Sure it is. You have a problem: picking your nose. You stop picking your nose, the problem is done. My point is railroading is as easy to see as the problem of nose picking. It is also a habit, which you break by not engaging in it.
Oh I think railroading is far harder to spot than nosepicking. I also think it’s a pretty poor comparison.
Railroading isn’t something that is actively discouraged. In fact, it is at times promoted as the standard by which the entire hobby functions.
Now, I think most of us here have enough experience to have a sense of what railroading is and how to avoid it. I expect the definition of what constitutes a railroad would be the big point of contention.
But if you think that having processes and rules in place to prevent railroading is a bad idea, or that doing so must in some other way handcuff a GM, then I don’t think we’ll agree.
Because agency is about being able to make meaningful choices. My words and political strategies are meaningful choices I am making in play to advance my goals. Isn't more agency enhancing to put power to my actual choices rather than shift them to a mechanic. Now this does require that the GM adjudicate my choices. Which, I would argue, is the very essence of what makes an RPG. It is that on the spot ability of a human hearing what you are trying to do, and then logically applying that to the world. Keep in mind, I may be doing very specific things, like inviting senators to feasts, with the aim of doing putting them in a compromising position, which I can exploit to force them to ally with me. And I may be saying very specific things, as Cicero did, in my speech. Now it is true, people may be unmoved by what I say, and my attempts to put senators in positions where I can essentially blackmail them into voting my way could backfire or simply not work. But if you have a mechanic in place for managing those things, all those specific choices I have made (which are an expression of my agency) have no meaning if a simple die roll can undo them. In fact the only real agency I have is at character creation when I take the relevant social skills, between sessions when I upgrade them. The only other meaningful choice I might have is to use or not use them. Granted some systems might give more weight to things I say and do, and factor those into the mechanic. But that just helps prove my point that for there to be real agency, what I say and do, need to actually matter because those kinds of things in an RPG are all about making meaningful choices. And they are also FUN. There is tremendous fun to be had if you are in a political intrigue campaign like I describe, to actually engage in political intrigue.
Yes, I absolutely agree. I love that kind of stuff. I prefer for there to be rules on how to go about it. And I don’t just mean “say my argument, then have the GM determine a DC, and make the roll”. I prefer that the mechanics of all this be as robust and engaging as the scenario you describe. The bribery and the invitations and the politicking....I want all of that to matter in some way I can understand so that I know the game and can then make meaningful and informed decisions.
Imagine baseball where the umpire didn’t call balls or strikes. He tracks them, but none of it is known to the players. How are they supposed to approach the game?
This is where “GM Decides” puts us.
Now, I know you’ll say “oh it’s about trust” but that’s not it. I may trust that the umpire has called each pitch exactly as he sees them. I just may not agree with his opinion.
And again, the reason mechanics with social skills and similar things can be a problem is because of the gap that can arise between what the player says and does in character and what the result of their roll is (to the point that what they say and do in character, may not matter at all, it might just be narrative dressing).
It can matter if you like. “Wow that’s a really compelling argument....roll with advantage.” And so on.
When a 12th level fighter rolls a 4 on his attack and misses the fire giant, do you assume he’s tripped over his shoelaces and fallen on his face? Probably not. So again, why can’t a compelling argument, eloquently worded, still fail to sway anyone?
I think that if the player takes the time to really lay it on and does a good job, there’s nothing wrong with giving them a bonus of some kind, as per my example above.
I think this need to vet the attempts speaks to an underlying need to steer things. Whether it’s to preserve some idea about a NPC or other story element, or to keep some secret from the players that will matter later, or any other number of things.
