Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8473676" data-attributes="member: 16814">Is there another reading of this I'm not seeing?The support would be a direct statement to this effect?&nbsp; We have statements as to how CHA checks are expected to operate.&nbsp; We have statements for how ability checks work.&nbsp; We have statements that show how ability checks operate on the PCs for other things, and in the same general way that CHA checks are described.&nbsp; Yet there's an argument that CHA checks are different.&nbsp; I get it, it's stepping on that narrow corridor of agency afforded to players, so it's a big deal, but there's nothing special or different about CHA ability checks that's different from other ability checks.&nbsp; So, the claim that there's no support for ability checks being used to resolve actions taken to try and influence the behavior of PCs is just as true for any other ability.Instead, it's the foundational assumption -- that roleplaying is always on, and that roleplaying requires that no one other than the player determine anything about the thoughts, feelings, or actions of their character.&nbsp; And that this can only be voided by a direct statement to the contrary.&nbsp; Such statements are lacking -- agreed.&nbsp; But they're lacking for Charm Person as well as CHA(persuasion) in the same way -- nothing directly contradicts the roleplaying statement.&nbsp; It's only when we get to things like Dominate that it's clear.&nbsp; Or fear effects. It's that initial assumption that you're touting&nbsp; that text is rules unless otherwise stated.&nbsp; However, this immediately runs into the buzzsaw of the fact that game explicitly tells you to ignore the rules if a situation warrants.&nbsp; So, thereby, it's entirely consistent with your assumption to have a CHA(persuasion) check influence a PC because I can, by the rules, ignore anything in the roleplaying section if it doesn't make sense to me as the GM for that action.&nbsp; Which is why I say that argument self-destructs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8473676, member: 16814"] Is there another reading of this I'm not seeing? The support would be a direct statement to this effect? We have statements as to how CHA checks are expected to operate. We have statements for how ability checks work. We have statements that show how ability checks operate on the PCs for other things, and in the same general way that CHA checks are described. Yet there's an argument that CHA checks are different. I get it, it's stepping on that narrow corridor of agency afforded to players, so it's a big deal, but there's nothing special or different about CHA ability checks that's different from other ability checks. So, the claim that there's no support for ability checks being used to resolve actions taken to try and influence the behavior of PCs is just as true for any other ability. Instead, it's the foundational assumption -- that roleplaying is always on, and that roleplaying requires that no one other than the player determine anything about the thoughts, feelings, or actions of their character. And that this can only be voided by a direct statement to the contrary. Such statements are lacking -- agreed. But they're lacking for Charm Person as well as CHA(persuasion) in the same way -- nothing directly contradicts the roleplaying statement. It's only when we get to things like Dominate that it's clear. Or fear effects. It's that initial assumption that you're touting that text is rules unless otherwise stated. However, this immediately runs into the buzzsaw of the fact that game explicitly tells you to ignore the rules if a situation warrants. So, thereby, it's entirely consistent with your assumption to have a CHA(persuasion) check influence a PC because I can, by the rules, ignore anything in the roleplaying section if it doesn't make sense to me as the GM for that action. Which is why I say that argument self-destructs. [/QUOTE]

Verification