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

[tetrasodium]

Okay.

Where does the disparity in authority come from if not the rules? It's the rules of the game that define these relationships.

That's certainly not how the phrase "mother may I" is used given posters in this thread freely admit it's meant to be derogatory and insulting.

Any specific examples in mind?

Take this example of 3.x & 5e where a player wants to swing from the chandelier* while throwing a 5 pound bag of flour to help detect invisible baddies. That right there has the player using their character to do two things (A:swing from the chandelier & B:use the flower). in 5e you can perform A by:

• ask the gm if you can
• ask the GM what mechanic to use knowing it's probably an on the spot invented one
• Do whatever they said to do if they say you can

Then you can perform B by:

• You only have one free object interaction & you are interacting with the flour+the chandelier so ask the GM how or if you can square that circle
• assuming that you can ask the GM to invent a mechanic to handle how or if the resulting cloud impacts the invisible creatures below.

In 3.x the player knows the rules include a section on bonus types & gm's best friend(+2/-2) so armed with that knowledge can assemble a plan with some rough expectation through a quick question like "would you say scattering a 5 pound bag of flour across the room would give an alchemical or situational modifier to see the invisible baddies?" knowing the expected mechanics & results. Furthermore you shed any ambiguity over free object interactions with strongly defined action types & container/AoO rules to make the expected cost & likely risks a prima facie thing they don't need the GM to decide.

Having crunchy rules structures & frameworks empowers the GM, tossing that void of structure & framework to the gm clogs the pipes just from the mundane stuff before even getting to edge cases & one offs.

* edit: plus a third possible object interaction taking the flour from the backpack, in 3.x taking an object from a pack was covered by the fact that it provoked an AoO while in 5e your hand is holding a quantum item consisting of everything in your pack unless you want an empty hand

 

[el-remmen]

People find the term "Mother May I" disparaging (however the person who says it might mean it) because it is an allusion to a game of arbitrary authority that shows preferences for some individuals for no good reason. It is far from neutral when used to describe the role of the DM.

 

[payn]

Take this example of 3.x & 5e where a player wants to swing from the chandelier while throwing a 5 pound bag of flour to help detect invisible baddies. That right there has the player using their character to do two things (A:swing from the chandelier & B:use the flower). in 5e you can perform A by:

• ask the gm if you can
• ask the GM what mechanic to use knowing it's probably an on the spot invented one
• Do whatever they said to do if they say you can

Then you can perform B by:

• You only have one free object interaction & you are interacting with the flour+the chandelier so ask the GM how or if you can square that circle
• assuming that you can ask the GM to invent a mechanic to handle how or if the resulting cloud impacts the invisible creatures below.

In 3.x the player knows the rules include a section on bonus types & gm's best friend(+2/-2) so armed with that knowledge can assemble a plan with some rough expectation through a quick question like "would you say scattering a 5 pound bag of flour across the room would give an alchemical or situational modifier to see the invisible baddies?" knowing the expected mechanics & results. Furthermore you shed any ambiguity over free object interactions with strongly defined action types & container/AoO rules to make the expected cost & likely risks a prima facie thing they don't need the GM to decide.

Having crunchy rules structures & frameworks empowers the GM, tossing that void of structure & framework to the gm clogs the pipes just from the mundane stuff before even getting to edge cases & one offs.

This is good stuff here and what kicked off the discussion. In the D&D context, why are inspiration mechanics necessary? Why do the players and GM not work it out? Well, because folks want levers to take that GM authority, in specific instances, and apply it to the player.

 

[bloodtide]

Why do the players and GM not work it out?

It's a lot of work.

By default, all too often players want any action to have epic positive effect for their character, while the DM wants the action to have a small effect that maybe can help the character. Though too, plenty of players want to alter reality with simple actions and plenty of DMs don't think of character's actions should have any effect unless they expend a resource or ability.

And even once you get over the above HUGE hurdle, and agree to the effect happening, you still need to decide on the details. Does the flour give a +2 to hit? Let you make a normal attack? Auto hit? Something else?

 

[overgeeked]

People find the term "Mother May I" disparaging (however the person who says it might mean it) because it is an allusion to a game of arbitrary authority that shows preferences for some individuals for no good reason. It is far from neutral when used to describe the role of the DM.

Exactly. It’s the conflation of GM authority with arbitrary use thereof that’s a problem. The GM having authority isn’t a problem. The GM using that authority arbitrarily is a problem. Posters intentionally and insultingly conflating the two is also a problem.

 

[overgeeked]

Take this example of 3.x & 5e where a player wants to swing from the chandelier while throwing a 5 pound bag of flour to help detect invisible baddies. That right there has the player using their character to do two things (A:swing from the chandelier & B:use the flour). in 5e you can perform A by:

• ask the gm if you can
• ask the GM what mechanic to use knowing it's probably an on the spot invented one
• Do whatever they said to do if they say you can

Then you can perform B by:

• You only have one free object interaction & you are interacting with the flour+the chandelier so ask the GM how or if you can square that circle
• assuming that you can ask the GM to invent a mechanic to handle how or if the resulting cloud impacts the invisible creatures below.

In 3.x the player knows the rules include a section on bonus types & gm's best friend(+2/-2) so armed with that knowledge can assemble a plan with some rough expectation through a quick question like "would you say scattering a 5 pound bag of flour across the room would give an alchemical or situational modifier to see the invisible baddies?" knowing the expected mechanics & results. Furthermore you shed any ambiguity over free object interactions with strongly defined action types & container/AoO rules to make the expected cost & likely risks a prima facie thing they don't need the GM to decide.

You're skipping over two key factors. One, like the 3X player knows about bonuses and the GM's best friend, the 5E player knows about dis/advantage. Two, you're somehow ignoring that the crunchy rules of 5E get in the way of doing this thing in your example...while simultaneously pointing out that the rules of 5E get in the way of doing this thing in your example. Without the cruft of the mechanics in the way, the referee can simply declare it a success or call for a check and move on. Anything more involved than "Sounds awesome, make a check" is pointless bookkeeping.

This circles around to the assumption that referee authority will, by definition, be abused. That's simply not true. It also seem to be drawing on the notion that the rules can somehow protect the players from the referee being arbitrary, again, that's simply not true.

Having crunchy rules structures & frameworks empowers the GM, tossing that void of structure & framework to the gm clogs the pipes just from the mundane stuff before even getting to edge cases & one offs.

Having the crunchy rules of 5E gets in the way of performing the action in your example. There are two ways to deal with that, either have more rules that cover increasingly specific and rare events (i.e. rules for literally everything) or fewer, more broadly applicable rules.

Adding more rules means the referee is more and more constrained, more and more beholden to the rules. Getting rid of those rules and frameworks opens up the referee to make a call on the spot. As a referee or a player I'd much rather the referee simply make a call than have to feel beholden to rules and the need to stop the game dead to look up yet another obscure rule about some once in a decade edge case.

This also free up the referee from having to stick to dumb RAW...like 3X grappling. Crunchy and convoluted rules that get in the way. Then compare that to 5E grappling. The mechanics are way smoother and easier to use. They're no where near as detailed, which is good as you don't need to collectively groan, stop the game, and let everyone but the referee and the grappler go have a 30 minute food break while they hash out exactly how to run grappling...again.

 

[billd91]

People find the term "Mother May I" disparaging (however the person who says it might mean it) because it is an allusion to a game of arbitrary authority that shows preferences for some individuals for no good reason. It is far from neutral when used to describe the role of the DM.

Right. The negative connotation is pretty strong.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

People find the term "Mother May I" disparaging (however the person who says it might mean it) because it is an allusion to a game of arbitrary authority that shows preferences for some individuals for no good reason. It is far from neutral when used to describe the role of the DM.

Yes. It’s a childish phrase used as a childish taunt.

 

[tetrasodium]

You're skipping over two key factors. One, like the 3X player knows about bonuses and the GM's best friend, the 5E player knows about dis/advantage. Two, you're somehow ignoring that the crunchy rules of 5E get in the way of doing this thing in your example...while simultaneously pointing out that the rules of 5E get in the way of doing this thing in your example. Without the cruft of the mechanics in the way, the referee can simply declare it a success or call for a check and move on. Anything more involved than "Sounds awesome, make a check" is pointless bookkeeping.

This circles around to the assumption that referee authority will, by definition, be abused. That's simply not true. It also seem to be drawing on the notion that the rules can somehow protect the players from the referee being arbitrary, again, that's simply not true.

Having the crunchy rules of 5E gets in the way of performing the action in your example. There are two ways to deal with that, either have more rules that cover increasingly specific and rare events (i.e. rules for literally everything) or fewer, more broadly applicable rules.

Adding more rules means the referee is more and more constrained, more and more beholden to the rules. Getting rid of those rules and frameworks opens up the referee to make a call on the spot. As a referee or a player I'd much rather the referee simply make a call than have to feel beholden to rules and the need to stop the game dead to look up yet another obscure rule about some once in a decade edge case.

This also free up the referee from having to stick to dumb RAW...like 3X grappling. Crunchy and convoluted rules that get in the way. Then compare that to 5E grappling. The mechanics are way smoother and easier to use. They're no where near as detailed, which is good as you don't need to collectively groan, stop the game, and let everyone but the referee and the grappler go have a 30 minute food break while they hash out exactly how to run grappling...again.

I left out one of the 5e object interactions & edited in a * point in the original post. There are 3 of them.... using the flour, swinging on the the chandelier, and taking the flour from a pack. in 3.x the pack interaction was covered by it provoking an AoO while the other two swift/move/standard action as appropriate. (dis)advantage is part of the problem too though because it's a one and done with no reason to get creative once you have one to cancel the other. Ironically 5e makes sacrifices to enable the creative solution while simultaneously ensuring that there's rarely a point by having an overly simplified replacement mechanic for one of those sacrifices



I wouldn't call "does that grant advantage?" a "crunchy mechanic" so not sure what mechanics your referencing as an omitted analog to standard/swift/free/move action + a well structured tactical AoO system+the various bonus types that generally only stack with unlike types+actual container rules. 5e has too many parts of supporting crunch hanging on "ask your gm"

 

[James Gasik]

When I have to keep asking the DM if my Wild Magic Sorcerer can use Tides of Chaos again.