Or even on the fly, if (as is often the case) this encounter is something the GM didn't see coming.
Countless are the times I've quickly had to think to myself "What makes this NPC tick?" as the PCs decide on the spur of the moment to interact with someone I've previously not given a second's thought to. And so I come up with a personality for this NPC, and then try my best to stay true to it during the interaction. (and then hope I can remember what that personality was when the PCs come back six months later!)
Right, I get that. But how do you determine the outcome of the social interaction? What's the tipping point for that NPC to say "you know what, I'll take your silver and let you in"? Do you determine a specific amount of coin? Or if deception is used, how do you decide what's tricky enough?
How is it any more of a railroad if the GM is deciding on the fly or if it's pre-written into the module?
Let's for a moment change the parameters and say this guard is written up in the module: "Jannik is loyal to his job and generally dutiful but can be persuaded to turn a blind eye to minor transgressions with a little cash, or brandy; and he is also easily distracted." Railroad? I think not.
You're assuming here that the GM is going to have the guard refuse entry every time. Not necessarily the case.
It may or may not be more of a railroad. But if there are set numbers, and we use dice to help determine the outcome, then it's not the GM deciding the outcome.
You've now added more details to your example that make it less likely to be a railroad. But still... how is the outcome determined?
Because either the written module or the run of play (i.e. something the players or my dice did) put it there.
Not my style. If they specifically ask about a ball or similar high-society event, that's what I'm going to quickly dream up some odds and roll for (unless I already know the answer e.g. it's written in a module); and if my dice show me there's one coming up then so be it: there's one coming up whether I-as-DM like it or not.
I'm struggling to understand why you brought up the example of the GM not wanting to run the ballroom scene.
A better question. For me, I generally won't introduce things I'm not interested in running unless I'm forced to either by dice or player inquiry/action. An example: as DM I more or less loathe running PCs-as-businesspeople and thus I'm likely never going to have any NPCs suggest the PCs start a business, but f they decide on their own to start one then that what I've got to run.
So you leave something like the existence of something you don't want to run up to the roll of the dice? That seems a bit odd.
Why not make the list consist of things you are interested in?
I'm just not seeing the jump in logic here that gets you to "railroad". Explain, perhaps?
You've described a situation where the GM is interacting with the player, without (it seemed at the time, but maybe not now?) much concern for mechanics, or the absence of related mechanics. You then decide how things go based on the interaction at the table, what the player said and how they said it, and how you feel about that. And then you added in the DM's feelings about not wanting to run a ballroom scene.
If you don't see the risk of a railroad in there, I'm not sure I can explain.
Agreed to a limited point: I too want mechanics that support the fiction, and sometimes the best way for them to do so is to not be doing anything. As for wanting there to be a game along with the roleplay, there's lots of game in all the abstractions that take care of things we can't roleplay.
But when the system steps away from the fiction in the way you're describing, what is it replaced by? The GM, mostly.
Again, I agree but only to a limited degree. Oftentimes that information just - quite realistically - isn't available until it's too late. You don't know the specifics that make the guard tick, you don't know whether it'll be pouring rain that night and thus the guard might be taking shelter in the pillbox rather than standing at the door, and so forth.
That said, if you've got +8 on Bluff then I-as-DM most certainly have to take that into account when roleplaying my NPCs' reactions to your attempts to hoodwink them.
Right, but if there is a skill system or something similar to it, then I at least know how good my character is at persuading or bluffing overall. That's something to go on.
And again, if this guard is meant to be meaningful, then I would zoom in on it a little more. I'd emphasize the importance a bit, and then we'd play it out.
But if he's just a guard, a minor obstacle to be dealt with, then tell me how you want to do that, and we roll to see what happens.
Thing is, sometimes the most "meaningless" things can turn out to hold great meaning - or not. The guard is an obstacle that can potentially be bypassed in numerous ways (some riskier and more daring than others e.g. a PC could decide to bypass the guard by breaking in through a 2nd-story window!); and depending on how the interaction goes might also become an opportunity (e.g. if a PC uses some sort of mind control on the guard and turns him into an information source). The latter can't happen if the interaction is skipped.
Thus, my default is to play everything out unless it's clear the players don't want to, and to not care how long doing so might take. There's always more sessions for that which doesn't get done in this one.
Yeah, that's definitely one way to do things. I don't do it that way. I'm not going to spend as much time on a guard as I will the ballroom scene, where I assume something more interesting is expected to happen. There's not much reason to do that, and every reason to do the opposite.
