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

[Hussar]

Conversely, there are players who have a wildly over-inflated sense of what their character can do and get bent out of shape when told no or the referee sets a high DC the player thinks is unfair. And so they throw out the intentionally derogatory and insulting chestnut of "mother may I."

At which point, the issue here has nothing to do with any of the terms used and everything to do with a break down of the table. This is an obvious mismatch of play styles and has to be resolved away from the table because no amount of rules, guidance or anything else is going to resolve that.

In other words @overgeeked, you have repeatedly told a litany of horror stories about your players and might I suggest that your experience is something of an outlier. Most groups are not having this level of acrimony between the players and the DM.

Or, conversely, if multiple different players are accusing you of "mother may I", then, perhaps, again, just as a suggestion, maybe they're right? And the DC's and whatnot that you are using are too high and your judgements are too arbitrary? Perhaps backing down just a smidge and going more with "Yes and" approaches might be more successful?

What I'm (very badly I apologize) trying to say is that if you have one or two such players over the years, then, sure, it's likely just a mismatch of playstyles and that happens and you either adapt to each other or find different players. OTOH, if it's a regular thing that you're experiencing from a lengthy list of different players, the issue just might not be them.

 

[bloodtide]

Whereas I would say that you've massively overestimated that--while simultaneously massively under estimating the number of people who get burned by a bad DM exploiting "freeform" rules to be a viking hat tyrant. There's way too many DM horror stories out there, and history alone is no longer enough to explain the pattern I've observed in them leaning toward the dictatorial DMs specifically leveraging the "my word is law" aspect of "freeform."

Somehow, I think we are talking about different things.

Sure. So am I, on both counts. Which is why I actually want rules, so I can be sure what my players get for their stunts and cleverness is actually rewarding. Because it turns out, giving genuinely rewarding results is hard. Doing so consistently is even harder. It's so easy to accidentally or unintentionally fall into perverse incentives or miscommunication. And every one of these things is intensified by having no mechanisms which encourage self-reflection--which is one of the oft-unwritten but very important benefits of using a system with rules that actually matter.

I agree it's hard. It's way to hard to EVER leave to some silly people somewhere to write some scribbles and call them rules. The vast bulk of rules over all are wacky at best. Even worse for the more "reality" based things. How about grapple rules, you like the D&D mess of mini games? How about them economy rules? How about taking a nap heals wounds?

 

[Malmuria]

That second part is very, very important. It's when the system forces the DM to be amateur game designer that it becomes a problem. It's the old, "Can my character swim in armor" argument. The answer was, "Well, maybe. Depending on how much your DM understands about medieval armor in a pre-Internet game." IOW, the player had no way of knowing, without directly asking the DM, if he could, in fact, swim in armor. It's the definition of Mother May I because the answer doesn't depend on the game at all. It depends on the DM's understanding of armor, which, as a teenage young man, I can honestly say, I had very, very little knowledge of.

This strikes me as a very specific type of Gygaxian play, a mix of adversarial dming and selective historical knowledge. I'm sure some people still play this way, but I think we've longed moved past that. Including (especially) in the sector of the hobby that you might think would be most amenable to that kind of thing--the OSR--half of which sees AD&D as a kind of historical oddity.

Again, searching for traps is exemplary in this regard. Here is Justin Alexander criticizing Gygax's method for...let's say "pacing" the game:

Here’s Gary Gygax giving some of the worst GMing advice you’ll hopefully ever read (Dungeon Master’s Guide, 1979):

Assume your players are continually wasting time (thus making the so-called adventure drag out into a boring session of dice rolling and delay) if they are checking endlessly for traps and listening at every door. If this persists, despite the obvious displeasure you express, the requirement that helmets be doffed and mail coifs removed to listen at a door, and then be carefully replaced, the warnings about ear seekers, and frequent checks for wandering monsters (q.v.), then you will have to take more direct part in things. Mocking their over-cautious behavior as near cowardice, rolling huge handfuls of dice and then telling them the results are negative, and statements to the effect that: “You detect nothing, and nothing has detected YOU so far—” might suffice. If the problem should continue, then rooms full of silent monsters will turn the tide, but that is the stuff of later adventures.

Uh… yeah. Do literally none of that. But you can feel Gygax’s palpable frustration with the style of play his own killer dungeons had created boiling off the page.

So I think "mother may I" and other similar pejoratives ("GM decides," "bob says," "calvinball") associate a whole class of games and tables with this most egregious form of bad and/or adversarial DMing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course players have a say - and there's always the possibility for dialogue (or should be). Stating that the buck stops with the GM doesn't mean that players don't have a say.

Doesn't it? "I am the absolute authority" pretty clearly means no one else has a say. What else could it possibly mean?

But it does mean that for the game to work smoothly, there has to be an underlying table agreement about adjudication, and usually that means that, when push comes to shove, the GM's discretion is paramount. In truth, I think that is generally important for an immersive experience.

And yet Dungeon World is both extremely immersive (much moreso than my experience with "OSR" games) and explicitly has things where DM discretion is not permitted. I am required to give the player something "interesting and useful" on a 10+ (full success) on a Spout Lore roll (essentially a "knowledge check," for anyone unfamiliar with DW.) Part of the explicit understanding written into the rules of Dungeon World is that I am not allowed to just wantonly decide, "Nah, I'm not going to give you something useful, even though that's what you rolled." But the player is equally bound: if I as DM then ask, "How do you know this?" the rules explicitly say, "Tell them the truth, now." Or, for example, the players are told in the section on Discern Realities (essentially "Perception check"): "The GM always describes what the player characters experience honestly, <snipped hypothetical in-play example." If I describe a situation dishonestly, I'm breaking the rules--and that is really really not okay in DW. Like, legit actually harmful to the experience. Much as, for example, the rules regarding the use of "safe words" and the like: non-traditional relationship models depend vitally on actually playing by the rules even if you're the one with the "power," so to speak. Breaking those rules discretionally is in fact not okay and, in specific, is in fact destroying the respect and trust necessary for such relationships.

That doesn't mean that ALL rules are like that. But most of the legit actual rules-rules that apply to the GM in Dungeon World are of that form.

I personally have never been in a situation in which all the players revolted against a GM ruling, whether as a player or GM, so that sort of scenario is just a hypothetical to me.

Fortunately, neither have I. But I have gone out of my way to emphasize to my players that they can do so if they wish. They have privately thanked me for showing them this level of respect. I would, in fact, bow to their wishes up to a point, and if that point was reached, I would simply tell them I could no longer run the game for them, as that would mean they were asking me to run something I wasn't capable of running. (This, for example, is why I asked my players not to play evil characters: not, strictly, because I don't want them to, though I do in fact prefer that they choose not to. Rather, it is because I don't believe I have the ability to run an enjoyable game for evil PCs.)

No, that's not my opinion. The rules are the framework for the narrative of the game - as you say, they're tools but I would add only tools. But I agree in that they give the basic structure that everyone agrees on, or should agree on, for the game to run smoothly.

Which is why the extreme emphasis placed on how violable and irrelevant the rules are for folks advocating (or, at times, practicing) a "freeform" method is such a problem for me. Because it calls into question that very thing upon which the smooth game runs. It is announcing, from before even session zero, that the DM can and will at whatever time they like pull a Vader-style, "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further." That is where so many of my problems lie, and the (as stated) extreme emphasis on that is a major driver here.

I would also say that if a group is overly relying upon rules for "a climate of respect and trust," there's a potential problem there because it implies that the respect and trust is only skin-deep, when it should be based more firmly on human connection. I mean, it isn't unlike the rapport of teacher and student in which the best way to foster a climate of learning is getting the students to trust you; rules have an important role, but they're secondary to that human rapport.

Why do you assume "overly"?

 

[tetrasodium]

Which is a sound strategy regardless of whether one plays Labyrinth Lord or 4e D&D (to use two emblematic games I have personally played.)

It is however not one that 5e is built to support and I need to beat it into unwilling players like baby seals who regularly get upset that their actions have consequences, that I have expectations of them, & that they need to take steps to accomplish specific things moving towards a goal rather than simply completing the goal. Unfortunately it only takes one player acting out abused gamer syndrome to destroy things because the GM lacks power over things the PCs need in 5e.... worse still there is a very strong "prove you aren't an abusive GM who caused the problem before anyone entertains if the player is even capable of being toxic" mentality these days.

Your description did not sound "mother may I" to me. Nor did it sound like it had to be that mix you describe (though I find it ironic that you use the "gm's best friend" in 5e, since one of the core principles of 5e was specifically to eliminate that and replace it with Advantage.) What you describe sounds, in fact, like a perfectly cromulent parallel to a 4e skill challenge. Not a 100% match, as noted below, but essentially the same concept: succeed on enough things, and manage missteps enough such that they successfully climb the proverbial wall, even if they had some nail-biting moments along the way.

I left out what would have been tedious descriptions of "can we do x"/"does this plan sound logical" & similar in a lot of places. They had one chance to get whatever it was, no weapons, no armor, & were mostly spread apart all over the mansion. if things went south it would have just been skip to the end of a fiasco game type thing. The point was to keep all of the plates spinning at once & not allow too many to drop without someone starting to juggle them.

I use gm's best friend because I find getting 5e players to accept any rules to be very difficult & on par with an act of god if I need them to make use of them. Your next question is also relevant to the why

I am curious about this. My experience of so-called "freeform" gaming, both personally and from others' reports, is that failure is almost always harshly punished. It sounds to me like you took a very (indeed, shockingly) lenient stance regarding failed efforts. A failure here was apparently at most a nudging of things in an unwanted direction, which could be addressed by doing something else. My experience of OSR, and the way others have described it to me, is almost diametrically opposite this: success is meager and failure is massive.

Fate is a system of aspects within aspects & the bonus types+gm's best friend lends itself well to doing that even while players are ignorant of the method. Unlike skill challenges where you need a certain number of successes fate aspects pretty much just need plausible & I don't need to track success/failure.

 

[hawkeyefan]

All of which is to say that many (most?) ttrpgs rely on "gm judgement" (and player judgment) in a variety of ways. This is both a strength and a weakness, as real live humans can be creative and improvisational but are not infallible.

The issue is not so much with GM judgment as it is the abundance of GM judgment required for the game to work. The GM must convey the details of the world to the players. The GM must decide how difficult a stated task may be, and what factors (if any) may affect that difficulty. The GM must decide if a roll is needed. The GM must decide what a successful roll means, and what a failed roll means.

There are so many points of input for the GM. The more there are, the closer to Mother May I things get.

At what points do the players have a say? At what points do the dice have a say? What information is shared with the players? What is kept from them? What factors determine what is shared and what’s kept secret?

These are the important things to consider here. And I don’t think it’s about any single game or style… though I do think certain rules systems or approaches to play are more vulnerable to this.

To me that sounds like the result of one of several options:

• Poor/inconsistent GMing and/or
• Poor compatibility between GM style and player(s) style, and/or
• Inability of player(s) to understand the judgment style of the GM

The phrase "rely so much on GM judgment" implies a disconnect in one of those three areas - not necessarily a problem with reliance on GM judgment itself.

As I said above, it’s the over-reliance on the GM. I’m not as concerned with your first bullet point, though it’s certainly true. But I think the second and third are more important. Even good GMs and good players will sometimes not synch up on things. The Gm does what they think is a good job explaining the scenario, the player feels they have a good grasp of the scenario… then we get to some significant point and discover there’s tension of some kind. The DC is higher than the player was expecting; a roll is called for when the player thought none would be needed; and so on.

Having clear mechanics can help with a lot of this. Even something as simple as always announcing every DC in 5E makes the game more player facing, and takes away a little ambiguity.

The GM doesn't need lone access to the game mechanics that are relevant.

Meaning, I think it has more to do with the people involved--and either incompatibilities and/or individual quirks and preferences--than the style of play itself. A lot of the conflict in this thread seems due to mushing, whether intentionally or not, the two together.

A lot of the conflict in this thread is more about not wanting to actually look at this criticism of heavily-GM-directed play and see it as in any way valid. Hence the attempts to classify “Mother May I” as a pejorative so that the criticism can be labeled bad and anyone who mentions it is also bad.

But I wish I’d read some of these criticisms myself years ago. Being aware of them and taking steps to avoid them have greatly improved my GMing (of all games) and improved my players’ enjoyment of the games I run and play in.

“Mother May I” should be seen as a warning, something you probably want to avoid in your games. It’s not an indictment of using GM judgment or anything so severe. It’s about not relying almost entirely on GM judgment.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Somehow, I think we are talking about different things.

Okay. Would you be willing to elaborate what you meant, then?

I agree it's hard. It's way to hard to EVER leave to some silly people somewhere to write some scribbles and call them rules. The vast bulk of rules over all are wacky at best. Even worse for the more "reality" based things. How about grapple rules, you like the D&D mess of mini games? How about them economy rules? How about taking a nap heals wounds?

Grapple was perfectly simple in 4e. There was even a Fighter subtype that was really good at it (the "Brawler" Fighter), which was among the things I'd hoped to play one day. 4e's economy was quite competently designed as far as adventuring, and didn't really care about non-adventuring economic stuff (e.g. the only animals you can buy are mounts or draft animals.) "Taking a nap heals wounds" is explicitly not trying to be like real life, and is in fact both quite simple and sufficiently elegant that even 5e couldn't justify totally ignoring it, hence Short Rests. (Something we know the 5.1e playtest still includes.)

 

[Mercurius]

Doesn't it? "I am the absolute authority" pretty clearly means no one else has a say. What else could it possibly mean?

Again, suggesting that the GM is the final arbiter rulings doesn't mean players don't have a say - that's a huge over-exaggeration of what I'm saying. As I said, dialogue is part of the process. A player says "I want to do this," and if there isn't a clearcut rule to follow, the DM adjudicates with a ruling. I have found that 99.9% of the time (if not 100%) this is a smooth process.

Meaning, it isn't a statement of "absolute authority" as much as a clarification of the GM's role as referee.

I think what I've found confusing is that this aspect of the GM's role somehow implies some kind of tyranny to some, as if the GM being the final arbiter on rulings inherently leads to bad decision-making or worse, malicious intent. That hasn't been my experience - except in rare instances.

And yet Dungeon World is both extremely immersive (much moreso than my experience with "OSR" games) and explicitly has things where DM discretion is not permitted. I am required to give the player something "interesting and useful" on a 10+ (full success) on a Spout Lore roll (essentially a "knowledge check," for anyone unfamiliar with DW.) Part of the explicit understanding written into the rules of Dungeon World is that I am not allowed to just wantonly decide, "Nah, I'm not going to give you something useful, even though that's what you rolled." But the player is equally bound: if I as DM then ask, "How do you know this?" the rules explicitly say, "Tell them the truth, now." Or, for example, the players are told in the section on Discern Realities (essentially "Perception check"): "The GM always describes what the player characters experience honestly, <snipped hypothetical in-play example." If I describe a situation dishonestly, I'm breaking the rules--and that is really really not okay in DW. Like, legit actually harmful to the experience. Much as, for example, the rules regarding the use of "safe words" and the like: non-traditional relationship models depend vitally on actually playing by the rules even if you're the one with the "power," so to speak. Breaking those rules discretionally is in fact not okay and, in specific, is in fact destroying the respect and trust necessary for such relationships.

That doesn't mean that ALL rules are like that. But most of the legit actual rules-rules that apply to the GM in Dungeon World are of that form.

Wait, I thought we were talking about D&D?

Anyhow, what I mean by deep immersion generally requiring GM authority has more to do with world-building and narrative. This might be a play style thing, but I find that a GM having a good grasp on the world and narrative deepens immersion into the world - the world feels more real, more "other" to my personal wishes and desires. If I, as a player, can change the world in a way other than my character's in-game actions, it breaks immersion. For me, at least.

So yeah, I'm advocating for a "The GM is the world" approach. I'm not saying it is the only way, or the best way, but it works for me and 99% of people I've played with.

Fortunately, neither have I. But I have gone out of my way to emphasize to my players that they can do so if they wish. They have privately thanked me for showing them this level of respect. I would, in fact, bow to their wishes up to a point, and if that point was reached, I would simply tell them I could no longer run the game for them, as that would mean they were asking me to run something I wasn't capable of running. (This, for example, is why I asked my players not to play evil characters: not, strictly, because I don't want them to, though I do in fact prefer that they choose not to. Rather, it is because I don't believe I have the ability to run an enjoyable game for evil PCs.)

Yes, agreed. My approach has been slightly different, but I've never had complaints of unfairness and it has always been clear to my players that they are only limited by their own imagination and what makes sense for their character. We all buy into the verisimilitude of the world, and try to make decisions that make sense within that context, whether GM or players.

Which is why the extreme emphasis placed on how violable and irrelevant the rules are for folks advocating (or, at times, practicing) a "freeform" method is such a problem for me. Because it calls into question that very thing upon which the smooth game runs. It is announcing, from before even session zero, that the DM can and will at whatever time they like pull a Vader-style, "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further." That is where so many of my problems lie, and the (as stated) extreme emphasis on that is a major driver here.

Again, I think that's bad GMing - and not about the style of play, but lack of clarity about the style. If the GM is clear on rulings and such from the get-go, they're not altering the deal if they're adjudicating rulings in a manner consistent with their style.

Why do you assume "overly"?

I'm not assuming anything...just speaking hypothetically to make a point, re: the importance of human connection and rapport.

 

[Mercurius]

As I said above, it’s the over-reliance on the GM. I’m not as concerned with your first bullet point, though it’s certainly true. But I think the second and third are more important. Even good GMs and good players will sometimes not synch up on things. The Gm does what they think is a good job explaining the scenario, the player feels they have a good grasp of the scenario… then we get to some significant point and discover there’s tension of some kind. The DC is higher than the player was expecting; a roll is called for when the player thought none would be needed; and so on.

What responsibility do you think players have to buy into the GM's style, even if it doesn't 100% suit their own? I've always felt that when I'm a player, I have less of a say in how the game is run - and I'm OK with that, because it is a show of respect for the GM and the far greater share of work they put in. I mean, it is sort of like being a guest at someone's house: I don't complain about the snacks on offer or the music that's played (unless I've had a few, then I might commandeer the turntable .

Having clear mechanics can help with a lot of this. Even something as simple as always announcing every DC in 5E makes the game more player facing, and takes away a little ambiguity.

The GM doesn't need lone access to the game mechanics that are relevant.

Again, this just seems to be a difference in play style. That might work for some groups, not as much for others.

A lot of the conflict in this thread is more about not wanting to actually look at this criticism of heavily-GM-directed play and see it as in any way valid. Hence the attempts to classify “Mother May I” as a pejorative so that the criticism can be labeled bad and anyone who mentions it is also bad.

But I wish I’d read some of these criticisms myself years ago. Being aware of them and taking steps to avoid them have greatly improved my GMing (of all games) and improved my players’ enjoyment of the games I run and play in.

“Mother May I” should be seen as a warning, something you probably want to avoid in your games. It’s not an indictment of using GM judgment or anything so severe. It’s about not relying almost entirely on GM judgment.

I think the reason people are defending a certain style of play is because they haven't experienced problems with the style of play that is being criticized ("heavily-GM-directed play").

Meaning, if the criticism doesn't hold true for my experience, is it in any way valid? Experiences differ, after all.

 

[Malmuria]

The issue is not so much with GM judgment as it is the abundance of GM judgment required for the game to work. The GM must convey the details of the world to the players. The GM must decide how difficult a stated task may be, and what factors (if any) may affect that difficulty. The GM must decide if a roll is needed. The GM must decide what a successful roll means, and what a failed roll means.

There are so many points of input for the GM. The more there are, the closer to Mother May I things get.

At what points do the players have a say? At what points do the dice have a say? What information is shared with the players? What is kept from them? What factors determine what is shared and what’s kept secret?

What's an example of a game where this is inherently a problem? That is, assuming you have good and communicative table dynamic and a minimally thoughtful GM, when is MMI still a problem. I can see how the above will be a problem if you have a gygaxian "gotcha" DM, or if other things about the social dynamic of the players is off. But then, even a card or board game will be unfun if the social dynamic is not good.

Let's take a popular (within it's micro-niche) contemporary rules lite game, 24xx. The rules are basically two pages, and contain a "Running the Game" section:

RUNNING THE GAME: Lead the group in setting lines not to cross in play. Fast-forward, pause, or rewind/redo scenes for pacing and safety, and invite players to do likewise. Present dilemmas and problems you don’t know how to solve. Move the spotlight to give everyone time to shine. Test periodically for bad luck (e.g., run out of ammo, or into guards) — roll d6 to check for (1–2) trouble now or (3–4) signs of trouble. Offer rulings to cover gaps in rules; double back during a break to revise unsatisfying rulings as a group.

Is that too minimal for you?