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

[Maxperson]

Not if the GM is playing the NPCs true to their knowledge, personalities, and capabilities within the setting. Even Sauron was intimidated by the Men of Numenor at one time. He just eventually turned the situation to his advantage. That's what I'm asking for from the Players.

So you think that because Sauron was intimidated by the entire Numenorean army, that if Sam walked up and tried to intimidate him, there should be a roll? Because @Crimson Longinus wasn't talking about Lord Dreadskull not being able to be intimidated by the entire celestial army of the 5th Heaven. It was clearly in the context of versus the PCs and he decided that Lord Dreadskull isn't going to be intimidated by them.

So if that's all you're asking of the players, then we are in agreement. I can decide if I'm intimidated by the king and his armies or not. And I can decide that even if I decided to be intimidated by the king and his armies, that I'm not intimidated by just the king.

 

[Maxperson]

I suggest no such thing. Your character can be a rat-catcher hat dies at the next kobold fight. But the player still has only one character at the moment and the GM has the whole world to worry about. And the GM is omniscient. It just is not the same and it is bizarre to think that it would.

And that part is really the key. As the DM I have billions of NPCs to play. If the PCs successfully use intimidation against one of them, I've lost .0000000000001(or whatever that percentage of billions is, I didn't stop to figure it out) of my agency. The player has only one PC to play, so a successful intimidation against his PC causes 100% loss of agency. Short of something supernatural/magic, nothing should be taking away total agency from the player.

And absolutely nothing suggest that the characters could not be tricked, convinced etc. Of course they can! It is just that because the fictional situation that is presented is such that it happens, not because the dice said so.

Right. NPCs trick the PCs in my game all the time. During roleplay they lie and the players take that lie to be true and act on it. There just aren't any rolls to force the players to believe the lies.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not asking the PC to give up the "hero" business because an NPC critted their Persuasion check. But acting in accordance with a failed Insight check the Player initiated to determine trustworthiness?

That's one of the places you're going wrong. the player isn't initiating any check to determine trustworthiness. He's asking for a check to see if it will confirm his suspicions or not.

If I suspect that Baron Killsalot is lying about where he was on the night of August 21st between the hours of 3am and 5am, I will ask the DM if I can see any signs in his body language that indicate lying. A failed roll just means that I can't tell and that the baron is hard to read. It does not mean that suddenly my suspicions go away and I believe he is telling the truth. Absence of signs of lying =/= telling the truth.

The roll isn't to determine what I believe. I shouldn't be able to have control over what my PC believes unless I initiate a roll. You are punishing the players for initiating rolls and just making it so that they won't ask questions like that, because they don't want to be robbed of their agency.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the flaw of treating the PCs and NPCs symmetrically, because you are right, the GM knows whether or not the PC is "lying". However, what the GM may not know or chooses to leave up to the dice is how the NPC will respond to that lie. The information ratio is uneven, a good system accounts for those imbalances and creates plausible in-game results for everyone. That the GM can't be "tricked" is tangential.

I'm going to push back against you and @Crimson Longinus a bit. The DM does not always know that the PC is lying. If the PC is lying to an NPC about having the MacGuffin, I know it's a lie. If the PC is telling an urchin that he will give him 5 gold after he delivers a message, I have no clue if the PC is lying or not. The same if the group tells the merchant that if he pays half of the 500gp now, and half upon completion of the quest, that they aren't lying to him and are planning on running off with 250gp.

 

[bsss]

I'm going to push back against you and @Crimson Longinus a bit. The DM does not always know that the PC is lying. If the PC is lying to an NPC about having the MacGuffin, I know it's a lie. If the PC is telling an urchin that he will give him 5 gold after he delivers a message, I have no clue if the PC is lying or not. The same if the group tells the merchant that if he pays half of the 500gp now, and half upon completion of the quest, that they aren't lying to him and are planning on running off with 250gp.

Okay, sure, you can't guarantee the player(s) or their PC(s) will commit to doing something. They can lie about their future actions or intents. Of course. The context was not that, it was which side could be misled about their understanding of contents of the world. Generally speaking, the GM defines the world, so they can't be misled. Even in situations where the system or play have injected surprise, the GM merely contorts reality to fit. It's hardly being lied to about the current state of affairs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think both sides should roll when attempting things that fall under whatever social rules the game has, with the caveat that there are auto-successes and failures for both sides as well. What those things are can be determined by the person playing the character, but I feel very strongly that that decision should be made based only on the nature of the character and the circumstances of the situation, not on what the Player or GM wants or doesn't want for the character in question.

I mean, I agree with that. I think maybe our main difference is that I don't want to spend my time trying to distinguish between those two things for somebody else. If they are playing in ways that I find surprising, well, people (both real and imaginary) will do unexpected, surprising, inexplicable things.

Not for out of setting reasons. It's a matter of trust for both sides, and trust takes time to build and is affected by a person's history. In my history, I've seen a lot of Players go to great lengths to avoid negative affects on their PCs, even if they make sense to happen. I've seen GMs do it too, and I see it as a problem no matter where it comes from.

Yeah, again, I'm sure you're right but I don't want to police it or even think about it. Nor do I want other people telling me how to play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, you've just gotten rid of the player. You should probably the news to your group before the next session to save them the trip.

No, you are overstating your case enormously. The Player decides how the character acts, based on what is happening in the world and the character's capabilities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They don't. The DM can and does have the ability to say your persuasion does not work. If you walk into a merchant and tell me that you want to persuade him to give you everything he owns for free, I'm going to tell you that you fail. There will be no roll. Rolls only happen when the outcome of the NPCs decision is in doubt and failure has meaning. If you want to try and persuade him to give you a 10% discount, I will ask for a roll most of the time, but sometimes I know that simply asking will get you one and it will be an auto success.

There is no mind control happening against the NPCs, either. I get to decide if the outcome is in doubt for NPCs. The player gets to decide how his PC acts in response to a social skill.

Then what is the social skill for?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you think that because Sauron was intimidated by the entire Numenorean army, that if Sam walked up and tried to intimidate him, there should be a roll? Because @Crimson Longinus wasn't talking about Lord Dreadskull not being able to be intimidated by the entire celestial army of the 5th Heaven. It was clearly in the context of versus the PCs and he decided that Lord Dreadskull isn't going to be intimidated by them.

So if that's all you're asking of the players, then we are in agreement. I can decide if I'm intimidated by the king and his armies or not. And I can decide that even if I decided to be intimidated by the king and his armies, that I'm not intimidated by just the king.

No, the circumstances in that instance don't meet setting logic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's one of the places you're going wrong. the player isn't initiating any check to determine trustworthiness. He's asking for a check to see if it will confirm his suspicions or not.

If I suspect that Baron Killsalot is lying about where he was on the night of August 21st between the hours of 3am and 5am, I will ask the DM if I can see any signs in his body language that indicate lying. A failed roll just means that I can't tell and that the baron is hard to read. It does not mean that suddenly my suspicions go away and I believe he is telling the truth. Absence of signs of lying =/= telling the truth.

The roll isn't to determine what I believe. I shouldn't be able to have control over what my PC believes unless I initiate a roll. You are punishing the players for initiating rolls and just making it so that they won't ask questions like that, because they don't want to be robbed of their agency.

That's not the way it works in my game. The Players do what they believe their character would under the circumstances and within the limits of their capabilities. That's it.

And I'm not wrong. You just disagree.