D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

How am I supposed to answer this for you?

What do you do whenever you’re at a point in a game, or any other creative endeavor, and you don’t know what to do next? Do that.

If it was me, I’d ask everyone at the table. “How does this work? I can’t seem to figure out how this ability makes sense at this time given what we know… what do you guys think?”

I do this quite a bit in other games even if I’m not drawing a blank, but I just want some creative input. It always helps… either a cool idea is shared and we go with that, or else the ideas shared help inspire me to come up with something.

Total cop out.

 

[Mort]

But you just advocated for the position that specific hypothetical was intended to knock down...


Tell me again about how you can easily fit finding an egg on a lifeless plane that's never been visited before?

That's not a real feature, - it is an absurd exaggeration, that's why I called it a strawman. The real feature has the "the food must be available" limitation.

I'm not advocating for the insertion of absurd features.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's not a real feature, - it is an absurd exaggeration, that's why I called it a strawman.

It's a hypothetical feature and hypotheticals are not strawmen.

The real feature has the "the food must be available" limitation.

An actual feature does have that limitation. The hypothetical one removed that limitation to explore the limitations of your claim that there's always a reasonable way for a feature to work as it says.

I'm not advocating for the insertion of absurd features.

Never was claimed you were.

Nevertheless, the hypothetical and your refusal to actually deal with it does show the weakness of your claim that there's always a reasonable way for a feature to work as it says. If you had a reasonable way for this hypothetical you would have provided it instead of arguing the hypothetical doesn't apply for 'reasons'.

 

[mamba]

Just to demonstrate that, even that, COULD be used - ridiculous or no.

The point is, if the DM thinks it is ridiculous, disallow it in the first place. Don't allow it and then constantly nope it.

no idea how the 'constantly' sneaked in here

 

[mamba]

That's not a real feature, - it is an absurd exaggeration, that's why I called it a strawman. The real feature has the "the food must be available" limitation.

I'm not advocating for the insertion of absurd features.

The point is not the feature, the point the principle. It shows that one side is bending themselves over backwards into preztels in order to find ridiculous solutions so something that clearly is not intended to work can still work, just so the player can use it

 

[hawkeyefan]

So you know it is ridiculous, but you cannot just accept that at face value, you have to see why the player feature could work despite this ridiculous scenario that is clearly designed to make it impossible. My point from earlier exactly...

You misunderstand me. The hypothetical scenario is ridiculous. Like, as an example, it’s useless.

It seems less like a scenario for actual play than like a scenario to try and score rhetorical points.

That someone tried to offer an answer doesn’t make their attempt ridiculous. The entire scenario is ridiculous.

Is that clearer?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just to demonstrate that, even that, COULD be used - ridiculous or no.

The point is, if the DM thinks it is ridiculous, disallow it in the first place. Don't allow it and then constantly nope it.

What about you allow it but also allow for situations where it won't work? Is that acceptable, or do you consider that the same as "constantly noping it"?

 

[Mort]

It's a hypothetical feature and hypotheticals are not strawmen.

Again. They are when they are trying to knock down a position no one is advocating.

No one is advocating that absurd features need to also be allowed.

An actual feature does have that limitation. The hypothetical one removed that limitation to explore the limitations of your claim that there's always a reasonable way for a feature to work as it says.

Except, since it is an absurd feature that would never make the game in the first place exploring with it is meaningless.

If your argument is that the position of privilege feature is absurd? Then I simply disagree.

Never was claimed you were.

Nevertheless, the hypothetical and your refusal to actually deal with it does show the weakness of your claim that there's always a reasonable way for a feature to work as it says. If you had a reasonable way for this hypothetical you would have provided it instead of arguing the hypothetical doesn't apply for 'reasons'.

Ignoring completely absurd hypotheticals is not a weakness of the position.

No one, certainly not me, is claiming that absurd features must always have a reasonable way to work as stated - THAT's the strawman.

We are claiming that REAL features should work as stated. And even there; I, at least, have added (long ago) the proviso that the way it work must be reasonable (which is generally a trivially easy condition).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Total cop out.

How so?

Seriously… how can I provide an answer to you about what you should do when you can’t think up an idea?

What about “Be more creative”? Does that seem like useful advice?

I said you should play however you want. If you asked me, how would I do it… I gave you my answer.

That’s not a cop out at all.

 

[Mort]

What about you allow it but also allow for situations where it won't work? Is that acceptable, or do you consider that the same as "constantly noping it"?

There are generally provisions built right into the features where they wouldn't work.

No food - that portion of wanderer won't work.

No nobles - good luck using position of privilege.

Not in a city - the urchin feature won't work.

If the DM feels there is something equivalent that wouldn't allow the feature- that is a DM call - though hopefully would be discussed with the player.