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

[Aldarc]

Can you be more specific. Is it the rulings over rules approach you dislike? I'm just trying to understand because it seems like you don't objet to the standard arrangement between players and GMs, but you are finding something in certain versions of the game that give the GM even more power than they otherwise would have. Is this correct?

I think that it's not "rulings over rules" that I have an issue with when it comes to MMI. Interpretation of the game rules and making rulings are part of playing games.

However, I think that (1) MMI feels like a violation of player agency and "ownership" over the play of the character (i.e., thoughts and actions); and upon further reflection (2) MMI feels like a violation of the 5e PHB play process.

(1) I do not expect my character to know everything about the world nor I do not expect my character to be able to do everything. As I wrote earlier:

Where I have issue with MMI - regardless of what gaming culture it shows up in - lies in how it interferes with the ability to roleplay my character(s). It is not just the world that I would want to play with fidelity in OSR or FKR, but also my character. If things like what my character knows is constantly being gated behind GM permissions then (A) it will start feeling less and less like my character and more like a character that the GM has loaned me; (B) it will likewise feel less and less like my play and more and more like the GM's play, and (C) I will likely feel less and less immersed in the world that my character inhabits and the shared world I am playing. I also think that MMI runs counter to FKR, as MMI can turn FKR less into an expression of "tacitcal infinity" and more into an expression of "GM-approved tactics."

I think that GM rulings are not really what's at stake here for me when we are talking about MMI. It's about my agency as a player to play my character in the game. Can I know this? Can I do this? Can I do anything with my character without the GM's gated permission? What actual autonomy or agency do I have to roleplay my character in this world that isn't subject to requiring the GM's permission or unilateral veto? Can I know or do anything regarding my player character without the GM's permission and not be accused of being an entitled player?

In my experience, MMI creates dissonance in my ability to roleplay that character. What can my character do or know in the fiction without first courting the GM's permission?

(2) Several times in this thread, the 5e PHB play process was quoted:

1. DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

This play process was appealed to emphasize the GM's ability to make rulings and adjudicate outcomes. But where does MMI come into this? I now think that MMI is not fundamentally about the GM adjudicating outcomes of characters' actions or even about their power to make rulings, because in order for the GM to adjudicate their actions the players must declare actions!

As such, I think that MMI is effectively a GM violation of play process §2 and (by extension) §3. This is more than simply determining the effectiveness of the PCs actions: MMI entails the GM micromanaging §2 and interfering with the ability for players to declare actions through a lens of GM-permissable and GM-impermissable actions, "yes, you may"/"no, you may not," "green light/red light," etc.

 

[overgeeked]

This play process was appealed to emphasize the GM's ability to make rulings and adjudicate outcomes. But where does MMI come into this? I now think that MMI is not fundamentally about the GM adjudicating outcomes of characters' actions or even about their power to make rulings, because in order for the GM to adjudicate their actions the players must declare actions!

As such, I think that MMI is effectively a GM violation of play process §2 and (by extension) §3. This is more than simply determining the effectiveness of the PCs actions: MMI entails the GM micromanaging §2 and interfering with the ability for players to declare actions through a lens of GM-permissable and GM-impermissable actions, "yes, you may"/"no, you may not," "green light/red light," etc.

Importantly, the three-step play loop you present is slightly off. The version in the PHB is this:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

A further bit of explanatory text for #2 is enlightening: "the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions. Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action."

So it's rather explicit that the player gets to make a declaration of intent, i.e. describe what they want their character to do (#2), but have no control over the outcome of that attempted action because the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions (#3).

A lot of the MMI examples provided in the thread sound like the player wanting to not only describe their character's attempted action (#2) but also narrate the outcome (#3) and being upset when it doesn't work out how they want it to. The player gets to declare the character's attempt (#2), not narrate the outcome (#3). The referee gets to narrate the outcome (#3), not declare the character's attempt (#2). If the player declares something impossible, the referee should clarify by describing the environment (#1) and give the player another pass at their description of what they want to do (#2). If the player persists in an impossible or consequence-ridden declaration (#2), the referee is perfectly justified in saying it fails or that the character faces the consequences, i.e. narrating the outcome (#3).

A lot of trouble is the implied outcome in many declarations. Which is why having players both describe their actions and describe their goal is an amazing step to include. It prevents a lot of problems of assumptions and unclear goals or connecting actions to goals.

Player: "I want to shoot at the moon with an arrow (#2) and actually hit it (#3)."

Referee: "Okay. You fire an arrow at the moon (#2)...but no, you have no chance of actually hitting it (#3). Mark off the arrow (#3)."

Player: "I want to jump off the top of the tower (#2) and survive (#3)."

Referee: "Okay. You can dive off the top of the tower (#2), but be aware that it's 1000ft tall and surrounded by lava below (#1)...but no, you have no chance of surviving (#3). Do you still want to do that? (Another pass at #2)."

(Interestingly, if you think about it, railroading is also a violation of #2 in that the referee abuses #3 by either deciding whatever the players do, the result is the same, i.e. quantum ogres, etc, or auto-failing anything the players do that's outside of what the referee wants the characters to do.)

 

[Aldarc]

Importantly, the three-step play loop you present is slightly off. The version in the PHB is this:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

You wanna quibble about a typo? Forgetting "want to"? That's it. You wanna argue against a clerical error in typing and claim that it's an argumentative one? Okay. You win all the Internet points.

Edit: I've added "want to" back to my prior post. Nothing changes.

A further bit of explanatory text for #2 is enlightening: "the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions. Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action."

I'm aware and I have not discounted this. So why pretend that I have?

A lot of the MMI examples provided in the thread sound like the player wanting to not only describe their character's attempted action (#2) but also narrate the outcome (#3) and being upset when it doesn't work out how they want it to.

If you genuinely think that this honestly reflects what other people and myself have been presenting as MMI, then that's a good sign that this conversation is over. Good day and so long.

 

[overgeeked]

You wanna quibble about a typo? Forgetting "want to"? That's it. You wanna argue against a clerical error in typing and claim that it's an argumentative one? Okay. You win all the Internet points.

No, I want to accurately represent what the book actually says. I'm not calling you out on the difference. I'm pointing out what the book actually says. You're taking a "the book says this" as a "you're wrong and should feel bad." I'm saying the former, not the latter.

I'm aware and I have not discounted this. So why pretend that I have?

I'm not. Again, pointing out illuminating text from the rule book of the game we're talking about.

If you genuinely think that this honestly reflects what other people and myself have been presenting as MMI,

Well, yes. Most of them read like "how dare you tell me no." The referee gets to say no. Sorry that's a problem. Sorry if the problem is the referee said no in the wrong place in the conversation. "You can't do that" is bad, whereas "You try, but fail" is good. That's a pointlessly semantic and hair-splitting difference, to me.

then that's a good sign that this conversation is over. Good day and so long.

Cool. Tschüss.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, yes. Most of them read like "how dare you tell me no." The referee gets to say no.

What are some examples where the GM says no? Do you have examples from your game that you can share?

I think the advice that Quinns offered in the Shut Up & Sit Down video was excellent advice, and you said you thought it was terrible.

Why? When is it okay for the GM to say no? Again, actual examples from play would be much more preferable than the absurd "I want the king to give me his crown" or "I want to pick up the castle and smash the dragon with it" hypotheticals.

When have you actually said no to a player's idea? What did that accomplish? What did it cost?

 

[Hussar]

It is not really productive to lay this issue at any one person’s feet. MMI is not a player or a dm problem or a system problem.

When an MMI situation occurs, likely there is more than enough blame to go around.

One poster @iserith has spent a lot of time detailing how they handle skills in DnD. Excellently thought out and very clear. I’m on their ignore list because I don’t agree with their conclusions because I feel it would be too MMI. In their view only the dm may call for skill checks and the goal of players is to describe actions in such a way to avoid the dice and automatically succeed.

To me, this is textbook mmi. If I can find the write magic words to automatically succeed, that’s MMI by definition.

Obviously opinions vary.

But, at the end of the day, the issue and calling it MMI just means that I would be a very poor fit in that group. That group is perfectly happy to play that way.

 

[tetrasodium]

What are some examples where the GM says no? Do you have examples from your game that you can share?

I think the advice that Quinns offered in the Shut Up & Sit Down video was excellent advice, and you said you thought it was terrible.

Why? When is it okay for the GM to say no? Again, actual examples from play would be much more preferable than the absurd "I want the king to give me his crown" or "I want to pick up the castle and smash the dragon with it" hypotheticals.

When have you actually said no to a player's idea? What did that accomplish? What did it cost?

Quoting the video. he said something along the lines of "I think you should 100% of the time you should say yea if you can or yea I'll take the idea but you could do it like this " those Ifs & But maybes are critical.

Critically at no point does the video seem to so much as vaguely hint that the player has any responsibilities. That is very much not a healthy dynamic though & it's one that seems to be pushed hard in 5e.

• The player is responsible for paying attention as things evolve & not ignoring those things in pursuit of their own Main Character Syndrome story.
• The player is responsible for adhering to themes rather than simply ignoring them & demanding they reform to fit what The Main Character's Story. consider known details before trying or anything else.
• The player is responsible for a whole bunch of things like that like ensuring their backstory is reasonable for the GM's game & appropriate for the world at the given power level... so on & so forth.

You are going after this backwards wanting examples of a time where saying no was done & wanting to have a clearly outlined answer to "When is it okay for the GM to say no?" rather than accepting that there are times where a GM needs to say no or "wtf?!.. no" & that the gm should be empowered to do so when they feel a player is off base. When the player doesn't do those things they don't get to cry foul & demand the GM justify that the gm is not just a problematic bad GM & discussion shouldn't automatically assume the GM till proven otherwise.

In 5e the PCs are so removed from need & insulated from risk that it's no longer reasonable to avoid discussing player responsibilities.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Quoting the video. he said something along the lines of "I think you should 100% of the time you should say yea if you can or yea I'll take the idea but you could do it like this " those Ifs & But maybes are critical.

He said you should strive to not say no. Work with players to try and get their ideas to work via the game mechanics.

It’s excellent advice.

Critically at no point does the video seem to so much as vaguely hint that the player has any responsibilities. That is very much not a healthy dynamic though & it's one that seems to be pushed hard in 5e.

The video is about convincing people to try RPGs. If that’s the goal, why would you list a bunch of responsibilities of the player?

Especially ones like these:

• The player is responsible for paying attention as things evolve & not ignoring those things in pursuit of their own Main Character Syndrome story.
• The player is responsible for adhering to themes rather than simply ignoring them & demanding they reform to fit what The Main Character's Story. consider known details before trying or anything else.
• The player is responsible for a whole bunch of things like that like ensuring their backstory is reasonable for the GM's game & appropriate for the world at the given power level... so on & so forth.

I’d almost agree with the first one until the need to describe “Main Character Syndrome”. I don’t know if not wanting to conform at all times to the GM’s ideas means you have “main character syndrome”. Nor do I think that citing such needs is much of an argument against Mother May I.

You are going after this backwards wanting examples of a time where saying no was done & wanting to have a clearly outlined answer to "When is it okay for the GM to say no?" rather than accepting that there are times where a GM needs to say no or "wtf?!.. no" & that the gm should be empowered to do so when they feel a player is off base. When the player doesn't do those things they don't get to cry foul & demand the GM justify that the gm is not just a problematic bad GM & discussion shouldn't automatically assume the GM till proven otherwise.

Again, I don’t know how what you’re saying here is an argument against Mother May I. It all sounds very “my way or the highway” to me.

As for going about it the wrong way, I don’t know how asking for examples from @overgeeked ’s (or anyone else’s) actual play is a bad way to go about it. Such an example would seem to actually help explain why they feel Mother May I is a bad descriptor.

 

[clearstream]

What are some examples where the GM says no? Do you have examples from your game that you can share?

I think the advice that Quinns offered in the Shut Up & Sit Down video was excellent advice, and you said you thought it was terrible.

Why? When is it okay for the GM to say no? Again, actual examples from play would be much more preferable than the absurd "I want the king to give me his crown" or "I want to pick up the castle and smash the dragon with it" hypotheticals.

When have you actually said no to a player's idea? What did that accomplish? What did it cost?

That's not addressed to me, but I wanted to add that I personally have no examples of MMI as a player. Not of D&D, or any other TTRPG.

As DM, cases where I recall saying no are often about the rules. Can my spell do X? No, it's limited in the rules to doing Y. Other cases are about the environment. Can I fit down that hole? No, it's too small for medium and larger creatures. In 5e, applications of abilities can have a broad scope, so sometimes it is to dispel an ambiguity. Can I persuade them to hand X over? No, not with a single ability check: it's precious to their order so on no account will they just hand it over to a stranger. Other cases include positioning in combat. Can I see Q? No, you'd need to move that way a bit. Can I hide here? No, there's insufficient cover where you are.

Thinking on it, I say no all the time! Of course, I say yes a lot too. Could I hide over there, where there are bushes? Yes, as a wood elf you can do that with Mask of the Wild.

Often I ask for more description. I want to intimidate these cultists. Sure, how are you threatening them?

 

[clearstream]

You wanna quibble about a typo? Forgetting "want to"? That's it. You wanna argue against a clerical error in typing and claim that it's an argumentative one? Okay. You win all the Internet points.

Edit: I've added "want to" back to my prior post. Nothing changes.

I can't recall what you had there originally, but assuming it was missing "want to" I felt @overgeeked explained well what they felt the omission could imply... if not to you, then to other readers.

If you genuinely think that this honestly reflects what other people and myself have been presenting as MMI, then that's a good sign that this conversation is over. Good day and so long.

I felt here they might have better posed it as a question. Might the MMI that folk dislike sometimes arise out of a player aiming to narrate the outcome of their actions?

I think this is interesting because generally, once I call for a check (as DM) I take success to mean that the outcome is as player would describe it. Departing from RAW, I'm often okay with that amounting to - player narrates success. Sometimes I need to add or modify something, where due to known factors success might diverge from what they wanted. A mimic is a fairly blunt example. I've read posts from others saying players narrate in specific circumstances (in D&D). Crits, for instance.

So I modify RAW to largely narrate complications and failures. However, were a player to suppose they can narrate the results of what their character does without mediation, then that would generally breach some of our principles. System constrains. What follows from our fiction constrains. They must play Mother May I: in some modes the group, in others the DM, and almost always the dice, will say yes or no.

What label is right for non-degenerate MMI?