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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I expect the GM to play their NPCs fairly, within the limits of what those NPCs know and are capable of, as much as I expect the same with Players and their PCs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I expect the GM to play their NPCs fairly, within the limits of what those NPCs know and are capable of, as much as I expect the same with Players and their PCs.

Sure, I do too. But ultimately it is hella hard to "fairly" gauge whether the person would notice another person is lying if the person making that determination already knows the truth. It makes sense to outsource such decisions to the rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wait...what? There's some deep misunderstanding of what I'm saying here. The DM doesn't have to literally act intimidating. He can just say, in a very soft voice, "The orc chieftain growls threateningly at you, and all eight of his guards tremble in fear. Jim, your pet wolf also cowers and whimpers."

If the players are not intimidated by that, it is because the GM has taught them that his encounters are always winnable.



What does "successful" mean, though? Does success describe how good of a show he puts on, regardless of how people respond to it? or does success mean how it is received. If the latter, I can't possibly see how that is determined by a single roll. There's a very popular politician who I should probably not name, and when he speaks approximately half the country thinks it is divinely inspired wisdom, and the other half thinks it is unintelligible garbage. And it's pretty much the same halves every time, so it's not a function of that politician's skill roll.



They were right. It was just a show, and they knew it.

I don't understand what is gained by forcing players to pretend to be intimidated by an adversary they believe doesn't pose a threat, when the GM...who has "infinite dragons", as the saying goes...can easily create a situation where the players will genuinely worry about their characters' safety* and act accordingly.

How is failing to design intimidating encounters and then requiring that players act intimidated not forcing a story upon the players?

*Caveat: if the players know that the GM always designs encounters that can be won, then it is going to be pretty hard to actually intimidate them. They might think, "Ok, he's describing a scary dragon but he always balances encounters, so clearly this dragon isn't really a threat..." So then we've got a situation where the players assume they can win every confrontation, so the solution is to roll dice and expect them to pretend to be intimidated, but it is entirely a problem of the GM's making.

Those Players are IMO, intentionally choosing to not play their PCs logical reactions to the situation by basing their response on out-of-character information. And in your example they are doing it flagrantly. To me that is a sign of disrespect towards the GM and the game/setting they are presenting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, I do too. But ultimately it is helal hard to "fairly" gauge whether the person would notice another person is lying if the person making that determination already knows the truth. It makes sense to outsource such decisions to the rules.

Good roleplaying and trust can get the job done too IMO.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Good roleplaying and trust can get the job done too IMO.

Perhaps. But the situation where the decision maker knows the truth is fundamentally different one than one where they do not, so it makes sense to approach them differently with mechanics too. Not that you have to, but the justification why one might is pretty clear.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps. But the situation where the decision maker knows the truth is fundamentally different one than one where they do not, so it makes sense to approach them differently with mechanics too. Not that you have to, but the justification why one might is pretty clear.

Sure, to each their own. Obviously not how I prefer to handle it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sure, I do too. But ultimately it is helal hard to "fairly" gauge whether the person would notice another person is lying if the person making that determination already knows the truth. It makes sense to outsource such decisions to the rules.

is that not why we outsource the decision to dice rolls?

 

[pemerton]

From the point of view of the structure of a player's engagement with the game, there is no difference between the following two states of affairs:

*Your character is unconscious, so you can't declare actions for them until they recover.

*Your character is petrified with fear, so you can't declare actions for them until they recover.​

Both states of affairs have the same structure: the player is precluded from declaring actions for their PC. The difference of fictional colour (unconscious vs frightened) doesn't affect that basic structure.

Similarly, from the point of view of the structure of a player's engagement with the game, there is no difference between the following two states of affairs:

*GM to a player whose character is proceeding northward: There's a wall [lake, forest, river of lava, whatever barrier you like] in front of you, so you can't keep moving northward.

*GM to a player whose character whose character is advancing through a company of soldiers by cutting down everyone who gets in their way: You see the person you love right in front of you. Your advance halts, as you can't cut them down.​

Both states of affairs have the same structure: the player's desired action - move northward/advance through the enemy - is thwarted, for a fictional reason narrated by the GM: in the first instance, that fictional reason is a barrier to movement that the character can't overcome; in the second reason that fictional reason is a person the PC won't cut down.

Now, many RPGs have rules that mean that obstacles the GM presents are prima facie, rather than absolute: that is, when the GM narrates an obstacle in the fiction, the player is entitled to declare an action to overcome that obstacle.

With this in mind, maybe in the barrier example, play proceeds like this:

*Player: A wall/lava/lake/forest isn't going to slow me down - I proceed through it!

*GM: OK, make a roll on Indomitability [or whatever skill/ability/attribute/etc is applicable, given the game's PC build and action resolution rules].​

And maybe in the love example, play proceeds like this:

*Player: I'm not going to yield to sentiment - I harden my heart and cut them down!

*GM: OK, make a roll on Brutality [or whatever skill/ability/attribute/etc is applicable, given the game's PC build and action resolution rules].​

Again, the basic structure is the same although the fiction is different.

Some RPGs are very clear on how fiction is established, who gets to establish what fiction, who gets to change the established fiction (and how), etc. Some are not.

And some RPGs are clear on how fiction translates into resolution; some are not.

***​

These issues of clarity is separate from the issue of does this produce good/compelling play? For instance, in AD&D the rules draw a clear distinction between the GM's narration of living dead in the form of skeletons or zombies - where the player is free to decide the fiction of how their PC reacts - and the GM"s narration of living dead in the form of mummies or liches - where the game calls for a saving throw to avoid the PC being struck by fear.

In AD&D the rules are also clear about how fiction translates into resolution: a player who describes their PC's teeth chattering at the sight of a skeleton, is nevertheless entitled to declare, a minute later, that their PC wades into melee with those skeletons unperturbed by the horror and un-penalised by their chattering teeth. The narration of fear is mere colour, that doesn't affect resolution.

Likewise the rules (in the AD&D MM) are clear that numbers grant a bonus to the saving throw vs a mummy's fear, but not v a lich's. In the latter case, a player might describe their PC as drawing comfort from the presence of their friends, but that is again mere colour.

Personally, while I find all this clear enough, I don't think it produces especially good RPGing. Why does the sight of a mummy - the walking dead - potentially petrify with fear, but not the sight of a skeleton, although the latter is also walking dead? Why do numbers boost confidence against mummies but not liches? Why does a player who narrates their PC's teeth chattering, not have to then suck up a corresponding penalty when melee breaks out? Or to put it another way, a player who narrates their frightened PC suddenly bucking up when the fight breaks out is not producing especially compelling fiction.

That's before we get to possibilities like a company's leader - say Aragorn, or Tanis, or the like - trying to break the hold of fear over a petrified companion. This is a common enough thing in fantasy stories, but not something that the AD&D rules provide for when a group of PCs encounters a mummy.

***​

In many RPGs - including AD&D - the fact that a PC loves someone is generally irrelevant to action resolution. The only constraint on a player narrating their PC's love for a person one minute, and then cutting them down as part of the inexorable advance the next minute, is good taste.

The Charm Person or Suggestion spells are an exception to this, because they use notions like "any word or action . . . will be viewed in its most favorable way" (PHB p 55) and "must be worded in such a manner as to make the action sound reasonable" (PHB p 75). Suppose that a player, whose PC is under the affect of one of these spells, points to some fact of friendship between their PC and another character in the context of explaining how and why their PC reacts to a particular request. (Eg "I wouldn't just cut down Gutboy when requested to do so, because Gutboy is my friend.")

Now suppose that, some time later, the PC is cutting their way through a horde, only to see that same character - their friend - standing their in front of them, one of the enemy soldiers. Is the player now just permitted to say "My PC doesn't care anymore - I cut them down!" This is what the AD&D rules seem to imply: a PC's emotions can be as fickle as the player wants, switching on or off at will. But that doesn't seem conducive to especially compelling fiction.

***​

I haven't said anything about the 5e D&D Intimidate and Insight skills. To me, the 5e D&D rules on what skills are for, and how they relate to the fiction - both fictional positioning, like Am I free to just declare that I cut down my friend without consequences? and fictional consequences, like Am I just free to declare that my PC is unpersuaded by the charlatan, although the charlatan has hoodwinked everyone else they've ever dealt with? - seem pretty unclear.

It seems that, when the game designers want the fiction to have any sort of teeth, they bypass the skill rules and use other build and resolution elements, like a dragon's Frightful Presence or a mummy's Dreadful Glare.

 

[pemerton]

is that not why we outsource the decision to dice rolls?

Not in my case.

When I use dice in a RPG it's not because I think the fiction is uncertain. It's because I want the fiction to be uncertain.

 

[pemerton]

I think there's also a difference between railroading and an adventure just being linear. Most dungeons are going to be linear - you go in, clear out the rooms, and then fight BBEG.

To me, that doesn't sound like a particularly compelling dungeon.