Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Sigh. Sure, and if this is your point that all of it is meaningless, including any assertions you make about the game. Further, this kind of argument makes it seem like I'm reaching for Rule Zero or whatever rather than pointing out that the game makes this kind of allowance directly within the core game loop in the very first description of how play operates in the PHB. And continues to repeat it in multiple places. It's another bit of strawmanning.
I don't think that's sigh-worthy. I asked you myself, upthread, if you were just invoking rule zero, and since then several times I've been scratching my head, thinking, "This sure sounds like rule zero." So I don't fault @Charlaquin for assuming that.
Well, this would apply to many things, then, and we'd never be able to move to using ability checks so long as at least one player holds onto roleplaying. I don't think this case applies -- the GM decides when a given action declaration is uncertain. Monsters are explicitly allowed to take actions that are adjudicated like player actions in the loop (otherwise we're in trouble for a lot of other 5e play). So, the GM must have the authority to suspend roleplaying and move to a mechanical resolution. We can clearly see this in PC play -- when a player is roleplaying and an action appears to be uncertain, the GM can halt the roleplaying and ask for a check. This isn't controversial (I don't think). It's only when we consider if a non-PC does something that suddenly the GM lacks any general authority to make this switch? And that this is a second order effect from another rule because it's not clearly stated to be the case?
Again, because it seems I'm being treated poorly here, I 100% agree that PCs being immune to CHA proficiencies is RAI. I 100% agree that this approach lends to better play at my table than the alternative and that I will advocate for using it. HOWEVER, I find the argument you are proposing to support your claims, and the claim that this is the best logical interpretation of the rules, is terribly flawed and is actually a circular argument where you're assuming your conclusion in your premise. I'm arguing against the argument, here, not the position the argument is trying to support.
I can think of 4 possibilities here:
1) You are, in fact, being "treated poorly" (although I don't think so)
2) Your arguments are so far over our heads that we poor mortals can't follow along
3) You aren't as clear as you seem to think
4) Your logic is flawed
I'm betting on #3, although maybe there's some #4 in there.
What I'm having trouble figuring out is the place where you and @Charlaquin diverge. Is it possible that you're disagreeing about order of precedence between "the player decides" and the description of the play loop? That is, @Charlaquin thinks the play loop is the more general, and the "the player decides" is more specific, and you think it's the other way around?
And how is it, if you're not relying on the "player decides" passage, that you conclude that PCs are immune to Cha proficiencies by RAI? (I had to re-read that to make sure you weren't saying that it's simply a fundamental belief of yours. But, nope, you are in fact saying it's in the rules.)