The player decides if the seduction or intimidation works on their character. Therefore, no ability check is made since there is no uncertainty as to the outcome - it's whatever the player says it is. You're just rolling weighted dice to determine description.
I disagree.
I just want to point out my group is 100% the same
Just out of curiosity, what are those consequences?
no but calling out what can and can not be exceptions to it would be nice... there are alot of exception you accept but one you wont.
where are these categories? can I find a list? what book mentions them?
yes, and as such when an NPC does something that fit (doesn't auto pass/fail may make it may fail and has a meaning ful consequence) the DM rolls the NPC stat or stat+skill.
yup
nope and we have explained why up thread MANY times
and since the player can not always know how _______ the NPC is and this is not a story telling competition where a DM must be able to describe in detail (and in some cases of intimidate and seduction especially the PC/DM may not WANT to) the result is uncertain.
and therefore we use ability checks
I can see that mind set, I just don't care if a PC asks
how does the player decide if they are playing a character? they have information the character does not, and the character has information the player is being denied (the weather or not the ability score check pass/fail)?
well aren't we all... Can I climb this cliff yes/no? well if it is important and has a chance to succeed and a chance to fail we roll. The Description of us pulling up and making the climb, or falling to our deaths are what we are rolling for.
All the necessary page references and the like have been provided upthread by @Maxperson, @Charlaquin, and others. If you haven't accepted them by now, I don't expect you ever will. And that's fine. I'm just not going to retread that ground again 97 pages into the thread. It's not a good use of my time.
The player can decide by whatever means they see fit. It's their character.
Ability checks resolve the outcome of actions when those tasks have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. Climbing a cliff may, in some cases, call for an ability check perhaps because there are few handholds or it's slippery. The meaningful consequence for failure might mean falling off or becoming exhausted or the like. When we examine whether an monster can intimidate a PC, we look for whether there can be uncertainty and find that there can't be - the player decides. Thus, the outcome is certain, whatever and however the player decides. So there's no ability check here, no meaningful consequence for failure the DM can decide and no DC.
then just admit that both of our interpretations are valid and neither is "right or wrong"
as you are free not to.
they ARE ability checks in the way the rules support (as has been shown time and time again)
Yup never disagreed with that.
correct, and we HAVE a system in place right in the players handbook... it's an Ability Check (or Ability+skill), it even meets all of your requirements. It is a rule, it has uncertainty of the result and it has consequences.. so it is an ability check
The only admission I can and will make is that the rules say one thing and I don't think your interpretation is correct, even if I think that the way you choose to play is valid if that what you and your players are into.
What you're doing may look to you like you're making ability checks, but they aren't as shown above. There's more to it than "Ability+Skill." You're rolling dice to determine description in social interaction, not resolving tasks. Fine, but not an ability check.
