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

[Bill Zebub]

I would be fine with that providing the same method applied to PCs attempting to intimidate NPCs.

I'm actually pretty fine with that, too. I wish fewer players would reach for their dice every time they narrate an action.

But....when I'm GMing, I tend to ask the dice resolve things for me, since I already have so much on my plate. As I said upthread, it's the same reason I like the monster action tables in Dragonbane: to the extent that NPCs can make their own decisions, it makes my GMing easier.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Presumably him and others who don't want to play Torchbearer. Its still not an obviously excessive assumption, given the market.

I actually do want to try Torchbearer (and Scum & Villainy) because I'm curious, but I can't imagine that more generally it would displace more traditional RPGs on my shelf.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok, well in that case, if we're talking about real life scenarios that show lack of respect, I would include a GM making up a mechanic that doesn't exist in the game (e.g., "Using Intimidation" on a PC in D&D 5e) and then expecting the player to roleplay their character the way the GM would roleplay their character, if it were their character, which it isn't. I would find that very disrespectful. Thankfully I haven't experienced it.

I think playing your character in line with what they are experiencing in the imaginary world of play, modulated by the rules of play, very much is in the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm actually pretty fine with that, too. I wish fewer players would reach for their dice every time they narrate an action.

But....when I'm GMing, I tend to ask the dice resolve things for me, since I already have so much on my plate. As I said upthread, it's the same reason I like the monster action tables in Dragonbane: to the extent that NPCs can make their own decisions, it makes my GMing easier.

Understandable. I'd rather just have the dice apply in some fashion to both sides though.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

There is no "apparently honest." Just "You can't tell if he's lying or not."

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...

If the DM is saying that they seem trustworthy, the DM is making a major mistake. The DM should never be telling you what your PC thinks or feels unless something supernatural is involved and you failed your save. Skills in 5e are not intended or written so that they work against PCs. They can prevent a PC from picking up on lies and such, but they can't force a PC to believe or not believe something.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is no "apparently honest." Just "You can't tell if he's lying or not."

If the DM is saying that they seem trustworthy, the DM is making a major mistake. The DM should never be telling you what your PC thinks or feels unless something supernatural is involved and you failed your save. Skills in 5e are not intended or written so that they work against PCs. They can prevent a PC from picking up on lies and such, but they can't force a PC to believe or not believe something.

See, the problem I have with that is that I don't believe PCs and NPCs are significantly different, and thus they shouldn't IMO be treated any more differently than is necessary for play. I'm aware that many people feel differently though, and that's fine.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, so there's both what playstyles do I enjoy and, therefore, which games should I play?

Yes? My points have been entirely about not buying the permises your preferences are based on. Which shouldn't be a surprise, or I probably wouldn't have different ones (though some of that is purely priorities, too).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, well in that case, if we're talking about real life scenarios that show lack of respect, I would include a GM making up a mechanic that doesn't exist in the game (e.g., "Using Intimidation" on a PC in D&D 5e) and then expecting the player to roleplay their character the way the GM would roleplay their character, if it were their character, which it isn't. I would find that very disrespectful. Thankfully I haven't experienced it.

Presumably they'd indicated existed as a houserule well before it comes up. If not, well, springing houserules on the fly is never a good look.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes? My points have been entirely about not buying the permises your preferences are based on. Which shouldn't be a surprise, or I probably wouldn't have different ones (though some of that is purely priorities, too).

Wasn't arguing with anything you said. Just pointing out that it's worth matching playstyle to system.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think playing your character in line with what they are experiencing in the imaginary world of play, modulated by the rules of play, very much is in the game.

Agreed. But what I've been hoping to illustrate is that what that looks like...what any one sentient creature is going to do in response to some set of stimuli...is so varied and unpredictable that nearly any response can be justified. Which is why I think any attempt to police actions, or mind-read the intentions of players, or enforce "good roleplaying" with rules, is quixotic.

So, sure, if the GM likes to roll to see if NPCs "succeed at using social skills" (god that phrase makes me vomit, but anyway...) then go ahead, and announce the result, and let the players do with it what they will.

It's the implication that there are "good/correct" and "bad/incorrect" responses to that information that I can't abide.