Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Except where overridden by a more specific rule you mean
And, like I said before, it may simply come down to disagreement of which “rules” are more specific than others.
Except where overridden by a more specific rule you mean
Asked and answered.Except where overridden by a more specific rule you mean
I'm neither following the distinction you are trying to make here, nor how that applies to the aforementioned Parley/Persuade (vs. PC) move, nor how it's problematic that such a result would be binding.
No, this is not “the reason”. They are just correcting your use of terms.This is a new line of argument. You now say that the reason is because ability checks are not actions, right? Is rolling the dice ever an action, in your view?
It is not a new line of argument, it’s a framing of the exact same argument I’ve been making that you’ve finally accepted on its own terms instead of trying to re-frame.This is a new line of argument.
No. The dice are a tool for resolving the outcomes of actions. Actions are things characters do. Rolling dice is something players and DMs do.You now say that the reason is because ability checks are not actions, right? Is rolling the dice ever an action, in your view?
It's true that I find some argumentation here exasperating, and so wrote snappily. I meant to refer to but not recite the claims up to now.You know exactly the reason, so this is a pretty snarky way of expressing it.
Yes. Such as rules governing social skills. Which you completely arbitrarily decide to not qualify.Except where overridden by a more specific rule you mean
A roll is made only if there is uncertainty. You are relying on the assumption of a roll being made to establish uncertainty. That is circular.
That’s not really relevant for the purposes of establishing the possibility of success and failure, which is the uncertainty we care about in the general action resolution process.
Players decide what their characters think, say, or act, except where overridden by game mechanics.
Because it doesn't matter. We all agree that player controlling their character happens within the confines set by the rules. Some of us simply do not arbitrarily decide that some of the rules do not apply.Funny that you don't even reference the passage on 185, which is the root of all of this.
If you start trying to prove basic geometry theorems (about parallel lines, sum of angles in a triangle, etc.) it will also become circular. You need a starting point, a basic axiom that you assume but can not prove.
The "PC's make their own decisions" theorem is built upon the text of page 185*. If you ignore it, you're going to have a hard time reconstructing the proof.
But I think you know that.
*Which, admittedly, reinforces my own deeply held beliefs.