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

[Maxperson]

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.

That doesn't change anything. So 12000 of them get advantage, 6000 get disadvantage, 8000 get a DC of 15, etc. It's still not dependent on any specific thing. The only thing that ultimately decides how my PC thinks or feels is d20+cha bonus+proficiency/expertise. There might be some specific beats general thing added to the mix, but those are not common.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You are generating a binary when I am asking about a spectrum (why do people keep doing that?). I am asking you if you require zero mechanical influence on your character in social situations in order for the game to be enjoyable for you. Not complete control outside magic, but rather some degree of influence on your actions based on the circumstances of the moment. If zero is your requirement, to me that does sound like the kind of avatar play @Thomas Shey referenced earlier.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

I'm afraid I have that poster blocked if they're who I think.

 

[bsss]

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.

Ignore my specific example, then, and let's place the game state on a different entity. The orc chieftain tries to explain his plight, you/your character (by yourself or by a roll, doesn't matter to me) tell him where he can stick his plight, and attack. Because the orc chieftain is incensed by your disregard for his opinion, he gets a +1 to attack you. Agreeable?

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Except it doesn't cover all the cases, and in all cases it doesn't actually motivate a player in any particular direction. Sometimes informational supply is all that's needed, but I'm unconvinced it covers the whole ground.

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.

And again, I don't think in all cases the player is up to doing that in a competent fashion, and his character shouldn't be heavily limited by his limits as a player. There needs to be something that needs to be put in there, but the player shouldn't be required to be the one to estimate what reasons the NPC will find compelling.

* 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.

And I'm not suggesting none of that in either case, but I suspect strongly I'm drawing the line in a quite different spot than you are.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You are generating a binary when I am asking about a spectrum (why do people keep doing that?). I am asking you if you require zero mechanical influence on your character in social situations in order for the game to be enjoyable for you. Not complete control outside magic, but rather some degree of influence on your actions based on the circumstances of the moment. If zero is your requirement, to me that does sound like the kind of avatar play @Thomas Shey referenced earlier.

More accurately I'd say it can easily drop into that. I suspect most people actually trying (who haven't convinced themselves that they're doing so when they aren't) will avoid that some of the time, but I doubt seriously they can do so consistently, and the less consistently they can, the more it becomes avatar play.

 

[TwoSix]

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

I demand hard-hitting roleplay.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except it doesn't cover all the cases, and in all cases it doesn't actually motivate a player in any particular direction. Sometimes informational supply is all that's needed, but I'm unconvinced it covers the whole ground.



And again, I don't think in all cases the player is up to doing that in a competent fashion, and his character shouldn't be heavily limited by his limits as a player. There needs to be something that needs to be put in there, but the player shouldn't be required to be the one to estimate what reasons the NPC will find compelling.



And I'm not suggesting none of that in either case, but I suspect strongly I'm drawing the line in a quite different spot than you are.

If the players are to have agency, they need to be able to make decisions that matter with their own brains. You cannot eliminate that and have a game. We are not here just watch how rules simulate characters we have no control over. If I want to do that, I can watch a move or read a book.

 

[Maxperson]

Ignore my specific example, then, and let's place the game state on a different entity. The orc chieftain tries to explain his plight, you/your character (by yourself or by a roll, doesn't matter to me) tell him where he can stick his plight, and attack. Because the orc chieftain is incensed by your disregard for his opinion, he gets a +1 to attack you. Agreeable?

Sure. That's fine.

 

[Maxperson]

You are generating a binary when I am asking about a spectrum (why do people keep doing that?). I am asking you if you require zero mechanical influence on your character in social situations in order for the game to be enjoyable for you. Not complete control outside magic, but rather some degree of influence on your actions based on the circumstances of the moment. If zero is your requirement, to me that does sound like the kind of avatar play @Thomas Shey referenced earlier.

Because that's what I'm okay with. Not zero. Zero mundane social mechanical control over my character's thoughts, feelings, and actions. Magical/Supernatural mechanical influence I'm okay with.

You aren't going to get a response other than that. I'm not going to give you a blanket zero influence or a blanket influence is okay, because neither of those two things are true.