Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7556530" data-attributes="member: 85870"><p>First off, thanks to everyone who's responded so far. These are exactly the kinds of ideas and discussion I was hoping to foster. I suppose I should add that despite my recent concerns, the at-the-table gameplay has been very good. The players for the most part are invested in their characters and the fiction. I think I brought this up now, because I've been feeling like that if I establish the next few sets of "fictional framing" wrong, that it could really be problematic for the enjoyment of the group. </p><p></p><p>Truthfully, I think @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a></u></strong></em> did an excellent job summarizing my trepidations here: </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is spot-on. The goal is very much trying to create complications that carry fictional weight, but can be directly addressed by the players through their current available resources and resolution mechanics.</p><p></p><p>I actually think that for framing the context as suggested, it would be useful to have open dialogue about how we're each viewing the current state of fiction, and what the players' expectations are. In some respects the fiction is well enough established that we'll have consensus on some things, but there will be distinct differences. I think it would be useful to discuss and negotiate those intersections of how we view the fiction and then look at how their characters can move forward to achieve their stated goals.</p><p></p><p>I'm also curious, though, about a comment @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=29398" target="_blank">Lanefan</a></u></strong></em> said early on in the thread, which was that some element of "Mother May I?" isn't necessarily a "bad" thing, or that the term is more pejorative than it really need be. To a point I think there's some truth to that. If the players are invested in the game and advocating for the characters within the fiction, I think there's naturally going to arise points along the way where the players want to have their advocacy come to fruition. Denying players the chance to really advocate for their characters generally leads to dysfunctional play. </p><p></p><p>But I think @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a></u></strong></em>'s on to something here with his roman numeral points i - iv above --- it's one thing for the players to ask for stuff, and then have the GM either say "yes" or "no." It's a much different thing to have the players ask, but the GM presents the complications in such a way that they feed in to what the players/characters have available to them mechanically to resolve those complications.</p><p></p><p>If there's no mechanical/rules-based method to resolve the presented complications, then the end result is nothing more than "direct social negotiation." If there's no way for the game mechanics to enter into the resolution process of the stated complications, than gameplay devolves to little more than the GM answering a series of questions: "Do I like this idea? Does it sound fun in context of the game? From a coherence and plausibility standpoint, will implementing this idea transform the fiction into an acceptable result state? Will the other players also find that result state acceptable?"</p><p></p><p>As long as the answer to those questions is "yes," then the GM moves forward. If not, the GM says "No, think of something else," and the process repeats. </p><p></p><p>In this light I think @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a></u></strong></em>'s right ---- it really would be better to find a way to let player action declarations influence the result state.</p><p></p><p>So while "Mother May I?" isn't as pejorative as it seems on the surface, removing players' abilities to influence outcomes through action declaration and mechanical resolution largely defeats the purpose of playing an RPG in the first place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 7556530, member: 85870"] First off, thanks to everyone who's responded so far. These are exactly the kinds of ideas and discussion I was hoping to foster. I suppose I should add that despite my recent concerns, the at-the-table gameplay has been very good. The players for the most part are invested in their characters and the fiction. I think I brought this up now, because I've been feeling like that if I establish the next few sets of "fictional framing" wrong, that it could really be problematic for the enjoyment of the group. Truthfully, I think @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I] did an excellent job summarizing my trepidations here: This is spot-on. The goal is very much trying to create complications that carry fictional weight, but can be directly addressed by the players through their current available resources and resolution mechanics. I actually think that for framing the context as suggested, it would be useful to have open dialogue about how we're each viewing the current state of fiction, and what the players' expectations are. In some respects the fiction is well enough established that we'll have consensus on some things, but there will be distinct differences. I think it would be useful to discuss and negotiate those intersections of how we view the fiction and then look at how their characters can move forward to achieve their stated goals. I'm also curious, though, about a comment @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=29398"]Lanefan[/URL][/U][/B][/I] said early on in the thread, which was that some element of "Mother May I?" isn't necessarily a "bad" thing, or that the term is more pejorative than it really need be. To a point I think there's some truth to that. If the players are invested in the game and advocating for the characters within the fiction, I think there's naturally going to arise points along the way where the players want to have their advocacy come to fruition. Denying players the chance to really advocate for their characters generally leads to dysfunctional play. But I think @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I]'s on to something here with his roman numeral points i - iv above --- it's one thing for the players to ask for stuff, and then have the GM either say "yes" or "no." It's a much different thing to have the players ask, but the GM presents the complications in such a way that they feed in to what the players/characters have available to them mechanically to resolve those complications. If there's no mechanical/rules-based method to resolve the presented complications, then the end result is nothing more than "direct social negotiation." If there's no way for the game mechanics to enter into the resolution process of the stated complications, than gameplay devolves to little more than the GM answering a series of questions: "Do I like this idea? Does it sound fun in context of the game? From a coherence and plausibility standpoint, will implementing this idea transform the fiction into an acceptable result state? Will the other players also find that result state acceptable?" As long as the answer to those questions is "yes," then the GM moves forward. If not, the GM says "No, think of something else," and the process repeats. In this light I think @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I]'s right ---- it really would be better to find a way to let player action declarations influence the result state. So while "Mother May I?" isn't as pejorative as it seems on the surface, removing players' abilities to influence outcomes through action declaration and mechanical resolution largely defeats the purpose of playing an RPG in the first place. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
Top