D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Mort]

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

My problem with allowing it is the believability, not the coolness

"Believability" is a weird and very malleable term when dealing with D&D!

I mean the fact that time travel is "believable," but a noble being able "act noble" in the past or a criminal being able to apply his criminal no-how in the past is NOT believable? That has me really scratching my head!

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

bruh.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

My problem with allowing it is the believability, not the coolness,

So....

Let me get this straight. The fact that I actually DID have effectively that example, in the real world, at my actual (well, virtual) table, with a real, living player, does not make this thing presented as a "this COULD NOT POSSIBLY happen at a real table" example somehow a little more real?

It's really, really hard to discuss with you if you're going to make moves like this.

and no a ‘noble’ from 5000 years ago would not at all be recognized as anything but an uneducated savage today

Really? Both strong and crappy words. *Don't call people "savages." It's a slur.) I fundamentally disagree. Especially in D&D-type worlds, where 5000 years ago can be literally the height of the greatest empire the world has ever known. Elves (or, in my case, genies) ruling in power and majesty, and in some ways more technologically advanced than their so-called "civilized" descendants.

Your chronological snobbery is showing.

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’

Then

for the love of God

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE TALK ABOUT IT?

 

[mamba]

This isn't correct.

There is almost never only one plausible or tenable extrapolation from a given bundle of "truths" about a fiction. The world can be consistent if the GM is not the only one who gets to establish elements of it. I know, because I play RPGs which (i) feature consistent worlds, yet (ii) I am not the only participant who establishes elements of them.

Could it be different, sure, you can come up with an excuse for anything. Does it need to be different, no.

Someone ultimately decides how it is, whether a player or the DM. I see no reason why it has to be the player.

 

[soviet]

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

It's not my game that has egg-detecting PCs in it. Any justification for that ability is of course going to be ridiculous. The point is you can always think of something.

 

[soviet]

"Believability" is a weird and very malleable term when dealing with D&D!

I mean the fact that time travel is "believable," but a noble being able "act noble" in the past or a criminal being able to apply his criminal no-how in the past is NOT believable? That has me really scratching my head!

Your ideas are shallow and unrealistic and no sensible GM would allow them.

My ideas are channeled directly from the logic of the gameworld and cannot be questioned.

 

[mamba]

bruh.

so make it 10000 years then I am sure a caveman tribe leader would have no problem getting an audience today

 

[mamba]

"Believability" is a weird and very malleable term when dealing with D&D!

I mean the fact that time travel is "believable," but a noble being able "act noble" in the past or a criminal being able to apply his criminal no-how in the past is NOT believable? That has me really scratching my head!

can’t help you there, even a fictional world follows rules that make some stuff impossible / unbelievable, and that can be minor details too.

 

[mamba]

Let me get this straight. The fact that I actually DID have effectively that example, in the real world, at my actual (well, virtual) table, with a real, living player, does not make this thing presented as a "this COULD NOT POSSIBLY happen at a real table" example somehow a little more real?

no, you allowing something unbelievable does not make that something more believable

I believe you that you played it out like that at your table, but I am not sure why you think that changes anything. If it were the reverse and I disallowed it at my table, would you now have to follow that? Would it affect your impression of how believable it is?

At no point did I say it could not happen at some table. I am pretty sure I consistently said you can find a reason to allow or to deny anything. The believability was entirely about the action in the fictional world, not about how some tables would handle the situation

Then

for the love of God

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE TALK ABOUT IT?

first of all, I have been saying this for 20 or so pages now. Second, because the question we are discussing is ‘can a DM ever deny an audience’, this always was the exception, some just try to twist this into ‘some DMs just want to deny all player agency’

 

[soviet]

It's not inherently unbelievable. Certainly no more so than a million other parts of D&D. You're telling me that I can be a half-demon with the ability to reverse gravity and shoot lightning, impossible to kill with less than 20 sword blows, but once I try to use the benefits of my noble status in the kingdom next door it's WHOAH HOW UNREALISTIC?