D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

your replies? Your insistence to grant what the players want even if it stretches credulity to the breaking point

That’s not what I’ve been saying, no.

Rather, there’s no need for the explanation to push credulity to the breaking point.

Weren’t you the one saying you’d let a player with the feature to find eggs, find eggs even on a lifeless plane, because some could have visited it [in the same place and very recently], so the player could find some? The part in brackets is mine, but clearly required

That example wasn’t mine, no. It’s also one of the reasons I’m not crazy about hypotheticals. I don’t know which ability is in question.

Is it the Outlander’s feature? Or some made up “Eggfinder” bunk to try and prove a point? What do we mean by lifeless plane? How did the characters come to find themselves on the plane? Why are we there in the game?

There are so many questions that I’d want answered to have full context.

 

[gban007]

I might come across that way due to the one true wayism of the other side. Initially we were just saying that there can be rare instances where it's reasonable for the ability to fail. Nothing about how it much happen. Nothing about the other side being wrong if they don't do it that way. Then the one true wayism got pushed hard, "The ability should always work!" and so we had to push back hard against that attack. It's the defensiveness against that attack that you're seeing from us and mistaking for one true wayism.

I think that's fair, though other side may say similar about certain parts, but doesn't help when we describe 'sides' when they aren't unified, you and Oofta talk about plausabilities etc / what may be possible, when another poster talks about only the most reasonable, and on the other 'side' you have people saying in some circumstances can still say no, but at least one person does look to say the rule says always grant, so always grant, ignoring other rules where DM can override.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But I don't see that any of what Pemerton or Hawkeyefan have presented as being literally inexplicable either, they are just items where someone has to come up with the explanation. Also, the poster didn't say just 'reasonable', but 'most reasonable', and are the examples Pemerton presented really the most reasonable outcomes? I think they were all plausible, but if ran with this hard 'most reasonable' outcome should apply, I don't think any of those examples would have occurred.
What Pemerton and Hawkeyefan seem to be saying to me is that there can be a plausible reason in most instances to say yes, even in some of these tougher situations, to help look for where the NPC / world feature allows for it to occur, rather than saying the most likely outcome is x, so only x may occur. As per above post, I think this takes more effort that I'm generally willing to give as a DM in many cases, but doesn't mean it isn't achievable if wanted to go down that road.
Someone listed multiple reasons why an Efreeti noble may meet characters, or the president or high ranking lacky meet characters in certain scenarios, and all seem plausible, if unlikely, but I would argue Pemerton's examples were also on the side of plausible but unlikely. 'It was picked up by the most unlikely creature imaginable.'

Thank you for the reasonable analysis and engagement. It’s appreciated.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's a big difference between "can't work" and "wouldn't work for me" or "there still has to be some restrictions on the shared fiction". If shared fiction works for you, great. It would make the game less enjoyable for me. It also isn't a core assumption of D&D, outside of a bit of character history over which the DM still has editorial control.

Just because it's not a concern for you does not mean it works that way for everyone.

What I do notice is that it's always GMs saying this. That is people who spend a vast majority of their time Gaming prep heavy games. I have never in 15 years on these boards seen such a post by someone who is overwhelmingly sitting on the other side of the table say it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The feature grants an audience with a noble, not necessarily the noble you want. So, you don’t meet with the President, but instead some other functionary.

Just like if you were trying to use the feature in Faerun, maybe you don’t get to meet the king of Cormyr, instead, you meet with one of his courtiers, or a member of his family.

Right, and it's on you to make something of the meeting. I literally cannot see ANY situation where shutting this down wouldn't be bad GMing. Heck, what makes any compelling case for the GM to even get a say?

 

[mamba]

I don’t know which ability is in question.

does that even matter to you? To me it absolutely doesn’t

I guess that is the difference between us, when confronted with a ridiculous scenario, you say ‘which feature possibly allows that, so we can make it work’, and I say ‘you fail’

This discussion in a nutshell

 

[bloodtide]

Sounds like a fun setup. Since time is short (the summer), the players are getting the adventure they want and play is to be focused in that direction. You keep saying there are no "easy button" artifacts etc. but that there are plenty of things for the players to use. Can you give an example?

Both A and B groups found this one: not too far outside of town are the ancient ruins of an elven temple to Darahl Firecloak with a Font of Flamequench. While most towns folk knew about the ruins, few knew about the elven town that was there, and only three people knew about the temple...and no one around knew of the font. The PCs had to investigate it all by scattered clues and figure things out 'for real' (no I roll a DC 10 to remember everything about everything).

I don't like your description of the groups as good and bad. Seems more like the last group just doesn't fit your playstyle at all.

It is what it is.

What level is the party (good to know just how much of a challenge this will be)? And do you expect (or was there) any leveling before the Dragon encounter?

Everyone started at 10th level.

Why? Is it just a time factor? And what does non adventure related mean? A player could tie just about any activity in town to the adventure!

Because I hate wasting time doing "Second Life Crap" in an RPG. Like when a player wants their character to go "to the bar" and "pretend to drink" for 3-6 hours of real time. And most players lack that "tie" skill....

And what does come down hard mean? All it should take is a reminder "hey, we're pretty short on time, maybe some focus?" or something like that.

Yea, that would be the soft way. If they are lucky they would say just find the "bar" closed.....for a bit worse, and used in this game....a ghost would suddenly possess the character. Then the player would was forced to sit and do nothing as I played his character for a whole real life hour....then the ghost moved on.

How does bringing in new characters work? Same level as the old ones?

Of course, everyone is the same level. And it's easy as more people show up every couple of days to be dragonslayers....

Depending on how you handle finding hidden things this might be important.

Well...to a good players they are hard to find, but work the work and gameplay to do so. To the bad players they are "impossible" to find.

Sounds normal. Did the find and fight the Dragon?

Not yet.

think it's important for you to own your role in the ideas going nowhere.
It's also important to recognize why players start throwing out half baked random ideas.

Anyways - I'd like to hear more on this part. What were some of their ideas, how did they play out?

The first problem is group B has no leader.....and worse five leaders. Their second big problem is their wacky ideas....they wasted a lot of time on the idea of making "an illusion of a dragon" to "do something" but none of the characters are any type of spellcaster with illusion spells...let alone some higher level spells.

That would feel bad. Can you elaborate on how they tried to find the dragon and why none of those things worked?

They traveled in aimless circles trying to 'spot' the dragon. They looked for big caves and explored them. They followed a herd of mountain goats for a while hopping the dragon would come and eat some.

How did these things tie into their goal of slaying the dragon? I'm guessing Lore, Gifts, etc?

All sorts of ways?

Sounds like a reasonable player decision. Did you fast forward to day 100 or leave them to twiddle their thumbs?

I don't often "advance time", we are playing through day by day.

Sounds fine. Just curious what level of PC's and what CR of Dragon?

10th level and it's an adult dragon.

 

[hawkeyefan]

does that even matter to you? To me it absolutely doesn’t

I guess that is the difference between us, when confronted with a ridiculous scenario you say ‘which feature allows that’, and I say ‘you fail’

This discussion in a nutshell

I haven’t seen anyone advocate for a ridiculous scenario. I think that’s the difference.

I’ve advocated for finding a way to make the ability work as described without it being ridiculous.

 

[Oofta]

What I do notice is that it's always GMs saying this. That is people who spend a vast majority of their time Gaming prep heavy games. I have never in 15 years on these boards seen such a post by someone who is overwhelmingly sitting on the other side of the table say it.

Most people who are active on this forum DM. But I get what you really mean. Only DMs think it's a good idea to set any limits at all on the players. Poor, poor, put upon players with all of us evil DMs.

Or it could maybe, just maybe, be that different people have different play styles and they don't happen to agree with your personal preference.

 

[Mort]

does that even matter to you? To me it absolutely doesn’t

I guess that is the difference between us, when confronted with a scenario that was designed to be impossible, you say ‘which feature possibly allows that, so we can make it work’, and I say ‘you fail’

This discussion in a nutshell

you'll note throughout the thread that if the scenario is agreed as ridiculous, no one is advocating for an absurd result.

The issue is the extreme subjectiveness of "ridiculous scenario."

Easy example:

I, and others, think that using position of privilege to secure a meeting with a noble in the City of Brass is a good use of the feature.

Whereas the "other side" thinks that this is ridiculous and deserves a flat no.