To understand the concept of “Mother, May I?” in RPG design, start by looking at the D&D combat system: This system is based on a complete game structure with predefined actions sorted into an initiative system. The players don’t have to ask the DM if they can attack with their sword or even how the attack with the sword will be resolved — that’s all baked into the system.

Compare that to, say, a PC running a tavern. The player says something like, “I want to get some new types of ale on tap to attract new customers.” Everything about that interaction requires the DM to make rulings: How do they find new types of ale? What types? Does this actually let them attract new customers? How many? What effect do these customers have on their business? The player is effectively going to the DM, hat in hand, and asking them to let them do the thing they want to do.

If we wanted to eliminate Mother, May I?, there are a couple ways we could do that:

1. Try to bake everything into the rules so that every interaction works like combat (with predefined actions, etc.).
2. Create a storytelling game instead, codifying a distribution of narrative control so that a player can, for example, declare the existence of certain brands of ale.

Once broken down like this, we can really begin interrogating the idea that Mother, May I? is an inherently bad thing. Storytelling games are great fun, but they’re not the totality of narrative tabletop games. And the first option is actually impossible without stringently limiting the scope of the game. What makes an RPG special (and distinct from board games like Descent or Gloomhaven) is, in fact, the player’s ability to have their character do anything they can imagine, and it’s the GM’s ability to make flexible and responsive rulings that make that possible.

On the other hand, it can still be valuable to think about the effect that Mother, May I? can have on play. Because, in my experience, players do have a predilection towards structure.

For example, consider running away from a fight. One of the reasons players tend not to do that is because it means exiting a structure of play (combat) where they feel like they have control over their actions and, therefore, the outcome, instead entering a Mother, May I? mode of play in which they’re basically just asking the GM to make a ruling that they won’t be killed.

By contrast, the original 1974 edition of D&D had an explicit Escape/Pursuit structure you can use to resolve fleeing from combat. When I tell players this system exists (and how it works), suddenly they start running away from fights. I put these same players back into a D&D 3E or 5E game and the running away disappears again.

So even though Mother, May I? is the secret sauce that makes it possible for a player to do literally anything they can imagine, it turns out that, paradoxically, selectively adding structure in the right places can actually expand the scope of play.

Even more importantly, it turns out, in my experience, that flexible structures designed to empower GM rulings rather than trying to box the GM completely out of the process are usually the best, reducing unnecessary crunch while simultaneously creating richer play driven by player creativity.

THE GM’S ROLE

If you’re a GM, though, what can you learn from the principles of Mother, May I?

First, it’s always useful to remember that when players propose an action, they are almost always doing so because, if the action is successful, they think the outcome will be fun. So it’s almost always a good idea to Default to Yes:

With that being said, the players are not always right about this. And players also want the thrill of risk and the sweet taste of victory. Plus, the consequences of failure are interesting and vital to a well-rounded and entertaining experience. So don’t fall into the trap of always saying yes. Your judgment is of vital importance at the gaming table.

More advanced GMs can also keep an eye out for complex actions, particularly those that have become or might become a common part of play. When these situations arise, rather thank just making a one-off ruling (e.g., “make a check at Challenging difficulty”), think about how you could instead create a structure that could consistently handle these situations. Even better if you can make the structure player-facing, so that they can make meaningful decisions within the structure.

Remember that these structures don’t have to be terribly complex, and it’s more than all right if they’re a little loose and flexible. For example, consider our earlier example of the PCs running a tavern. A simple structure might look something like this:

• Rate the business in terms of its weekly income.
• Create additional tiers of income (both above and below the current income) – e.g., 10 gp, 25 gp, 50 gp, 100 gp, 250 gp, 500 gp, etc.
• Players who make an investment or improvement to the business can make a skill check to advance the income tier.

When trying to figure out a structure like this, there are a couple of useful rules of thumb:

• Can the players use this structure to proactively take action? (e.g., creating a cool new feature of the tavern to spend investment cash or trying to track down new types of ale to feature on tap)
• Can you hang scenario hooks off of it? (e.g., the PCs learn that the lost recipe for dwarven moon mead might be found within the ruins of Khunbaral).

If one or both of these are true, then your structure will have the capacity to spark creativity and integrate itself into the wider experience of play. (As opposed to mindless dice-rolling in a disconnected minigame.)

Not all such structures need to be player-known, but, as noted above, it’s often the case that making a structure player-known can be the quickest way to get players to engage with it and begin exploring its possibilities.

Over time, you may find one of these structures becoming an increasingly central or frequent part of play. If so, you’ll likely want to add additional details or features in response to what’s happening at the table. Or you might find flaws or shortcomings that need to be fixed. For example, maybe each tier becomes a progress clock instead of a single skill check. Or we could add the concept of a crisis (competition, larceny, natural disaster, recession, supplier shortages, etc.) that could either impose a one-time cost or even reduce the income tier of the business.

Thought of the Day: Rewarding Strategic Goals vs. Tactical Methods Thought of the Day – Introductory Adventures Thought of the Day – Margin of Success in Eclipse Phase