This is bog simple. Control of your player does not require that everything your player imagines to be true conforms to your desires. Far from being an attempt to assert any sort of control over your character, this is by definition and very plainly an attempt at asserting control over the setting, by the obvious fact that Francis is not your character. The question is not, "Does Francis exist?", because we would need to know far more of the situation than is provided in the example. The only question of any real importance that can be answered from the example is, "Can Bob's player force every other participant in the game to concede that not only does Francis exist, but he is here right now."
It is actually something you said in your response to Hussar that gave me some insight into why some parts of this conversation are getting so confusing for me. You said "if that authority is operating under the veto power of the GM, then it's not authority at all."
This is not how I would have imagined the terms used. Authority, in my view, is the ability to make decisions even if those decisions can be vetoed.
That is why I have been having problems reconciling the view that players have absolute authority over their character's thoughts, with no veto power of the DM, when combined into this scenario. If you are giving absolute authority to the player, then as the DM you have to consider that authority beyond veto, and then that causes issues if a player decided to add to the story in a way that the DM is fully in their rights to veto, because in vetoing they infringe on the absolute authority granted to the player over their character by the same DM.
To me, a player's authority over their character is not free from DM veto, but if I declare that it is, then it must always be free from my veto. I don't get to go back and veto something just because I don't like it. That's why my question is "does Francis exist", because that is the intersection between absolute authority of the player over their character and absolute authority of the DM over the setting. That intersection doesn't happen with Francis being the guard at the gate, because there are logical reasons for the mix up that do not infringe on the player authority. If Bob insists on that, they are pushing too far. However, if the DM has said Bob has absolute authority over all aspects of his character, which would include his backstory, then Bob is not being unreasonable to create Francis the Guard and expect him to exist, because that is him exercising the absolute authority the DM handed them.
Yes. Not much. It's not something I'm saying you ought to really worry about, in the sense that it is some sort of sin or crime against the player. What I am saying is that as a thoughtful GM, you ought to be consciously aware of when you have dipped a toe over the line and are in the player's business.
Doing what you are doing there is "Director Stance". It's the GM not only being the curator of the story, but the conductor of the actors in it. You are giving the players stage direction and cues. And that's not always a bad thing, but the important thing is to know that you are doing it and what it involves and what it risks, so that you are making the choice consciously and intelligently and intentionally, and not painting yourself into a corner accidently.
Ultimately, it's a railroading technique, and a heavy reliance on "Director Stance" indicates low trust by the DM in their players and their players ability to play their characters. I guess I don't really think it's "too much", but I'm not impressed by it, because I'd rather see you talking about how you encourage your players to mature as players, and "Director Stance" really doesn't do that because it teaches the player that part of the game belongs to the GM. A GM in director stance is too absorbed by their own artistic vision, and in my opinion is - ironically considering the larger discussion - not taking enough feedback from the players.
That said, there might really be times to use "Director Stance" as a GM - though at the moment I can't really think of a great example. After all, when I listed "Director Stance" in my essay on railroading, I never said "Good GMs never use these techniques." What I really said was, "Good GMs understand these techniques and use them appropriately (and appropriately tends to be sparingly)."
Wow, there is a lot I'm going to have to think about for a response to all that. You say it isn't
too bad, just that it is a railroad technique and involves risks.
But, you put a sentence in there that I fully disagree with. I bolded it, and the more I think on it the more I think this is a rather major point. You said that it teaches the player that some part of the game belongs to the GM. Since you are using that as a negative, that must mean you believe that to be false. That no part of the game whatsoever belongs to the GM. I cannot find a single way to agree with that view. I am at the table, I am spending multiple hours playing with my friends, even more hours thinking about the next session and making sure monsters and challenges are prepared. Months if not years crafting lore and worlds for the players to explore and play the game in. I have absolute authority over the setting, the NPCs, the very rules of the game.
Yet none of that, not even a sliver can be called mine?
I share it gladly. I know that I am at risk, as a writer, of letting myself get too enamored with certain outcomes and I strive constantly to avoid that. But the things I create are mine. We can share them, we can work together on changing them, I can give you cart blanche to do whatever you like with them. But they are mine, because I created them. I do own a portion of the game, because it would be a different game without me. The players would not have the same experience with a different DM, and if I left half way through, the second half of the game would feel very different, because I would take my portion of the game with me when I left, just as my players have taken portions of the game with them when they have left.
To me, to say that I own no portion of the game would be to abdicate all responsibility and care for the game. I'd be no better than an really smart calculator telling the players the results of their dice.
In your post, you said nothing about the player making the statement you make above. As far as I could tell from
what you actually wrote ("For example, buying scrolls of Thunder damage spells in preparation of a battle involving lots of earth elementals under the assumption of them being vulnerable to that damage."), the
player merely
thought that, not necessarily the
character. (Because players and characters are different,
right?) So what it appears you've done here is move the goalposts, perhaps unintentionally, and then criticized my response on that basis.
But let's roll with what you added so we have something to talk about: If the player did make that statement and/or established that the character thought it, it still doesn't matter in my view. The player can have the character tell all and sundry why he or she is doing that for all I care. I'm only concerned with describing the environment, sometimes calling for checks, and narrating the results of the adventurers' in pursuit of fun for everyone while contributing to an exciting, memorable story. I don't see anything about the game that suggests I need to give a dusty flumph about why a player chooses to have the character do a thing and I certainly don't want to be policing thoughts, neither the players' nor the characters'.
I'm snipping the first part because I am tired of going in circles about it. If you can't see where the problem I have is, then there is no way to discuss it. You can check the response I gave above to Celebrim about authority, that might clear it up.
As for the other part, I did not move the goalposts intentionally, I really doubt I moved them unintentionally, since I stated in the original and in this "under the assumption of" the earth elementals vulnerability.
Now, if this is somehow different if a player simply thinks a thing compared to saying it out loud... I'm not sure what to say to that. I don't make a habit of assuming people are mind readers so I thought by stating what the players assumption was behind their action of purchasing, that you would understand that is what they would have said out loud at the table. The player's intent was clear in the example.
And, while you may not care, I am trying to show that just because a player's knowledge doesn't matter in the "Well, why wouldn't the wizard cast fireball on the trolls" combat application, there are other things people can do to act on information. Things that are directly tied to the information in question. And information is something that is a resource in the game. There are methods, skills, and abilities that tie into the gathering of information, and you seem to not care at all. Anything written at any point, or said by you or another DM at any point, is fair game for them to simply know. Whether it makes any sense for them to know, or if it will upend your campaign, it doesn't seem to matter to you.
The only thing I can think of, is that you have a different view on character information. They are fine to know things, because you will just change them if the character knowing that thing is too disruptive for you. They knew false information, why that information was false doesn't matter to you either, it just was. That doesn't work for me, if I am going to give my player's characters full authority to know anything, then they know it, I'm not going to change it later so they don't actually know it. That strikes me as dishonest.
And before this comes up, yes I do homebrew and change things myself, quite often actually. I also do not tell my players they can let their character's know anything and everything. They know there is a limit to what their character can know. So, since they are aware of that limit, then I don't feel bad changing things, because the information they gather and get is always accurate.
I don't know, myabe I'm just overly sensitive about this, but telling people they can "know" something to be true, because it is in the book and it is true, and then switching it on them, it just rubs me the wrong way.
Also, what does trusting the DM to tell a good story have to do with anything? When did D&D referees become storytellers?!
Since we started setting scenes, creating characters, and formulating plots. So, kind of since the beginning. We aren't standing at the side of the table like they do in wargaming or Magic Tournaments, we are sitting at the table and participating.
Metaphors are tricky things - but I suspect my approach to the GM's role in RPGing is a bit different from yours. And I wouldn't try and use a "secret" that a player already knows.
But the idea that there might be some fiction that isn't yet known to the players (or their PCs) is certainly acceptable to me. (Often it mightn't be known to the GM either.)
One thing to note about what I was saying. There were two players in that example. One who is a veteran and new some piece of lore, and the other who is newer and did not.
Players operate at different levels of knowledge, and what may be a fun and interesting plot for one to pursue could be ground to a halt if another pipes up with the answer before we even get started.
