Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8474218" data-attributes="member: 6779196">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.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.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.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.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.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.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.That’s not my conclusion. We agree on how best to run the game, but apparently not on why.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.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 still think you’re getting the wrong impression of what my argument actually is.</blockquote>

Verification