Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8475906" data-attributes="member: 71699">Previously, it seemed you bestowed a kind of inviolable certainty on things falling within the definition of roleplaying. You argued that for a DM to be working within the rules required that DM to have a basis for their judgments as to uncertainty. It occurs to me to that for consistency you ought to believe that to be working within the rules a DM must also have a basis for their judgments as to stakes? Is that right? Or is there a lack of parity in those requirements?Anyway, as it turns out, that certainty is often violated within the game rules. Thus, within the game paradigm, a DM is justified to say that things falling within the definition of roleplaying can be uncertain.So far as I can tell, you now say that only some instances of uncertainty count. You appear to say that a DM is justified in judging an attempt uncertain only if it meets the criteria for those instances. And you list criteria which if I have them correctly largely amount to specificity. A specific enough rule can form an exception. I think this is a much better argument than the uncertainty argument, because for one thing it doesn't leave unexplained why we don't have a similar test for stakes.In summary, it turns out that it wasn't the uncertainty that was at issue, but meeting the criteria to form an exception that was. That is why I said you have shifted the argument. It now seems that if only social skills would meet the criteria to be a suitable instance, then a DM will be justified in calling for a check.This is where things get tangled. The RAW on calling for checks doesn't ask for a DM to consider specificity. I think I understand your reasoning here, but let's try and spell it out<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">To call for a check, there must a be a chance of failure</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">For all things falling within the definition of roleplay, there is no chance of failure</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Some game mechanics introduce a chance of failure to things falling within the definition of roleplay</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Luckily, they are exceptions to the putative general rule (actually a definition) and therefore avoid the test altogether</li> </ol>This is a nice piece of bootstrapping! Taking it on face value, we can simply say that the social skills are sufficiently specified. Who do the game rules then endorse? Neither. No matter how you may feel, there is nothing in the rules that supports your definition of 'specific enough.'We can make arguments from consequence in play, preference, what we understand to be norms, but you need to produce RAW additional to the above to support any claim that a game mechanic like deception is not specific enough.Deception specifically calls for a check making it clear that a DM is justified in doing so. That particular forms an exception to any general rule.Again, the DM is encouraged to call for a check. The particular here overrides any general elsewhere.Rather than state the obvious, I'd prefer to highlight that including our conclusions in our premises will drive doubts that the particular of each social skill forms a good enough exception to the possible general rule.Some questions worth asking are: Where is the RAW that tells us what is specific enough? Where, is the RAW that says it must be a spell to be specific enough? Or that it must reference a condition?</blockquote>

Verification