the option to do it to even be available for them. 5e has this weird "you be you" no bar of responsibility & expectations from the gm is low enough for the players while turning around and expecting the gm to just figure it out & make it work while granting maximum player agency.

 

[James Gasik]

I had a similar experience to hawkeyefan, though I generally chalk it up to "backgrounds have no real teeth" than MMI.

I had a noble character, and there was one time in 11 levels where there was a local noble that I could impose upon to put us up for the night. I brought my feature up to the DM, and he was like "uh, I don't know, I don't think he's ever heard of you, so he has no reason to invite you into his home".

I never bothered with PHB backgrounds again, from that point on, I just made custom ones for the proficiencies I wanted, since it was pretty obvious that while they were intended to be tools for the DM to integrate the players into their campaign, there was no pressing reason for them to actually do so.

As always, abilities with defined mechanics are far more likely to matter at the table than those that are completely up to the DM to interpret (see spells vs. skills debates for other example of this).

 

[Maxperson]

To me, what you describe here sounds like bad use of GM force and not MMI.

Exactly, negating player agency(...negate player proposals that don't have pre-approval.) is Railroading, not Mother May I. It's a different pejorative entirely!