NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8013937" data-attributes="member: 29398">Yes if those things can exist as NPCs.The type of setting-based constraint that says I can't play an Elf because Elves don't exist in this setting is fine: it applies equally across the board to players and GM alike.The type of non-setting-based constraint that says I can't play an Evil Human even though Evil Humans exist in the setting is not fine.  Ditto the clearly non-setting-based constraint that says I can't roleplay a romance with another PC even though people in the setting fall in love all the time (one assumes, unless mating and reproduction are done completely without emotion).Taking this to an extreme would suggest I should be able to play a Dragon if I wanted; I don't go that far and am quite willing to accept (and enforce!) limits on playable races or creature types.  But within those creature types, if it exists in the setting then I should be able to play one and it violates my player agency if I'm arbitrarily told I cannot.  It further violates my agency if there's certain reasonable and otherwise-generally-acceptable things e.g. romance that I'm not allowed to roleplay.It's an extension of my increasingly-hardline stance that PCs and NPCs are and must be consistent with each other within the setting.  In other words, PCs are in all ways mechanically the same as NPCs only they've got players attached.On a strictly mechanical basis, I agree. Telling the DM you rolled 16 when the die clearly says 4 is cheating.But on a beyond-mechanical basis I think the act of imposing extra illegalities (e.g. no Evil, no romance, must play your own gender, etc.) can very quickly start nibbling if not outright chomping at agency.  Some people are cool with this.  In a few instances I'm cool with this.  But that doesn't blind me to the fact of its occurrence.I was trying to - and it seems failing to in any clarity - respond to something you said about whether player agency is affected if the rule affecting it isn't relevant to the here-and-now situation; by pointing out that some agency-affecting rules are always present.  But I've now forgotten exactly what it was you said that I was responding to, or where I was trying to go with it...so...bang goes that conversation. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification