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

[Bill Zebub]

You're apparently under the impression I think completely disconnecting them from character abilities is okay either. I don't.

Not, not at all. I was assuming the opposite: that you are fine having players roll Int (or maybe Riddle, in TOR) to "solve" a puzzle.

(And if you're going to go to the all-or-nothing "I guess we don't need to even play then", save it. Character abilities matter in combat in most games, but I don't expect those to be all one thing either, so I don't see a reason it needs to be so here, either).

I agree about that: I think players should be free to declare any actions they like in combat, even if they know (or think they know...) monster weaknesses. But when the GM adjudicates the outcome of those actions it is based on character abilities, not player abilities.

There was this story...entirely apocryphal, because he never did bite anybody's finger off...where a reporter asked Mean Joe Greene (60s and 70s football player) "Hey, Mean Joe Greene, why did you bite his finger off?" Greene (supposedly) replied, "Anything on the outside of the mask is his. Anything on the inside of the mask is mine."

This is kind of like my RPG philosophy: anything the character thinks, and thus what actions the character attempts to perform, belong to the player. The outcome of those attempts, their impact on the game world, belong to the GM.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is kind of like my RPG philosophy: anything the character thinks, and thus what actions the character attempts to perform, belong to the player. The outcome of those attempts, their impact on the game world, belong to the GM.

The problem is, you appear to be good with mental and social actions to be all about the player's play, and not about the character's capabilities, and apparently that the inverse is true where NPC abilities in these areas are irrelevant to what the character percieves or decides. I don't think they should be all about those abilities, but I think there should be an effect there.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The problem is, you appear to be good with mental and social actions to be all about the player's play,

No, not at all. The character still has to implement the player's plans. If I come up with an idea that I think will persuade a guard, it's still my character who has to make the Charisma roll. If I come up with a brilliant plan to build a giant wooden horse and leave it in front of the Steading of the Hill Giants, the characters still have to build the thing (and hide inside, presumably.)

Likewise, I decide where to position my character to have the maximum effect in battle, but my character still has to swing the sword.

and not about the character's capabilities, and apparently that the inverse is true where NPC abilities in these areas are irrelevant to what the character percieves or decides. I don't think they should be all about those abilities, but I think there should be an effect there.

There was a thread some time ago about whether an orc chieftain should be able to "use Intimidation" on PCs. My response was that if a GM wants my character to be intimidated by an orc chieftain, they should start designing monsters and encounters that are a real threat. If I don't know what the orc can do, but I know that fights are deadly serious in the game, then I'll be plenty intimidated, which means I'll play my characters that way. Which is much more fun than pretending to be intimidated.

I play with asymmetry between PCs and NPCs (meaning that, for example, a PC can "use Intimidation" on an NPC, but not vice versa) because GMs have perfect information, players don't. As a GM, I know too much about the game world, including the PC's abilities and their goals and plans, to really inhabit all of my NPCs. I don't want to be making decisions for them the same way that players, who know only a tiny bit about my game world, make decisions for their characters. So players make their own decisions, but dice make decisions for NPCs.

Which, by the one, is one reason I really like Dragonbane: I don't decide which attack the monster is going to use; I roll on the table. I love it. But I can't imagine playing an RPG where the players also had to roll on a table to determine their characters' attacks. For the same reason I can't imagine playing an RPG where players have to roll to see what their characters believe.

 

[Andvari]

When I think of railroading I tend to think of two ways.

Soft: Soft railroading is when you're playing a narratively-focused adventure where the characters are intended to follow along a certain story structure, with various degrees of freedom in how they reach these stages. So it requires buy-in from the players so they don't derail the story. You can have a fun and meaningful adventure or campaign, but it's too fragile to make room for characters who, whether for good or bad reasons, don't follow the obvious arrows that guide the party to the next stage of the story.

Hard: Hard railroading is when most problems the party encounter tend to have only one solution or approach, and no amount of player creativity is allowed. The tower can only be entered from the entrance at the bottom using the special key you get from the witch. Axes, lockpicks or powder kegs cannot defeat the wooden door. The sides of the tower cannot be climbed even with proper equipment, when the players think to enter from a window, and the fly spell somehow stops working when the players get the idea to assault the hobgoblin archers at the top and enter from there.

What I think you're doing is just setting up the premise of the next adventure. Players can nope out of almost any adventure by saying "my character is not interested in adventuring and leaves." But at that point why show up to play? Though sometimes you need to make it clear when you're presenting the next adventure.

 

[Crusadius]

When someone says “railroading” I picture the adventure as being on a train, stopping at a set of stations on that route and there is no way to get the train to go to another station not on the route. So, for example, if the players are given a choice of 3 doors no matter what door they choose the next scenario is the pit of torture and ice cream.

 

[CreamCloud0]

My view is just that PCs shouldn't be a privledged set in regard to how social skills interact with them; but that doesn't mean it needs to be all or nothing in that direction either. I don't have much patience for people who think its okay for Persuade to be, effectively mind control when directed at NPCs and do nothing when directed at PCs, but there are ways to put your thumb on the scale without mandating specific actions.

can you imagine the rage if GMs RP'd NPCs with anywhere near the same level of 'free will' against checks as the players do?
"but i rolled a 31 deception!?"
"yeah but they still decided they don't trust you and are going to have you arrested, because of their gut feelings."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My view is just that PCs shouldn't be a privledged set in regard to how social skills interact with them; but that doesn't mean it needs to be all or nothing in that direction either. I don't have much patience for people who think its okay for Persuade to be, effectively mind control when directed at NPCs and do nothing when directed at PCs, but there are ways to put your thumb on the scale without mandating specific actions.

You don't roll persuasion against PCs in D&D 5e. That's not what it is for.

And as the thread is about railroading, the GM controlling PCs via social skills of the NPCs certainly counts as such.

 

[bsss]

There was a thread some time ago about whether an orc chieftain should be able to "use Intimidation" on PCs. My response was that if a GM wants my character to be intimidated by an orc chieftain, they should start designing monsters and encounters that are a real threat. If I don't know what the orc can do, but I know that fights are deadly serious in the game, then I'll be plenty intimidated, which means I'll play my characters that way. Which is much more fun than pretending to be intimidated.

Clearly this approach has to have limits, though. If a monster has, say, a fear aura, as a player it is your agreement to acknowledge it and have your character act within those bounds if they are hit by it. You can't (within agreeable play) go "nah, I'm not terrified, so my character doesn't take that penalty". That's incoherent with the nature of the game. An absurd example would be saying "well, I know that I don't die in real life because my character took damage, so it's pretend and I ignore it". So why does a skill-based rule in the same book as fear auras and hp get to be vetoed?

Of course, if Intimidate is not a thing that exists as a general rule for NPCs or an ability of the orc, the answer to the question is plainly no. So within many ststems, the skill-centric reading here is irrelevant. However, if that was a rule that existed, the player is expected to play their character within that "contract".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I play with asymmetry between PCs and NPCs (meaning that, for example, a PC can "use Intimidation" on an NPC, but not vice versa) because GMs have perfect information, players don't. As a GM, I know too much about the game world, including the PC's abilities and their goals and plans, to really inhabit all of my NPCs. I don't want to be making decisions for them the same way that players, who know only a tiny bit about my game world, make decisions for their characters. So players make their own decisions, but dice make decisions for NPCs.

Right. When the PC is trying to figure out whether a NPC is lying, the player doesn't usually know the answer either. Thus the player and character decision spaces are aligned, and the player can just inhabit the decision process of the character. However if the NPC is trying to figure out whether the PC is lying, the same process doesn't work, because the GM usually already knows whether the PC is lying! Thus it makes sense to let the mechanics inform that decisions, as the GM simply cannot genuinely try to sus it out like the player can. In general I am in favour of PC/NPC rule symmetry, but here using the rules differently is perfectly justified, as the information the participants have access to makes approaching it similarly impossible in the first place.