Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5539200" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's not relying on the DM's agency, which I suppose is the clincher. It doesn't ask for permission to do things you probably should be able to do. Totally agree. This is what I don't like about 4e's current assumption -- it replicates that feeling of being in a videogame, where only the designer's allowed options are the valid ones. Again, not that most DMs bother to play with the default 4e assumption, at least outside of a combat.What's bad is when a player has to have that agency bequeathed to them by request, when they should clearly possess it without having to ask. That's some micromanagementAny extreme position is, I feel, not a great one in this case. Go just by the rules, and you have 4e's "you can't hit objects" and videogames with their "pre-approved actions only, please!" Go just with DM judgement, and you're playing Amber Diceless. It becomes "Mother May I" when you have to ask the DM for permission too often, when you can't give a player enough autonomy to perform their own actions most of the time. Asking the DM if my axe can chop wood falls into that camp, since it's pretty obvious that my axe should be able to chop wood, and I shouldn't have to fluff the DM's ego by requesting some special dispensation to do what should clearly be something I can do.</blockquote>