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

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think that is necessarily the case. However, IMHO, it really sounds like some people who dislike MMI as a criticism - and I don't include you here - attempting to deflect that criticism by trying to create a picture that all TTRPGs are fundamentally MMI through shallow analyses, faulty understandings of other games, and superficial comparisons. This is to say, the rhetorical strategy appears to amount to saying that "if 5e is MMI then everything is MMI for [insert spurious reasons here], ergo MMI is an invalid criticism."

To make it clear, that's not what I've been doing--I'm no big fan of heavy emphasis on GM off-hand decision making as a first principal in RPGs at all--but but have simply been noting that I think the idea that games that actively discourage that are routinely followed consistently in a way that avoids it is a reach. I think that's fundamentally naive, and encourages discussion as though there's a hard line of bifurcation here that if it occurs, occurs only even in a subset of games that encourage staying away from MMI type decision making. Among other things, I suspect its only possible with games with certain specific sorts of broad-stroke resolution that approaches the schematic.

 

[FrogReaver]

What if the sky was red? Unsupported counterfactuals don't actually do work to disprove things.

The push that players should be the ones constrained such that they should have no expectations of play except to receive what the GM presents is interesting, but I don't see how it avoids MMI -- it leans into it more heavily with a "players should just expect this and like it."

Please do not reply to me or @ me anymore. If you would like further elaboration on why feel free to pm me on that - this thread is not the place for that though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh, I probably said more than I intended. I don't want to quibble your parsing of the text. I would guess we have different parsings. My intent was solely to agree with you that there was scope for divergent interpretations, which I think was your point, right? What I am honestly interested in is then -



Can you comment on that?

Honestly, I'm not sure I can. Until the mechanics are invoked, DW more or less says (a) follow whatever makes sense in the fiction (indeed many mechanics also explicitly say that), and (b) use the Agendas as your goals and the relevant Principles as your compass when doing so. (E.g. "make a move that follows" isn't relevant if you aren't making moves.)

With things like the Rustic Hospitality example or the DM saying that a person is affected by charm person only to then break the rules of the charmed condition (a charmed creature in 5e cannot attack the creature that charmed it), it seems to me that the DM is breaking either the spirit or the letter of the actual rules, without needing to touch principles in the first place. Meanwhile, so long as the DW Principles are actually followed and the text of a triggered move adhered to, I'm struggling to see where an issue of "exercising authority" is relevant. How can you have a situation where the player has actually done the actions of examining a situation closely, but the GM refuses to recognize that, while still actually adhering to the rules and principles? It just...sounds logically contradictory.

I said - The DM may simply choose to ignore this principle at times for 'pick good reason'
That's a far cry from 'break the rules whenever you feel like it'.

I genuinely don't understand how. "Pick good reason" reads exactly like "this isn't a principle, it's just a thing you can do if you feel like." Principles should be more fundamental than that. They are touchstones.

If you are going to criticize my position, please criticize my actual position.

The problem is, l legitimately don't understand what your position is. How can you have a principle of play if it is violated whenever the GM thinks it's worthwhile to violate it? That's not a principle anymore. It's barely a suggestion.

I included it because doing so acknowledged real world D&D play.

Given "real world D&D play" doesn't have principles right now, as several people in this thread have specifically noted (many of them on the pro-5e side!), I'm not sure how that's possible. A game with explicit principles wouldn't do this, and D&D 5e has pretty intentionally avoided articulating principles.

The question wasn't about whether anything could be solved any other way. The question I was asked was essentially, 'given this constraint for this particular game can mother may I still occur' - and the answer was and still is yes.

Only in the absence of communication. That's my point. You have to presume a breakdown of communication first. Why presume a breakdown of communication?

Same as above. I answered a specific question. Why are you trying to generalize my answers to some broader context?

Because you spoke of principles, which 5e doesn't have. What do you think a game principle is supposed to be?

What a strange concept, that a DM needs help to enforce their authority. You just say "this is my ruling". If your players aren't happy, they can try their hand at being DM.

It's something I see near constantly from 5e DMs though. This bizarre notion that they are poor, beleaguered wretches crushed beneath the tyrannical heels of players, despite having literally absolute plenary power within the game and an explicit mandate to use that power however they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like.

It genuinely reads as someone complaining that they have to actually be respectful and social in order to have friends and attend social functions. Truly baffling.

Granted, I tend to be much more open about the reasoning behind my rulings, and I try to stick to the rules as written unless they are demonstrably inane, but what do you need, THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT printed on the top of each page in bright red ink?

It sure as Baator seems that way.

This thread has been very interesting at points, but to me, it lacks examples of 5E play that show how to prevent or limit MMI. I think @clearstream at one point posted a list of principles they use when GMing 5e, and that's the kind of stuff I'd like to see.

Sure, we can articulate our own ad-hoc principles, but we have to be aware that the game wasn't actually designed with them in mind. As a result, you are quite liable to run into situations where these principles conflict with the rules. (There's also the issue of needing to playtest proposed principles to suss out any unexpected wrinkles that might arise, but I find the previous issue the more pressing concern.)

As you say, in my mind, this is a risk of the system that's in place for 5E, but I don't think it needs to be a certainty. The books don't do enough to guide new GMs. I'd like to hear what people would suggest if there was going to be such a section of the DMG in the new edition that's coming.

They really should provide more guidance on this stuff to folks new to the hobby.

Oh I fully agree. Unfortunately, because I have rather significant issues with the underlying system as well, it's even harder to articulate good principles than usual. (Replacing the principles of DW is possible, but you have to be very careful about it. The game explicitly discusses how this is a complex process because it has far-reaching effects and may lead to a serious drop in quality until you iron out the details.) So... it's not that I disagree with the overall goal, I just don't personally see much value in trying for this system. I'm sure others will though!

I don’t play those games so I don’t have an example. I’d be willing to work together with you to craft a hypothetical example but this is very much something that has to go both ways.

Sounds good to me. Would you like me to draft up a scene of some kind? I'll likely use my home game, Jewel of the Desert, which is (as you probably already know) an Arabian Nights style adventure set in the arid Tarrakhuna, with the bustling city of Al-Rakkah as its unofficial capital.

We would of course need to work through an initial intro to establish a character and context. That's a key time for players to both learn what fiction is or has been established, and to establish fiction of their own, potentially including whole locations or factions (or individual NPCs.) Players keep doing this across regular play, but character creation is particularly rife with such things.

I think it may be hindering our discussion in that the primary example we have discussed leverages the notion of player intent vs dm decision to say no.

What if we are in a system where intent doesn’t matter? How does that change things? What if the players only intent in using that ability was to ‘see what happens’.

I'm...not sure what this would even look like, to be honest. A system where the players' intentions are always irrelevant sounds like a system that isn't an RPG.

Maybe we have been focusing too much on GM principles and not enough on Player principles when discussing MMI.

Do you have examples for what player principles would look like? Dungeon World does include the concept of player Agendas (overarching goals of play, rather than instructions on how to play), but they don't seem to be very informative for this context, at least as I read them.

It's been awhile since I ran 4e, but the designers provided us with a case that came up at the time as an example of MMI. "The Negotiation" sample Skill Challenge gives this DM ruling

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Auto-fail on whatever you try using Intimidate. I think that squarely qualifies as MMI to some players.

Despite my earlier statements, I do not actually think that automatic failure is necessarily a bad thing. I don't even think that automatic failure that the players might not be aware will fail is necessarily a bad thing.

BUT.

There are several important constraints and commitments that enable this to work, and in their absence, yes, I DO think this pretty much automatically becomes MMI.

Constraints:
Do not overuse it. This is a dangerous and often problematic tool.
Do not use it casually. Be deliberate and conscious with it.
Take whatever steps you can to foreshadow it. Communication is vital.
Do not use punitive difficulty to avoid saying no. That's just going covert (and kind of passive aggressive.)

Commitments:
Presume players can try things, and that there's usually a chance something will work, albeit perhaps not exactly as originally stated.
Respect player intent, and if you aren't sure you know what is intended, ask and find out.
Give the players the benefit of doubt, unless and until they actually do something questionable.
If you're unsure, say yes or roll the dice. "Yes, and...", "Yes, but...", or "No, but..." >>> flat "No."

Now, IMO, all of these follow from the general 4e principles, e.g. "say yes or roll the dice," the explicit instructions to permit player attempts unless you have a good reason not to, etc. These are just more specific.

You can't assign homework to others to prove your own claims. They're yours; the only burden to show them correct is on you.

Come now, let's be a little more charitable than that.

 

[Umbran]

You can't assign homework to others to prove your own claims. They're yours; the only burden to show them correct is on you.

Mod Note:
It seems to me that FR was speaking with Pemerton about doing some work together to figure stuff out.

It is entirely inappropriate, then, for you to insert yourself rejecting that proposal.

I recommend you dial it back several notches.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's something I see near constantly from 5e DMs though. This bizarre notion that they are poor, beleaguered wretches crushed beneath the tyrannical heels of players, despite having literally absolute plenary power within the game and an explicit mandate to use that power however they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like.

It genuinely reads as someone complaining that they have to actually be respectful and social in order to have friends and attend social functions. Truly baffling.

That right there is why the GM's hand is forced in ways that breed such complaints. If a player at the table is unhappy about as ruling then obviously it's because the gm failed at basic respect of the social contract or is engaged in some monstrous form of gameplay. Worse still is that obviously persists even when the player retells the story absent the table to a third party as many of the posts about the duke's men & rustic hospitality clearly demonstrated in saying the gm made the wrong call railroaded the group or could have/should have done x & y simply because "the player wanted to hide from the duke's men" is how I believe it was even phrased at some points.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That right there is why the GM's hand is forced in ways that breed such complaints.

It really, truly is not.

If a player at the table is unhappy about as ruling then obviously it's because the gm failed at basic respect of the social contract or is engaged in some monstrous form of gameplay.

Not at all. There are almost surely thousands of cases that never get discussed because they were exactly what your "obviously" leaves out: the times when a ruling wasn't great, but wasn't a monstrosity either. It was just a bad call. Those happen in all games, and usually go without too much comment, unless bad calls become frequent.

Worse still is that obviously persists even when the player retells the story absent the table to a third party as many of the posts about the duke's men & rustic hospitality clearly demonstrated in saying the gm made the wrong call railroaded the group or could have/should have done x & y simply because "the player wanted to hide from the duke's men" is how I believe it was even phrased at some points.

Why should it not persist if the call was bad and wasn't backed down from?

The 5e DMG explicitly supports DMs doing essentially whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want. Posters on this very forum (who I will not name because I'm sure they have chosen not to participate in this thread for a reason!) have explicitly spoken, at great length,* about the absoluteness of DM power, about how the rules are literally just suggestions and no more, about how if the players don't like it they are always free to leave the game at any time, about how there is no need for the DM to ever defend or justify their choices. Etc., etc., ad nauseam. This isn't some weird off-the-wall problem plucked from the void or a tiny cadre of virulent anti-DM crusaders. It's literally actual DMs making these claims.

In the face of that, what other recourse does one have? If things go wrong, the only thing you can cite is common decency. There isn't anything else TO cite.

*Albeit not as great a length as I do. I am peak longwinded. None can withstand my Wall-o-Text.

 

[tetrasodium]

It really, truly is not.


Not at all. There are almost surely thousands of cases that never get discussed because they were exactly what your "obviously" leaves out: the times when a ruling wasn't great, but wasn't a monstrosity either. It was just a bad call. Those happen in all games, and usually go without too much comment, unless bad calls become frequent.


Why should it not persist if the call was bad and wasn't backed down from?

The 5e DMG explicitly supports DMs doing essentially whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want. Posters on this very forum (who I will not name because I'm sure they have chosen not to participate in this thread for a reason!) have explicitly spoken, at great length,* about the absoluteness of DM power, about how the rules are literally just suggestions and no more, about how if the players don't like it they are always free to leave the game at any time, about how there is no need for the DM to ever defend or justify their choices. Etc., etc., ad nauseam. This isn't some weird off-the-wall problem plucked from the void or a tiny cadre of virulent anti-DM crusaders. It's literally actual DMs making these claims.

In the face of that, what other recourse does one have? If things go wrong, the only thing you can cite is common decency. There isn't anything else TO cite.

*Albeit not as great a length as I do. I am peak longwinded. None can withstand my Wall-o-Text.

You say that when the implications were spotlighted but in post 1113 where you quite happily threw GM's under the bus with what pretty much comes off amounting to a wordy" quit whining" it doesn't appear that any of the post touched on the idea that sometimes those GM's might have a valid point & justifiable reason to voice it.

Annoyingly enough that also is why a single player resisting the gm trying to play mother may I can destroy the game when the player expects to be locking in the result of their action in asking about the action itself

 

[nevin]

The problem is that to some this approach is problematic even with the best intentions on the part of the GM; that's because there's no assurance that any plans or assumptions they make will actually work or even have a chance of working until they consult with the GM. This means, at best, it can become about reading the GM, and at worst its about the GM primarily with the players' choices only relevant to the degree they match the GM's expectations.
So to many people its intrinsically problematic; "Mother May I" is a sarcastic, but not inaccurate way to describe how it feels to them. And this is more and more problematic the less ground where rules are relatively hardcoded (or where the GM involved ignores them frequently).

That doesn't make it a completely invalid approach, but it does mean to some people it really is pretty much anathema, and they're not going to view it any other way.

My point was a different set of words might have provoked a more open state of mind. correct and factual are only two of many considerations when you plan your argument if you actually want to make any ground.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You say that when the implications were spotlighted but in post 1113 where you quite happily threw GM's under the bus with what pretty much comes off amounting to a wordy" quit whining" it doesn't appear that any of the post touched on the idea that sometimes those GM's might have a valid point & justifiable reason to voice it.

Annoyingly enough that also is why a single player resisting the gm trying to play mother may I can destroy the game when the player expects to be locking in the result of their action in asking about the action itself

Of course I did. Because GMs are the ones with the power.

Are you actually going to say that GMs don't have power?

 

[Malmuria]

It's something I see near constantly from 5e DMs though. This bizarre notion that they are poor, beleaguered wretches crushed beneath the tyrannical heels of players, despite having literally absolute plenary power within the game and an explicit mandate to use that power however they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like.

It genuinely reads as someone complaining that they have to actually be respectful and social in order to have friends and attend social functions. Truly baffling.

Well in a sense I agree: the sense of social trust and communication at the table, among all participants, is more relevant when discussing a problem like MMI than the system mechanics. 5e designers wrote a game where in absence of a specific rule the DM decides ("absolute plenary power"). But due to the play culture, this has had the opposite effect, disempowering the dm to make any ruling except one that would satisfy the players. As I said way back at the beginning of this thread, there is no way to design around this problem (even with principles, safety tools, and the like (though those can help!)). Similarly, looking at rules as written or examples of play will not give insight into play culture, which is much more complex sociologically.