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

[AnotherGuy]

So why should social interaction telegraphs be any different?

Who said they should?
I provided an idea of how one can use skills such as Persuasion and Intimidation by NPCs.

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.

Again with should.

Why does the internal state of mind matter?

At our table
In a combat encounter, the state of one's health matters.
In a social encounter, the state of one's emotional condition matters.

Characters in our game have many traits, bonds, ideals and flaws.
These can be leveraged by player and DM to create uncomfortable situations for the character, and in so doing earn the character XP.

Our playstyle places a heavier emphasis on the character's internal state of mind for roleplaying purposes.
Combat is great and all but so is the exploration of a character's psyche.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But with this I cannot disagree more. I want my characters to put in situations which test their convictions, which force them to make hard decisions. But I want actually to be able to make that decision, or it seems utterly pointless to me.

We do this too.
I may use an applicable character's Trait, Ideal, Bond, Flaw for a specific situation and offer an XP for the character to lean into that TIBF. This actually tests the mettle of that character.
In time, a player may change a particular Trait, Ideal, Bond or Flaw...which is seen as character growth.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I leave it to a die roll, there is no struggle. None at all. Some 20 sided die made the decision independent of the character, taking absolutely nothing into consideration about who he is.

This is because what you’re describing isn’t an example of thoughtful design. You’re just kind of taking an instance of D&D play and then supposing “a dice roll is made to decide it”. But that’s not the way D&D works, nor is it the way games that do incorporate these things into play work, either.

Games that do this sort of thing don’t just insert dice rolls with little to no thought about how they interact with character and system. They are, in my experience, thoughtfully designed and thoughtfully applied, and usually lead to very character focused play.

So your summation that “a d20 decided” and that it “takes nothing into consideration about who the character is” is accurate only in reference to your hypothetical process which no one uses.

As far as actual games that incorporate this kind of element, it’s wildly inaccurate.

 

[Maxperson]

This is because what you’re describing isn’t an example of thoughtful design. You’re just kind of taking an instance of D&D play and then supposing “a dice roll is made to decide it”. But that’s not the way D&D works, nor is it the way games that do incorporate these things into play work, either.

Games that do this sort of thing don’t just insert dice rolls with little to no thought about how they interact with character and system. They are, in my experience, thoughtfully designed and thoughtfully applied, and usually lead to very character focused play.

So your summation that “a d20 decided” and that it “takes nothing into consideration about who the character is” is accurate only in reference to your hypothetical process which no one uses.

As far as actual games that incorporate this kind of element, it’s wildly inaccurate.

Sure. It takes persuasion vs. DC into account. All the roleplay leading up to it doesn't affect the die roll or the mechanics at all. The roll itself takes nothing into account by the mechanic being rolled.

 

[Maxperson]

How would you feel about the "thumb on the scale" theory, like what @Thomas Shey was talking about, or @soviet 's idea?

I can't see soviet's posts, and all I see regarding Thumb on the Scale by @Thomas Shey is post 1463, but he doesn't explain what it is there. What exactly is thumb on the scale theory?

 

[bsss]

I can't see soviet's posts, and all I see regarding Thumb on the Scale by @Thomas Shey is post 1463, but he doesn't explain what it is there. What exactly is thumb on the scale theory?

A general space of approaches to game play where the outcome of a social encounter or social rolls is not a "here is how you act" conclusion, but instead a "the game state is now that a course of action is easier/harder than others". soviet gave a specific implementation where losing the "argument" manifested as a character flaw that served as a penalty to future engagement on the topic, others (myself included) have permitted or advocated for something a bit more general but in the same vein, where the social encounter affects the game world in an ad hoc rulings way where possible actions are no longer on equal footing (because some may now be harder than others, say).

The "scale" is weighing courses of action, the "thumb" is the GM using the social roll results to make some lighter than others, without getting into "taking control" territory.

e.g. your character could still react to the orc chieftain however you want even if you botch an attempt to not be persuaded by him, but his plight is somewhere pitiful to you, so it's a bit harder to follow your convictions (so apply an attack penalty or whatever).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can't see soviet's posts, and all I see regarding Thumb on the Scale by @Thomas Shey is post 1463, but he doesn't explain what it is there. What exactly is thumb on the scale theory?

I don't want to speak for @Thomas Shey , so I'll let him explain if he wants.

 

[pemerton]

Apparently...according to the argument I see...that creates a "minimum height to ride" constraint where GMs need some basic communication/acting/poker-face skills, and for some reason I don't fully understand that means all of us, even those who have those skills, should use dice.

Speaking for myself at least, this has nothing to do with why I play RPGs that include social resolution systems.

 

[pemerton]

This is because what you’re describing isn’t an example of thoughtful design. You’re just kind of taking an instance of D&D play and then supposing “a dice roll is made to decide it”.

<snip>

So your summation that “a d20 decided” and that it “takes nothing into consideration about who the character is” is accurate only in reference to your hypothetical process which no one uses.

There's been a lot of that in this thread - making up terrible (hypothetical) systems, then showing with great fanfare that they're terrible, as if that somehow tells us something about the actual RPGing that some actual RPGers are doing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's why I suggest thumb-on-the-scale options rather than take-control options.

And that's how this usually works and the the PC insight vs NPC deception example you opposed is such. The successful roll on the PC's part gives the player information which can help them to make the decision whether to believe the NPC, whereas failed roll doesn't give them that information. But in either case they still get to make that decision. The mechanic serves a purpose, it matters and it will inform the player decision making, it just doesn't force it.

Meanwhile when a PC tries to make an argument to influence the NPC, the player has to make the argument. They need to say what they try to convince the NPC about and give reasons why the NPC should comply. Then based oh how outrageous the demand is and how well the reasons match the NPCs beliefs and values* the GM sets a DC. Then the player makes a persuasion roll with their PCs skill.

* which may have been learned earlier in the conversation with combination of players skills and insight checks.

The PCs skills matter, but the player still has to use their own brains and make their own decisions. And if they wouldn't then the players would not be needed. And this is not unique to social situations. In D&D style combat the numbers and features on the character sheet certainly matter a lot, but the player still has to use their own brains to decide how to position, what spell or manoeuvre to use and on whom etc.