D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

Your fantasy fiction which includes a gritty realist contemporary United Kingdom? As I posted, I'm not the one who posited the genre mash-up. If you don't want it, why are you as GM introducing it into the game?

I didn’t suggest it either, I am looking at this from the player side

Even as a player I would not want the feature to work, because it very clearly should not, no matter what some text says that probably was never meant to handle this in the first place. Chances are whoever wrote it never even considered this scenario, that is why they gave GM’s the ability to override it, instead of locking them into nonsensical scenarios

 

[Micah Sweet]

For the same reason the princess can feel the pea beneath the mattress, but a rogue can't no matter how they are dressed. The Noble background rests on the premise that nobility - high birth - reveals itself in the person.

If you're going to do that, I really think the supernatural aspect implicit in that rule should be called out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It needn't be divine right. Aristotle didn't have a theory of divine right, but did have a theory of natural nobility.

As for the can of worm, it's no different from that opened up by the fact that a dragon can fly despite lacking the physiology or wingspan to do so. Fantasy can't be reconciled with knowledge of how social processes, physical processes etc actually work.

Things like the dragon are explicitly explained by the supernatural. They are clearly fantasy creatures. Do that with the noble, and it would make more sense to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok, then nobles can be recognised in virtue of social status magic. There, done!

I didn't see that in the description anywhere.

 

[mamba]

Then why would they try and use the ability?

irrelevant, if you need a scenario, they asked first and then started discussing whether it makes sense for it to work

 

[Maxperson]

I didn’t suggest it either, I am looking at this from the player side

Even as a player I would not want the feature to work, because it very clearly should not, no matter what some text says that probably was never meant to handle this in the first place. Chances are whoever wrote it never even considered this scenario, that is why they gave GM’s the ability to override it, instead of locking them into nonsensical scenarios

The DMG explicitly gives the DM license to make rulings over rules because it recognizes that the rules can't apply to all situations. There will be situations where no rule at all applies, and situations where a general rule breaks down and needs modification for that particular set of circumstances. It was one of the quotes I provided up thread.

 

[mamba]

Sorry, I wasn't intending to be condescending.

no worries, I have seen worse thrown at me here

 

[FrogReaver]

The DMG explicitly gives the DM license to make rulings over rules because it recognizes that the rules can't apply to all situations. There will be situations where no rule at all applies, and situations where a general rule breaks down and needs modification for that particular set of circumstances. It was one of the quotes I provided up thread.

Also, since 4e was brought up earlier - that was the biggest change from 4e that 5e expressed IMO. 4e was all about if the rules say X then it happens and add some fictional explanation for how, whereas 5e intentionally moved away from that.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm kind of getting the impression that these threads have less to do with the player being denied the ability to do what they want to do (agency), but rather, when they are denied the ability to do what they want to do (agency), how that denial occurred.

 

[mamba]

Also, since 4e was brought up earlier - that was the biggest change from 4e that 5e expressed IMO. 4e was all about if the rules say X then it happens and add some fictional explanation for how, whereas 5e intentionally moved away from that.

as if people needed more reasons to dislike 4e