NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not saying that there aren't meaningful differences between processes of play. I'm saying that your definitions of "railroad" and "react" are not reified enough to be meaningful. Yes, there are (or can be) real differences of mindset and intentionality on the part of the GMs, but when you start looking at what railroading is as a process or what reacting to the actions of players is as a process, what you find is that there are big overlaps.

I mean if your definition of railroad includes the GM allowing the players to go on unexpected paths, and not trying to keep them on a particular adventure or plot, I don't think it is a particularly practical definition of the term. But even then this is not strictly about railroads but about the posters remark that they let the players make things happen, not the GM. Again if you take that literally, then sure, there is a problem with the statement because the GM is also making things happen and has ultimate say if we are talking about a system or campaign where the GM has traditional GM authority. But it is clearly meant to be about letting the players try to go where they want to go, to set the agenda in the setting by declaring "We go north!" or "Screw this guy, I let's start a bootlegging enterprise in Dee instead of helping this guy obtain the Manual of the Nine Claws". It is about adapting and reacting to the players. If one doesn't find that to be different from a much more story driven "GM as narrator" approach, or even a adventure path built around encounter challenge ratings like you often had in the 2000s, then I don't really know what to say. You can scrutinize it and say 'but the GM is still making things happen'. But the point is the GM is responding to the players agenda and actions rather than just walking in with a game plan he expects them to follow.

I've been playing from the early 1980s to now, and I have to say that the differences in eras aren't as great as some would make of them. It's more about focus or goals or how you maintain the illusion of perfect freedom than it is complete difference in technique. For example, when Gygax writes in something as "primitive" (meaning early and not poor) as G1: Steading of the Hill Giant chief that you can't burn down the steading because it's made of wet green wood, he's applying a railroading technique to achieve some desirable story.

I've been playing since 86, so not that far from when you started. I would agree that it isn't simple. Like I was being reductive when I mentioned those two styles of play. However those two styles of play definitely existed and were definitely common in those eras (I know because that is how I played in the 90s and that is how I played in the early 2000s-----and it is how most of the people around me played and it was also reflected in a lot of the GM advice). That said it wasn't unified. You also had people playing much more old school, and even a given GM or campaign could mix things up (I know I changed how I approached adventure crafting in the 90s as the Van Richten books had more and more influence on me for example)

 

[Celebrim]

But if you're not doing that as the GM, in what way is your game somehow still a railroad?

I have a post on how to successfully railroad. The ways you can do it are varied. I could give you various examples of how to create railroads using techniques other than obdurium walls, but it's probably best to just give you a link to start that discussion:

Techniques for Railroading

Railroading refers to a variety of techniques use to limit player freedom of choice. Some distinction should be made in my opinion between the act of limiting player choice (“railroading”) and a game which has limited or no player choice as its most salient feature (a “railroad”). Virtually...

www.enworld.org

 

[Thomas Shey]

Who's calling for a "default" here? We're all just discussing our preferences and why they work best for us (and defending them when others disagree).

To be fair, I frequently do suggest certain things as likely better ideas for default approaches, and may well have done so in this thread (I'm not sure because I've been actively doing so in the open-die-rolls thread and may be conflating them).

However even a "default" approach doesn't say its the best choice for all people and all groups. There are people who dislike surrendering any of their decision-making to mechanics, and there are people who are outright hostile to it.. It'd be ludicrous to suggest that making those people (especially the second group) do so doesn't make the game worse for them; you have to assume people know what they want.

However, that does not require me to assume that catering to them absolutely does not have downsides for other people (a pretty fair number of them IME) that are in some cases just as important. It just demonstrates that their desires may not always be compatible with other peoples' in this area, which is not a surprise about any number of things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly, that's the kind of parity I can get behind.

Though it does make social skills pretty toothless if not handled carefully (which does not mean I'm hostile to it as an approach in principal).

 

[Thomas Shey]

This makes me realize that one argument I have NOT seen (which surprises me) is: "If social encounters are being resolved by the strength of the argument, without rolling, that penalizes players who have invested in Charisma and social skills."

I mentioned it in passing at one point, but it was part of a larger argument.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair. I am saying "button pushing" pejoratively. Can you suggest terminology for "invoking an ability listed on a character sheet instead of trying to think creatively about the problem"?

Do you understand that framing itself is pretty pejorative? It implies that people who want there to be supporting mechanics, even strong ones are not capable or willing to "think creatively" in the game. That very easily leads to a response of "You mean learning how to play the GM's biases?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would love to let the player decide the DC. Doing so, however, frequently requires the player to go against their PCs best interests, as it only works if the player is willing to abide by a roll that doesn't go their way. Hard not to place that DC unrealistically high. Not that every player is going to do these things, but I think the concern needs to be put out there.

I mentioned this earlier. I think my attempt down the line is to let them set the modifier (it'll be in a percentile game that has a set value modified by up to +/- 30%) and if I see they consistently seem to modify to their benefit, have a quiet side discussion with them at some point. Basically, I'm willing to let people assess how the framing of a social skill use will work better or worse against them, because as I mentioned simple skill rolls (which is what most games do) lack nuance and interactivity. However, if they want a generic resistance to influence, they can pay for that privilege somewhat in game-resource. If they seem incapable of doing the former and are unwilling to do the latter, I have to start asking if they're playing in good faith.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Repeatedly in this thread, a worry has been expressed that if players are free to ignore "the results of social interaction rolls" then they will ignore anything that isn't beneficial to their character. One person even accused me of wanting to play "fantasy super friends" or something like that.

Question: if the DM gets to decide how persuadable their NPCs are, what's to prevent them from doing the same thing?

(Yes, it's a trick question. You spot the trap without having to roll. How do you disarm it?)

Noting my post above, I'd be perfectly willing for a player to call me out if I seemed to be overusing modifiers against influence success. I'd probably start monitoring my usage to see if that was what I was actually using.

(Or put another way, I absolutely think what's good for the goose is good for the gander here).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because the DM is concerned about running the whole world fairly, not just a single character they understandably are encouraged to protect.

I think there's just a different set of biases likely to kick in; I realize with your focus on quasi-naturalistic playstyle, this may be foreign to you, but often the GM is focused on certain outcomes, and if there's a way to put a thumb on that in how NPCs react to influence checks, I'd say they may well be as likely to do so as a player is to avoid unwelcome situations caused by influence checks.

Basically, I think both situations require people playing in good faith, and they may not even consciously realize they aren't doing so.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think there's just a different set of biases likely to kick in; I realize with your focus on quasi-naturalistic playstyle, this may be foreign to you, but often the GM is focused on certain outcomes, and if there's a way to put a thumb on that in how NPCs react to influence checks, I'd say they may well be as likely to do so as a player is to avoid unwelcome situations caused by influence checks.

Basically, I think both situations require people playing in good faith, and they may not even consciously realize they aren't doing so.

I would argue not being invested in outcomes is one important guideline for respecting player agency. I am not as into the naturalism that @Micah Sweet seems to be a proponent of (though I could be wrong as I don't know Micah's style), but I do like to be surprised and not know where things are going when I GM. So not thinking in terms of how this or that produces a particular outcome is useful, as is letting the dice fall where they may, and listening to what the players want to do in good faith