D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

Great. "You may have a seat on this council, but we do not grant you the title of Master." That is the actual position you're taking on this.

Is there any wonder people side eye such things?

I just find it so hard to believe that so many GMs just...want to find reasons not to let people do things. And yet I get repeated evidence that that is exactly what they want. Why? What do you get out of treating every other attempt to actually USE character features as totally pointless?

No. That's not my position. My position is that if logic says the ability should not work, it should not work. Nothing about that is "You are a master yet not a master." The game of D&D doesn't guarantee any ability. It's an exceptions based system. Specific beats general. This ability works until it doesn't for some reason. If you think that makes for a "You may have a seat on this council, but we do not grant you the title of Master." situation, then you need to complain to TSR for 2 editions and WotC for 3 editions, because all 5 editions are this way.

 

[Mort]

Great. "You may have a seat on this council, but we do not grant you the title of Master." That is the actual position you're taking on this.

Is there any wonder people side eye such things?

I just find it so hard to believe that so many GMs just...want to find reasons not to let people do things. And yet I get repeated evidence that that is exactly what they want. Why? What do you get out of treating every other attempt to actually USE character features as totally pointless?

In fairness,

People often retreat to extreme positions when debating/arguing on the internet. It's often not even their actual take and not one they would adopt in actual game.

For example the "rarely says yes..." DM has been a very rare occurrence for me. But they seem more common on the internet.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Whatever I want =/= legal player move in the game of D&D. Player moves are pretty much contingent on various other rules and situations.

Who said “whatever I want”?

 

[pemerton]

Suppose a background said you can always find eggs and the group ended up on a demiplane with no life(and never had life) at all. Are you going to expect to find eggs because the background said you could?

Who decided that the demiplane has no, and never had any, life at all?

If it's the player of the egg-finder, then why are they now declaring an action that contradicts their previous decision?

But if - as I imagine you are taking for granted - it's the GM, then this is just another example of low player agency RPGing.

My position is that if logic says the ability should not work, it should not work.

"Logic" is another red herring.

Logic does not demand that the PCs find themselves on demiplanes devoid of life.

 

[soviet]

Why have the examples shifted from something reasonable that might actually come up - a noble seeking an audience - to players trying to jump over the moon or find eggs (?) in a lifeless demiplane?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. That's not my position. My position is that if logic says the ability should not work, it should not work. Nothing about that is "You are a master yet not a master." The game of D&D doesn't guarantee any ability. It's an exceptions based system. Specific beats general. This ability works until it doesn't for some reason. If you think that makes for a "You may have a seat on this council, but we do not grant you the title of Master." situation, then you need to complain to TSR for 2 editions and WotC for 3 editions, because all 5 editions are this way.

Genuine question:

Why are you allowed to assume bad-faith players, who demand to use abilities when they simply do not make sense, but I am not allowed to assume bad-faith GMs, who refuse to allow abilities when they do make sense?

 

[pemerton]

Why are you allowed to assume bad-faith players, who demand to use abilities when they simply do not make sense, but I am not allowed to assume bad-faith GMs, who refuse to allow abilities when they do make sense?

Because the test for does the player's action declaration make sense? that is being applied is does it conform to the GM's as-yet-unrevealed ideas about the fiction?

So the player can be acting in good faith yet make an action declaration that does not pass that test.

Whereas the GM cannot, in good faith, fail to pass the test.

There is an assumed asymmetry of . . . wait for it . . . <drum roll> . . . here it comes . . . agency in respect of the fiction.

 

[soviet]

It does seem like 'the logic of the game world' and such like is very often just an objective seeming gloss over 'how I want the game to go'

 

[FrogReaver]

Genuine question:

Why are you allowed to assume bad-faith players, who demand to use abilities when they simply do not make sense, but I am not allowed to assume bad-faith GMs, who refuse to allow abilities when they do make sense?

Personally I don’t think a player has to be playing in bad-faith to use an ability when the GM doesn’t think it makes sense.

Theres a few reasons for this
1. The player and GM simply disagree about whether it makes sense.
2. The player isnt privy to all the information the GM is and so makes a flawed determination.

 

[soviet]

How dare you suggest players have less agency in my game?

All of their actions are subject to my veto because they cannot be trusted.