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

[Fenris-77]

I think there is way to play it so that you do not damage the character.
One of the better ways, I believe, is, that if you do incorporate it to whatever degree, let the player interpret the scene for the table.
It is important that they have the creative power and control of how/why it plays out.

Yup, I've certainly roleplayed being convinced by an NPC when I as a player was not, but that's not always how that plays out. I do think that making basic skill checks force RP stuff is 'not fun' for a lot of people. Different strokes and all that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think there is way to play it so that you do not damage the character.
One of the better ways, I believe, is, that if you do incorporate it to whatever degree, let the player interpret the scene for the table.
It is important that they have the creative power and control of how/why it plays out.

For the record, if the GM wants to roll for the NPC's performance just to give the GM's roleplaying some color that their acting ability might not have conveyed, I think that's totally fine. Some players might lean into it, others might not. As long as there's no expectation of how they choose to respond to that.

To me that's no different from describing a feature of the environment..."and you catch a twinkling of light reflecting off something in the bottom of the pool"...which a player would be free to totally ignore without being required to justify their actions according to their character.

In fact, I'm going to run with that thought: if the player ignores the twinkling light, or the thin straight crack in the floor, or the ominous rumble they can hear, or the whiff of decay coming up the tunnel...well, that's their mistake. "FAFO" or whatever that term is, right? It's probably a mistake.

So why should social interaction telegraphs be any different? You describe your NPC as threatening, or sympathetic, or whatever, and you want the players to respond. If they don't respond in the way you expect there should be a related consequence. As I said up-thread, if the players don't believe the orc chieftain is intimidating and declare actions accordingly, he should probably kick their @$$es. If he can't, then you sent a false telegraph. Whose fault is that?

And that thing about "declare actions accordingly" is central: players should not have to state whether they are intimidated or persuaded or deceived: they only declare actions. Maybe the character really is intimidated, but concludes that violence is still their best bet? (Striking first might even the odds.). Or isn't intimidated, but still wants to make peace, for whatever reasons? Why does the internal state of mind matter?

 

[soviet]

"Can I roll high enough on the dice" is hella boring way to test one's beliefs to me. Instead create a situation where the loyal knight has to choose between betraying his king or betraying his true love. That's a real test of character and outsourcing the decision to the dice would utterly defeat the point of playing the character. I want to play the character, not just passively watch how they act as dictated by the dice. That is the crucial difference between RPGs and other media: we get to choose.

If that choice is taken away from me, I'll just hand the character sheet and the dice to the GM and leave; they can roll what my character does next.

I agree with you.

I came up with a solution that works for me for this when designing my game Other Worlds. In that game, social conflicts are not about whether the character is persuaded about something. They are about whether the character is able to win the argument with the other person in a way that represents the social pressures inherent in such a situation.

So, if other people are there - maybe it's a formal audience with the King, a meeting of the different captains, or a carousing scene in a busy tavern - the roll determines whether in the eyes of those onlookers you won the argument. If it's just you and one other person, it's about maintaining a good relationship or reputation of friendliness/competence with that person. If you lost the dice roll and therefore the argument it doesn't mean you are persuaded by the merits of whatever the other person said, it means that social pressure is forcing you to go along with it. You can still do what you want - but there will now be consequences to not going along.

An example people might relate to is a work meeting where a change is proposed that you think will be counterproductive. Someone puts forward the argument in favour, you raise points against, and then there is discussion until it feels like one side has carried the debate (i.e. won the roll). You are on the losing side. 'No, we hear you about your concerns Crimson Longinus, but we will be careful and issue appropriate guidance, this will improve our numbers next quarter so it's agreed, we will do it'. In my game, your character would now get a flaw called something like 'Everyone Else Agreed to the Stupid Thing'.

Now, what can you do about that decision? You still think it's a bad idea. You can quit. You can refuse to implement the change in your own part of the office. You can try to get a do-over by raising it up the chain, getting more data, starting a petition, trying again next meeting, etc. But all of these are uphill battles because you already lost the argument. That initial persuasion success by the other side means that your new flaw 'Everyone Else Agreed to the Stupid Thing' will act as a penalty to you in your attempts to subvert or resist the change. You risk looking like a bad loser, being ostracised, missing promotion opportunities, getting disciplined, getting fired.

Or, you can just go along with it, and maybe mutter 'I told you so' when it all backfires on them a few months later.

So in a way the player's situation neatly mirrors the character's situation. You lost the argument but were not persuaded. Now you either accept that or you escalate things at a penalty in the hope of a do-over.

 

[TwoSix]

I've never thought that shizz like persuasion checks should work on PCs. It's antiethical to how I think RPGs work in terms of player control over their characters. If I want to persuade the PCs as the GM I need to persuade the players. Just my two cents.

It depends on the game. I'm more prone to want avatar-stance play in an OSR-style game focused on problem-solving, whereas I'm more interested in character portrayal (and letting the resolution engine guide that portrayal) in something like a Pendragon or a PbtA game.

I mean, this isn't some new play style division; I can remember complaints about Willpower checks forcing characters into choices their players didn't like in games like Vampire back in the '90s.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, this isn't some new play style division; I can remember complaints about Willpower checks forcing characters into choices their players didn't like in games like Vampire back in the '90s.

These were my first experiences of this sort of thing and I intensely disliked it even back then.

The thing is, when I roleplay, I run (or at least try to run) a mental model of my character. And one of the worst immersion killers for me is when the mechanics and my inner model of the character disagree. When Emilia Clarke was given the script of the GoT ending she was shocked and distraught as she did not believe Daenerys would behave that way. Her mental conception of the character and the script disagreed. It took her several weeks to come to terms with it. That's how it feels to me when the mechanics say my character would react in certain way even though I feel they wouldn't. And in a game I don't have weeks to prepare for it... nor am I paid millions to play this character despite of my discomfort.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, basically frame tests of character as true judgment calls, exactly like what I said. A choice has to be made two or more options of moral weight.

I'm talking about tests of temptation or will, things like "Can my character be goaded into a fight?" or "Will I resist a bribe?" or "Can I be charmed by a skilled manipulator"? Places where the right choice as a player are obvious, but a character in a story might make substandard decisions.

That's what I want to see. Players making substandard decisions for their characters because that's what meets setting logic.

 

[Fenris-77]

It depends on the game. I'm more prone to want avatar-stance play in an OSR-style game focused on problem-solving, whereas I'm more interested in character portrayal (and letting the resolution engine guide that portrayal) in something like a Pendragon or a PbtA game.

I mean, this isn't some new play style division; I can remember complaints about Willpower checks forcing characters into choices their players didn't like in games like Vampire back in the '90s.

I wasn't really indexing avatar-stance specifically, but something more general. I wouldn't extend my dislike to Willpower in VtM for example, as that is something the player has some control over.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's what I want to see. Players making substandard decisions for their characters because that's what meets setting logic.

Yeah, me too. Thus I as a player make such decisions. Simple.

But also, the GM can portray situations so that the obvious answer is less clear. Like being goaded into a fight; do I really want that all the onlookers think my character is a coward and back down? Such reputation might matter later. Or the bribe; make it something that is actually tempting, a magic item that would be very useful to the character etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with you.

I came up with a solution that works for me for this when designing my game Other Worlds. In that game, social conflicts are not about whether the character is persuaded about something. They are about whether the character is able to win the argument with the other person in a way that represents the social pressures inherent in such a situation.

So, if other people are there - maybe it's a formal audience with the King, a meeting of the different captains, or a carousing scene in a busy tavern - the roll determines whether in the eyes of those onlookers you won the argument. If it's just you and one other person, it's about maintaining a good relationship or reputation of friendliness/competence with that person. If you lost the dice roll and therefore the argument it doesn't mean you are persuaded by the merits of whatever the other person said, it means that social pressure is forcing you to go along with it. You can still do what you want - but there will now be consequences to not going along.

An example people might relate to is a work meeting where a change is proposed that you think will be counterproductive. Someone puts forward the argument in favour, you raise points against, and then there is discussion until it feels like one side has carried the debate (i.e. won the roll). You are on the losing side. 'No, we hear you about your concerns Crimson Longinus, but we will be careful and issue appropriate guidance, this will improve our numbers next quarter so it's agreed, we will do it'. In my game, your character would now get a flaw called something like 'Everyone Else Agreed to the Stupid Thing'.

Now, what can you do about that decision? You still think it's a bad idea. You can quit. You can refuse to implement the change in your own part of the office. You can try to get a do-over by raising it up the chain, getting more data, starting a petition, trying again next meeting, etc. But all of these are uphill battles because you already lost the argument. That initial persuasion success by the other side means that your new flaw 'Everyone Else Agreed to the Stupid Thing' will act as a penalty to you in your attempts to subvert or resist the change. You risk looking like a bad loser, being ostracised, missing promotion opportunities, getting disciplined, getting fired.

Or, you can just go along with it, and maybe mutter 'I told you so' when it all backfires on them a few months later.

So in a way the player's situation neatly mirrors the character's situation. You lost the argument but were not persuaded. Now you either accept that or you escalate things at a penalty in the hope of a do-over.

There you go. Mechanical effects of social skills on PCs. I like it. Like I said, I'm just looking for some kind of affect on both sides. It doesn't have to be presented exactly the same way mechanically. Actually, you could as the GM impose these kinds of consequences on NPCs who are affected by PC social skills instead of just having them capitulate, if that makes sense.

Do you have a document or some formal rules detailing this @soviet ?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, me too. Thus I as a player make such decisions. Simple.

But also, the GM can portray situations so that the obvious answer is less clear. Like being goaded into a fight; do I really want that all the onlookers think my character is a coward and back down? Such reputation might matter later. Or the bribe; make it something that is actually tempting, a magic item that would be very useful to the character etc.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of Players that wouldn't, especially if the consequences are negative for their PC. Mechanics help mitigate that tendency.

And the carrot isn't always a logical means of persuasion. Sometimes the stick makes sense.