Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8473739" data-attributes="member: 16814">The request for specific text for ability checks is moot -- if your argument is that they're framed for use by PCs, then you've abandoned the reasoning for monsters to have social proficiencies -- those ability checks are not available if ability checks are framed for use only by PCs.  Further, this absolutely doesn't dispense with PC use on another PC.  The argument that there's no uncertainty is pulling forward that initial assumption to the middle of the argument.  It has to hold here as well for this to be true.  However, the problem is that it's the GM's estimation of what's uncertain, not the players.  So, here we're now saying that the GM is being constrained in their authority by this rule and that's pulling it clearly in front of multiple statements that the GM determines uncertainty without carve out for the single mention in the roleplaying section.  In other words, we're pulling a much more obscure reference (ie, I'm not going to look in the roleplaying section to find out how CHA checks works with regards to PCs if I don't recall or am learning the rules) to confront a rule oft stated in multiple places.  This is pulling a single sentence from an unusual place (discussion how roleplaying works and describing what it is and not action adjudication) and giving it greater precedence over very clear rules text that doesn't carve anything out.  But, if we go with this, it still doesn't override the GM's authority to determine what's uncertain.  The GM can very well impose such a check and just end up in the same place as we previously discussed with the player still determining to do whatever they want.  These rules have no teeth to start, and you're layering another toothless version of them but insisting this one has a nasty bite!  It doesn't really follow.And, again, your closing is that you're claiming a better argument for your side, but that there is no wrong argument.  This is foundationally flawed logic.  If no argument can be wrong, then there's little point to claiming a better argument.  I also find this construction to be badly framed -- while I agree that one should play as one finds fun, and how you play doesn't seem to harm me in any way, if we're discussing the rules of the game then there are actually wrong ways to play with relation to those rules.  You can change those rules, but then we're not strictly talking about the same game anymore.  So, if you're making an argument based on the rules, then you are explicitly stating that, with regard to the rules, there are wrong ways to play even as you can allow for those ways to not be wrong for the people playing them.  For example, if I ignore hitpoints and have everything die in the first hit, I am playing incorrectly according to the rules.  If my table has fun doing this, I should keep at it -- it's not wrong for me to do so in relation to the fun I'm having at the table.</blockquote>

Verification