I'm not sure who coined the term 'Mother May I Gaming', but I've always considered it a apt one to describe what these days seem to be a very common type of play- one that removes objective information from the game and along with it the ability of the players to make decisions based upon that information. With respect to RPGs, the concept is at most basic an appeal to authority to grant something that the player by any normal gaming approach should be able to do for himself- but isn't allowed to. Or to do something the player isn't allowed to, but wants to anyway.
Time for some examples.
Example 1
Let's take a very common one from way back, AD&D (and 3.x) gave ranges for its spell effects right in the player guide- and thus would be information one would think the player could act upon. The rules also detailed movement rates. The traditional and objective method for keeping track of and using such details is a grid with miniatures although drawn maps and/or other types of markers could be (and often were) used. The important point is the that player using the information in the player's guide, the playing grid and the starting setup provided by the GM could completely and without the GM's input or permission determine if he was in spell range or not, he could also determine the effect from his movement on his own. And he could also predict (and thus take into account) the movement options of others (assuming he knew how fast they moved). That is, he had the tools to make tactical decisions on his own, one up to date with each passing action.
The GM has no input, other than making sure the player are using the rules correctly. A good section of the game was actually out of the GM's control and passed to the player.
However many GM's refuse to use a grid and miniatures, and instead just 'mentally keep track' of everything in his own head. In this case the player is forced to constantly ask the GM for information he should already have, such as "Am I within Magic Missile Range?".
This is Mother May I. It removes the player's access to direct information and the ability to act independently upon it- instead turning the game into one of asking the GM if this or that can be done. A GM that I might add that really isn't keeping a good objective model of what's really going on himself but is instead just estimating everything. There is no real certainity he's correct or even close in his decisions (except in the most simple cases- basically two dimensional hallway fights) and indeed it's highly likely he's inaccurate on the scale of the game as presented by the rules.
In general, the more rules are ignored (or not present) and the more objective information is moved to the GM instead of being displayed to the player, the greater the degree of Mother May I we see.
Example 2
Many GM's don't feel themselves limited by the rules, and make up new ones on the fly sometimes due to a player's request. For example in a game system too abstract to consider (i.e it doesn't have rules for) throwing dirt your opponents eyes, the GM will suddenly allow just that at the player's request.
Not only is this basically breaking the rules of the game (can you imagine an on the fly call at the Superbowel allowing a team to score a touchdown by first throwing the ball to a fan who then throws it to player?), it also makes the tactical situation on the board unpredicatable as in-game reality itself changes from moment to moment. Tactics isn't making stuff up, it's predicting the actions of your foe and taking the best option in response. When completely new actions can suddenly be created- prediction becomes impossible and tactics worthless.
Instead victory is to be had by finding a new method the GM will agree to. Again Mother May I.
Some groups are good with Mother May I, and games based around the concept are certainly easy to design or use- being but one step removed from children games such as Cops and Robbers. I however find it rather pointless, if I can't have objective information to act upon as a player- I have no desire to play. Watching a movie or a TV show gives me nearly the same degree of control, and are more fun besides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Brilliant post! It clarifies a lot of issues I have with those styles of gaming.
Other problems I have are when the GM has something in his mental picture that he doesn't communicate effectively. He may have mentioned that they have trees in pots but neglected to say that those pots were 4' high and 5' around. The players may have been thinking closer to a small ficus in a pot. You have to ask for clarification on everything or risk failure due to faulty information. And that doesn't cover the time when a GM forgets to give the information in the first place.
Even with a map there can be issues with this, but much less often.
I'll admit to not using a grid, so the players have to do some estimation, but I do use miniatures and adjudication is by tape measure, not by gamesmaster guess.
A tape measure is as good as a grid in my mind.
As is a too-scale drawing (but those are hard to keep up with if things are changing a bunch).
Post a Comment