D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Mort]

Nothing generates more fun at the table than a player looking at an absolute statement that "You can secure an audience with a local noble if you have to" and the DM saying "Nope."

Right. By far the biggest problem with a flat, unexplained "no" is it's boring.

 

[Maxperson]

It. The quote was 'the printed rule says different'. Rule singular. Nothing you have said is remotely relevant.

If by nothing you mean everything, then you are correct. Everything I said was relevant to the DM making exceptions to the background abilities.

 

[nevin]

this is a very vague sentence, so there is a lot to navigate, but in general, yes, the DM can interfere, absolutely

Does ‘previously established’ include ‘the players are aware of’?
What makes a casting remarkable? Maybe this one is for me, but not for you… one I consider unremarkable? The DM would have no reason to, so they wouldn’t (which is not the same as not having the right to…)

The problem isn’t when the DM does so once or twice, it only turns into one when it happens ‘frequently’ and for no good reason

other issue is it can unintentionally turn the game very quickly into Players vs DM instead of characters vs bad guys. Especially if the table doesn't already have a good solid basis of trust.

 

[mamba]

Right. By far the biggest problem with a flat, unexplained "no" is it's boring.

really? I offered you a flat out no and you liked it...

well, since we are talking in hypotheticals here, I do not have an example. Ultimately because the conditions in the campaign resulted in it, if you call that because the DM wanted it to be that way, I am not going to argue that point.

The goal is not denying player agency however, but to set up a scenario for the players to figure out and overcome, just like all the others

See, this is different.

If the noble feature generally works.. And then when it doesn't work, the PCs not only smell a rat but an adventure results? That, to me, is a win. And a great angle on the feature.

It's a far cry from the DM constantly shutting the feature down "for reasons." Especially if those reasons are never revealed to the PCs.

 

[mamba]

other issue is it can unintentionally turn the game very quickly into Players vs DM instead of characters vs bad guys. Especially if the table doesn't already have a good solid basis of trust.

sure, I am not saying this is the best approach, no one ever argued that. The one and only question has been 'can the DM deny the audience', and I have always said yes, if the DM has a good reason, but it should be rare. No one says it is not affecting player agency, no one says the players love it, etc. all of that is besides the point.

You can use all of that to say 'and because of this I say he cannot', but the question is: can the DM, or not.

 

[Maxperson]

I would say that the DM may narrate something else happening along the way... maybe the character is accosted by criminals or runs into someone he knows or what have you... but I don't think of my declaration of going to the inn as a request. That's what will happen, unless there's a good reason it can't.

I agree. And it's the bolded portion that my side is talking about and that the other side is up in arms about.

If everything in the game is subject to the will of the DM, then player agency does not exist. I see you've already posted all your favorite bits from the DMG that support your idea.

You are advocating for the death of player agency with this line of reasoning.

Nope. Player agency = making choices for your characters and having those choices have meaning. That can and does happen when the DM has control. Nothing I posted advocated for the death of player agency.

 

[hawkeyefan]

sure, but that still doesn’t mean you arrive at the inn.

Also, I find it interesting that here some thugs are a good reason, but nothing ever was for the audience being denied…

The thugs are just something that happens on my way to the inn. They don't inherently thwart my ability to go there.

Maybe I pay them some coin, or Bluff them or Intimidate them, and they leave. Then I continue on to the Inn.

They're not a unilateral blocking of my ability to declare actions per the rules.

for what is probably the fourth time, because one of the two requires the cooperation of an NPC

For the fourth time, so what? I describe what I do, then we follow the rule. What happens with a fireball is stated in the spell entry, and what happens with the audience is stated in the background feature entry. Both dictate what the DM is meant to do.

Also, because the DM decided so, and explicitly has the authority to override it

If this is true, then D&D has no player authority.

how is me saying ‘because of a feud between your houses’, ‘because the noble was let know in no uncertain terms that if he does, that will be very detrimental to his health’, ‘because you are on a different plane and no one recognizes your title’ any more hypothetical than your ‘I run into some thugs / a friend on the way to the inn’?

They are exactly the same, yet you happily offered the last one, shot down all the others and also said you cannot think of any…

Because they don't accomplish the same thing. Here, let me make them similar.

Some thugs accost you on the way to the inn.... but you deal with them through whatever means, and then you went on to the inn.

There is a feud between your house and the local noble house... but the black sheep of the family or other local lord agrees to meet with you.

The local lord is ill... so you have to meet with his son.

Most of the efreet of the City of Brass are uninterested in you... but you fine one Pasha who is fascinated with mortals from the material plane, and he agrees to meet with you.

It's not a case of:
I go to the inn... but thugs accost me, so I never get there.

the rules also say the DM decides, so… not in this case?

Not in that rule, it doesn't say anything about needing the DM's approval, no.

that shows a difference in importance we attribute to it. You have clearly shown that it trumps everything else, we disagree.

Something not being the most important thing, dominating everything else, does not mean it does not matter

I don't think evoking passages from the book that support the idea that everything in the game happens only at the DM's approval really jibes with player agency.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is the character seeking the audience different from the character casting fireball? The rules are both written as "this happens."

One deals with an NPC and that NPCs situations, wants and choices, and the fireball really doesn't unless someone with counterspell is nearby.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing generates more fun at the table than a player looking at an absolute statement that "You can secure an audience with a local noble if you have to" and the DM saying "Nope."

Probably a good thing nobody is suggesting that the DM just say, "Nope" then. Not one person in this thread has suggested that.

 

[mamba]

The thugs are just something that happens on my way to the inn. They don't inherently thwart my ability to go there.

fine, yes they do not inherently prevent it, but they could, so could your friend. In either case something other than what you expected did happen.

Here you toss some coins and are on your merry way, in the audience case it takes more effort and ingenuity to get to your goal. So what....

For the fourth time, so what? I describe what I do, then we follow the rule

yes, so what, the DM says the rule does not apply, so you still do not get the audience... I cannot even count how often we were here already

There is a feud between your house and the local noble house... but the black sheep of the family or other local lord agrees to meet with you.

this is going in circles... we said time and again that of course we can find reasons to grant an audience regardless, but we do not have to

Also, when you request an audience, you do it with one house, in one location. There is no radio signal to every noble in a 1000 mile radius for them to volunteer for one (your 'or another local lord agrees')

Not in that rule, it doesn't say anything about needing the DM's approval, no.

it doesn't need to say so everywhere, the DM can override anything, that is another rule

I don't think evoking passages from the book that support the idea that everything in the game happens only at the DM's approval really jibes with player agency.

it does not matter whether it does, you are missing the point