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

[hawkeyefan]

Another things I've noticed is that a lot of people here seem to view assumed questions and answers as Mother May I. So if someone with Survival wants to light a fire in the woods, they are assuming that when the player says, "Murag lights a fire for dinner." that the player is really saying, "Is it okay if Murag lights a fire for dinner." and when the DM narrates the response, "After about 10 minutes of trying, Murag gets a nice roaring fire going." that the DM is really saying, "Sure, it's okay if he does." Then they are calling that Mother May I. It's not. No such request and permission is happening.

What is really happening is that the player knows the rules and understand that either he will automatically be successful or if there's a reason for it(wet wood), get a roll. He's not asking permission to do it. He's seeing how his success might happen(yes or roll since there is doubt), not if he can light a fire. And the DM is responding with how it happens, not if it's okay that it will be successful. The rare exception would be if it was pouring rain, but then the player probably wouldn't ask or would be asking because he's not sure if the canopy is shielding him enough. That is also not Mother May I, because it's a one off ruling.

There's going to be a line in most games... some point of demarcation where we cross over from the assumed kind of action such as your example, and the uncertain kinds of actions that require the GM or the dice to step in. Wherever this line may be for any given group, if they all know where it is, then it's likely not as big a problem. But the more uncertain it is, the greater the chances.

I mean, you even offer an exception to the fire question... what if it's raining? Well, who decides that? What if we're in a barren wasteland devoid of kindling or brush? Who decides that? What if the forest pixies actively douse any fires in their forest as a prank? And so on. All these things are decided by the GM. They have vast influence on such an action declaration.

What if Murag had a class ability that said "No matter what, no matter where you are and under what conditions, you are able to start a fire. Is this just pure skill on your part? Or are you always prepared? Or is there perhaps some supernatural element at play? You decide the reason for this."

Such an ability gives the player the choice. It's decided by the player, and the GM cannot say yes or no, they just have to narrate the results. "Amazingly, despite the rain, Murag is able to get a spark going huddled under his cloak, and then is able to get an actual campfire going. It's not a roaring blaze, but it will keep you warm enough to make in through the night. You can get a long rest, assuming you're not interrupted."

What other abilities in the game can the players use that the GM can't just unilaterally shoot down? Or that the GM doesn't have so much say about the odds of success that he can render them nearly impossible while still adhering to the letter of the rules?

Would it be bad for 5E if there were rules where the player gets to say "This is what happens" and the GM has to accept it?

 

[hawkeyefan]

The background features would work better if there was a mechanical cue for the table. Something like, 'this background grants advantage in this particular circumstance.' As written, they stand out (like inspiration based on background) as not really interacting with any of the other game mechanics. You have a switch in context, where you go from using the ability check system to resolve actions to something much more open to interpretation.

They're not as defined as they could be, I agree. I don't know if I'd want them to specifically adhere to the skill system or anything. But a clearer indication of how effective they're expected to be or how exactly they work, would have been appreciated.

As presented, it's like they're intentionally saying "You can decide how much these matter to your game!"

 

[Manbearcat]

To me, what you describe here sounds like bad use of GM force and not MMI.

I agree that it’s definitely GM Force.

But insofar as the player wanted the thing to work, expected the thing to work, and had a goal of desired fiction/gamestate downstream of the thing working (otherwise why declare the action?), and the GM negated the player’s tactical and thematic input in order to ensure the GM’s preferred outcome manifested…that italicized part is the MMI (with the bold part being the GM Force).

So it’s both here. And I’d say that’s a pretty common formulation; the technique of Force arising downstream of a declared action > player catching on > player persisting in a perpetual cognitive space of “will they let my desired fiction/gamestate be what happens or will they negate?”

That isn’t the only formulation though. It can also arise because the player : GM mental model for resolving some/many situations during play isn’t synched. It can also arise because one of the participants (or both) is being boorish. The first one isn’t bad faith (and may not even be poor GMing or poor playing…it may just be because wires are being crossed for whatever reason) while the second one definitely is bad faith.

Even the GM Force situation may not be bad faith. If the GM’s job is to “ensure a memorable story and a great time for the group”, then a stray moment of GM Force where a singular player’s action is negated but it is in service to a memorable story in totality + a great time for the collective? That usage of Force seems to not only be good faith GMing but best practices for that system if the alternative is “the story and collective disposition suffers.”

Not my cup of tea as a GM (which is why I don’t GM CoC games et al), but there is a place for it.

Question for all, most examples we have seen of MMI is when the GM says no. If the GM says yes is it still MMI in your opinion?

EDIT - just saw this.

Absolutely it can be. Hopefully I’ve displayed above that MMI is the conditioned cognitive state of the players based on system and/or prior play where they are oriented toward action declarations in a particularly vulnerable, insecure way.

I said above, “for purposes of evaluating these things on the board, singular instances of play excerpts are incisive.”But it’s the accrual of instances and/or system that creates that perpetual orientation to action declarations/play by the players.

 

[Campbell]

Some of the most grating instances Mother May I sort of play (for me personally) is when the GM hands out victories or softballing of consequences when the players hand them a golden opportunity via a combination of poor fictional positioning, poor use of the rules and/or poor dice rolls.

Also when the GM manipulates the fiction upon the player characters' behalf (especially when not asked to do so).

 

[Malmuria]

It's possible that some people perceive MMI as a criticism against a style of play because their mode of play has a fairly hefty number of "specific instances of play" that they recognize would qualify as MMI.

This is confusing. Aren't we mostly using MMI as a criticism? Whether of a specific instance of bad GMing or as a flaw of a system that tends toward instances of MMI, we're treating it (in this thread) as a thing to be avoided. (The different question earlier was whether the phrase "Mother May I" is pejorative, which is less interesting to me).

 

[Aldarc]

This is confusing. Aren't we mostly using MMI as a criticism? Whether of a specific instance of bad GMing or as a flaw of a system that tends toward instances of MMI, we're treating it (in this thread) as a thing to be avoided. (The different question earlier was whether the phrase "Mother May I" is pejorative, which is less interesting to me).

Let me rephrase it then slightly:

It's possible that some people perceive MMI as a pointed criticism against their style of play because their style of play has a fairly hefty number of "specific instances of play" that they recognize would qualify as MMI according to definitions offered by others.

 

[Maxperson]

It's more about how often this will come up in a game. And how these these rulings are guided... what other elements are involved, and how are those elements determined?

So try to convince a stubborn noble NPC to assist you? Okay, the GM crafted the NPC, the GM decided he's stubborn and what impact that has, the GM decides the DC, the GM decides who else is around that may make things easier or harder, the GM decides if the player's Noble background impacts things at all.... and so on.

The more we throw into the bucket of "GM decides" the more the game leans toward Mother May I. Or is at least prone to problems that may arise from Mother May I, depending on how you want to define it.

This seems to be primarily world building, not a matter of Q&A. The DM world builds a miserly NPC and makes him the town smith. He world builds a kindly old Mayor. And so on. He doesn't know if the players will even encounter these NPCs, or what the players might do when they meet them.

If the PCs come to the stubborn town smith and ask him to make a sword, he's quotes them a price and if they pay it, it's done and the miserly never enters the picture. If they ask him for information about the local sheriff, the miserly never enters the picture. But if they try to get a discount, well THEN miserly enters the picture. This is not Mother May I, even though the DM decided those things. There's still no Q&A entering the picture.

What is happening if the players happen to ask something of an NPC that runs counter to the NPCs traits is similar to other games I've seen mentioned here where the players do something and the DM gets dice or whatever to throw complications into the mix. Only in D&D the mechanic is DM decides, rather than another way. A player encountering a complication doesn't step into Mother May I territory.

To bring in the other post, if it's raining is another example of a DM complication entering the mix and another example of world building. Whether you are in a barren wasteland would presumably have been known before the PC ever tried to light a fire, and probably involved choices on their part to get there(assuming you aren't playing Dark Sun or something). And prankful pixies would be an encounter, which is a different beast entirely.

Moving on, if a PC had some ability granted to him either by the game rules or the DM that said that people he speaks to are magically influenced to be generous to him, then that would overcome the miserly trait of the smith above. If it said that there wasn't a save, there wouldn't be. If it said there was a save, there would be. While the DM can technically abuse his authority and give an NPC a save when inappropriate, he's not going to do that and if he does, the problem isn't Mother May I. The DM is constrained by the mechanics involved coupled with the social contract. Now in D&D someone immune to charm would probably be immune to that power, but that's also something prescribed by mechanics, not DM decision.

Those things would also apply a class ability that says, "No matter what you can do X under any conditions and the DM can't say no." Such an ability and other DM can't do anything about it rules being in D&D isn't inherently good or bad, but it would be different from any edition of D&D to date. I just don't see a reason to change D&D like that. At least not as written. If a table wants to make those alterations, have at it. D&D is nothing, if not extremely customizable.

D&D fits a niche in the fantasy RPG market. Other RPGs fit other niches. That's a good thing. It gives people a variety of options in what to play and why. Like this rule, but not that one, play game Y. Like that rule, but not this one, play game Z. Altering games to make them more like other games out there reduces the variety of RPGs to pick from, which in my opinion is a bad thing. If there's a game that gets you most of the way where you are going, but doesn't do something that you want from this game over here, merge the two at your table and make the game you want. It's all about having fun!

Those are more character options being allowable or not. That's a related, but maybe separate issue... or a subcategory. The ones I feel are more impactful are the kinds of rulings needed routinely in play, and how to make such rulings.

Yes those were all character creation options, but there are in game examples as well. "Can I set this magic item into my magic shield to create a brand new item?" The point was that players will uncommonly ask for exceptions to be made, both before and during games, though more so before hand, at least in my experience. Those are the real Q&A situations that I see happening, not the world building that occurs and the players interact with.

 

[Maxperson]

Some of the most grating instances Mother May I sort of play (for me personally) is when the GM hands out victories or softballing of consequences when the players hand them a golden opportunity via a combination of poor fictional positioning, poor use of the rules and/or poor dice rolls.

Also when the GM manipulates the fiction upon the player characters' behalf (especially when not asked to do so).

While that is certainly an issue for many tables, how is that Mother May I? Handing out a victory or softballing consequences isn't a matter of Q&A at all as far as I can tell.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is confusing. Aren't we mostly using MMI as a criticism? Whether of a specific instance of bad GMing or as a flaw of a system that tends toward instances of MMI, we're treating it (in this thread) as a thing to be avoided. (The different question earlier was whether the phrase "Mother May I" is pejorative, which is less interesting to me).

I think we keep going back and forth on that. Some people have different thoughts on that, some are slightly adjusting their positions as the discussion continues.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here's the thing.... invocation of Rule Zero only affirms that the game is Mother May I. If we place the GM above even established and clear rules that (under normal circumstances) we can all agree upon, then that's making the game Mother May I.

I think some of this is not going to be something we can bridge the disagreement on. I don't think the GM being final arbiter, or the GM invoking their power as final arbiter, equals mother may I. But this is also largely a disagreement over terminology.

But I would say rule zero existing, doesn't mean it gets used in every instance. In most instances you are going to swing and roll the expected die. But rule zero is there because the game recognizes that human judgement needs to step in once in a while to make the system run smoothly

Barring such rule zero use, the game works in certain ways. If I roll a 14 and the monster I'm attacking as a 22 AC, I've not missed due to Mother May I. I missed because the rules and the dice said I missed. If we accept that the GM can, at whim, overrule these play processes, then yes, we're saying these rules are at all times subject to GM approval, and that absolutely makes the game Mother May I.

Again, I don't see how that is the case. Even if we take this expansive view of mother may I, which I don't, most of the time, you aren't even relying on the GM's decision about swinging a sword. It is just something that exists and can be invoked. This would be like calling a boxing match mother may I because the referee can step in once in a while and stop whatever is happening.

As for certain setting elements like your immunity to charm example, I think it depends on how such things are decided. More old school play, this would be something predetermined by the GM and would be an element of the challenge in place... here's a creature they can't charm, how will they deal with this? I think for the most part, 5E assumes this approach.

I think it is true it assumes this kind of approach or something like it, though I also think 5E strikes me as a blend of some things old school, some things new, etc.

But if a GM just decided during play, "I was looking forward to this fight, I'll just make this thing immune to charm" I don't think we'd see it the same way. But rule zero type thinking says that this is fine.

Rule Zero means you can, it doesn't mean you should (and I don't think the advice we are seeing quoted from 5E at all promotes the idea that this would be a perfectly fine use of rule zero). I have seen GMs who run the game this way, I've even met players who like games run this way. But I think most people don't enjoy things being adjusted on the fly because the GM wants them to happen. Again though, I don't think because that is a possible at a table among many tables, that it makes the game mother may I. It just means, this is something that can happen in certain groups. Personally, as I said elsewhere, I don't think its something the book needs to provide rails against. I think this is much more about finding the right group and the right GM.

This is why I don't think we should ever take the rule zero type of caveats as expectations. They're not meant to support crappy GMing or bad decisions, or the GM maintaining their prep over some curve the players have taken. They're meant to deal with edge cases that the rules don't really allow for.

Sure. I would agree they are largely meant for edge cases. And definitely agree they aren't meant to support crappy GMing. I think the point is though I can see many instances where the Rustic ability would become an edge case because it assumes so much in terms of what is present, what is going on, what is in the setting, and that could conflict with what has happened or what the GM has prepared/developed for the setting. I'm not saying this is what happened in your case, I can just see that being a potential thing that would happen with this ability.

I will say whether rule zero applies to edge cases can vary to a degree. If you have players who like to attempt a lot of unorthodox things in combat, and the system doesn't feel like it is fairly adjudicating that (which I often find to the the case), you will find yourself invoking rule zero more (and usually not to hinder the players but to help them achieve what it is they are trying to do). For example if a player says something wierd like he wants to leap down on the toad demon and pour acid down its throat, I am probably going to handle that differently than a simple attack and damage roll (definitely the roll for damage if this succeeds is going to be much higher, but I might also make it come with greater risk), and I might tweak how I handle movement or any relevant physical skill roll in that situation if the system just doesn't fit what we are all imagining. Now personally, if I do this, I usually will explain to the player what steps I want to do instead of the normal ones, why, and also explain if there is greater risk and why (and if there is greater reward). I'll also let them opt for a standard attack roll and damage if they want. I just like that kind of clarity around expectations and I want everyone to feel good about the rulings I am making. But I have had players who were particularly inventive and cinematic where that came up frequently.