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

[tetrasodium]

I think the player in question wouldn't be doing it because they felt unjustifiably entitled. Therefore, they may well stumble butt-backwards across the threshold between justifiable and unjustifiable.

Although that is not really my point here. I just feel that this argument - well - it's good for the gander.

Since it came up earlier, I think it's also an example of the very shield of tone policing referenced a few posts earlier in 1907 in action

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not coauthoring. You're working with the DM because it's the DM's world and you can't do anything that he doesn't want you to

Of all the definitions that have been proposed throughout this thread, could there be a better one than this?

And I think it helps define player entitlement too. Which is simply not to be subjected to the above as a player.

 

[Maxperson]

And I think it helps define player entitlement too. Which is simply not to be subjected to the above as a player.

If the player doesn't want to be "subjected" to those things, he needs to pick a different game than D&D, or search around for the much rarer D&D game where the DM has ceded some portion of his authority to the players via house and optional rules. D&D by default gives the DM sole authority over game world authoring.

 

[Krachek]

In the sense of MMI receiving autonomy is a chance to grow up or a run to steal the cookies jar!

 

[chaochou]

This thread asked what is MMI, should we also ask what is Player Entitlement?

It's what Mother May I railroading GMs complain of when a player dares to have an idea of their own. It's also used by people (often the same group) who don't understand player-sided protagonism or collaborative play structures, but think it can be used to describe players of all those other games where the players actually get some agency.

It's a useful flag for players, since it's pretty much a guarantee that the user only operates within the paradigm of MMI and railroad play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Since it came up earlier, I think it's also an example of the very shield of tone policing referenced a few posts earlier in 1907 in action

I think the concept ‘tone policing’ often just becomes an excuse to be rude though. If we are having a conversation and within that conversation someone crosses your line and you feel they are being hostile, insulting, dismissive, etc; I think it’s entirely fair to say so. Only the mods police posters statements here. Anything else is a person expressing a view. But that has no real enforcement power in a thread.

Personally I like these discussions to be as civil as possible (by these discussions I just mean any contention play style or rules argument). They almost never go anywhere product when people slip in insults or take a tone with one another.

 

[clearstream]

Since it came up earlier, I think it's also an example of the very shield of tone policing referenced a few posts earlier in 1907 in action

I see what you mean. I agree and I do not favour applying "player entitlement" to players nor "Mother may I" to methods or modes of play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Although to me needing approval is fairly synonymous to needing permission, I can see how you might make a different reading by giving more weight to other parts of the game text.

A concern though is - the player does all that work. What happens if GM does not give their approval for whatever reason makes sense to them?

Depends. Is the DM just saying "nah" and that's it? Or is it, "Hey, I wanna talk about this, I'm not comfortable with everything going on here, I have some ideas"? Because the former is sounding pretty dysfunctional. The latter ain't.

Remotely, yes

I'd be curious what you think that is.

It's not make a quest and discuss it with the DM. It's make a quest and see if it's too disruptive to the campaign, if it is the DM says no and you make another quest or he offers up a less disruptive idea. Rinse and repeat until you and/or he have come up with something he approves of(it isn't too disruptive).

I have to say that I'm amused that someone who is using the pejorative Mother May I in this thread is upset by the use of another pejorative. If the use of Player Entitlement bothers you, perhaps consider that before using Mother May I again.

Yes. That was my bloody point, Max.

I was literally calling out the tone policing. I was, simultaneously, actually making a point while also criticizing the tone policing.

Because it sucks, doesn't it? It sucks to be told your whole argument is simply unacceptable. To be told you're not allowed to have an opinion because your opinion is uncouth, or disrespectful, or insufficiently deferential. It sucks to have people exploit the social contract to shut you down before you can even get started.

It'd be real heckin' nice to have something that could short-circuit that, wouldn't it? Something we could employ to prevent the issue from getting that far. Something where we could call out certain behaviors before they become pointing fingers and laying blame and using pejoratives because that's all we have left.

Maybe the "pro-authority" people should be considering some of that.

I think the player in question wouldn't be doing it because they felt unjustifiably entitled. Therefore, they may well stumble butt-backwards across the threshold between justifiable and unjustifiable.

I really, truly don't see how one could do so. "You will give me what I demand, regardless of context or justification" isn't something you can accidentally do. But, as I've demonstrated with multiple actual examples (both practical and theoretical), MMI can happen even when a DM thinks she is being genuinely permissive. The "roll 6 times to complete a simple stealth challenge, one fail and you lose" situation, for example. Lots and lots of DMs out there, even today, don't realize that that's a really crappy thing to do and is effectively saying "no" despite thinking one is saying "yes." Because it is, in fact, possible to accidentally shut someone down while truly believing you are supporting and encouraging them.

There's no way to make demands of your DM without being aware that you are, in fact, demanding something. You might not agree that you're being unjustified in doing so, but the act is undeniable.

Although that is not really my point here. I just feel that this argument - well - it's good for the gander.

Honestly don't know what you mean by that.

Since it came up earlier, I think it's also an example of the very shield of tone policing referenced a few posts earlier in 1907 in action

Then lay it out. Don't hide behind oblique references. I defended my positions. I gave my justifications. I said why I think one thing is a greater problem than the other.

Hell, I even tried to introduce new terms earlier in the thread, remember? I tried being respectful. It didn't take. No one but me used the new phrasing. Not even people upset with it. So I stopped, because it was a waste of keystrokes and readers' time to constantly explain what RL/GL meant.

And, important to note here, I'm not the one who started the "tone policing" argument. I'm not the one who tried to use that as a cudgel to silence discussion. I just finally got sick and tired of other people using it while not applying it to themselves--and gave them a taste of their own medicine. And, as I said to Max above: Sucks, doesn't it?

If you don't like it, don't use those arguments yourself. Pretty simple, if you ask me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I see what you mean. I agree and I do not favour applying "player entitlement" to players nor "Mother may I" to methods or modes of play.

This, at least, I can respect. Which was the whole point of my previous rant. If you're gonna police tone, police it in both directions; otherwise, don't do it at all.

And I'm not the one who started the one-way tone policing. If anything, the above post was my effort to fight back, and finally get some reciprocity. Notice that, instead of responding to the points, or recognizing any of the issues, or anything even remotely related to the argument itself, I get called out for alleged hypocrisy. (Which is, ironically, more tone policing.)

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. That was my bloody point, Max.

I was literally calling out the tone policing. I was, simultaneously, actually making a point while also criticizing the tone policing.

Because it sucks, doesn't it? It sucks to be told your whole argument is simply unacceptable. To be told you're not allowed to have an opinion because your opinion is uncouth, or disrespectful, or insufficiently deferential. It sucks to have people exploit the social contract to shut you down before you can even get started.

You've been using the pejorative Mother May I pretty freely in this thread. It seems like a situation of do as I say, not as I do for you to be calling out Entitled Players as a pejorative and tone policing.