innerdude
Legend
Party is for whatever reason looking for a particular and unusual comb and has just gone into a bedchamber where such might reasonably be found. Now contrast the following statements, all of which may be seen as action declarations in one form or another:
1. "I search the chamber thoroughly."
2. "I search the chamber thoroughly for the silver fox-head comb."
3. "Starting with the dresser, I search the chamber thoroughly for the silver fox-head comb."
4. "I take the fox-head comb from the chamber."
1. leaves things open-ended for the GM by making no stipulations or assumptions; the GM might here ask for something more specific both in terms of search method/order or what is being sought, or just go with it, assigning chances to find the comb (if it's there at all) along with anything else relevant that might be there.
2. forces the GM to concentrate on the comb as the search's target (and somewhat assumes the PC is doing likewise) which has the benefit of keeping things focussed and the drawback of making it more difficult for the GM to introduce other things that might be found here without giving away metagame hints. The GM still either has to assume the PC's search method or ask for specifics.
3. here the GM gets both method specifics and a focus; her job has been made easier unless she's using the comb as a red herring so the PCs will (maybe) find something else.
4. and here the outcome of any search is assumed, and if the GM doesn't agree with this she's forced to back things up and say "wait a minute" - hardly desireable. The player has (let's hope mistakenly) declared result instead of intent, the same as saying "I hit it" rather than "I swing at it". So why do players keep doing this?
Well, to answer the last question first, in my experience players generally will try to bend the fiction in their favor because they think it will either be A) fun in the moment, or B) have a future payoff of more fun later in the process.
Going back to the start, this is an interesting way of breaking out what is essentially four different actions all based around the same intent. To me there are hidden assumptions lying within each form of declaration that are revealing about the player's expectations vis-a-vis to the GM's approach----Is the GM likely to intervene with my action declaration? Meaning, if I say something that doesn't fit with the GM's perceived fiction, is my action declaration going to be nullified at the source? Or if not nullified at the source, can it be nullified at a different phase or level? Is making an action declaration that's too specific going to hose me over, because I didn't specify something else?
And if you're the GM adjudicating this scene, has it been predetermined that the comb isn't there in the first place? Why or why not? Do you make the players go through a series of procedural steps just to ensure that they've "done their due diligence" even if the comb isn't there? Is the goal to make the players doubt their findings if they roll poorly and don't find the comb? To me, "MMI?" starts happening if/when the GM starts forcing the players to follow their specific, pre-determined procedures for success, and is made even more egregious if the GM is making the players do it even if there's nothing narratively at stake.
As a maxim, I might begin to say something like, "Mother-may-I? play happens when a GM insists that players follow his pre-determined procedures for successfully overcoming scene-level obstacles, while simultaneously denying players the option to introduce new elements at any level that pertain to the current in-fiction stakes."
I'm having more thoughts, but will have to come back to further cogitate later.

Last edited: