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

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I think this is another version of what I was just saying: it is possible to have the outcome of the social interaction modify the game state, without any expectation of how the PCs are "supposed" to respond to that changed game state. But if they take actions that aren't aligned with that state it may prove more challenging than otherwise.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this is another version of what I was just saying: it is possible to have the outcome of the social interaction modify the game state, without any expectation of how the PCs are "supposed" to respond to that changed game state. But if they take actions that aren't aligned with that state it may prove more challenging than otherwise.

I like @soviet 's version because it's actually a rule. That has more teeth IMO than just suggesting there may be a consequence for ignoring the social circumstances.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I like @soviet 's version because it's actually a rule. That has more teeth IMO than just suggesting there may be a consequence for ignoring the social circumstances.

Hmm. It doesn't read like a rule. A rule, in my mind, would be that the game has reputation ratings, and defying the outcome would cost you X points. Or something like that.

And I'm proposing something more concrete than "there may be a consequence...". I don't think it necessarily needs to be spelled out ahead of time, however. It's more about training the players that when the Orc Chieftain is described as intimidating there is a reason for it that probably shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hmm. It doesn't read like a rule. A rule, in my mind, would be that the game has reputation ratings, and defying the outcome would cost you X points. Or something like that.

And I'm proposing something more concrete than "there may be a consequence...". I don't think it necessarily needs to be spelled out ahead of time, however. It's more about training the players that when the Orc Chieftain is described as intimidating there is a reason for it that probably shouldn't be ignored.

If it's not spelled out (at least with a list of possible mechanical consequences), then IMO it's not concrete. It's advice. @soviet 's presentation suggested that such rules exist in their game, even if we don't see the specifics. To me, yours read like advice to the GM.

 

[bsss]

I did wonder aloud about games that might treat in such social points in a different thread, and soviet's idea is an interesting one in the vicinity at least. I don't have a read on it in terms of rule vs. advice, and maybe that's a good thing (for my current preference) that I don't find it clearly a rule.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If it's not spelled out (at least with a list of possible mechanical consequences), then IMO it's not concrete. It's advice. @soviet 's presentation suggested that such rules exist in their game, even if we don't see the specifics. To me, yours read like advice to the GM.

Yeah, and the more I think about it, the more I don't think it should be a rule.

Take my example of something sparkling at the bottom of the pool. There doesn't need to be a "rule" of what the consequence will be if you ignore it: players learn over time that if the GM calls attention to an element of the environment, it's important.

Likewise with the persuasive minister or the intimidating orc or the deceptive shopkeeper: those are signals that the players might want to take those characteristics as meaningful.

YMMV, as always.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, and the more I think about it, the more I don't think it should be a rule.

Take my example of something sparkling at the bottom of the pool. There doesn't need to be a "rule" of what the consequence will be if you ignore it: players learn over time that if the GM calls attention to an element of the environment, it's important.

Likewise with the persuasive minister or the intimidating orc or the deceptive shopkeeper: those are signals that the players might want to take those characteristics as meaningful.

YMMV, as always.

Not a great example IMO. What would be the mechanic consequence of ignoring a glimmer at the bottom of the lake? Maybe a combat or exploration encounter (if anything at all), which is already covered under the existing rules. Social consequences are where the issue is.

 

[bsss]

okay you both missed the actual point of my message, it's not about 'your character wouldn't do that', it's that Maxperson's argument itself about 'my orc hating zealot will never negotiate with orcs you're destroying my agency by making them accede to the persuasion check' is a flawed strawman designed to inherently reject the presented scenario because such a character who hates orcs with such a burning passion should never have gotten into negotiations where such a persuasion check is being made.

Whether or not you consider his orc-murdering PC a "strawman" doesn't have a bearing on advocating for player agency, is my point. If you would approach a non-"strawman" with the same "well, you're in the social encounter, so your character must abide by these possible Persuasion check outcomes", it's just lack of agency with a blame game attached. That is, unless you mean to say it is possible for the player to reject the Persuasion check's results for "my character doesn't care about the orc's excuses" reasons, just not this particular reason.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not a great example IMO. What would be the mechanic consequence of ignoring a glimmer at the bottom of the lake? Maybe a combat or exploration encounter (if anything at all), which is already covered under the existing rules. Social consequences are where the issue is.

Maybe it's a key that you'll need/want in the future?

The point is only that players know, "I shouldn't just ignore that signal."

 

[soviet]

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 ?

I published it here: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/97631/other-worlds