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

[Bill Zebub]

That's because you don't fundamentally believe in Intimidation (or I'd assume most other social skills) as a real thing.

You mean, as a mechanic in the game? If it's defined as such then, yeah, I "believe" in it.

But if it's an undefined "skill" then see my long reply to Micah.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not about like. It's about what the PC thinks is going on. I control that, not the dice. Not the DM. Not any other player. Short of magical mind control, it's my decision who he trusts, doesn't trust, suspects, or doesn't suspect. That's not a decision I make based on what I like or not.

So what's actually going around the character doesn't matter if the player doesn't like it?

 

[Smackpixi]

Is not player intimidating vs npc decided by dice rolls to allow player agency and cause npc not real? And is not npc vs player intimidation determined by the fiction presented to them…because real person who can respond.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I enjoy Deception, Insight, Persuasion and Intimidation.
The loose system invites GM and players to establish goals, negotiate, create slight inflections in the immediate scene, sparks creativity both with the outcome and the colour from the scene that flows, there is a sense of tinkering and it may allow the possibility of touching on Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws.
The more experience you have, the greater the possibility of fun you can have from it.

But, the downside is, without established rules and with limited experience it can be used rather monotonously or as a cudgel.

 

[Maxperson]

So what's actually going around the character doesn't matter if the player doesn't like it?

I don't understand what you are saying there.

 

[Maxperson]

That's because you don't fundamentally believe in Intimidation (or I'd assume most other social skills) as a real thing. Without that, of course its going to be alien to you. If you did, you'd presumablyt accept that sometimes the way characters react to things is not in their, or really even their player's hands.

Sure it is. I'm fully capable of deciding whether my character would fall for something or not. I can and do roleplay to the detriment of my characters when appropriate.

It's not that those skills are not real things. It's that they simply don't apply to PCs as they are blatant violators of player agency.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It's not that those skills are not real things. It's that they simply don't apply to PCs as they are blatant violators of player agency.

As opposed to Charm, Fear, Suggestion and Dominate etc.

Look Todd, I'm going to ignore this Dragon trying to intimidate me, because I have faced several drakes and a large-ass salamander. Let us not even mention that I'm almost 9th level which back in the day was name level. I think you should trust me to know how to play my character.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Look Todd, I'm going to ignore this Dragon trying to intimidate me, because I have faced several drakes and a large-ass salamander. Let us not even mention that I'm almost 9th level which back in the day was name level. I think you should trust me to know how to play my character.

What's the problem with that?

Seems to me that the player of that character is about to start rolling a new one.

 

[pemerton]

But what if it's objectively NOT an intimidating situation? What if the player is thinking that if violence breaks out the NPCs don't stand a chance?

Does the contrary also apply? Eg a first level fighter can't Intimidate a pit fiend?

But what about bluffing? Perhaps a first level fighter can bluff a pit fiend into thinking they're a more powerful fighter. And maybe an Orc can bluff a high level PC into thinking that the Orc is a threat.

That doesn't tell us how to resolve the attempted bluff. But I think the game suffers a bit if the only way to introduce bluffing or deception, on the GM side, is by using NPC illusionists and the like. One possibility that is suggested by giving NPCs skill bonuses is that the GM rolls the NPC's CHA(Deception or Intimidate, whichever is meant to apply in this sort of context) attempt, notes the outcome against a PC's passive WIS(Insight), and then describes the situation in appropriate terms - so perhaps the GM describes the Orc whose check beats the PC's passive ability as looking much more fearsome than a typical Orc.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It's not about like. It's about what the PC thinks is going on. I control that, not the dice. Not the DM. Not any other player. Short of magical mind control, it's my decision who he trusts, doesn't trust, suspects, or doesn't suspect. That's not a decision I make based on what I like or not.

i very much disagree with this playstyle of 'my character will always think exactly and only what i want them to think, that i have perfect control over what they do, regardless of whatever situation and circumstances they are in' nobody has that much self control against the world, we all have a ton of involuntary responses that catch us unawares and your adventurer shouldn't be different.