Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6865514" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I've seen those threads, although I generally don't comment. My experience is that online discussion about topics like that is not really indicative of actual play experience. I mean, my general stance is to allow whatever the players want when it comes to races and classes and options, especially anything where there are existing mechanics for what they want. I'm even very open to homebrew type material for options that don't exist, as long as they are reasonable. I would only say no if there was a really really strong reason for that, and even then, I don't think I would just say no to someone so much as talk to them about it, and then find the best path forward for all. Is this really that odd to find in play? Most of my play experience is with a home game I play with a group of friends, so I am sure that flavors my view a great deal. But are people really running into DMs who scream "AGH NO DRAGONBORN IN MY GAME EVAR!!!!" in public play? I feel like that happens a lot more online than anything else. The AL guidelines exist precisely to avoid this kind of situaiton. If you're running into this attitude in a home game, can't it be talked out?   Well, I won't tell you you're wrong because it's your opinion. But I disagree, in general. Especially if such tactics are employed sparingly and subtly by the DM. When I advocate for the DM taking more control like this, I mean doing so only in more extreme circumstances. I really don't see it taking away player agency to prevent a TPK for instance. I mean, the players, if spared by a bit of DM fudging, would likely still walk away from the encounter thinking "wow, that was really close...maybe next time we don't charge in like that". I disagree that the outcome must be as negative as possible in order for anyone to learn a lesson. I recognize that when the DM does this, he is reducing player agency a bit, sure. But it does not remove it entirely from that one instance, and especially not from the game as a whole. What if the DM "interference" took the form of more story related elements, rather than rules related? Instead of having a monster miss at a key moment when the roll indicates a hit, let's say that the DM has the dwarven miners that the party ran into earlier show up to save the day and help drive the monster off? Do you view that differently or the same? Again, is this what you find in practice? Or is it just that the book itself positions things with a little distinction between common and exotic races? If it's the former, then I can understand your frustration. If its the latter, I would say just ignore it. Perhaps! I didn't find that Ouija board analogy all that compelling, so I'm not sure. I wouldn't deny that player agency can be reduced at times when the DM employs the kind of techniques we're discussing. I think it's all a question of degree. I think the DM can and sometimes must do that in order to help the game remain fun. To me, the fun is paramount. And similar to how Ezekiel said that if his agency as a player is reduced at all, he feels robbed. I think that's an extreme stance....but if the entire table felt that way, then I would be a lot less likely to do anything to subvert that agency. That plays into the social contract angle you mention. I think that's a huge part of it. It all depends on expectations and then play that either supports those expectations or contradicts them. Yes, of course. I don't think it's something that should be done at every point.</blockquote>

Verification