Yes, I noticed that too late.
I'm told that I'm a pretty consistent as a DM. Which I'm happy about because that's a trait I value.
Obviously.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "railroad," which I find many in the RPG community define too broadly.
I defined it pretty exactly I think in the essay you didn't read, albeit I've never attempted to move from the Aristotelian definition I offered to a more Socratic one. But, loosely speaking, railroading is a collection of processes of play that a GM can utilize to ensure a predetermined outcome to a scenario that the GM desires. A "railroad" is a game that features those processes of play so saliently, that it becomes a defining attribute of play. One particular process of play that can be used to railroad is the "handwave" which is when the GM removes the opportunity for fortune rolls from a scene that has meaningful consequence, or removes the opportunity for choice when a meaningful proposition could be made. I think you are basically accusing me of the later, while I'm accusing you of the former. I deny however that asking for an ability check actually removes a meaningful choice, and instead protects against the GM doing the former. With your process, regardless of how perceptive the PC is, unless the player is perceptive, he is blind.
I provide the opportunity for the player to make a reasonably informed choice by describing the environment. The player describes what he or she wants to do. I adjudicate and narrate the result of that choice in accordance with the processes as put forth in the D&D 5e rules which does not necessitate (and in some cases disallows) an ability check, passive or otherwise. I would not consider that "railroading." The player could have chose otherwise and arrived at a different result.
I find it highly unlikely given your DMing preferences that you often use the loopholes you've just opened to railroad the players anywhere. But to try to explain to you what I mean by this, the fact that you can quite easily arrange using your process of play to hook the player with something like a pickpocket, is a very powerful tool for a GM to use to achieve a desired narrative. Whenever you as a DM can arrange that the outcome doesn't depend on a dice roll quite easily, such as with your undetectable pickpocket, then you have the capacity to lay down the rails you want for your story very easily. I think it should be obvious that something like a pickpocket is a very potent hook for steering scenes in the direction you would like. Consider for example how the thief is used to steer Arthur during the tournament early in the movie 'Excalibur'.
You earlier complained that if a check was called for, then the character was attempting a meaningful action of some kind which carried a consequence of failure, and you'd not been allowed as a player to dictate that action. I still disagree since for pretty much all the cases in contention you can't really specify what that action is that has been imposed or the action is trivial and involuntary (thought, hearing, sight, memory), but assuming even you are right it seems to me that your process of play allows for meaningful actions which carry a consequence of failure to happen to the PC without so much as a fortune test or any meaningful input from the player. Things just happen to them, and all your telegraphing of how they might happen - even assuming your telegraphing is clear - doesn't change that. I think on the whole your method is more meaningfully impacting player agency than mine.
As for the intention of the rules, it's been a very thought provoking conversation. I'm not convinced completely, but certainly 5e provides a much narrower mechanical resolution system than I had realized at the start of it. In particular, no skill based saving throws isn't really a big change in my process of play, but is a change in how I approach challenges. In 3e, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for say a Balance check as a 'saving throw' (that is to resist something happening to the party). In 5e, quite obviously by the rules, the intention is only to ever ask for a dexterity saving throw in the same situation - your proficiency with dexterity checks and never with the equivalent to a balance skill is the only proficiency that mechanically matters (regardless of how you fictionally position the challenge). Likewise, while there are any number of loopholes, clearly 5e never intends you to roll the dice in a "passive" ability check unless you get into a situation of opposing actions (which is one of many loopholes, since it would be easy to suggest virtually every ability check is an opposed task). I don't think you can meaningful separate "fictional positioning" from "declared action" since presumably every fictional position after the very first depends on some sort of stated action, even if just "I'm standing right here not moving."
