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

[clearstream]

Can you tell me one positive of mother may I?

That's not addressed to me, but let me give a possible take on that.

Games exist in a space in which choice of actions is in some ways limited and may be oriented to an outcome. As Bernard Suits put it in 1978 "To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity [lusory attitude]."

Thus, all play of games is Mother May I... the only question is who gets to be Mother. Many groups place store in a game text that details the constraints. That text is hopefully inspiring, foresightful, streamlined and robust. Here the game designers are Mother, and if homebrew is in play that can include some of the participants. There is often divergence in both comprehension and interpretation, so many groups look to one or more of the participants to clarify and cast a deciding vote. Those participants are Mother, in those cases. How much must be found in print, and how much can be found in practice, is scalable. Cases arising are often highly varied - so varied that it may not be clear if or how a rule covers them. Many groups look to one or more of the participants to fabricate rules on the fly in such cases. They are Mother, in those cases. And then there are principles. A background principle of TTRPG is saying what follows our fiction. Who decides? Whoever it is, is Mother in those cases. Some game texts put in writing a right of others to veto "reaching" in that way.

I think those thinking of MMI negatively are envisioning cases like the following

• The game text that we agreed to up front says I can do X, but one or more other participants require me to seek their approval before I can do X.
• I think X rightly follows our fiction, but one or more other participants require me to seek their approval before X can become part of our narrative.

To put MMI positively - notwithstanding that I believe when it is used, it is almost always intended to imply degenerate cases - I think it easy to see that non-degenerate cases like the above come up all the time and at many tables are resolved not as negative-MMI, but as simply doing what amounts to playing a game, which is accepting constraints. Which we do for the very positive reason that, as Suits puts it, "they make possible such activity".

 

[clearstream]

I would push back pretty hard on this. I do not see my role as the GM, even as someone who prefers the standard power structure, as a benevolent dictator. I'm not there to tell people what to do, to tell them what to think and believe, or to control them in any way. I'm basically there to run a game, and to help turn their proposed actions into something meaningful at the table.

I like this. Perhaps one can characterise a DM role more as guide? Where that is not a reduction or even redistribution of authority, it is about principles and constraints on the exercise of that authority in view of a group's shared purposes for play.

 

[clearstream]

And yet, in forty years of gaming I’ve never seen anything even close to that level of player unreasonability.

I've certainly seen players ask if it would be possible to Persuade the king to give them their crown. I feel it is reasonable for players to find out what the group feels are the limits on their abilities, where that is ambiguous. Were they in earnest, then a DM would explain what would be involved and that would probably not be - make a single ability check. Is that MMI? We hit ambiguities all the time.

Otoh, I’ve seen far far more examples of dictatorial dms forcing their views of what the game should be on the players.

I have seen DMs struggle, but not in having their views prevail. It's always been more complex than that. For example, I saw one DM who would make similar rulings to another, but players would resist and quibble with the first, while happily getting on with satisfying play at the other table. Both were "dictators", but the difference was in how their authority was exercised. (Not just when, or as to what, but the social nuances of their behaviour.)

 

[Eric V]

...I asked you a question, complained when you answer it in the vaguest way possible and then you flip the question back at me while still not providing any real substance in the answer. I'm not sure how to take that.

Well...you could choose not to take offense and simply answer? They're good questions, and and answering would keep things going constructively!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay, but those weren't the parallels I was referring to.

I'm sure there are parallels to a lot of things that people can find. It is an analogy after all. Especially if you have specific thoughts on what benevolent dictator means. Keep in mind I was responding to a poster who was arguing that benevolent dictator is is "at best" outcome of this kind of power relationship. My point is: why this term? Of all the political terms, it has to land on dictator. Why not president, since you are presiding over a game. Again, I wouldn't use political language as an analogy for the role of the GM because I think it is too bogged down in other connotations. But one of the issues with terms like mother may I, or benevolent dictator, is they are clearly serving more as rhetoric than really illuminating what the role of GM is (and It think this is evident when you see more positive terms like president, at least for people in the US, aren't being used).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not doing so though. I'm providing a criticism. You're the one bringing in this idea that it needs to be a universal theory of strong DM authority. I am not saying that literally all possible forms of DM authority are this. I'm saying it is an extremely common problem, which can and should be addressed, and which many advocates of absolute DM authority overlook (or, worse, desire.)

If you are saying simply that it is an extremely common problem, that is a very different discussion. We would likely disagree on conclusions, but I am not going to quibble over language if you believe that empowered GMs too often lead to mother may I. Like I said, if its being leveled as a critique that's fair. The problem is thinking this describes the power structure.

Also if you are questioning whether the GM ought to have such power or if things ought to be done to curb the GM's uses of power that turn the game into mother may I, that at least cuts to the chase. Even if we don't agree that mother may I is a frequent problem, we would both agree it can be a problem and might find some common ground (for example I probably wouldn't want to change the actual power dynamics, but I would definitely be in favor of good GM advice that helps GM's to avoid that issue: and good GM advice is something many editions of D&D lack).

 

[Bedrockgames]

How would that be a benevolent dictatorship? I don't associate benevolence with "behaving in an abusive way and berating people." A dictator is someone with absolute power. The word has a strong negative connotation in English because such absolute power has a tendency to manifest very negative behaviors in human beings, but its literal meaning is nothing more and nothing less than "a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession." The "especially" clause is important because that means it's optional but very commonly intended unless common sense says otherwise. I think we can agree that common sense here indicates that a DM is not exercising absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession, so only the part before "especially" is relevant here. A benevolent dictator, then, is someone who exercises absolute power benevolently, with good intent, trying to produce a positive situation. That would seem to be the exact antithesis of "behaving in an abusive way and berating people." Certainly they might manipulate people, but abuse and berate? No.

Fair enough. Like I said before, I don't think this is a good topic for us to get into in this thread. I'll just leave it at the reasoning for this post is I am highly skeptical of the idea of a benevolent dictator. If you want to quote a section you take issue with, I would be happy to respond to that. But I'm speaking much more generally about this particular power relationship, and not specifically on 5E (I just saw you made a bunch of claims about power of GMs in 5E, and it is seemed a little over the top to me, so I am skeptical that the book is aiming for what you describe: if you want to present a section that reinforces that viewpoint, I will happily take a look, but just keep in mind I am not deeply invested in the portion of this discussion about whether 5E is good at GM advice or not).

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Expected." "Should." "Not supposed to." These are the problems, because they are never mentioned. They go unsaid. By comparison, several well-designed games, some "light," some "heavy," some "old-school," some "modern," etc. etc., actually DO discuss these things, sometimes spending entire chapters on the subject, and are so much better for it.

I'm not sure how this follows from our exchange. You listed a bunch of things 5E GMs believed about their authority. I said I wouldn't be suprised if 5E has bad GM advice (I don't have the 5E DMG so I don't know), but I would be surprised if it listed off the beliefs of those GMs as its advice for wielding GM authority.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And, as I've said several times, the presentation from numerous 5e DMs--claiming to have the explicit support of the game books and designers--is that they do have that power and can do such things, and that the one and only recourse players have is to vote with their feet.

Again, I would need to see the 5E advice to actually weigh in on this. All I can say here is this isn't what I've heard from the 5E GMs I've spoken to. But I would really need to read the 5E DMG to have anything of value to add here, and I don't have much interest in reading it at the moment

 

[Bedrockgames]

While MMI has negative connotations, I don't think that this MMI means that it refers strictly to the negation (i.e., the GM's denial of player requests) nor have I seen it used that way "in the gaming community for years." IME, it also refers to player agency of the PC being subject to the permissive whims of the GM (i.e., "no, you may not" AND "yes, you may"). IMHO, "Yes, your character may know/do this" is just as patronizing as "No, your character may not know/do this." While "yes, you may" may be a possible GM output, this can still place the player in a sort of quantum state of knowing or not knowing about what their character can do/know without first running it by the GM in search of permission.

I do think this is close to how the pro-D&D is mother may I posters are trying to use the term. For me, I have always seen it used as an expression of frustration, when the GM is leaning too heavily into no. Or frustration at the idea that they have to sit there and guess which way they can go to make the adventure happen, which solution to the puzzle they need to propose to get to the next room, etc. That said, even if we take this more moderate application of mother may I that you describe, I don't think it accurately describes the situation in D&D. Yes there are times in the game where the player will ask "can I" or "Do I know". But those are not the majority of instances. Most instances are saying what you try to do and the GM figuring out what happens (sometimes through rolling dice, through a different procedure, a ruling, a fiat or just referring to something like a class ability). Very rarely do I see the steps broken down to 1) player asks if they can X, 2) GM says "yes" or "no". To me that just fails to capture what is going on in this type of game. Also keep in mind in mother may I there is an added step of the leader being able to say something like "no but you can do Y". It is literally a game where you are the puppet of the person in control.