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

[EzekielRaiden]

There can't be clear cut rules for everything, so we have to make due with rules that don't cover everything. When a situation comes up that falls through one of the many cracks, the DM is going to have to make a ruling(say yes or no). I don't view one off decisions as Mother May I. Mother May I requires a great deal more consistency.

I mean, there is at least one other alternative beside "precise and specific rules for every possible occurrence" and "rules that leave large gaps." That being, rules which are flexible, which cover a space of situations rather than each individual situation separately. Such things, which I call "extensible framework" rules, accept that the rules are an abstraction and leverage that abstraction to cover most things. The attack roll, for example, is an extensible framework that can be used for its standard purpose (determining if a physical or magical blow strikes its target), or for a variety of other purposes in the loose category of landing something, connecting, or otherwise featuring accuracy with physical or magical objects/entities in motion. E.g., a lasso can be handled as a ranged attack roll. That extends (hence "extensible") the underlying rule structure into areas that logically apply but which might not have been specifically intended initially.

A rule system built on robust, well-tested extensible framework rules can cover almost everything one might wish to cover, so that needing to go completely off into the weeds is only necessary in unique or special circumstances. The players and DM thus reap the benefits of a reliable and consistent ruleset while simultaneously retaining the ability to adapt to the unexpected and, in truly unforeseeable situations (which will happen, don't get me wrong), the freedom to decide how things should work.

Question for all, most examples we have seen of MMI is when the GM says no. If the GM says yes is it still MMI in your opinion?

Depends on what you mean by "says yes," and I promise I'm not being a pedant here.

If the DM is truly embracing player solutions even if they aren't what the DM likes or thinks is sensible, then no, it is not MMI. If the DM is technically saying yes, but practically saying no (by way of obstacles, excessive difficulty, paltry reward, etc.), then it is covert MMI. If the DM says no several times before finally saying yes, it's probably overt MMI.

Note that while I do think that the overall pattern is the primary concern, I still maintain that it is possible for an individual scene/situation to display MMI even when the game overall doesn't have that pattern. E.g. my example with the "we must get to [faraway place]" situation, where the DM has contrived things such that the party will need to take a boat to get there. That could be a one-off; perhaps the DM realizes how bad that scene came across and thus labors to prevent a repeat, perhaps the game just never hits another blatant bottleneck like that, perhaps the players learn better how to read the DM's mind or how to bribe/placate/persuade her to approve of their methods. That doesn't stop that scene from displaying MMI, even though it isn't a pattern overall.

And, again, I want to emphasize that MMI and railroading are not the same. MMI can be used as a tool for railroading, but it can also occur in completely non-railroad contexts, and likewise railroading can occur with nary a moment of MMI in sight. Illusionism, for example, is railroading without MMI: it forces a predetermined outcome or event by inserting that thing in regardless of player choice, which is very different from outright negating player choice by making a given plausible option impossible, impractical, or impotent. (That's a pretty good trio there, if one wishes a quick summary of what MMI does.)

A "pure sandbox" game, a game where there is no planned future nor any forced outcomes, can still feature MMI if the DM has poor consistency, strict but unclear/unstated expectations, or a capricious adjudication style (e.g. the "DM/player arms race," just manifesting in a slightly different way than the usual cursed item/ear seeker BS.) This doesn't involve any amount of forcing a specific outcome, which is what railroading does. Instead, it is about denying certain approaches. The two are complementary, either one can reinforce the other.

Some of the most grating instances Mother May I sort of play (for me personally) is when the GM hands out victories or softballing of consequences when the players hand them a golden opportunity via a combination of poor fictional positioning, poor use of the rules and/or poor dice rolls.

Also when the GM manipulates the fiction upon the player characters' behalf (especially when not asked to do so).

I'm also a bit confused by this. This sounds like "benevolent railroading," where the forced outcome is "players do well/succeed/suffer no serious consequences," despite their poor choices indicating that they should not do well, should fail, and/or should suffer serious consequences.

As I have understood (and, above as well as previously, defined) the term, MMI refers not to manipulating the fiction per se, though that might happen along the way, but rather to closing off plausible solutions that the DM disapproves of, solely because the DM disapproves of them for whatever reason, via making those solutions impossible, impractical, or impotent.

I'm not really clear how there could be a situation where the players are proposing solutions, and the DM makes them impossible, impractical, or impotent, and yet somehow "hands" victory to the players anyway. Could you expand on that?

Yeah, I think all too often people take the usually-necessary tool of "Okay, this is off in Here Be Dragons land rules-wise, so we're going to do this" and apply it to "As a GM I find this inconvenient on various grounds so I'm just going to blow off what the rules actually say". They really aren't the same thing.

Absolutely. It is terribly frustrating, particularly because people who do the latter all too often like to pass it off as being the former.

The issue is if it is a criticism, and it is to be avoided, but it is being defined so broadly that many posters are essentially saying it is any system where the GM has the powers frequently ascribed to them (fiat, rule zero, final say, etc), it does then not seem a very useful descriptor because you are effectively saying any style over this line is this very bad thing that is to be avoided and we are calling mother may I, and over this line just happens to be a large swath of how people play and enjoy the game (and large swath of editions and GM advice in the system itself). Again, if it is a more narrow criticism, where the players are essentially expressing frustration that play has devolved into mother may I, I think there is at least a productive conversation that can be had there (what expectations players have, what types of GMing principles or systems those players might enjoy).

I don't see how my definition, given above, is some offensively overbroad thing. MMI negates plausible choice on the part of players, unless and until they make an approved choice (NOT the same as a predetermined choice!), by making non-approved choices impossible, impractical, or impotent. This behavior, if maintained as a pattern, conditions players to always float trial balloons, to hedge and question ant contemplate, to ask for permission rather than take action. (Or, alternatively, it teaches them that they must resort to social tools, such as shaming or bribery, to get what they want.) I see that player response state as a consequence of MMI, rather than the effect itself. We do not speak of it as feeling MMI, but rather as feeling that one is playing MMI, meaning the MMI is in the play, the rules and procedures and such, not in the player.

How does that then, as you say, criticize "a large swathe of how people play"?

Oh. Eh. I disagree. Or maybe I'm thinking of different contexts than you are.

I am genuinely unclear what situation would make "but it's what my character would do!" an acceptable excuse.

Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing DMG should just flat out say. Now, no one wants seven thousand pages of charts for every eventuality (OK, someone would, apparently some people like Rolemaster,) but common adventuring situations like this should be covered. Especially as it already mentions that it can be done via a skill! Would it really have been too much to also tell how?

Extensible framework rules with appropriate difficulty curvesssssss.....

Weird, there must be a draft in here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know if people running something wildly differently is good for the game; I don't believe that it is, but I can't really put into words why, other than it's rather confusing for a player to have no idea how something is going to work from one table to the next- granted, this is nothing new, every table has house rules, but this feels like something a player should be able to learn from a rulebook, not have to ask each DM they meet.

For me, another facet of the problem is that I discuss games I play on the internet, and not having a consistent set of rules makes it very difficult to have discussions about the game.

At least in 3e and 4e, we had RAW as a starting point, but a lot of 5e discussions seem to have a problem of deciding what, exactly, RAW is...

It's weird because the premise is that someone is offering to run 5e D&D. That label is meant to communicate something. It is supposed to tell the prospective player what they're signing up for.

It would be like telling someone you'd like them to join you for some doubles tennis, except there are five people, and it's played with baseball bats, and the ball is a large hollow rubber thing, and the court is actually circular and the team of three stands on the outside while the team of two stands on the inside, and...

I think most people would rightly say, "why did you ask me to come play tennis with you when this game is almost nothing like tennis?" And then the person who asked gets all affronted and insists that games are what we decide for them to be and all the changes were made to help make a more engaging and exciting experience, all the while ignoring the fundamental complaint that they called it "tennis" and it wasn't tennis.

 

[Xamnam]

I am genuinely unclear what situation would make "but it's what my character would do!" an acceptable excuse.

Again, it's only good as an explanation, not as a defense. If the other players are actively upset, using that is unlikely to rectify that.

"Theodore gazes at the gleaming axe, resting in his vanquished foe's hand. With a sigh, he turns his back and heads back towards the entrance of the tomb."
"Wait, Jason, you're not going to take that weapon? It's so much better than your current one! You've been using that since level one!"
"No, dude, it's his family heirloom. He cares so much about it, he's mentioned that repeatedly."
"But that one's magic! You'd do more damage!"
-shrug- "It's what my character would do. Your guy can take it, if you want, I don't care."

 

[James Gasik]

It's weird because the premise is that someone is offering to run 5e D&D. That label is meant to communicate something. It is supposed to tell the prospective player what they're signing up for.

It would be like telling someone you'd like them to join you for some doubles tennis, except there are five people, and it's played with baseball bats, and the ball is a large hollow rubber thing, and the court is actually circular and the team of three stands on the outside while the team of two stands on the inside, and...

I think most people would rightly say, "why did you ask me to come play tennis with you when this game is almost nothing like tennis?" And then the person who asked gets all affronted and insists that games are what we decide for them to be and all the changes were made to help make a more engaging and exciting experience, all the while ignoring the fundamental complaint that they called it "tennis" and it wasn't tennis.

So 5e is Calvinball?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So 5e is Calvinball?

More that one of the prevailing cultures of play treats it as such.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Again, it's only good as an explanation, not as a defense. If the other players are actively upset, using that is unlikely to rectify that.

That's an incredibly tame example (and a rather petulant other player.)

Most of the time when someone says "it's what my character would do," it's excusing their own crappy behavior.

Sally: "You stole all of our personal treasures and sold them so you could get a ring of flight?! And you figured we'd never notice?!"
Bob: "It's what my character would do!"

The "explanation" fobs off responsibility onto an entity that only exists, in a loose sense of the word, because the player wills them to. "It's what my character would do" tries to pretend that the player is not culpable for bad things done by the character they created, play, and wholly control.

 

[Xamnam]

That's an incredibly tame example (and a rather petulant other player.)

Most of the time when someone says "it's what my character would do," it's excusing their own crappy behavior.

Sally: "You stole all of our personal treasures and sold them so you could get a ring of flight?! And you figured we'd never notice?!"
Bob: "It's what my character would do!"

The "explanation" fobs off responsibility onto an entity that only exists, in a loose sense of the word, because the player wills them to. "It's what my character would do" tries to pretend that the player is not culpable for bad things done by the character they created, play, and wholly control.

That's my exact point. If you're using it as a shield because your actions are negatively impacting your party, I have little guff for it. Yes, I agree that with everything you say here, in the context of that sort of behavior. However, I have seen it, in person no less, used as a justification for self-limitations, or for taking the hard path over the easy.

I'm not even saying it's common! I'd agree that using it as a defense/shield/excuse is more frequent. But there are ways to use it earnestly in good faith.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Extensible framework rules with appropriate difficulty curvesssssss.....

That's easier said and done. And how are ability checks not that? The issue is related to the exact way the mechanic is connected to the specific fictional context.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's my exact point. If you're using it as a shield because your actions are negatively impacting your party, I have little guff for it. Yes, I agree that with everything you say here, in the context of that sort of behavior. However, I have seen it, in person no less, used as a justification for self-limitations, or for taking the hard path over the easy.

I'm not even saying it's common! I'd agree that using it as a defense/shield/excuse is more frequent. But there are ways to use it earnestly in good faith.

I agree but "it's what my character would do" tends to get the same pass as "I'm a roleplayer and..." Grognards & old hats might be quick to say "no bob don't be a jerk" but in general I find players are willing to bite their tongue a bit on it if they aren't personally too impacted right that second(especially newer players). At the end of the day though it is rarely any different from "no offense but.." in that it offers a nonexcuse at the player level that provides a seemingly civil shield that makes taking issue with it at the character level difficult & hostile at the player to player level. It would be nice if there was a sidebar somewhere in the phb about it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's weird because the premise is that someone is offering to run 5e D&D. That label is meant to communicate something. It is supposed to tell the prospective player what they're signing up for.

Though I'll point out that's not true with all games. Some toolkit games do not actually tell you close to exactly what you're getting just by saying that you'll be running a campaign with Hero, GURPS or EABA. Because non-trivial parts of those rules are extensions that aren't going to be used everywhere.

D&D sometimes suffers from wanting to have it both ways here. It can't make up its mind if its a toolkit or a extent game system, but I doubt many people go into it are really expecting the former, even though that's sometimes what they get.