Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8155916" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Okay, cool. That didn’t seem to be the case at all, but if so, then okay I’ll proceed with that in mind. So then given that you agree above that a D&D player will have an outcome in mind for their declared action, how is that different from the Blades player? I’d say that lack of a clear process is likely part of the problem. I mean, in many ways the ability to take D&D and then make it work how you want is a feature. But when there are vagaries left in the rules that’s something different, and is a bug for sure. Well no, it’s not a “yelling fire in a theater” situation. That is most definitely illegal. I’m asking if the DM is free, either within the rules or within the social contract of the gaming group, to take a successful action declaration, and make it so that the success is something other than what the player expected.The player declared that their Rogue was going to attempt to disarm the trap. The player declared that their Fighter was going to attempt to attack the orc. The player declared that their Bard was going to attempt to Persuade the baron to provide the party with horses. In each of these cases, the player has an outcome in mind. Wouldn’t success result in that desired outcome? Or may the DM alter the outcome? If the DM may alter the outcome, then would you agree that this reduces a player’s agency?If the DM cannot alter the outcome, then are we back to the player declaring both action and intended outcome? Doesn’t this render the (3) in my previous post as not applicable on a success?Because combat is where a player in D&D has the most agency. The rules are (mostly) clear, interpretation is minimal, and the dice are involved quite a bit. The DM is mostly bound to the results of the dice, and generally speaking if he decides to alter thee outcome, it’s seen as a bad thing. Combat is also the one area of D&D where nearly everyone will agree, anything can happen. The result is not a foregone conclusion. Imagine if the DM was not discouraged from simply negating an action in combat. He could just alter any result as desired, usually to match some preconceived idea he has about the fiction. What would this do to player agency?Imagine if the social and exploration pillars of D&D had similar structure to combat. The DM would follow established processes, the players would declare actions, the dice would determine success or failure, and the DM would honor those results. The DM would not be steering things toward their idea of how the fiction should go. What would this do to player agency?</blockquote>

Verification