Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Using social skills on other PCs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8475190" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I am not trying to say that you are reaching for rule zero. I am saying that I don’t believe there’s any point in arguing about what the rules permit the DM to do, because they permit anything. I say this as a defense against the repeated assertions that <em>I’m</em> claiming the rules disallow the DM from resolving actions taken to force a PC to make a particular decision by way of an ability check. I am not. I am only saying that I do not see anywhere in the rules where it is suggested that the DM ought to do so.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, ok, I see the confusion here. I too am arguing the premise as presented <em>by [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER]</em> as a means of resolving the conflict with the “roleplaying rule.” They presented the argument that the “roleplaying rule” represents a dichotomy between roleplaying - wherein the player decides what their character thinks, says, and does - and mechanics, wherein the rules say what the PCs think, say, and do. They suggested that the DM has the authority to suspend roleplaying (as they are defining it here) in order to rule that an action made with the intent of forcing a PC to make a particular decision has an uncertain outcome. Rather than dispute the premise of this position, I argued it as presented, saying that I do not see a suggestion in the rules that the DM ought to “suspend roleplaying” in order to get around the “roleplaying rule.” Is that a bit clearer?</p><p></p><p>I am not engaging in special pleading. My critique of the “suspending roleplaying” argument as presented is that the rules do not seem to suggest that the DM <em>ever</em> suspend roleplaying. On the contrary, the same rules state that roleplaying is involved in all parts of the game, so suspending it would seem to go against that. The only thing that’s “special” about actions made to force a PC to make a particular decision is that they are the only type of action that, as far as I can tell, would require the suspension of roleplaying in order to allow to have an uncertain outcome in the face of the “roleplaying rule.”</p><p></p><p>Yes. This is and has always been my position.</p><p></p><p>This is not so. In my reading, CHA checks are no different than any other ability check in that they can be used in what you call DM solo play. CHA checks are also no different than any other checks in that they cannot be used to force a player character to make a specific decision. My position treats all ability checks as equal in this.</p><p></p><p>Charm Person imposes a specific exception to the “roleplaying rule.” It says that the affected character has the Charmed condition (which has specific rules that contradict the roleplaying rule) and it says that the charmed creature treats the caster as a friendly acquaintance - again, a contradiction of the roleplaying rule, assuming the charmed creature is a PC.</p><p></p><p>I don’t think we’ll be able to agree on this, because I can’t fathom how one could conflate <em>what someone knows</em> with <em>what someone thinks.</em> Knowledge is information a person has access to. Thought is mental manipulation of information. The roleplaying rule, as I read it, says that the player gets to decide what to do with information they have access to (“decide what the character thinks”). Character knowledge is independent of this. To trot out a very tired example, a player may think they know that fire stops a troll’s regeneration, and the roleplaying rule allows them to decide that their character thinks that as well. But, if the DM is using a custom stat block for a troll that gains temporary hit points when it takes fire damage or whatever, then what the player has decided the character thinks clearly does not line up with reality; they do not actually <em>know</em> that the troll’s regeneration will be stopped by fire damage (because it won’t). They can declare some action with the intent of gaining this information, such as thinking back to their grandfather’s stories of trolls to try and remember if they have any special weaknesses. The outcome of this would probably be uncertain, or at least, the roleplaying rule does not preclude it’s uncertainty, because it says the player decides what the character <em>thinks</em>, not what they <em>know.</em></p><p></p><p>For the reasons above, I don’t believe any of these “issues” are a thing if we assume the roleplaying rule are actually a thing. You seem to be stating that they are issues with my interpretation, and then accuse me of engaging in special pleading when I demonstrate why they are not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8475190, member: 6779196"] I am not trying to say that you are reaching for rule zero. I am saying that I don’t believe there’s any point in arguing about what the rules permit the DM to do, because they permit anything. I say this as a defense against the repeated assertions that [I]I’m[/I] claiming the rules disallow the DM from resolving actions taken to force a PC to make a particular decision by way of an ability check. I am not. I am only saying that I do not see anywhere in the rules where it is suggested that the DM ought to do so. Ah, ok, I see the confusion here. I too am arguing the premise as presented [I]by [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER][/I] as a means of resolving the conflict with the “roleplaying rule.” They presented the argument that the “roleplaying rule” represents a dichotomy between roleplaying - wherein the player decides what their character thinks, says, and does - and mechanics, wherein the rules say what the PCs think, say, and do. They suggested that the DM has the authority to suspend roleplaying (as they are defining it here) in order to rule that an action made with the intent of forcing a PC to make a particular decision has an uncertain outcome. Rather than dispute the premise of this position, I argued it as presented, saying that I do not see a suggestion in the rules that the DM ought to “suspend roleplaying” in order to get around the “roleplaying rule.” Is that a bit clearer? I am not engaging in special pleading. My critique of the “suspending roleplaying” argument as presented is that the rules do not seem to suggest that the DM [I]ever[/I] suspend roleplaying. On the contrary, the same rules state that roleplaying is involved in all parts of the game, so suspending it would seem to go against that. The only thing that’s “special” about actions made to force a PC to make a particular decision is that they are the only type of action that, as far as I can tell, would require the suspension of roleplaying in order to allow to have an uncertain outcome in the face of the “roleplaying rule.” Yes. This is and has always been my position. This is not so. In my reading, CHA checks are no different than any other ability check in that they can be used in what you call DM solo play. CHA checks are also no different than any other checks in that they cannot be used to force a player character to make a specific decision. My position treats all ability checks as equal in this. Charm Person imposes a specific exception to the “roleplaying rule.” It says that the affected character has the Charmed condition (which has specific rules that contradict the roleplaying rule) and it says that the charmed creature treats the caster as a friendly acquaintance - again, a contradiction of the roleplaying rule, assuming the charmed creature is a PC. I don’t think we’ll be able to agree on this, because I can’t fathom how one could conflate [I]what someone knows[/I] with [I]what someone thinks.[/I] Knowledge is information a person has access to. Thought is mental manipulation of information. The roleplaying rule, as I read it, says that the player gets to decide what to do with information they have access to (“decide what the character thinks”). Character knowledge is independent of this. To trot out a very tired example, a player may think they know that fire stops a troll’s regeneration, and the roleplaying rule allows them to decide that their character thinks that as well. But, if the DM is using a custom stat block for a troll that gains temporary hit points when it takes fire damage or whatever, then what the player has decided the character thinks clearly does not line up with reality; they do not actually [I]know[/I] that the troll’s regeneration will be stopped by fire damage (because it won’t). They can declare some action with the intent of gaining this information, such as thinking back to their grandfather’s stories of trolls to try and remember if they have any special weaknesses. The outcome of this would probably be uncertain, or at least, the roleplaying rule does not preclude it’s uncertainty, because it says the player decides what the character [I]thinks[/I], not what they [I]know.[/I] For the reasons above, I don’t believe any of these “issues” are a thing if we assume the roleplaying rule are actually a thing. You seem to be stating that they are issues with my interpretation, and then accuse me of engaging in special pleading when I demonstrate why they are not. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Using social skills on other PCs
Top