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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9081986" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't see how the DM denying any player-initiated action can be anything but a removal of player agency. It's a given, no? It's like saying I had the agency as a kid to go see R rated movies, except my parents never let me. It makes no sense. Yes, it's absolutely all fine! I'm a player in a 5e game now that is radically different than how I'd run it. I get that. I also have no agency, it's basically a railroad. It is what it is. When I run 5e, I do things a little differently in order to allow the players more agency. That's fine! But clearly in an instance like that, you're saying DM prep is more important than player agency. Or else you'd adapt your prep to find a way to make the player's idea work.I tend to believe that there tends to be more than one way to achieve consistency and common sense. It usually only takes a few moments to work something out. It did, it's just that you didn't mind. You expected it and accepted it as a part of play. And that's fine! I'm not saying that agency is inherently good or bad. As for trust, we could just as easily say that the DM should trust their players. Okay, then you should be comfortable saying that setting fidelity and/or DM prep is more important than player agency. I don't see how you can read your comment any other way. And again, this is neither good nor bad.... it simply is. It's good if everyone in the group is happy playing that way, and it may be bad if everyone's not.</blockquote>

Verification