Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8475875" data-attributes="member: 71699">You put it that we require the act to be uncertain prior to a check being called for. No act is uncertain if a check is not called for it. Any act for which a check is called, is uncertain.Essentially you are adding a bar that is not printed in the rules to what a DM might decide. You're saying that to be working within the game rules a DM must justify their decision that a check is called for. What justifications are acceptable? You say that to count as acceptable it must not impinge on the definition of roleplay. Supposing the definition of roleplay to amount to a rule of the game, ideally we can agree a DM doesn't justify calling for a check on something that breaks or ignores the rules of the game.However, you end up claiming a sanctity to that which falls in the definition of roleplay that does not exist. For your test to work and be good, it must be the case that everything falling within the definition is always certain. That is not the case, as demonstrated by other game mechanics. And that is sufficient. When a game mechanic calls for it, something that falls within the definition of roleplay can be uncertain. If it can be uncertain, a DM is justified by the rules in saying it is uncertain in this case.If we want to avoid that, we can do so, but only by pleading a special case.This seems very confused. If the NPC successfully disguises themselves, why does the DM need to telegraph it? Or do you envision a check made in the open - NPC deception against PC insight (or I would allow other skills, like history, if the disguise is of a public figure) to potentially force the PCs to constrain their roleplay? (I say force where I know you might put guide, with the thought that if a successful deception check doesn't result in any change to player behaviour, the magic circle is broken at that point.)</blockquote>

Verification