Also, couldn't that sentiment be flipped around, the ones seeing it as an issue are just too ignorant to know better? I'd be quite wary if my position rested on that sort of claim!
I can't say with any specifics about the 5e part of the population specifically, but I'm pretty confident that people will just take annoying things as a part of the price of being in the hobby, because I've seen them do so in a wide variety of contexts for what is getting pretty close to a half century now.
So earlier in the thread, a couple times, I asked folks who play and run 5E regularly what they do to avoid Mother May I. So I’ll ask if you’re willing to share such an example from your actual play experiences of a situation where MMI could have been a problem of some kind, and what steps you took to avoid it.
I don't do anything to avoid it, since it simply does not exist as a default part of the game. For it to exist, I would have to go out of my way to house rule the game in such a way that the players have to start asking my permission to do things.
It also occurs to me that I may be talking about this phenomenon in a different perspective than some people others may be viewing as on "my" side in this.
My issue with things that too regularly require interaction with the GM to find out if they'll produce any meaningful result, let alone what I may wish as a player is that it progressively paralyzes my decision making. GMs have enough overhead that I don't want to be constantly grilling a GM about how X is liable to play out (both in process and likely results) every time I'm thinking about doing so, especially since in some cases this may be planning for an event that is not yet proximate in time. So in a game with too much fundamentally arbitrary decision making on the GM's part (arbitrary in the sense that its being made heavily by his internal sense of situation) I'm stuck with a bad set of options (and getting to know the GM's mindset isn't actually a better one, as it too easily leads to playing to his prejudices).
It isn't an issue so much about controlling results as having any sort of consistent model of how such results will be derived in the first place. If I'm playing a game with degrees of result in resolution, each of which will produce slightly different end-states, I don't really control how things will come out, but I can make decisions for my characters that are better than just guessing or constantly querying the GM.
I am not assuming bad faith on your part. The aspect of Maxperson's post I was agreeing with is that a pejorative is being invoked to describe a style of play, and whether that is from bad faith or not, the problem is it appeals to emotions and it clouds what the underlying critique is. Mother may I, is something most people simply don't want their style or preferred system to be because it invokes a childish game. So I think it is fair for people coming into these discussions to point out the problem of the term itself. I think it is further a problem, and here is where I also agree with Maxperson, because mother may I doesn't describe this approach to D&D at all. At least I don't think it does. The player doesn't have to ask the GM permission for what they want to do at every point. Mother may I is literally asking "can I raise my arm?", "Can I take a step back". There is an assumption in all forms of D&D that the players are free to try whatever they want and the GM resolves it reasonably, through the system etc. The GM is not just arbitrarily supposed to lock the players in one space the whole adventure because they've been empowered by a game to do so (which is what Mother May I does).
But that was a side issue, because as I said, I thought you raised a good point by bringing it to the topic of GM authority (because even if we disagree about mother may I as a term, we can agree on what GM authority is and how it is being used in this case and have a discussion from there).
Again, I am not here to quibble over nomenclature, but I think it is fair to point out that a lot of what people are calling mother may I, looks like dysfunctional play, or at the very least, play that has broken down to the point where it isn't fun and players are frustrated (because the way it has been getting used is as a criticism when players feel like they constantly have to ask the GM for permission). But my point wasn't even to assert that MMI is dysfunctional. My point was the problem with an argument against GM authority because it is a prerequisite for X, or an argument in favor of placing restrictions or constraining GM authority because it might result in X, is, not in my view a very good argument. Something being a requisite for something some people are either interested in avoiding, or would label as something unpleasant doesn't mean that thing itself is an issue.
A discussion about GM authority framed in saying it's dysfunction first and then looking to identify play that causes it is the reverse of my approach. I want to analyze play, then see how/if it can devolve into dysfunction so as to avoid doing so. 5e, and similarly structured games, put nearly all authority to determine outcomes on the GM, provide no constraints on that authority (leaving such to the social contract), and have no guidance on the use of that authority. This is what the 5e system presents. Noting this has strong similarities to the children's game "Mother May I" is descriptive of the authority structure, not an indictment of it. And I, personally, say this because I freely admit to MMI in my own play and GMing of 5e and yet still seem to enjoy the exercise (I honestly do not see how you can avoid it without completely changing the core system).
Except almost everyone making the argument that 5E giving GMs this kind of authority and then describing that as mother may I, are doing so in order to critique that structure of play. Further, I don't agree that Mother May I objectively describes it. For the reasons I stated above. It is an analogy and I don't think it is a very useful one. I think it is fine as a complaint. I.e. This feels like a game of mother may I. But it doesn't strike me as a particularly objective analysis of the system. I think we can easily talk about it by zeroing in on the GM authority issue without debating what that means in terms of 'is this mother may I'. The only thing Mother May I appears to add is an emotional weight to the arguments in favor of constraining GM authority.
I am just not seeing it. I can see how it could be become a game of mother may I. I don't think "Could become" means "is" though, or naturally leads to the conclusion that "It has a strong MMI structure".
I am not assuming bad faith on your part. The aspect of Maxperson's post I was agreeing with is that a pejorative is being invoked to describe a style of play, and whether that is from bad faith or not, the problem is it appeals to emotions and it clouds what the underlying critique is. Mother may I, is something most people simply don't want their style or preferred system to be because it invokes a childish game. So I think it is fair for people coming into these discussions to point out the problem of the term itself. I think it is further a problem, and here is where I also agree with Maxperson, because mother may I doesn't describe this approach to D&D at all. At least I don't think it does. The player doesn't have to ask the GM permission for what they want to do at every point. Mother may I is literally asking "can I raise my arm?", "Can I take a step back". There is an assumption in all forms of D&D that the players are free to try whatever they want and the GM resolves it reasonably, through the system etc. The GM is not just arbitrarily supposed to lock the players in one space the whole adventure because they've been empowered by a game to do so (which is what Mother May I does).
But that was a side issue, because as I said, I thought you raised a good point by bringing it to the topic of GM authority (because even if we disagree about mother may I as a term, we can agree on what GM authority is and how it is being used in this case and have a discussion from there).
If you're saying that use of MMI is an intentional use of a pejorative towards a style of play, then I don't see how you can escape that this is levelling the accusation of bad faith. Still not a good start.
Again, I am not here to quibble over nomenclature, but I think it is fair to point out that a lot of what people are calling mother may I, looks like dysfunctional play, or at the very least, play that has broken down to the point where it isn't fun and players are frustrated (because the way it has been getting used is as a criticism when players feel like they constantly have to ask the GM for permission). But my point wasn't even to assert that MMI is dysfunctional. My point was the problem with an argument against GM authority because it is a prerequisite for X, or an argument in favor of placing restrictions or constraining GM authority because it might result in X, is, not in my view a very good argument. Something being a requisite for something some people are either interested in avoiding, or would label as something unpleasant doesn't mean that thing itself is an issue.
Yes, a number of people are saying that MMI is pejorative and dysfunctional. I am not. So, when your respond to me, you shouldn't be responding as if my posts are using MMI as a pejorative or as a stand in for some form of dysfunction. Neither is true. This is the second time you're on notice of this directly. Please stop making arguments that misrepresent my position.
Also, I'm not making an argument towards GM authority. I'm characterizing a structure of GM authority where the GM retains all authority over outcomes, has no system constraints on that authority, and no system direction in use of that authority to be equivalent to the authority structure in MMI -- which also has all of these features. That's it -- MMI is a useful shorthand to describe this authority structure. Whether or not it's good or bad, or if players can like it or not isn't part of this analysis -- in fact, I've clearly said that it's not inherently bad, is good intentional design for a valid design goal, and that players clearly have no problem with this structure in large swaths. And that the way I play 5e embraces this MMI structure of play.
Except almost everyone making the argument that 5E giving GMs this kind of authority and then describing that as mother may I, are doing so in order to critique that structure of play. Further, I don't agree that Mother May I objectively describes it. For the reasons I stated above. It is an analogy and I don't think it is a very useful one. I think it is fine as a complaint. I.e. This feels like a game of mother may I. But it doesn't strike me as a particularly objective analysis of the system. I think we can easily talk about it by zeroing in on the GM authority issue without debating what that means in terms of 'is this mother may I'. The only thing Mother May I appears to add is an emotional weight to the arguments in favor of constraining GM authority.
I am just not seeing it. I can see how it could be become a game of mother may I. I don't think "Could become" means "is" though, or naturally leads to the conclusion that "It has a strong MMI structure".
This is because you're insisting on viewing it as a dysfunction, which means you're already so misaligned from my points that you will not agree. Different priors. Which is fine, you can do that, but please do stop arguing with me as if I'm arguing according to your priors. I disagree heartily with your priors. You're welcome to disagree with mine, and I'll engage in that discussion, but I'm not going to speak how you think my points work under your priors. They're not built that way.
You do seem to understand the ability but what it does is much worse than RH simply giving players" powers".
Folk Hero
You come from a humble social rank, but you are destined for so much more. Already the people of your home village regard you as their champion, and your destiny calls you to stand against the tyrants and monsters that threaten the common folk everywhere.
Since you com e from the ranks of the com m on folk, you fit in among them with ease. You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate am ong other commoners, unless you have show n 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.
The problem is a subtle one that comes from 5e's toxic blending of trad & neotrad gameplay for players & players only. Often that crashes into violations of the gameplay loop spelled out on page 6
1. The DM describes the environment. The DM
tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s
around them, presenting the basic scope of options that
present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room ,
what’s on a table, w ho’s in the tavern, and so on).
2. The players describe what they want to do. Some
tim es one player speaks for the whole party, saying,
“We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times,
different adventurers do different things: one adventurer
might search a treasure chest while a second examines
an esoteric sym bol engraved on a wall and a third keeps
watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take
turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides
how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer
wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM
might just say that the door opens and describe what
lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor
might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance
might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete
a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens,
often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results
of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’
actions. Describing the results often leads to another
decision point, which brings the flow of the game right
back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cau
tiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or
locked in mortal com bat against a mighty dragon. In
certain situations, particularly combat, the action is
m ore structured and the players (and DM) do take turns
choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time,
play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances
o f the adventure.
Often the action of an adventure takes place in the
imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM ’s
verbal descriptions to set the scene. S om e DMs like to
use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the
mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different
voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other
characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM
might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures
to represent each creature involved in a scene to help
the players keep track o f where everyone is.
RH violates the play loop with implied flavortext & to some degree the mechanics themselves but only does so in one direction. When you break it down it falls like this:
You come from a humble social rank, but you are destined for so much more.
Ok, nothing exciting so far, this could be said of almost any PC so is fluff for the sake of filling whitespace with no consequence.
.
Already the people of your home village regard you as their champion
Wow this is a thing limited to your home village and no further right? Sounds like a pretty limited but maybe useful level 1 ability that might be good for a game that draws out & really focuses on the newbie experience unless the game is going to be focused there... right?
and your destiny calls you to stand against the tyrants and monsters that threaten the common folk everywhere
Wait. The play loop is 1:dm describes the environment>2: Player describes an action>3:dm describes the results. This background has not even gotten to mechanics and is already violating the play loop with an inversion of step1 by implying that tyrants & monsters exist in sufficient quantities for commonfolk "everywhere" are so desperate for you specifically to do those things to the point where that alone makes you a "folk 'hero'," with serious mechanical benefits. Sadly it gets worse as RH continues.
.
No that's not a typo, the rest of the fluff after the word everywhere was a period. No neotrad type responsibilities or complications but plenty of implications inverting the playloop & it's going to get worse.
After that there's a defining moment & some examples, none of that's really an issue in this case & it's not really relevant so on to the RH feature itself
Since you come from the ranks of the common folk, you fit in among them with ease.
Really? what page is "common folk" defined on? does this also mean that you don't fit in among the nobility? What about the aristocratic professional & merchant class?.. it's simply a vague blank cheque assigned to the player that's been issued by everyone in the world but nobility & probably also the staff of nobility.
You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners,
When was this ever a thing players could not do? Why is this totally mundane activity such a special thing that it needs a special ability to call it out? Here's the second inversion of the play loop however. It doesn't say that you know good ways of doing that or similar, RH simply jumps to step3 and allows the player to describe the result of the player handwaving steps 1 & 2 simply because there are "commoners" around.
unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them.
Did the author of this ability never play d&d before? D&D PCs are effectively the equivalent of a modern Carrier Strike Group capable of intimidating rescuing or leveling towns cities & perhaps entire nations simply as a thing they do during their 9-5 job. Murderhobo is a term given form by d&d, weirdly we can skirt around that for a bit in this repeat inversion of the playloop & copntinue to the more egregious part.
How far does this go though? Is the player showing themselves to be a threat simply by existing & walking around with enough power to slaughter this entire town like when theydid so in Thundertree after declaring the inhabitants "cultists" in service to an "evil" dragon(lmnop)? Are we just going to all pretend that NPCs in the world don't realize that you regularly Act. Like. Kore. What about the fact that you might need the restbecause you just did this or this for regular work?
They will shield you from the law
Wow! By choosing this background the player has defined a pretty key bit of motivations & lines of what an NPC considers acceptable. In a Trad game that alone would be a huge boon as an ability. In a neotrad game that would almost certainly come with a lot of responsibilities strings & themes/tropes that limit it but it comes with none of that & it's already imposed mind control on NPCs while defining a lot of the world & repeatedly inverting the play loop. This world spanning character creation level ability firmly launches into the territory of a ninth level spell.
or[shield you from] anyone else searching for you,
Wow.... Remember that time the barrista hid Thor in the back room from Thanos's troops?... yea I don't either.. This is just getting worse & it's still not done
though they will not risk their lives for you.
We are almostback to the normal playloop where the GM describes something as step2 but we've already established the player action long ago when we started inverting the playloop & jump straight to step3 where the gm now gets to narrate the results after the player became temporary gm for the purposes of allowing them to hit & probably complete the command console style long rest button.
The new long rest wording of "at least 8 hours", but it's still phrased in a way where the GM needs to claw back when it makes sense rather than allowing the GM to be benevolent when it makes sense.
5e is rife with these kind of social contract backed clubs that sideline the GM to invert the playloop at no cost or responsibility to the PC. The new (and old) elven trance is a good example that I covered earlier in 1108. There's often plenty of ambiguity baked in for the player to leverage when expanding these kind of abilities but the area left to the GM is often limited to"no I'm disallowing/nullifying your ability"
One thing I will say is I am not so sure I agree with the trad and neo-trad terminology and breakdown here. I like the Retired Adventurer blog, and I felt there were some insights in that break down of the hobby (and it is possible I am mistaken this is where those terms originated but that was the first time I saw these uses of those terms: feel free to link earlier ones if I am working off of different definitions here). So I am not so sure I'd sign on to the idea that this mixing neo-trad and trad in the way describe.
But there is a lot here and I have to admit I am having some trouble following the formatting of your argument. What I will say, is this strikes me as overly rigid in how it interprets the 'play loop' (and again, I am not a huge fan of labeling this a play loop). To me that is the kind of thing you see in every edition of D&D and pretty much every RPG, where they just try to frame how a roleplaying game happens, and in some instances try to set down or codify how that particular RPG is played. With D&D especially I don't think most people are that literal in how they interpret that. It is taking a process that so many of us have internalized and don't think about consciously and trying to make it understandable to new players. But the reality is it isn't always going to be that perfectly followed, and there are always going to be gray areas, exceptions, etc. Which is another reason why are going to want the GM to be able to step in and smooth over anything that creates issues in a particular moment of play. Also a lot of the stuff in there, just seems like flavor, that is highly open to interoperation. I don't see an issue with that. Like I said, one of the very refreshing things about the white box spells is how basic and simple they are, yet open and evocative, without placing huge constraints on GM interpretation of them. That allows for more fluidity and creativity in my opinion. It does come with the natural downside that the players can't always expect a consistent effect. But I think the trade off is better in the end if you are gaming with people you gel with.
The later portions of the Rustic ability, at least just looking at what you posted, perhaps missing greater context, don't look exceptional bad to me. I mean, saying the ability doesn't work if the players present themselves as a danger to the NPCs seems fair to me. Not every party is murderhobo. A lot of this is going to depend it seems on the specifics happening in the campaign. But much of it does seem dependent on interpretation. The fact that people will shield you, I don't think that means they would automatically succeed in every situation. Again this strikes me as something where you probably do need to weigh specifics.
Again I am struggling a bit for context because I don't play 5E. But I have certainly played games that have abilities written a certain way and there is always a working assumption that common sense needs to prevail. And this usually isn't even about GM authority. I've seen groups of players say "that shouldn't do that in this instance because of Y" and we agree and move on.
One other thing I would say is I don't know it is fair to expect a consistent RPG design or play style philosophy in D&D, especially now. It really does have to please a lot of different styles of play and approaches. That was the whole point of 5E as I recall: bring people back to the current edition because people were fragmented. So to do that, you have to compromise. I know a lot of people who despised the way healing worked in 5E for example, but they were willing to put up with it because much of the rest of the edition seemed to be making an effort to bring them back. This ability to me looks like it is appealing to players to expected to be able to do cool cinematic things, it obviously was not written for a player like myself. But it wasn't this sort of thing that made me not adopt 5E as a system (I can look past a mechanic here or there that doesn't suite my tastes).
Some people like RPGs where you change things by acting through your character and what your character does, some people like having more external control over the things.
I don't get how this is relevant to the current discussion.
When @hawkeyefan's PC, being a Folk Hero and thus able to receive Rustic Hospitality, hid in a barn, that was something that his character was doing. There was no attempt to exercise "external control". But that doesn't get us very far in making sense of who had what authority over the fiction, who was under what constraints, etc.
Of the four RPGs I mentioned upthread as not amenable to "Mother may I" - Agon, In A Wicked Age, Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel - only one (BW) allows for what you would call "external control", although personally I would tend to contest that characterisation of it.
If you're saying that use of MMI is an intentional use of a pejorative towards a style of play, then I don't see how you can escape that this is levelling the accusation of bad faith. Still not a good start.
Because people don't always use pejoratives or appeals to emotion in bad faith. Sometimes they just use them because it is an effective way to persuade. Sometimes they do it because they think it is true (i.e. it may be a pejorative but they also think it is accurate).
Ovi, I am happy to have a discussion with you. But we aren't going to be able to make any progress if you keep throwing this at me:
Its fair if you think I am not understanding your argument, but I am not being judgmental towards you. So I would appreciate if we could keep this civil and have a good conversation
If you're saying that use of MMI is an intentional use of a pejorative towards a style of play, then I don't see how you can escape that this is levelling the accusation of bad faith. Still not a good start.
Considering that several people have for several pages told you that this is how the term comes across (if it somehow was not obviously apparent to you otherwise,) it is rather hard to argue that at this point continuing to use it is not intentional use of a pejorative.
