PHB 174 establishes that - The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. This is silent on who decides that an outcome is uncertain.
Agreed.
DMG 237 establishes that a DM should - Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work? If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. A DM consults themselves, in making their decision.
Agreed.
PHB 6 establishes that - the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions. Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. DM can decide that a challenge makes something that would otherwise be certain, uncertain.
I’m not sure how you’re reaching the bolded conclusion from the quoted text. This text seems to me to convey essentially the same information as the previous quote - don’t call for a roll if the action is devoid of conflict.
PHB 185 establishes that - Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks. Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game, and it comes to the fore during social interactions.
Agreed. So the conclusion I would draw from this is,
If an action would cause a character to think, act, or talk in a specific way, the player determines if it succeeds in doing so.
And for completeness we have the Sage Advice - An NPC ability check can't force a PC to think/feel/do/sense something.
Sure. I don’t think Sage Advice really matters in interpreting RAW, but this supports my argument, so I won’t look too closely into that gift horse’s mouth.
PHB 7 - Specific Beats General - can among other things create an exception that makes something that would be certain, uncertain, or that forces a PC to think, feel, do, or sense something. This is silent on who decides when that applies.
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t provide the exact quote here like you did for the others. “This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.” Notably, the actual quote does distinguish between the general rules and game elements that break the general rules. The rules for skills are in section 2, which is noted as especially being where the general rules are found, and they are not racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, or monster abilities.
DMG 5 - Master of Rules. DM decides when and how to apply the rules.
Yes, which is why we are discussing what the rules
support rather than what they
allow, since here they allow the DM to do anything they want.
A possible exit to our dilemma is this. Determining how your character thinks, acts, or talks is not the same as determining means of resolution. Nor is it a general fiat over outcomes. It is a fiat over how those outcomes impact on how your character thinks, acts, or talks. This is consistent with all the text, and requires no circular arguments.
The player doesn’t determine the means of resolution, the DM does. The player decides how their character thinks, acts, and talks, which means if an action would cause a character to think, act, or talk in a way contrary to the player’s decision, it is not uncertain and the text we have reviewed so far would not support them in calling for an ability check to resolve it.
An example, chosen to get at an egregious case and show it to be resolved.
DM The tea-lady glowers, and threatening to revoke your biscuit privileges, wants you to sit back down. Describes circumstances.
PC Is this pre-school? I'm going to stand up to her. Stand up, get it?! Says what they want to attempt.
DM How about those biscuit privileges? Are you just sacrificing those? DM puts something on the line.
PC Yeah, right, and she has that amazing shortbread. Okay, I'm going to sweet talk her some. Chooses their approach.
DM Okay, the challenge here is that this lady has dealt with generations of all-too-clever students like yourself, her fierceness is legendary. It's a contest, your CHA against hers. You can include Persuasion, she includes Intimidation. Roll. Says how it will be resolved.
Rolls - NPC wins.
DM Remember that sweet, sweet shortbread. That's now a thing of the past, and frankly this woman is pretty scary. You might feel somewhat intimidated. Want to sit back down? Narrates outcome.
PC in world 1 - Yeah, okay, I'm sheepish and slink back to my seat. Roleplays taking into account the outcome.
PC in world 2 - Nah, I stay right where I am. Roleplays, applying their PHB 185 fiat.
You call this an egregious example, but I don’t see anything going on here that conflicts with my reading of the rules. The player took an action - trying to sweet-talk the tea lady into letting them retain their biscuit privileges despite not sitting down. The DM determined that the outcome of this action is uncertain - the sweet talking might convince the tea lady to let them retain their biscuit privileges, or it might not. Determining that there was uncertainty, and the characters are acting against each other’s goals, the DM called for a Charisma (Persuasion) vs. Charisma (Intimidation) contest. The player failed this contest, so they did not make progress towards their goal of getting the tea lady to let them retain their biscuit privileges. Then the player got to decide what their character thought and did about this (either deciding to sit down in world 1, or deciding not to sit down in world 2). The DM here did not make any call that isn’t supported by the rules, as I understand them, though I would note that saying “you might feel somewhat intimidated” is kind of putting their thumb on the scale and I would consider it poor form.
If you thought I would take issue with this example, I don’t think you are understanding my position.
For me it helps to make sure the basic loop, described right up-front in PHB 6, is followed thoughtfully. Frame interactions from the point of view of what the player characters are attempting: they are the protagonists. Explain what the challenges are, what's at stake, etc, and then as DM decide how that will be resolved. That yields good consistency with the text as a whole.
@Maxperson @Bill Zebub @Lyxen for vis.
Yep, I agree 100% with that.