Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8474572" data-attributes="member: 16814">This is the strongest version of the argument I can think of as well, but it immediately gets eroded by numerous lines of evidence that require outright dismissal or further unsupported argument to sidestep.&nbsp; The existence of monsters having proficiency in social skills, for instance, now has to have the completely unsupported statement that they're only to be used on other monsters.&nbsp; The same applies to the clear text of the ability score section that says that monsters use ability scores to complete tasks just like PCs -- this has to have an unsupported carve out for CHA tasking.&nbsp; Now we have this single sentence rule causing significant and otherwise unsupported alterations to other provided rules.&nbsp; That's before we even get to the canonical insight vs deception discussion!&nbsp; That requires an entirely special handling of resolution phrasing to avoid the single sentence.&nbsp; Then, lurking in the background like hungry grues, are any of the knowledge checks.&nbsp; How do we ever deal with a knowledge check -- literally a check to see what a PC thinks about a topic -- against this proscription?&nbsp; Even if we take any talk of metagaming offline and let player declare whatever they feel like for knowledge of something, a check to confirm cannot escape telling the player what the PC thinks.So, if we're to go with the strongest argument, we have to acknowledge all of the ways that the rest of the rules erode it with vigor and require further patching or outright ignoring other parts of the rules when inconvenient.&nbsp; A further point, that just occurred to me, is that the player may be uncertain about what their character thinks.&nbsp; We have no supported rules procedures for the player declaring uncertainty to the GM.&nbsp; We have to come up with that.&nbsp; I don't think it hard, but it's also not at all supported by the rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8474572, member: 16814"] This is the strongest version of the argument I can think of as well, but it immediately gets eroded by numerous lines of evidence that require outright dismissal or further unsupported argument to sidestep. The existence of monsters having proficiency in social skills, for instance, now has to have the completely unsupported statement that they're only to be used on other monsters. The same applies to the clear text of the ability score section that says that monsters use ability scores to complete tasks just like PCs -- this has to have an unsupported carve out for CHA tasking. Now we have this single sentence rule causing significant and otherwise unsupported alterations to other provided rules. That's before we even get to the canonical insight vs deception discussion! That requires an entirely special handling of resolution phrasing to avoid the single sentence. Then, lurking in the background like hungry grues, are any of the knowledge checks. How do we ever deal with a knowledge check -- literally a check to see what a PC thinks about a topic -- against this proscription? Even if we take any talk of metagaming offline and let player declare whatever they feel like for knowledge of something, a check to confirm cannot escape telling the player what the PC thinks. So, if we're to go with the strongest argument, we have to acknowledge all of the ways that the rest of the rules erode it with vigor and require further patching or outright ignoring other parts of the rules when inconvenient. A further point, that just occurred to me, is that the player may be uncertain about what their character thinks. We have no supported rules procedures for the player declaring uncertainty to the GM. We have to come up with that. I don't think it hard, but it's also not at all supported by the rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification