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

[EzekielRaiden]

Terminology aside, I think one of the key issues is that it tends to impact martial/non-magic characters more than magic-using characters because spells are one of the key ways to avoid it. I think the game would be well served if it had a section on alternate ways to acheive the results of certain spells, for example:

If the PCs don't have access to plane shift, they can find a portal to their destination if they succeed on the following skill challenge/series of ability checks (...)

If the PCs don't have access to remove curse, as part of a long rest, a character with with proficiency in Arcana or Religion and a base proficiency bonus of at least +3 can remove another character's attunement to a cursed magic item.

If the PCs don't have access to greater restoration, as part of a long rest, a character with proficiency in Medicine or herbalism kits and a base proficiency bonus of at least +4 can create a salve to remove petrification using 100 gp of diamond dust.

And so on.

Kinda shows how if you aren't using spells, you're practically playing a different game half the time, eh?

 

[Mind of tempest]

I have no doubt that was an awful experience. I just think explaining it and why it was awful, as you just did, is much more useful than just calling it “mother may I,” even if that label is a fitting one.

language is made for communicating ideas between people you are complaining about the nature of human language.

 

[Charlaquin]

language is made for communicating ideas between people you are complaining about the nature of human language.

I’m not complaining about anything. I just don’t think derogatory labels are valuable communication tools.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Conversely, I have found "MMI" to be a criticism voiced when the dialogue has broken down (often more than once) so the player feels unmoored and upset with zero remaining effective recourse. Most likely, it's a spectrum.

"Mother May I" criticisms can be valid.

I agree to the first paragraph.
I disagree with the premeise of the rest.

"Mother May I" accusations won't repair the broken down communication.
As others said, using deregatory terms don't help.
Instead you should start talking about why you are not on the same terms.

If one thinks, the 5e framework is not firm enough, that is a valid opinion. As I said, sone people want to have a strict framework of action resoultions.
Others like it more freeform, because they think it is not worth interrupting the flow with rules.
Both approaches need faith between players and DM that noone tries to break the system. The deragatory term used within the stricter system is "rules lawyering", the more loose system has favoritism and MMI.

 

[Yaarel]

The 5e skills (including tools) depend on narrative adjudication. Therefore are tantamount to "mother may I".

If DM and players generally share similar expectations, then it works well, maybe even ideally. But if there are significantly divergent expectations, it can be disruptive and problematic.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Although I myself do not follow the particular style that @tetrasodium was talking about... I believe I understand their comments about how they find having more rules actually opens up their possibilities and having less rules is more constraining (but if in fact I'm wrong and not interpreting their response correctly, please feel free to correct me.)

The desire seems to be not just for DM adjudication for corner cases... but for those adjudications be able to added to the totality of the rule system in question after the fact. Rules that the DM has to make up for corner cases should (in best case scenario) be repeatable. A larger ruleset allows for a smaller amount of new rules being necessary, but when they are... those new corner case rules by the DM can join the ruleset in an official capacity. So that if/when this corner case scenario (or a scenario like it) should ever come up again... the players and DM now know what the Rule officially is for the table. And they can make informed decisions on that "new rule" any time in the future.

The problem with a much more open ruleset is that it becomes much harder for the DM (let alone the players) to remember what the Ruling was the last time it was made (because the system doesn't ask for really tight rules, so why should Rulings be any different). So on the off-chance a similar corner-case appears at a later point, the DM is going to have to just make up a Ruling again... and for all we know it might very well be the exact opposite of the Ruling they made last time (because reasons). Thus the players have no real foundation on which to make informed decisions. And for a lot of players this is not how they wish to play the game.

In many ways I think it comes down to how players desire to see which part of the game wags the other. Some players want the rule system to inform the narrative-- how the rules interact tells everyone what happens in the story as a result. Other players want the narrative to inform the rule system-- the story says we are doing X... now what rules (if any) can we (or indeed should we) apply to this situation to answer the questions the story asks clarity on? "Mother May I?" becomes shorthand I think for someone who prefers the former style of play but is stuck in the latter type of game.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I’m not complaining about anything. I just don’t think derogatory labels are valuable communication tools.

given sufficient linguistic drift, everything ends up a derogatory label beside sometimes the point is to express hatred of an object which is useful from a pure communication perspective, if we factor in what is moral things get tricky.

I agree to the first paragraph.
I disagree with the premeise of the rest.

"Mother May I" accusations won't repair the broken down communication.
As others said, using deregatory terms don't help.
Instead you should start talking about why you are not on the same terms.

If one thinks, the 5e framework is not firm enough, that is a valid opinion. As I said, sone people want to have a strict framework of action resoultions.
Others like it more freeform, because they think it is not worth interrupting the flow with rules.
Both approaches need faith between players and DM that noone tries to break the system. The deragatory term used within the stricter system is "rules lawyering", the more loose system has favoritism and MMI.

none of that has to do with the strictness of rules it is fundamentally about being at someone else mercy to have an enjoyable time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

none of that has to do with the strictness of rules it is fundamentally about being at someone else mercy to have an enjoyable time.

I disagree:
in a board game for example, there is no question how a situation is handled.
If you use a battlemap, cover is just drawing lines on the field.
If you go theater of the mind, it is asking the DM how much cover you have.
So you are at the mercy of the DM,if you want to call it that way.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I disagree:
in a board game for example, there is no question how a situation is handled.
If you use a battlemap, cover is just drawing lines on the field.
If you go theater of the mind, it is asking the DM how much cover you have.
So you are at the mercy of the DM,if you want to call it that way.

I am not seeing how we are disagreeing on this point? or view in no way conflict with the text you wrote?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not seeing how we are disagreeing on this point? or view in no way conflict with the text you wrote?

Oh. Maybe I misread it.