Does a possible check need to be offered by the DM?

[Yannick Ziener]

So i just ran the PFS scenario 9-21, In The Grandmasters Name. While this question came up specifically while running it, it is a general question for future DMing as well.
In the scenario it states "To convince Emilio that they are agents of Grandmaster Torch, the PCs must succeed at at least two of the following checks: a DC 19 Disguise check, a DC 19 Bluff check, or a DC 11 Linguistics check to present forged identification documents".
For me this implies that the PCs need to forge these documents if they want to succeed at the linguistics check beforehand or hidden away from Emilio's eyes. A player of mine (our main DM) said that the wording implies that the checks can all be attempted, since there is no word of any prerequisites for it.

What is your take on it? This would be the deciding factor between 1 and 2 prestige points

[Tim Schneider 908]

Have to present the possible checks? No - it's entirely fair to let it roleplay out and then go "Well it sounds to me like you're trying to trick him, that'd be a bluff check?"

In this case, I think it's unreasonable to think a player would know they could do it in advance - as they're never given any indication agents of torch carry ID documents to forge a copy of... so I'd offer the option to anyone with linguistics.

When I ran this, I noticed this in advance and instead of allowing on-the-spot linguistics I instead gave the players with linguistics the hint that the paperwork Ambrus gave them would be enough to forge something if they were so inclined. As such they did forge some paperwork as part of their disguise & I let them use it there. If I'd missed it til the check & not clarified their disguises I'd have allowed it in a "We didn't really discuss your disguise. Did you perhaps use your linguistics to make some papers? Maybe you could show those..." sense.

I wouldn't say a GM is obligated to do this, but I personally see it as the fair way to run it. If a character has the skill to do something the player probably thinks isn't possible, the GM has a responsibility in my mind to let the player know what their character knows.

Regardless of my views on how a good GM could handle it and advice for future scenarios though, my view on the ruling is it's up to the GM at the table to make the call. If a GM made that call at an event I was overseeing I would not intervene.

[Tomppa]

I agree with what Tim said.

To answer your question, though - I don't think the GM *needs* to offer all the different options (as in, "Okay, you can try either this, that, or that one."). Player creativity should be the driving factor, and remember that creative solutions are also viable - some other skill checks could also be used.

That being said, scenarios are to be run as written, and if the scenario lists linguistics as an option, then linguistics is an option that the players can use. The PC's are given forged documents in the letter they receive. If the Players forget about them, and make no mention of the papers or don't roleplay using them, that's on them. If the players are vague about what they are doing ("Can I try to convince him with just the disguises we have") I'd be inclined to either ask if they present the papers or remind them that they received such. If the PC's/players directly mention the papers, ask about using them, ask about using linguistics, make roleplay that could allow for linguistics, or if you just generally want to be a nice GM and remind them about an option that they might not otherwise think about it, then yes, you need to allow them to use linguistics.

If they just barged in and tried to use mind affecting magic or something, nope, no need to specifically ask if they want to use linguistics too. >.>

In this specific case: If the players are clear about using the documents, then yes, allow linguistics. If the players are very clear about their actions, and they don't include the documents in anyway then no, you don't need to specifically offer it.
If the players are vague and/or inexperienced and the situation seems unclear, it's good manners to suggest what actions the PC's might take, which includes the linguistics check.
At least, that's my opinion on the matter.

Edit: It's important note that the PC's already have forged documents. I think it's implied that they can use those, without the specific need to forge some documents beforehand. You could also lead the players to that solution by having Emilio asking the PC's to prove that they are who they say they are (and hope the players remember that they do have forged documents).

Sort of like if the secondary prestige depends on players taking someone alive instead of killing them. You don't need to ask if the PC's are dealing non-lethal damage/trying to avoid killing the target - it's on the Players to tell you if they do. On the other hand, if the PC's always attempt to use non-lethal force and stabilize dying opponents, but aren't very specific on what they do with them after the combat is over, you should probably ask what they plan to do with all their captives. Maybe they release them, maybe they leave them tied up in the woods, maybe they drag them to the local city guards, or maybe they take them to the society for questioning - you don't know, they didn't say, so ask about it.

[Yannick Ziener]

Thank you for your answers. In the end I decided to only give them 1 Prestige, since I dislike retconning after the whole session is done, but I will remember this in the future and try to find these issues while reading through the scenario.