yes, I expect that if I describe a huge rain storm my players will RP being in a storm.
becuse it is a simple "what is roleplaying" statement that we can find a dozen (immdeidly most spells) that contradicts that. You just want a carve out for skills.
It's not positioned in context as a rule or principle. Only as a guide as to how to go about roleplaying your character. So when you say the DM cannot do X because "players decide" I am asking you where that comes from?
It's not the same thing. You describing an NPC lying to the PCs is describing the environment - step 1. The PCs saying they are lying to an NPC is step 2 - describing their actions. Like any action, you can resolve it with an ability check if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.
I won't do that, but I will agree nobody needs to be an expert on this stuff. It is a game for ages 12+ after all. You just need to be able to describe the environment (as DM) or describe your actions with reasonable specificity (as player). In this case, the DM just needs to say the lie that the Demon Prince says. What the players decide to do in the face of that is up to them. They might take him at his word. They might think it's sus. They might try to assess his body language to determine truthfulness. Only then do you resolve the action.
The rules for attitude are in an explicitly optional rules space. I don't think it bears mentioning unless we're specifically talking about those rules. My expectation is that almost nobody uses them anyway.
Can I ask, what is the test here that establishes lack of uncertainty for you? Is it the text on PHB185 (i.e. you see that as a rule), is it something from outside the game, or something else - perhaps text somewhere else in the core books?
I can't read the posts you're referencing. Nevertheless, we're now back to saying "This isn't a rule because it doesn't help my argument. It's a guideline." I don't buy it.
I think there’s a breakdown of communication here, because to my knowledge, nobody is claiming charisma checks work differently than other checks. What’s being claimed is that all checks are called for to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of actions. If there is no uncertainty, there is no rules supporting the use of an ability check. What we are fundamentally disagreeing about is whether or not the outcome of an action made to socially influence a PC is uncertain. I say that it is not, because the general rule (or principle if you like; I have no objection to calling it that) is that a player decides what their character does, so an action that aims to force a player’s character to make a certain decision cannot succeed. Your counter argument so far has been that an ability check, as a game mechanic, constitutes a specific exception to that general principle. I disagree, because in order for an ability check to be employed with the support of the rules, there must first be uncertainty in the outcome. To say that an ability check is an exception to the general principle of PC agency presupposes that it’s appropriate to make an ability check to resolve the action that would supplant their agency. My position is that it is not.
It literally says the player determines what the character thinks, says, and does. I don't know how it could be more clear or more "powerful." That charm person is an exception and contradiction to that rule - which is the criteria laid out in the rules for specific beating general - is self-evident.
Exactly right. This all comes down to uncertainty. Anything else is not relevant and only serves to obfuscate this.
1st, charm (spell,condition, applied by magic or skill like the rouge ability) never says it is an exception... it just is.
