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

[Bedrockgames]

Isn't the prior question Whose view as to what makes sense is the authoritative one?

Classic Traveller doesn't talk about praying, but it does talk about rolling random worlds, and that this process might produce results that require some imagination to make sense of. And it gives the following advice (Book 3, p 8):

At times, the referee (or the players) will find combinations of features which may seem contradictory or unreasonable. Common sense should rule in such cases; either the players or referee will generate a rationale which explains the situation, or an alternative description should be made.​

This was in 1977!

If the players are meant to be solving a GM-authored puzzle (whether a closed-solution one like a crossword, or an open-ended puzzle like White Plume Mountain) then of course it is the GM's conception of things that sets the parameters for an acceptable solution. But once we move beyond that paradigm, it's up for grabs whose "common sense" should decide things.

There is a whole host of ways to manage this. I am not saying one is the right way or the wrong way. And this isn't about solving the GM's puzzle, this is just about the GM trying to flow with what the players are attempting and how a GM might adjudicate that. I am just saying I don't see this as mother may I, merely the kind of control GM's often have over setting cosmology and flavor. And this control is a lot more flexible than something like Mother May I (for the reasons I laid out in prior posts regarding the kinds of consideration that can go into these decisions, how much players influence things with their suggestions, how there is still a need for the GM to preserve trust among the players so a good GM is going to be making good faith attempts at adjudicating such efforts (likely balancing things like how interesting it is, what it adds to the campaign, how well it fits into he cosmology and religious elements of the setting and out of a sense of fairness to the other players: i.e. is giving the fighter this ability going to upset other players from a balance point of view).

 

[payn]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

When I say that...

The player in this example wanted to both describe what they wanted to do (#2) and narrate the outcome (#3), violating the play loop. But when the referee followed the play loop and narrated the outcome (#3), the player was dissatisfied.

Player: "I want to use my Folk Hero feature to find shelter with the common people (#2) and successfully hide from the Duke's men thereby avoiding a confrontation (#3)."

Referee: "Okay. You find shelter with the common people. But as the feature explicitly says, 'They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you.' The Evil Duke's men are threatening to massacre the townspeople unless they surrender you, so someone gave you up to save the lives of all the innocent people in the town."

This is also why being explicit rather than implicit about goals when making declarations is a great idea. If the player had said their goal up front, the referee could have the opportunity to clarify the situation and the player could have the opportunity to rethink or rework and restate their declaration. It sounds like a mismatch of (unstated) expectations. In the player's head things should logically play out one way but in the referee's head things logically played out another. That's why you openly communicate your goals as a player up front, so you can talk with the referee about the likelihood of the outcome you're after.

(Sidebar: This is one big reason I love the new background system in the UA. No more arguments about whether Noble is peasant mind control or any of the rest.)

This quote begins with a claim of no ill intent, but ends with the claim that the referee is negating the player's agency to preserve the referee's plans...all because an attempted action did not play out exactly as the player wanted.

Again, the play loop is:

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.

The player doesn't get to narrate the outcome, the referee does. As above, many of the examples in this thread come down to "the referee didn't let me narrate the outcome of the thing I wanted to do, so it's MMI." The player gets to try to hide as their declaration, not declare that they successfully hide. The success of that attempt is up to the mechanics or the referee. As stated so many times in this thread, that is the killer app of RPGs. It is the distinctive feature of RPGs, not a bug. It's the thing that separates RPGs from video games and boardgames and wargames. But, as mentioned above, it does cut both ways. The players get the benefits of having tactical infinity along with the "drawback" of sometimes not having things always work out exactly how the players want them to.

I dig this post, but that sounds like the player and GM trying to get the one up on each other. A lot rides on the GM being fair, but also giving the player some slack to change the situation in the play loop. I can see why some players value having an Ace in the hole to give them some GM veto power.

 

[overgeeked]

I dig this post, but that sounds like the player and GM trying to get the one up on each other.

My read is that the player is trying to narrate the outcome of their declared action but the referee disagrees that's how things would play out. And because the player wasn't clear with their goal up front, there's now a problem between the referee and the player.

A lot rides on the GM being fair

100%. That's universally true of all RPGs.

but also giving the player some slack to change the situation in the play loop.

Exactly. Which is why I said the same in the middle with:

This is also why being explicit rather than implicit about goals when making declarations is a great idea. If the player had said their goal up front, the referee could have the opportunity to clarify the situation and the player could have the opportunity to rethink or rework and restate their declaration. It sounds like a mismatch of (unstated) expectations. In the player's head things should logically play out one way but in the referee's head things logically played out another. That's why you openly communicate your goals as a player up front, so you can talk with the referee about the likelihood of the outcome you're after.

I can see why some players value having an Ace in the hole to give them some GM veto power.

This is 5E D&D we're talking about, so that's not really a problem. Even 1st-level characters are festooned with Aces.

 

[payn]

This is 5E D&D we're talking about, so that's not really a problem. Even 1st-level characters are festooned with Aces.

This is an over exaggeration. Do you have 5E rule examples that allow players to veto the GM specifically?

 

[hawkeyefan]

A normal situation is that principles are also in play. So most likely MMI represents DM-curated + some shortfall in those principles, of the sort you are describing. For example, among those I uphold when DMing D&D are

• Apply the game rules
• Say what the rules mean and stick to it
• Have no hidden rules

The rules will not cover every case, and there is our fiction to consider: what we know to be true. In another discussion I put forward that 5e is silent on what principles each group will put in force for themselves. I believe that is intentional, with a view to embracing a wide audience.

These principles may actually help prevent play from becoming Mother May I, I agree. They don't appear anywhere in the published rules. I expect you've come up with them over your time playing RPGs and have kind of culled best practices for you and your group.

I agree that the ambiguous nature of the rules is largely intentional to allow multiple interpretations that can lead to different kinds of play. I think that ambiguity... while having the positive effect of reaching a wider audience... has the negative effect of being vague and imprecise in ways that can be detrimental to play.

If I read your comment here correctly, then I would agree with the intuition that where one participant is legislated in the game text to have greater authority over agreeing what becomes true then that could create a vulnerability. My thought is that the divider is the principles they habitually bring to their table. That this explains why some groups (e.g., those in my experience) do not experience MMI (degenerate exercise of a right of agreement).
To some extent I read @hawkeyefan's critique as pointing out the omission of those principles from the game text, which as noted above I believe is intentional and perhaps serves a useful purpose (i.e., one accepts the possibility of degenerate play just because it makes the game work for more people.)

Yes, the lack of specific principles and guidance on how to avoid Mother May I is my main criticism. I think that you pretty clearly describe it in that "the possibility of degenerate play is a risk worth taking to make the game work for more people".

I think it is six of one, half dozen of the other. On the one hand, “rulings not rules” gives DMs the encouragement to empower their players. Compared to 3.5, there is no rule that the Folk Hero background gives you advantage on your Investigation check to find out what’s bothering the common folk, and including this tupe of circumstancial rule would make the PHB overly long and unwieldly.

The flip side is that a player cannot invoke defined, concrete rules against a DM that minimizes the usefulness of the Folk Hero background.

Since both sides are a direct consequence of “rulings not rules”, I am uncomfortable only referring to the second as MMI.

This is why I don't consider the approach of "rulings not rules" as synonymous with Mother May I. I think "rulings not rules" has its benefits, and its place. I think Mother May I is a risk associated with such an approach.

I don't want or expect codified rules for every single thing. The GM can and should exercise their judgment throughout play. It's when and how and why that matter to me.

The way I parse these sections of the DMG is this. Some of the rules are labelled expressly "optional". Others are labelled expressly "variant". Others, like the social interaction rules, are not labelled. So that

It seems your post may have been cut off here, but I'm not sure. I think this is an interpretation of the passages. And while it's one I may understand, I don't think it's the only interpretation.

Again, as you've pointed out, I think they left things very open to interpretation intentionally.

This is an observation about the frequencies of checks depending on chosen DMing style (DMG236), not the optionality of the rule.

I think it's clearly more than that. It's also advocating handling it by total free form roleplay or by handling it with Charisma checks, or some combination of the two. Same as "The Role of The Dice" section. You can go with this end of the spectrum, or that end, but most people are somewhere in the middle! Do what's best for you! It's incredibly skimpy advice.

If I opt to handle a scene entirely through free form roleplay, then I'm opting out of using the structure described.

This is a reminder of the priority of roleplaying - it's in every aspect of the game (PHB185) - and is not about the optionality of the rule.

My complaint here is not about keeping the roleplaying involved, but instead about advocating keeping the structure of play hidden from the players. This would appear to run contrary to the principles you cited at the top of the post.

I think the rules in the DMG are for more advanced play. Consider for instance the simpler PHB174 rule on ability checks with the advanced DMG237 rules. After all, the game text one needs to have absorbed at that point runs into hundreds of pages.

Again, this is an interpretation. And while it's a perfectly fine one, not everyone will share it, which is what may cause conflicts.

Please recall that my position is that I resist a straight conflation of MMI with "one person deciding." If MMI just means "one person decides" then as @FrogReaver pointed out, it becomes tautologically true in every case where one person decides.

You cited several different sources of authority in your examples, not just one.

It is more important to my mind to consider my stepped-up example, of using Intimidate. What are your answers to those two questions, replacing Religion with Intimidate?

I'm glad you brought this up... I had actually meant to respond to it and neglected to in my last post.

So if a player asked this of me, I'd say "How does Intimidate apply here?" and then see what they say. If they didn't have a reasonable explanation, then I'd ask "So do you think it's more that you're trying to Persuade the deity? Or maybe Bluff them?" and see what they thought of those. If they did come up with a reason for Intimidate, then I'd take that into consideration. I'd say something like "Okay, that may work, but the DC will be 5 higher because you're a mortal trying to intimidate a deity, and if you fail, you're going to have a god angry with you. Do you want to proceed? Or do you want to try a different approach?"

Something very much like the above. There's give and take involved. There's a discussion where we sort things out and come up with a way forward. At no point am I just shutting down their idea. If I did so, I'd never hear their idea on why intimidate might work... and why would I not want to hear that? Which brings us neatly back to...

What would you say is preserved by saying no outright to this request? What do you think it costs?

 

[overgeeked]

This is an over exaggeration. Do you have 5E rule examples that allow players to veto the GM specifically?

Let's see. Every racial ability that gives the character something extra to do. Every class ability that gives the character something extra to do. Every background feature that gives the character something extra to do. Every feat that gives the character an extra thing to do. Every spell. All of these are explicitly Aces.

 

[payn]

Let's see. Every racial ability that gives the character something extra to do. Every class ability that gives the character something extra to do. Every background feature that gives the character something extra to do. Every feat that gives the character an extra thing to do. Every spell. All of these are explicitly Aces.

Well, I think you demonstrated up thread how any of those aces can be shut down by the GM. "wont risk their lives" There is nothing that says these things automatically work even spells have descriptions that limit their application. None of them indicate you just tell the GM what happens.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Let's see. Every racial ability that gives the character something extra to do. Every class ability that gives the character something extra to do. Every background feature that gives the character something extra to do. Every feat that gives the character an extra thing to do. Every spell. All of these are explicitly Aces.

What character capabilities would you consider not vetoing the DM?

 

[tetrasodium]

@tetrasodium What does “Main Character Syndrome” entail? Something about disputes or issues with something below?

Like pornography & railroading "you'll know it when you see it" because it covers a range of things that depend on the situation & context. Sometimes it's called things like That Guy & so on but That Guy doesn't explain much without experience & cultural context.

* Players don’t get to dictate what the dramatic needs of their characters are as it will be chosen for them.

crossing that might be an example of that but it depends so moving on

* Play will not be about PC dramatic needs but it will be about resolving the dramatic needs of the setting/archvillain (eg Strahd in Ravenloft)?

crossing that might be an example of that but it depends so moving on

* Players do get to dictate what their dramatic needs are but play will only be incidentally/tangentially/infrequently driven by/related to them?

crossing that might be an example of that but it depends so moving on

* Players do get to dictate what the dramatic needs of their characters are but no player has disproportionate table time spent on engaging with and resolving their PC’s dramatic needs (play will engage with these things but it will be proportionate table time between players)?

Not even sure how to answer this one but if we were drawing a venn diagram I don't think it would touch the main character syndrome circle so moving on

* Something else?

Yea very much. I Your bulletpoints above seem to be trying to link a particular toxic player behavior that doesn't rely on game style to a particular gamestyle. I think this is a pretty good video talking about those types of behaviors since it uses a specific player doing that kind of studff for a good while

Spoiler

I dig this post, but that sounds like the player and GM trying to get the one up on each other. A lot rides on the GM being fair, but also giving the player some slack to change the situation in the play loop. I can see why some players value having an Ace in the hole to give them some GM veto power.

That's why the player needs to adhere to things already established & be specific in what they want to do/how they want to do it. If the player isn't doing those while invoking a quantum action by complaining that it didn't go their way to change what they would have done then it's easy to cross a line where they are using the GM to actually do all of those things just without actually expending any resources or doing anything that might carry a risk until they do the one that succeeds without either of those. The Quantum ogre can work well for gameplay, the qiuantum action not at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, the play loop is:

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.

The player doesn't get to narrate the outcome, the referee does. As above, many of the examples in this thread come down to "the referee didn't let me narrate the outcome of the thing I wanted to do, so it's MMI." The player gets to try to hide as their declaration, not declare that they successfully hide. The success of that attempt is up to the mechanics or the referee. As stated so many times in this thread, that is the killer app of RPGs. It is the distinctive feature of RPGs, not a bug. It's the thing that separates RPGs from video games and boardgames and wargames. But, as mentioned above, it does cut both ways. The players get the benefits of having tactical infinity along with the "drawback" of sometimes not having things always work out exactly how the players want them to.

Still not a fan of the whole play loop idea, as I think the reality in play is a lot more fluid, but I understand why they boiled it down here. I would say I basically agree with what you are saying, the magic of an RPG for me has long been "I say what I want to do" and the GM either decides, makes a ruling that defers to mechanics or procedures, or the mechanics kick in and I can do it. That magic is what takes it beyond being a character in a video game or being in shoes of a hero of a movie. I do acknowledge there is the baked in draw back to that approach that the player can't narrate the outcome of their actions/ They can freely say what they want to do, there is some wiggle room for narrating certain outcomes (don't think I've seen a GM interfere when a player says something like "I throw the cup to the ground and smash it into a thousand pieces"). There are always going to be gray areas. I don't think that characterizing this arrangement as mother may I, is particularly accurate or fair. I do think it is fair for people to point out there are alternatives to this approach. But I think, as with anything, we can be even-handed in talking about the drawbacks of each one. This is especially true if you are trying to persuade people to the alternative. Because one of the worst ways to persuade people is to tell them what they are doing now sucks or is somehow lacking (or assign a pejorative label to it). You are automatically putting them in a defensive posture, whereas a more friendly and non-adversarial approach is a lot more likely to open people up to these alternatives (I know because the only time I've tried these other approaches is with people have been non-argumentative or non-judgmental about my style or my ideas about gaming).