Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6874367" data-attributes="member: 16814">Stop right there.  I completely disagree with this.  No mechanic requires that the player know what the character knows -- this is a fundamental aspect of game.  I don't know how to track very well, but my ranger character does.  Under a ZoT, I'm not required to know how my character tracked the Evil Sorcerer across the trackless waste, I just narrate that my character responds truthfully and that's that.  Any argument built on that statement -- that ZoT requires players to know that their characters know, is a non-starter.Yes, it can, very easily.  LOL's player either responds by telling the DM LOL answers truthfully with the answer she knows to be true, or LOL accepts she's living a lie and answers "I don't know" and doesn't give the sidetalk about how she's really lying when she says that.OR, and this is a kicker, she doesn't say anything at all.  Or responds with a non-sequitur, like, "There are FOUR lights!"The only way this breaks is if LOL's player answers 'I don't know' and sidespeaks that she does, and is lying in convention of the mechanics that constrain action declaration.No, it's function is simple and clear to discern -- it limits action declarations, specifically, action declarations to lie within its effects. The spell, quite clearly, prevents any actions that result in a lie while within its effect. The player has been allowed to narrate that LOL does have knowledge.  ZoT doesn't constrain player actions -- the player can lie if they want to -- it constrains character actions.  If LOL the character has knowledge as narrated by her player, then ZoT affects declarations of that knowledge.  You can't lie about not having that knowledge.  At which point you've houseruled the mechanics of ZoT to support the narration.  Which is my exact point, and thank you for making it so well.I beg to differ.  By not answering truthfully, she's affected the direction of the game -- the Evil Cleric who cast the ZoT that LOL failed to resist has been thwarted, which means he/she/it doesn't have the knowledge to advance their plans.  This is a benefit for the party, of which LOL is a member.  So, her narration does gain a gameplay advantage.  She gets to know the answer and lie about it.Sure it would be.  If you can lie under a ZoT because your patron gives you protection from it's effects, then surely you can murder your new charm-casting bestie under the same protection.Look, I get the argument that it doesn't make a difference within the narrow scope of the question and answer of the ZoT.  But that ignores the precedent setting that the story narrated has no connection with the mechanics or other stories in the game.  It also ignores that such a narrow view misses the larger effect -- allowing LOL to breach the mechanics for narration, even while the narrow view doesn't change anything -- means that the direction of the game if affected (the difference between telling Evil Cleric the true answer LOL's narrated as knowing vs telling the true answer of 'I don't know' if LOL is delusional).  It makes a bigger splash than the narrow look Elfcrusher takes.  Elfcrusher seems to be entirely focused on the narrow, immediate issue to the detriment of his own arguments, as in the heavy cav, where his post hoc change to the definition of heavy cav (which he can do) changes the impact and general effect of the whole story (the enemy general is now dumb for failing to anticipate woodland forces being in the woods).  I don't mind altering fluff or allowing a free hand at narration, but I also expect such narration to be long term coherent and not a series of increasingly outlandish patches to save a bad concept.</blockquote>

Verification