Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8061531" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I feel like the fact that, in the scenario in question, the player had the knowledge of the NPC and that's what triggered the issue. Now, the argument is about how meaningless it makes lore checks when one player can simply decide that their character knows whatever they'd like, and the other is bound by results of his lore check. How is this even the case?But that's not really going to happen, is it? The issue in question specifically requires a NPC about whom the player knows things because that NPC has appeared in novels and video games. That's not going to typically be the case, so I don't know why that logic is being applied to other instances.Let's say the PCs encounter another NPC, one entirely of the DM's creation and of whom the players have no prior knowledge. When the NPC introduces herself, does anyone here really expect a player to blurt out "This lady's a grumkin" and then that becomes the truth? Of course not. They may say "I don't think I trust this person...." and then declare some kind of action in an attempt to prove or disprove their suspicion.  I feel like the fact that this kind of fluke doesn't actually violate the proscribed play of 5E has been made clear. Anyone for whom it is a problem is applying their play preference (and they are perfectly allowed to do so). What I'm trying to figure out is why they feel that way? All I seem to be seeing is some lip service to verisimilitude....but it seems more about the DM being the sole authority to establish facts in the fiction. So all I want to know is: why is it important for the DM to be the sole authority on establishing the fictional world? </blockquote>

Verification