Yeah, we don't run the game like a DCC funnel either, yet we still have the occasional encounter that goes sideways that we've had to retreat from (or that resulted in character deaths/TPK because we didn't/couldn't retreat). The characters are never at risk of losing an encounter in your game? Clearly there's at least some risk of capture, since your scenario was based around capturing the PCs, right? I'd still find having a teleport escape plan handy, even if capture was the worst outcome of losing an encounter.
The whole player plotting something comes across to me as DM paranoia. I literally stated that the reason for collecting an associated object from the campsite was to use as an escape from a bad encounter. That was the established premise from the get go.
If you think the player has some ulterior motive, simple TALK to them. Don't dream up some paranoid fantasy and then try to punish them for it. That's not healthy behavior, regardless of whether you're at the gaming table or not.
Moreover, speaking as a DM who has run multiple high level campaigns, as far as I'm concerned at that level unexpected shenanigans are to be expected and are part of the fun of the game. Let's assume that your premise is true and the player is plotting something nefarious. Unless this is a problem player who is willing to sacrifice everyone else's fun for their own amusement, what's the worst that can happen? The campaign takes a turn unexpected by the DM? Those are the moments I live for as a DM! Some of the best times I've ever had at the gaming table have been those where I, as DM, was just as surprised as the players about what happened next. If it is a problem player, then it still shouldn't be handled by punishing them through the character. Just have a discussion with them about their behavior, like an adult.
Your reasons still don't add up, that's the problem. I never said that it's difficult or expensive to firmly anchor an object someplace safe. If the goal is just to use teleport as a stand in for an evac spell then it's reasonable to question & doubt the resistance to using such an object rather than a bag of marked stones & branches.
Quoting me writing about having a discussion with a player, the reasons for that discussion, & the kind of things I need to know in that discussion saying I should "TALK" to them rather than assuming an ulterior motive if that discussion is not fruitful is also a bit odd so I'm not sure how to respond to that. If I tried to have that discussion with a player & explained the things I explained in the post you quoted only to have said player suggest I should talk to them rather than being "paranoid" is far enough off base that I as a GM would be reasonably justified turning to the other players at the table and explaining that they shouldn't count on said plan and that pending more information that addresses some of my concerns I might just ban it outright.
Your reasons still don't add up, that's the problem. I never said that it's difficult or expensive to firmly anchor an object someplace safe. If the goal is just to use teleport as a stand in for an evac spell then it's reasonable to question & doubt the resistance to using such an object rather than a bag of marked stones & branches.
Quoting me writing about having a discussion with a player, the reasons for that discussion, & the kind of things I need to know in that discussion saying I should "TALK" to them rather than assuming an ulterior motive if that discussion is not fruitful is also a bit odd so I'm not sure how to respond to that. If I tried to have that discussion with a player & explained the things I explained in the post you quoted only to have said player suggest I should talk to them rather than being "paranoid" is far enough off base that I as a GM would be reasonably justified turning to the other players at the table and explaining that they shouldn't count on said plan and that pending more information that addresses some of my concerns I might just ban it outright.
The reason to use an object from the previous night's campsite is so that you don't have to make a potentially long trek back to the dungeon (or have to cast teleport again). It's merely a convenience.
Yeah, banning it rather than implementing a convoluted and heavy handed scheme to punish the player as you originally suggested is definitely a much better way to go. I've said as much previously.
The reason to use an object from the previous night's campsite is so that you don't have to make a potentially long trek back to the dungeon (or have to cast teleport again). It's merely a convenience.
Yeah, banning it rather than implementing a convoluted and heavy handed scheme to punish the player as you originally suggested is definitely a much better way to go. I've said as much previously.
Not wanting to jump back to a safe place further away than the spot just down the street was obvious from the start. The problem is in being unwilling to admit it while claiming heady handed railroading and fiat. If you only wanted to escape to a sade spot then last night's campsite is very much not guaranteed to be safe even if you are on target. Pointing at the he omission is not paranoia, especially given how many times I had to point out the presence of missing motivation details. It's great that you don't want to backtrack but the gm still needs to run a game and "well I've got nothing planned for your campsight and need time to prepare the dungeon to make it reflect reacting to the invasion it just repelled". In other words victory for you in this case you have been pushing could very well result in something like "I know we only started the session like twenty minutes ago but this is why I pushed for a more firmly linked object so I could be prepared if this happens so everything fades out as the teleport kicks in & we will pick things up next week finding out what happens on the other end including how accurate the teleport was".
When a player is unwilling to admit the obvious objection or goal in the process of claiming to be doing just that they have already proven that they are willing to hide their maybe reasonable motivations & goals even when questioned they also prove that they will absolutely do the same if they even think they found a loophole of some kind. In that situation the gm has every reason to assume the worst & plan accordingly.
Not wanting to jump back to a safe place further away than the spot just down the street was obvious from the start. The problem is in being unwilling to admit it while claiming heady handed railroading and fiat. If you only wanted to escape to a sade spot then last night's campsite is very much not guaranteed to be safe even if you are on target. Pointing at the he omission is not paranoia, especially given how many times I had to point out the presence of missing motivation details. It's great that you don't want to backtrack but the gm still needs to run a game and "well I've got nothing planned for your campsight and need time to prepare the dungeon to make it reflect reacting to the invasion it just repelled". In other words victory for you in this case you have been pushing could very well result in something like "I know we only started the session like twenty minutes ago but this is why I pushed for a more firmly linked object so I could be prepared if this happens so everything fades out as the teleport kicks in & we will pick things up next week finding out what happens on the other end including how accurate the teleport was".
When a player is unwilling to admit the obvious objection or goal in the process of claiming to be doing just that they have already proven that they are willing to hide their maybe reasonable motivations & goals even when questioned they also prove that they will absolutely do the same if they even think they found a loophole of some kind. In that situation the gm has every reason to assume the worst & plan accordingly.
The premise of the discussion that you originally quoted was about using an associated object for the sake of convenience. I didn't reiterate that until now because I didn't think there was any reason to state the blatantly obvious, especially since it had already been stated earlier in the thread.
You think that a player not stating something obvious because they think that the DM is smart enough to recognize it as such is reason for suspicion? It's... not. People leave things unsaid all the time, not because they're hiding anything but because spelling everything out would be a huge waste of time and completely unnecessary. Reasonable inferences are a normal and expected part of communication.
If you can't handle the teleport back to the campsite scenario, how would you ever be able to handle the completely mundane "retreat from the dungeon WITHOUT using teleport and come back the next day"? Which is a scenario I've seen many times over the years, starting as early as level 1. As a DM you need to be able to improvise at least a little. Even if everything you run is on rails, needing to retreat because of a few unlucky crits is hardly unheard of.
A main difficulty with dimensional travel is plot spoilers. Sometimes the DM wants a way to prevent entrance to a certain place or room ... or exit out of a certain place or room.
For this purpose, I introduce "holy salt". One can easily buy it, like buying holy water, at low levels.
One takes the container of holy salt and pours a line of its salt, or a circle of it, to function as a dimensional barrier. It also blocks similar, like divination. If the salt line is physically broken, the barrier ends. (I also have it block creatures from a different plane, such as a Fey in the Material, or viceversa. So far, no real problems.) Player characters can use the salt. No one has tried to abuse it.
Its main purpose is for the DM to have an easy way to routinely block dimensional travel, if necessary. I normally dont care where the characters go or what they discover. Every now and then, I want to safeguard a place. The salt can line the inside of a special room, thus blocking magical entry.
The premise of the discussion that you originally quoted was about using an associated object for the sake of convenience. I didn't reiterate that until now because I didn't think there was any reason to state the blatantly obvious, especially since it had already been stated earlier in the thread.
You think that a player not stating something obvious because they think that the DM is smart enough to recognize it as such is reason for suspicion? It's... not. People leave things unsaid all the time, not because they're hiding anything but because spelling everything out would be a huge waste of time and completely unnecessary. Reasonable inferences are a normal and expected part of communication.
If you can't handle the teleport back to the campsite scenario, how would you ever be able to handle the completely mundane "retreat from the dungeon WITHOUT using teleport and come back the next day"? Which is a scenario I've seen many times over the years, starting as early as level 1. As a DM you need to be able to improvise at least a little. Even if everything you run is on rails, needing to retreat because of a few unlucky crits is hardly unheard of.
a mundane retreat is not difficult barring the presence of chaotic stupid like attacking someone at a formal event that teleport would certainly make it easier to escape from third parties it would be bad to escape from. Yes perhaps you said it to someone, but the important part is that when questioned directly & given a trivial hurdle of something the gm could track & plan for you complained against gm enacted safeguards and avoided admitting it. As a GM I'm not interested in playing a game of he said she said when bob claims he said something to someone. People do leave things unsaid but when they leave them unsaid is often important.
Could I handle the campsite & still fill a session?... perhaps sometimes... could I handle every campsite you ever made over months or years of campaign?... Permanent circles are hard to make for a reason & that's no doubt part of it. You complained about gm paranoia when I mentioned player vrs gm hostility but it would be difficult to provide a better example of a hostile player than you've just done.
a mundane retreat is not difficult barring the presence of chaotic stupid like attacking someone at a formal event that teleport would certainly make it easier to escape from third parties it would be bad to escape from. Yes perhaps you said it to someone, but the important part is that when questioned directly & given a trivial hurdle of something the gm could track & plan for you complained against gm enacted safeguards and avoided admitting it. As a GM I'm not interested in playing a game of he said she said when bob claims he said something to someone. People do leave things unsaid but when they leave them unsaid is often important.
Could I handle the campsite & still fill a session?... perhaps sometimes... could I handle every campsite you ever made over months or years of campaign?... Permanent circles are hard to make for a reason & that's no doubt part of it. You complained about gm paranoia when I mentioned player vrs gm hostility but it would be difficult to provide a better example of a hostile player than you've just done.
There's no hostile player. The scenario was that the PC would take an associated object from this night's campsite and discard the one from last night's campsite. Therefore you only need to track the previous night's campsite. Feel free to go back and reread my posts if you don't believe me, it's all there. I literally wrote all that.
You accuse the player of being hostile, yet you're the one who has repeatedly jumped to conclusions and claimed that this would justify the DM in abusing their authority in order to teach the player a lesson.
There's no hostile player. The scenario was that the PC would take an associated object from this night's campsite and discard the one from last night's campsite. Therefore you only need to track the previous night's campsite. Feel free to go back and reread my posts if you don't believe me, it's all there. I literally wrote all that.
You accuse the player of being hostile, yet you're the one who has repeatedly jumped to conclusions and claimed that this would justify the DM in abusing their authority in order to teach the player a lesson.
I'm aware of that about going back to the previous night's campsite, but that's not quite the current I don't want to be inconvenienced claim you kept avoiding either. Long ago I pointed out the risk and suggested that I'd require a more firmly linked object after you started arguing strict raw to justify a pebble. I also explained that I wouldn't allow a player to engage in 20 questions with the universe in order to metagame a perceived possible loophole like a branch in support of disregarding the a second gm's protest with what might be technically acceptable yet still random objects.... When given an example of why you need something more firmly linked in the form of a problem you levied accusations of abusing GM fiat yet when asked why the protests however you repeatedly kept indicating that it was just a safe escape thing while ignoring that a more firmly linked object would allow a player to to prepare the safe spot some to ensure it was safe making the continued protests incongruous with their stated reason.
The more recent evolution of your reason behind the protest amounting to "I don't want to" or "it's merely a convenience" after being pressed repeatedly & failing to state your true objection is not the same as the original"at the absolute worst you are one day from your point of origination" when you were still talking about "random objects" & had not even begun to insist that you did not need more than random objects as you did in the linked post.
Not only have you taken on the role of a hostile player in this discussion to a T in your insistence that a GM make no effort to impose reasonable safeguards like the magically linked tea kettle against potentially session collapsing abilities or actually put into play the kind of risks they allude to if players choose to call what might be an initial bluff of protest at the time, you've also displayed why it's not paranoia to just say no & deny it outright rather than humoring it with long back & forth at the table with a player who wants to hide their cards through omission when pushed for details on your objection. I think the high point of that demonstration was when you quoted me describing a discussion that would need to occur & the reasons for it saying I should instead "TALK" to the player rather than dream up some paranoid fantasy here. Bravo.
I'm aware of that about going back to the previous night's campsite, but that's not quite the current I don't want to be inconvenienced claim you kept avoiding either. Long ago I pointed out the risk and suggested that I'd require a more firmly linked object after you started arguing strict raw to justify a pebble.
To me this statement should end the argument. You admit to not going by RAW here - which is perfectly fine. It's just that players tend to reasonably expect some pre-acknowledgement when you've changed something from RAW because knowing those changes may impact their decisions on whether to have even taken that spell, or even used that spell in this particular instance.
I'm sure you remember your first explanation that high level beings would divine and randomly replace the object and that it was because that's just the rules for high level beings? That justification sure sounds like DM fiat. It's the kind of explanation that can be used to justify literally anything.
Not only have you taken on the role of a hostile player in this discussion to a T in your insistence that a GM make no effort to impose reasonable safeguards like the magically linked tea kettle against potentially session collapsing abilities or actually put into play the kind of risks they allude to if players choose to call what might be an initial bluff of protest at the time, you've also displayed why it's not paranoia to just say no & deny it outright rather than humoring it with long back & forth at the table with a player who wants to hide their cards through omission when pushed for details on your objection. I think the high point of that demonstration was when you quoted me describing a discussion that would need to occur & the reasons for it saying I should instead "TALK" to the player rather than dream up some paranoid fantasy here. Bravo.
I think it's also worth acknowledging this. It is technically possible for a player to get duped into thinking he possess an associated object to one place that is actually associated to another place. A simple example might be that the PC buys an object from a merchant that claims it recently came from the place he wants to teleport to. The merchant could very well be lying.
It's just that in the specific scenario being discussed, "trying to preempt precisely which branch the wizard is going to take and replace it with a fake from another location" - in any world where beings possess that kind of foresight they could come up with a much better plan than preemptively replacing an associated teleportation object. Hopefully that helps explain why that action comes off as DM fiat. It's not just whether they can do X, but also whether with the kind of power needed to do X, why they would do X to begin with.
IMO, you talk alot about hidden player motives. The best way to handle those motives is to have a direct conversation with the player when they become apparent. If you are doing that then great. If you aren't then you really ought to consider it.
You also mentioned players hiding things through omission. If this is happening alot there may be an underlying cause. It could be something like, "when @tetrasodium knows what we are up to then he counters it with DM fiat." I know if I felt things like teleporting back to the precious nights camp were being countered as you advocated for here, I wouldn't be sharing why my PC was taking any specific action with you until right up till it happened.
To me this statement should end the argument. You admit to not going by RAW here - which is perfectly fine. It's just that players tend to reasonably expect some pre-acknowledgement when you've changed something from RAW because knowing those changes may impact their decisions on whether to have even taken that spell, or even used that spell in this particular instance.
I'm sure you remember your first explanation that high level beings would divine and randomly replace the object and that it was because that's just the rules for high level beings? That justification sure sounds like DM fiat. It's the kind of explanation that can be used to justify literally anything.
I think it's also worth acknowledging this. It is technically possible for a player to get duped into thinking he possess an associated object to one place that is actually associated to another place. A simple example might be that the PC buys an object from a merchant that claims it recently came from the place he wants to teleport to. The merchant could very well be lying.
It's just that in the specific scenario being discussed, "trying to preempt precisely which branch the wizard is going to take and replace it with a fake from another location" - in any world where beings possess that kind of foresight they could come up with a much better plan than preemptively replacing an associated teleportation object. Hopefully that helps explain why that action comes off as DM fiat. It's not just whether they can do X, but also whether with the kind of power needed to do X, why they would do X to begin with.
IMO, you talk alot about hidden player motives. The best way to handle those motives is to have a direct conversation with the player when they become apparent. If you are doing that then great. If you aren't then you really ought to consider it.
You also mentioned players hiding things through omission. If this is happening alot there may be an underlying cause. It could be something like, "when @tetrasodium knows what we are up to then he counters it with DM fiat." I know if I felt things like teleporting back to the precious nights camp were being countered as you advocated for here, I wouldn't be sharing why my PC was taking any specific action with you until right up till it happened.
You raise some good points that deserve answer, but more than a few of them have already been given. It's also worth noting that this is the second time someone has quoted me explaining a discussion that needs to happen & why or referencing that description complete with link suggesting I talk to the player "have a direct conversation with the player when they become apparent. If you are doing that then great. If you aren't then you really ought to consider it" is a bit over the top given that so before I get into responding to anything specific:
You can say that, but doing so doesn't add up with your stated reasons & creates a few problems that need addressing at the table.
This started out with you suggesting collecting a random object every day so that you could use teleport to effectively evac from bad situations. I don't run d&d like a dcc funnel and think I can safely say that is very much normal. Given that normal baseline, having a back pocket evac in the waiting should not be needed unless they intend to do things like become a super villian out of the blue without warning. If a player still thinks it is needed for reasons other than surviving chaotic stupid campaign melting scenarios after pointing out that disconnect then having a more firmly linked object tied to a known safe place they can prepare that I can plan around should improve the ability for the purposes of their reason.
If pointing all of that out in a discussion doesn't accomplish that, then I as a gm need to know the real reason or can expect that it's because the player feels that they need to hide that reason in some sort of stupid adversarial player vrs gm plot surprise. In my experience those surprises often detract from the fun everyone has at the table and may require extra time to progress from without causing wider unfun campaign problems for players other than That Guy with the plot. Since I'm usually fairly permissive in allowing creative applications of abilities* that seem logical I need to be extra vigilant about player activities that seem illogical* to avoid discovering that they hinge on exploiting some rules exception I created, that is extra true when the reasons given for why they are doing itdon't seem to match up with what they are doing like in this case
Strict RAW is not a refuge that supports anything specifically in this case because it supports both equally well. I suspect that either way is an artifact of past editions where associated object was originally hashed out. For all of the lip service that o5e pays to empowering the GM to make changes through its excessive simplicity those rules tend to be quite hostile to the gm doing so in any way other than cranking players towards eleven as a result of how often it deviates from natural language to clear & structured layers of attempted safeguards about badwringfun or disarms the gm through the removal of tools deemed complex from their toolbox.
With strict RAW not supporting either interpretation that leaves things like motivations & reasoning as being more relevant. I made pretty clear the reasons throughout the discussion & was explicit when I described the discussion with bolded bits in the quote of myself above in the spoiler, this post (and I think others) where I talked about the need to fill the session with interesting content & how a more firmly linked than merely casually linked object allows me to do that might also be worth noting in this pile. On the other side of the discussion there seems to be little more than "but RAW" (which supports both) and "but I don't want my character to be inconvenienced" (too bad. I need to make the session fun & enjoyable for all of my players not just the one who thinks themselves The Main Character). Despite post after post accusing me of dm paranoia & abusive gm'ing the only attempt made at addressing any of the non-RAW reasons the only effort to even acknowledge that was along the lines of a complaint that I'm incapable of handling player actions & should gitgud here.
* Acknowledging that I don't run strict RAW is another point you brought up & it's a good one because that acknowledgement is only half the story. In the bolded bits where I quoted myself I noted "I'm usually fairly permissive in allowing creative applications of abilities* that seem logical I need to be extra vigilant about player activities that seem illogical* to avoid discovering that they hinge on exploiting some rules exception I created", the players aren't running strict RAW either and the time to complain about wanting strict RAW was the second I started letting people creatively apply abilities so I could clear things up or flat out boot ThatGuy before they decided to make an effort of cloaking a protest in strict RAW. There's nothing to acknowledge because it's an openly spotlighted feature of my campaign and enabling that kind of thing is the express goal of o5e's simplicity+"natural language".
* Did I start out saying that I powerful being could divine & plot?... no... I did not & that's pretty much my first post on the subject because this was a completely different discussion in the wider thread. The explanation came later and while in that cell is very much not the time to delve into the specifics beyond something like "based on your arcana check there are lots of that could have been done like [the divining & such I mentioned]". At that point bob can provide the players with an explanation that fits fine with the problems with random objects being used as anchors previously raised by other posters at that point.... Everyone can move on & have a fun time interacting with their new patron rather than snoozing through a random & pointless wilderness encounter trying to fill time.
*but the branch is way more linked than the original random object like a stone & takes more work to justify!. Yes it is, but that runs into two problems. It started out with things like rocks & I've established repeatedly that the universe does not play 20 questions with a player hoping to metagame a technicality around a protest & warning from the GM but that a player could invest time & gold into researching that with their character if they really wanted to know more. The random object selection never evolves from the more trivial to manipulate stone to the branch as a result. Even if the player started with a branch I listed a few ways that a tree could be manipulated that were literally thought up as I wads typing, it's not a high bar because the players will probably never do it or be in a situation to do so making specifics are not important beyond "theoretically possible but very difficult, it means you are considered worth the effort guys"
* Do players feel they need to hide their plans to keep from having fiat crush them? No & here is a great video on why trying to plot around the gm in player vrs gm style is problematic & self defeating. If players were going into a situation that you expected to be dangerous & wanted to grab "a rock" during the long rest before heading out I would probably ask why because it's a completely illogical activity without the context of intent. The answer there gives me a chance to plan just in case, the trouble comes when that same player just starts doing it every day as some kind of rolling daily ritual that pointlessly requires a lot of extra planning & record keeping on the GM's part.
I think that answers everything you raised & I appreciate you not phrasing everything in some kind of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" style linguistic trap that forces the person answering to defend themselves while answering like happened with so many of the accusations of abusive gm'ing & gm paranoia leveled through the thread.
