If you can agree with your friend to come over to their house, but first you have to check and make sure it's OK with your parents, you don't have authority. Authority is when you are in charge. You have the power and right make decisions, give orders, and enforce your wishes. If you have to ask, "Mother may I?", it's not authority.
And yet we can clearly say Congress has the authority to make laws, in spite of the President's veto power. And the FBI has the authority to arrest people and the Federal Courts have the authority to jail people, in spite of the President's power of Pardon to nullify those decisions.
Authority with oversight exists, and is part of the definition of the word. That's why I didn't realize you were operating under such a different version of the definition, your version is what I refer to as "absolute authority" which is quite different.
I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make this any clearer, but "adding to the story in some way" and "authority over their character" are not the same things, and there is absolutely no conflict between having one and not the other. Just because you have authority over your character, does not mean you have a right to add things that are by definition external to the character. I'm at a loss to see how you don't understand that.
Because there are things that are external to the "character" that still fall under the character.
I make a character, and decide in their backstory they have a childhood sweetheart. That sweetheart is external to the character, but it would be strange for the DM to tell me I have a childhood sweetheart, wouldn't it? What about a hometown? As a player, I could decide that my character's home town was a bit like Mayberry, and that the various people within that town and their relationships with my character shaped them in a variety of ways. That entire town and all the people in it are external to my character, but they are vital to my character's story. Heck, I have a paladin who is married. Actual character I am playing. His wife is definitely external to the character, but her backstory and their relationship is something I feel is under my control. Because having a loving wife is part of my character's story, it is part of my character, even if the wife is an NPC and external to my character.
These are muddy waters, and if you give a character absolute authority over their character, but caught it off once you get more than 3 inches past the character's skin or scales, then you have not given them absolute authority over their character, because people are more than their physical bodies and thoughts. They are their relationships too.
But... it's just not. Francis is not part of the character. There is no conflict here. To the extent that player backstory does intersect with setting, in that a player creating a backstory wants to introduce things to the setting, then I've already explained how that issue is resolved in other posts. Essentially, neither the GM nor the player can unilaterally impose backstory on the other without some sort of permission. The player can't introduce a new character to the setting without permission of the GM (because the GM absolutely owns the setting), and the GM can't decide something happened to the player's character in the past without permission from the player (because the player absolute owns the PC). It's really simple. In practice, much of the time the two participants are happy to work with each other to create myth, but for very good reasons both sides must agree because there are times the player does not want his story altered by the GM and the GM doesn't want his setting altered by the player and each can have good and valid reasons for that.
Okay, you seem to get what I was saying above. But looking at that do you not understand why I am saying that a unilateral call that the player has absolute authority over their character contradicts this? Why when reading posters who claim that they allow their players this absolute authority, yet decide that it is completely unreasonable for the player to decide they have a friend in town, that I want clarification, since those two stances are incompatible?
IF you have absolute authority, you have absolute authority. That includes adding characters and places to the setting. I agree with you that in practice, this generally goes smoothly, but it seems that in this discussion we are talking past one another.
Wait??? What?!?!? OK, we're just done. This isn't even amusing anymore. I said that it teaches that "some" part of the game belongs to the GM, and you have somehow twisted that into me saying that "no part of the game whatsoever belongs to the GM"? I have no words.
If it is a negative that "some part" of the game belongs to the GM, how the heck else am I supposed to interpret what you mean? Is it like a "pinch" and a "dash", that "some" part of the game is too much but "a little" is just right?
I'll quote you again.
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.
You'd rather see me talk about something else, it doesn't help the players mature, A GM in this stance teaches that part of the game belongs to the GM, A GM in this stance is too absorbed in their own vision, They aren't taking enough feedback from players.
That is an awful lot of negatives in there, with the "part of the game belongs to the GM" right smack dab in the middle of it. Was that supposed to be a positive aspect instead?
The player's intent is clear; the character's is not. They don't have to be the same thing since player and character are separate, right? The player could know that earth elementals are vulnerable to thunder damage, but never say anything about the character's knowledge and just describe what he or she wants to do: "I want to go to Ye Olde Magick Shoppe to buy some scrolls of thunderwave." Just to be sure I understand your position, would you as DM say the character can't do that?
If all I had to go on was their desire to buy scrolls, then I wouldn't have an issue with it. I've never once claimed to be a mind reader. But if they state their knowledge, I might have a question of how they know that.
But, are you trying to say that Player knowledge = Character Knowledge but Player Motivation =/= Character motivation?
The player knows earth elementals are vulnerable, the character knows they are vulnerable, player is motivated to buy scrolls because the elementals are vulnerable... but the character has a completely different motivation?
You push for character and player to be closer and closer together, but then as soon as I start pointing out the potential issues with that you drag them back apart like they are teenagers about to get caught making out.
There is nothing dishonest about it. If a player wants his or her character to think something is true, that's his or her business. And the player (and character) might be right. But then they both might be wrong, too. That is why the smart play is to verify one's assumptions before acting upon them. That's how something goes from "think" to "know."
But you have told them their character can know what they know. If they encounter a cleric capable of casting Raise Dead, then they know with at least 24 hours notice, that cleric can cast Greater Restoration. It is in the books, it is a solid fact. Therefore the stats in the monster manual are solid facts as well, by the same logic. So if a player is a diabolist and has read everything on the Nine Hells ever printed and they know a lot of facts about the Hells. Then they get there and you've changed everything, with no warning to them, then you have undercut them and their character. You told them they could know everything, then showed them they knew nothing in "reality".
Thinking on it, I suppose if you go forward saying "Hey guys, you can think you know anything you want, but I change things constantly, so you have no reason to believe anything in the books will remain true" then I guess I don't have as much of an issue with it, because you are really telling the players they don't know anything, and they can proceed with that realization in place. But, it occurs to me, if a player makes a character and describes them as having been a monster expert, or raised by monster experts, or what have you and you have changed a common monster in the world to act differently. Do you tell the player before the game begins? OR do you tell them that their character can think they know things, but since they haven't been out actually fighting yet, they don't know.
Because the player is setting up a character who would know such things, and I'm curious if that makes a difference to you.
, character background extends beyond the skin of that character. Things like friends, mentors, family, etc, is part of creating a character and I frequently extend authority to the players to do things like this. It is pretty understood at my table that we can all do this, with the understanding that we will try to do this to make the game more interesting for everyone at the table.
