What do you expect from D&D?

[TandemChelipeds]

I'm not. I can't stand ''player agency''. It's like on my top five list of ''do this and you will be asked to leave my house, forever.''

Like:

Problem Player-"I walk down the street northward''
DM-"Up ahead there is a locked gate that stops all foot traffic from moving past 6th street northward''
Problem Player-"What? What? What? How dare you! By my Player Agency, I demand that you let my character walk to 3rd street...because..because I say so..and..and I'm king of the world!''
DM-''Please leave my house and never come back...have a nice life.''

But that isn't player agency. This is player agency:

Player: "I walk north down the street."
DM: "There's a gate up ahead that stops northbound foot traffic from 6th street on."
Player: "Well, damn. Ok, I use Disable Device to unlock it."
DM: "Are you sure? Breaking and entering is pretty illegal."
Player: "You have a point. I roll Perception to see if there are any guards around."
(Perception 17)
DM: "You can't see any guards, luckily enough."
Player: "Great. I roll Disable Device."
(Disable Device 9)
DM: "You fail."
Player: "Ok, then. I make a Strength check to break through the gate."
DM: lolwut
(Strength 13)
Player: "Ok, one more shot. I make a Climb check to climb over it."
DM: "Are you sure? You've wasted a lot of time. Everyone else wants to play."
Player: "... Ok, I go somewhere else."

Note that the DM gave the player plenty of chances to get their way, but never yielded to demands of any sort, instead letting the dice and mechanics decide.

[afroakuma]

For my kobold I was trying to use the draconic language to come up with a name that reflected weakness and cowardice and still sound kind of cool. I ended up naming him Gix.

Probably didn't help that "Gix" was used by MtG a long time ago. People have had a looooong time to come up with that particular unclever joke.

[Sith_Happens]

Ah yes, how could I forget the one thing that everyone expects from D&D:

Endless bickering over the alignment system.

[georgie_leech]

Ah yes, how could I forget the one thing that everyone expects from D&D:

Endless bickering over the alignment system.

I think that about sums it up.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Ah yes, how could I forget the one thing that everyone expects from D&D:

Endless bickering over the alignment system.

No, you're chaotic neutral!

[kellbyb]

No, you're chaotic neutral!

Actually, your mom's chaotic neutral.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Actually, your mom's chaotic neutral.

Yeah? Well, your mom is a gnome! A Dragonlance gnome!

[TandemChelipeds]

Yeah? Well, your mom is a gnome! A Dragonlance gnome!

Spoiler

Show

OH NO YOU DIDN'T

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Spoiler

Show

OH NO YOU DIDN'T

Spoiler

Show

[atemu1234]

My emphasis...

Why?

Seriously, there is no fundamental law requiring that agency be maximized. Nor even a requirement which would make that necessary for a game to be good. The quality of an experience does not necessarily depend on one's perception of agency. While that may be at times a factor, there area reasons why it could be removed.

Furthermore, as we see from the emphasized portion of your quote, because you are of the opinion that increasing agency is always good, that means that anything that removes agency is to negative. Which means that you aren't capable of understanding the sort of game where powerlessness or a world you can't completely are part of the fun and part of the picture. As such, you aren't really qualified to comment on whether a removal of agency is good or bad, outside of initially stating your opinion. Not because you're opinion is inherently wrong, but because it is the equivalency of somebody who believes that all RPG combat is bad and all RPGs should be primarily social interaction commenting on a thread discussing modifying a feat that changes combat in some way. Because anything that is related to combat is negative for you, the nuance that exists in combat would be lost.

The way I'll put it is that player agency may not be required to make a game good, but it does help prevent the game from being not good. Giving the players the ability to dispute a DM ruling is a good idea in general, and if it doesn't make them angry, fine. But if it does make them not like having you for DM, then you've got a problem.

[GraySeaJones]

I'm not. I can't stand ''player agency''. It's like on my top five list of ''do this and you will be asked to leave my house, forever.''

Like:

Problem Player-"I walk down the street northward''
DM-"Up ahead there is a locked gate that stops all foot traffic from moving past 6th street northward''
Problem Player-"What? What? What? How dare you! By my Player Agency, I demand that you let my character walk to 3rd street...because..because I say so..and..and I'm king of the world!''
DM-''Please leave my house and never come back...have a nice life.''

I will be echoing others here, but this is not what I meant regarding player agency. Player agency is not the ability for players to accomplish anything they please. The DM has the right to (and is encouraged to) place obstacles in the players' ways. However, to deny a player the ability to take an action altogether is what I hypothesized why so many people have a problem with your house rule: you display this when you change the spell a player cast.

PCs have goals (usually). In the case you mentioned, the example player wants to follow the street north. The DM has the right to adjudicate obstacles, which the example DM does by describing a gate. To set obstacles in the face of the PCs is not a limitation on player agency, because the player can still be proactive about the situation: the player still has options for reaching their goal, whether obvious or not.

The player could attempt to bypass the gate in various ways: by bribing/bluffing/killing/impersonating guards, picking the lock, climbing, stealing a key, sneaking through if the gate opens, inciting a riot to break through, using spells or class features to fly or turn ethereal, et cetera. They could also attempt to gain legitimate access to the north street by learning about the reason of the blockage and, say, gain favor from the authorities or try to end the problem that is requiring high security at the gate. These attempts are not necessarily successful; which, if any, of these efforts are even applicable depend on the exact situation. Still, having a logical reason for why an approach does not work is always helpful, because it implies that the situation is reasonable and could be dealt with through enough ingenuity and/or resources.

So instead of just telling the player that their PC "can't" go North - or worse yet, telling the player that their PC goes West instead - take their player agency into account, and give them the opportunity to take action. Let them say, "Well, then I'll try..." and offer them more obstacles. Disable Device to pick the lock failed? Well, the PC might try to steal the key off a guard. Sleight of Hand check failed? Well, then the player might try to Bluff their way out of the situation. In each of these cases, the player is able to try to take action of their own accord (and possibly fail of a result of their own action), rather than have the action dictated to them - which is what occurs when you change a player's chosen spell.

Imagine if the aforementioned player wants to try and pickpocket a guard for the key. Imagine further that the DM claims, "You can't do that, because your character is too afraid of getting caught." This is a direct affront to player agency. Barring certain cases of mind control, of course. Mind control of PCs tends to be divisive enough on its own, although somewhat helped because players can make use of it too, and because cooperative gamers can be trusted to roleplay the scenario. Further, mind control has counters and countermeasures, which players can attempt to find or learn to make use of. Divine intervention does not. Also, please note that I have no problem with how games like GURPS handle character personality traits.

And in the case of changing a cleric's chosen spell, that is not an obstacle that prevents the spell from being cast, and which could plausibly be dealt with in some manner, such as an antimagic field. It's not a consequence for an action, either, because the action was not taken. You know, I would be perfectly understanding if the spell I cast caused my character to lose his divine powers - so long as they had the opportunity to seek redemption, or possibly find another deity based on my newfound understanding that my character's worldview does not match their deity's. Changing my action altogether based on divine will is a line I personally don't want crossed as a player. At least when I play D&D.

Yea, but that is like saying that all NPC's ''annoy'' players as all NPC's are just ''the will of the DM''.

I guess I should explain in some more detail: What I mean by "agent" and "DM will" is that an agent is capable of being influenced by the players' actions in some manner, whereas an extension of DM is reasonably immutable IC, just like the gods. Since the DM is responsible for both creating and/or adapting the gods of the game world and deciding how they behave each day, and because the gods are so powerful and distant that the players cannot hope to influence them, the gods tend to be seen as avatars of the DM himself.

Edit: Crap, this post got long. I think I repeated myself over and over, too. I apologize.

[jedipotter]

Note that the DM gave the player plenty of chances to get their way, but never yielded to demands of any sort, instead letting the dice and mechanics decide.

Sounds like player stupidity to me. And I don't care if the player really wants to ''open door number two'' or whatever and I as the DM don't want them too....then that door is not going to be opened.

And I can hear the cries already saying ''that is wrong'' and ''they don't like that'', and I would just say: cry me a river. That is the way the game works.

Ah yes, how could I forget the one thing that everyone expects from D&D:

Endless bickering over the alignment system.

I'm not sure this is an ''expiation'', it's more of an ''given''.

[Sir Chuckles]

Sounds like player stupidity to me. And I don't care if the player really wants to ''open door number two'' or whatever and I as the DM don't want them too....then that door is not going to be opened.

And I can hear the cries already saying ''that is wrong'' and ''they don't like that'', and I would just say: cry me a river. That is the way the game works.

That is how your games work, don't make generalized assumptions. And please try to be a bit more tactful, as you seem to be becoming more rude and vitriolic.

If you don't want a player to go that way, so be it. Put something like a high quality lock there, something that's believable. But you can't just say "You don't do that, it doesn't work". You have to let them try, even if you absolutely know that it will fail.
But at the same time, save such things for when they're important, as doing it too often will make for very clear railroading. The appearance of choice can be just as a strong as actual choice, if used correctly.

[eggynack]

Sounds like player stupidity to me. And I don't care if the player really wants to ''open door number two'' or whatever and I as the DM don't want them too....then that door is not going to be opened.

Then yes, if the character would be fully capable of opening a door, and you've decided that they can't because you don't want them to, then that is a case where you're reducing player agency. If your players accuse you of that at that point, then they are likely accurate in that assertion.

[Sith_Happens]

And I don't care if the player really wants to ''open door number two'' or whatever and I as the DM don't want them too....then that door is not going to be opened.

Basically, here's the key: While plenty of players will be fine with the above, most will want to find it out for themselves, which is generally accomplished by attempting assorted means of getting it open either until they run out of ideas or until they, you, and/or the other players decide that this is taking too long and it's time to move on (which of those two endpoints is more likely depends on the player and group, I take it that your group leans strongly towards the latter).

It's also a good idea to have some idea why that door is there in the first place and what's behind it, because if the players never find out by one means or another then really, why was there not just wall there instead? I suppose that's more of a worldbuilding concern, though.

[Vogonjeltz]

So you get invited to a D&D 3.5 (or Pathfinder) game. And your not best friends with the DM. What do you expect from the game? A lot of people have a lot of expectations about the game, and it make me wonder what they all are?

I expect the DM to be up front about any deviations from the rules in the PHB.
As a cynic I also fully expect at least one person involved to have the reading comprehension and/or memory of a drunken wombat and constantly violate those same rules.

Rules are certainly one aspect where computer games have a massive advantage on pen and paper, in that if it's not rules legal, you simply can't do it.

[Friv]

For example, this isn't actually stopping player agency. The removal of player agency would be for your player to say, "I walk down the street northward," and then you say, "Up north there is a locked gate that stops all foot traffic. You go west instead. West is a way better direction anyway." It would also be somewhat removing agency if you didn't even let your player attempt to bypass the gate, despite the fact that they have several abilities that would trivially allow them to do just that. The player has actions that he should by all rights be allowed to take, like flying over the rhetorical waist high fence, and he's not being allowed to do so because reasons.

Seriously? I've never seen a DM do something like that. It's like, so far beyond dumb. I've seen bad DM's with like ''um the town and bad guys castle are the only places in the world. You guys are in town, um, you want to go to the castle?''

And I don't care if the player really wants to ''open door number two'' or whatever and I as the DM don't want them too....then that door is not going to be opened.

And I can hear the cries already saying ''that is wrong'' and ''they don't like that'', and I would just say: cry me a river. That is the way the game works.

You've just basically accused yourself of being dumb. Just thought I would toss that out there on the off chance that it makes you consider the argument you've put together.

[jedipotter]

However, to deny a player the ability to take an action altogether is what I hypothesized why so many people have a problem with your house rule: you display this when you change the spell a player cast.

Again, this is just the hate talking. Changing a couple spell effects does not take control of a character, any more then any other action. And plenty of DM's do it, they just hide behind the ''story'' or ''plot''.

Spoiler: Example

Show

The DM makes a future foe, complete with a character write up. The DM wants the foe to be for the long term, at least a couple games. So to get the ball rolling, the DM introduces the foe in a non-combat encounter to taunt the players. The players, however, go over the top and go right for the idea to immediately kill the foe. So the players set up an ambush to kill the foe. So to keep the foe alive, the DM has to have the character's attacks miss and for the foe to get away. Or let the foe be killed and brought back to life or have the ''twin brother'' of the foe come out of nowhere. So no matter what the ''foe'' does not die, to stick to the story, as the DM knows that a foe the characters can't get to and have to try and fail to kill several times is much more fun then the boring ''I see a foe and instantly kill it'' type game.

So instead of just telling the player that their PC "can't" go North - or worse yet, telling the player that their PC goes West instead -

I'll disagree here. Some times players wander far afield. And you can waste way to much time ''making the players feel good'' by wasting the time to let them try to do something that does not advance the game. Or you can just say ''no''.

Imagine if the aforementioned player wants to try and pickpocket a guard for the key. Imagine further that the DM claims, "You can't do that, because your character is too afraid of getting caught." This is a direct affront to player agency.

I'll agree with this one.

And in the case of changing a cleric's chosen spell, that is not an obstacle that prevents the spell from being cast, and which could plausibly be dealt with in some manner, such as an antimagic field. It's not a consequence for an action, either, because the action was not taken. You know, I would be perfectly understanding if the spell I cast caused my character to lose his divine powers - so long as they had the opportunity to seek redemption, or possibly find another deity based on my newfound understanding that my character's worldview does not match their deity's. Changing my action altogether based on divine will is a line I personally don't want crossed as a player. At least when I play D&D.

Seems like nitpicking, the DM can do this or that or this....but if the DM changes a spell that is cast then you'd freak out.

I guess I should explain in some more detail: What I mean by "agent" and "DM will" is that an agent is capable of being influenced by the players' actions in some manner, whereas an extension of DM is reasonably immutable IC, just like the gods. Since the DM is responsible for both creating and/or adapting the gods of the game world and deciding how they behave each day, and because the gods are so powerful and distant that the players cannot hope to influence them, the gods tend to be seen as avatars of the DM himself.

Well, I'd say any player that thinks a god or any NPC in the game is an ''avatar'' of the DM is a problem player. You simply can't play the game when you think everything happens is personalty directed at them.

[atemu1234]

Again, this is just the hate talking. Changing a couple spell effects does not take control of a character, any more then any other action. And plenty of DM's do it, they just hide behind the ''story'' or ''plot''.

On a certain level, yes, you're correct. DMs do that, but there are acceptable and unacceptable circumstances. For example, in most circumstances, giving an unbreakable brick wall to stop them from running away from the plot or wandering too far is acceptable. Changing the spells they cast, however, is not acceptable in the least. I've never actually heard a player cry player agency. I've heard players complain to me, but when it happens I listen to them and take it into account, instead of calling them a problem player and that they can leave if they want.

The DM makes a future foe, complete with a character write up. The DM wants the foe to be for the long term, at least a couple games. So to get the ball rolling, the DM introduces the foe in a non-combat encounter to taunt the players. The players, however, go over the top and go right for the idea to immediately kill the foe. So the players set up an ambush to kill the foe. So to keep the foe alive, the DM has to have the character's attacks miss and for the foe to get away. Or let the foe be killed and brought back to life or have the ''twin brother'' of the foe come out of nowhere. So no matter what the ''foe'' does not die, to stick to the story, as the DM knows that a foe the characters can't get to and have to try and fail to kill several times is much more fun then the boring ''I see a foe and instantly kill it'' type game.

If players kill a villain you took so long making, you did something wrong. Seriously, anyone with a semi-tangible grasp on the rules can easily make a foe that can whether a few lucky rolls from the PCs. Up to and including optimization.

Now seems a good place to bring up optimization. It gets demonized sometimes and I kind of want to set the record straight. It isn't bad, and there are healthy levels that vary from group to group, and foes of a slightly higher optimization level than your group of PCs can let it survive without making it unbeatable or unkillable.

I'll disagree here. Some times players wander far afield. And you can waste way to much time ''making the players feel good'' by wasting the time to let them try to do something that does not advance the game. Or you can just say ''no''

Saying no is not a good idea. I won't scream player agency, but again, the players deserve to pick what they can do.

Also, it's a game. Making the players feel good is part of that. Just saying.

Seems like nitpicking, the DM can do this or that or this....but if the DM changes a spell that is cast then you'd freak out.

Yes, the DM can do anything. That's a little thing we call Rule #0. But that doesn't mean he should do anything. After all, Rule # -1 is that players get to choose whether or not they play with you, and how you act towards them may affect that.

Also, I would freak out if someone decided my casting spells that the Player's Handbook says I can doesn't fit with his narrow concept of a god that includes a personality unbefitting of that god. That's just kind of common sense. All in all, your problem isn't your will to DM or your ability inasmuch as your lack of empathy for your players' positions. As an outsider, I recommend you sit in on a few sessions with another DM, ask questions and see if you pick up anything. Maybe roll up a character and let your players DM for you, in a different world without your houserules. Just see if you enjoy it.

Well, I'd say any player that thinks a god or any NPC in the game is an ''avatar'' of the DM is a problem player. You simply can't play the game when you think everything happens is personalty directed at them.

Again, it's a personality unbefitting the deity in question. I'm fairly certain that "Racism is Good" is the motto of the KKK.

I can't say that I find your opinion of how Corellon would act is correct, but I also cannot say for sure it's a bad one in certain campaign settings. In settings like Eberron, for example, a fallible concept of the gods is actually part of the core campaign setting.

But that doesn't change how his divine magic works. For example, it makes sense he wouldn't supply his clerics with evil spells, because he's a good deity. He probably wouldn't support torture even if he supported wholesale murder, because he's a good deity, and a Chaotic Good deity at that. I've seen homebrewed Eberron deities that actually have murder-instead-of-imprisonment as one of their core tenets that haven't been criticized.

Changing a spell mid-cast is a bad idea, mostly because it does away with player options and implies the deity is watching every one of their followers. They don't. (I don't, however, think that your changing of the spell was an example of railroading. Railroading would've involved telling them that they can't torture the drow or that they have to murderhobo the drow, and you have a clear houserule that does that without "railroading" per se. Still, you might want to change it.)

Again, a DM can do whatever they want. But changing what the books say takes away from what the players can do, and what they know. A good rule is houserule transparency, where you tell them what you do before you do it and why. It does seem fairly concrete from a fluff perspective, and if I was a player it would help me make decisions, and it seems like your players are fairly bad roleplayers.

I think a major complaint is that you railroad using rules different from the ones that actually do allow a DM to railroad. For example, both torture and murder of a captive, even a Drow, violate the good alignment very badly. A cleric would lose their spellcasting capabilities until they atone, which is a fair handicap for a player until he figures out what he did wrong.

[jedipotter]

That is how your games work, don't make generalized assumptions. And please try to be a bit more tactful, as you seem to be becoming more rude and vitriolic.

It is the way all games work. A lot of people just don't like to admit it. Like I said, a lot of DM's will hide behind ''plot'' or ''story'' reasons to do things. The players will want to do X, and the DM will say ''does not happen''. Now sure a lot of ''Buddy DM Types'' will just go OOC and beg at the players feet and say something like ''Greatest plyers in the world, I know you can do absolutely anything you want in the game and I, as your humble slave DM must do as you say at all times...but can you please not go to the North? I have nothing ready in that direction, can you please, please, please pick another direction....I'll give everyone a ring of wishing **licks players shoes**

If you don't want a player to go that way, so be it. Put something like a high quality lock there, something that's believable. But you can't just say "You don't do that, it doesn't work". You have to let them try, even if you absolutely know that it will fail.
But at the same time, save such things for when they're important, as doing it too often will make for very clear railroading. The appearance of choice can be just as a strong as actual choice, if used correctly.

Well the problem is you have to put something there that the player thinks is ''believable''. And worse you have the cheating metagame type players that will demand ''the player'' know things and they will (sort of) ''pretend'' the character does not know( but not really).

But I will agree that players should almost always be given the illusion of ''choice'' and ''free will'', even as they do not.

Then yes, if the character would be fully capable of opening a door, and you've decided that they can't because you don't want them to, then that is a case where you're reducing player agency. If your players accuse you of that at that point, then they are likely accurate in that assertion.

Guess it's a good thing I don't believe in ''player agency''. And if some player wants to break down into tears and say ''but..but...I want my character to turn left'' I will tell them to go cry someplace else

[eggynack]

Guess it's a good thing I don't believe in ''player agency''. And if some player wants to break down into tears and say ''but..but...I want my character to turn left'' I will tell them to go cry someplace else

There is no believing or not believing in player agency. It just is, like air. It doesn't particularly care about your belief as a result. It's also worth note that, as Friv noted, recent past you is calling present you dumb. Perhaps you should report past you for flaming present you, but that's not really my decision to make, as I'm not you. It's a thing worth some thought though.

[jedipotter]

Changing the spells they cast, however, is not acceptable in the least.

Right, so if the DM says ''all the rooms at the inn are full'' or ''there are no potions for sale'' that is ok. But changing a spell....

Yes, the DM can do anything. That's a little thing we call Rule #0. But that doesn't mean he should do anything. After all, Rule # -1 is that players get to choose whether or not they play with you, and how you act towards them may affect that.

Right I look for players that say ''anything the DM does is fine as long as the end result is we all have a fun game'' and not ''I'm gonna nitpick this game to death and ruin all the fun for everyone''.

Also, I would freak out if someone decided my casting spells that the Player's Handbook says I can doesn't fit with his narrow concept of a god that includes a personality unbefitting of that god. That's just kind of common sense. All in all, your problem isn't your will to DM or your ability inasmuch as your lack of empathy for your players' positions. As an outsider, I recommend you sit in on a few sessions with another DM, ask questions and see if you pick up anything. Maybe roll up a character and let your players DM for you, in a different world without your houserules. Just see if you enjoy it.

Well, I love my house rules...at least the ones we are talking about. I'd love to play with my divine casting rules as a player. I would love that my spells had greater effects on targets my god likes, for example. I'm happy as a clam when my elven god twists my spells to do +1 per dice of damage vs drow. And I would have no problem with the 'bad side', as I would pick a god I wanted to role play a cleric of without worry.

I can't say that I find your opinion of how Corellon would act is correct, but I also cannot say for sure it's a bad one in certain campaign settings. In settings like Eberron, for example, a fallible concept of the gods is actually part of the core campaign setting.

It was meant to be extreme.

But that doesn't change how his divine magic works. For example, it makes sense he wouldn't supply his clerics with evil spells, because he's a good deity. He probably wouldn't support torture even if he supported wholesale murder, because he's a good deity, and a Chaotic Good deity at that. I've seen homebrewed Eberron deities that actually have murder-instead-of-imprisonment as one of their core tenets that haven't been criticized.

Well, I don't go for 'X' is always evil or good. Corellon is fine with 'ticking bomb torture'. It is boring and dull to say every single good god thinks X, because they are good. Then you just have a bunch of good copy gods.

Changing a spell mid-cast is a bad idea, mostly because it does away with player options and implies the deity is watching every one of their followers. They don't. (I don't, however, think that your changing of the spell was an example of railroading. Railroading would've involved telling them that they can't torture the drow or that they have to murderhobo the drow, and you have a clear houserule that does that without "railroading" per se. Still, you might want to change it.)

I say they do, in my game.

I think a major complaint is that you railroad using rules different from the ones that actually do allow a DM to railroad. For example, both torture and murder of a captive, even a Drow, violate the good alignment very badly. A cleric would lose their spellcasting capabilities until they atone, which is a fair handicap for a player until he figures out what he did wrong.

I love this wacky extreme: ''It's ok to take away a clerics spellcasting'' but to ''change a cast spell is wrong''.

[atemu1234]

It is the way all games work. A lot of people just don't like to admit it. Like I said, a lot of DM's will hide behind ''plot'' or ''story'' reasons to do things. The players will want to do X, and the DM will say ''does not happen''. Now sure a lot of ''Buddy DM Types'' will just go OOC and beg at the players feet and say something like ''Greatest plyers in the world, I know you can do absolutely anything you want in the game and I, as your humble slave DM must do as you say at all times...but can you please not go to the North? I have nothing ready in that direction, can you please, please, please pick another direction....I'll give everyone a ring of wishing **licks players shoes**

Really? I just try to be diplomatic and you go insult someone for not wanting to piss off their players? No one is suggesting pandering and offering them frankincense and myrrh in exchange for them not going a direction. We're saying you should stat things to the north, make it seem like they can't go further north (IE, difficult to climb wall (beyond their abilities), locked with a lock beyond their abilities, and made of material too strong for them to break through) but also be able to wing it if they do something you don't expect.

For example:
Player A wants to find his way somewhere. Make him roll, say, Knowledge (Nature) that tells him that to the east lies a great treasure in a cave. That's a good way of doing things. Don't limit options, give incentives for certain options, AKA the entire purpose behind roleplaying XP.

Well the problem is you have to put something there that the player thinks is ''believable''. And worse you have the cheating metagame type players that will demand ''the player'' know things and they will (sort of) ''pretend'' the character does not know( but not really).

There was a pretty big section under the Knowledge skills giving information about metagaming. Make them roll knowledge checks for monster stats, and for other things you can explain off, and I agree, they shouldn't just "know" something.

However, I don't see exactly where you're trying to get to with the player vs. character knowledge argument. The player is a fan of the game and should know the rules and the monsters. Pretending they don't know comes with that.

Again, my advice on the houserules stands. They should be able to find out what is happening in character, and know what is happening out of character, unless the point is to be a literal mystery, then you're hiding "what" is happening and not "why" it's happening.

Personally, I don't think Orcus hopping out of my Summon Monster I spell is a good surprise. However, if we're talking reasonable cost v. benefit, you could add the incentive of grabbing a more powerful creature from the Summon Monster II list to counteract the cost. Just a friendly bit of advice.

But I will agree that players should almost always be given the illusion of ''choice'' and ''free will'', even as they do not.

Like rats in a maze. This is actually true.

Guess it's a good thing I don't believe in ''player agency''. And if some player wants to break down into tears and say ''but..but...I want my character to turn left'' I will tell them to go cry someplace else

You need to stop acting like players are whiny crybabies for wanting their DM to listen to what they want.

I'll put it this way. If you break the gaming experience by telling them "You can't because I said so and I'm DM" then you're worse than any metagamer I've ever run into.

[Threadnaught]

Spoiler: Example "that jedipotter should be playing with toys instead"

Show

The DM makes a future foe, complete with a character write up. The DM wants the foe to be for the long term, at least a couple games. So to get the ball rolling, the DM introduces the foe in a non-combat encounter to taunt the players. The players, however, go over the top and go right for the idea to immediately kill the foe. So the players set up an ambush to kill the foe. So to keep the foe alive, the DM has to have the character's attacks miss and for the foe to get away. Or let the foe be killed and brought back to life or have the ''twin brother'' of the foe come out of nowhere. So no matter what the ''foe'' does not die, to stick to the story, as the DM knows that a foe the characters can't get to and have to try and fail to kill several times is much more fun then the boring ''I see a foe and instantly kill it'' type game.

Seriously though, for your next session, just write a short story and read it out to your "players", as if it were the dice and them deciding on their actions. Then ask them at the end of the session if they enjoyed your new house rules.

As for your door story, that would be committing the sin that so many videogame developers are guilty of. If there is a door, it should be possible to move through it. Why is every door indestructible no mater how many rockets are fired into it, but if you hit a tank with a couple, or empty a couple of clips' worth of bullets into a tank, it explodes. Why not build tanks out of doors?
Why not in your world, make armour and weapons out of doors? Clearly it is made of a substance more durable than the combined strength of Adamantine, Force and Obdurium.

Well, I'd say any player that thinks a god or any NPC in the game is an ''avatar'' of the DM is a problem player. You simply can't play the game when you think everything happens is personalty directed at them.

Here's the problem, with enough understanding of the game, everything but the PCs are avatars of the DM. The PCs being the avatars of the Players.
Not that it matters, since neither you or the "players" not actually playing the game, seeing as the PCs are also avatars of the DM, rather than the "players".



Linking this with every post in this thread.

[eggynack]

Right, so if the DM says ''all the rooms at the inn are full'' or ''there are no potions for sale'' that is ok. But changing a spell....

Yes. The world is yours, and the character is theirs. Such is the division of things. It's not like they're going to gain much traction saying, "Nah, the rooms at the inn totally aren't full, because I decreed it," after all.

I love this wacky extreme: ''It's ok to take away a clerics spellcasting'' but to ''change a cast spell is wrong''.

And it's an accurate extreme. The player has control over their actions, and you have control over the consequences of those actions. You are controlling the action part directly, which is a direct reduction in player agency. Said reduction is also not in a form where I think it's particularly necessary or valuable to the game.

[jedipotter]

My example was a DM removing Player Agency. By telling the player what they actually do.

Let me see if I remember this correctly...
Player-"I cast Cure Light Wounds"
Jedipotter-"No, you cast Inflict Light Wounds."
Player-"Why?"
Jedipotter-"Because I have a secret houserule saying that I can invert your spell effects."
Intelligent Player-"Okay, I'm leaving. Please never DM again because you clearly have no idea what you're doing"

This sounds fine to me. I'd be happy to escort the player to the door.....

[GraySeaJones]

Again, this is just the hate talking. Changing a couple spell effects does not take control of a character, any more then any other action.

The action you describe - torture - seems to be a pretty significant one. One you specifically claimed is meaningful to character growth, in previous posts.

Spoiler

Show

The DM makes a future foe, complete with a character write up. The DM wants the foe to be for the long term, at least a couple games. So to get the ball rolling, the DM introduces the foe in a non-combat encounter to taunt the players. The players, however, go over the top and go right for the idea to immediately kill the foe. So the players set up an ambush to kill the foe. So to keep the foe alive, the DM has to have the character's attacks miss and for the foe to get away. Or let the foe be killed and brought back to life or have the ''twin brother'' of the foe come out of nowhere. So no matter what the ''foe'' does not die, to stick to the story, as the DM knows that a foe the characters can't get to and have to try and fail to kill several times is much more fun then the boring ''I see a foe and instantly kill it'' type game.

I apologize, but I honestly can't tell if you are advocating this behavior or not. I will tell you that I consider messing with player die rolls to be bad practice as well, as is forcing the players to follow a rigid plot. Further, simply because some DMs engage in such behavior does not make it desirable.

Creating the world such that events do not need to fit a rigid plot is ideal, I would say. That way, the world can react organically to player actions, and the players have the opportunity to accomplish something meaningful. Players can be quite ingenious when pressed; why rob them of their victory if they do succeed in an unanticipated way?

If a problem is serious enough that it endangers the premise of the campaign, I would advocate being upfront with your players about it rather than pushing them around in-game through DM fiat. Players can be mature about the game if you would only give them a chance. (Although frankly, if an entire campaign arc can be short-circuited through an action you didn't anticipate, you may want to think it through a little more.)

I'll disagree here. Some times players wander far afield. And you can waste way to much time ''making the players feel good'' by wasting the time to let them try to do something that does not advance the game. Or you can just say ''no''.

"Wander far afield" ... that sounds suspiciously like going "off the rails," to be honest. Simply because a player is doing something that you did not anticipate, or would not like, does not mean that it cannot also advance the game. What you mean by "the game," I don't quite understand. DMs have their expectations to what a game should look like, and each player has his or her own.

That's not to say that I can't see situations where a heavy-handed approach should be used - say, if the game is actively being slowed down or derailed by a player (say, they want to roleplay getting a drink at a bar, while the rest of the party is leaving to Archmage Recnam Orcen's cellar), I can see your approach working. With that being said, I think the problem in this specific case is another beast entirely.

Sorry, I think I'm getting off-track here... To summarize what I mean to say: a heavy-handed approach can be useful, but should not be par for the course. Otherwise, players begin to feel that nothing they do can have a meaningful effect on the game world. (Have you heard of Chief Circle before? That is a fun and interesting read for GMs and players alike.)

Still, I have a nagging feeling that I am misreading your post. Could you give an example of what you mean?

Seems like nitpicking, the DM can do this or that or this....but if the DM changes a spell that is cast then you'd freak out.

I...... but...... but I just went over the reasons I think people might have a problem with choosing their action for them. I explained why I think the DM has the right to place obstacles or limit players, and why I think breaching player agency is different.

Well, I'd say any player that thinks a god or any NPC in the game is an ''avatar'' of the DM is a problem player. You simply can't play the game when you think everything happens is personalty directed at them.

If played poorly, a god can be (edit: little more than) an avatar of the DM. I stated why I think players might be more inclined to see this as true - because active (active!) gods are extremely powerful and not influenced by the PCs' actions, they start to resemble more plot devices than agents. When the problem is egregious, a player is perfectly in the right for believing that a god is an avatar of the DM.

I am not saying that you have this problem - simply why I think one should be cautious of it.

And "any NPC in the game"? I explained in the paragraph you responded to why I think gods (and god-wizards and Orcus) are especially problematic. If you disagree with what I say, please tell me what you disagree and why, so I can respond to it. You're not giving me anything, here.

[Phelix-Mu]

Again, an effort to be a voice of reason here. Regardless of if jedipotter is saying crazy or reasonable things, our responding with either crazy or reasonable things is fairly unlikely to change anything (especially given an established history of this dynamic). I am all for reasoned argumentation, but several times this has veered sharply away from reasoned argumentation and into senseless railing, piling on, weird stuff about racism and genocide (seriously, that was weird), and a general effort to convince jedipotter that jedipotter is wrong about something that is pretty much a matter of subjective preference unique to any table (the extent/degree of DM houserules).

Assigning blame is silly, of course, and I don't want to be unreasonable, but I would urge everyone to relax a bit. It's a game. This is a forum about a game. As much as I, personally, am inclined to love it to death and obsess over it constantly.

TL/DR: If jp says crazy stuff during arguments about playstyle which are inherently unwinnable, let's keep those arguments short.

[atemu1234]

Right, so if the DM says ''all the rooms at the inn are full'' or ''there are no potions for sale'' that is ok. But changing a spell....

Yes, that is what I was saying. Because reasonably and within pre-existing rules it's ok for an Inn to be full. Changing a spell removes options that were provided by class features, an Inn is an expense you removed for them.

Right I look for players that say ''anything the DM does is fine as long as the end result is we all have a fun game'' and not ''I'm gonna nitpick this game to death and ruin all the fun for everyone''.

So it's nitpicking to want to play straight D&D. Good to know. PEOPLE IN THE PLAYGROUND, IT APPEARS WE HAVE BEEN PLAYING THE GAME WRONG FOR 30-ODD YEARS!

Well, I love my house rules...at least the ones we are talking about. I'd love to play with my divine casting rules as a player. I would love that my spells had greater effects on targets my god likes, for example. I'm happy as a clam when my elven god twists my spells to do +1 per dice of damage vs drow. And I would have no problem with the 'bad side', as I would pick a god I wanted to role play a cleric of without worry.

Then I, as a player, would say I was a cleric worshipping the "cause" of Corellon Larethian, and it was simply coincidence that I chose domains he granted.

That way, I void your ridiculous houserule for changing the spells I cast, and get to play something like reasonable D&D.

It was meant to be extreme.

Just because you want it to be extreme doesn't make it correct or good.

Well, I don't go for 'X' is always evil or good. Corellon is fine with 'ticking bomb torture'. It is boring and dull to say every single good god thinks X, because they are good. Then you just have a bunch of good copy gods.

Rather they are good because they don't like torture. Corellon is dedicated to freedom and elves. He wouldn't sponsor torture just because he doesn't like the tortured, just like he wouldn't sponsor racism against drow.

Again, hating something that is evil is OK. Radar-killing for a paladin is wrong, but in the field of combat it's unlikely you're going to run into an evil drow that is only evil because he stole a loaf of bread or cheated on his infernal taxes. Killing someone because they are from an evil race is NEVER good, and definitely not neutral.

I say they do, in my game.

And you are allowed to do that. But your rules are like your opinions. Don't hold them above what someone else says and is correct about simply because your opinion or rules are different.

I love this wacky extreme: ''It's ok to take away a clerics spellcasting'' but to ''change a cast spell is wrong''.

Yes, because one is a measure given inside the normal rules and would be a more appropriate response to the problem.

It's wacky because you are the one nit-picking. You took one thing I said and another, stuck them together and didn't listen to the reasoning behind it.

Torture = Evil. Murder of a captive = Neutral at best. Torture is a gross violation of a good alignment, thus resulting in the loss of powers, as per RAW. Your implication that the only reason Corellon disapproved of torture was because he prefer MURDER is wrong.

I can't believe we're still arguing this. Yes, racism and torture are evil, especially against a race that doesn't pose an inherent threat (IE, a Mind Flayer being killed because it eats brains and you are protecting the safety of a village by killing it, just in case it is lying about only eating sheep brains, is an inherent threat not predicated on racism but actual need). Drow don't naturally prey on elves. They're racist, but they're evil. It fits their alignment, not Corellon's.

He is the god of elves, for gods' sakes. Corellon wouldn't approve of the murder of a Drow who could in all honesty probably have been converted.

[eggynack]

Again, an effort to be a voice of reason here. Regardless of if jedipotter is saying crazy or reasonable things, our responding with either crazy or reasonable things is fairly unlikely to change anything (especially given an established history of this dynamic). I am all for reasoned argumentation, but several times this has veered sharply away from reasoned argumentation and into senseless railing, piling on, weird stuff about racism and genocide (seriously, that was weird), and a general effort to convince jedipotter that jedipotter is wrong about something that is pretty much a matter of subjective preference unique to any table (the extent/degree of DM houserules).

Assigning blame is silly, of course, and I don't want to be unreasonable, but I would urge everyone to relax a bit. It's a game. This is a forum about a game. As much as I, personally, am inclined to love it to death and obsess over it constantly.

TL/DR: If jp says crazy stuff during arguments about playstyle which are inherently unwinnable, let's keep those arguments short.

But, again, stuff just keeps changing in wacky ways. I mean, now we have past Jedipotter actually calling present Jedipotter dumb. That's fun stuff. Consider the fact that, had this thread not extended for this long, then that might have never happened. Experience the insanity. Let it become a part of you.