D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

And the DM is privy to that info solely because the DM invented that info.

No disagreement here. Though I think it’s important to note that it was invented before group play time.

That is exactly what this is. The DM is inventing what they feel like inventing. That's what DMs do in this paradigm. They invent what interests them.

There's alot of motivations, often competing ones, that a DM can have for including something in their prep. It's not simply a matter of this interests the DM.

On some level the idea that it's what the DM feels like inventing is true as whatever motivated him can be summarized as it interesting him (but it's really the why it interested him that's important). The invented because it interested the DM idea is just missing far to much nuance to be the whole truth. It's an explanation that removes all nuance from the process just to paint it in a negative light.

So "DM is privy to more info than the players" is in fact equivalent to "the DM has said so." Because the one, and only, reason the DM is privy to more info...is because they invented that info.

That would only be true if the DM invented that info just so he could say so. That's obviously not the case in 99% of D&D games.

 

[mamba]

If it is the most logical position that prevails, and the DM, by force of being DM, gets to decide which position is more logical, then why are you disagreeing with me?

I was talking about the audience case, we had cases here where to me the DM was intentionally made out to hold the illogical position (climbing a tree). If your DM does do that, then it is not the DM, it still is the logical position that should win.

So I am disagreeing with the notion that it always has to be the DM who has to win, even when they are acting irrational / unreasonable, but am saying that generally speaking the DM is in the best position to determine what a reasonable outcome is.

So if you want to bring it back to that, then yes I disagree with you

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There's alot of motivations, often competing ones, that a DM can have for including something in their prep. It's not simply a matter of this interests the DM.

What are these motivations which are not, fundamentally, because that's what the GM wanted to do? What motivation could possibly force the GM to do something they actively don't want to do?

On some level the idea that it's what the DM feels like inventing is true, it's just missing far to much nuance to be the whole truth. It's an explanation that removes all nuance from the process just to paint it in a negative light.

What is this nuance that, as I said, ultimately boils down to "it's what the GM wanted to do"? Completely serious. What motivations aren't "because that's what I want to do"? Because that's what motivation is, wanting to do something.

That would only be true if the DM invented that info just so he could say so. That's obviously not the case in 99% of D&D games.

Hardly. The GM invents what they wish to invent--whatever those desires might be, it is their desires that drive that innovation. Nothing is in the world-building unless the GM wants it to be there, in this "it's the GM's world, you just play in it" model; in that limited sense, it is like someone writing a novel. Thus, when a thing is allegedly incompatible, it is not because it couldn't possibly be any other way. It is because the GM wants the world to be a certain way, and isn't interested in finding a compromise with the player's interest. If they were interested in a compromise, there is almost always a way to do it, and again almost always a way to do it and not break the other things they may care about (like consistency). Because they are literally in control of everything. Literally, actually everything.

 

[mamba]

Okay, let's take a step back.

I have said, repeatedly (I can dig up links, if you really want them, but I doubt you do), that there really might occasionally be times when that's the only option. I really did say that!

My problem is, people act like this is pretty common. E.g. it'll happen many, many times in a single campaign

yes, and the people pretending that it is common are from the side that says ‘the DM can never refuse an audience’, they are distorting the position I, and others, are holding.

"we should be looking for a reason to say yes, not looking for a reason to say no."

I agree, but to me that does not mean we can never say no, to them it means exactly that ‘go find a reason to make it work’

I gave my example of time-travel audience-seeking because the argument I saw looked like--no more and no less--"this is obviously stupid, we all agree it's obviously stupid, so that means we've established a hard line." But I don't agree with that. This alleged hard line isn't there. You have made a leap, here, from "I, mamba, don't think that makes sense" to "it's inherently unbelievable, it doesn't matter if you happened to make it believable for you, it never ever could be for me."

I said several times that you can find a reason to allow anything or deny everything. So I agree that there is no line. That does not mean that all things are equally believable / realistic.

So, are you saying because you can find a reason, that you have to?

It's frankly a little bit insulting, the way you've characterized this--that my game is somehow valueless, meaningless, inconsistent, boring, challenge-free.

if that is your takeaway from what I consider such a game, I must have miscommunicated.

So far I have only seen the ‘pro agency’ side saying ‘then I walk away because it is not worthwhile’, never the side I am on… we are acknowledging the value of the other side, yours is not (necessarily)

 

[FrogReaver]

What are these motivations which are not, fundamentally, because that's what the GM wanted to do? What motivation could possibly force the GM to do something they actively don't want to do?


What is this nuance that, as I said, ultimately boils down to "it's what the GM wanted to do"? Completely serious. What motivations aren't "because that's what I want to do"? Because that's what motivation is, wanting to do something.


Hardly. The GM invents what they wish to invent--whatever those desires might be, it is their desires that drive that innovation. Nothing is in the world-building unless the GM wants it to be there, in this "it's the GM's world, you just play in it" model; in that limited sense, it is like someone writing a novel. Thus, when a thing is allegedly incompatible, it is not because it couldn't possibly be any other way. It is because the GM wants the world to be a certain way, and isn't interested in finding a compromise with the player's interest. If they were interested in a compromise, there is almost always a way to do it, and again almost always a way to do it and not break the other things they may care about (like consistency). Because they are literally in control of everything. Literally, actually everything.

That phrase has multiple meanings -

One can do what they want to do without the reason for why they want to being that they just want to do it.

 

[mamba]

And the DM is privy to that info solely because the DM invented that info.

That is exactly what this is. The DM is inventing what they feel like inventing. That's what DMs do in this paradigm. They invent what interests them.

So "DM is privy to more info than the players" is in fact equivalent to "the DM has said so." Because the one, and only, reason the DM is privy to more info...is because they invented that info.

yes, inventing is what DMs do, if you have a problem with that, play Monopoly.

That does not mean they do it to thwart players or impose their will on them, so stop pretending that this is the reason

As to inventing something that interests them, of course they do. Just like the players play something that interests them. This is not an either / or. Are you seriously expecting the DM to just be the wish-fulfillment for the players, even though they have no interest in the campaign?

 

[hawkeyefan]

and that already is accommodating the player… to me a reasonable reading of the rule is that ‘local noble’ refers to local in both space and time to where the character is from, not to where they currently find themselves. The latter is the accommodation

I feel that's an overly narrow interpretation of the feature, especially given the description of the background overall, and in the description of the feature itself. Also, considering that local nobles of the sort you're describing likely consist of the character's immediate family, so the ability to speak to one's family doesn't seem all that meaningful.

Yes, yes, they could live in a world where there's a curse and no one can speak to their family or some other absurd contrivance, so we can ignore all logic!

yes, last I checked the players also complain when I tell them what their chars are doing

First, I don't think that characters are free from the DM saying how things go. This happens in a variety of ways, from simple scene framing like "You're all in a tavern..." or "You wake up in the morning to find..." and so on, to the results of actions by other characters.... charm person, dragon fear, power words, and so forth.

Second, given the dynamic between DM and players and the asymmetry in authority, I don't think it's useful to compare a slight diminishment of the DM's authority and any diminishment of the players'.

the DM, but more broadly speaking I at least base these kinds of things on how they work on Earth. The setting is fictional, but that doesn’t mean there is no gravity and people do not need to breathe etc. same with how nobility works

Things don't work in the real world in such a way as to match one person's conception of them.

Depends. I think this is a social contract issue and not one of system. D&D or not D&D, if the group comes together under the social agreement that the DM will or won't do certain things, such as follow the rules exactly or house rule to his heart's content, then that's what should happen.

Of course that's true, but does it matter? If everyone's expectations are aligned, then there's no issue. As has been said, this kind of stuff is all a matter of preference.

My point is talking about "forcing" people as you've chosen to interpret it doesn't address the point that was made. That point being that many folks just don't want the DM to be obliged to honor the player's actions. They want to reserve the right to block those actions, even when they are acceptable per the rules.

Obviously, there are always exceptions. When I first mentioned Background Features, I said if a DM denied its use, he better have a really good reason. Most such reasons that have been offered are either absurd (the lifeless plane nonsense) or else not very compelling (the duke is vacationing).

Everyone objecting to the Background Features has danced around it, and nearly said it, but it really seems to boil down to they want their decisions and ideas to matter more than anyone else's.

And if we look at it like that and consider the DM's significant authority regarding what the game will be about, application of the rules, and application of their own judgment to apply those rules and processes.... then we combine that with the idea that the players can't be trusted with even a sliver of authority that comes up in very specific circumstances... yeah, it's hard to see it as anything but an argument to preserve DM authority.

Which is fine in and of itself... but then for some bonkers reason, folks think they can claim that player agency is still present and still matters.

 

[mamba]

I feel that's an overly narrow interpretation of the feature, especially given the description of the background overall, and in the description of the feature itself.

it is a more reasonable interpretation than expecting a noble to get an audience everywhere.

I am not saying they cannot get one elsewhere, I am saying it is not guaranteed.

Also, considering that local nobles of the sort you're describing likely consist of the character's immediate family, so the ability to speak to one's family doesn't seem all that meaningful.

you take local a bit too far I’d say the neighboring nobles also qualify. Your liege lord or similar too. Then you can argue relatives etc from there, but literally anywhere? no….

First, I don't think that characters are free from the DM saying how things go.

‘how things go’ is very different from the DM saying ‘your char goes to the next blacksmith and buys a chainmail’

Second, given the dynamic between DM and players and the asymmetry in authority, I don't think it's useful to compare a slight diminishment of the DM's authority and any diminishment of the players'.

why not, the players do not like intrusions, why should the DM. Keep in mind that the DM is already accommodating (in the scenario), so if he says the audience does not happen despite this and the players then try to force one, I see no real difference there

 

[hawkeyefan]

it is a more reasonable interpretation than expecting a noble to get an audience everywhere.

I am not saying they cannot get one elsewhere, I am saying it is not guaranteed.

Not really. The text says you can do it. We've looked at similar instanced of PC abilities phrased similarly, and I expect that instances of and inclination toward denying those will be drastically lower.

you take local a bit too far I’d say the neighboring nobles also qualify. Then you can argue relatives etc from there, but literally anywhere? no….

"Literally anywhere"? The players can have their characters go literally anywhere? Or are they limited by the places you allow them to go? Which are also populated with the kinds of people you've decided it's populated with, including the noble or wealthy?

‘how things go’ is very different from the DM saying ‘your char goes to the next blacksmith and buys a chainmail’

why not, the players do not like intrusions, why should the DM. Keep in mind that the DM is already accommodating (in the scenario), so if he says the audience does not happen despite this and the players then try to force one, I see no real difference there

Because going from 98% of all authority in the game to 97% is probably less noticeable than going from 3% to 2%.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What are these motivations which are not, fundamentally, because that's what the GM wanted to do? What motivation could possibly force the GM to do something they actively don't want to do?

Because they think one or more players will enjoy it? I've certainly done that on occasion. (Though "force" is an overly strong word but "motivate against my own preferences" wouldn't be).