It would be helpful if you'd stop Fisking. I'm not delivering a Gish Gallop, so separating sentences that are thematically connected is really just looking to isolate and defeat in turn rather than deal with the argument as a whole. This is apparent throughout as the only argument you're really putting forward is that you like your assumption and are using it as a club while ignoring any other issues that arise from it.
Your posts often contain several points I take issue with. Separating them is an easier way to make sure I address them all. But, I’ll try to take your posts in bigger blocks if you prefer.
For example, in the first exchange the structure of your argument is that:
Assumption: All text is rules unless specifically called out otherwise.
Assertion: Ability checks are all written from the stance of the PCs taking action.
Conclusion: Monsters can also use ability checks despite no rules text indicating this, just not specific ones.
There are numerous problems with this. The one I was addressing was that there is no logical result from the assumptions and assertions that can result in that conclusion. You've smuggled in additional assumptions but not stated them. It's a bad argument. However, the larger problem for your argument is that the opening for the Ability checks specifically says they can be used by both the PCs and the Monsters. No special carve out is made for any of the six abilities or their associated proficiencies. In short, this entire argument is flawed at the assertion level.
You’re misrepresenting my argument here. My argument is:
Assumption: All text is rules unless specifically called out otherwise.
Assertion: According to the text, the DM determines the outcomes of actions, calling for an ability check to be made if necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome.
Assertion: The text stating that players decide what their characters do makes the outcome of any action taken with the goal of forcing the character to decide to do something certain, unless the rules governing that action contain a specific exception to that general rule.
Conclusion: The rules do not support the DM in calling for an ability check to resolve an action taken with the goal of forcing the character to decide to do something.
There have basically been two ways people have tried to counter this argument: one is to say that the rules for ability checks in the player’s handbook constitute a specific exception to the general rule that players decide what their characters do. This argument is not compelling to me, because I do not see anywhere in that text that the general rule is directly contradicted. From my reading, that text is addressed to the player and serves to inform them of when they might be called upon by the DM to make an ability check. The other is to try to argue that the text saying players decide what their characters do is not rules text. That is certainly possible; if my assumption is incorrect, then my conclusion is not necessarily sound. My counter to that is, if not all text in the rule books is rules text, and the rule books don’t tell us what text is rules text and what text isn’t, then we have no means by which to establish what the actual rules are. And maybe that is the case, but I favor an interpretation that gives a clear foundation from which to understand the rules.
This means that we're back to dealing with your assumption with regards to the single sentence in the Roleplaying section of the DMG (not even the PHB, so a player not reading the DMG is unaware of this critical rule and a GM that hasn't scrutinized the text for oddly placed rules would similarly be unaware of this critical rule). And the rest of your post follows this argument. You claim that your assumption makes the least hash of the rest of the rules, except I'm not sure it doesn't. For one, we have to take this single sentence and read it back into the entirety of the rest of the rules such that in a step where multiple places in the text the GM is assigned the job of determining uncertainty we have to consider this one sentence is a strong and inviolable constraint on the GM's responsibility.
I find it a little strange that you criticize my argument for taking yours point by point instead of holistically, and then argue for an interpretation of the rules that takes them point by point instead of holistically.
Yet it's not mentioned in any of these places at all. Instead, we have additional rules information that does tell us monsters use CHA ability checks in exactly the same way as PCs. We have rules information that tells us that success on these abilities for both monsters and PCs is the same. Granted, we have additional information for NPCs that we do not have for PCs for how these can interact, but this doesn't obviate the multitude of other rules that indicate parity between PCs and NPCs and also how the text fails to note this critical limitation on the GM in the multiple places it talks about how the GM determines uncertainty and resolves it.
In my reading, PCs and NPCs do not “use” ability checks. The DM makes ability checks to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of actions, or calls on the players to do so. In this way, there is parity between how the players and the DM employ ability checks. When a PC takes an action with an uncertain outcome, the DM calls on that PC’s player to make an ability check. When an NPC takes an action with an uncertain outcome, the DM makes an ability check. When a character - be they PC or NPC - attempts to force a PC to make a decision, the outcome of that action is not uncertain, unless the rules governing that action contain a specific exception to the rule in question. Therefore, there is not support in the rules for the DM to make or call for an ability check to resolve such an action.
In short, your argument that your reading makes the most sense has to overcome the problem that it relies on taking a single sentence from a section not about running the game but about how players can engage in roleplaying and extrapolates that into a binding constraint on the GM that's not mentioned in the at least 4 other places I can think of that the part of the basic play loop relating to the GM determining uncertainty is discussed in detail.
It’s not a particularly binding constraint. The DM
can decide to call for an ability check in that situation, just as they
can decide not to call for an attack roll when one character tries to harm another. But, I don’t believe the rules
support the DM in either ruling.
The argument also has to deal with the fact that this kind of reading (all text is rules unless specifically excluded by the text) leads to numerous other contradictions and confusion points. It also directly flies in the face of the natural language approach the developers have been clear about where conversational styles were adopted in large sections of the book that are not meant to be read as explicit rules.
I believe there are many places that the stated intent of the rules clearly contradict the idea that the language in the rules is natural. It is intact quite technical despite a conversational tone. At any rate, I don’t agree that this interpretation leads to contradictions. Maybe you could point one out.
My suggestion would be to abandon the claim that you have the most bestest epistemologically sound argument. It relies on assumption as much as any other, and has to engage in special pleading for the conflicts it creates as well.
I don’t make such a claim. There was one person who’s counter arguments against my position were not epistemologically sound. I have stopped engaging with that person. I acknowledge that my argument relies on an assumption. I think it’s a good assumption and I have not been given reason to believe it doesn’t hold up.
I don't disagree with your conclusion -- social skills working on PCs is icky, involves GM Czege violations, and steps hard on the narrow front of player agency in 5e.
That’s not my conclusion. We agree on how best to run the game, but apparently not on why.
There are plenty of good reasons to not allow this. Heck, even your reading of the rules is a good and solid reason. Claiming it's the most bestest logical reading, though, it kinda out-of-bounds. It's a reasonable reading, but it's not as solid as you seem to think it is.
Again, I don’t claim it’s the bestest logical reasoning. I think it’s well reasoned, and so far arguments against it have not been very compelling.
Finally, to drive home the point about social skills and the problem with the Roleplaying Rule -- insight vs deception. If the PC is declaring an action to get a read on an NPC, that can be resolved by the PC's Insight vs the NPC's Deception. The result informs the PC of how their character thinks on the topic. Yes, I'm aware that you can take pains to carefully state the result in a way that doesn't directly tell the player how their PC thinks, but that's just a smokescreen, because the player is fundamentally asking to resolve what their PC thinks of the NPC. Unless you stick to just describing facial tics and eye shifts, in which case you're either encoding the same info into a puzzle for the PC or just providing largely useless information the player can't reconcile, the result of this check will be telling the player something their PC thinks. And this is a specifically allowed interaction in the rules, so it's 100% under the "all text is rules" assumption. We now have to engage in some form of special pleading to excuse this violation of the rule (probably under some form of "specific defeats general" which then opens new fronts against why CHA checks, being more specific, don't overrule the Roleplaying Rule). There are logical holes all over this argument as well. It's not really the argument's fault, though, 5e is written in a loose manner that defies strict interpretation.
Ok, see
this is a pretty compelling counterpoint. Here’s my rebuttal to it:
The PHB says, “Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.” So, an example of an action a player might take that the rules would support the DM in calling for a Wisdom (Insight) check to resolve would be one where the PC attempts to discern information about another character’s emotional state by observing their body language. I would argue that the goal is not to determine what the PC thinks, but what they notice. It is comparable to a check to find hidden details of the environment or to recall lore; the uncertainty is in what information the character gleans, not what they think about it. I do actually have a preference for giving this information in terms of what the character can directly observe rather than feeding the player specific conclusions based on that information, but I do think the rules support a more “you can tell he’s nervous based on the way his eyes dart around” type of answer.
I happen to agree in large part with the approach you employ, I just can't stand behind this argument to support it.
I still think you’re getting the wrong impression of what my argument actually
is.