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

[AnotherGuy]

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.

I've been fortunate to run quite a few Social Encounters with differing mechanics/ideas in play, sometimes the system is developed on the spot and sometimes pre-planned, the majority of the time the mechanics are player facing, generally they are also lengthier than a single binary roll. There is a back-and-forth, like combat.

I'm by no means an expert and I tend to lean traditional because of my formative D&D years but the last few years I've made the conscious effort to elevate the gamist side of the the RPG and give it the ability to shape the fiction that emerges along with player choices.

 

[bsss]

The watered down version seems pointless and one that would actually have teeth is antithetical to player agency.

For whatever it's worth to the thread, my attempt to preserve agency but still have some teeth to the social encounter would be a simple abstraction: the PCs can conclude whatever they want, but if my idea ends in ambush the PCs that were duped before the ambush start with a disadvantageous condition or initiative penalty, or if the desire is that their conflict gnaws at them as they must fell a pitiful foe, they attack the chieftain at a small penalty. Quick and easy.

EDIT: just to add some non-combat ends, ...or their future diplomacy with the tribe is improved, having shown sympathy to its plight. Or the inverse with the regional duke, who now has to deal with sympathizers. Or whatever. Point is that we can easily skip the "this is what your characters do" part, unless the GM is secretly intending to dictate what they do (which would be bad).

 

[AnotherGuy]

So they can choose not to be persuaded?

Yes. They may not buy the story provided because abc reason.

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

Yes. I think 10 + Insight (Wis) as the DC - along with disadvantage from a related TIBF seems fair.
If one would like to argue for a different DC, I'm the type of DM that this would not be a sticking point.
But it would have to make sense, I mean Sleight of Hand (Dex) is a hard sell.

And that's it? They lower their sshield, 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.

So,
In the case of an ambush they would not have the +2 AC in effect until their turn.
In the case where this is not an ambush, I could use the lowering of the Shield to build on narrative that comes from that action. Remember this is but one example.

The chieftain noting your less aggressive stance, takes a step towards you, his eyes downcast now strangely focused on the shield, they widen suddenly in somewhat of an alarm as he raises his head to face you, ignoring the others, "You serve a dragon-god?" He says accusatory, all softness now gone from his voice as he pulls himself to his full intimidating height.
[emblem of a dragon on the Paladin's shield]
"Is that why my brother attacked the settlement? You work for the cult."

Now our table is currently playing the Tyranny of Dragons campaign, this may have context.
Targeted player suffers an Intimidation check by the NPC
I can run it with the NPC rolling or the player rolling to avoid being intimidated (10 DC + Intimidation(Str))

Once again player may decide to be auto-intimidated or run the risk of consequences...

Now auto selecting to be Persuaded or Intimidated all the time may impose after x times to gain a Temporary Flaw related to this chieftain, this clan or orcs in general. The flaw would generally be player crafted, the table could offer ideas.

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

The entire game is based on attrition but you find that strange for a social encounter?

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 the players make it. That's what they are there for, and they know the best what their character would think.

I hear you, but I find that interesting choices (for both DM and player) can arise by letting the game have a voice too.

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.

For me it can

• Assist in someone not playing Waylander from level 1 to level 20, with every character they draw up, with no growth;
• Spark creativity in the fiction generated for both the player and DM
• Allow for the table to be surprised
• Create memorable encounters as you are not fully in control. And it bears mentioning this is not how I run every social encounter - this series of posts was borne just to show case but 1 alternative.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

Oh that is on me.
What I meant was in the example the DC would be 10+Insight (Wis) for the NPC. I did not mean for a player to just pick a number out of the blue.
If the player wished to argue for the DC to be based on 10 + Survival (Cha), they would need to sell it to the table how that would make any sense.

 

[bsss]

Yes. They may not buy the story provided because abc reason.

If opting out is a choice and comes with no negative consequences vs. risking it to a roll and potentially getting negative consequences (or opting in to negative consequences by choosing to fail the roll???), what's the point of all of this trivia? If the players want to be surprised, roll the check or flip a coin and let the other players play their characters as they see fit. I cannot understand the depth of this simulation as a solution to a problem.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I'll admit I've rarely (ever?) seen a player set a DC for the GM to roll against. I only offer that model because of a common insistence that everything be symmetric. When the players attempt to persuade/intimidate/deceive a NPC, it's the person who controls that NPC, the GM, who sets the DC. Probably because they know the most about what's going on inside the NPC's head. So if NPC's are going to "use social skills" against PCs, if "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", then it seems to me the PC should be setting the DC. Otherwise it's not symmetric.

And I'll add that the idea of a GM telling me what the DC is for my character to be persuaded by an NPC gets my own hackles up.

But in practice the people I game with don't play that way. The players just narrate what their characters do. It seems to work.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If opting out is a choice and comes with no negative consequences vs. risking it to a roll and potentially getting negative consequences (or opting in to negative consequences by choosing to fail the roll???), what's the point of all of this trivia? If the players want to be surprised, roll the check or flip a coin and let the other players play their characters as they see fit. I cannot understand the depth of this simulation as a solution to a problem.

That's what I was thinking. A lot of complexity that doesn't seem to add anything. Roll the NPC ability, tell players the number, and let them choose their next action. (For that matter, they shouldn't even be expected to announce whether or not they are persuaded. That's not an action declaration.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or maybe not session 0, but certainly once it is understood what this player is up to. "Hey, look, I'm not going to say you can't gather those ingredients and mix them, but I'll warn you up front there's no guarantee that chemistry works the same in my gameworld as it does in the real world...."

The gunpowder case is so...egregious?...that it's maybe not the best example, but let's play out #1 anyway:

"Why would your character do that...other than 'because I want to'?"
"Because it would be awesome!"
"You've never before played this character this way...."
"It says right here on my character sheet that my goal is to spread the glory of my god across all the nations. Gunpowder would definitely help me do that."
"Why would your character even know how to mix up an explosive?"
"I read it in a book, back at the temple."
"No, you didn't, because it hasn't been invented in this world, so it wouldn't be in a book."
"Maybe it's a lost book, and I discovered it."
"Look, if you want to go back to your monastery or temple or whatever and search the library, I'll tell you what books are there. But it's not that book."
"Ok, fine, then I had a dream and my god told me to mix these three ingredients, in exactly this proportion. Maybe I'm the inventor!"
"Errr....when did you have this dream, exactly?"
"It's recurring. That's why I can't ignore it."
"No, it doesn't work that way. If you're going to have a dream that reveals information like that, it has to come from the GM."
"What? I can't have a dream without your permission?"
"Not this dream."
"WTF?"

Now, I wouldn't want this particular player at my table, and I doubt you would either. My goal is to illustrate that trying to impose a certain style of roleplaying by demanding that players justify their choices is quixotic. Against any sort of determined resistance it will eventually dead-end at "Because I told you so!" (Or you accede and let them have their way.)

If I really don't like the way somebody roleplays, I stop playing with them. But if am going to play with them, I don't waste time critiquing their roleplaying (except maybe in my head). That way lies madness.

That Player has decided to be contrary and disruptive. The conversation you described would wreck the session at my table, and maybe the game (although it wouldn't actually happen in my game, because I have no issue with gunpowder).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'm going to stick to my opinion here: whatever personality you lay over it, if a character can do nothing better (or worse) than you can, that's avatar play with a mask on it. It narrows the range of possible characters to an unacceptable degree.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That Player has decided to be contrary and disruptive. The conversation you described would wreck the session at my table, and maybe the game.

I totally agree.

But I'm guessing the player would feel the same way...that the GM is being contrary and disruptive and maybe wrecking the session if not the game...but being told, "No, you're not allowed to do that."

My point being that there's no good solution when we start caring about what is going on in anybody's head other than our own.