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

[pemerton]

Honest question: what would be the reason to not narrate these things and prompt the players to declare some actions? The only reason I can see would be to maintain the GM’s idea about what’s going to happen.

Put another way… why hide the game from the players?

Honest answer: because the GM sees their role as storyteller. I mean, it's not like the GM you're talking about was hiding that. He told you as much!, when he talked about wanting to emulate a scene from Young Guns.

 

[FrogReaver]

And that’s where it becomes Mother May I. The players did not satisfy the DM’s ideas of what would avoid the encounter so they have the encounter because that’s what the dm wants to happen.

Or it's simply the DM playing consistently with the D&D playloop and narrating the results of the players actions. How do you differentiate when this is occurring vs the DM just having something he wants to happen?

The encounter was 100% under the control of the dm. The only reason they had this encounter or in my case, the enemy was ready, was because we didn’t find the magic combination of ideas to satisfy the dm.

There is no D&D encounter that isn't 100% in control of the DM. That's their role in the D&D playloop - to narrate outcomes for player actions. That's always going to leave whether an encounter occurs 100% within their purview.

This is MMI by definition.

Then you believe all D&D play is Mother May I?

 

[FrogReaver]

Did @hawkeyefan say anything about threats to the townsfolk?

Someone did. I thought it was him?

In any event, what you're defending here is GM solitaire play. The GM decides that his characters - the Duke's men - threaten the townsfolk. Then he decides that those townsfolk - who are also his characters - snitch on the PCs. Maybe he also decides how the townsfolk learn where the PCs are - more solitaire play, as he imagines another one of his characters having seen the PCs move to the shelter of the friendly NPCs - or maybe he doesn't, and just glosses over that bit in his mind. Regardless of that bit of detail, he then makes another decision about his characters - they surround the home of the friendly PCs without anyone spotting them or sounding the alarm in respect of them. He decides, for instance, that none of his characters - having noticed the Duke's men throwing their weight about in the town - comes to inform the PCs in the night.

Not at all. The D&D DM has to determine outcomes. If the party is sleeping 8 hours while the enemy was hot on their trails he needs to determine what happens in that time so that he can frame the next important scene to the players.

In this particular case he chose to frame the scene as the Duke's men surrounded the PC's over night. There are other judgements that could be made. Personally, I would have given the final watch a perception check to notice this happening and started the scene there. I think it was a mistake not to do this. Would that single check in your mind have been enough to avoid Mother May I?

What is the role of the players in this sort of play, other than to respond to whatever the GM decides it would be fun to see them respond to? I think that's why it seen as being in the general ballpark of "Mother may I?" Because it's all the other participants dancing to one participant's tune.

From the play loop, players are there to declare their actions and the DM is there to determine the outcomes of those actions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

They absolutely have the chance. The key is that "winning right now" is not the start & end of "choices that matter"... a choice like "my character doesn't want to get involved" or "lets go somewhere else the NPCs are nice to us [the party was banished & the town knew it]" are almost never going to be a choice that matters at anything but sabotaging the game.

I’m not sure what this has to do with what I said. If you’re saying that I’m averse to setbacks, I can assure you that’s not the case. If a roll was involved and I failed the roll, then I’d face the consequences.

If that’s not what you meant then maybe you can clarify?

Had the players known all the connections their PCs have no reason to know be aware of or even understand they would have made some simple investigations & slaughtered them with no plot or story just because, now they stumbled into the iceberg beneath the surface long after I assumed it was a thing never to be seen.

I’m not talking about information that is intentionally secret though. Yes, the GM is going to keep some things from the players when it makes sense to do so. There are also things he can share with the players when it makes sense to do so.

Revealing the true nature of an NPC who’s secretly an enemy or something like that is one thing.

There was no such secret with the situation with the barn and the Duke’s men. We knew the scenario. The GM had a choice to share information and prompt us to act, or not share information and decide what happens.

Why not go the route that gives the players some say? That gives them a chance to decide what happens next?

It's only for a particular use of the label Mother May I that people have complained about. Why do you think that is?

Because they see it as pejorative?

IMO, the DM granted success of your ability. The Rustic Hospitality feature of the Folk Hero background states people will shield you from the law or anyone searching for you, though they will not risk their lives. You were shielded for enough time to benefit from a long rest - at least 8 hours. During which time the DM determined that off screen some towns people were threatened and thus eventually gave you up - playing into the 'will not risk their lives for you' aspect of the ability.

Are you saying the DM should have had towns folk risk their lives for you (i don't think you are)? Are you saying the DM shouldn't have had the Duke's team threaten town members at all (i don't think you are)? Are you saying town members should have been threatened in such a way that you could have intervened (i don't think you are)? So what part here do you think should have been different?

IMO, at some point the scene had to transition from you resting in the common folks home to something else. The current complaint really seems to be two fold 1) you believe the rustic hospitality feature should have done more than giving you a long rest and 2) you believe the DM railroaded the encounter onto your group during the transition scene.

I don't really agree with either of those, though I am a bit more sympathetic to (2).

There was no threat to the townsfolk. There was no threat to the farmer until the Duke’s men just arrived on the scene in the morning. There was no indication of any sort that anyone knew we were at the farmer’s place, except for one other NPC who was a Bond of one of the other PCs (but who couldn’t take us in himself).

In this situation we don't know if there was or wasn't a chance to avoid it some other way. All we know is that the rustic hospitality feature followed by a long rest and a watch was not enough. Perhaps if they had spent those 8 hours doing something else?

This is my point! I would have liked to play the game. Like if our goal is to avoid a fight, then if a fight breaks out I want it to be because I failed in some way. Not because I did something that seemed like it worked but then turns out it really didn’t. And solely based on the whim of the GM.

I want to play the game not have the GM tell me what happens all the time.

 

[tetrasodium]

I’m not upset, I’m saying if you want to level a critique at how I play, or at my expectations of play, have the courtesy to do so directly to me.



There would be many. As ling as they didn’t amount to the GM deciding it and nothing more.

Like, if he wanted to have the risk of discovery still be in play, then establish that risk and ask the players what we want to do. Some ability checks to determine if we notice activity out in the town or the weasely neighbor or that the farmer’s wife won’t make eye contact. Some rolls by the GM to see if we’re noticed by either townsfolk or guards.

You were resting in a stranger's barn & got caught, not spending an entire season with Nina & Shou tucker and.. well.. you know . Why must NPCs all need to be comically inept to the point of virtually stage whispering intent?

I’m not sure what this has to do with what I said. If you’re saying that I’m averse to setbacks, I can assure you that’s not the case. If a roll was involved and I failed the roll, then I’d face the consequences.

If that’s not what you meant then maybe you can clarify?

Every choice matters, I gave you examples of a choice that won't & believe it or not have seen players say those exact words before convincing the group to go along with it knowing I'd be accused of railroading or wind up with the game being held hostage to

Spoiler: sweeten the pot

I’m not talking about information that is intentionally secret though. Yes, the GM is going to keep some things from the players when it makes sense to do so. There are also things he can share with the players when it makes sense to do so.

So which is it? the GM shouldn't hide anything? the GM can hide stuff but only if the player agrees to having the gm hide a thing the players agree to being hidden? Something else? The GM decides what gets hidden not the players.

Revealing the true nature of an NPC who’s secretly an enemy or something like that is one thing.

There was no such secret with the situation with the barn and the Duke’s men. We knew the scenario. The GM had a choice to share information and prompt us to act, or not share information and decide what happens.

A dragon was recently killed in my game, others are working to raise dead the dragon... somehow the players have not discovered either fact despite it very much not being a secret. They don't know simply because it's not happening near them & they aren't involved. It's a lolng rest not thesoul crushing heartache noted above.

Why not go the route that gives the players some say? That gives them a chance to decide what happens next?

The players don't "decide what happens next" when monsters & NPCs are acting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The obvious solution is to not decide, in advance of the action declarations and their resolutions, what will happen next.

I’d also add to include the dice in at least some manner!

Did @hawkeyefan say anything about threats to the townsfolk?

No, that was an addition from @overgeeked . The Duke’s men appeared to hole up at the inn. A couple were seen leaving the inn and wandering the town. We didn’t get any more details on them.

In any event, what you're defending here is GM solitaire play. The GM decides that his characters - the Duke's men - threaten the townsfolk. Then he decides that those townsfolk - who are also his characters - snitch on the PCs. Maybe he also decides how the townsfolk learn where the PCs are - more solitaire play, as he imagines another one of his characters having seen the PCs move to the shelter of the friendly NPCs - or maybe he doesn't, and just glosses over that bit in his mind. Regardless of that bit of detail, he then makes another decision about his characters - they surround the home of the friendly PCs without anyone spotting them or sounding the alarm in respect of them. He decides, for instance, that none of his characters - having noticed the Duke's men throwing their weight about in the town - comes to inform the PCs in the night.

Precisely. This is the GM deciding what “makes sense” even though there would be multiple possibilities that would “make sense”. Like, “this seems most likely to me, so that’s what happens”.

There seems to be several possible reasons for this. GM role as storyteller is one. Some weird obligation or fidelity to the setting… like “this world is bleak, of course the Duke’s men are threatening the townsfolk”.

I just wonder why they wouldn’t come up with ideas that would involve the players that still “make sense” or suit the setting.

What is the role of the players in this sort of play, other than to respond to whatever the GM decides it would be fun to see them respond to? I think that's why it seen as being in the general ballpark of "Mother may I?" Because it's all the other participants dancing to one participant's tune.

Yup.

Honest answer: because the GM sees their role as storyteller. I mean, it's not like the GM you're talking about was hiding that. He told you as much!, when he talked about wanting to emulate a scene from Young Guns.

Yeah, exactly. He thought it would make for a fun combat encounter. And as I’ve said before, I didn’t harp on this with him (as it may seem like I would have given how much we’ve dicussed it here). He certainly wasn’t trying to undermine my idea and he’s mostly a good GM at other times. In this case, he just placed his ideas ahead of those of one of his players.

 

[pemerton]

Someone did. I thought it was him?

It was made up by @overgeeked. @hawkeyefan has twice pointed out that it was made up: posts 515 and 564. (EDIT: and a third time in post 566.)

The D&D DM has to determine outcomes. If the party is sleeping 8 hours while the enemy was hot on their trails he needs to determine what happens in that time so that he can frame the next important scene to the players.

Why do you say the enemy was "hot on their trails"?

In any event, in determining outcomes, is the GM obliged to have regard to players' declared actions for their PCs. Their intents? Their invocation of an ability that states "You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them. They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you"?

I mean, the GM can always decide that the hiding PCs are a risk to the lives of the NPCs they are hiding with, by making decisions about what other NPCs know and discover and do - ie via solitaire play. To what extent are they obliged to confine their solitaire by reference to what the players have declared as actions for their PCs, and what abilities they have invoked?

If the GM can conceive of or imagine a way in which the NPCs providing haven might be subject to risk or threats, as that sufficient to make it reasonable GMing to bring that scenario to pass? If so, the ability has no purpose at all, does it, except perhaps to invite the GM to imagine the PCs taking safe haven with some commoner NPCs.

In this particular case he chose to frame the scene as the Duke's men surrounded the PC's over night. There are other judgements that could be made. Personally, I would have given the final watch a perception check to notice this happening and started the scene there. I think it was a mistake not to do this. Would that single check in your mind have been enough to avoid Mother May I?

In my view, no. Because the point is that the players ability that permits hiding, resting and being shielded from searchers is having an effect on the fiction only to the extent that the GM decides that it does in the course of imagining all the things that the NPCs are doing. As adjudicated by @hawkeyefan's GM the ability had no teeth at all, and that is what makes it "Mother may I?"

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why must NPCs all need to be comically inept to the point of virtually stage whispering intent?

They don’t need to be. Nor do they need to be perfectly capable. Typically, they have stats of some sort that when combined with a roll of the die will tell us how capable they are at something.

So which is it? the GM shouldn't hide anything? the GM can hide stuff but only if the player agrees to having the gm hide a thing the players agree to being hidden? Something else? The GM decides what gets hidden not the players.

Yes, I said that. But it’s also a choice. The GM often chooses to have things happen in a way that’s known to players, or unknown to players.

If you want to maintain a mystery about an NPC, sure, keep it a secret. The location of the magic staff? Sure, keep it from the players till they manage to learn it.

Choosing between a scenario where the players are involved and can gain information and take actions to infuence the outcome OR keeping all that secret and just deciding what happens… why choose the second?

The players don't "decide what happens next" when monsters & NPCs are acting.

I said a chance to decide what happens next and I meant the overall direction of the game, not deciding things for the NPCs. Players should absolutely have a say about where the game is going.

I have to say your comments are very odd for someone arguing that Mother May I isn’t a thing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Exactly. And there are several other mathematical issues here, ones that have been known for years, such as:

• The iterative probability problem, perhaps better known by the example of "continuous stealth checks." Even at 80% chance to succeed on a stealth roll, if you have to succeed at five rolls in a row, you've got less than a 1/3 chance of overall success!

• 
  
  This is why we need better guidelines to apply the rules. We don't need more hard and fast rules. Otherwise we might get into exact this problem.
  
  But overall I do agree. I have played with DSA (the dark eye RPG) where you do 3 rolls per skill check and 1 roll for the attacker and one for the defender in combat.
  I always did the base system wrong by assuming the math of the system is wonky. When I actually calculated the probabilities and the effect of skill increases, they turn out ok...
  ... except when the DM gives out penalties on your check for anything creative... and those penalties easily turned every skill check into 3 rolls with 60% chance of success... Which is about 1/5 chance of success...
  ... so I never had a good experience of that RPG.
  
  Same goes for DnD sneak attempts.
  In 3.5 I famously had a 1st level rogue player who refused to sneak up on a guard and climb up to assassinate him, because he calculated his chances of success assuming I would made the checks harder than I intended (giving no bonuses on the DCs stated in the PHB).
  
  In 5e I just had a monk do exactly this. Sneak up, climb up and push the orc down the tower. With the new playtest rules, I'd say I would have had an easier time as a DM, because pushing down the tower is now an easy task for a monk with flurry of blows.

 

[Iosue]

To be honest, @hawkeyefan 's experience strikes me not as a case of MMI, or railroading, or even of anyone doing anything wrong, but as an example of the friction inherent in RPGs. There are a number of things both players and DMs (and the rules!) can do to reduce this friction, but I don't think it can be eliminated completely. It sounds like hawkeyefan had an idea, the DM was on board--giving the players a brief respite--and then the DM was inspired by hawkeyefan's idea to add a complication. In a vacuum, normally considered good DMing! They simply didn't anticipate that it would run up against hawkeyefan's (perfectly reasonable) expectations for how much time and wherewithal Rustic Hospitality would provide.

Hindsight is 20/20, so we can come up with any number of things that hawkeyefan might have done, or the DM might have done, in order to avoid this friction. It may not even have been friction on another night, or at another table. And it sounds like it was handled well by all parties, talking the issue out after the game. But it's an instructive example of how friction occurs even under the best of circumstances.