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

[EzekielRaiden]

The hypothetical ability max was referencing and suggested better wording to is what opened the door & rolled out the red carpet for the water breathing player to make an unreasonable action declaration of starting a fire under water. 5e is full of things like that

......

Are you serious right now?

Are you literally, actually serious right now?

Is this a joke? I legitimately cannot believe I just read that as an actual, serious post. Please tell me you are joking.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Walked, teleported, whatevered, but if he didn't take fuel with him, it's not there per the DM description of the environment. So why is the player acting in bad faith and trying to light a fire without fuel? Even if there are a few plants, you aren't making a fire out of them. Even if you could get them lit, the fire would burn out in about 3.2 seconds. You need sustainable fuel for a fire.

Why is the DM acting in bad faith and throwing the player into situations where they could never even in principle use their abilities in perfectly reasonable and legitimate ways?

Your "defense" sounds more and more like MMI the more you describe it. "No, you can't do that. Oh,you found something did you? It doesn't work. Oh, you found a way to make it work? It fails three seconds later, and now you have nothing." Is this not literally what I described earlier? Something you yourself said wouldn't happen in your games?

 

[Maxperson]

....

This is exactly what I mean, Max.

This is exactly covert MMI, in action, before our very eyes.

"I don't like the idea that an amphibious being would try to take a rest in the water, despite that being the clear result of the text as written. I am forced to simply tell the player they can't do that even though that's what their abilities tell them they can do."

How on earth is this anything like "wasteland so barren it has literally nothing in it"? This is straight-up "there's water, I can breathe water, why can't I rest in it?" And Tetrasodium dislikes that, so the answer is no. Doesn't matter what the rules say. Doesn't matter that it's perfectly plausible (note, @Maxperson, I have ALWAYS said things like "plausible" or "reasonable" here, so your harping on patently ridiculous things was already and consistently addressed long ago.) All that matters is, Tetrasodium doesn't like it, so it doesn't fly.

What other thing could this possibly be?

Before I make any kind of judgment, I need to know what step 3 is? If it's lighting a fire, then I don't care if you're amphibious or a water dweller, you aren't lighting a normal fire underwater. Otherwise, I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to rest. If they can breathe and relax, they should be able to rest.

 

[Malmuria]

Somewhat off topic, but another illuminating thread re: 5e play culture and expectations for DMs.

Prompt: "What's your favorite piece of general GM/Game Running advice? "

Some Responses:

• "You, the GM, are also one of the players at the table. You have the same rights, needs, and social expectations from the game as every other player does (and vice versa)."
• "As part of that: you have a right to not do all the work yourself. You are the only person at the table who has homework before every session. If you need to delegate that work do make the game easier for you, it is just and fair for you to do that."
• "You don't have to do everything, your players want to do fun things just as much as you want the game to be fun. Just give them something to do and they will do the rest."
• " "Your fun matters too, you should enjoy the game you're running and it's ok to say no to players sometimes." It took me ages to come to that. For a long time I felt like I had to accommodate every single wish from players and it wasn't very healthy."
• "If you ever feel like you're running out of ideas, remember that there are 4-5 other creative people at the table. Don't be afraid to ask them for help in direction of the campaign, place descriptions, NPC creation, or plot points"
• "Treat world building as collaborative. One of the best things I ever did was to have each player make up a few NPCs at the start of the game that were connected to their character!"

It goes on like this. There isn't any hint of gygaxian advice there. If anything, some of the advice is that it is ok for the GM to sometimes use their authority to impact the shared fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is the DM acting in bad faith and throwing the player into situations where they could never even in principle use their abilities in perfectly reasonable and legitimate ways?

Because that isn't what the DM did, that's why. Adventures take place in all kinds of environments. Sometimes some abilities won't work or won't work well. Other times they will be enhanced. Players don't have a right to expect that the game won't go somewhere just because they have an ability that won't work there. In fact, nobody forced them to go there in the first place. The player had every ability to have his PC say, "It's a barren wasteland and the inability to light a fire there would destroy me emotionally, so I'm not going to go there with you guys. We can go north to the lands of eternal fire lighting, though."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because that isn't what the DM did, that's why.

Why not? I have seen not even one hint of explanation or justification beyond "I'm the DM, it's my game, put up with it or get the hell off my table."

 

[clearstream]

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

This was the OP from @overgeeked



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.



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








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.




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.



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 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.



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

Thank you for a considerate reply which I honestly and without any desire to be proven right, can't help but see as a confirmation of my analysis. Perhaps reflect on "they know it, but don't want it to be so"? "Mother May I" cannot accurately describe their play, because it literally describes a guessing and begging relationship, and their interactions don't feature that. Insisting on it being a characteristic rather than a feeling is exactly the divide I described.

 

[Maxperson]

Why not? I have seen not even one hint of explanation or justification beyond "I'm the DM, it's my game, put up with it or get the hell off my table."

Apparently you missed...

"In fact, nobody forced them to go there in the first place. The player had every ability to have his PC say, "It's a barren wasteland and the inability to light a fire there would destroy me emotionally, so I'm not going to go there with you guys. We can go north to the lands of eternal fire lighting, though."

He had the ability to say no and chose to go there. That's not on me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think the existence of some sort of a super arid desert of death in which nothing grows, let alone in quantities sufficient to sustain a campfire is particularly outlandish idea in a fantasy world.

And of course underwater adventures are not out of question either and for some reason @EzekielRaiden seemed to be fine with the impossibility of making campfires in such conditions.

 

[Umbran]

Why on earth would you discuss it if you don't expect it to change?! That's lunacy.

Hey.

Consider the difrerence between, "I hope we can agree to change this," and "I expect you to change this for me."

Please stop equating a desire, and an expectation.