D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Oofta]

I value verisimilitude over badly designed and worded background features. In my game I don't use standard cosmology, I base it loosely on Norse mythology. One of the realms is Jotunheim, land of giants amongst other things. If you are in giant dominated territory, I don't care who you are you are not getting an audience with a giant noble just because you say so. Humanoids are slaves or vermin at best, occasionally "hors d'oeuvres". They are in no way equals or worthy of consideration.

I decided on this lore long ago (the dreaded "pages of lore" that apparently is a bugaboo) and it comes up now and then since giants can be a gigantic threat to the realms. I didn't decide this because I wanted to limit agency of anyone who happened to be a noble, it's just the way the world works. It would be incredibly illogical for a giant lord in Jotunheim to give audience to a human noble. There is no magical mind control granted by "nobility recognizing nobility". Heck, there is no nobility recognizing nobility because that doesn't make any sense to me. Just like it made no sense when a DM decided years ago that members of a thieves guild in a town I had never visited automatically recognized a fellow thief.

I don't care if that doesn't work for some people, I'm not the right DM for everyone. But I'm not going to make an exception because as DM I am responsible for the world and every NPC in existence. The players are responsible for their PCs. Could I reverse all the lore I've built up? Of course I could. I'm not going to.

That doesn't mean that being a noble is worthless, even in Jotunheim. It is certainly useful at times where the noble and their reputation is well known. It's just not going to override my best judgement as DM of whether or not it applies.

But this whole topic is on a repeat spin cycle. So if there are no new or different takes on this ... hasta la pasta.

 

[Mort]

either one is possible, I am not sure I would consider it as valid, otherwise I could not really say that this one makes less sense to me

Why wouldn't it be "as valid?"

You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.

If we treat as local to your starting area only then:

1. If your playing a noble from a different land at the start of the campaign, the feature is 100% useless unless you get to that land at some point;

2. The feature is much more useful in campaigns where you, yourself, start as a noble of the area and stay there.

3. The feature becomes less and less useful with level (usually) as adventures take the party far afield.

If instead we treat it as a noble, local to the area you are in:

The feature for stuff like Noble of a distant or even lost house (hence why the starting character has so relatively little money etc.) that are otherwise lost. And is also ever fresh, allowing for more fun and interesting stuff as the PC levels and finds interesting locals to cause trouble in.

Hence, I much prefer the interpretation I've been using.

 

[Maxperson]

Why wouldn't it be "as valid?"

You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.

If we treat as local to your starting area only then:

1. If your playing a noble from a different land at the start of the campaign, the feature is 100% useless unless you get to that land at some point;

2. The feature is much more useful in campaigns where you, yourself, start as a noble of the area and stay there.

3. The feature becomes less and less useful with level (usually) as adventures take the party far afield.

#1 is flexible. If you are starting in another land, I'm sure the DM would be willing to work with you to determine what "local" was. I mean, it's trivially easy to have your noble sent as some sort of emissary or ambassador from his king to this kingdom and have the local king grant him such privileges.

#2 is the same as #1, really. If you start at home, it's useful. If you start abroad, the DM makes it useful.

#3 isn't even an issue. I mean, when you're 13th level, how useful are 1st level spells, really? Not very. Extremely useful at levels 1-6. Not so useful at 7+ The same with most 1st/low level abilities. They lose effectiveness as you level up and gain more powerful abilities to use against more powerful foes.

 

[mamba]

Why wouldn't it be "as valid?"

I explained that, that interpretation make less sense to me from a practical perspective (it never worked like that here…) and makes the feature OP compared to the features from other backgrounds that were listed here yesterday

If we treat as local to your starting area only then:

1. If your playing a noble from a different land at the start of the campaign, the feature is 100% useless unless you get to that land at some point;

I see a difference between an audience not being guaranteed and a feature being useless

2. The feature is much more useful in campaigns where you, yourself, start as a noble of the area and stay there.

yes, that would be the case, depending on the style of the campaign too

3. The feature becomes less and less useful with level (usually) as adventures take the party far afield.

this makes perfect sense to me, being a 15th level whatever is already worth more than a knighthood in some backwater region

Hence, I much prefer the interpretation I've been using.

you are free to use whichever one you prefer, and I will do the same

 

[Maxperson]

I explained that, that interpretation make less sense to me from a practical perspective (it never worked like that here…) and makes the feature OP compared to the features from other backgrounds that were listed here yesterday

That is the reason I view the ability to be local to where the PC is from, but from an as written perspective, both interpretations are equally valid. If we have to go outside of what is written to gain understanding, one interpretation of what is written isn't more valid than the other.

 

[mamba]

from an as written perspective, both interpretations are equally valid. If we have to go outside of what is written to gain understanding, one interpretation of what is written isn't more valid than the other.

I guess this is a matter of how you phrase it. We cannot know which interpretation was meant by the author, but that does not necessarily mean they are both equally likely. It certainly does not mean that I have to like the consequences of both equally either.

So no, they do not have to both be equally valid, just because we cannot definitely rule one out.

This is like saying that if someone in the US tells you their shoes cost 100 dollars, that it is just as valid to assume they meant US, Canadian, Australian or some other currency. The case here is not as clear cut, but I assume you understand the principle.

After all, you interpret it the same way.

That is the reason I view the ability to be local to where the PC is from

 

[Maxperson]

I guess this is a matter of how you phrase it. We cannot know which interpretation was meant by the author, but that does not necessarily mean they are both equally likely. It certainly does not mean that I have to like the consequences of both equally either.

So no, they do not have to both be equally valid, just because we cannot definitely rule one out.

Sure, but my point is that if we ONLY look at the background in question, both interpretations ARE equally likely. Both sides of this issue have to look at other backgrounds, abilities, rulings from designers, etc. to determine which they believe to be the most likely. You and I have determined that interpretation A is most likely based on the scope of the other background abilities. Someone else can look at them all and say, "None of these abilities is very powerful, even if we allow the greater scope, so I think the designers meant interpretation B." Without looking elsewhere, though, we can't make any kind of informed decision on which is more likely than the other, though, which makes them equally valid as written.

This is like saying that if someone in the US tells you their shoes cost 100 dollars, that it is just as valid to assume they meant US, Canadian, Australian or some other currency. The case here is not as clear cut, but I assume you understand the principle.

I don't think that this is a very good analogy. There isn't a second interpretation that is equally valid there in and of itself. In the US there is only one currency.

For a better analogy using currency, imagine that you are in Haiti and someone walks up to you and says, "I just spent 100 on these shoes!" Well, Haiti has two different official currencies. The U.S. dollar and it's own domestic currency the gourde. Without looking further you aren't going to know if it's 100 dollars or 100 gourde. Both are equally valid until you start making other comparisons and getting more information.

 

[Aldarc]

Because nobility isn't a metaphysical trait or quality that has stand alone existence. It's a cultural construct that is going to vary wildly from culture to culture in it's norms and expectations.

It's pretty reasonable/plausible to say that a French aristocrat in the 13th century could easily or on a whim secure a meeting with a Scottish lord - but it's only reasonable because the politics, geography, and culture of medieval Europe enable these two parties to be able to consider each other nobles.

In disparate geographies, cultures, or times two parties might not recognize the other as being 'noble'.

/shrug The existence of gods of nobility would suggest that the essence of "nobility" exists in some form or another in the D&D multiverse. There are other settings I can think of where the divine right of kings and nobles is very much a part of the setting, not just as an idea but as a metaphysical reality. This is once again people trying to apply an exceptionally modernistic understanding of nobility to a fantasy setting where such perspectives are necessarily held or are true.

 

[Aldarc]

Very much agree. Player agency and player narrative control are two different things and should not be linked, let alone equated.

This is where I strongly disagree with @Mort. When I think of player agency, I think of the player's ability to affect the course of the gameplay. That may be through the character, but that may also be outside of the character. It's not that player agency is one thing and player narrative control is another. It's all part of player agency to me.

 

[mamba]

Sure, but my point is that if we ONLY look at the background in question, both interpretations ARE equally likely.

yes, if we ignore context, we get less sure about the meaning, it generally works like that