Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7602015" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Well, a non-answer is a type of answer too. That's fine, we can drop it. See, I would agree with you, except that my last table had three players who had never played DnD before. Table before that had one. I'm not going to judge that those players aren't interested in their own narrative plots just because they didn't have a backstory after character creation. I've got players with a few years under their belts, and they sometimes want a few sessions to get a feel for things before they add details to their backstories. "Sure, I think I was a soldier, but I'm not sure why I left the army or how I got with these people". Again, that doesn't preclude them from making a narrative arc that they embrace and enjoy. I know this for a fact, because people at both those tables had exactly those issues, and ended up with full character arcs that they were ecstatic about. Now, a guy whose played for thirty years and shows up saying "I'm playing Bob the Fighter and that's all you need to know". Yeah, that guy probably doesn't care about backstories, but I'll still leave the door open, in case he wants to try something different this time. For some of the people I've been discussing with? There is no difference. For the purpose of the discussion with you, the character believes it, because the player says so. Again, according to some of the people I've been discussing this with, you are completely wrong. In fact, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] went so far as to state in the insight thread that a player never has to justify why their character knows something. There is no roll, there is no story, the player says their character knows earth elemental are vulnerable to thunder damage, so their character knows that. Now, iserith was also very quick to state that assuming what you know is accurate is a dangerous thing, because the DM could have changed anything and your assumptions might be woefully inaccurate, but I disagree with the premise, not the exception. It was why I disagreed with the Elder telling you all the monster secrets, that everyone seemed to agree was perfectly okay. No CharGen resources needed, no lore rolls required, you know what your character thinks, therefore you know those facts about those monsters. However, when it turned to a social event where a roll could be bypassed, the player was outside the rules of the game, as everyone has stated repeatedly. That was why I brought this up, because one way was okay, but the other was not, and I was curious where those individuals saw that line in the sand.</blockquote>

Verification