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

[tetrasodium]

No, I'm saying just shutting it down without finding out the source of the problem is, in and of itself, usually unreasonable. Its using the GM's bully pulpit to, at best, put a bandaid on the problem instead of treating it. Most likely because they want to flow of the game to consider and are willing to just rumble through to do it (and I'm on record for saying that if speed-of-play is your first priority, I consider that a bad priority).



Having read the rest of what you said, no, I really don't think any of that makes a significant difference, and I'll explain why.

You should not need in-game carrots and sticks for people to engage with the game usefully. If that was what was needed, no superhero game would work at all, as those are virtually nonexistent in almost all of them. They can sometimes be helpful, but their lack is not an excuse for throwing up your hands about dysfunction, since the most basic method of working out such problems (talking to people on a person to person level about expectations amongst you all about what the game is about and how its expected to be played) is entirely independent of game structure.



As you can see, no.

I realize its really hard for some people to simply step back and do what I say above--its extremely obvious from discussion everywhere in the hobby that people are often aren't good at having frank discussions about expectations, and players are often as much a part of the problem as GMs (and I've sometimes failed myself)--but fundamentally, when this sort of problem starts to occur, nothing else will do, and as far as I'm concerned complaining about the lack of systematic tools to address it is to dodge the problem rather than address it.

Edit: I want to add this on because I suspect the above is blunt and can come across as kind of harsh. My take on it is that even the question of what carrot-and-stick tools a system makes available to you is just another set of expectations. And if the ones needed for those expectations are not present, that's more of an argument of "wrong tool for the job" than saying they're necessary to run a game per se. But they're fundamentally smoke-and-mirrors over the most basic questions of what everyone is there to do, and until you shake that down, at best all you're doing is trying to have handles to, at best nudge, and at worst force, players into the mold you expect them into, and that's fundamentally going about it the wrong way.

When you do root cause analysis to find the source of a problem you look to the source nota symptom of it. The "source of the problem" is that 5e players are no longer given expectations responsibilities or needs but are given play loop inverting abilities with 9th level spell effects before they finish character creation & it's unreasonable to talk about the unreasonable player actions that result because we need to watch out for those DMs.

You (and others) bringing up stopping the game to have discussions rather than handling unreasonable player actions & continuing to run the game for the other players at the table, but do you agree that the player has any responsibilities? If so what are they?


Super hero games are an entirely different breed of game than d&d with very different expectations from the characters & the world itself. They are so different that the incentive structure simply does not apply to this issue any more than "king me" from checkers does to chess. There have been super hero themed d20 games, but they too are very different than d&d.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

I'll not continue using that example, so as to avoid spoiling a certain tv show. From my own game where my character was a noble, one of the other nobles turned out to be secretly in thrall to a devil. So part of the challenge in the campaign was figuring out that little bit of knowledge. The fact that something was amiss was telegraphed pretty clearly though, it didn't feel like anything was being thwarted (my character constantly talked about how she was a noble, so I wasn't just noticing I had a particular ability and pushing that button in the moment).

 

[FrogReaver]

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".

I believe you are legitimately trying to be helpful, so thank you for the attempt. However, I don't think the question I was trying to ask was really answered. Not long ago you defined Mother May I as excessive DM authority. I asked whether you thought excessive DM authority was always bad - which reconsidering may not be the best way to ask what I wanted to know. What I am trying to ask is if you believe anyone likes excessive DM authority - because I don't believe anyone does. I think everyone is going to come back and tell you, 'I don't want or like excessive DM authority'. IMO the excessive in front there does that

This goes into the 2nd point I was going to make -
2) Excessive is a very subjective evaluation. Not everyone is going to agree on what's excessive and what isn't. It kind of sounds to be like you are saying your personal subjective view on what constitutes excessive DM authority is what you dislike and that others may not mind what you view as excessive DM authority. That's a great starting point and I think that's very true, but while that is true I think it's also true that they are not going to like whatever they view as excessive DM authority either. It's just that line is drawn in different places and thus what's being liked/disliked is also going to be different. I guess this is just another way of saying what I said in the 1st paragraph. So if I sound like a broken record that's probably why.

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.

What you are referring to is one of the definitions i've cited that have been used in this thread - it still doesn't make sense to me why one would use the term MMI for that - but the definition is truly a neutral one, even if there's some implicit non-neutral connotation with the term chosen for it.

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.

I think we are mostly in agreement here. 5e can but doesn't have to lead to MMI. Not everyone on the thread agrees there, but I think you, I and @clearstream all do.

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.

I think at least us 3 are in agreement there as well.

 

[pemerton]

In any case, my personal take regarding background (which I'm pretty sure I told to the players at the session zero) is that they're statements about the character that I take into account like any other fiction that is not covered by more exact rules.

It's not my place to tell you how to play D&D. I can only speak for me. And for my part, I haven't seen anything in the 5e Basic Rules that distinguishes backgrounds as a PC build element from anything else. I don't see any way in which they are less exact. Page 36 says that "The sample backgrounds in this chapter provide both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions." Features like Rustic Hospitality and Position of Privilege are contrasted with suggestions, not presented as instances thereof.

For me, treating concrete rules elements as mere suggestions to the GM is an example of a tendency towards, not away from, "Mother may I".

Because it's not a magical ability like you are treating it. As a result, it needs to make sense in the fiction, and the ability as written does not make sense in all circumstances. This is further an issue, because 5e is deliberately written with holes, omissions and vagueness in the text, to turn the game into rulings over rules. This is the 5e design intent. Make an ability that is incomplete or won't make sense in certain situations so that the DM has to make a ruling.

Treating these rules as complete in and of themselves is going against RAI and ends up resulting in some nonsensical situations.

The idea that one noble can recognise the bearing and breeding of another noble - a very well-known trope in fantasy and folklore - is not nonsensical. It's not magic that allows Eomer to recognise Aragorn's claim to authority.

You are deeming all this to be nonsensical based on your own view about how fiction should work. On that basis you are overriding a "concrete benefit" conferred on the player by the PC build rules. For me, that is an example of a tendency towards, not away from, "Mother may I".

That's not how D&D works. The player isn't being handed any authority at all. They are getting an ability that can be(not will be) helpful.

As @hawkeyefan already posted, this only reinforces that tendency.

 

[FrogReaver]

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).

For me there's other reasons beyond 'honoring the fiction' that would not qualify as Excessive DM authority (MMI). But there are also certainly reasons that would cause me to perceive that as excessive GM authority.

For example: DM explanation: "I just thought it would be more interesting to have these nobles be hostile toward and then based on that fact decided it made no sense to honor the ability in the noble background." That's generally going to be 'excessive gm authority' for me. Though, I can't say always because there's some circumstance where elaborating on what precisely is meant by 'more interesting' could change my mind - but it would be rare.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When you do root cause analysis to find the source of a problem you look to the source nota symptom of it. The "source of the problem" is that 5e players are no longer given expectations responsibilities or needs but are given play loop inverting abilities with 9th level spell effects before they finish character creation & it's unreasonable to talk about the unreasonable player actions that result because we need to watch out for those DMs.

Sorry, I don't buy the premise. Game systems may supply some expectations, but most of them are brought by people to the game, not the game to the people. And its not unreasonable to talk about player actions, but it is if you're not going to talk about expectations. (And by the way, playing "gotcha" with another poster's reaction which I'd already noted required ignoring the second sentence in the first post he was quoting is not as effective as you think it is here).

You (and others) bringing up stopping the game to have discussions rather than handling unreasonable player actions & continuing to run the game for the other players at the table, but do you agree that the player has any responsibilities? If so what are they?

Stopping the game to have a discussion is handling unreasonable player actions, or at least finding out why they think its reasonable and you don't. And of course players have responsibility: to do their best to ensure that others playing in the game (including the GM) enjoy the experience too. But that's not the same as expectations about how it'll play. Until that's settled on, all smacking down misbehavior is doing is putting off a problem (and potentially making it worse if the player(s) think you're expecting things from them you shouldn't).

Its entirely possible that after discussion it will turn out that one or more players (including you) may have fundamentally irreconcilable views of what everyone should expect. At which point some of you should walk away. But trying to hammer people into the mold you expect is not the way to go, even if the rest of the group is onboard your view of it (and if they're not, its even worse).

Super hero games are an entirely different breed of game than d&d with very different expectations from the characters & the world itself. They are so different that the incentive structure simply does not apply to this issue any more than "king me" from checkers does to chess. There have been super hero themed d20 games, but they too are very different than d&d.

The incentive structure in playing a game is, first and foremost, playing the game. That's true of D&D,. Champions, Traveller and Mutant Year.Zero. There may be bits and bobs of sweetener in some of them, but that's not the fundamental point, and if you think that the primary point is getting gold or magic items, we have such a vastly different view of the hobby that we cannot have any sort of discussion here. That wasn't true 48 years ago, and its not true now.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry, I don't buy the premise. Game systems may supply some expectations, but most of them are brought by people to the game, not the game to the people. And its not unreasonable to talk about player actions, but it is if you're not going to talk about expectations. (And by the way, playing "gotcha" with another poster's reaction which I'd already noted required ignoring the second sentence in the first post he was quoting is not as effective as you think it is here).




Stopping the game to have a discussion is handling unreasonable player actions, or at least finding out why they think its reasonable and you don't. And of course players have responsibility: to do their best to ensure that others playing in the game (including the GM) enjoy the experience too. But that's not the same as expectations about how it'll play. Until that's settled on, all smacking down misbehavior is doing is putting off a problem (and potentially making it worse if the player(s) think you're expecting things from them you shouldn't).

Its entirely possible that after discussion it will turn out that one or more players (including you) may have fundamentally irreconcilable views of what everyone should expect. At which point some of you should walk away. But trying to hammer people into the mold you expect is not the way to go, even if the rest of the group is onboard your view of it (and if they're not, its even worse).




The incentive structure in playing a game is, first and foremost, playing the game. That's true of D&D,. Champions, Traveller and Mutant Year.Zero. There may be bits and bobs of sweetener in some of them, but that's not the fundamental point, and if you think that the primary point is getting gold or magic items, we have such a vastly different view of the hobby that we cannot have any sort of discussion here. That wasn't true 48 years ago, and its not true now.

But we are talking about how 5e and the 5e player abilities juxtaposed with the gaps in 5e gm tools cause problems for the gm.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But we are talking about how 5e and the 5e player abilities juxtaposed with the gaps in 5e gm tools cause problems for the gm.

No, that's how you view the problem. And my view is that what you're doing is dodging actually addressing the problem and blaming 5e for not giving you the tools to do so.

(I'll also note that though this thread is formally about 5e, at most its discussing the opposite of the problem you are).

 

[Maxperson]

The idea that one noble can recognise the bearing and breeding of another noble - a very well-known trope in fantasy and folklore - is not nonsensical. It's not magic that allows Eomer to recognise Aragorn's claim to authority.

No it wasn't magic that a noble of a neighboring kingdom(and I've been saying neighboring countries would) allied with Gondor recognized the claim of a Gondorian. Eomer would have told a Haradrim lord to go stuff himself, though.

 

[pemerton]

No it wasn't magic that a noble of a neighboring kingdom(and I've been saying neighboring countries would) allied with Gondor recognized the claim of a Gondorian. Eomer would have told a Haradrim lord to go stuff himself, though.

How do you know? How do you know it wouldn't be like some suitably embellished version of the encounters between Richard III and Saladin?

DM explanation: "I just thought it would be more interesting to have these nobles be hostile toward and then based on that fact decided it made no sense to honor the ability in the noble background." That's generally going to be 'excessive gm authority' for me.

yes, this strikes me, on its face, as pretty outrageous GMing. To elaborate: I as a player chose the Noble background because I thought it would be interesting (or convenient, or whatever) for my PC to "secure an audience with a local noble if I need to." The GM has an effectively infinite number of other interesting things they can do besides shutting down my ability.

Which also goes directly back to @Maxperson's post: given that, in the real world, we have the example of Richard and Saladin, why in a fantasy world does the GM need to shut down a part of my PC build just because their imagination isn't as vibrant as mine?