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

[FrogReaver]

This thread asked what is MMI, should we also ask what is Player Entitlement?

Entitlement: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Sadly, I think that definition applies to many benign player beliefs. I am entitled to have fun! I am entitled to play my pc within the social contract and rules framework of my group! Etc.

That said, the more nuanced definition of entitlement used today seems to be a belief that one is deserving or entitled to certain privileges that others do not agree such a person is actually entitled to. As such it is a very judgmental term that is mostly subjective in nature.

I do believe there are behaviors that the vast majority of people will view as entitlement, but I think such behaviors are much rarer than I initially thought before really analyzing this. (Not that I thought they were particularly common to begin with).

 

[James Gasik]

The problem with the noble ability being a supernatural ability is that it automatically makes deception and persuasion supernatural abilities as well, since people with those skills can impersonate nobles, fooling the supernatural noble background power. And since everyone has both of those skills, everyone is supernatural!!

Except not. Neither those skills nor the background ability are supernatural. It's certainly a house rule a table can enact, but it's not the default.

That's not necessarily the case. If the Background Feature is supernatural, it doesn't follow that being able to replicate it's effect with skill checks makes those skills supernatural. The fact that the Background Feature doesn't require rolls and is always in effect would be what makes it supernatural.

It's like saying "if spider climb is a spell, and I can climb with Athletics, Athletics is a spell".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The quote does not seem to ideally support your argument.

Why not? You're the one in the driver's seat. It's not "get a quest from your DM." It's "make a quest, and discuss it with your DM." That's directly giving the player some power, the power to actually write their own quests (and thus, potentially, "give" XP to themselves), while recognizing that that process should have a dialogue with the DM.

Is there anything even remotely like that in 5e?

 

[Cadence]

Why not? You're the one in the driver's seat. It's not "get a quest from your DM." It's "make a quest, and discuss it with your DM." That's directly giving the player some power, the power to actually write their own quests (and thus, potentially, "give" XP to themselves), while recognizing that that process should have a dialogue with the DM.

The quoted rule said "with your DM’s approval", right?

I would love for every version of D&D to explicitly and expansively encourage players to bounce race/class/background/spell/etc. ideas off their DM and to equally encourage the DM to work with the player to say yes or come up with something they can say yes to!

Is there anything even remotely like that in 5e?

I thought there were some quotes earlier about 5e encouraging players and DMs to do it that in particular places, but nothing overarching. I wish it did.

I don't think I've ever had a DM decline to consider an idea I had for a character that didn't fit the rules (particularly custom clerics).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This thread asked what is MMI, should we also ask what is Player Entitlement?

Entitlement: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Sadly, I think that definition applies to many benign player beliefs. I am entitled to have fun! I am entitled to play my pc within the social contract and rules framework of my group! Etc.

That said, the more nuanced definition of entitlement used today seems to be a belief that one is deserving or entitled to certain privileges that others do not agree such a person is actually entitled to. As such it is a very judgmental term that is mostly subjective in nature.

I do believe there are behaviors that the vast majority of people will view as entitlement, but I think such behaviors are much rarer than I initially thought before really analyzing this. (Not that I thought they were particularly common to begin with).

As a rule, "entitlement" in its casual meaning has taken on a highly pejorative sense, per Dictionary.com's sense 4: "the unjustified assumption that one has a right to certain advantages, preferential treatment, etc." The keyword being "unjustified." It is essentially equivalent to "arrogance," though the senses are subtly different. Entitlement is more about feeling owed something by others hen one is not, while arrogance is more about feeling superior to others. The two can be identical (e.g., thinking you're so much better than others that you deserve their awe and reverence when you don't) but can also be separate (an arrogant combatant may not feel owed anything, but will still make foolish mistakes on the basis of her presumed superiority; an entitled combatant may expect special treatment, but not otherwise make foolish choices.)

If I had to define "player entitlement"--given, as I've said, I think it's a pejorative and not all that widely applicable--it would be something like, "The belief that players should simply be given whatever they ask for, regardless of justification." Phrased as such because it is not, necessarily, a player-exclusive belief; it is possible, albeit relatively rare, for a DM to do this. Sometimes, it is targeted at only a specific person, which is where we get the trope of "the DM's girlfriend(/boyfriend)." Generally implied to be a player who doesn't truly understand/care about the rules, but leverages their connection to the DM to get lots of power/influence or to warp the game around their interests. Sometimes, it manifests as something like "I'll just bribe the DM with pizza" or other out-of-game actions to gain in-game benefits.

The issue, of course, is the "simply given...whatever...regardless of justification" aspect. The expectation, which may or may not rise to the level of an explicit demand, that the player always get everything, sometimes instantly, no matter what. Which is why it is such an issue when it gets thrown in others' faces; it is a pretty serious accusation. More serious, in my opinion, than that of MMI DMing, because I believe it is entirely possible to stumble butt-backwards into MMI, while I emphatically do not believe it is possible to accidentally stumble into demanding that your requests be fulfilled no matter how egregious they might be.

 

[Maxperson]

Why? I coauthor a lot. There is a difference between being a coauthor and (eg) being a RA or a copyeditor for a sole-authored work. I have control, but not unilateral. My coauthor(s) have control, but not unilateral either. That's what makes it joint authorship.

It's not coauthoring. You're working with the DM because it's the DM's world and you can't do anything that he doesn't want you to. That's the reason for, "...and its impact on the campaign." The DM has full control over that impact and can nix anything you come up with that he feels would be too disruptive to the campaign. You have to get something, but what it is will be ultimately be up to the DM.

I realise that you don't regard your insistence on GM unilateral control over setting, to the extent of negating PC background features based on the GM's unilateral conception of the fiction, as "Mother may I". But when I talk about not wanting to play in "Mother may I"-type games, it is exactly the sort of thing that you are advocating that I am expressing an aversion to. Because it is a game in which I can't have what I would regard as meaningful impact on the shared fiction except as gated by the GM.

It's not the pejorative Mother May I that you have an issue with. Mother May I is the player having to ask the DM for permission to do just about anything, not the occasional negation of an ability when that ability would not be possible to use. What you seem to have an issue with is simply the traditional playstyle that is the default style of D&D as written. The simple fix is not to play D&D with a DM who isn't creating house rules and/or invoking the optional rules that allow you to get what you want out of it.

 

[clearstream]

Why not? You're the one in the driver's seat. It's not "get a quest from your DM." It's "make a quest, and discuss it with your DM." That's directly giving the player some power, the power to actually write their own quests (and thus, potentially, "give" XP to themselves), while recognizing that that process should have a dialogue with the DM.

Although to me needing approval is fairly synonymous to needing permission, I can see how you might make a different reading by giving more weight to other parts of the game text.

A concern though is - the player does all that work. What happens if GM does not give their approval for whatever reason makes sense to them?

Is there anything even remotely like that in 5e?

Remotely, yes

 

[Maxperson]

Why not? You're the one in the driver's seat. It's not "get a quest from your DM." It's "make a quest, and discuss it with your DM." That's directly giving the player some power, the power to actually write their own quests (and thus, potentially, "give" XP to themselves), while recognizing that that process should have a dialogue with the DM.

Is there anything even remotely like that in 5e?

It's not make a quest and discuss it with the DM. It's make a quest and see if it's too disruptive to the campaign, if it is the DM says no and you make another quest or he offers up a less disruptive idea. Rinse and repeat until you and/or he have come up with something he approves of(it isn't too disruptive).

 

[Maxperson]

As a rule, "entitlement" in its casual meaning has taken on a highly pejorative sense, per Dictionary.com's sense 4: "the unjustified assumption that one has a right to certain advantages, preferential treatment, etc." The keyword being "unjustified." It is essentially equivalent to "arrogance," though the senses are subtly different. Entitlement is more about feeling owed something by others hen one is not, while arrogance is more about feeling superior to others. The two can be identical (e.g., thinking you're so much better than others that you deserve their awe and reverence when you don't) but can also be separate (an arrogant combatant may not feel owed anything, but will still make foolish mistakes on the basis of her presumed superiority; an entitled combatant may expect special treatment, but not otherwise make foolish choices.)

If I had to define "player entitlement"--given, as I've said, I think it's a pejorative and not all that widely applicable--it would be something like, "The belief that players should simply be given whatever they ask for, regardless of justification." Phrased as such because it is not, necessarily, a player-exclusive belief; it is possible, albeit relatively rare, for a DM to do this. Sometimes, it is targeted at only a specific person, which is where we get the trope of "the DM's girlfriend(/boyfriend)." Generally implied to be a player who doesn't truly understand/care about the rules, but leverages their connection to the DM to get lots of power/influence or to warp the game around their interests. Sometimes, it manifests as something like "I'll just bribe the DM with pizza" or other out-of-game actions to gain in-game benefits.

The issue, of course, is the "simply given...whatever...regardless of justification" aspect. The expectation, which may or may not rise to the level of an explicit demand, that the player always get everything, sometimes instantly, no matter what. Which is why it is such an issue when it gets thrown in others' faces; it is a pretty serious accusation. More serious, in my opinion, than that of MMI DMing, because I believe it is entirely possible to stumble butt-backwards into MMI, while I emphatically do not believe it is possible to accidentally stumble into demanding that your requests be fulfilled no matter how egregious they might be.

I have to say that I'm amused that someone who is using the pejorative Mother May I in this thread is upset by the use of another pejorative. If the use of Player Entitlement bothers you, perhaps consider that before using Mother May I again.

 

[clearstream]

As a rule, "entitlement" in its casual meaning has taken on a highly pejorative sense, per Dictionary.com's sense 4: "the unjustified assumption that one has a right to certain advantages, preferential treatment, etc." The keyword being "unjustified." It is essentially equivalent to "arrogance," though the senses are subtly different. Entitlement is more about feeling owed something by others hen one is not, while arrogance is more about feeling superior to others. The two can be identical (e.g., thinking you're so much better than others that you deserve their awe and reverence when you don't) but can also be separate (an arrogant combatant may not feel owed anything, but will still make foolish mistakes on the basis of her presumed superiority; an entitled combatant may expect special treatment, but not otherwise make foolish choices.)

If I had to define "player entitlement"--given, as I've said, I think it's a pejorative and not all that widely applicable--it would be something like, "The belief that players should simply be given whatever they ask for, regardless of justification." Phrased as such because it is not, necessarily, a player-exclusive belief; it is possible, albeit relatively rare, for a DM to do this. Sometimes, it is targeted at only a specific person, which is where we get the trope of "the DM's girlfriend(/boyfriend)." Generally implied to be a player who doesn't truly understand/care about the rules, but leverages their connection to the DM to get lots of power/influence or to warp the game around their interests. Sometimes, it manifests as something like "I'll just bribe the DM with pizza" or other out-of-game actions to gain in-game benefits.

The issue, of course, is the "simply given...whatever...regardless of justification" aspect. The expectation, which may or may not rise to the level of an explicit demand, that the player always get everything, sometimes instantly, no matter what. Which is why it is such an issue when it gets thrown in others' faces; it is a pretty serious accusation. More serious, in my opinion, than that of MMI DMing, because I believe it is entirely possible to stumble butt-backwards into MMI, while I emphatically do not believe it is possible to accidentally stumble into demanding that your requests be fulfilled no matter how egregious they might be.

I think the player in question wouldn't be doing it because they felt unjustifiably entitled. Therefore, they may well stumble butt-backwards across the threshold between justifiable and unjustifiable.

Although that is not really my point here. I just feel that this argument - well - it's good for the gander.