D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

Why would the player propose something that isn’t logical?

It happens all the time. Players don't consider everything, or don't know everything, or whatever other reason. It happens. Fairly often.

It seems like your position is that if the player’s opinion and the DM’s opinion conflict, the DM’s opinion should prevail regardless of which is more logical.

Me: "It was red."
You: "It seems like you're saying blue."

Suppose the party is in a normal forest. They are relatively low-level. The fighter (trained Athletics) chooses to climb a tree to get a better vantage point. The DM says it DC 20. The fighter’s player, an avid climber (while the DM isn’t) points out that climbing trees is pretty easy for a trained climber, and points out that since the purpose of climbing is just to get a better vantage point, he can just choose a different tree to climb.

Your position isn’t that the most logical position prevails. It’s that the DM’s position prevails, by dint of being DM.

It depends. Is it one of those trees with smooth bark and branches that don't start for 15 or 20 feet? Or one with rough bark and branches that start near the base of the tree trunk? Tree climbing is not equal. I know because I LOVED climbing trees as a kid and some of them were really easy and some I couldn't climb if I was going to get a million dollars for success.

 

[Maxperson]

I find this example ridiculous. @Maxperson , I highly doubt, would agree with the example. (I will let him speak for himself.)

Would I personally set a tree climbing DC at 20? No. I wouldn't even bother making the PC roll to climb.

I'm also not going to assume bad faith on the part of the DM in his example, though. There are trees that are very hard to climb like I pointed out. Perhaps this hypothetical DM spent the time to put specific trees in his forest and knows which ones are easier and/or harder to climb.

But every example given, throughout this entire thread, has refuted these silly examples. The DM here probably wouldn't place the DC at 20. They would listen to the climbing expert at the table. They would adjust the DC if needed.

Logic would dictate the DM would do those things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find this example ridiculous. @Maxperson , I highly doubt, would agree with the example. (I will let him speak for himself.)

But every example given, throughout this entire thread, has refuted these silly examples. The DM here probably wouldn't place the DC at 20. They would listen to the climbing expert at the table. They would adjust the DC if needed.

Logic would dictate the DM would do those things.

The scenario you set up is illogical.

I mean, if we're going to talk about silly examples, there are people insisting in this thread that players will demand to be able to find eggs on utterly lifeless parallel worlds.

Using silly examples as though they were the typical situation ain't exactly uncommon here. And as we can see above, Maxperson genuinely believes that this "asking for eggs on an utterly lifeless demiplane" is representative, not a ridiculous hyperbole. That players are literally THAT abusive.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why would the player propose something that isn’t logical? It seems like your position is that if the player’s opinion and the DM’s opinion conflict, the DM’s opinion should prevail regardless of which is more logical.

Suppose the party is in a normal forest. They are relatively low-level. The fighter (trained Athletics) chooses to climb a tree to get a better vantage point. The DM says it DC 20. The fighter’s player, an avid climber (while the DM isn’t) points out that climbing trees is pretty easy for a trained climber, and points out that since the purpose of climbing is just to get a better vantage point, he can just choose a different tree to climb.

Your position isn’t that the most logical position prevails. It’s that the DM’s position prevails, by dint of being DM.

To me this is more a flaw of the d20 system itself.

D20 doesn’t differentiate well between skilled climber and normal person. It differentiates between between relatively more skilled and less skilled at climbing.

Personally I wouldn’t have set the dc to 20 without additional details. And in this specific scenario even if I did, the players suggestion he find and climb an easier tree seems reasonable unless there’s a lot more specifically noted details.

Since those details weren’t provided I assume they don’t exist, but if they did then saying no here could have been perfectly fine.

 

[Maxperson]

because they might not have the same information as the DM, so for them it is logical

There are plenty of cases where humans considered something logical because they did not have sufficient information, starting with the Earth being flat, this is no different.

I've also seen players frequently just start trying stuff without bothering to think things through all the way. They use the spaghetti method of flinging things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[soviet]

I've also seen players frequently just start trying stuff without bothering to think things through all the way. They use the spaghetti method of flinging things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

So yet again: players can't be trusted, GMs are infallible and selfless

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, if we're going to talk about silly examples, there are people insisting in this thread that players will demand to be able to find eggs on utterly lifeless parallel worlds.

Again, I've seen more than once here in this thread that the ability should always work, even on another plane of existence.

Using silly examples as though they were the typical situation ain't exactly uncommon here. And as we can see above, Maxperson genuinely believes that this "asking for eggs on an utterly lifeless demiplane" is representative, not a ridiculous hyperbole. That players are literally THAT abusive.

Always = always. It includes the ridiculous. The first step in breaking down the argument of someone who says "always" is to bring up something like the demiplane with no life. Once the person admits(though they usually won't and just avoid) that the ability should not always work, then an actual conversation about where the line should be drawn can be had. Until that point though, no real conversation can be had, because they will insist that the ability always work.

 

[Maxperson]

So yet again: players can't be trusted, GMs are infallible and selfless

Sure. That's exactly what I just said.

 

[soviet]

Again, I've seen more than once here in this thread that the ability should always work, even on another plane of existence.

Always = always. It includes the ridiculous. The first step in breaking down someone who says "always" is to bring up something like the demiplane with no life. Once the person admits(though they usually won't and just avoid) that the ability should not always work, then an actual conversation about where the line should be drawn can be had. Until that point though, no real conversation can be had, because they will insist that the ability always work.

I gave an example earlier of how it could work: a traveller to the plane brought eggs with them.

 

[Oofta]

Let's suppose a scenario. The party steps through a portal and is transported 5,000 years into the past. What features would actually work? There's obviously no contacts, criminal or otherwise. There may or may not be libraries for that sage to investigate. Even if you're Prince Grand High Poobah, it's of a country that won't exist for another 4,000 years so it's meaningless. Assuming the locals even recognize nobility as a thing.

There is no logical reason for someone to have a criminal contact, at least not right away. That pirate that can get away with minor crimes because of their reputation is just as unknown as everyone else. The archeologist might be able to tell people approximately when we are because of their training. The noble might have a better idea of what the social hierarchy is and even have advantage on interactions with the ruling class. But if they want to get an audience with the ruler of the land, which may not even have the concept of nobility in terms of inherited titles, claiming a noble lineage of somewhere that doesn't exist is not going to buy them anything.

It would be jarring to me as a player and be completely illogical world building if all of our background features still worked as written. Many of the background features are based on recognition, contacts and understanding how things work where people are from.

There are times when background features as written won't work. Doesn't mean the feature is totally worthless, it may or may not be. But these features are not built in to the framework of D&D, IMHO they're tacked on. Many are poorly worded or thought out and many only apply where the person would logically be recognized. I'll take a ruling from a DM that makes sense for the scenario we find ourselves in over strict literal reading of the rules for background features any day of the week.