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

[AnotherGuy]

Frankly, this sounds terrible to me. The plea and the conflict surrounding it is interesting, but then you just kill it by not allowing the players to make this important choice and instead just roll the dice for it.

Kill it? How so?

PCs have the option of letting their characters be Persuaded.
Those Persuaded PC have the option of arguing on behalf of the Orc Chieftain should they want to.

Those that wish to resist use their Insight (Wis) as a DC against the Persuasion.
If they fail they have an option of how they wish to respond. (1) and (2) are DM ideas (3) is something cool the PC thinks of.
Their failure merely reflects their immediate actions.

The Social Encounter can continue (at least that is what I envision). One can build this into a Skill Challenge or not.
I have also not indicated whether the NPC is lying.
The PCs may wish to make a rebuttal or negotiate some sort of punishment or price for the attack on the homestead.
That is much still on the table.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I read that and I am immediately engaged. On the one hand that's pretty persuasive. On the other hand, maybe it's a load of crap. I'm not sure which to believe! What evidence do I have? What evidence could I get? What should I do next?

Cool.

Then I read that and I think, "Oh, I guess I'm not really supposed to think too hard about it. The dice will tell me what to do."

Please read my response to @Crimson Longinus
The dice are there to reflect your immediate response.

Interestingly the Persuasion success by the Chieftain reflect all what you said
"On the one hand that's pretty persuasive. On the other hand, maybe it's a load of crap. I'm not sure which to believe! What evidence do I have? What evidence could I get? What should I do next?"
That momentary hesitation, that uncertainty, the confusion, the double-take, the second guessing...etc
That is all the successful Persuasion check did.

I'm talking about lowering of one's shield (so the +2 AC it is not in effect the first round) or the Hesitation Condition (in our game disadvantage on Initiative). That is nowhere near restrictive in my eyes.

EDIT: Like I said above, for the players who are still not convinced (whether the chieftain succeeded or not), I would imagine the Social Encounter mini-game continues with new stakes, new negotiations on either side OR the chieftain is lying and an ambush breaks out OR the PC/s decide to end this with combat. All of this is still on the table.

 

[pemerton]

For me, RPGing is not a poor cousin to virtual reality. It's a creative, imaginative activity. The various resolution systems in a RPG are ways to establish, shape, constrain etc what it is that we imagine together. This is as true of social resolution systems, as it is of other resolution systems (eg combat).

When playing a RPG, a key part of the fun is being "in" the fiction rather than being told about it. A social resolution system, that establishes some bit of the fiction, can be part of that "being in the fiction". What's important to me is that the fiction be compelling, and that my character feel real and alive.

 

[bsss]

Kill it? How so?

PCs have the option of letting their characters be Persuaded.
Those Persuaded PC have the option of arguing on behalf of the Orc Chieftain should they want to.

Those that wish to resist use their Insight (Wis) as a DC against the Persuasion.
If they fail they have an option of how they wish to respond. (1) and (2) are DM ideas (3) is something cool the PC thinks of.
Their failure merely reflects their immediate actions.

The Social Encounter can continue (at least that is what I envision). One can build this into a Skill Challenge or not.
I have also not indicated whether the NPC is lying.
The PCs may wish to make a rebuttal or negotiate some sort of punishment or price for the attack on the homestead.
That is much still on the table.

You don't seem to understand the ramifications of game language, or you are presenting the options poorly.

You may determine how Success for the chieftain's persuasion plays out for your character.
1. Lower your shield/sheathe your weapon.
2. Take a step back and look at your fellow companions. (Gain the Hesitant Condition)
3. Offer something else you have in mind.

To a player, this reads as "the orc chieftain has succeeded in persuading you, as your resistance has failed. Having failed, your first option is to capitulate to the chieftain. Your second option is to hesitate. Your third option is to try to convince the GM of any other action, but the GM gets to say that is not an appropriate action. Pick one."

Few if any players are going to interpret that as "I am allowed to debate the situation and make my own decision, including not trusting the orc and attacking."

Furhermore, the "option" of failing the check intentionally being offered as a defense of interesting roleplay is quite the strange offer, when it reads as "...and the GM gets to say what you do."

 

[bsss]

I'm talking about lowering of one's shield (so the +2 AC it is not in effect the first round) or the Hesitation Condition (in our game disadvantage on Initiative). That is nowhere near restrictive in my eyes.

EDIT: Like I said above, for the players who are still not convinced (whether the chieftain succeeded or not), I would imagine the Social Encounter mini-game continues with new stakes, new negotiations on either side OR the chieftain is lying and an ambush breaks out OR the PC/s decide to end this with combat. All of this is still on the table.

In light of this reply, I don't understand why that mechanical check against Persuasion was worded the way it was, at all.

 

[AnotherGuy]

You don't seem to understand the ramifications of game language, or you are presenting the options poorly.

I think based on your post we run different playstyles at the table.

To a player, this reads as "the orc chieftain has succeeded in persuading you, as your resistance has failed. Having failed, your first option is to capitulate to the chieftain. Your second option is to hesitate. Your third option is to try to convince the GM of any other action, but the GM gets to say that is not an appropriate action. Pick one."

You as player get to decide.
1 and 2 would be options I came up with to help the players. idea-wise.
3 would be the player gets to be creative, with the limitation that your action has to make sense in the fiction for the table.
My experience has show it is not that hard amongst friends.

Few if any players are going to interpret that as "I am allowed to debate the situation and make my own decision, including not trusting the orc and attacking."

Lowering your shield, taking a step back and looking at your companions it not the end of a scene.
Why you saw it that way is on you.
I'm not running the entire social encounter here, I'm reflecting the use of Persuasion by an NPC in a way that is not overly powerful as some may fear, and also not so binary/boring. It is merely an example of how you can approach skill-use by NPCs.

Furhermore, the "option" of failing the check intentionally being offered as a defense of interesting roleplay is quite the strange offer, when it reads as "...and the GM gets to say what you do.".

I find the misreading of it strange.

Players can select that their characters are persuaded. Full-stop.
Players who who wish their characters not to be persuaded set themselves a DC.
If the Chieftain succeeds then they select 1-3 as an immediate response.

The social encounter can continue, but I expect the stakes for Persuasion will increase or it may change to Negotiation or combat may break out, but the latter MAY create/set a strong basis that may be used (by the table) against or for that character's actions in the future.

 

[bsss]

I find the misreading of it strange.

Players can select that their characters are persuaded. Full-stop.
Players who who wish their characters not to be persuaded set themselves a DC.
If the Chieftain succeeds then they select 1-3 as an immediate response.

The social encounter can continue.

Your original post made that one check sound like the completion of the social phase and the results were the conclusion ("...these social encounters", as if the presented options were the discrete encounter). Now that it's clear that you meant it was just step 1 of X, I only wonder why you are specifying intermediary steps like where someone has their shield while talking, but that's just a "to taste" thing and less egregious than concluding the whole mental decision tree on behalf of the players.

You could have just said "on a failure to resist, you think he might have a point, but continue contemplating or discussing", but then again, the players could do that without a success/failure on a die roll.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Players who who wish their characters not to be persuaded set themselves a DC.

let me preface this statement with saying i'm not a GM, but something about the idea of player setting themselves a DC just fundamentally gets my hackles up, that's the GM's job, though yes, a player can and should be able to argue their stance for why their character might have a better chance of resisting/making/whatever a check, but the one who sets the DC should still be the GM.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's why I mentioned avatar as an alternative. With token play you're just doing whatever suits you with the "character" (and yes, the scare quotes are deliberate) without being concerned about their actual properties at all; with avatar play you're effectively playing yourself since your character can do or not do everything you can.

I have been in several LARPs where the applicable capabilities of my character were by necessity limited to those of the player. Never have I been "playing myself." There is much more to what a character is than some skill points. Motivations, goals, beliefs, personality, behaviour, temperament etc.

I can have all this without the rules telling me what my character thinks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Players can select that their characters are persuaded. Full-stop.

So they can choose not to be persuaded?

Players who who wish their characters not to be persuaded set themselves a DC.

And by "set" you mean calculate by formula given by the GM.

If the Chieftain succeeds then they select 1-3 as an immediate response.

And that's it? They lower their shield, then rise it back again because they actually did not believe the chieftain? What's the bloody point? It is utter waste of time to interrupt the flow of an interesting RP scene to calculate DCs and roll dice that amount to basically nothing.

The social encounter can continue, but I expect the stakes for Persuasion will increase or it may change to Negotiation or combat may break out, but the latter MAY create/set a strong basis that may be used (by the table) against or for that character's actions in the future.

Right. "Stakes increase." So we only roll to determine whether you believe the NPC later?



I just don't want any of this. The watered down version seems pointless and one that would actually have teeth is antithetical to player agency. If there is an important and interesting choice to make, then just let the players make it. That's what they are there for, and they know the best what their character would think.

I really do not get this desire to outsource the character thinking to the dice. It erodes the very core of what RPGs are about.