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

[CreamCloud0]

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.

while i'm all for mechanical symmetry it's more symmetry with the entire rest of the game's resolution system than with the NPC's social checks specifically, and players don't exactly get to debate 'hold on i don't think it's right that Bladesworth would be weak enough to fail this STR save i think their DC should be higher' in the same way they say 'Bladesworth wouldn't be convinced by their argument'

though honestly this discussion is probably entirely moot given the resolution would more likely be resolved by a contested check rather than a set DC

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It kills it, because my character who despises orcs and all they stand for, and would just as soon stick a knife in the orc's head as talk to it, has to successfully resist with a roll or be persuaded by a teary eyed orc. There would be no chance of that orc's success with my character, yet I still have to roll or be persuaded to do something my character would never do.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It kills it, because my character who despises orcs and all they stand for, and would just as soon stick a knife in the orc's head as talk to it, has to successfully resist with a roll or be persuaded by a teary eyed orc. There would be no chance of that orc's success with my character, yet I still have to roll or be persuaded to do something my character would never do.

your character who despises orcs probably wouldn't of even gotten this far into this situation in the first place so maybe that's a bit of a strawman creating a character specifically to oppose the hypothetical circumstance so you can turn around and say 'but my character morals! how dare they be overwritten like this'.

 

[bsss]

your character who despises orcs probably wouldn't of even gotten this far into this situation in the first place so maybe that's a bit of a strawman creating a character specifically to oppose the hypothetical circumstance so you can turn around and say 'but my character morals! how dare they be overwritten like this'.

"I don't trust your motivation, so you have to let the dice decide or be vetoed" is how we got into ::gestures over the thread:: this mess.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The Player you described was not acting in good faith. They didn't bring their interest to the GM's attention earlier, and they ignored the GM's clear belief that their character making gunpowder makes no sense. I really feel this on the Player.

 

[CreamCloud0]

"I don't trust your motivation, so you have to let the dice decide or be vetoed" is how we got into ::gestures over the thread:: this mess.

you can't tell me someone who 'would just as soon stick a knife in the orc's head as talk to it' would let themselves get to the point of being face to face already in group negotiations before they raise an objection to the scenario? if their character really had such an issue it should've come up long before we were able to get to this point, either that or they don't actually object to orcs as much as they claim they do and the player just doesn't want to go down that narrative path.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The Player you described was not acting in good faith. They didn't bring their interest to the GM's attention earlier, and they ignored the GM's clear belief that their character making gunpowder makes no sense. I really feel this on the Player.

Yes, I agree, the player is unwilling to buy into the basic premise of the campaign. But this is not an issue you can fix with rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

you can't tell me someone who 'would just as soon stick a knife in the orc's head as talk to it' would let themselves get to the point of being face to face already in group negotiations before they raise an objection to the scenario? if their character really had such an issue it should've come up long before we were able to get to this point, either that or they don't actually object to orcs as much as they claim they do and the player just doesn't want to go down that narrative path.

Player self-interest affecting PC action? Come on now.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I agree, the player is unwilling to buy into the basic premise of the campaign. But this is not an issue you can fix with rules.

Then it's not a good example. Bring it up with @Bill Zebub .

 

[TwoSix]

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.

The problem I have with this is that it puts a game like Pendragon, widely regarded as Greg Stafford's magnum opus, in the category of "eroding what RPGs are about" because of the system's need for Virtue/Vice checks.

I, personally, feel there's just as much creative artistry to be found in deciding how to portray a mechanical resolution, and create a narrative that captures that resolution in a way that's true to my character and the surrounding fiction, as there is in making the decision as to what to portray.

Not every game experience is enhanced by a dogged pursuit of maximal player agency over their character.