Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8475170" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, I've already dealt with that both with you and [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] before, and here the authorities I'm talking about don't even need to reach for Rule Zero -- they're core to the basic play loop.  The reaction that Rule Zero allows for anything does indeed make it seems like my argument goes there and ignores that it's already encapsulated within that basic play loop.  It's a strawman argument and I'm just weary of such things being trotted out first to discredit rather than address.  The first time, okay, the second and I'm already tired of it.The current argument is that there is a switch between roleplaying and mechanics at some point.  I find this to be not a great formation, but I'm trying to argue within the premises as presented.  Otherwise we'd still be back a long ways.  So, if we accept that there's a break between modes -- roleplaying and mechanical resolution -- then we have to accept that someone has the authority to call that break and enforce it.  This is trivially done as it has to be the GM using the basic play loop.  So, in normal play, we can be roleplaying through something where the GM has described the scene, and we're in the mode of roleplaying where both sides are largely free-playing these interactions without formal structure.  There's still the action/resolution loop here, but it's less structured.  That is, until the GM determines something has an uncertain outcome in the roleplaying and effectively calls a halt to roleplaying to move to the more formal ability check (or other applicable mechanic) resolution.  I don't think that this is contentious.So, then, if we consider how an NPC action might work, we might assume the same authorities.  However, the argument put forward is that there's no clear authority assigned to move the game from roleplaying to mechanics if it's not a PC action being uncertain, or if it's not an NPC action that isn't a CHA ability check.  This is important because there was a discussion that moving out of roleplaying mode to mechanical resolution mode would set aside the Roleplaying Rule argument.  So, it needs to be asserted that no such authority to move from roleplaying to mechanics is present for social moves because then we're out of the umbrella of the Roleplaying Rule and CHA ability checks might be allowable to be deployed.  My argument here is that this is pure special pleading.  There's nothing unique or called out that would single out social moves by NPCs or monsters to change the normal rule that the GM has the authority -- the same authority it is absolutely uncontested for non-social moves by NPCs or any moves by PCs -- and that some explicit call-out is necessary to locate this authority.  This is just saying "this is different because I want it to be different."  It's not a sound argument.As for the whole argument for the Roleplaying Rule, this is what I'm calling circular, but it has it own share of special pleading.  It starts with the necessary assertion that all text not explicitly called out otherwise is rules. This is a necessary assumption because otherwise the single sentence in the section on Roleplaying on pg 174 of the PHB is very hard to argue for as a general rule rather than advice or a loose definition of what roleplaying can be.  So, to start we have an assumption that's necessary to preserve the core argument of the position.  This is then extrapolated into the GM cannot call for a NPC social move check against a PC because the Roleplaying Rule blocks all question of uncertainty.  This, at least, follows.  Thus, the conclusion is that social moves cannot be deployed against PCs absent a specific exception.  This is where the special pleading starts.  Monster proficiencies are claimed to be only there for characterization and for GM solo play (ie, when the GM is rolling dice between NPCs and this doesn't involve the PCs at all).  The wording on ability checks, which makes no distinction between abilities and how NPCs use them (within the play loop) is actually meant to be understood as all abilities except CHA unless specifically excepted.  The fact that the level of exception that a spell like Charm Person has is identical to the that in the description of CHA ability checks is also ignored or vaguely questioned or rests on "well, I think it's different" even though that's not a logically sound argument.  And, for one of my favorites, there needs to be a distinction between what a PC knows and what a PC thinks about what a PC knows.  This constitutes a raft of special pleading to preserve the initial assumption that supports the premise that presumes the conclusion.  I mean, we start with the premise the it's a rule that only players direct PC thoughts and find out, at the end of the chain, that only players direct PC thoughts.  It's entirely circular.And, if we discard the premise of the Roleplaying Rule, then none of the issues that have to be pleaded away are actually a thing.  Monster proficiencies make perfect sense.  The rules for ability checks are restored and have no conflicts.  There needs not be a difference imagined between what a PC knows and what a PC thinks about what a PC knows.  The level of exception for Charm Person and social moves evaporates.  None of these things are a requirement or consideration if we don't have the Roleplaying Rule!  This is what clearly exposes these as special pleading -- the needed explanation of how these work becomes unnecessary if we don't have the same initial premise, which clearly shows that such readings are a function of the premise and not anything inherent to those particular bits of rules.  When the nature of core bits of rules change with the premise, that's in indication that it's the premise driving rather than analysis of the rules.And I say ALL of this as someone that thinks the conclusion is one that I believe to be promotes better play for a raft of reasons.  I just cannot support the RAW argument that it is so.  Ends and means.</blockquote>

Verification