D&D General What is player agency to you?

[soviet]

Hypothetical 5e-running me wants the noble PC to do their thing. Get an audience with the King. Chat to the lords and ladies of ancient history. Bargain with efreeti princelings in the City of Brass. These all sound like great sources of adventure and intrigue. I don't know why anyone would want to actively find reasons for them not to happen.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Hypothetical 5e-running me wants the noble PC to do their thing. Get an audience with the King. Chat to the lords and ladies of ancient history. Bargain with efreeti princelings in the City of Brass. These all sound like great sources of adventure and intrigue. I don't know why anyone would want to actively find reasons for them not to happen.

because we don't think purely the 'rule of cool' is a good reason to allow something, and we think there might be mitigating circumstances involved

 

[Maxperson]

At its core - One side is just vehemently against, in D&D, a player being able to force the DM to say yes.

100%. Nobody can force a DM to do anything. Nor can the DM force a player to do anything. If you're trying to force a side to act according to your wishes, you are D&Ding wrong.

 

[mamba]

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

and you just happen to be searching for eggs in the exact location they accidentally dropped some two days or so ago… yeah, very believable

No one says you cannot find an excuse for anything, but that is not really what this is about

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, to be honest I've never been comfortable with the rules aspects of background features. Seems to me we would be better off just working that kind of stuff out through RP rather than than calling out a rules widget and getting irritated when it isn't followed exactly.

I always assumed that they didn't give specific clarification on this is because the core assumption in D&D is that the DM makes the final call. It's only on this forum that it's been a big deal.

 

[Aldarc]

because we don't think purely the 'rule of cool' is a good reason to allow something, and we think there might be mitigating circumstances involved

Do you honestly and truthfully think that this is a good faith assessment of what people disagreeing with you are arguing in favor of? Because @pemerton, @hawkeyefan, @soviet, and a few others don't exactly strike me as people motivated by "rule of cool."

 

[mamba]

Then they are playing in bad faith. I flatly refuse to consider any argument based on players playing in bad faith unless and until it is equally acceptable to field arguments based on GMs playing in bad faith.

I certainly have seen a few in this discussion…

 

[mamba]

double post

 

[Mort]

100%. Nobody can force a DM to do anything. Nor can the DM force a player to do anything. If you're trying to force a side to act according to your wishes, you are D&Ding wrong.

I suspect a non-negligible % of DMs disagree on the force a player portion.

@bloodtide, the OP, is QUITE vocal about how his game is extremely railroaded. Which means he 100% forces the players to go down the specific paths he wants. And he is also vocal that players in no way shape or form, share the same authority (to force him to do anything). That seems to be what got the ball rolling on the agency discussion.

 

[mamba]

I've literally done something like this. And it worked! It was actually super cool, particularly because it put a frequently quiet player in an interesting role. So the fact that you think this is an utterly ridiculous, unbelievable scenario

something being cool does not contradict it being unbelievable, if anything, if I pull off some unbelievable stunt, that is pretty cool

My problem with allowing it is the believability, not the coolness, and no a ‘noble’ from 5000 years ago would not at all be recognized as anything but an uneducated savage today

Perhaps we should be looking for a reason to say yes, rather than looking for a reason to say no.

perhaps we should try to keep it realistic, that does not mean we do not generally say ‘yes’, even when it is a bit of a stretch, but it does mean we are allowed to say ‘no’