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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8430975" data-attributes="member: 7030755">This is a good example, because it is entirely within the DM authority to pull this move, but is not "good" DMing, in that it feels forced and does not lead to interesting or creative gameplay.  Per the core loop of 5e, the DM described the situation, the players narrated their solutions to the situation, and the DM narrated the result, all a few times over.  The players expect that their choices would be meaningful within the context of the situation, but the fact that it resulted in a fight made them seem not meaningful.  You don't trust that the DM is not using their authority over the fiction ("DM narrates...") to force their encounter on to you no matter how you try to avoid it.  Nothing in the rules, not even the folk hero background, makes you able to assert agency over the fiction of what the DM narrates, but it is probably the expectation of everyone at the table that a good DM would not do that.  And if a DM does that sort of thing often enough, the trust between everyone at the table is broken, <a href="https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/44282/roleplaying-games/abused-gamer-syndrome" target="_blank">leading to problems</a>.I have two thoughts1. Would anything have made this situation plausible, for example something in the DMs notes about how the farmer was a loyalist, or maybe just that the rogue failed their stealth check without noticing and was followed?  If there was something in their prep, they could at least point to it and say they had predetermined something about this particular farmer irrespective of your decisions; aside from that, it's hard to trust that they are truly being neutral, if they are just making that up about the farmer on the spot (even though, again, it's technically within their purview as DM)2. Would this situation feel any different if there was not a specific rule for the "folk hero" background?  Let's say it's been established that you are a robin hood type, and can sort of tell what kind of common folk would see you as a hero.  It seems that your group could take all the same steps and precautions, even without the explicit background feature.  The background feature just allows you to skip over some of the roleplay, and establish a little more firmly that, yes, you are objectively recognized by some as a "folk hero."  And yet, whether or not there is an explicit rule or feature for your character, you have to trust that the DM won't railroad you into a combat. In sum: no set of rules in the game can really give you player agency in 5e.  That can only come with a DM that is not antagonistic and can be trusted to play the world fairly.edit: so far the responses range from "totally acceptable" to "plausible" to "clear negation" which maybe gives insight as to why we might be talking past each other in this conversation</blockquote>

Verification