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

[Thomas Shey]

But this is supposing conscious malice.

Not necessarily. It can be a sign of a GM who believes (and perhaps has actually encountered) players can have unreasonable expectations and the best he can do is do what he needs to do to keep the game going in a way that doesn't set people off. Its fundamentally the same mindset that breeds strongly illusionist GMs who often then tell themselves that they're doing the players a favor.

 

[Xamnam]

Players getting to declare actions for their PC is the minimum thing that needs to happen at a table for it to count as a RPG.

I agree 100%-

So if we take as a premise of discussion that some RPGing might count as "Mother may I", then we can't confine the label to cases that wouldn't count as RPGing at all.

-so that's why I personally came to the conclusion that it's best used as a descriptor of specific instances of play, rather than a style. A MMI-style RPG, where the weight of the reference of that title comes fully to bear, wouldn't count as RPGing at all.

 

[Mecheon]

Oblivion came out 2006, skyrim came out 2011. Regarded as highly competent for their time.

Oblivion was like... The first "We set our expectations way too high and the game failed to live up to them" game out there. The Cyberpunk of its time.

I remember the old days of its release and the subsequent drama

 

[pemerton]

I agree 100%-

-so that's why I personally came to the conclusion that it's best used as a descriptor of specific instances of play, rather than a style. A MMI-style RPG, where the weight of the reference of that title comes fully to bear, wouldn't count as RPGing at all.

I can see what you're saying. I also feel the force of @Ovi's contrary view. Plus there's my own underdeveloped thoughts about some principles implicit in 5e D&D.

I think there is something about the "spirit"/ethos of D&D play, that I feel became entrenched in the 2nd ed AD&D era and seems to carry through, via whatever process and channels, into the 5e era, that makes experiences like @hawkeyefan's with Rustic Hospitality, a recurring sort of thing. It's connected to assumptions/expectations/practices about GM authority over both setting and backstory; to a certain sense that players should be humble in what they hope to get out of action declarations, especially non-combat ones; and I think it can survive the transition from "trad" to "neo-trad" because players can be humble around action declaration but expect the GM to use their authority to make the PCs shine.

Of course what I've described isn't exhaustive of all D&D play, in 5e or otherwise. But it seems to recur, and to influence the way even departures from that approach are presented.

My thought about principles is that the "player humility" aspect can be changed/transcended without having to radically transform the "GM authority" aspect. The resulting game won't be much like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel, but that wouldn't be the aspiration. But it might have fewer instances of play that lean towards "Mother may I".

 

[Xamnam]

Thoughtful stuff that makes a lot of sense! I would tend to agree that there should be a way to split that difference in a satisfying way, but how to, well, that's why we don't have a great example of it handy, I suppose.

 

[Manbearcat]

I agree 100%-

-so that's why I personally came to the conclusion that it's best used as a descriptor of specific instances of play, rather than a style. A MMI-style RPG, where the weight of the reference of that title comes fully to bear, wouldn't count as RPGing at all.

This 100 %.

And say it twice-over so those in the back can hear you.

I feel the same way about this issue (MMI-itude) as I do about GM Force/Railroading:

It’s infinitely more incisive to evaluate instances of play for GM Force or MMI-governed action resolution than it is to deal with the myriad confounds of evaluating an entire through line of play or system for MMI/Railroading.

Now don’t get me wrong. Im not saying that downstream of a robust series of assessment that a rigorous and thoughtful user can’t arrive at “this system is inherently more vulnerable to MMI/Force compared to that system, therefore a through line of gamestate is likely to be invested with, if not outright governed by, MMI/Railroading in this system where it’s unlikely or impossible to happen in that system.” I’m not saying that (I would never say that because, as folks know, I have firm opinions on that matter!).

I’m just saying it’s of little use to conversation on these boards. Evaluating short play excerpts (like @hawkeyefan ’s instance of Rustic Hospitality or the infinite episodes of LTH adjudication ) of sufficient resolution (including understanding of all aspects of system/best practices) is imminently more insightful and useful.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I think this is relevant. @Maxperson also talks about players resisting some kind of shared authority. And I think that's true.

But do you think this expectation on the part of the players may have something to do with how things are described in the book? And how things have often worked for D&D in the past? I think this is a huge part of it.

I think it's absolute a part of why some people resist shared authority. It's for the same reasons a lot of people don't want to DM. Some don't want to do much in the way of inventing stuff and really just want to interact with what someone else comes up with. Others are not comfortable creating content, perhaps being afraid that they won't do a good job and people will laugh or something. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

Not everyone is like that, but my group certainly is.

 

[Maxperson]

Because, to my eyes, the DM did say yes. The player proposed using Rustic Hospitality. In response, the common folk opened up a place of rest and safety, and as far as we have been told, they did not betray the party. We don't know how the guards found them. It could have been simple detective work on the part of the guards, entirely unrelated to the townspeople. That fulfills every bit of text in the ability. If player intent was to avoid a fight with the guards, then finding a full night away from them is considering that, and granting it. They did successfully avoid it, for eight hours, which allowed them to recover to 100% strength, or at least very close to it. To avoid the fight happening forever, they would either have needed to lose the guards, or given them reason to stop the hunt, neither of which is inherent to what RH provides them, in my eyes. Could I see a game where the players hid so well that the guards moved on to search completely elsewhere? Absolutely! That's where I'm saying different DMs could very reasonably have run this scene differently. But I also think what did happen here is also reasonable. I think it's reasonable for the DM to think about the situation at hand and go "Do I think the guards would lose their trail, based on RH alone? Eh, no, I don't see it. But can they hide for long enough to get a full rest? Absolutely."

I didn't see the example this thread, but I'm pretty sure that @hawkeyefan brought it up in a thread some months ago. I can't recall the specifics, but I remember thinking that it wasn't a good call.

I agree with you that the commoners hiding the PC due to the Rustic Hospitality ability doesn't guarantee that the PC won't be found anyway, but I think the DM should make that clear in the fictions somehow. The PC hearing baying dogs get closer. Seeing the NPC farmer and his family being held by other guards and mouthing, "I'm sorry. I didn't tell them." Something to indicate that it wasn't a failure of the ability, but something beyond it. I'd probably even have the PC hear commotion outside, seeing the guards and family before the guards get to the barn, perhaps allowing him to escape somehow.

 

[James Gasik]

This is not my experience. I've played with very "Mother may I" GMs - with AD&D 2nd ed as the system - who had consistent visions of their world.

As I think @hawkeyefan posted not far upthread, and also @Pedantic, the issue was not the consistent or inconsistent vision of the world, but the way the GM exercised authority over action resolution.

Players getting to declare actions for their PC is the minimum thing that needs to happen at a table for it to count as a RPG. So if we take as a premise of discussion that some RPGing might count as "Mother may I", then we can't confine the label to cases that wouldn't count as RPGing at all.

This is why I have been disagreeing with @FrogReaver (in particular) and some other posters also that the players ought to have no concern about what follows from their declared actions. The point of playing a RPG isn't just to describe the bodily motions and mental states of one's PC. It's to impact the shared fiction, through declaring actions that have consequences. And "Mother may I", used in the context of RPGing, is a label for certain ways of "gating" or arbitrarily determining those consequences, that are made possible by (though not necessarily entailed by) a particular sort of authority structure.

This is also why I regard pointing to the 5e core play loop as incomplete. I think it's obvious that the play loop is to be supplemented by certain principles, and that some of those principles will reduce the likelihood of "Mother may I" moments in play. (This is the bit of the discussion involving @Ovi and @Maxperson about trying not to say "no" and the like.)

My question, reading this story, is How did the GM decide the bandits' reactions to these people they met with a friendly Bard as their herald (or leader - it's not clear)? We've got an action declaration - an attempt to befriend these men. The GM decides that the men are not befriended, that they mislead, and that they then backstab. How was that done?

Inferring from your (admittedly brief) presentation of it, it seems that the resolution method was simple GM fiat. The Gm seems to have taken for granted that the situation is a puzzle, with the fixed parameters that accompany a puzzle: these NPCs are hostile, they will attack the PCs regardless of how the PCs greet them, and the players have to figure this out by correlating (i) observations of the wounded, tired state of the NPCs with (ii) stories of bandits.

I think puzzle-type play, in a context where the GM is also rather casual about how they dispense information, and where expectations/conventions aren't clearly established, is a recipe for "Mother may I" of the highest order!

An alternative way to run the bandit scenario would involve the GM rolling for a reaction on the part of the bandits in response to the Bard's friendly greeting, with the possibility that the bandits don't attack the PCs because they like them (presumably even bandits have friends) and try to get them to realise that its the PCs' employers who are in the wrong (maybe the bandits are really Robin Hood-types). Or Princess Bride-style, the PCs make such a good impression that the bandit leader openly says "I hate to have to take you prisoner and ransom you - maybe we can duel over it!" Or whatever. There are many, many ways the amusing premise of this situation could play out which don't involve treating it as a puzzle and which might not have caused the same degree of upset to the players.

I think upthread I mentioned the difference between The Green Knight and Agon - both involve making inferences about what should be done (honour vs dishonour in the first; the will of the gods in the second), but The Green Knight is puzzle-solving (because the GM has established an answer as part of scenario design) and Agon is not (because the players interpret the signs of the gods, and the system has other ways for "punishing" them if they act contrary to their interpretation).

If the players don't even know whether they're playing Green Knight-style or Agon-style (or maybe some further, different style) that could be pretty frustrating!

The reality is, the bandits very much did not want to fight the party at full strength, as they were recovering from a raid. When the party came up to them, asking for information about the bandit threat, the DM presented the bandits as being initially confused.

The DM then allowed the party to make checks to notice the bandits had serviceable weapons that were near at hand, that they looked slightly beat up, and that they seemed suspicious. The party, operating under the assumption that bandits are monsters, and therefore will attack on sight, never picked up on the cues provided.

Thus when the bandits said "sure, we know where the bandit camp is, we can take you there", and the PC's just went along with the obvious trap, and then were betrayed, they were outraged, because the bandits didn't "act like bandits should".

DM gets Blamed...

 

[Manbearcat]

Back to the topic of “Main Character Syndrome (MCS).”

So far as I can tell, the only difference between Neotrad play and Story Now play isn’t “Main Character Syndrome.” Both of those play agendas are clearly shot through with “Main Character Syndrome”or about play prioritizing/orbiting around the dramatic needs of PCs…or put another way; protagonism.

The difference between Neotrad play and Story Now play when it comes to MCS (so far as I can tell) is that Neotrad play accomplished this via a collage of traditional skilled play (with PC build emphasis) meets GM-curated PC flex/Power Fantasy (where these two modes of play find themselves at tension, it is the GM’s job to navigate those perilous waters) whereas Story Now accomplishes this by way of a caring, but neither favors nor quarter given, crucible in which the PCs dramatic needs will be foregrounded but they will rise and fall exclusively as an outgrowth of that crucible.

So while I guess Main Character Syndrome is meant to be a pejorative…I take ZERO offense to it and find it helpful (but not sufficient) in describing Neotrad and Story Now play.