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

[James Gasik]

If someone every tells me that some bs action is "what their character would do", I always ask them why they decided to make their character a total jerk.

 

[tetrasodium]

If someone every tells me that some bs action is "what their character would do", I always ask them why they decided to make their character a total jerk.

I'm partial to "that's nice, but you aren't playing a pregen & made that character yourself right?" Usually followed by a phrase like "that was a question... The rest of yall notice Bob did x with your characters ".

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's kind of what I meant about the parallel with some GM decisions; in some cases one of two things is going on: either the player/GM doesn't really give a damn about what other people think as long as they get to play/run as they judge appropriate, or they're telling themselves that its a good thing for the game as a whole--whether everyone else agrees or not.

Edit: This is assuming active malevolence is not in play, but at the end of the day, that doesn't really matter to the people having to deal with it.

 

[Aldarc]

Player has a 17 Strength, but needs to jump a 20' wide chasm. Rules say you can jump farther by making an Athletics check, but gives no DC's.

DM A says: "you can make the jump with a DC 5 Athletics check."

DM B says: "....DC 15 Athletics check."

DM C says: "....DC 25 Athletics check."

DM D says: "It's impossible, you're wearing full plate armor and have 100 lbs. of gear."

None of these DM's are wrong, by the rules. Each of these rulings is equally supported.

The fact that a person's experience with 5e has so much table variance never felt like a good thing to me, since it means if you play under multiple DM's, you can never really know what to expect.

This is one thing that made me appreciate the concept of a single Room or Encounter DC used by Index Card RPG.

ICRPG advises that a GM set a baseline DC for an encounter. They may, for example, set the DC 13 for the entire dungeon room. Find what's hidden in the room? DC 13. Disarm the trap in the room? DC 13. Jumping across the pit trap in the room? DC 13. Hit the monster in the room? AC 13. Make the save against the spell cast in the room? DC 13.

The GM also has the option of making a check EASY (-3 DC) or HARD (+3 DC) depending on the circumstances - "fighting minions? EASY (DC 9)" or "jump across that big pit? HARD (DC 16)" - but that still leaves a bound DC 9 to 16 in the aforementioned example.

The GM still sets a DC for the encounter, but IMHO an Encounter DC sets a more transparent standard for the players, with judgment about difficulty primarily then deciding EASY, NORMAL, HARD in relation to the Encounter DC.

 

[clearstream]

@Aldarc called attention to a point that I'd like to follow up, they said

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.

To me, this highlighted that we have two distinct definitions emerging in this thread. One has it that -

MMI is the feeling that you cannot accomplish ‘anything (or nearly anything)’ without the DM’s permission. There are many causes for this feeling, many of which can already be described by other negative game terms (ex: railroading).

As a feeling MMI is subjective and so different people will experience it in different circumstances. Some games may even be more prone to having circumstances that more people will experience as MMI than other games. Also, some people will be more prone to feeling MMI than others.

That definition is met with another that characterises a style or culture of play as MMI -

Like, if there is no binding rules or constraint on the GM, but instead it really boils down to them just saying yes or no, that's pretty much MMI. It's entirely up to them.

Under this view, where one participant decides the result of what another describes without express constraints, then that is MMI-prone and preferences do not change that. I think I grasp it correctly when I say that in this view, MMI-proneness is a fault. Many FKR games and all freeform RPG in this view will be MMI, and systems that don't adequately constrain are also MMI (or such parts of those systems as do not, such as 5e ability checks.)

So in both cases, MMI is not a good thing. But the way in which it is not a good thing could not be more different.

• Under the first, MMI is a negative experience that emerges in interactions subject to the experiencer's preferences
• Under the second, MMI is intrinsic in the terms of the interaction itself, i.e. it is objective

Going forward, I will call these the subjective and objective definitions of MMI. One place they have common ground is that they are agreed that MMI is an undesirable negative that worsens play. Something I find very striking about the objective definition is that those who hold it quite reasonably resist or do not emphasise MMI as a pejorative: a system or way of playing simply has this quality... how can that be pejorative? Hopefully it is easy to see how that is at odds with the subjective definition, in which having agreed that MMI is an undesirable negative, labelling their favoured play with it feels offensive.

For me, the hazards in the objective definition are all too obvious. I think we are always on risky ground when we seek to cast something cultural as objectively good or bad. The least one can say is that if we accuse a culture of missteps, we are in for a very difficult conversation and must at every turn seek to set aside or question our own preferences. So that just because say, we do not want a story told to us by another participant, that does not mean that folk who do are in the wrong. We may dislike the GM negating a player's tactical and thematic input, but that does not make it true that everyone else without exception also dislikes that.

I feel confident in saying that cultures vary this widely, because it is easy to find testimony that they do. It's easy to find FKR culture discussion of doing away with constraints. Some advocates argue that "No designer and no judge has any right to come to your table to tell you that you’re doing it wrong. The methods you find to work for you, to portray and play your worlds are the right way." Whether or not we agree with such views, we can acknowledge their existence.

Hence, as you can probably guess, I favour a subjective view. In doing so, that does not mean that I necessarily aim to refute ideas of say normative cultures that we're part of or interested in, rules, or techniques and principles that reduce the likelihood of MMI for folk in one or more cultures that we are thinking of. And perhaps that is what those who seem to take the objective view are really thinking about: that which in their experience has been normal. By no means an unreasonable position, even if when I think about MMI objectively I feel forced to define it as subjective. Suppose I like pears, handing me the best possible apple won't satisfy that like. But suppose I, like many folk, enjoy apples, then of course we can have a conversation about what strain might best please us.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@clearstream To clarify a bit based on your last post.

This was the OP from @overgeeked

This has come up again and again, so here’s a thread about it. 5E players and referees, how do you define “mother may I” style play?

It is asking people to describe what they think of as "mother may I" style play for 5E. All answers are going to be subjective.

@Aldarc called attention to a point that I'd like to follow up, they said

To me, this highlighted that we have two distinct definitions emerging in this thread. One has it that -

That definition is met with another that characterises a style or culture of play as MMI -

For reference, I'll quote the two definitions you cited, one from @FrogReaver and one from me.

My take on how to define MMI.

MMI is the feeling that you cannot accomplish ‘anything (or nearly anything)’ without the DM’s permission. There are many causes for this feeling, many of which can already be described by other negative game terms (ex: railroading).

As a feeling MMI is subjective and so different people will experience it in different circumstances. Some games may even be more prone to having circumstances that more people will experience as MMI than other games. Also, some people will be more prone to feeling MMI than others.

Like, if there is no binding rules or constraint on the GM, but instead it really boils down to them just saying yes or no, that's pretty much MMI. It's entirely up to them.

Under this view, where one participant decides the result of what another describes without express constraints, then that is MMI-prone and preferences do not change that. I think I grasp it correctly when I say that in this view, MMI-proneness is a fault. Many FKR games and all freeform RPG in this view will be MMI, and systems that don't adequately constrain are also MMI (or such parts of those systems as do not, such as 5e ability checks.)

So in both cases, MMI is not a good thing. But the way in which it is not a good thing could not be more different.

• Under the first, MMI is a negative experience that emerges in interactions subject to the experiencer's preferences
• Under the second, MMI is intrinsic in the terms of the interaction itself, i.e. it is objective

This is an inaccurate assessment of my stance. The interaction is what it is. Whether anyone sees it as good or bad is entirely subjective. There are many people who will happily run and/or play in a game that is nothing but Mother May I. This is why I feel classifying it as a feeling doesn't really help all that much.

I've been trying to classify it as a quality characteristic(*) of play, rather than as the feeling it brings about.

I don't think that these two definitions are as opposite as you present. In fact, I would say that one may lead to the other, and that's when there's an issue.

Going forward, I will call these the subjective and objective definitions of MMI. One place they have common ground is that they are agreed that MMI is an undesirable negative that worsens play. Something I find very striking about the objective definition is that those who hold it quite reasonably resist or do not emphasise MMI as a pejorative: a system or way of playing simply has this quality... how can that be pejorative? Hopefully it is easy to see how that is at odds with the subjective definition, in which having agreed that MMI is an undesirable negative, labelling their favoured play with it feels offensive.

I don't like the implication that I have not acknowledged how people will find the term a pejorative. I absolutely understand why they would. It's not a term I tend to throw around, generally speaking... but we were specifically called upon to do so in this thread. What I've tried to do is present my thoughts on it in an honest way.

Now, having said that, there was one poster who was taking part, @Ovi, who sadly can't continue to do so. He did claim it was not meant as a pejorative. And although I didn't quite agree, it's not because I think he's wrong so much as I think people are just going to react emotionally to it.

But as a description of a system that places all authority in one figure... removing the emotional response to a perceived negative connotation... it suits. I don't even know how that can be denied.

The reason why I didn't go quite so far as that in my take is because I do believe that there are rules that constrain the GM. That the GM is obliged to honor, and cannot just dismiss at a whim. Most of these, sadly, are limited to combat and spell use. This is why I see MMI as being more likely in other areas of the game. That 5E is prone to it in certain ways, and does little to caution against it or offer suggestions about how to avoid it or any similar guidance.

For me, the hazards in the objective definition are all too obvious. I think we are always on risky ground when we seek to cast something cultural as objectively good or bad. The least one can say is that if we accuse a culture of missteps, we are in for a very difficult conversation and must at every turn seek to set aside or question our own preferences. So that just because say, we do not want a story told to us by another participant, that does not mean that folk who do are in the wrong. We may dislike the GM negating a player's tactical and thematic input, but that does not make it true that everyone else without exception also dislikes that.

Right, this is why it's all subjective. Some folks may not be bothered by the most railroady of railroads, where the DM decides everything for them and all they do is roll dice in combat. The words Mother May I may never occur to these folks.

Again, this is why I would say it's better to talk about it as a quality characteristic(*) of play rather than a feeling.

I feel confident in saying that cultures vary this widely, because it is easy to find testimony that they do. It's easy to find FKR culture discussion of doing away with constraints. Some advocates argue that "No designer and no judge has any right to come to your table to tell you that you’re doing it wrong. The methods you find to work for you, to portray and play your worlds are the right way." Whether or not we agree with such views, we can acknowledge their existence.

I don't think anyone is trying to do that in this thread. People should play any way they like. If folks like FKR, they should play that kind of game.

If I am asked to offer my opinion on FKR, then I'm going to do that. As it relates to this conversation, I would say that FKR play does indeed sound prone to Mother May I, given that your description has it actively seeking to remove limits on GM authority. Seems pretty simple.

Now, when I say prone, it seems that folks read "must have" and that's just not what I'm saying. The defense against Mother May I... where all authority resides in the GM... is to limit that authority. If we instead remove limits to authority, then it seems pretty logical that there's more risk of absolute authority. I mean, I don't even get how or why people would disagree with that (or perhaps I do, see below).

But that doesn't mean that there can't be FKR games that work without devolving into Mother May I, or that even if it does that people won't enjoy such a game.

Hence, as you can probably guess, I favour a subjective view. In doing so, that does not mean that I necessarily aim to refute ideas of say normative cultures that we're part of or interested in, rules, or techniques and principles that reduce the likelihood of MMI for folk in one or more cultures that we are thinking of. And perhaps that is what those who seem to take the objective view are really thinking about: that which in their experience has been normal. By no means an unreasonable position, even if when I think about MMI objectively I feel forced to define it as subjective. Suppose I like pears, handing me the best possible apple won't satisfy that like. But suppose I, like many folk, enjoy apples, then of course we can have a conversation about what strain might best please us.

I think there's a difference in trying to say there is an objective experience about MMI (which I don't think anyone has really done in this thread) and trying to use objective analysis to support an opinion (which is what I have tried to do). I haven't really tried to describe why others might hold the opinions that they do, but since you've opted to do that, I'll throw an idea out there as food for thought. I don't necessarily think this is true of everyone involved in this thread, or of anyone in particular, but I can say that it's something I've considered a great deal about my own games and my past as a GM.

The reason that people don't like the term Mother May I, is because it accurately describes their play, and they know it, but don't want it to be so.

EDITED TO ADD: * Edited "quality" to read "characteristic" per suggestion from @Cadence

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, this is the point. It's not complications that make something Mother May I. It's how the complications are determined.

If the player gets to declare something, it's not going to be called Mother May I.

If the system (rules and dice) determines the outcome, then it's not going to be called Mother May I.

If teh GM decides, then it may. It may not... I'm not saying this must be so. But this has to be present for Mother May I to even be possible.

I can agree with that.

How are these things determined? There are different methods, for sure.

The more of these decisions that are just put into the GM's hands, the more likely Mother May I will be a concern.

I still think Mother May I is a people problem. A DM prone to such abuses will engage in it and the others generally won't. I say generally, because some new DMs might do it a bit in the beginning out of ignorance, but will grow out of it when they realize that it's an issue.

Players may ask for exceptions, yes, but that was not my point. My point is that standard requests that players may make are just as subject to this "GM head game" as the exceptions are.

I'm thinking again of combat and spell use. GM judgment generally doesn't come into these, except perhaps at the design stage. But when the player declares their action, the GM simply applies the rules and we know what happens.

Aside from combat and spells, there is very little of this in 5E.

This I'm less sure about. In combat the DM decides the ACs of the creatures you are fighting, their hit points before the fight, whether situations give you advantage/disadvantage, whether you can hide or not, if there are any positive or negative situational modifiers to your roll, and so on. There is quite a bit of DM decides stuff in combat.

I think that as long as the DM is trying his best to be fair and not violate the social contract, Mother May I will not exist.

 

[Campbell]

Sounds like you are trying to say what I’ve been saying the whole thread, there are certain grounds where the DM should go against the rules and certain grounds where they shouldn’t. You provided 1 good example in your post above. IMO.

I doubt we all will agree on what precisely those grounds are, but no one is arguing the DM should on a whim ignore the rules. There should be a good reason, often based on the fiction not aligning to genre/setting expectations due to the game mechanics producing fiction against those expectations in this situation. But possibly also around game expectations - 3 of my 5 players are getting bored due to their being no combat this session, should the dm here do anything to help combat occur, after all it is his players happiness he’s interested in?

That last bit is what I personally consider Mother May I even if done to conform to player desires. The GM is involved in manipulating the fiction, letting their adjudication be influenced by or designing setting or scenario elements to arrive at a predetermined outcome (a combat) instead of letting play determine what happens.

Basically the GM is putting themselves in a position of saying yes or no to desired outcomes rather than applying some sort of consistent process and/or set of principles. This need not be a mechanical thing, but I think for a game to not be Mother May I there needs to be some sort of meaningful set of constraints on GM actions.

My primary concern here is addressing the competitive integrity of play space. Is our ability to achieve the aims of our characters determined by skilled play of the game?

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, there is at least one other alternative beside "precise and specific rules for every possible occurrence" and "rules that leave large gaps." That being, rules which are flexible, which cover a space of situations rather than each individual situation separately. Such things, which I call "extensible framework" rules, accept that the rules are an abstraction and leverage that abstraction to cover most things. The attack roll, for example, is an extensible framework that can be used for its standard purpose (determining if a physical or magical blow strikes its target), or for a variety of other purposes in the loose category of landing something, connecting, or otherwise featuring accuracy with physical or magical objects/entities in motion. E.g., a lasso can be handled as a ranged attack roll. That extends (hence "extensible") the underlying rule structure into areas that logically apply but which might not have been specifically intended initially.

A rule system built on robust, well-tested extensible framework rules can cover almost everything one might wish to cover, so that needing to go completely off into the weeds is only necessary in unique or special circumstances. The players and DM thus reap the benefits of a reliable and consistent ruleset while simultaneously retaining the ability to adapt to the unexpected and, in truly unforeseeable situations (which will happen, don't get me wrong), the freedom to decide how things should work.

My experience(admittedly limited) with those kinds of flexible rules is that generally those rules that cover lots of situations don't cover them completely. So if a rule covers 4 situations, it might cover one of them 100%, another of them 85% accurately, the third 75% accurately, and the last 80% accurately. I'd rather there be 4 different rules and cover all of them better. Or leave it to the DM to make rulings.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can agree with that.

I still think Mother May I is a people problem. A DM prone to such abuses will engage in it and the others generally won't. I say generally, because some new DMs might do it a bit in the beginning out of ignorance, but will grow out of it when they realize that it's an issue.

Experience in the role of GM may help, yes. Especially if the GM is actively seeking feedback from the players and honestly evaluating their performance as GM.

But it may not. There are GMs who've been doing their thing since OD&D and they ain't gonna change.

So rather than leaving it up to trial and error across years or even decades, I think actual guidance in the books on this stuff is likely a good idea. I think presenting principles of GMing and best practices and the like would go a long way.

This I'm less sure about. In combat the DM decides the ACs of the creatures you are fighting, their hit points before the fight, whether situations give you advantage/disadvantage, whether you can hide or not, if there are any positive or negative situational modifiers to your roll, and so on. There is quite a bit of DM decides stuff in combat.

This is all the stuff I meant by "perhaps at the design stage", with the exception of dis/advantage which may be decided situationally in play. But I only say perhaps because there are books of monsters and NPCs with stats already set, and then of course the adventures themselves offer specific stats for the featured NPCs. Of course, a GM may change these to suit... but very often won't.

Again, I'm not saying that combat is free of GM judgment, just that there are so many more rules involved in that sphere of the game that the GM has a lot to work with to help guide his judgment.

Far less so with out of combat elements.

I think that as long as the DM is trying his best to be fair and not violate the social contract, Mother May I will not exist.

Well part of my point and why I think this is something to be aware of is that I think it absolutely can happen without ill intent. GMs simply can make bad calls... doesn't mean that they're not trying to be fair.

Because there's so much wiggle room in how the game is run based on how the rules are presented, there's no baseline for "good" performance. One person may see a problem, and another may not.... who's "right"?