D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

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?

Not often. As I've said many times, it's a rare instance where the ability fails to work. But that's the core of D&D as an exceptions based system. Things don't work 100% of the time, regardless of how they are written.

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.

Those aren't nobles, though. They've met with the constable, which IS believable.

 

[Mort]

Not often. As I've said many times, it's a rare instance where the ability fails to work. But that's the core of D&D as an exceptions based system. Things don't work 100% of the time, regardless of how they are written.

There certainly might be an exception. Say the group is at a place where nobility simply doesn't exist - not even it's equivalent?

But if the group is somewhere where the ability could reasonably work? Then, IMO, it should work.

Those aren't nobles, though. They've met with the constable, which IS believable.

Is the constable a noble? then the condition is met.

A high enough ranked secret service agent or FBI agent COULD easily be considered a noble for this little exercise. Or, if the DM is not feeling it, then the ruling is nobility doesn't exist - so no one to meet. (NOT btw that the president is too high for the PCs to get - but that he's not a noble). Personally, I wouldn't do that, but I could see it if there were TRULY no nobles.

 

[Maxperson]

There certainly might be an exception. Say the group is at a place where nobility simply doesn't exist - not even it's equivalent?

But if the group is somewhere where the ability could reasonably work? Then, IMO, it should work.

I agree. This whole debate has been about reasonable. Not fear. Not invalid concerns. Not player abuse. Or any of the other mischaracterizations about those on my side of the issue.

Is the constable a noble? then the condition is met.

No. Law enforcement would not be nobility. In the U.S. nobility would be congress or the president. I'd even include governors and mayors of major cities. I would not include city councils or state politicians, though.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. Law enforcement would not be nobility. In the U.S. nobility would be congress or the president. I'd even include governors and mayors of major cities. I would not include city councils or state politicians, though.

I’d consider them really really minor nobles.

 

[Oofta]

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.



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.



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

I do always put my setting and world logic above the player's action declarations. I do that because it's the best way I know how to run the game, the game feels more "real" to me if I do this. For me, it makes for a better game and one that's more enjoyable in the long run. Besides, if I had let the noble get an audience with the giant noble the noble would have had them for lunch. Not invited them for lunch, but literally had them as an entrée for lunch.

I'm just trying to give feedback that it feels like you're pushing one true way whether you realize it or not, I'm not saying it's what you mean or that it's intentional.

 

[Maxperson]

I’d consider them really really minor nobles.

I'd consider them to be closer to captains of industry. Influential, but not noble.

 

[Mort]

I agree. This whole debate has been about reasonable. Not fear. Not invalid concerns. Not player abuse. Or any of the other mischaracterizations about those on my side of the issue.

As I mentioned way, way up thread. I don't actually think that that's the heart of the debate.

The heart of the debate is one side is ok with a rule/ability that nudges/encourages (and in some case eve forces) a DM to say yes and the other side is vehemently opposed.

No. Law enforcement would not be nobility.

Depends. Law enforcement in a D&D town may well be nobility.

In the U.S. nobility would be congress or the president. I'd even include governors and mayors of major cities. I would not include city councils or state politicians, though.

Since we are talking equivalence, the line gets pretty murky. I'd certainly include the members of the Cabinet, the chief of staff, the various chiefs of staff for the various congressmen, and certainly the heads of the various federal enforcement agencies. But that's starting to roam pretty far afield.

 

[Maxperson]

I do always put my setting and world logic above the player's action declarations. I do that because it's the best way I know how to run the game, the game feels more "real" to me if I do this. For me, it makes for a better game and one that's more enjoyable in the long run. Besides, if I had let the noble get an audience with the giant noble the noble would have had them for lunch. Not invited them for lunch, but literally had them as an entrée for lunch.

Well, no one said the audience had to work out in his favor.

 

[Maxperson]

As I mentioned way, way up thread. I don't actually think that that's the heart of the debate.

The heart of the debate is one side is ok with a rule/ability that nudges/encourages (and in some case eve forces) a DM to say yes and the other side is vehemently opposed.

Nah. It was all about reasonable exceptions and then one side started attacking those of us saying that and tried to paint us as unreasonable, saying that we should always say yes. "Say yes" is really a red herring in all of this. It truly does boil down to reasonable exceptions, at least for our side of things.

Depends. Law enforcement in a D&D town may well be nobility.

Oh, sure. I'm talking about the group landing in Washington D.C. hypothetical. In D&D law enforcement can be and often is also nobility.

Since we are talking equivalence, the line gets pretty murky. I'd certainly include the members of the Cabinet, the chief of staff, the various chiefs of staff for the various congressmen, and certainly the heads of the various federal enforcement agencies. But that's starting to roam pretty far afield.

Oh, yep. I'd include the Cabinet as well. Not the heads of agencies, though. I view those like corporate CEOs. Influential as all get out, but not really nobility.

 

[Mort]

Well, no one said the audience had to work out in his favor.

You joke, but this is EXACTLY right.

The DM can easily (and in some cases heavily) telegraph that that a meeting is a REALLY bad idea. If the PC pushes for it anyway? What happens, happens.