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

[Malmuria]

The designers seemed to have expected backgrounds to play some role in establishing some features for the immediate setting. For example the noble background has an extensive list of questions and player and DM should talk through before the campaign begins:

Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries. A noble title doesn't stand on its own-it's connected to an entire family, and whatever title you hold, you will pass it down to your own children. Not only do you need to determine your noble title, but you should also work with the DM to describe your family and their influence on you.

Is your family old and established, or was your title only recently bestowed? How much influence do they wield, and over what area? What kind of reputation does your family have among the other aristocrats of the region? How do the common people regard them?
What's your position in the family? Are you the heir to the head of the family? Have you already inherited the title? How do you feel about that responsibility? Or are you so far down the line of inheritance that no one cares what you do, as long as you don't embarrass the family? How does the head of your family feel about your adventuring career? Are you in your family's good graces, or shunned by the rest of your family?
Does your family have a coat of arms? An insignia you might wear on a signet ring? Particular colors you wear all the time? An animal you regard as a symbol of your line or even a spiritual member of the family?
These details help establish your family and your title as features of the world of the campaign.

Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character's identity. The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring? Where
did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or, if you come from a wealthy background, why don't you have more money? How did you learn the skills of your class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who share your background?

It's not impossible to establish these details in the middle of play (as mentioned I did so with my one noble character), but it might require retcons or changes to the fiction that contradict previously established truths. If the table goes through a session 0 where everyone goes through and answers all these questions, I would expect the experience in play to be more fluid. I've never encountered a "mother may I" situation with backgrounds with three different DMs.

On that note, the emphasis on rulings is an acknowledgement that the rules can't account for every instance of fictional positioning, so for expediency the DM is tasked with adjudicating the situation like a referee and making a ruling. Specific beats general. With regards to backgrounds, they speak to a general, context-less situation. If the questions listed in the Backgrounds section haven't been answered ahead of time, the DM would be tasked with looking at the fictional context and making a ruling.

Let's say a noble elf character wants to visit not only another noble, but a close friend in a nearby dwarven mountain. They can secure an audience, right? The text is very clear? But maybe the dwarf character is mad at the elf, unbeknownst to the latter. Or maybe the dwarves are doing something secret and want to keep all outsiders away. The specific fictional context beats the general rules text.

 

[Maxperson]

Max... if the player doesn't have any authority at all, then who has it?

By default players have authority over what they want their PC to do, not over whether it is successful or not. They can choose to launch a fireball at a building, but can't control whether it catches fire or not. They can control whether they try and persuade a merchant to give a discount, but cannot dictate the outcome. Some things will automatically be successful, some will be in doubt, and some won't work no matter what, because they are not possible.

That is the division that D&D puts forward. 5e is a bit more flexible than prior editions in that the DMG has optional rules which do give the players some authority. Plot points and the like.

You're saying that you don't think D&D is a game that requires a player to seek approval for everything from the GM. But then you're also pointing out how everything needs to be approved by the GM.

Many things can't be disapproved by the DM without violating the social contract. The social contract gives the players some authority in that respect, but not D&D itself. That means that the players do not have to constantly seek approval from the DM and the DM isn't really approving those things, because he has to say yes or roll.

 

[Maxperson]

Isn't the answer always Fireball?

Not when facing the darkness, then it's well known to be Magic Missile.

 

[FrogReaver]

The designers seemed to have expected backgrounds to play some role in establishing some features for the immediate setting. For example the noble background has an extensive list of questions and player and DM should talk through before the campaign begins:




It's not impossible to establish these details in the middle of play (as mentioned I did so with my one noble character), but it might require retcons or changes to the fiction that contradict previously established truths. If the table goes through a session 0 where everyone goes through and answers all these questions, I would expect the experience in play to be more fluid. I've never encountered a "mother may I" situation with backgrounds with three different DMs.

On that note, the emphasis on rulings is an acknowledgement that the rules can't account for every instance of fictional positioning, so for expediency the DM is tasked with adjudicating the situation like a referee and making a ruling. Specific beats general. With regards to backgrounds, they speak to a general, context-less situation. If the questions listed in the Backgrounds section haven't been answered ahead of time, the DM would be tasked with looking at the fictional context and making a ruling.

Let's say a noble elf character wants to visit not only another noble, but a close friend in a nearby dwarven mountain. They can secure an audience, right? The text is very clear? But maybe the dwarf character is mad at the elf, unbeknownst to the latter. Or maybe the dwarves are doing something secret and want to keep all outsiders away. The specific fictional context beats the general rules text.

To me the open question there might be ‘why would the GM choose to have the dwarven character mad at the elf’ or for ‘the dm to choose to have them to be doing something secret’.

Some of that may be established in back history created long before the player ever picked that ability for his pc. I don’t think there’s anything remotely resembling MMI here.

But oftentimes that detail would be decided between sessions and after the player had already chosen that ability. In that case it’s worth asking - why create such fiction in the first place.

 

[James Gasik]

Not when facing the darkness, then it's well known to be Magic Missile.

Sorry, no can do, you need to see what you're targeting with Magic Missile.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, no can do, you need to see what you're targeting with Magic Missile.

Are you seriously telling me that this is wrong!?

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorry, no can do, you need to see what you're targeting with Magic Missile.

Does closing your eyes and imagining it really hard count?

 

[James Gasik]

Are you seriously telling me that this is wrong!?

Afraid so. You can't magic missile the darkness.

• Target: A creature of your choice that you can see within range

 

[James Gasik]

Does closing your eyes and imagining it really hard count?

Sorry, there are no rules for closing your eyes in D&D. You have to get the DM's permission!

 

[hawkeyefan]

First of all you say some good stuff below that really deserves a reply.

I think my reply is going to go in two really different directions, so I'll probably split it into separate posts so the points are clear and delineated.

1) You keep reiterating that to you MMI isn't good or bad (i've bolded that claim below), but it sounds to me like excessive GM authority is bad, not neutral or sometimes good, just bad. I hope you are able to see where I am coming from. This is what I spoke of earlier when I said that all the other definitions of MMI seem to implicate it as a negative thing. Now maybe you don't view 'excessive GM authority' as a flat out negative. If that's the case I'd love some elaboration on why/how that works.

I'll try and clarify.

I personally don't like when play shifts to Mother May I. That's my opinion. Others may not mind it, and so I've been trying to speak only for myself in that regard. I'm not going to tell someone else "You don't like MMI".

There was one person who maintained consistently that they see 5E as Mother May I, and that it simply is the way the game works. That was @Ovi. I see his point.... and honestly, I think many others have agreed with his actual point, but they simply cannot move past the emotional response to the term Mother May I.

I didn't go quite so far as @Ovi because I don't think that 5E must lead to MMI, or that it does so at all times. As mentioned, combat and spell use immediately spring to mind. And there are many people who have figured out (by luck, or by years of trial and error with RPGs, or by learning from someone who knew) how to avoid MMI in their games. The books don't do anything in this regard.... quite the opposite, as many have shared snippets that clearly point to GM authority.

So my evaluation has been more about "where does the structure of 5E risk having too much authority with the GM". My answers for that are in the fuzzy rules, the unclear or uncertain processes of play, lack of player facing mechanics outside of combat and spell use, the hints at "rule zero" style veto ability for the GM.... all those things. None are things I consider "objectively bad" but they open the door for MMI.

I hope that's clearer.

Let's say a noble elf character wants to visit not only another noble, but a close friend in a nearby dwarven mountain. They can secure an audience, right? The text is very clear? But maybe the dwarf character is mad at the elf, unbeknownst to the latter. Or maybe the dwarves are doing something secret and want to keep all outsiders away. The specific fictional context beats the general rules text.

If there are reasons that have been established in play, then of course that should be considered in how things work. Maybe the two nobles in question, the PC and the NPC, are of nations that are currently at war, which is a big part of the story. Of course that may matter! There are any number of examples we could come up with.

But barring such previously established facts... I don't see the point of blocking the use other than to suit the GM's whim... whether it's what they think is "realistic" or "reasonable" or they just think it's "too easy" a solution. Crafting secret reasons to say no... the dwarf secretly being mad at the elf... seems more in this bucket, I think, and I'd try and avoid that.

But oftentimes that detail would be decided between sessions and after the player had already chosen that ability. In that case it’s worth asking - why create such fiction in the first place.

This is the big question I'd say. Why is the GM doing this? Why does this matter?

If it's to honor the fiction that's been established, I don't think most players would object.

If it's for some other reason... then we start to move into questionable territory (assuming we want to avoid MMI).