I don't try to make narrative games more like the games I prefer, or rejoice if they become so through updates to the rules. I make tweaks to my own game, either in rule or playstyle, at my own table to make it more palatable (much like @pemerton did with their games of 4e in my view), but if there's a game that better fits my style, I would vastly prefer to play it.This insight goes both ways.
Only if, and this is a big if, it MATTERS. If it doesn't matter, then what the player can do isn't relevant at all, because what he does doesn't matter.
Not really. Trying to find obscure ways to say yes has been a staple in this thread, and saying no without at least a roll to succeed removes agency according to them. If there is always, or even almost always a chance for success, my agency is virtually negated. Nothing I do matters.
so you do not see a difference between a char being denied an audience and the player not being able to ‘wish’ a +1 sword into the world, so their char searching a cupboard can find it?
I actually agree here.
I disagree here - What you are describing is a player that has agency to roll the dice! Nothing more. And that is certainly a type of agency but see below.
The outcome of "no" is no more up to the player when rolling dice than it is if the DM says "no'.
Also worth contemplating the question of agency if the GM is discerning and adjudicating rules for the sake of empowering player agency.*
we are honing in on the same thing, my post just above yours asks the exact same thing, just in a different way
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
If we are going by what is written in the text, you get the feature because the Position of Privilege feature states, "Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you."
Honestly, this feels like a non-sensical red herring argument.
Because it's a narrative rule, and follows a different philosophy than most everything else in the book. It's a very odd inclusion to me, and feels tacked on in my opinion.
