Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9084784" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I feel that's an overly narrow interpretation of the feature, especially given the description of the background overall, and in the description of the feature itself. Also, considering that local nobles of the sort you're describing likely consist of the character's immediate family, so the ability to speak to one's family doesn't seem all that meaningful. Yes, yes, they could live in a world where there's a curse and no one can speak to their family or some other absurd contrivance, so we can ignore all logic!First, I don't think that characters are free from the DM saying how things go. This happens in a variety of ways, from simple scene framing like "You're all in a tavern..." or "You wake up in the morning to find..." and so on, to the results of actions by other characters.... charm person, dragon fear, power words, and so forth. Second, given the dynamic between DM and players and the asymmetry in authority, I don't think it's useful to compare a slight diminishment of the DM's authority and any diminishment of the players'. Things don't work in the real world in such a way as to match one person's conception of them. Of course that's true, but does it matter? If everyone's expectations are aligned, then there's no issue. As has been said, this kind of stuff is all a matter of preference. My point is talking about "forcing" people as you've chosen to interpret it doesn't address the point that was made. That point being that many folks just don't want the DM to be obliged to honor the player's actions. They want to reserve the right to block those actions, even when they are acceptable per the rules. Obviously, there are always exceptions. When I first mentioned Background Features, I said if a DM denied its use, he better have a really good reason. Most such reasons that have been offered are either absurd (the lifeless plane nonsense) or else not very compelling (the duke is vacationing). Everyone objecting to the Background Features has danced around it, and nearly said it, but it really seems to boil down to they want their decisions and ideas to matter more than anyone else's. And if we look at it like that and consider the DM's significant authority regarding what the game will be about, application of the rules, and application of their own judgment to apply those rules and processes.... then we combine that with the idea that the players can't be trusted with even a sliver of authority that comes up in very specific circumstances... yeah, it's hard to see it as anything but an argument to preserve DM authority. Which is fine in and of itself... but then for some bonkers reason, folks think they can claim that player agency is still present and still matters.</blockquote>

Verification