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

[Bill Zebub]

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

Yes. Based on what you write it seems like you just enjoy that approach more, instead of having to offer a reason why it's necessary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

But what is “it”? Is this the way you play D&D? Is it an example from anyone’s actual game?

As far as I can tell, you’re describing something that no one does and saying it’s bad.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

You know what’s terrible? When D&D combat… with all its options and different class roles and abilities… is resolved with a coin flip. It just doesn’t take any of the characters’ abilities or agency into consideration.

I know no one does that, but I wish they wouldn’t!

 

[Maxperson]

But what is “it”? Is this the way you play D&D? Is it an example from anyone’s actual game?

It's an example from nearly every D&D game. When I roleplay an interaction with an NPC, any subsequent persuasion check takes nothing of his background, my PC's background, my character's private motivations, etc. into account.

At BEST, it deals with the current roleplay and any prior interactions into account, except it doesn't even do that. The actual roll only takes CHA bonus and proficiency/expertise into account. I could literally roleplay 30,000 different interactions between myself and that NPC, and the roll would be exactly the same.

 

[Maxperson]

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).

That's less horrible, but it would still ideas onto my character that are not there. Harder to swallow convictions are something I sometimes decide for my PCs, but sometimes the situation doesn't do that. If it's forced, it's still dictating to me what my character thinks and feels, which is loss of agency. It's just not a 100% loss of agency.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You know what’s terrible? When D&D combat… with all its options and different class roles and abilities… is resolved with a coin flip. It just doesn’t take any of the characters’ abilities or agency into consideration.

I know no one does that, but I wish they wouldn’t!

We should probably make sure the rules prevent it from ever happening, just to be safe.

 

[soviet]

You know what’s terrible? When D&D combat… with all its options and different class roles and abilities… is resolved with a coin flip. It just doesn’t take any of the characters’ abilities or agency into consideration.

I know no one does that, but I wish they wouldn’t!

The thing I hate about 5e is where the GM has to physically punch you every session.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's an example from nearly every D&D game. When I roleplay an interaction with an NPC, any subsequent persuasion check takes nothing of his background, my PC's background, my character's private motivations, etc. into account.

At BEST, it deals with the current roleplay and any prior interactions into account, except it doesn't even do that. The actual roll only takes CHA bonus and proficiency/expertise into account. I could literally roleplay 30,000 different interactions between myself and that NPC, and the roll would be exactly the same.

Well, I thought we were talking about such checks dictating how PCs behave… the major thrust of your argument is about how you know and understand the character better than any mechanical process could replicate. So I don’t think what you’re describing really addresses that in any way.

As for the Persuasion check example, I would expect that the GM would perhaps factor several of those things into theDC of the check, and whether or not to apply advantage or disadvantage to the roll. If a GM literally approached the DC and ad/disad the same way for all 30,000 different permutations of the conversation, I’d say that’s poor GMing. Or, perhaps, the consequence of such a limited system.

I don’t think your concern expressed here even really applies to D&D, let alone other RPGs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's less horrible, but it would still ideas onto my character that are not there. Harder to swallow convictions are something I sometimes decide for my PCs, but sometimes the situation doesn't do that. If it's forced, it's still dictating to me what my character thinks and feels, which is loss of agency. It's just not a 100% loss of agency.

Do you need 100% agency to enjoy the game? Fair enough but that's just another subjective preference.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you need 100% agency to enjoy the game? Fair enough but that's just another subjective preference.

Outside of where it makes sense, like magic and supernatural abilities, yes. I don't want a game or dice to tell me what my character thinks, feels, or does.