D&D General What is player agency to you?

[CreamCloud0]

while we don't 'look for a reason to say yes' to the players as you suggest we should be doing but we aren't by any measure looking for a reason to say no either, we just take the reason we see as the most reasonable one in the circumstances

edit: and while we might also be the ones making the circumstances to which we make those judgements, by that same spirit of the pervious point we aren't making them to spite the players either

 

[hawkeyefan]

while we don't 'look for a reason to say yes' to the players as you suggest we should be doing we aren't by any measure looking for a reason to say no either, we just take the reason we see as the most reasonable one in the circumstances

Sure, but most actions have a range of possible outcomes, no?

Choosing which is most reasonable is a decision. A choice. It's not something that just happens without the DM deciding it happens.

 

[mamba]

Sure, but most actions have a range of possible outcomes, no?

yes

Choosing which is most reasonable is a decision. A choice. It's not something that just happens without the DM deciding it happens.

no, most reasonable is what is most reasonable. I can choose to go with a less reasonable excuse to get you an audience, but that does not make it more reasonable.

If you recite some words in front of a door, hoping it unlocks it, that is unreasonable. It will not work, regardless of whether I could find an excuse for it to. If you pick the lock instead, it has a good chance of working.

In this scenario the difference is your action, but I could also switch out the door, nobles are doors Some doors get unlocked by saying the right phrase, but most don't. Trying it in front of one that does not, does not mean I have to switch out the door now to make it work.

 

[Oofta]

No, not at all. People can play the game however they'd like!



But you're responsible for the fiction. You're the one that decides something you had written down ahead of time is more important than something the player decides to try during play.

And that's fine! It's a perfectly valid way to play. I mean that sincerely. But it's a choice to place your concept of the fiction above the ideas of the players.

It's not something beyond your control.

It's also not wrong and it's not me "finding a way" to stop a player from doing something. It's "thinking about the world I, with the help of players throughout the years, have created and applying basic logic. If you're in Jotunheim, the giants know little about Midgard and couldn't care less. Humanoids are slaves or vermin, none are worthy respect. It would make no sense to get an audience with a giant. It would also be pointless because they're not going to care what you say.

Yeah, that's fine. I don't think you're an evil cackling DM. I think you value your prep as a priority over player agency in moments where they may conflict.



Yeah, all I'm doing is pointing out that my game doesn't have these inconsistencies that folks are worried would arise from allowing the background features to always work. So my point has been that the inconsistency angle is a red herring, and so it really is about something else.

I've proposed that it's about the DM valuing their input on the game's fiction (via prep and worldbuilding) over player ideas (of the sort granted by background features, or by focusing play around the player characters). People seem to disagree with this idea... but their arguments against it seem to support it more than refute it.

EDIT:
Your arguments come across as one true way and saying that because I don't run it your way I don't value my players input.

 

[hawkeyefan]

yes

no, most reasonable is what is most reasonable. I can choose to go with a less reasonable excuse to get you an audience, but that does not make it more reasonable.

Two things on this.

First, it's the DM's idea of what's the most reasonable. That may or may not be an idea shared by some or all players. So this is the DM pushing things in the direction they've determined.

Second, sometimes the most reasonable thing isn't what winds up happening. Sometimes, something incredibly unlikely is what happens. This is why the range of outcomes is important.

If you recite some words in front of a door, hoping it unlocks it, that is unreasonable.

Tell that to Gandalf!

It will not work, regardless of whether I could find an excuse for it to. If you pick the lock instead, it has a good chance of working.

But this goes back to the player making a reasonable request. If there's a reason to expect that magic may open the door, then why would they not try that? If there's no reason, and no spell or ability that makes it explicitly so, then why would they request to do that?

In this scenario the difference is your action, but I could also switch out the door, nobles are doors Some doors get unlocked by saying the right phrase, but most don't. Trying it in front of one that does not, does not mean I have to switch out the door now to make it work.

No, but instead it's more the player saying "I want to go through a door" and rather than having them arrive at a door that will stay closed, you bring them to a door that will open. Because that's what the ability says to do (as I interpret it).

The idea that the request won't work relies on choosing circumstances that make it not work.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's also not wrong and it's not me "finding a way" to stop a player from doing something. It's "thinking about the world I, with the help of players throughout the years, have created and applying basic logic.

I specifically said it wasn't wrong.

I don't know if I make a distinction between "stopping a player from doing something" and "thinking about the world and applying basic logic". I mean, I get that your goal is the latter, but the former is an outcome.

If you're in Jotunheim, the giants know little about Midgard and couldn't care less. Humanoids are slaves or vermin, none are worthy respect. It would make no sense to get an audience with a giant. It would also be pointless because they're not going to care what you say.

Two things on this.

First, this is your setting and you've designed it this way. Again, that's perfectly valid. But this is you deciding to place more importance on the idea that the giants of Jotunheim will never ever treat with humans or other mortal races. That they have a monolithic view of mortals and a unified response.

Second, you could decide that there is such a giant... perhaps an outcast of some sort, who will listen to the mortals. Perhaps he has an agenda of his own... he wants to reclaim his place in giant society... whatever. Here's a powerful group of mortals who may be able to help him do so.

You certainly don't have to do that, but you could. It's a choice not to. Neither choice is wrong, but they have implications about player agency. It's really that simple.

It comes across as one true way.

I mean, I've said repeatedly that anyone can play any way that they like, and there's nothing wrong with any of it.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm saying that the way I play D&D... the way where I let abilities work as described in the book, which is what we're talking about... does not result in anything that would justify your concerns about that style of play.

It would if I played in your game. As soon as you stretched believability in order to force something to work, it would negatively impact my fun and justify my concern.

I mean... you can choose to find a way to make it work. Or you can choose to find a way to make it not work. It's a choice.

Sure. Just like you can come up with an unbelievable way to make it work, or you can choose for it to reasonably fail. That's your choice. We just choose differently.

I don't know how else to describe your resistance to letting the ability work. You have said you think it will make things inconsistent and so on.... that's the reason you don't want to do that. That's the fear you have about it.

It's still not a fear. I'm not afraid of an inconsistency or ridiculous play, I just don't like it and it's not going to happen in a game that I run. A different preference =/= fear.

I'm not classifying your fear as irrational or anything. That's just the word for it. I also called it a concern. We can label it however we want, that doesn't change what it is.

It's not the word for it. Fear = afraid. it's completely inappropriate as a description for those of us who PREFER things to run differently.

If by fixed, you mean you took a way to make the idea work and then made it not work, then sure...

By fixed I mean what would happen if someone pulled a weapon or dangerous ability while trying to see the president. LOL Maybe the body would get an audience.

That you think they'd just be like, "Let's let these armed and dangerous guys see the president." just proves my point about you finding absurd ways to make the ability work. Ridiculous is okay with you, and that's fine if you and your group enjoy that sort of play. Me and mine do not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It would if I played in your game. As soon as you stretched believability in order to force something to work, it would negatively impact my fun and justify my concern.

Why would stretching believability be needed? This is the part I'm disagreeing with you about. I've never had to do that to make these abilities work in D&D. I've also played other games that work this way, and believability isn't diminished in this way.

You're implying here that my game somehow lacks believability. That's what I'm disagreeing with... your assessment of my game.

Sure. Just like you can come up with an unbelievable way to make it work, or you can choose for it to reasonably fail. That's your choice. We just choose differently.

Again, why wouldn't I just come up with a believable way to make it work?

It's still not a fear. I'm not afraid of an inconsistency or ridiculous play, I just don't like it and it's not going to happen in a game that I run. A different preference =/= fear.
It's not the word for it. Fear = afraid. it's completely inappropriate as a description for those of us who PREFER things to run differently.

Call it whatever you want. I don't care, it doesn't change that it's not a valid concern/worry/fear/soft-safe-cotton-balls-word.

By fixed I mean what would happen if someone pulled a weapon or dangerous ability while trying to see the president. LOL Maybe the body would get an audience.

That you think they'd just be like, "Let's let these armed and dangerous guys see the president." just proves my point about you finding absurd ways to make the ability work. Ridiculous is okay with you, and that's fine if you and your group enjoy that sort of play. Me and mine do not.

Sorry, I didn't feel the need to elaborate because I didn't think details would be needed. What about when the bullets are deflected by a shield spell? Or any number of other fantastic things that the PCs could display.

I figured establishing that the PCs were capable of things that were beyond understanding... that they were likely to in fact be visitors from another reality... maybe someone would consider talking to them.

Crazy.

 

[Mort]

It would if I played in your game. As soon as you stretched believability in order to force something to work, it would negatively impact my fun and justify my concern.

But that's the thing. A feature like this never has to strain believability.

Sure. Just like you can come up with an unbelievable way to make it work, or you can choose for it to reasonably fail. That's your choice. We just choose differently.

Or you can choose for a completely believable way to make it work. Why leave that choice out?

I suppose your argument is that no believable choice exists? Honestly how often does that happen for something like this, where you can't think of even one reasonable believable option that also fits?

It's still not a fear. I'm not afraid of an inconsistency or ridiculous play, I just don't like it and it's not going to happen in a game that I run. A different preference =/= fear.

It's not the word for it. Fear = afraid. it's completely inappropriate as a description for those of us who PREFER things to run differently.

By fixed I mean what would happen if someone pulled a weapon or dangerous ability while trying to see the president. LOL Maybe the body would get an audience.

That you think they'd just be like, "Let's let these armed and dangerous guys see the president." just proves my point about you finding absurd ways to make the ability work. Ridiculous is okay with you, and that's fine if you and your group enjoy that sort of play. Me and mine do not.

It's meeting with "A" local noble not a specific noble of the player's choice. PCs want to see the President. Ok, I DO contend it could happen.

But if you don't?

They get a meeting with the secret service or a member of the FBI (government substituting for Noble in this little scenario). A not only believable but highly likely result.

 

[Maxperson]

Why would stretching believability be needed? This is the part I'm disagreeing with you about. I've never had to do that to make these abilities work in D&D. I've also played other games that work this way, and believability isn't diminished in this way.

The problem is in declaring your "believability" to be believable for everyone. I saw no believable ways for the noble to get an audience with the efreeti.

Call it whatever you want. I don't care, it doesn't change that it's not a valid concern.

You keep saying that as if it will become true if you repeat it enough. You don't get to declare the preferences of others to be invalid. You can say that you don't share the preference, but you have no ability to make my preference invalid via a declaration.

Sorry, I didn't feel the need to elaborate because I didn't think details would be needed. What about when the bullets are deflected by a shield spell? Or any number of other fantastic things that the PCs could display.

They still end up dead. Bullets aren't magic missile and the sheer number of shots won't keep them safe. In any case, dead or alive, they aren't getting an audience with anyone but an arraignment judge at that point.