Wouldn't that have been established before hand? Like, they could see that there were warships blocking access to the port? I think that's a little different. If the DM introduced the barricade simply to block the request because he doesn't want the characters to leave the city yet because there's "more to do"... then that's something else entirely.
But, either way, I would think in these circumstances, there's going to be some dude out there who is gonna try and get past the barricade, right? Some smuggler or pirate or freebooter that rumor has it has been getting ready to get past the barricade... and people are saying he's mad or that he has some foul magic that he'll use to do it... and so on.
It's an invitation to something interesting, no?
It is definitely established beforehand. 100%. That is part of the point. Circumstances can dictate the feature's accessibility. It could have just as easily been we were inland at the dwarven mine and told we needed to go to the island. So, I would go to the nearest port town and look for passage using my feature. Then surprise! When we get there, it is barricaded. To me, that is legitimate too if the DM had already had plans for that. (Although, a great DM would have foreshadowed or placed it as part of the military dynamics. You know, the old caravan riding empty two days from town complaining about how no goods are coming in or out of the port. But maybe we were stupid and didn't take the road. Maybe we went off-road to search for some ranger herbs or something.)
And yes, it can definitely lead to something interesting. But, in my experience, sometimes a DM has to plan for those things. Therefore, I wouldn't mind waiting to see what they had planned.
Sure, that happens from time to time. I imagine it happens more in games where this stuff has been shown to not matter.
And I'd say it's also on the DM... if you have a character with the noble background in the party and you haven't considered why there's a noble with this group, and what it might mean for their life or obligations, then I'd say that DM is passing up a lot of potential ideas for things to introduce into play.
I think here you are placing too much liability on the DM. I have seen many DMs try. I have seen them try to work things in. I have seen them ask questions out of game to see where these types of players wanted to go. And almost all the responses are: "I took it for the skills."
I feel you are looking at this as a DM not putting in the work. Sometimes, the work can be put in, and the result is still the same.
So could it be the DM? Yes. In my experience (because I have had many great DMs) it never was. It was always the player not caring about their character's background. Mind you, they cared about their character, but they did not care about its background. To them, it was a means to start progressing their character - which can be fun in its own way.
What was gained by the DM denying this ability?
Why does there need to be a gain? In their head, they thought logically it doesn't work, had a reason, and then made a judgement call based on that reason. The gain is it made me wary of underwater encounters, which seems suitable to my character. From that point on I was always trepid regarding encounters near water. So I guess there was a gain - it made my character develop a small flaw that acted upon their psyche. Sounds like a character that became well-rounded through adventuring experience. The exact kind of character growth a player might want.
It could. But this goes back to it being a choice. We can interpret it that way... which shoots down the player's idea... or we can interpret it to mean a lord local to the current location (which seems to make more sense... what noble can't get an audience with their own family or local lords?) which acknowledges the player and places their character into a position of prominence in the unfolding events.
I agree, interpretation can go both ways. I have said such. But why fault the DM that interprets it the other way? Because it doesn't allow player exactly what they want? That seems petty to me, especially when every DM I know would have allowed its use 9 out of 10 times.
Because, to be clear, we are discussing circumstances that are not normal. We are discussing extraneous circumstances that lead the DM to say no. They are not doing it to just say no. They are not doing it to force their will. They are doing it because there is a circumstances that tells them, not here, not now, or not with this person.
I mean, it is better than not getting it to work, I just do not think it is generally all that important
