D&D 5E True Names - Are they ever "defined" in 5e?

[TwoSix]

"Authority" is a weird way to describe this, but sure, you're right that a player can say, "I make it my mission to get the true name of a demon lord!" and the Gm can say "No." And that "no" can be perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances, such as a table agreement to play a certain adventure or whatever. But in a game that has the pretty well understood "open world" aspect that D&D provides, a had "No" is probably a signal that the player should find a different GM.

"Authority" is generally the term used for how much power both the players and the GM are allocated to frame situations in various games, but I understand not everyone participates in the more esoteric game theory threads around here.

On the subject of whether a thing needs to be an explicitly player facing ability: that's also a table agreement. I am just saying that if they exist in the campaign the way they are described in the MM, they are fair game.

I'm not debating how true names should be used or not, I don't find it to be particularly compelling. (I know how I would use them if I wanted.) I'm just stating the players can't really DO anything with them without the DM formalizing some rules by fiat. Which would contrast with using banishment on a devil or demon, to illustrate the "formal authority" distinction. A player of the right class has explicit authority to cast banishment. The DM can, by either making a saving throw or some other fiat decision, explain why it doesn't work, but the player is empowered by the rules to try.

 

[Reynard]

I said it looks like names written in abyssal... but the bark has started to grow over them with time... the warlock who can read every language translated them as 'just names' and they figured they must have bound imps or something to trees making evil dryads...but they are gone now.

Out of curiosity, why did you gate that information? It seems a strange choice to put it there and then not give it to the players.

 

[Reynard]

"Authority" is generally the term used for how much power both the players and the GM are allocated to frame situations in various games, but I understand not everyone participates in the more esoteric game theory threads around here.


I'm not debating how true names should be used or not, I don't find it to be particularly compelling. (I know how I would use them if I wanted.) I'm just stating the players can't really DO anything with them without the DM formalizing some rules by fiat. Which would contrast with using banishment on a devil or demon, to illustrate the "formal authority" distinction. A player of the right class has explicit authority to cast banishment. The DM can, by either making a saving throw or some other fiat decision, explain why it doesn't work, but the player is empowered by the rules to try.

I did say "if they exist as described in the MM." If that is true, the GM has already "formalized" a rule for the inclusion of Trune Names and granted PCs the "authority" to go find one if they can.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Out of curiosity, why did you gate that information? It seems a strange choice to put it there and then not give it to the players.

um what gate? I gave them a instant notice of something... but they had to say they looked into it (aka choice) they did, I put it in a language but knew that the warlock read every language.... so I knew they could read it. I then told them it was demon names and they went with what they thought from there and none of them thought it a big deal.

 

[Reynard]

um what gate? I gave them a instant notice of something... but they had to say they looked into it (aka choice) they did, I put it in a language but knew that the warlock read every language.... so I knew they could read it. I then told them it was demon names and they went with what they thought from there and none of them thought it a big deal.

I wasn't trying to be accusatory, just curious about your style and choices as a GM. Just by way of example (so not a criticism) I would have told them "those are the true names of powerful demons" to be extra certain that the players knew what they were looking at. If they still walked away, so be it. But I have seen enough misinterpretations of important information (and completely unimportant information!) to have decided to be very clear these days.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wasn't trying to be accusatory, just curious about your style and choices as a GM. Just by way of example (so not a criticism) I would have told them "those are the true names of powerful demons" to be extra certain that the players knew what they were looking at. If they still walked away, so be it. But I have seen enough misinterpretations of important information (and completely unimportant information!) to have decided to be very clear these days.

there was a time I would have handled it that way. I have been on a big player empowerment kick though. So if PCs pay attention to something and put effort toward it, that BECOMES my next plot hook.
if they walk away (as they did) I just note it as a dead end and keep going to see what they DO want to spend effort on.

 

[Reynard]

there was a time I would have handled it that way. I have been on a big player empowerment kick though. So if PCs pay attention to something and put effort toward it, that BECOMES my next plot hook.
if they walk away (as they did) I just note it as a dead end and keep going to see what they DO want to spend effort on.

That's an interesting interpretation of "player empowerment" I am not sure I agree with, but if it works for you great.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

In 2e and Planescape it was implied there was some sort of "True language" or Language Primeval which was where something like the Last Word (which Orcus used to kill Primus and Maanzecorian) came from. In that case then, everyone had a "True Name" which was in that language. 3e of course had the badly designed True Namer which used that, and 4e sort of touched on the Language Primeval with the Invoker class.

But 5e has nothing on that. Not even the rejected True Name using Wizard subclass did. I guess you could say the "Power Word" spells are directly connected to that language.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's an interesting interpretation of "player empowerment" I am not sure I agree with, but if it works for you great.

yeah It means over the last 5years (not counting the 2 book adventures 1 ongoing) I have thrown away dozens if not 100 plots because I leave a clue and the PCs walk past it. Sometimes it's an NPC, sometimes it's a tree with demon names and sometimes it's the book of secret arts sitting in the bards backpack unread for 7 levels...

sometimes though they circle back. Myabe in 4 levels they will be around here and pay more attention then, or maybe this is just a foot note.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In 2e and Planescape it was implied there was some sort of "True language" or Language Primeval which was where something like the Last Word (which Orcus used to kill Primus and Maanzecorian) came from. In that case then, everyone had a "True Name" which was in that language. 3e of course had the badly designed True Namer which used that, and 4e sort of touched on the Language Primeval with the Invoker class.

But 5e has nothing on that. Not even the rejected True Name using Wizard subclass did. I guess you could say the "Power Word" spells are directly connected to that language.

2e had a mage academy adventure/book that had a secret langage called 'alph' and they only knew a few words in it and it worked that way