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

[pemerton]

This is very relevant. If we take away the Position of Privilege ability, I imagine many of us would resort to Ability Checks to resolve scenes. I also imagine that many of us… assuming the lack of specific fiction that would tell us otherwise… would expect such Checks to have a chance of success.

The Position of Privilege basically just removes the need for a roll.

Correct!

 

[pemerton]

Why do you suppose the player has to work with the GM to establish details and implications of his own character's feature? Why can he not just establish those details alone, like he does with a spell?

Because that's what the rules of the feature say? It posits joint authorship - player and GM working together. The idea that players and GM might work together to establish elements of the setting and situation that pertain to a player's PC is not an uncommon thing to find in RPG rulebooks, in my experience. Just as one example, the 4e PHB says (p 258):

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. . . . Quests can also relate to individual goals . . . . Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

The earliest example I can think of in a D&D rulebook is in the original OA, in the rules for the Yakuza class's contacts ability. That's nearly 30 years prior to 5e.

(I would also note: "work with your GM" isn't synonymous with "ask your GM".)

Exactly. If the player had any control at all over the setting, he wouldn't need to work with the DM. He would simply implement them.

Why? I coauthor a lot. There is a difference between being a coauthor and (eg) being a RA or a copyeditor for a sole-authored work. I have control, but not unilateral. My coauthor(s) have control, but not unilateral either. That's what makes it joint authorship.

I realise that you don't regard your insistence on GM unilateral control over setting, to the extent of negating PC background features based on the GM's unilateral conception of the fiction, as "Mother may I". But when I talk about not wanting to play in "Mother may I"-type games, it is exactly the sort of thing that you are advocating that I am expressing an aversion to. Because it is a game in which I can't have what I would regard as meaningful impact on the shared fiction except as gated by the GM.

I would add that, as I read the posts in this thread, my outlook is broadly consistent with @hawkeyefan's, except that my willingness to play under this sort of GM is perhaps a bit less than his.

 

[Aldarc]

Suppose a group are using the Forgotten Realms, and a DM has an unusually high-level of mastery of realms lore and express mechanics and norms of interpretation and application governing imagined events. This would be to say that the external reference is that thousands of pages of realms lore, thousands of pages of express mechanics, and thousands of hours of interpretation and application. The latter in particular has sometimes been cited as cause to concede expertise.

This level of expertise described is not inherent to the role of the GM or even a required degree of qualification. Yet people argue that the authority is invested in the GM regardless of their qualifications or degree of expertise.

Moreover, based on other fandoms with self-proclaimed "experts," these are the people that tend to be some of the most toxic gatekeepers.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose a group are using the Forgotten Realms, and a DM has an unusually high-level of mastery of realms lore and express mechanics and norms of interpretation and application governing imagined events. This would be to say that the external reference is that thousands of pages of realms lore, thousands of pages of express mechanics, and thousands of hours of interpretation and application. The latter in particular has sometimes been cited as cause to concede expertise.

This is not the same sort of expertise as a Free Kriegspiel referee is expected to have. It's knowledge of canon - that is, fiction that is to be treated as authoritative - not knowledge of a real-world field of endeavour such as warfare.

As far as adjudicating a RPG goes, what is key is the authoritative status accorded to the fiction, as per my post upthread.

The above said, I agree that D&D and FK are modally different. What do you think of this game text addressed to the DM in DMG 9:

"In creating your campaign world, it helps to start with the core assumptions and consider how your setting might change them. The subsequent sections of this chapter address each element and give details on how to flesh out your world with gods, factions, and so forth.
The assumptions sketched out above aren't carved in stone. They inspire exciting D&D worlds full of adventure, but they're not the only set of assumptions that can do so. You can build an interesting campaign concept by altering one or more of those core assumptions, just as well-established D&D worlds have done. Ask yourself, "What if the standard assumptions weren't true in my world?"

I wasn't sure where your quotes begin and end - is there a closing quotation mark missing?

In an event, that seems to me not wildly different from the corresponding text in the 4e DMG (pp 150-1):

The rules and story elements in the D&D game are built around a set of core assumptions about the world. Here are some of the most important. . . .

The preceding section sums up the basics of what the game assumes about the D&D world. Within those general parameters, though, there’s a lot of room for you to fill in the details. Each published campaign setting describes a different world that adheres to some of those core assumptions, alters others, and then builds a world around them. You can do the same to create a world that’s uniquely yours. . . .

The assumptions sketched out on the previous page aren’t graven in stone. They make for an exciting D&D world full of adventure, but they’re not the only set of assumptions that do so. You can build an interesting campaign concept by altering one or more of those core assumptions. Ask yourself, “What if this wasn’t true in my world?”​

The example of the published settings for 4e (eg FR, Eberron, Dark Sun) shows that PC build elements will reflect the setting - appropriate themes, backgrounds, paragon paths, etc. As I posted upthread, as an illustration of this point, 4e Dark Sun - which posits a world without gods - doesn't invite players to nevertheless build cleric and paladin PCs and then have the GM nerf them based on the fiction. It offers advice on how to choose background elements that fit the fiction. I made further changes of my own when I ran Dark Sun, as I discussed with my players - eg treating bards as psionic rather than arcane, as that seemed to better fit the setting.

EDIT: In our main 4e campaign I also designed three custom themes, each based more-or-less closely on a published one, to reflect particular players' desires for their PCs as they saw them fitting within the fiction. (Themes were a later edition to the system, and I think it was around 20th level that each player chose a theme for their PC.)

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, we've seen it in this very thread, people throwing around some rather over-the-top responses, explicitly calling out "player entitlement" as an insidious force needing to be opposed. How else am I supposed to take it? I haven't been given reason to think the concerns are legitimate.


Given one of my complaints has been, more than once, that DMs treating the rules as merely suggestions is to blame for a significant chunk of MMI stuff, that's not exactly encouraging.

IMO. Some may see player entitlement everywhere (and IMO they are wrong for doing so), but that doesn't mean player entitlement doesn't exist at all nor that it shouldn't be opposed where it does (and IMO all forms of entitlement not just limited to gaming).

One of the easiest things for people to pick up on is anything sounding remotely like 'disdain/bitterness/dislike/hatred/etc'. When you use phrases like 'freak out' and 'kowtow' you only reinforce to them that they were right about your opinions of them. Further, those same emotions and attitudes they are picking up on are mostly the same ones entitled players would also convey.

Couple all this with your tendency to express DM entitlement as being everywhere (oftentimes even where it's not IMO) and it's no surprise you get pushback around entitled players and pro DM Authority views - because player entitlement is the most obvious explanation for your words and behaviors they can see and the counter to that is pushback and expression of the alternate viewpoint. I don't really believe you are an entitled player based on our long discussions but, just maybe you can see how sometimes such posts and phrasings can come across as such?

I think if you actually dig into their real positions, you would mostly find that they have strong preferences around the traditional D&D division of DM and player authority. But intent matters, and they don't prefer that division to Lord it over players, but because of the legitimate pros they view that division providing. There are pros and cons to most everything right?

 

[clearstream]

This level of expertise described is not inherent to the role of the GM or even a required degree of qualification. Yet people argue that the authority is invested in the GM regardless of their qualifications or degree of expertise.

It's an amusing picture - some sort of accredition required to GM. To play, too, one supposes.

But I think at least some GMs can rightly claim to be expert, even without the accredition to prove it.

As far as adjudicating a RPG goes, what is key is the authoritative status accorded to the fiction, as per my post upthread.

On reflection, I was thinking more of play now called FKR, rather than historical military FK. For FKR play, one participant's authoritative expertise as to the fiction is implied in some of the coversations regarding that mode. Rules light play doesn't have to adopt that approach at all (thinking here of systems like Messerspiel). Although I believe FKR just in its naming has an assumption of one participant having greater authority.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IMO. Some may see player entitlement everywhere (and IMO they are wrong for doing so), but that doesn't mean player entitlement doesn't exist at all nor that it shouldn't be opposed where it does (and IMO all forms of entitlement not just limited to gaming).

Being perfectly frank: I find it very frustrating that you are so nitpicky about tone when it comes to things like "Mother May I" and "freaking out" from folks who are in favor of...whatever terms you prefer to use instead, but you see absolutely no issue with using terms like "player entitlement."

Because yes, that is really insulting to players. It is dismissive of their legitimate grievances. It is portraying a style of play--where players actually get to have a say, and expect respect, mutual cooperation, and consensus-building--in the worst possible light. And I have yet to see you even once take issue with it.

This is exactly why so many folks get so belligerent about it. We have already endured mockery and derision, and when we finally push back, we're told we are demanding, or petulant, or insulting.

One of the easiest things for people to pick up on is anything sounding remotely like 'disdain/bitterness/dislike/hatred/etc'. When you use phrases like 'freak out' and 'kowtow' you only reinforce to them that they were right about your opinions of them. Further, those same emotions and attitudes they are picking up on are mostly the same ones entitled players would also convey.

Perhaps, then, they shouldn't use phrases like "player entitlement" or how they must "walk on eggshells" (a phrase actually used in this thread! One you did not criticize, as I recall.)

These same emotions--outrage at being called out, demands for respect and contrition and conciliatory talk--are mostly the same ones tyrannical DMs would also convey.

This tone-policing works both ways, and I'm pretty tired of it only applying to one side and not the other.

Couple all this with your tendency to express DM entitlement as being everywhere (oftentimes even where it's not IMO) and it's no surprise you get pushback around entitled players and pro DM Authority views - because player entitlement is the most obvious explanation for your words and behaviors they can see and the counter to that is pushback and expression of the alternate viewpoint. I don't really believe you are an entitled player based on our long discussions but, just maybe you can see how sometimes such posts and phrasings can come across as such?

Sure. I can also see how these exact approaches are the kind frequently used by the powerful to silence valid criticism and dismiss legitimate grievances, to intentionally delegitimize those grievances, once they can no longer be outright ignored.

If we're gonna police tone, perhaps we should start by checking those who have had the power from the start?

I think if you actually tried to dig into their real positions you would mostly find that they have strong preferences around the traditional D&D division of DM and player authority. But intent matters, and they don't prefer that division to Lord it over players, but because of the legitimate pros they view that division providing. There are pros and cons to most everything right?

There are. But there are also cons. It's pretty frustrating to have "but there are some good things, right?" brought up when the problems are real, pervasive, and have been dismissed for ages as not a problem. Doubly so in a thread specifically about those problems.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Being perfectly frank: I find it very frustrating that you are so nitpicky about tone when it comes to things like "Mother May I" and "freaking out" from folks who are in favor of...whatever terms you prefer to use instead, but you see absolutely no issue with using terms like "player entitlement."

Because yes, that is really insulting to players. It is dismissive of their legitimate grievances. It is portraying a style of play--where players actually get to have a say, and expect respect, mutual cooperation, and consensus-building--in the worst possible light. And I have yet to see you even once take issue with it.

This is exactly why so many folks get so belligerent about it. We have already endured mockery and derision, and when we finally push back, we're told we are demanding, or petulant, or insulting.

This is perfectly valid in my view. I think dismissing your position as player entitlement is very similar to calling a whole style mother may I. For me it boils down to this, on the internet, especially in nerd spaces, there is a rhetorical tactic where terms are invoked to make people feel something like a sense of shame, weakness, stupidity, childishness, etc for enjoying thing A, by people who don't like thing A but prefer thing B. I don't think people do this maliciously or in bad faith most of the time, I just think it is an easy 'win' button in a conversation. The reason I think it is bad is it leads people to adopt gaming habits they don't enjoy, because they feel like they have to or they will be doing something that has been labeled with one of these negative things. This happens in discussions like this but I also used to see it all the time in conversations about sandbox play, immersion, etc. After a while this kind of rhetoric feels stifling. It reminds me of my old days as a young metal head where if you were in that crowd, you weren't allowed to like certain types of music because (insert term that makes you feel bad for liking that thing). Except here it is about play style. For me this isn't so much about tone. I actually like chop busting in threads and people taking humorous potshots. But it's different when there is an existential debate about style.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Main problem is, DMs will freak out and tell you you're trying to kowtow to player entitlement and box them in if you give any systematic improvement, and any unsystematic effort won't actually address the issue.

I don't think these kinds of debates are Players versus GMs. How the rules should handle GM authority, that is largely about play style and preference. You find players and GMs on both sides of this debate. When it comes to something like rulings for example, there are plenty of players who want the GM to be empowered to make rulings or overide rules. Plenty who don't too, but plenty who do. I think it is very much more about what kind of game people like playing in.

 

[Aldarc]

It's an amusing picture - some sort of accredition required to GM. To play, too, one supposes.

But I think at least some GMs can rightly claim to be expert, even without the accredition to prove it.

Accreditation is obviously not required which is the point. The fact that some GMs can claim expertise about a fictional world - as likely can some Players! - does not mean the GM has expertise by virtue of being the GM.