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

[hawkeyefan]

What this seems to revolve around more generally: Why would DMs want to frustrate PC plans?

What seems to me to be a common answer here is “to uphold the preconceived notions the GM has about the setting”.

Which is a perfectly valid reason. Just doesn’t seem to contradict the idea of Mother May I.

 

[Krachek]

This thread show how much trust we put on ourselves, in the others players and in the DM to create a satisfying game experience.

Mother may I, show low trust in the player himself, and a lot of blind trust in the DM, in some childish way.
Your honnor may I, would show good trust in the player mind, but low on the DM, on thus preferring to rely on rules as written.

DND work best with equal trust around the table. If trust is absent you rely on pure personal authority or rules authority.

 

[Maxperson]

I feel it is valuable to acknowledge lenses through which we interpret rules. Suppose I have a belief that "background abilities are intended to be a minor perk". Then I will likely read the same words and come to a different interpretation than another reading through a different lense.

I agree, which is why discussion is key when there is a difference in opinion like that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So there's a major distinction there. In those situations YOU were the one acknowledging that your imagination was outdone by someone else. You were not declaring someone else's imagination to be inferior to yours. That major distinction is what made @pemerton's statement both arrogant and condescending.

It was a hypothetical. The imaginary person @pemerton was talking about in his example did not have their feelings hurt.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I actually largely agree with this part. Not that I have a problem with backgrounds, but why I think you see a lot of people feeling ambivalent about them when they intrude into setting creation, is definitely due to many of us preferring D&D where the players in a place that the GM designs. There are lots of reasons for that. Too many to get into here I am sure. But it isn't about power. I think it is about preferred style of gaming.




This I don't think is fair. I've certainly met GMs who were on power trips (again mostly when I was younger or at public gaming events), but I think a lot of the people here expressing this preference (and to be clear I don't think there has been many people against backgrounds themselves or even backgrounds that deal with setting stuff: they just want the GM to retain the ability to preserve important setting details), have said they prefer it both on the player and the GM side. For me this isn't just about what I want as a GM. As a GM I am pretty flexible with what the group wants. I have my preferences but I am there to play with a group of people and its important that we find an approach that everyone can agree works. As a player though, I vastly prefer when the other players aren't introducing setting elements into D&D. And I would say D&D specifically or D&D like games, as I said, I had no problem with Hillfolk which had even more powers like that given to players. But when I am at a D&D game I want to be in a GM managed and designed (or at least curated if it is an official setting) world. Again, lots of reasons for this, probably too many to get into here and probably would take some thought to really figure out the reasons. I just don't think it boils down to a power trip or someone trying to hold on to some sort of metaphorical crown



Which is totally fair. But the thing is I can describe this preference you have in neutral terms without invoking concepts reminiscent in tone to mother may or a gm having power pried from his cold dead hands (there are plenty of pejoratives to describe more collaborate styles, but I don't think those are particularly useful for understanding the preference).

Yeah there are many ways to play. And if everyone is having fun and enjoying any given approach a group takes, then there is no issue.

But there absolutely is a mindset that, despite what the players may want, despite the small allowances to setting input the rules make for the players, there are many GMs who simply don’t want to relinquish that authority.

Is that about power? I think sometimes, yes. But I also think it’s about other things. Familiarity and comfort… this is the way it’s always been done, and so it’s easily understood.

But also fear.

If we allow this, where will it end?!?! This noble will be requesting audiences on other worlds! That’s not what I imagined!! My whole world will come crashing down!

 

[Krachek]

Another level is the lack of trust in rules.
The Mother may I, can be a consequence of absence of trust in the rules and thus trying to refer to a higher authority.

In worse case if you mix lack of trust in players, DM and rules, you got a 93 pages thread!

 

[Maxperson]

It was a hypothetical. The imaginary person @pemerton was talking about in his example did not have their feelings hurt.

It was a "pretend" hypothetical where the "pretend" person held the same opinions as the people in this thread who are talking to him(naming me by name) and the others who hold his position. It draws direct association with those of us here in the thread.

"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?"

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah there are many ways to play. And if everyone is having fun and enjoying any given approach a group takes, then there is no issue.

But there absolutely is a mindset that, despite what the players may want, despite the small allowances to setting input the rules make for the players, there are many GMs who simply don’t want to relinquish that authority.

Is that about power? I think sometimes, yes. But I also think it’s about other things. Familiarity and comfort… this is the way it’s always been done, and so it’s easily understood.

But also fear.

If we allow this, where will it end?!?! This noble will be requesting audiences on other worlds! That’s not what I imagined!! My whole world will come crashing down!

Again, I think this is not what is happening in this thread and, in all honesty, not what is happening in most groups. I've rarely been in any groups in recent years where the is a GM who wants to maintain GM authority and players who are vying for him or her to relinquish it. I am sure that happens in places. And I am also sure there are groups where people are mismatched (for instance a group where one or some players, including Gm, want one thing, and other want something else). But that very much comes down to expectations and playing with people whose style fits your own, or adapting to the styles present. But I think this comes just as much from the player side as the GM side. In my groups for example, I find that reinforcement of that authority or that wall between the characters and the setting is much more likely to be reinforced by players who are irked when other players or the GM crosses it. It is just a stylistic choice. Again, I think if you can understand and appreciate your own preferences come from a good place (what you enjoy and have fun with during play), why should it be so hard to understand that people who prefer more GM authority or more division between Players and the setting, aren't also coming from that same place. Why does the other side need be painted as clinging to power, or defaulting to the style due to mere familiarity and comfort, or fear? I get that you are being humorous here, but by that last line, what you are depicting is a comic book villain DM not a person who really exists. Sure you'll find some psychos here and there in any style and preference, people have said again and again, this isn't about the GM's ego, this is about the style of play people want on both sides of the table, and the way they enjoy settings being handled.

To me this stuff just reads like pathologizing a play style. Believe me, I've seen that kind of argument come from the other position as well (there are lots of gamers who don't like cooperative or narrative play, but I think it's beyond absurd to pathologize how people enjoy playing roleplaying games). Also this kind of thinking only makes it harder to understand why someone is doing what they are doing. If you assume a GM isn't playing the way you want, because of fear or a desire for power, or a worry that their imagined world will crumble down around them, I don't think you are ever going to bridge the gap with that person or with someone who shares their preferences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But there absolutely is a mindset that, despite what the players may want, despite the small allowances to setting input the rules make for the players, there are many GMs who simply don’t want to relinquish that authority.

There are probably lots of bad players and bad GMs out there. But I don't think there is much changing that. Again I've mostly encountered table disfunction in public play or when I was young. But I have seen players get into fist fights, I've seen GMs who were on power trips, I've seen people who just behaved abusively to one another (at least in my opinion), and I've seen people be mean with every possible approach to play under the sun (whether that was playing with the GM having traditional authority, playing more coorporatively, etc). People will play the game badly and bad people will play the game. I don't think that means, the games are the problem, or the style is the problem. I once had someone hit me in the shin with a putter at a mini-golf course in a fit of rage because he was frustrated by the hole. There is nothing wrong with the design of the club or the course. There was a problem with that person.

Now if there is a situation where a player feels the above, there are a few possibilities: it's a jerk GM, it's a jerk player, it is a mismatch of styles (and who is correct here I think will come down to what the majority of people at the table want). If I met a GM who was playing this way, and I wanted something more collaborative, I'd ask them and the other players about what their expectations were. Just because you want to have input into the setting, that doesn't meant the rest of the group wants you to have that input. If it were clear they were happy with things as they were, I'd find another group (or start my own around how I want to play: this by the way is something I've done a number of times over the years). I used to game with people who smoked. I don't like smoke. But I don't think they were bad for smoking during the game. That is how they unwinded at the end of the week and everyone at the table smoked something but me. So I found another group where I knew none of us would be smoking. I was much happier after that, and I had no ill will towards the players in the smoking group (still gamed with some of them from time to time, and was still friends with them).

 

[hawkeyefan]

It was a "pretend" hypothetical where the "pretend" person held the same opinions as the people in this thread who are talking to him(naming me by name) and the others who hold his position. It draws direct association with those of us here in the thread.

"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?"

I would say engage with tha actual point instead of using some perceived slight to dodge.

Why should a player’s choice be rendered less meaningful because a GM can’t figure out a way to make it work?

Again, I think this is not what is happening in this thread and, in all honesty, not what is happening in most groups.

I can’t say how it is for most groups, but I would say for some. It’s absolutely something I needed to get over as a GM. And it’s something that other folks in my longstanding gaming group are still working on.

As for not happening in this thread, I think it very clearly has. Not by everyone, but certainly by some.

To me this stuff just reads like pathologizing a play style.

Nope! I’m not saying that it must always be the case. Or that GM driven play is a negative or anything like that.

I’m saying that there is a subset of those who prefer GM driven play who do so, at least partly, for the reasons I cited.