D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Celebrim]

We disagree.

Obviously.

I feel it is reasonable for the PC to speak up when the DM shows they have a different assumption.

There is nothing unreasonable about speaking up, though if it were me I'd do it in the form of a question out of respect to the GM. "I'm wearing travelling gear, wouldn't I also be wearing gloves?" I'd at least give the GM the benefit of the doubt and want to hear out his reasoning.

And if I thought he was wrong, I wouldn't stop the game to argue it. I'm not going to be that guy that's pulling this sort of stunt in the middle of a convention table in front of strangers, eating up 15 minutes of the session everyone else is paying for. I'd probably shrug and let it pass, or if it really bothered me I'd probably bring it up privately after the session.

But I don't think you understood what we really disagree on, because then you go and say this.

I am not so sure. If we go from the 5e PH, the traveler's clothes are not defined beyond price and which backgrounds start with them.

I don't think this is a case of the PC asking for something that contradicts a description in the PH rules.

I agree.

But you have continued here to argue on the absence of evidence. You aren't bring forward any positive evidence. Just because nothing contradicts the possibility that gloves are part of the clothing does not mean that there are gloves. You can't retcon on the basis of the absence of evidence. This is like VAR in soccer. If you want to overturn the referee's call on the field you have to present definitive evidence that the call is wrong. The GM and not the player is wearing the referee hat. The GM's call and not the players call is the one that has authority. The GM is the referee. Everyone that is sitting at the table agreed to that implicitly and explicitly. Arguing with the referee is just poor sportsmanship.

The consequence here hinges on whether the PC is wearing gloves or not. A previously undeclared detail the DM then decided by declaration.

Which the DM has every right to do. The DM has every right to decide by fiat whatever is vague or debatable or unstated or unknown.

And if I'm the other player sitting at this table while you are arguing with the GM, I'm really wishing that in addition to filing a review of the GM with the convention, I can file a review of the player and ask that they never again be allowed to waste my time. And if you are a friend pulling that stunt, I'm like, "Just roll the dice and get on with the game.", the same way I feel when parents are yelling at the referee in a soccer game about every single call as if they could do a better job or something. And 90% of the time, the parents are just flat out wrong because the laws of the game aren't that the player who went down harder was the one that committed the foul, which almost every parent seems to think.

 

[Lanefan]

We disagree.

I feel it is reasonable for the PC to speak up when the DM shows they have a different assumption.

Indeed. The question then becomes one of whose assumption takes priority, and good arguments can be made either way.

The only way to avoid this is to granularize these things such that whether or not the character is even carrying gloves is settled long before this specific situation arises.

I am not so sure. If we go from the 5e PH, the traveler's clothes are not defined beyond price and which backgrounds start with them.

I don't think this is a case of the PC asking for something that contradicts a description in the PH rules.

Contextually, I could agree or disagree. If the adventure's taking place in a warm climate or the height of summer, one could easily assume travellers' clothes don't include gloves, high boots, or any other such things. If, however, it's in a cold climate or in mid-winter then gloves as a part of the travellers' kit would make tons of sense, as would high boots, a cloak, and so forth.

The consequence here hinges on whether the PC is wearing gloves or not. A previously undeclared detail the DM then decided by declaration.

Yeah, the actual wearing of the gloves is a separate issue that only arises once it's determined the character has any to wear.

 

[Alzrius]

Agency as in actions and choices, and then enjoying or suffering the consequences of those actions and choices. The granularity of how one makes choices or takes actions will vary from game to game, and degree to which consequences will re-establish the game state will also vary. An attack that has the effect of moving your PC 5ft isn't an infringement on their agency, it is the result of a mechanism in the game.

And I've made it clear that I think this is an artificial distinction, one that strikes me as being overly parsimonious in how it defines player agency and its violation. While there's certainly a difference to be iterated with regard to something that happens as a result of a mechanical process of the game's functions, and something that happens due to DM arbitration, both necessarily involve things happening to the player's character that they don't necessarily want to happen. Hence, both violate their agency.

All that is to say: I don't think you have adequately explained or displayed how the GM must sometimes remove PLAYER agency that isn't just a result of game state consequences.

I disagree; as noted before, I think game state consequences unto themselves can violate (not remove) player agency as a function of playing the game. Even leaving aside unambiguous mechanics, the OP of this thread denotes an area where the DM steps in as a result of the circumstances of a scenario are unclear, adjudicating things in a way the player might not like with regard to what the PC is doing/has done and what happens.

To put it another way, I don't think you've adequately explained exactly what you think "violating player agency" means, with regard to play.

 

[Lanefan]

And I've made it clear that I think this is an artificial distinction, one that strikes me as being overly parsimonious in how it defines player agency and its violation. While there's certainly a difference to be iterated with regard to something that happens as a result of a mechanical process of the game's functions, and something that happens due to DM arbitration, both necessarily involve things happening to the player's character that they don't necessarily want to happen. Hence, both violate their agency.

That's a far broader definition of player agency than any other I've seen.

So if I'm reading you right here, when a PC's in combat and my Orc hits him for 8 points damage I've violated his player's agency?

Sorry, but no.

Player agency is what allows the player to decide when or how to engage in that combat in the first place, and to decide what tactics or moves or whatever to use once engaged. In short, player agency is what allows players to declare actions for their characters. Exercising this agency also includes acceptance of any consequences of those declared actions, be those consequences positive, negative, or neutral and regardless of whether those consequences arrive via game-state mechanics, DM (or, sometimes, other-player) narration, or some combination of these.

 

[Reynard]

And I've made it clear that I think this is an artificial distinction, one that strikes me as being overly parsimonious in how it defines player agency and its violation. While there's certainly a difference to be iterated with regard to something that happens as a result of a mechanical process of the game's functions, and something that happens due to DM arbitration, both necessarily involve things happening to the player's character that they don't necessarily want to happen. Hence, both violate their agency.


I disagree; as noted before, I think game state consequences unto themselves can violate (not remove) player agency as a function of playing the game. Even leaving aside unambiguous mechanics, the OP of this thread denotes an area where the DM steps in as a result of the circumstances of a scenario are unclear, adjudicating things in a way the player might not like with regard to what the PC is doing/has done and what happens.

To put it another way, I don't think you've adequately explained exactly what you think "violating player agency" means, with regard to play.

Fair enough: player agency is the ability of the player -- upon being presented with a particular game state -- to make choices for what their character will attempt to do in that game state. It does not imply some sort of anything goes attitude. Saying "my first level fighter flies across country to get a lay of the land" is (normally) not a reasonably choice in the game state, so saying "No" is not an act of limiting player agency. The Gm saying "The Duke orders you to give up your arms before entering the great hall and you do so," is a violation of player agency because the player could choose to have their character refuse. If instead it was the Duke's evil vizier who cast a spell on the PC and the PC failed the save, then it would also not be a violation of player agency because the game state (ostensibly in this example) doesn't allow for the choice of refusal.

I think I understand that you are saying that that last example is a place where the game forces the GM to take away player agency, and if we were to define it that way, sure, I would agree. But that is not how I am using the term.

 

[Celebrim]

Hence, both violate their agency.

You are confusing agency and consent.

D&D is to my knowledge never played as a full consent game. When you play D&D you are implicitly consenting to the idea that certain kinds of bad things can happen to your character, including failure, injury, death and dismemberment (but at most tables not including sexual acts, for example).

Generally in a "full consent" game all participants have to agree to the consequences of all actions - your character can't die in a scene unless you agree to it, for example. This is more typical in LARPing, although even in LARP you can call in a judge/arbiter and agree to abide by his rulings and the consequences.

Things can violate your consent without violating your agency. For example if you step on a pit trap, you can fall 60' down in the fiction to a cracking hard landing quite without your consent, and generally it's accepted that it's OK for the GM to narrate you as you fall down. Some tables do hand off narration to players and share that burden and it is generally good practice for a GM to leave to the player to narrate the characters responses to consequences, but if your PC slips on stairs it's not normally considered a violation of your agency if a GM narrates you tumbling down the stairs head over heels even if that doesn't fit the self-image of your PC very well.

But I would much prefer if you want to discuss as volatile topic as consent, that you fork out from this already controversial one of fiat rulings, DM authority, and how to adjudicate player abstract propositions.

 

[Mort]

My personal take (quite late to the discussion):

In the OP it seems the DM dictated the scenario ASSUMING the character in question was not wearing gloves. If that had been established prior, then sure, no gloves.

But if it had not come up that session or otherwise recently? Then it seems the DM jumped the gun a bit and the player really should be able to interject that tidbit (essentially as an interrupt) about his character.

This isn't a situation that will come up very often, and in those situations, I prefer to defer somewhat to the player's benefit (after all, I will have many, many more opportunities to make their PCs lives miserable!)

And if it is coming up a lot? Maybe the DM needs to examine his narration style and ensure he's not jumping the gun too often and making unwarranted assumptions about the PCs?

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm all about player agency, but the player's agency over what came before ends once something happens after. Once the consequence is known, it's simply too late for the player to retcon anything that could change that consequence...with the exception being cases where the DM has made a clear and obvious error.

An example, to both show my point and where-how an exception might arise:

Situation: there's a hallway that a PC wants to get to the end of. Halfway alogn it is a pit trap covered by a permanent ilusion of the floor.

Character A "I go to the end of the hall and check the door there"; and falls into the pit. Player protests "But I would have been using my sword to tap the floor in front of me!" DM: "You've never done that before, why would you suddenly start now? Nope." NO retcon.

Character B "I go to the end of the hall and check the door there"; and falls into the pit. Player protests "But I've got this headband that gives me true sight - I'd have seen through that illusion all day long!" DM: "Oops - I forgot about that. Yes, you saw a big hole in the floor halfway along." Valid retcon due to DM error.

Disagree. Alignment is largely defined by actions; meaning that while you-as-player can write "Lawful Good" on your character sheet in big neon letters if you want, if your actions tend to generally be chaotic and not-good then an alignment check e.g. via someone casting Know Alignment will reflect that.

I would rule the same way for similar reasons no matter how reasoned the "but I would have done x" was simply to avoid turning the game into "lets see what retcon bob can imagine this time" & encourage players to be proactive with these kinds of roleplay & fluff actions.

@Ruin Explorer I think we can both agree that wool gloves intended to keep hands warm & prevent frostbite in the cold is a very different thing from reinforced kevlar gloves that will hopefully keep fingers attached if they are blasted by an explosion. One is pretty mundane but the other is closer to a magic item & that was my point.

 

[Alzrius]

Fair enough: player agency is the ability of the player -- upon being presented with a particular game state -- to make choices for what their character will attempt to do in that game state. It does not imply some sort of anything goes attitude. Saying "my first level fighter flies across country to get a lay of the land" is (normally) not a reasonably choice in the game state, so saying "No" is not an act of limiting player agency. The Gm saying "The Duke orders you to give up your arms before entering the great hall and you do so," is a violation of player agency because the player could choose to have their character refuse. If instead it was the Duke's evil vizier who cast a spell on the PC and the PC failed the save, then it would also not be a violation of player agency because the game state (ostensibly in this example) doesn't allow for the choice of refusal.

I think I understand that you are saying that that last example is a place where the game forces the GM to take away player agency, and if we were to define it that way, sure, I would agree. But that is not how I am using the term.

Okay, but earlier in the thread you objected to the idea that a middling result on a roll to detect contact poison would mean that "the PC doesn't think to take their gloves off in time, and the poison seeps through them," on the grounds that that was a violation of player agency. So is that not an issue of the PC accepting consequences ahead of time? Or does the paradigm change if the player doesn't know what's happening but is still allowed a roll of realize/affect the scenario in question? Because the original idea that you said violated agency doesn't seem like it conflicts with what you've posted here.

That's a far broader definition of player agency than any other I've seen.

So if I'm reading you right here, when a PC's in combat and my Orc hits him for 8 points damage I've violated his player's agency?

Sorry, but no.

Player agency is what allows the player to decide when or how to engage in that combat in the first place, and to decide what tactics or moves or whatever to use once engaged. In short, player agency is what allows players to declare actions for their characters. Exercising this agency also includes acceptance of any consequences of those declared actions, be those consequences positive, negative, or neutral and regardless of whether those consequences arrive via game-state mechanics, DM (or, sometimes, other-player) narration, or some combination of these.

Again, I want to point out that this particular line of discussion was brought up with regard to the idea that a player who receives a roll to notice a contact poison, and gets a "middling" result has still been affected because they didn't realize it was seeping through their gloves, was a violation of the player's agency. In that regard, the idea was presented as being that the roll and its adjudicated results were still insufficient to protect the player's agency, insofar as them meaning that something bad had happened to the PC (which the player presumably didn't want to happen).

Now, if you want to define "agency" in this context as "attempting to do anything" (insofar as your own PC goes), and not with regard to what happens to them, that's certainly a reasonable way to look at the issue. But with regard to the topic under discussion, it's only somewhat germane to this thread; the idea that the PC has agency has been brought up in a context that is, at best, orthogonal to that. Hence the issue of Schrodinger's gloves and what their potential existence means for the PC that opened the contact poison-smeared chest.

You are confusing agency and consent.

D&D is to my knowledge never played as a full consent game.

Not until recently, but this is a push that seems to be gaining traction in certain circles (largely as an outgrowth of an increased focus on narrativism, at least as I've seen it).

 

[Reynard]

Okay, but earlier in the thread you objected to the idea that a middling result on a roll to detect contact poison would mean that "the PC doesn't think to take their gloves off in time, and the poison seeps through them," on the grounds that that was a violation of player agency. So is that not an issue of the PC accepting consequences ahead of time? Or does the paradigm change if the player doesn't know what's happening but is still allowed a roll of realize/affect the scenario in question? Because the original idea that you said violated agency doesn't seem like it conflicts with what you've posted here.

This is a problem because the GM is narrating what a PC thinks. Only the player of that PC. has that authority