Mother May I Gaming

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.

Star Trek Online- the Weakness of MMORPGs

I actually rather like the MMORPG Star Trek Online, however a cute sig on one of the forum posts reminded me of one of the game's failings. That being the lack of a Tier 5 (i.e the top level of ships in the game) Constitution class ship (either original or movie refit). There are many player who say such a thing would ruin their immersion in the game because according to 'canon' the design wasn't in use in the time frame the game is set in it.


Quoting the sig by thecosmic1:

"STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game."

A perfect summary of the current state of the game. About the only thing I'd add is the fact that it already includes a Tier 5 Original Show Klingon D7 and the T5 Andorian ship from the show Enterprise (set almost a hundred years before the the original show).

The worst thing about anything (MMORPGs, PnP RPG, etc) are the other players. No matter what, there's  a vocal group who hate whatever is done.

Which is why I think games are best at the small group level where they can control what is and is not accepted between themselves. For myself, this is the real joy of PnP RPGs over MMORPGs, one owns and controls system and setting. It's the one place you don't have to put up with the greater stupidity of the world and can do your own thing.
  Note: There is same claim that the reason for the game lacking a T5 Constitution is that CBS (they owns the IP) will not allow it. I don't know how accurate that statement is.