Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Mother-May-I?

For two days I've thought about these three words and their relation to D&D, a connection made by Dennis Laffey.

Mother-may-I is a children's game; I will leave the rules and description to wikipedia.  In D&D, with players hammering at the DM with questions and challenges, the DM can be made to feel under siege.  Each player's proposal of, "Can my character do this?" demands a ruling ... a ruling that may go sour for the DM, if the player responds with resentment or outright rebellion:

"HEY, you let Barry do his thing, how come suddenly I can't do MY THING!?"

If the DM's permissive, players will vie to top themselves, inventing wilder, more imaginative things for their characters to try.  This quickly gets out of hand, until any former rules have been circumvented past the point of controlling the game ... inspiring some DMs to argue "rulings not rules," a policy doomed to failure eventually, since the players have the ultimate emotional leverage they need over the DM to force compliance with their expectations.  Take note that when reading some pundit online praising rulings, they're talking through their hat.  Either they're discounting their history games smashed by ruling disputes (something that is constant in games where the DM has absolute power), or they are side-stepping their grateful knowledge that outsiders can't see their games and judge them for the silly, sloppy half-baked get-togethers they are.  Not to mention that many of the "rulings not rules" crowd would be somewhat embarrassed to admit that as a DM they're no more than their players' bitch.

If you're find yourself running a game where the players are playing "mother-may-I" with you, best you understand up front that it's your fault.  You did not draw a firm enough line, forcing them to play the game by the rules.  Rather than rebuff your friends, and say "no," when it needed to be said, you've been the classic permissive parent, progressively moving to a place where you'd rather spoil your players than disappoint them.

It can be a hard thing.  Your player wants to hold a torch and their shield in the same hand (a misunderstanding of "strapped to the arm") and when you say "no," you can see the fleeting disappointment and frustration in their eyes as they realise, they're going to have to ditch their shield in favour of a light.  This is a moment for you as a DM.  Relent, and sooner or later you're going to be the players' lap dog.  Stand your ground, and you're an asshole.  Wow, sounds like a lose-lose.  What are you going to do?

Much trouble for people stems from the belief that before others can like us, we have to do things that will make them like us.  From there, we add a tinge of the golden rule, that states, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  You wouldn't want your ideas as a player refused, would you?  So as a DM, you want to give to the players what you'd have a DM give to you.

This is bad policy.

Cue going around the barn.

Last week, I considered an essay about why I didn't quit D&D way back in the 80s, in my university years.  Stuck for the words, I decided to search examples on that theme from others describing why they didn't quit ... I couldn't find a one.  But I did find a spectacular collection of people's stories telling why they did quit.   The political scientist Ray Wolfinger wrote that, "The plural of anecdote is data" ... and there is a sensational amount of data out there.  A games-theorist's thesis could be written on why humans quit role-playing games.

The individual anecdotes don't matter ... but the presence of so many people who rush to agree that this is why they also quit, with such weight on side of quitting and very, very little written on not quitting, it's hard not to see a pattern.  Most stories naturally revolve around various conflicts: certain players, constant arguing, players blowing up in anger when not getting their way ... nothing we haven't all witnessed personally.  Such is a testament to DMs not knowing how to handle their players; yet I'm perfectly sure that these DMs tried to please their players.  That's evident in how hurt they were as they described their player's betrayals, unreasonable expectations and resentment.

Betrayal is a violation of a presumptive contract.  For example, we make a bunch of concessions to one of our players, Carson.  Yet, he always seems to want more.  He never acknowledges anything we've done so far.  We presume he understood those things were concessions; we presume he remembers them; we presume he is keeping them in mind when he asks for something new.  The more we presume, the more it begins to look like Carson doesn't care that we do anything for him.  In fact, he's sort of a jerk.  An especially rotten one because he knows we did this shit for him and he's deliberately ignoring that!  What an asshole!

So it goes, round and round in our heads, while Carson thinks he's just running in a game, that we're just being his DM, that we haven't make "concessions" because he supposes this is business as usual.  He has no idea we're doing favours for him, because he doesn't see them as "favours."  This is what doesn't work about trying to make others like us.  If it's not plainly stated, our actions don't look to others as they do to ourselves.

And if we do plainly state that we're trying to make someone like us, well ... that's squicky.

DMing is not a friendship role.  It is not a co-equal role.  DMing is a leadership role; and one of the truths about being a leader is it doesn't matter a good goddamn if, as leaders, we're liked.  In fact, we can be actively hated.  That doesn't matter.  To lead, we don't need to be liked, we need to be respected ... which means we must do things that earn respect.  Holding our ground on things we believe — even if that makes us hated — is key to that respect.

DMing players forces us to interact with players in a very specific way that many, many people cannot do.  For some, the idea is anathema to their belief system.  Some are too timid.  Some have the potential, but haven't worked out this is just what's needed to clear the road and make games move steadily forward.  Still others have a warped, damaged sense of what goals are meant to be achieved.

An effective DM must have the capacity to make players obey.

Just those words can send a wave of fury through some readers.  Others are saying, "what?"  The rest are thinking, "damn straight."

Let's leave this here.  See what shakes out and I'll continue this line if there's any point in it.

7 comments:

  1. So timely. I just read a post on social media the had my blood boiling. A DM was remembering the good old days of 20 years ago when his party was all on the same page except one guy who was just there for a larf. He called him the comedian.

    I call him the narcissistic asshole. That kind of player is just there to be the center of attention, blow everything up and ruin it for everyone else.

    The DM recalled how the comedian didn’t like the consequences of his just-for-laughs actions and when finally forced to confront them, blew up to the point that he had to be taken outside. The story ended with “the funny part is he refused to pay and the rest of the party fronted his bill.”

    Yeah. Fricken hi-larious, that is. I bet the other players just loved that.

    This was not told in a “man his guy was a dick” kind of way, but as a “ah, good times” story.

    I don’t know who I wanted to punch in the face more - the comedian or the DM.

    Link is here, if you care.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/CQMP4P_BrI5/?utm_medium=copy_link

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it's hard to see oneself in a leadership role when no one has vested you with any authority. I know it's hard for me.

    The AD&D parody RPG "Hackmaster" had this whole song-and-dance about being granted authority (or "a license to DM") by dint of purchasing the book, reading the rules, and sending money to the company. It played this kind of thing for jokes, but there's a kernel of something there. What gives us the right to play God at the table? What gives us the permission (and responsibility) to lead the players?

    The fact that we put in the work on prepping the game? The fact that we ponied up the money for a couple extra books (over what the players bought?)?

    Maybe permissiveness is seen (consciously or unconsciously) as a means of generating "buy-in" from the players, so that they will invest us with authority. You're absolutely right in that it doesn't work...but if the only evidence of authority is players showing up to the table, and the players threaten to leave upon not getting their way, I see how a DM could buckle.

    I get the solution may be as simple (and as hard) as "just run a kick-ass game." Just saying that, even then, it can be hard to feel like a leader when you're constantly waiting for the approval and acknowledgement of your players. Other leadership positions achieved in life (elected politicians, promoted officers, hired managers) aren't beholden to the people they lead for their authority. Not in the same practical sense that a DM is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're wrong if you really believe that people in authority owe their leadership to their "achievements." Of course they're beholden to the people they lead.

    Leaders aren't people who have been given authority. Giving authority to someone doesn't make them a leader. A leader is the person who, in a time of need, picks up the flag and says, "Follow me!" If that person IS someone who engenders trust, faith and courage, others WILL follow them; if they are not that person, then people won't follow.

    We make ourselves leaders, by possessing the necessary traits and ideals that inspire others to trust us. You're not born into that, you're not invested with that by others. Through acquiring the right sense of duty and honour, you become it.

    For heaven's sake, watch some Gilbert & Sullivan.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't honestly say that the connection to Mother-may-I was an original idea of mine. Ten years ago or so, when Finch put out his Old School Primer, there was much discussion of his use of the term "rulings, not rules" with a lot of the new school D&D fans suggesting that a rule set that doesn't try to be comprehensive and doesn't provide a universal mechanic to cover all those uncovered cases that will pop up is just playing MMI. And of course the argument ended up, as I recall, with lots of people saying it must be one extreme or the other, no wiggle room. Which is pretty silly.

    I'm thinking over what (I remember) was said back then, and what you've written in your post here. And I am working out in my head a post for my blog about the wiggle room around rulings. What I think they're good for, when I think they should be used and when they should not be used, and when the ruling should become a rule. But I'm also in the middle of grading final presentations, so it may take me a few days to get the post out. It's not something I need to explain to you, so that's why I'm putting it on my blog, not as a reply.

    As for your points here, that the DM needs to maintain control of the game, and must be able to say No, is one I agree with. Another pithy saying I see often on RPG blogs and social media is the improv based rule of "Say yes or roll the dice" which really doesn't have a place in RPGs. Sometimes, you just have to quote Nancy Reagan to your players.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You know, I actually played Ralph Rackstraw in H.M.S. Pinafore...many, many years ago...

    I understand your point Alexis. I just think being vested with authority makes it easier. Institutions, ritual...these things have power. Yes, ultimately leaders are beholden to the people they are supposed to lead. But I've seen plenty of folks pick up a flag and say "Follow me!" and seen the proles ask "Why? Who the hell put you in charge?"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Simon Sinek's quote say in no uncertain terms that shouting "Follow me!" is NOT being a leader. And the quote also shows that a leader is not "in charge."

    Until you adjust your definitions, JB, you will continue to think as you do.

    ReplyDelete

If you wish to leave a comment on this blog, contact alexiss1@telus.net with a direct message. Comments, agreed upon by reader and author, are published every Saturday.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.