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

bsss · 2026-03-03T18:41:37+0000

CreamCloud0 said:
you can't tell me someone who 'would just as soon stick a knife in the orc's head as talk to it' would let themselves get to the point of being face to face already in group negotiations before they raise an objection to the scenario? if their character really had such an issue it should've come up long before we were able to get to this point, either that or they don't actually object to orcs as much as they claim they do and the player just doesn't want to go down that narrative path.

So your approach is to assume bad faith by the player and force them into situations that fit the way you think they should be playing? Interpret a dismissive comment over-literally and go "you said this, so I rule that you aren't there or you kill all orcs on sight until you admit you were wrong"? There's no conceivable reason for the character to choose neither option, combat nor caring about the orc's plea, it has to be a binary?

TwoSix · 2026-03-03T18:44:09+0000

Crimson Longinus said:
"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.

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.

AnotherGuy · 2026-03-03T18:45:23+0000

bsss said:
If opting out is a choice and comes with no negative consequences vs. risking it to a roll and potentially getting negative consequences (or opting in to negative consequences by choosing to fail the roll???), what's the point of all of this trivia? If the players want to be surprised, roll the check or flip a coin and let the other players play their characters as they see fit. I cannot understand the depth of this simulation as a solution to a problem.

I'm running a homebrew reverse Skill Challenge.
If the PC decides to be auto persuaded they give a success in terms of the Skill Challenge to the Orc (NPC).
Suceeding against the NPCs persuasion protects the PC against situation/mechanical advantages
Failure does the inverse.

I had posted the whole system here like a madman, but it would serve no purpose to someone who simply wanted to freestyle their social encounters. So I removed it.

AnotherGuy · 2026-03-03T18:53:58+0000

Maxperson said:
It kills it, because my character who despises orcs and all they stand for, and would just as soon stick a knife in the orc's head as talk to it, has to successfully resist with a roll or be persuaded by a teary eyed orc. There would be no chance of that orc's success with my character, yet I still have to roll or be persuaded to do something my character would never do.

Right so like I said, you still play your PC.
Given your backstory or TIBF's the orc gains disadvantage on their persuasion check.
Should they still succeed the skill check, it doesn't mean you are ready to marry and seed a lady orc. It means in that brief moment, the eloquence of the words, the vocabulary used, the intelligence of the argument, the empahty displayed, the movement of your companions etc or combination thereof gave you pause.
For that brief moment, maybe he wasn't just an orc.

I find the above a much more interesting encounter, than rawr-rawr I hate orcs level 1- level 20, I stab them in the head every chance I get.

Fenris-77 · 2026-03-03T18:58:25+0000

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.

Bill Zebub · 2026-03-03T19:04:49+0000

Fenris-77 said:
If I want to persuade the PCs as the GM I need to persuade the players. Just my two cents.

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.

CreamCloud0 · 2026-03-03T19:05:55+0000

Bill Zebub said:
Ah, more "I know what this character would do in this situation...."

Years ago, in a related discussion, somebody (who shall remain nameless) used the phrase "...what a wood elf would do". That has always bothered me. Who decides what a wood elf would do? Do all wood elves do the same thing? Why would anybody want to play a typical wood elf? Does the phrase "what a human would do" even make any sense?

bsss said:
So your approach is to assume bad faith by the player and force them into situations that fit the way you think they should be playing? Interpret a dismissive comment over-literally and go "you said this, so I rule that you aren't there or you kill all orcs on sight until you admit you were wrong"? There's no conceivable reason for the character to choose neither option, combat nor caring about the orc's plea, it has to be a binary?

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.

AnotherGuy · 2026-03-03T19:06:08+0000

Fenris-77 said:
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.

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.

Bill Zebub · 2026-03-03T19:07:22+0000

CreamCloud0 said:
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.

My apologies: I responded even though the person you are responding to I have blocked, so I didn't have the full context. My bad.

Fenris-77 · 2026-03-03T19:07:56+0000

Bill Zebub said:
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.

I have no interest in making players roleplay basic skills deployed by NPCs like that. In a lot of games there are enough other magical/tech options that will force them. IDK, maybe I'm just old? It's just not how I play.