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: 7558406" data-attributes="member: 85870"><p>The issue of "Mother May I?" is muddy, obviously. That said, from my perspective there's a clear set of procedural steps, or sequences, that seem to be common to it: </p><p></p><p>1. <em>Player proposes an action/intent for his or her character</em></p><p>2. <em>GM makes a determination of some kind about how to resolve the action declaration.</em></p><p></p><p>2.a. Is the stated action declaration even possible in the context of the agreed upon genre conventions? E.g., the player isn't asking for the Millennium Falcon to come out of hyperspace and destroy the Tarrasque if we're playing a Forgotten Realms campaign. </p><p></p><p>2.b. Even if theoretically possible, is the stated action declaration congruent with prior play state(s)? E.g., a player declaring, "I use the Knife of Ogre Slaying +7 I found in my pocket to attack the two ogres on my right" when no prior fiction established the presence of the +7 weapon. </p><p></p><p>(For the record, I don't think 2a or 2b constitute violations of the "Mother May I?" principle, it's just general bad form on the part of the player to make these kinds of declarations. After eliminating the general potentiality of the absurd, things get a bit trickier.) </p><p></p><p>2.c. Does the stated action declaration properly address relevant fictional positioning? For example, the player declares that their character wishes to persuade a minor noble who the character previously insulted, which should at the very least involve some complication to the attempt. Or, say a player expresses that their character tries to woo the barmaid in the middle of a tavern brawl. Certainly possible contextually, but not directly addressing the current obstacle (not getting the character's head bashed in). </p><p>--2.c.i. If 2.c. doesn't appear congruent on the surface, is it something that can be clarified by the GM providing more information/context around the current fictional positioning? </p><p></p><p>2.d. Does the GM deem the action declaration important enough and relevant enough to the current stakes to warrant taking the time to adjudicate the success or failure? In other words, is a simple "Yes!" response from the GM sufficient?</p><p></p><p>2.e. Does the action declaration have a mechanical "plugin" that can adjudicate the declared action? In come cases this may supersede point 2.c.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But truthfully, anywhere down the decision tree until point 2.e. could theoretically be nixed outright by the GM, for whatever perceivable reason(s) he or she deems. So just how much negotiation happening between points 2.a. and 2.e. would be considered "Mother May I?" How much of the onus is on the GM to provide relevant, critical information regarding the current fictional state, and how much of the onus is on the player to find the right balance between asking for too much vs. asking for too little?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is an interesting example, because as a player, my first instinct would be to immediately declare, "I would like to recover my shard without instigating violence." Would you have seen this as a possible action declaration? Why or why not? Would the PC in question have been allowed to make a diplomacy/persuasion check of any kind to resolve that action?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 7558406, member: 85870"] The issue of "Mother May I?" is muddy, obviously. That said, from my perspective there's a clear set of procedural steps, or sequences, that seem to be common to it: 1. [I]Player proposes an action/intent for his or her character[/I] 2. [I]GM makes a determination of some kind about how to resolve the action declaration.[/I] 2.a. Is the stated action declaration even possible in the context of the agreed upon genre conventions? E.g., the player isn't asking for the Millennium Falcon to come out of hyperspace and destroy the Tarrasque if we're playing a Forgotten Realms campaign. 2.b. Even if theoretically possible, is the stated action declaration congruent with prior play state(s)? E.g., a player declaring, "I use the Knife of Ogre Slaying +7 I found in my pocket to attack the two ogres on my right" when no prior fiction established the presence of the +7 weapon. (For the record, I don't think 2a or 2b constitute violations of the "Mother May I?" principle, it's just general bad form on the part of the player to make these kinds of declarations. After eliminating the general potentiality of the absurd, things get a bit trickier.) 2.c. Does the stated action declaration properly address relevant fictional positioning? For example, the player declares that their character wishes to persuade a minor noble who the character previously insulted, which should at the very least involve some complication to the attempt. Or, say a player expresses that their character tries to woo the barmaid in the middle of a tavern brawl. Certainly possible contextually, but not directly addressing the current obstacle (not getting the character's head bashed in). --2.c.i. If 2.c. doesn't appear congruent on the surface, is it something that can be clarified by the GM providing more information/context around the current fictional positioning? 2.d. Does the GM deem the action declaration important enough and relevant enough to the current stakes to warrant taking the time to adjudicate the success or failure? In other words, is a simple "Yes!" response from the GM sufficient? 2.e. Does the action declaration have a mechanical "plugin" that can adjudicate the declared action? In come cases this may supersede point 2.c. But truthfully, anywhere down the decision tree until point 2.e. could theoretically be nixed outright by the GM, for whatever perceivable reason(s) he or she deems. So just how much negotiation happening between points 2.a. and 2.e. would be considered "Mother May I?" How much of the onus is on the GM to provide relevant, critical information regarding the current fictional state, and how much of the onus is on the player to find the right balance between asking for too much vs. asking for too little? This is an interesting example, because as a player, my first instinct would be to immediately declare, "I would like to recover my shard without instigating violence." Would you have seen this as a possible action declaration? Why or why not? Would the PC in question have been allowed to make a diplomacy/persuasion check of any kind to resolve that action? [/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