What is "railroading" to you (as a player)?

[CreamCloud0]

That, BTW, is the sort of thing I very much do not like and what I do not do when I GM. If the NPC's deception beats the PC's insight that means that the PC does not detect signs of lying, but this doesn't mean they have to believe them. After all, the PC certainly knows that some people are very good liars!

on the other hand that kind of thing is exactly what i don't like, the character has detected absolutely zero signs of deception and yet, oh so mysteriously, they have some secret sixth sense that causes them to still distrust this apparently honest NPC.

honestly i think players shouldn't even know the results of their own contested rolls sometimes, because it gives them insight into the situation in ways they shouldn't have, oh, i rolled a 6 on my insight and the GM says they seem trustworthy, hmmm, i think my character might still be suspicious of them...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

on the other hand that kind of thing is exactly what i don't like, the character has detected absolutely zero signs of deception and yet, oh so mysteriously, they have some secret sixth sense that causes them to still distrust this apparently honest NPC.

It is not weird at all. People suspects others of lying based on the context of the situation all the time, even if the person's performance was not particularly suspicious.

honestly i think players shouldn't even know the results of their own contested rolls sometimes, because it gives them insight into the situation in ways they shouldn't have, oh, i rolled a 6 on my insight and the GM says they seem trustworthy, hmmm, i think my character might still be suspicious of them...

Yeah, perhaps the player shouldn't know their own roll in this instance, but that's cumbersome. And they do not know the NPC's roll and they do not know whether the NPC was actually lying.

Besides, more we outsource the PCs thoughts to the rules less the game is about the player playing the character and more it is about watching the rules to play the character. If the rules and the dice keep telling what my character thinks or believes or how they act, I will just hand the dice and the character sheet to the GM as my contributions are obviously not needed. Just roll the dice to see what my character does!

 

[Bill Zebub]

It is not weird at all. People suspects others of lying based on the context of the situation all the time, even if the person's performance was not particularly suspicious.



Yeah, perhaps the player shouldn't know their own roll in this instance, but that's cumbersome. And they do not know the NPC's roll and they do not know whether the NPC was actually lying.

Besides, more we outsource the PCs thoughts to the rules less the game is about the player playing the character and more it is about watching the rules to play the character. If the rules and the dice keep telling what my character thinks or believes or how they act, I will just hand the dice and the character sheet to the GM as my contributions are obviously not needed. Just roll the dice to see what my character does!

This is why I don't have any sort of non-magical lie detection when I GM.

"Do I think the NPC is lying?"
"I don't know...do you?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is why I don't have any sort of non-magical lie detection when I GM.

"Do I think the NPC is lying?"
"I don't know...do you?"

And my reaction as always is "If I wanted to only play characters that can do what I can, I'd be LARPing." (Though that's probably even unfair to LARPing).

Edit: That was a little blithe and snarky on my part. But it still adds up to "If you're not good at judging liars, and/or the GM isn't good at properly displaying tells, good luck." Which seems at least as poor a play cycle as being dependent on die rolls.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is why I don't have any sort of non-magical lie detection when I GM.

"Do I think the NPC is lying?"
"I don't know...do you?"

Right! And even with games like D&D where there is a skill like insight, I don't think it should work as an actual lie detector. I usually have it to give information about the feelings and attitudes of the NPCs, as well as the social dynamics of the situation, but not to work as an outright lie detection. Though of course sometimes those things certainly might pretty strongly imply that a person might be lying.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'd think (but could be wrong) that what they're suggesting is VTTs can allow you to be more picky about who you play with, because you're not as confined to the limited set of people spatially available to you.

I agree, which is why I said it’s ironic. If you select your players from people you already know and people who are physically proximate to you (it being understood that there are people for whom this isn’t an option), they may have different taste in games than you do. But on the other hand, generally speaking, you are less likely to flake out on someone you know, and I have found that it is easier to pick up the rules of the game in person.

 

[Artamo]

on the other hand that kind of thing is exactly what i don't like, the character has detected absolutely zero signs of deception and yet, oh so mysteriously, they have some secret sixth sense that causes them to still distrust this apparently honest NPC.

honestly i think players shouldn't even know the results of their own contested rolls sometimes, because it gives them insight into the situation in ways they shouldn't have, oh, i rolled a 6 on my insight and the GM says they seem trustworthy, hmmm, i think my character might still be suspicious of them...

I’m not a particular fan of this either but I figure that people are going to be trustful or mistrustful of NPCs as a point of meta gaming anyways and it’s probably unavoidable. If I’m playing something like 5e, I generally do not allow Insight checks to be lie detectors. That’s what spells like Zone of Truth are for. Insight will give some indicators that there’s something else going on, but never a smoking gun in my games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

on the other hand that kind of thing is exactly what i don't like, the character has detected absolutely zero signs of deception and yet, oh so mysteriously, they have some secret sixth sense that causes them to still distrust this apparently honest NPC.

honestly i think players shouldn't even know the results of their own contested rolls sometimes, because it gives them insight into the situation in ways they shouldn't have, oh, i rolled a 6 on my insight and the GM says they seem trustworthy, hmmm, i think my character might still be suspicious of them...

To me, this kind of situation is more a question of why does it matter so much that the PC shouldn’t know the NPC is lying?

I mean, if we’re putting it to a roll of some sort, then it seems the chance that the PC knows the NPC is lying is on the table. So if that’s the case, I don’t see the need to enforce some kind of specific result for the PC. Let them suspect the NPC if they want… all the roll determines is that they have nothing specific to base that upon.

As a GM, I care a lot less about gating information behind checks than I do with seeing what the players do with the information available to them. I’ll often just flat out tell them “oh you can tell this jerk is lying” because that’s not the interesting part. What will the player do about it? That’s what I’m curious about.

There are times where it makes sense as a GM to obscure information in some way… to keep something unknown or uncertain. But I think those times are less often than a lot of traditional play has ingrained in us. As a GM, I think we should be considering these kinds of things in every situation. Looking at the scenario that’s in play, and determining what’s going on, what’s at stake, what is the challenge here.

The impulse to withhold information can sometimes be too strong. As the GM, we’re the source of information to the players. We serve as their characters’ senses. I think the game is generally best served by being liberal with information and only withholding it when it actually makes for interesting play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree, which is why I said it’s ironic. If you select your players from people you already know and people who are physically proximate to you (it being understood that there are people for whom this isn’t an option), they may have different taste in games than you do. But on the other hand, generally speaking, you are less likely to flake out on someone you know, and I have found that it is easier to pick up the rules of the game in person.

I wonder to what degree the no-show issue is any worse than, say, people recruited from game store bulletin boards and the like? I.e. people who are technically physically local to you but you do not know particularly well.

Its hard for me to judge since, though I play/run exclusively VTT these days, all but one of them are people I've known physically and used to game together at various periods before we all decided driving the distances involved was silly after COVID, and the one is someone I've known online for many years.

 

[Reynard]

Wizard71,

The OP has backtracked and said he used all the wrong words to describe the scenario. This was after much criticism that it was railroading by quite a few people. Take it for what it is.

Lol. Ok.