D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Aldarc]

Also, when talking about D&D supporting a divine right of nobility or not, I would like to point out that Birthright is technically a setting in the D&D Multiverse.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I were to play 5e D&D, I wouldn't need to change the background features, which in my view are one of the more interesting parts of the game's design!

It seems to me that it is those posters in this thread who are arguing for the reading in of text that is not there - an implicit "unless the GM says otherwise" - who are changing the game from what has actually been published to something that better fits their vision.

I'm not surprised it's one of your favorite rule widgets in 5e, as it is one of the very few unequivocally narrative elements in the rulebook!

Actually, my other problem with the rule is specifically because of text that isn't there: the ability clearly requires nobility to have a supernatural aspect in order to work regardless of circumstances, and none are indicated.

 

[pemerton]

I agree, I see this more as in a way not taking the players / the game seriously. It doesn't really remove agency, it removes good or bad gameplay, it removes any stakes.

By the way, you've now answered your question that you posed to me upthread: what is the point of the GM?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also, when talking about D&D supporting a divine right of nobility or not, I would like to point out that Birthright is technically a setting in the D&D Multiverse.

I expect Birthright was explicit about it, which is perfectly fine.

 

[soviet]

By the way, you've now answered your question that you posed to me upthread: what is the point of the GM?

To increase your agency by vetoing your actions I think

 

[mamba]

I'm not sure if you're advocating railroading or not. In case it's unclear, I'm not.

I am not, I don't think anyone here is. I phrased it like that as a pun, to provoke some answers and because that seems to be what 'your side' thinks denying the audience would have resulted in.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree. Under such circumstances I can write down a chart of 100 random actions and roll randomly when I come to a decision point. Where's the meaning in such a situation. If rolling randomly and making a choice ends up being the same, choosing doesn't matter.

I don't understand this at all. If a player wants to emulate Two-Face or The Dice Man in their play of their PC, letting them do that doesn't really seem a denial of their agency.

I don't get this whole The DM must have a veto power so that the players can be saved from themselves thing.

 

[Maxperson]

I have no view about how others should play 5e D&D. I have reported what I would expect as a player, given the text of the rules. And I have related that expectation to my more general preference about player agency.

As to the issue of the overall consistency of the 5e rules: there is a doctrine, in the Australian law of statutory interpretation, that it is impermissible to read one part of a statute, to construct a rationale or purpose from that, and then to use that constructed rationale or purpose as a constraint or limit or gloss on other parts of the statute. Rather, the statute has to be read in its entirety, and only then can its rationale or purpose be identified and potentially deployed as an aid to interpretation of particular provisions.

It is even more impermissible to construct a rationale or purpose from some source external to the statute, and use that as a constraint or limit or gloss on the text of the statute itself.

In this thread, the approach to the interpretation of the 5e rules by @Micah Sweet, @Maxperson and @Oofta - which identifies a rationale or approach from a certain component of the rulebooks (eg text in the DMG) or from something external to the rulebooks (a sense of "how D&D is meant to work"), and then reads that back into the text of the Noble background to derive some implicit "unless the GM says otherwise" that is not there in the text - seems to fall foul of the stricture I've just described.

I think there are more consistent ways of reading the rules, which reconcile the express text of the feature with other elements of the text. I think @hawkeyefan has outlined them in this thread.

But the issue of the best interpretation of the 5e rules is ultimately orthogonal to the topic of this thread, which is player agency.

While interesting, that Austrailian statutory interpretation isn't at all analogous to 5e D&D. 5e D&D explicitly says the opposite, in both the PHB and the DMG. Not only isn't it impermissible, but it's explicitly permissible and the way things are unless the DM changes it.

Running afoul of a portion of Austrialian law interpretation that has no bearing on the 5e situation doesn't seem to me to be relevant or useful for this discussion.

 

[clearstream]

So you’re describing a situation where the player and GM have a discussion and and agree on what’s at stake before rolling? And I expect the player has some sense of the odds, as well?

Sounds pretty good to me!

I’t’s “Here’s the situation and how it will work. Do you want to proceed?” And then the player can decide if they want to or not. It’s up to them. Whatever the outcome may be, they’ve chosen this path and accepted the odds. The dice tell us how it goes.

Yes, exactly. The example suggests that GM can empower player agency through their attitude and approach. Even when they are making rulings rather than applying RAW.

 

[Oofta]

I have no view about how others should play 5e D&D. I have reported what I would expect as a player, given the text of the rules. And I have related that expectation to my more general preference about player agency.

As to the issue of the overall consistency of the 5e rules: there is a doctrine, in the Australian law of statutory interpretation, that it is impermissible to read one part of a statute, to construct a rationale or purpose from that, and then to use that constructed rationale or purpose as a constraint or limit or gloss on other parts of the statute. Rather, the statute has to be read in its entirety, and only then can its rationale or purpose be identified and potentially deployed as an aid to interpretation of particular provisions.

It is even more impermissible to construct a rationale or purpose from some source external to the statute, and use that as a constraint or limit or gloss on the text of the statute itself.

In this thread, the approach to the interpretation of the 5e rules by @Micah Sweet, @Maxperson and @Oofta - which identifies a rationale or approach from a certain component of the rulebooks (eg text in the DMG) or from something external to the rulebooks (a sense of "how D&D is meant to work"), and then reads that back into the text of the Noble background to derive some implicit "unless the GM says otherwise" that is not there in the text - seems to fall foul of the stricture I've just described.

I think there are more consistent ways of reading the rules, which reconcile the express text of the feature with other elements of the text. I think @hawkeyefan has outlined them in this thread.

But the issue of the best interpretation of the 5e rules is ultimately orthogonal to the topic of this thread, which is player agency.

The D&D books are not legal documents and I don't hold them to the same standard. In addition as per the DMG, the DM is in charge not the rules.

That and y'all are interpreting "local noble" as local to wherever that NPC noble is located. If reading this as a legal document (I don't) an NPC noble will always be local to where they are so therefore the word "local" would be superfluous and unnecessary by that reading. It therefore follows that the only reasonable interpretation of including the word local is in reference to local to where the PC's family has political influence.

But yes, I will run the game based on logic instead of rules text for things that affect the responses and actions of NPCs outside of spells every time.