Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7605990" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I'll assume that was a serious question. For seeing if the wizard's character does actually know that knowledge. Arcana is the skill linked with knowledge about elementals and their strengths and weaknesses after all. And as a DM, I can call for checks, correct?I'm not saying it is a problem, but you keep using it as a defense. Everything is fine, because the smart play is to verify. But, just because it is smart does not mean that is what the player will do.And you know what is a DM problem? The players not having fun. Which is something which I could see happening in extreme cases of this whole discussion. What you described isn't incentive. They were cautious, yes, but if later in the campaign they encounter a brownish mold in a cold room will they check it again? How about the third time? The Fourth? Sure, you might change it, and then you'll telegraph it by describing something different about the mold this time, maybe by adding yellow stripes to it or something. But, despite their caution, look at how you describe the thought process. Cold room, brown mold. It is probably brown mold, but we don't have more than one spell slot and no cold-based cantrips so we should verify it is brown mold first. The entire verification was based upon their lack of resources, if they had had a cold cantrip, they would have just shot it at the mold, because there would have been no loss of resources to the party. Unless you had changed it to do something else. That is what I've been talking about. Verification will not happen every time. I try not to assume what people will say, I can sometimes predict what an answer will be before I see it, but then I'd be talking to myself and not the actual other person. I apologize if it frustrates you, but repeating the same thing over and over does not necessarily convince me of anything, and in fact, if I bring up a counter-point that doesn't get addressed, then it is nothing more than circular movement. I've added nothing, just followed the logic. Absolute Authority over thoughts and actions is translating to absolute authority over the character's mind. That's what thoughts and actions are, since the Player does not have the authority to automatically succeed. This would then include authority over your own memories. Barring an outside influence, if I have absolute authority over my character's thoughts, then I should assume I have absolute authority over what they do and do not remember. We even include emotions in this, relationships. That means they have the same authority over their past that they have over their actions, because they are the ones telling that story. Now, you can lock backgrounds, tell the player that they are not allowed to alter or add to their background after the first session, but most tables do not do this. It is perfectly acceptable at a lot of tables to allow players to flesh out backgrounds over the course of play, because writing the full life story of a 25 year old soldier who lost his way in war and converted to the worship of a peace goddess... well that is hard. Also, I just confirmed this character was 1) in a military unit, 2) fought in battles if not a full war 3) joined a temple or religion 4) worships a goddess of peace. All of that is setting information, the existence of these things should be in the realm of the DM, but, I have full control over my character's thoughts. I can say that my character believes in peace because he has buried too many friends, by the way,  he know has dead friends. I'm not being a problem player, I'm not going beyond the pale, but I've been adding to the setting. Now, the DM is fully within their rights to veto any of this, but if they, for example, say that there has been no war for the last 20 years, then my character drastically changes, because he can no longer have the thoughts he had about war, because he no longer has the experience of war. I did not have absolute authority over my character's thoughts, because the DM declaring a peaceful era immediately changed those thoughts.So, I think I cover some of this up above, but a few salient points. There is no "sort of absolute authority". If authority is not absolute, then it is not absolute authority. Secondly, while you very much could respond to the player searching the city for Francis with "Well, Francis is dead" that feels a bit... squicky, to me at least. "Hey, I want to look for an old friend in this city." "Okay, he's dead, let's move on"Now, you can turn any of these into interesting points. Maybe with him moving you'll encounter him later because the player is curious why Francis decided to leave. Maybe with him no longer being a guard you can explore some aspect of the city or have a personal character building moment. Maybe with him being dead you can get a personal sub-quest to avenge your friends death. All of these can be interesting. All of them also mean the player changed the setting, because Francis did not exist until the player said so. The DM okayed it, the DM allowed it, but the Player changed the setting here, which is why I've said these lines are not burnt into the ground. Authority over thoughts leads to emotions and memories which leads to relationships with NPCs which leads to the player changing the setting. So, reading this it seems we are actually in agreement. A DM can tell a player what their character does not do or does not think. Therefore their is no absolute authority. If you claim an absolute authority, then you must accept everything that flows from that. I especially agree that a DM should be very receptive to players who point out aspects of their character or backstory that are inviolable. Making sure the players are invested and feel like their investment matters is key to a successful game. It seems after reading this entire post that you think I'm being unfair by saying if you give a player absolute authority over their character's thoughts, that will apply to memories, emotions, and relationships as well. But, our thoughts are shaped by are past, by how we are raised, by what we feel. You cannot separate them. This made me chuckle, because I thought about someone who would claim to have absolute authority over their own thoughts. I find that idea to be wrong, we do not have that sort of authority over our own minds.</blockquote>

Verification