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

[Bedrockgames]

When people level comparisons like "it's an MMO on paper" or "it's too much like WoW," they should be met with similar responses, no? Especially since these claims are rather inaccurate?

I am not saying any critique should be immune from response. That is the nature of criticism. You are giving an opinion and some people will disagree or not like your opinion and reply. So I think its fair (I still see the WOW thing with 4E but I also have very little emotional investment in that discussion at this stage in my life .

I would also point out, whether a claim is accurate or not is going to be subject to debate. I think mother may I is an inaccurate description of the play styles it is usually leveled against. At the same time, it didn't fall out of the sky as a term, there is a reason people who don't like those play styles, invoke mother may I. So I would prefer to engage that kind of critique in good faith and make my own case for why it is not accurate (and as I said, I've already done so in other threads so I am not rushing to discuss that here), while respecting 'mother may I' is the other persons' legitimate reaction to the style. I mean I can't force someone to like my style of play anymore than I can force them to agree with me about Rosemary's Baby, or horror films in general.

The only place I take issue here is when people mistake the critique for an objective description. It is obviously a negative term. So if you use it to talk about an approach someone else enjoys, of course they are going to object.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, like Spinning Plates with Blades. That absolutely can have a big time negative connotation but it fits (a) and (b). Relentless Grind or Embrace the Suck for Torchbearer also has negative connotations but fits (a) and (b) nicely. I mean...I would say for 4e you could cheekily call it "Skip the Gate Guards"...but that would be way too inside joke for people so something like "Cut to the Action" would be better.

Personally I've never liked the term playing at the world. But I usually know what people mean when they use it. I think with any style descriptor, it isn't meant to be an exclusive claim to all instances of "playing at the world". It is like Living World, another term we've debated so frequently here. It is a starting point, and it evokes what the priorities are. But ultimately what really matters isn't the specific wording as much as what the wording points to and if people who engage that style are able to communicate clearly with one another using it. The term itself doesn't have to contain any special meaning that specifically relates to what happens, that can be understood by people who use the term. With terms that come of out the styles of play I am familiar with, in the conversations I saw over time online, a lot of it was about what terms stuck after use for a long time. For whatever reason those were often more snazzy, maybe not precise, terms. But that is just kind of how it goes. I remember seeing many of these discussions when there was competing language to describe these things (and honestly I liked a lot of the other terms more because my personal taste and style doesn't fit as neatly into some of the very purist approaches associated with the labels). But if I want people who play in a given way to understand me, I need to use the language that has currency and can convey to them what I mean to say.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Okay I probably should have asked this earlier in the discussion but what does OSR and FKR stand for and what are they/what do they mean?

 

[Campbell]

For me this issue is not really all that strongly related to divisions of authority. My experience with feeling like I had to ask permission to accomplish anything within the game's setting comes down to the following.

1. GMs being overly coy about setting details. Basically centering the game on discovery, rather than what happens after we have an awareness of the environment. The idea that exploring the setting for its own sake is central to play rather than playing a character who exists within the setting who has a vibrant context or making play decisions that shape the direction of play. The idea that every morsel of information must be earned even when it makes sense that characters who spend every waking moment living in the setting should know. I call this the space alien effect.

2. A lack of accountability to the players. The idea that authority means you should be unquestioned. In my book any GM should be open to talking shop outside of the session, particularly when it comes to play process and expectations we all have for one another.

3. Treating the setting as the main character. Basically treating the setting as this thing you own rather than a playspace we share. A lot of times this comes down to protecting it in various ways. Making rulings so that the fiction does not take a direction you do not want it to. Presenting situations where player characters have minimal resources to affect actual change. Not being willing to let players acquire and utilize allies. Not allowing player characters to gain place of prominence in the game's setting.

Experiencing these phenomenon are what led me to take on GMing, to provide the sort of experience to others I felt was lacking in my own early experiences.

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay I probably should have asked this earlier in the discussion but what does OSR and FKR stand for and what are they/what do they mean?

old school .... revival(?) & umm... Free Kriegsspiel... revolution(?)

 

[Aldarc]

Okay I probably should have asked this earlier in the discussion but what does OSR and FKR stand for and what are they/what do they mean?

OSR: Old School Renaissance/Revival

• OSR as Legal Retroclones: OD&D, B/X, 1e, and 2e Retroclones (e.g., Old School Essentials, Swords & Wizardry, etc.)
• OSR as Games Designed with Reimagined Old School Principles (e.g., Forbidden Lands, Maze Rats, Into the Odd, Mörk Borg, etc.)

FKR: Frei Kriegspiel

 

[hawkeyefan]

e, they are just going to get a response from people who disagree). But I have vague memories of discussion mother may I and why I think it isn't a valid criticism (though I think in those discussions we were talking about very specific play styles and not 5E in general). I think that topic would be its own thread, and probably one that would be a lot of us rehashing arguments we've made before. At this point there is surely standard arguments and rebuttals (and rebuttals to the rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals of the rebuttals). Honestly I think that would be a more interesting thread to me, a kind of gathering of all the arguments for and against different criticisms so we can just go and reference them rather than repeat ourselves lol

Yeah, I didn't mean you in the literal you, more taking your comment to springboard to what I'd like to see in this and similar discussions.

Like if someone says "5E isn't Mother May I" I'd like them to go one step further and explain why.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, I didn't mean you in the literal you, more taking your comment to springboard to what I'd like to see in this and similar discussions.

Like if someone says "5E isn't Mother May I" I'd like them to go one step further and explain why.

Or that if someone says "5e is Mother May I," then they should also go one step further.

 

[Umbran]

When people level comparisons like "it's an MMO on paper" or "it's too much like WoW," they should be met with similar responses, no? Especially since these claims are rather inaccurate?

So, as we go into discussions, especially as we approach edition change, we should learn to be more careful about how we speak. But, if someone isn't careful, that doesn't give license to be a jerk towards them.

You give "it's an MMO on paper" and "it's too much like WoW" in a context-free manner, but the context matters a great deal.

"It's too much like WoW," alone is an incomplete statement. The proper response is, "It is too much like WoW... for what purpose or goal?"

"I don't like this. It's too much like WoW," or "For me, it is an MMO on paper" are a perfectly fine statements of a personal assessment, and no, you do not to say it is inaccurate. You don't get to deny someone else's personal experience.

So, it would really pay for us to include the purpose or goal we intend - our own enjoyment or something else. When we see an unqualified assessment you should politely ask for the qualifier.

If you have a chip on your shoulder going in, and don't ask for the qualifier, the argument that results is as much your own fault as theirs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am not saying any critique should be immune from response. That is the nature of criticism. You are giving an opinion and some people will disagree or not like your opinion and reply. So I think its fair (I still see the WOW thing with 4E but I also have very little emotional investment in that discussion at this stage in my life .

I would also point out, whether a claim is accurate or not is going to be subject to debate. I think mother may I is an inaccurate description of the play styles it is usually leveled against. At the same time, it didn't fall out of the sky as a term, there is a reason people who don't like those play styles, invoke mother may I. So I would prefer to engage that kind of critique in good faith and make my own case for why it is not accurate (and as I said, I've already done so in other threads so I am not rushing to discuss that here), while respecting 'mother may I' is the other persons' legitimate reaction to the style. I mean I can't force someone to like my style of play anymore than I can force them to agree with me about Rosemary's Baby, or horror films in general.

The only place I take issue here is when people mistake the critique for an objective description. It is obviously a negative term. So if you use it to talk about an approach someone else enjoys, of course they are going to object.

Okay well...the main reason I asked was, you've made that exact comparison yourself. About 4e. A comparison that plenty of people find both highly inaccurate and more than a little pejorative. Something which was said at the time, and which was dismissed: "You are projecting."

I point this out specifically because it's just really frustrating to see this pattern. Certain things are totally kosher for pejorative, subjective criticism, usually things where the speaker (as you say) has "very little emotional investment in that discussion." But then, when a pejorative, inaccurate description comes along for things the speaker does like, we get spirited defenses of how criticisms should prioritize accuracy and inoffensiveness and fairness to all parties, and that so-called calling it like it is is actually bad for discussion and harmful to further understanding.

Demanding fairness and respect and accuracy only when one's own preferences are under the microscope isn't any better for discussion or understanding. It just turns every discussion into a gatekeeping contest, who can successfully characterize the opposition as pejorative.

I have very little investment in the discussion of OSR things, which is why I generally ignore most OSR-related threads, sometimes I don't even bother to open them. (I have found some neat things in them from time to time, though, so I'm not actively avoiding them either.) What would stop me from telling you, "You are projecting. Some people just played these games, and felt they were similar to Mother-May-I (personally I didn't think that about OSR). That is a fair reaction. They are basically saying, Y feels too much like X and I don't like Y to feel too much like X."? If your response was valid then, about a game you aren't (and presumably weren't) emotionally invested in discussing, why is it not valid now, about a game I'm not emotionally invested in discussing?

I just...I want people to not be trying to have it both ways. Either pejoratives are sometimes okay and thus cannot be dismissed out of hand solely because they are pejorative, or pejoratives are never okay and should never have been used to begin with. I've been seeing a breakdown of that standard in this thread, and I am deeply frustrated by it.