NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 9085948" data-attributes="member: 9053">So I've been out of the thread for a bit (work + dad duty) but I've been trying to keep up with things. A couple of thoughts...I think there are people who are discussing a lot of games other than D&D when talking about what the DM can do. Since we're in the D&D section of the boards, I've taken this thread to be about D&D. In that light: talking about what a DM can do isn't helpful. D&D puts the ultimate authority on the DM. So yes, the DM can say "you can't have that audience." They can also say "you can't cast fireball." They have the authority right up to "rocks fall, everyone dies." If people are saying otherwise, they're talking about another game. There are plenty of games where the DM/GM ... what have you can't do that stuff.But the topic of the thread is about agency, and a lot of what the DM can do can also directly goes against agency. Or is perceived that way. The only discussion here is how far the line moves before it becomes a bad thing. Yes, you can say "player abilities don't trump my worldbuilding!" but when you say that, unless you're very careful you go against player agency. And end up with confused and unhappy players.That is especially true when the players and the DM aren't on the same page about what the world the DM has created is like. If a player objects to the DM saying they can't get an audience because they're too provincial or they're in a neighboring country that doesn't respect them or really for any number of other reasons, they're going to object most times than not because they don't know what being a noble means in the world.I have found that the root of almost all disagreements about what happens in a game (in "the fiction") comes because the DM/GM has an understanding of how the world works that the players don't. It's really that simple, most of the time. This is the case where neither the players nor the DM are really wrong, they just are talking past each other.The disagreement about the audience and the feelings of loss of agency for the players likely comes from the fact that the DM saying no either doesn't explain why the attempt fails, when the character would likely know how it would work but the player doesn't, or the perception that this was something the DM didn't want to happen and was simply making an excuse for.If you're a DM, you control the setting. It behooves you in my opinion to have frequent conversations with your players about how things work so that it doesn't come as a surprise to them when they can't do something.And just one more thing on this lengthy post: have you noticed that all of the problems with agency come from the DM shooting the players down and saying "no, you can't do that?" No one is complaining about agency when the DM suddenly allows something that seems at odds with what the player expects they can do. DM worldbuilding about unexpected things a character does know or can do ... well that's equally valid, and tends to be something everyone genuinely enjoys. Isn't that something to think about?</blockquote>

Verification