Well, I've already dealt with that both with you and
@Charlaquin before, and here the authorities I'm talking about don't even need to reach for Rule Zero -- they're core to the basic play loop. The reaction that Rule Zero allows for anything does indeed make it seems like my argument goes there and ignores that it's already encapsulated within that basic play loop. It's a strawman argument and I'm just weary of such things being trotted out first to discredit rather than address. The first time, okay, the second and I'm already tired of it.
I am not trying to say that you are reaching for rule zero. I am saying that I don’t believe there’s any point in arguing about what the rules permit the DM to do, because they permit anything. I say this as a defense against the repeated assertions that
I’m claiming the rules disallow the DM from resolving actions taken to force a PC to make a particular decision by way of an ability check. I am not. I am only saying that I do not see anywhere in the rules where it is suggested that the DM ought to do so.
The current argument is that there is a switch between roleplaying and mechanics at some point. I find this to be not a great formation, but I'm trying to argue within the premises as presented. Otherwise we'd still be back a long ways. So, if we accept that there's a break between modes -- roleplaying and mechanical resolution -- then we have to accept that someone has the authority to call that break and enforce it. This is trivially done as it has to be the GM using the basic play loop. So, in normal play, we can be roleplaying through something where the GM has described the scene, and we're in the mode of roleplaying where both sides are largely free-playing these interactions without formal structure. There's still the action/resolution loop here, but it's less structured. That is, until the GM determines something has an uncertain outcome in the roleplaying and effectively calls a halt to roleplaying to move to the more formal ability check (or other applicable mechanic) resolution. I don't think that this is contentious.
Ah, ok, I see the confusion here. I too am arguing the premise as presented
by @clearstream as a means of resolving the conflict with the “roleplaying rule.” They presented the argument that the “roleplaying rule” represents a dichotomy between roleplaying - wherein the player decides what their character thinks, says, and does - and mechanics, wherein the rules say what the PCs think, say, and do. They suggested that the DM has the authority to suspend roleplaying (as they are defining it here) in order to rule that an action made with the intent of forcing a PC to make a particular decision has an uncertain outcome. Rather than dispute the premise of this position, I argued it as presented, saying that I do not see a suggestion in the rules that the DM ought to “suspend roleplaying” in order to get around the “roleplaying rule.” Is that a bit clearer?
So, then, if we consider how an NPC action might work, we might assume the same authorities. However, the argument put forward is that there's no clear authority assigned to move the game from roleplaying to mechanics if it's not a PC action being uncertain, or if it's not an NPC action that isn't a CHA ability check. This is important because there was a discussion that moving out of roleplaying mode to mechanical resolution mode would set aside the Roleplaying Rule argument. So, it needs to be asserted that no such authority to move from roleplaying to mechanics is present for social moves because then we're out of the umbrella of the Roleplaying Rule and CHA ability checks might be allowable to be deployed. My argument here is that this is pure special pleading. There's nothing unique or called out that would single out social moves by NPCs or monsters to change the normal rule that the GM has the authority -- the same authority it is absolutely uncontested for non-social moves by NPCs or any moves by PCs -- and that some explicit call-out is necessary to locate this authority. This is just saying "this is different because I want it to be different." It's not a sound argument.
I am not engaging in special pleading. My critique of the “suspending roleplaying” argument as presented is that the rules do not seem to suggest that the DM
ever suspend roleplaying. On the contrary, the same rules state that roleplaying is involved in all parts of the game, so suspending it would seem to go against that. The only thing that’s “special” about actions made to force a PC to make a particular decision is that they are the only type of action that, as far as I can tell, would require the suspension of roleplaying in order to allow to have an uncertain outcome in the face of the “roleplaying rule.”
As for the whole argument for the Roleplaying Rule, this is what I'm calling circular, but it has it own share of special pleading. It starts with the necessary assertion that all text not explicitly called out otherwise is rules. This is a necessary assumption because otherwise the single sentence in the section on Roleplaying on pg 174 of the PHB is very hard to argue for as a general rule rather than advice or a loose definition of what roleplaying can be. So, to start we have an assumption that's necessary to preserve the core argument of the position. This is then extrapolated into the GM cannot call for a NPC social move check against a PC because the Roleplaying Rule blocks all question of uncertainty. This, at least, follows. Thus, the conclusion is that social moves cannot be deployed against PCs absent a specific exception.
Yes. This is and has always been my position.
This is where the special pleading starts. Monster proficiencies are claimed to be only there for characterization and for GM solo play (ie, when the GM is rolling dice between NPCs and this doesn't involve the PCs at all). The wording on ability checks, which makes no distinction between abilities and how NPCs use them (within the play loop) is actually meant to be understood as all abilities except CHA unless specifically excepted.
This is not so. In my reading, CHA checks are no different than any other ability check in that they can be used in what you call DM solo play. CHA checks are also no different than any other checks in that they cannot be used to force a player character to make a specific decision. My position treats all ability checks as equal in this.
The fact that the level of exception that a spell like Charm Person has is identical to the that in the description of CHA ability checks is also ignored or vaguely questioned or rests on "well, I think it's different" even though that's not a logically sound argument.
Charm Person imposes a specific exception to the “roleplaying rule.” It says that the affected character has the Charmed condition (which has specific rules that contradict the roleplaying rule) and it says that the charmed creature treats the caster as a friendly acquaintance - again, a contradiction of the roleplaying rule, assuming the charmed creature is a PC.
And, for one of my favorites, there needs to be a distinction between what a PC knows and what a PC thinks about what a PC knows. This constitutes a raft of special pleading to preserve the initial assumption that supports the premise that presumes the conclusion. I mean, we start with the premise the it's a rule that only players direct PC thoughts and find out, at the end of the chain, that only players direct PC thoughts. It's entirely circular.
I don’t think we’ll be able to agree on this, because I can’t fathom how one could conflate
what someone knows with
what someone thinks. Knowledge is information a person has access to. Thought is mental manipulation of information. The roleplaying rule, as I read it, says that the player gets to decide what to do with information they have access to (“decide what the character thinks”). Character knowledge is independent of this. To trot out a very tired example, a player may think they know that fire stops a troll’s regeneration, and the roleplaying rule allows them to decide that their character thinks that as well. But, if the DM is using a custom stat block for a troll that gains temporary hit points when it takes fire damage or whatever, then what the player has decided the character thinks clearly does not line up with reality; they do not actually
know that the troll’s regeneration will be stopped by fire damage (because it won’t). They can declare some action with the intent of gaining this information, such as thinking back to their grandfather’s stories of trolls to try and remember if they have any special weaknesses. The outcome of this would probably be uncertain, or at least, the roleplaying rule does not preclude it’s uncertainty, because it says the player decides what the character
thinks, not what they
know.
And, if we discard the premise of the Roleplaying Rule, then none of the issues that have to be pleaded away are actually a thing. Monster proficiencies make perfect sense. The rules for ability checks are restored and have no conflicts. There needs not be a difference imagined between what a PC knows and what a PC thinks about what a PC knows. The level of exception for Charm Person and social moves evaporates. None of these things are a requirement or consideration if we don't have the Roleplaying Rule!
This is what clearly exposes these as special pleading -- the needed explanation of how these work becomes unnecessary if we don't have the same initial premise, which clearly shows that such readings are a function of the premise and not anything inherent to those particular bits of rules. When the nature of core bits of rules change with the premise, that's in indication that it's the premise driving rather than analysis of the rules.
For the reasons above, I don’t believe any of these “issues” are a thing if we assume the roleplaying rule are actually a thing. You seem to be stating that they are issues with my interpretation, and then accuse me of engaging in special pleading when I demonstrate why they are not.
