"Mother May I" vs "Rulings Over Rules" | Hexed Press on the OSR

I've been seeing the phrase, "Mother May I," pop up recently in various OSR-centric conversations. What does it mean?
Show Notes:
"Wilderness Adventuring Simplified" on Itch: hexedpress.itc...
"Do Anything D6" on Itch: hexedpress.itc...
Discuss it on the forums: forums.hexed.p...
*Join the Discord: / discord

[@gusl3881]

It's funny because I've always heard the phrase as a way to complain about certain failures in dungeon crawling play -- when the referee hides details or springs traps unless you quiz them on everything. Alternatively it was a 90's complaint about older style dungeon crawls because of a perception of referee antagonism and the boring response of super cautious players poking everything with a 10ft pole. E.G. "Are the stones crossing the bridge slippery? Mother May I cross safely". If you fail to ask, your party is swept away and it's all your fault because you didn't ask about all the possible risks. I think the current Reddit and related discussions is the typical confusion in that fragment of the POSR. Combine the rediscover of or lingering attitudes of High Trad design (where that sort of antagonism certainly exists, but is excused as its in service of the narrative - consider the number of times hordes of red dragons push the party back on the path in DL1 & 2) and mix with a lack of knowledge about OSR and pre-OSR design and voila "Mother May I" means not running AD&D RAW (an impossibility)...

[@HexedPress]

Great points. I’m curious as to why it has seemed to bubble up now, all of a sudden (or so it feels to me). As I wondered in a reply to another comment, are we seeing a new crop of inexperienced GMs and players and their struggles with the play style?

[@gusl3881]

I think it's just part of a general migration to "OSR" play by people unfamiliar with it. A) There seems to be a "natural" progression from looking at old systems and trying to fix them towards trad/Hickman solutions - it happened once, and without the actual innovations and ideas of OSR play to look towards it will happen again. B) The OSR was bad at giving a real set of theory and procedure to support itself, and as it moved increasingly into branded ultralight systems a lot of the procedural knowledge and standards got lost. All one would have stepping into the space now is a set of rather worn and confusing maxims that serve as in-group handshakes but don't actually teach any lessons. Those of us who are familiar with the play style should reach out more I guess?

[@dungeonmastermasterclass7311]

Not sure if this is what you were asking but FYI: "Mother, may I" is a children's game akin to Red Rover or Simon Says where the players ask a mother questions, if they can or can't do something and the mother answers totally capriciously and the player can only do the thing if the mother said yes.

[@capsandnumbers]

I feel like it could describe a ruleset! There's a game called Glitterhearts whose combat system I thought felt like this. It had defined combat moves but, at least how we played it, seemingly no rules about what order things should happen in. This made it feel like I could angle-shoot by using my defender character's abilities any time an enemy attacked just by asking to do so. To me, Mother May I describes a ruleset that's vague to the point of allowing angle-shooting.

[@28mmRPG]

In our 4D Roleplay game sessions, "Mother May I" is out-of-character questions. Questions that the player should be asking in-character to an NPC, not to an invisible Narrator. Mother may I player: "Can I sneak behind the creature while my friend, Zonk the warrior, attacks?" 4D Roleplayer: "I attempt to sneak behind the creature while Zonk battles it" The reason why we eliminate mother-may-I questions is to streamline the session, ridding us of out-of-character talk, which wastes time and pulls everyone out of the moment. If a 4D GM describes a Bedroom as "a small room with a bed and side tables and a dresser" The 4D players can do stuff like: "I walk over to the closet doors and slide them open" 4D roleplayers play "Theater of the Mind" its ok to add to the scene in a co-creative way as long as its within context. This eliminates the "Is there a closet? does it have a twisting door latch or a pull knob?" DOES IT MATTER? As a 4D GM it does not, player co-creation is awesome, but make sure you vet your players. As a 4D GM, I allow what seems "Movie-Plausible" If it’s something that would make the audience "groan". . . then your character did something WRONG!

[@HexedPress]

When a player asks me that sort of “mother may I” question, “Can I do a thing?”, my response is usually, “I don’t know, can you?” 😜

[@28mmRPG]

@@HexedPress Yeah we, as GM's, just don't reply to it. As a Narrator I just describe areas. I never talk to the player characters as a disembodied voice. That is the the true path to true roleplay.

[@evanm4754]

I think something you're missing in the so-called "player psychology" is that when it comes to performing actions within the game, many players enjoy the ability to have measurable and concrete control over what their characters can do in the game, not necessarily because they don't trust the GM.

[@gunararayhanramadhan2304]

Mother may I doesn't come from OSR but from 5e/Rules based seeing of things. It's derogatory way to refer the Rulings not Rules playstyle just like how button pushing is used in regards to charop/feats stuff or amateur theatrism to refer to narrative focused play.

[@KattKirsch]

It's that idea of being a *Referee* versus positioning yourself as a "Dungeon Master". In the latter, you're asserting control over the situation and doling out indulgences; in the former, you're simply telling players what happens. If your players are mad at you, there's ideally a verisimilitude question at play; when it's instead a question of bias or permission, not a clarification of the fantasy world's rules and laws, it feels arbitrary and ultimately parental / dismission / condescending. This to me is a early 00s 3e type beat, weird that we're circling back to it.

[@JasonHobbs]

I hear it the most from the CAG crowd used as @gusl is saying. I'm a classic adventure game rules mastery is expected and if you're negotiating everything you're holding up the game.

[@MrRourk]

It comes from GM's not holding to their beliefs. They can be moved in the moment to rule in a players favor

[@HexedPress]

And that leads towards decisions that are (or appear) arbitrary?

[@MrRourk]

@@HexedPress yes players see everything as now open to discussion.

[@HexedPress]

Hmm...

[@IanBoyte]

@@MrRourk Shouldn't everything be open to discussion?

[@MrRourk]

@@IanBoyteNo - somethings it is okay. There are times when you have to hold to beliefs.

[@sooisZA]

I think this occurs when the players do not fully realise and respect the world. If everything is clear to the bounds of what a player / character may attempt, I’ve found you need to do zero “mother may I”.

[@JadedJackalope]

I haven't seen "mother may I?" come up anywhere in regards to OSR/NSR play. But there are also lots of places I don't go to talk about games. One aspect of the whole idea that strikes me is: OSR/NSR style play is really best suited to high trust groups. Situations where you trust the judgment of the GM and your fellow players. A lot of trad play, and especially what gets reported online, assumes low trust. That's part of the reason trad games have so much rules cruft. It's offloading player trust from their peers to the rules system. So I can see criticisms of OSR/NSR play from trad hinging on "this requires trust I'm not willing to give or have even been burned for giving in the past."

[@simontemplar3359]

There's a lot to unpack here. To my ear, it always sounds like the sort of thing a teenager would say when they are told there's a curfew for them, etc. that's my bias. On the other hand, I think it comes down to understanding the folks at the table. I have one player who is very competitive and can get argumentative. To deal with that sort of player, it's more important to be consistent and stick to rules as much as you can. Even if its house rules consistency is key. That sort of player will likely also find any perceived (or actual) inconsistency to be an exacerbating factor with their frustration. It immediately comes off as capricious and unpredictable. And that will turn that player off massively. I personally prefer rulings not rules just because... Well it's codified make believe. Ordinary life has plenty of rules, best practices, policies, and procedures. Personally im not interested in more. Thats why I don't play pathfinder or even d&d. But that person i was talking about earlier, they only got salty because i messed up a rule and should have been less defensive when asked about it. So i probably said a bunch of nothing, but we helped the algorithm! Huzzah!

[@HexedPress]

Haha, for the algorithm! 😆 The phrase definitely has a pejorative vibe to it, for sure. I think building up that trust at the table, so that, whether something goes wrong or a decision just doesn’t go one way, it doesn’t cause feelings of persecution is a really important exercise.

[@Nobleshield]

I used to dislike the OSR approach (I played D&D in 1991 and 1e A&D before moving to 2e and then 3.x and finally 4e) precisely because I felt having the game rules (i.e. skills) allow you to do something was far better to the "Mother May I" approach of asking the GM if you can do something that has no codified rules and giving them all the power to decide what you are "allowed" to do, without being able to tell them the game rules are letting you do it. After giving it more thought over the years though, having less codified rules actually makes for a better overall experience assuming, of course, that your GM isn't an asshole who won't let you do things.

[@HexedPress]

Always a good assumption though sadly not always true!