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

[Ovi]

This is where I have to get off the bus, because to me that seems like an objectively terrible game!.

Knowing your preferences, I am not surprised. I disagree on objectively terrible, though, based on the success of the game. The secret to it's success is that the system is designed to basically let the GM run the game they want to run, largely how they want to (within the standard D&D buy-ins, of course). This let's each table determine how they want to interpret those statements and what's considered acceptable for constraints and expectations on play. You can easily see this with, say, @tetrasodium's posts where the table is not coalescing around a common set of constraints and expectations. So, you can absolutely build a game inside and around the MMI of the core system with whatever set of those constraints and principles aligns with your table.

I view this as excellent design, as the 5e team were put against having to design a game that the maximal number of tables would accept and yet the playtest was showing that any attempt at codification of principles and constraints (or gift of player-side abilities) was getting panned by one group or another depending on where it ran afoul of each. So, rather than some of the really good (in my opinion) bits of design during the playtest, they backed off into this generic, non-binding system to let each table make whatever decision on principles and constraints to suit. It's such a good design point that people fall over themselves to attribute greatness to the system when they're clearly deploying their own set of principles and constraints in provided examples of that greatness.

That's admiration, by the way.

 

[Maxperson]

What if there are several PCs with such powers and they disagree what things count as spirits?

I want to be able to commune with my whisky.

 

[Maxperson]

So, you can absolutely build a game inside and around the MMI of the core system with whatever set of those constraints and principles aligns with your table.

There is no existence of a core Mother May I system in D&D.

 

[pemerton]

One answer is that I feel we might in some instances get into Czege principle territory. There might be a significant temptation for the player to declare things to be spirits simply so that they can solve the obstacle with their spirit affecting powers. Also, consistency. What if there are several PCs with such powers and they disagree what things count as spirits?

On consistency: how does adding a further person - the GM - with yet a further opinion solve the problem?

We also need to introduce some sort of voting rule or veto rule, and that can be done other ways. For instance, each player can decide what things they think are affected by their spirit-affecting abilities.

As far as "temptation" to players, it's hard to look at this divorced from other elements of the system. What is at stake, for instance, in dealing with spirits? In Agon the players are expressly granted the final say on whether or not their action declaration can benefit from augmentation by one of the Olympians. But the overall structure of the game is not indifferent to invoking gods - for instance, if a player has their PC call on the power of a god, and then fails, this might anger the god.

5e D&D tends not to have these sorts of features. It deliberately leaves the relationship between players' resources and abilities, and any sense of what might be at stake in the fiction, very loose. It does this even for characters where the connection could conceivably be quite tight, like clerics and warlocks. That's not a "neutral" design decision. It closes off what might otherwise be open options. To the extent that it invites a structure of GM "policing" of players' deployments of their abilities, because the game doesn't give them reasons to police themselves, that is a further aspect of its authority structure that seems worth noting, and perhaps offering GM's advice about.

 

[Ovi]

Right. That's the point. I don't expect that this routinely results absurdities in BW, as I assume that there is context and conventions that in practice guide things. So I don't know why you cannot extend similar charitable assumptions to 5e GMs. And I know you're gonna say "but there was an actual play example where there was maybe a slight problem!" then I assure you that if BW was as widely played as 5e we would have a flood of examples of reported issues. Of course with enough instances things sometimes go awry!

Since I play 5e, and am more familiar with BW than you (as I've read it and discussed it more recently and actively play games that have similar conceptual structures) I'll 100% say that the times I've experiences issues as a player and GM related to a mismatch of expectations in application of the system are VASTLY more common in 5e and almost non-existent in the other games. It does happen. I won't deny it, but the table facing and open nature of resolution in games like BW makes it a far less common occurrence. When I say VASTLY here, it's relative -- over a year of play in 5e, I'd expect to have mild to serious incidences about once a session (average, they actually tend to cluster, in my experience). In a year of playing BitD, maybe there were 2? And both pretty mild and solved almost immediately. So, order of magnitude difference in occurrence.

Now, that's not a claim that these other games are better in any objective sense, but that, on this particular issue, they are designed to be much less prone to these issues in play. Much less. The potential trade-offs are in other areas -- as @Bedrockgames just mentioned, his preferences would lead him to, in general, dislike these games despite them not having this issue as often as D&D. Games are different, expecting different games to have the same frequencies of the same problems doesn't seem like a good assumption. I'm not losing attacking armies to ties in Monopoly, only Risk, so I don't have to worry about that when I play Monopoly. On the other hand, I can't start a land war in Asia in Monopoly.

 

[pemerton]

mostly there is a sense in the game of a [EDIT] world outside the players they are striving to decipher

This is very clear. I think it's possible to write sensible advice for GMs about how to run that sort of game. And in that sort of game an ability like Rustic Hospitality is probably out-of-place.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
A couple of you are now engaged in a thoroughly non-constructive headbutting contest.

It is past time that stops. And that doesn't mean, "Continue and then blame the other guy for not stopping." Just cut it out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Again, bad faith and the social contract. I mean, if you want to play with a jerk like that you can, but the game doesn't say that the DM should be a douche.

I did not say that it says they should be one, so that's a bit specious. Instead, I'm saying what it does say to do has a great risk of inviting "douche" behavior, and that it both intentionally excluded possible opt-in means to avoid that, and intentionally

Should does not imply obligation, at least not on the DM's part. Should implies that the players are playing the game and paying attention to details, and have a modicum of common sense. They should be able to figure out if something is possible or not, or at least have a very good idea. The players have an obligation to pay attention and try to think things through.

The only way the player can acquire information is if the DM provides it, in 5e. There is no source of information other than the DM. Thus, if the player "should" have such knowledge, it is necessary that the DM should provide that knowledge.

Is there any other way for the player to have that knowledge? You mention the player being obligated to pay attention, but how can they pay attention to signals that aren't being sent? It doesn't require a horrible DM to fail to send these signals. A great many mediocre DMs fall into this problem, it may in fact be one of the things keeping them mediocre as opposed to good.

At 1st level?

Hence the special reagents. It's not something they can do normally.

I don't see how these are any different. They'll have heard about the Fire Swamps and can ask around to find out more. I mean, I suppose if they just don't bother to talk to anyone or see if anyone in the group knows about the Fire Swamps and charges in, they may not know it's impossible, but that's on them.

I don't assume incompetence or malice on the part of the players or DM. I assume the opposite, since the vast majority of DMs and players are at the very least competent. That means that I am assuming that the players tried to find out information(competence) and that the DM didn't try to jerk them around(malice).

With no incompetence or malice involved, the players should have a good idea of what is possible and what is not.

Which just sounds like "the DM can do no wrong, as long as you presume they can do no wrong." It's circular.

These things coming up suddenly, without explanation, or being planned for specifically so that they can be used to shut down possible player choices, is exactly what gives evidence that the DM is doing something wrong.

It's very easy to figure this out in short order. Players are good at realizing when the DM is shooting all of their ideas down and just coming up with weak justifications.

Yes. That's literally what I've been saying.

This is even easier to figure out. Players have a good idea of what is reasonable and what isn't. If the player rolls a 23 and the DM says, "Not high enough," the player is going to know that the DM is jerking him around.

I'm not so sure about that! This sort of thing gets a pass all the time, where a skeptical DM "allows" something and then sets an (explicit) sky-high DC, or forces a player to roll seven times in a row, or whatever else. It's hard to distinguish "DM is jerking [me] around" from "DM is giving unlikely/implausible actions a chance of success."

Illusionism is the hardest thing to figure out. The rest is fairly easy. Illusionism isn't Mother May I, though. Mother May I is when the players are forced to get explicit permission from the DM to do things.

I wasn't talking about illusionism though. Illusionism is where the players aren't allowed to know that it doesn't matter if they take a boat or teleport or ride horses, they'll be ambushed by the Skull Clan along the way, or "quantum ogres," or otherwise superficially granting players choices while never actually deviating from the planned path. Overt "thwarter-in-chief" stuff occurs when players must get explicit permission from the DM to do things. Covert "thwarter-in-chief" occurs when the DM makes sure (either by inventing things on the spot, or by exploiting prep, or by planning super far in advance) that there's only one valid option, and explains in turn why each attempt the players make fails to work: it's not that it makes no difference which path the players take, it's that there is only one valid path, and the DM ensures that that path gets taken, by hook or by crook.

I can.

DMG page 4

"That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and
decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more."

That says don't be a jerk(thwarter in chief).

It doesn't, actually. It says not to kill the characters. "A campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions" can be one where there was only ever one decision they were allowed to take. "Keep your players coming back for more" is closer, but as I said, this stuff can be subtle.

DMG page 26

"Listen to the players' ideas, and say yes if you can."

No thwarter allowed there.

And yet that would exactly contradict what numerous posters have said here. I have proposed this exact thing. Guess what? Almost everyone opposed to the use of the "MMI" label has called this "say yes if you can" stance bad. If that line is supposed to be so important, why do so many people disagree with me when I say it in my own words?

DMG page 287

"As always, it's better to say yes and use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the character's story and that of your world, rather than shutting down possibilities."

This also says no thwarter in chief

Cool! That's actually a legit citation that counteracts this.

Why, then, do people still defend the Rustic Hospitality scene, or some of the other examples I've given, as totally acceptable? The game actually does say that this is bad. Why do people then say it is good, and in keeping with the text, when it is not?

PHB page 4

"Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation. You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama. You create silly in-jokes that make you laugh years later. The dice will be cruel to you, but you will soldier on. Your collective creativity will build stories that you will tell again and again, ranging from the utterly absurd to the stuff of legend."

That strongly implies that thwarter in chief is wrong.

It...really doesn't. It doesn't really say anything about that--particularly because, as several people have said, 5e puts all storytelling power in the DM's hands. The PHB might give a nice spin on it, but ultimately, it is the DM, and only the DM, who tells the stories. The players are simply there to be entertained.

PHB page 4

"D&D is a game that teaches you to look for the clever solution, share the sudden idea that can overcome a problem, and push yourself to imagine what could be, rather than simply accept what is."

That says no thwarter in chief, since clever solutions to overcome a problem would be irrelevant if thwarting was okay.

Ah, does it though? It is a well-known problem for a variety of game-makers that a solution which seems clever and effective and obvious to the maker can be incredibly obtuse and weird and inappropriate to the user. Sierra adventure games, for example, were notorious for this problem. Authors, likewise, often struggle with telling mystery stories, because the author's intense and unique familiarity with the story makes it significantly harder to determine whether a particular clue or set of clues is obvious or not.

So, no, this really doesn't do much of anything. It's a pretty puff-piece, a nice bit of fluff, but it doesn't actually constrain anything.

Out of the five examples, two hits. One of them has been explicitly rejected by several people in this thread, IIRC @Crimson Longinus being one of them (please correct me if I'm wrong on that!) The other explicitly contradicts the Rustic Hospitality example, among others, which numerous people in this thread have defended as undeniably in keeping with the instructions and rules of 5e, even as they grant that it was not wisely-handled.

Is there any wonder why people find such problems? The things you cite have been rejected by people in this thread--not to mention the broader practice of 5e DMing--as not true of 5e, despite being actually written in the books.

 

[Maxperson]

I did not say that it says they should be one, so that's a bit specious. Instead, I'm saying what it does say to do has a great risk of inviting "douche" behavior, and that it both intentionally excluded possible opt-in means to avoid that, and intentionally

No. I very much disagree. Someone who is a jerk will be prone to being a jerk as a DM. Someone who isn't a jerk isn't going to spontaneously turn into one just because the DMG gives him authority. No such behavior is invited by what is said in the DMG.

The only way the player can acquire information is if the DM provides it, in 5e. There is no source of information other than the DM. Thus, if the player "should" have such knowledge, it is necessary that the DM should provide that knowledge.

Is there any other way for the player to have that knowledge? You mention the player being obligated to pay attention, but how can they pay attention to signals that aren't being sent? It doesn't require a horrible DM to fail to send these signals. A great many mediocre DMs fall into this problem, it may in fact be one of the things keeping them mediocre as opposed to good.

Why put it all on the DM. The players have a responsibility to play the game as well. They should be inquiring and trying to find out information. A mediocre DM is all that is required for this to be successful. You need a flat out bad DM for the information not to be there when the player seek it out.

Which just sounds like "the DM can do no wrong, as long as you presume they can do no wrong." It's circular.

These things coming up suddenly, without explanation, or being planned for specifically so that they can be used to shut down possible player choices, is exactly what gives evidence that the DM is doing something wrong.

Er. That isn't what I said at all. I don't approach game design from the viewpoint of DMs are going to be jerks to their players. I approach it from the viewpoint that the vast majority of DMs and players are there to enjoy the game in good faith and won't be jerks. You don't design a game around a few bad apples. You throw the bad apples out and buy good ones.

Yes. That's literally what I've been saying.

Then it's not a problem. They easily see through the rare bad DM's shenanigans and quit.

I'm not so sure about that! This sort of thing gets a pass all the time, where a skeptical DM "allows" something and then sets an (explicit) sky-high DC, or forces a player to roll seven times in a row, or whatever else. It's hard to distinguish "DM is jerking [me] around" from "DM is giving unlikely/implausible actions a chance of success."

I don't agree. If the DM describes a 30 foot wall with cracks in it and I tell him that I am climbing it, if he tries to give me a sky high number or require many successes, I'm going to know immediately that he's a bad DM who is trying to force his way.

I wasn't talking about illusionism though. Illusionism is where the players aren't allowed to know that it doesn't matter if they take a boat or teleport or ride horses, they'll be ambushed by the Skull Clan along the way, or "quantum ogres," or otherwise superficially granting players choices while never actually deviating from the planned path. Overt "thwarter-in-chief" stuff occurs when players must get explicit permission from the DM to do things. Covert "thwarter-in-chief" occurs when the DM makes sure (either by inventing things on the spot, or by exploiting prep, or by planning super far in advance) that there's only one valid option, and explains in turn why each attempt the players make fails to work: it's not that it makes no difference which path the players take, it's that there is only one valid path, and the DM ensures that that path gets taken, by hook or by crook.

Ahh, that's super obvious. Players can tell when something should work and if he's constantly shooting down valid ideas, you quit and find a new DM. You're going to know the first time he does it.

And yet that would exactly contradict what numerous posters have said here. I have proposed this exact thing. Guess what? Almost everyone opposed to the use of the "MMI" label has called this "say yes if you can" stance bad. If that line is supposed to be so important, why do so many people disagree with me when I say it in my own words?

Not everyone. I say yes when I can and listen to the players. I can't help it if they are wrong about this, but you are also wrong about 5e being Mother May I.

As for why, you'd have to ask them. I'm not going to try and answer for someone else.

Why, then, do people still defend the Rustic Hospitality scene, or some of the other examples I've given, as totally acceptable? The game actually does say that this is bad. Why do people then say it is good, and in keeping with the text, when it is not?

I don't know.

Ah, does it though? It is a well-known problem for a variety of game-makers that a solution which seems clever and effective and obvious to the maker can be incredibly obtuse and weird and inappropriate to the user. Sierra adventure games, for example, were notorious for this problem. Authors, likewise, often struggle with telling mystery stories, because the author's intense and unique familiarity with the story makes it significantly harder to determine whether a particular clue or set of clues is obvious or not.

Sierra games were video games. That's apples and oranges. You can't make a video game that is open to inventive solutions that the designer didn't think of and program into it.

D&D is open to inventive solutions that the DM didn't think of. When one of those happens, that passage in the PHB means that he should accept it, since being a thwartaholic would be the opposite of that passage.

Out of the five examples, two hits. One of them has been explicitly rejected by several people in this thread, IIRC @Crimson Longinus being one of them (please correct me if I'm wrong on that!) The other explicitly contradicts the Rustic Hospitality example, among others, which numerous people in this thread have defended as undeniably in keeping with the instructions and rules of 5e, even as they grant that it was not wisely-handled.

It wouldn't matter if there were only one single example. One is all it takes for you to be wrong about this. And it also doesn't matter if people reject it. Their rejection cannot change what the game by default is saying. And that's my argument. The default game does not have Mother May I in it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, sorry Max. This ain't gonna result in any changes. We've done this song and dance before in other topics, so I'm gonna follow Umbran's suggestion and stop responding. I vehemently disagree with you and see this thread as a clear demonstration that whatever the books say, people are not actually doing it in practice. You clearly see that as utterly irrelevant. There's no point in us discussing it further.