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

[Ovi]

I pretty clearly stated which portion of that post I was agreeing with upthread

Right, it was this:

...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.

I disagreed this is a requirement of the term, and explained my disagreement. If you insist this is true, then we're still at the impasse, and it's still your ball to play.

 

[pemerton]

I may be misunderstanding your point, but we might be on the same page in that, I was in agreement that the example I was given by Hawkeye, looked like a bad GM call to me.

We may be on the same page: I'm not sure.

My view is that not only is it a bad call, but that it contradicts principles implicit (and hardly obscure) in the 5e D&D rules. This is why I remain puzzled by the many, many posts that have been made arguing that it conforms with the 5e rules, and that players who expect to have an influence over the upshot of their action declarations are violating the 5e rules.

EDIT: I take my position just stated, and that I also stated way upthread with those posts I self-quoted in my reply to you, to be a defence of 5e D&D. Hence why I am also puzzled that many posters seem to take them as criticisms of 5e D&D - as if it is critical of the game to argue that a GM who produced a terrible play experience was doing it wrong!

 

[Ovi]

We may be on the same page: I'm not sure.

My view is that not only is it a bad call, but that it contradicts principles implicit (and hardly obscure) in the 5e D&D rules. This is why I remain puzzled by the many, many posts that have been made arguing that it conforms with the 5e rules, and that players who expect to have an influence over the upshot of their action declarations are violating the 5e rules.

Simply because the broad understanding of the rules is that the GM is free to walk back or negate a fiat declaration of a player merely by imagining a circumstance in the fiction that blocks it. They can do the same to enable it. Or partially do it. Regardless, the authority is the GM's. And, given the core play loop and the fact that the Rustic Hospitality ability is very loosely written while also directly asking for the GM to imagine things (danger levels to the helpers), it's well within that core loop to declare almost any outcome with regard to the deployment of the ability. The only thing that constrains this is the social contract at the table and/or the GM's personal principles. Which is how it can be considered bad play (a subjective value judgement) and well aligned to the rules.

I feel that this is intentional design for 5e -- it allows for the greatest set of social contracts and personal GM principles of play to exist under the tent. Especially paired with "make the game your own."

 

[Maxperson]

You, @clearstream, I think @Maxperson (if I've understood his posts correctly) and (to a slightly lesser extent) @FrogReaver, all insist that, in 5e D&D, the GM has sole authority over the shared fiction, beyond the mental and bodily motions of the players' characters.

Yes and no. If the player uses Control Water to part the water of a pond so that he can cross to the other side., he can completely rely on it happening as he wishes. The DM has no ability to say no to that without acting in extreme bad faith and breaking the social contract. While he technically has the authority to just say no, outside of a few, very rare and very bad DMs, it's simply not ever going to happen.

No permission from the DM is happening when the player makes that declaration. The PC will cast Control water. The pond water will part. The PC will attempt to cross it. I say attempt, because the bottoms of ponds are often super mucky and you can sink pretty deeply in some and be unable to walk across. There might be a DC and roll involved.

[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - complete the task at hand in the manner the player described in the Task and Intent sections. . . . Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish on or reinforce a successful ability test.

How is this any different from the DM setting a DC and the player succeeding with his task as he described if he rolls a success? The DM cannot change it without violating the social contract and acting in extreme bad faith, which would cause the collapse of the game.

The reality is that the player decides his goal, rolls the dice if it's possible, and if he succeeds with the roll the task is accomplished as described.

The contrast with the 5e D&D core play loop, as presented in this thread by you and the other posters I mentioned, is stark.

I don't see much difference at all.

The player says what his goal is, "Timmy is going to climb the wall in order to get away from the Black Pudding."
The DM sets the DC of the task at 15.
The player rolls the die and if it is successful, climbs the wall achieving what he intended and set forth as his goal.
Despite the technical authority to do so, the reality is that the DM cannot stop it from happening without destroying the entire game.

 

[pemerton]

The 5e system has only player taking the role of "dungeon master". The other players propose actions to the "dungeon master" in the hopes of achieving some result in the shared fiction. The "dungeon master" either approves that result in which case it occurs in the shared fiction, or rejects it and suggests a different result, which then occurs in the shared fiction. The 'dungeon master' player is given a number of mechanical means to aid in determining whether or not to grant the players desired outcome or the GM's, but is under no requirement to use them. The "dungeon master's" choice to approve or replace desired outcomes is entirely up to the "dungeon master" according to the rules of play.

These are extraordinarily similar in terms of structure of the rules. What usually happens at this point is that the person reading the 5e section begins to import their own social contracts and preferences in how the GM makes the choices for results and then assumes these are what the rules say to do. They are not

You'll have seen my recent posts where I have said that I am being swayed towards your non-pejorative use of "Mother may I". But I'm not fully there yet, and I think this post brings out why.

You might have seen my recent replies to @Bedrockgames, which included some self-quotes of posts I made way upthread, about the principles that I think are implicit in the 5e rules - carried by the use of words like everyone and together and the description of the GM as lead but not sole storyteller.

To my mind, the 5e rules suggest that these impose some constraints on how the GM is to exercise their decision-making power as to what results from the players' declared actions. And this, I think, is a meaningful difference from the children's game.

For me, the main source of doubt about the account I've just offered comes not from your posts, but from the posts of other 5e players who seem to think that my suggestion of these principles contradicts the rules of 5e D&D! The main source of support I feel for my account, besides its textual basis, is @hawkeyefan's responses to those earlier posts way upthread.

EDIT: I'm just now reading your reply to me which is relevant to this post.

Simply because the broad understanding of the rules is that the GM is free to walk back or negate a fiat declaration of a player merely by imagining a circumstance in the fiction that blocks it. They can do the same to enable it. Or partially do it. Regardless, the authority is the GM's. And, given the core play loop and the fact that the Rustic Hospitality ability is very loosely written while also directly asking for the GM to imagine things (danger levels to the helpers), it's well within that core loop to declare almost any outcome with regard to the deployment of the ability. The only thing that constrains this is the social contract at the table and/or the GM's personal principles. Which is how it can be considered bad play (a subjective value judgement) and well aligned to the rules.

I feel that this is intentional design for 5e -- it allows for the greatest set of social contracts and personal GM principles of play to exist under the tent. Especially paired with "make the game your own."

I can follow all this. In terms of agreement or disagreement, I vacillate.

I think that the textual elements I've pointed to sit at odds with this being the intentional design, but then again there are probably other textual elements buried in the DMG that I'm not familiar with and that push the other way. (The fact that my textual elements appear on p 2 of the Basic PDF in my mind does give them more weight, though!)

And I do find it puzzling that a game would confer an ability on a player which, by the game's own rules, is intended to achieve nothing unless supplemented by something extra-textual at the pure table-convention level.

But the anthropological evidence runs your way.

Still vacillating!

 

[Maxperson]

No, because ugly is a value judgement. I'm not making a value judgement because I'm not saying MMI is dysfunctional or unwanted play. I'm saying that it describes the authority structure. And that I enjoy running under that exact structure. Had to claim I'm being pejorative of my own valued play.

Mother May I is inherently dysfunctional. You cannot play that way and have the game function properly. To be playing Mother May I, the players literally have to be forced to ask permission of the DM to do every little thing.

The authority you are describing as Mother May I just isn't and never will be Mother May I. You know this now, so you have no excuses if you keep misusing the term.

I get that you want it to be pejorative.

I don't want it to be pejorative. It's a fact that it is pejorative, regardless of your personal intent.

I don't agree and am not using it as you insist it must be used.

I haven't insisted on anything. Mother May I is a pejorative, regardless of what you or I want or insist on.

As the thread (and multiple moderation posts) indicate that people are free to establish their own usages, I'll thank you to not accuse me of your assumptions again.

I haven't accused you of an assumption yet, but it's not surprising that you are "misunderstanding" my posts, since you've been doing the same to @Bedrockgames for a great while now.

 

[pemerton]

Yes and no. If the player uses Control Water to part the water of a pond so that he can cross to the other side., he can completely rely on it happening as he wishes.

What if the GM decides that an anti-magic zone is present? Which is an example discussed in this thread over the past few pages.

How is this any different from the DM setting a DC and the player succeeding with his task as he described if he rolls a success? The DM cannot change it without violating the social contract and acting in extreme bad faith, which would cause the collapse of the game.

The reality is that the player decides his goal, rolls the dice if it's possible, and if he succeeds with the roll the task is accomplished as described.

I don't see much difference at all.

The player says what his goal is, "Timmy is going to climb the wall in order to get away from the Black Pudding."
The DM sets the DC of the task at 15.
The player rolls the die and if it is successful, climbs the wall achieving what he intended and set forth as his goal.
Despite the technical authority to do so, the reality is that the DM cannot stop it from happening without destroying the entire game.

The differences are legion. Here are some: in 5e D&D the player has no authority to invoke the mechanics; 5e D&D has no analogue of a Circles test or other player-side abilities to shape the content and framing of scenes; in 5e D&D the GM is not obliged to set a DC and call for a check - the GM is authorised to say "yes" or "no" having regard to their view of what is likely or possible in the fiction; if a 5e D&D GM does call for a check, the core play loop does not require the GM to honour intent on a success, only task.

As I have been posting, I think there are principles that supplement the 5e core play loop but they will not change any of these points except perhaps the last one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Mother may I" is not a synonym for the GM has some authority over the shared fiction.

It is a label for (possibly a pejorative label, although @Ovi is starting to change my mind on this) for the GM has sole authority over the shared fiction, beyond the mental states and bodily motions of the players' characters.

Oh! That doesn't seem particularly sensible definition to me. It would require us to assign MMI status to the game as whole, instead of examining individual instances of play.

You, @clearstream, I think @Maxperson (if I've understood his posts correctly) and (to a slightly lesser extent) @FrogReaver, all insist that, in 5e D&D, the GM has sole authority over the shared fiction, beyond the mental and bodily motions of the players' characters.

Only in completely theoretical de jure sense maybe. In any practical sense not really at all. Like sure, in theory according the rules of D&D the GM can at any moment declare "rocks fall everybody dies." But they're not gonna. And whilst I have criticised 5e being somewhat lacking of giving GM guidance, the guidance is far from non-existent. This guidance as well as player expectations provide conventions which in practice constrain the GM.

But this is not true in the RPGs I mentioned.

Just to focus on Burning Wheel, here is an extract from the rulebooks (Revised p 269; Gold p 552), which is under the heading "Role of the Players":

Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin. Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

This instructs players to be proactive. And it is good advice! But I don't think that some mechanics (such as most ability checks) are in 5e technically declared by the GM rather than the player is particularly big difference in practice. In actual play the players often declare actions which effectively require the GM to either grant a check (or sometimes autosuccess.)

And of course the key principle for action resolution in BW (Revised p 32) is this:

[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - complete the task at hand in the manner the player described in the Task and Intent sections. . . . Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish on or reinforce a successful ability test.​

In Gold (p 30) it is very slightly reworded to remove any hint of ambiguity (the bolding is mine):

[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task. . . . Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish on or reinforce a successful ability test.​

The contrast with the 5e D&D core play loop, as presented in this thread by you and the other posters I mentioned, is stark.

Is it though? In most instance it is pretty much the same. The player declares an action in order to accomplish something, the GM sets the DC, the dice are rolled to determine whether the character succeeds. Now in Burning Wheel the DCs are way more steep, so the GMs decision has higher impact on the odds of success and it is easier to set unreachable DCs.

 

[Malmuria]

There actually seems to be a gap in the 5e rules between "2. The players describe what they want to do" and "3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions," namely the way its described it's assumed some part of the players described action happens automatically. The example they give is

Phillip (playing Gareth): I want to look at the gargoyles. I have a feeling they’re not just statues.
Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles?
Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations?
DM: Make an Intelligence check.

This is probably an overly close reading, but it's assumed the character can do basic things, and moreover, in response to declaring actions, the GM can't declare the PC does some other random thing usually. MMI (the children's game) doesn't work like this

FWIW, re: play culture, here's how the dmg describes the DM's role

The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them , and help steer the campaign through their characters' actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you've created, and to let their characters do awesome things.
Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players' preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.

 

[tetrasodium]

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).

The trad/neotrad terminology from the blogpost don't need to be perfect to be useful for describing goals & styles. The fact that ttrpg systems leaning towards neotrad playstyle describe themselves with terms like shared narrative game & story games doesn't make the blogpost terms less useful for purposes of discussion. Trying to use story game & shared narrative type terms actually makes discussion more complicated as system specific mechanics rather than just goals come into play.

You mention that there might be something that your missing with the greater context, I think there might be. Specifically 5e uses "natural language" rather than some form of technical writing. As a result we have a system where mechanical crunch & fluff are indistinguishable making the entire entry for rustic hospitality and folk hero into a quantum rule of both fluff & crunch simultaneously. The player is given every indication that the entire thing should be treated as crunch while the GM is left fighting the social contract with no real room for interpretation baked in for them. Worse the player is also given many reasons to expect the GM to empower them with treating it as absolute mechanical crunch.

I've literally seen players convince the group not to find an inn/hotel to rest after arriving in a town simply on the principal of "we don't need to I have rustic hospitality". That's not to say the inn wanted to charge them a fortune or that there was some reason making it difficult to find one.... It was simpl Alice: "Lets find a hotel or something where we can rest" -> Bob: "No we don't need to because I have rustic hospitality & it should be safer" ->GM: "well an inn would have been 5gp each but you can find some guy with a barn you can crash in... You sure? didn't you all just find several thousand GP?" ->multiple players: "Yea barn's good"