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

[Bill Zebub]

This is the way I look at it.

5e has a skill that can be used to read someone, and ideally identify if they're telling the truth. If the GM calls for that skill to be used to make that determination, then I obey the result of that check, and whatever stakes are assigned for success or failure. My mandate as a player is always to play the system as it is presented to me. My personal opinions on its design are not relevant when I agree to sit down and play.

Let's start with a basic premise: the player says, "Can I tell if the NPC is lying?" and the GM says, "Let me have a Wisdom(Insight) check...". Some people feel that the player should have to abide by the result.

But let's run a thought experiment: suppose the player says, "Eh, never mind." Do they still have to roll?

Or, what if the player never asks? What if the player just listens to the GM and nods. The GM might say, "Do you believe him?" And the player says, "Not sure." Should the player be forced to roll, anyway, because the GM wants to know what the player (and the character) are thinking? That doesn't make any sense to me.

This is why I think rolls should only be called for in response to an action declaration that has consequences.

So I could see the player saying, "I'm going to keep asking questions and see if I can get the NPC to contradict themselves, so that I know if they are lying." And the GM might say, "Um, ok, but I'll need a roll, and if you fail you are going to piss them off..."

That being said, I think having skills on the skill list that are inherently passive and perceptive is a bad idea. I don't like both Insight and Perception being skills, and I'm not a fan of gating providing actionable information for the players behind checks.

Totally agree, for the above reasons.

 

[TwoSix]

Let's start with a basic premise: the player says, "Can I tell if the NPC is lying?" and the GM says, "Let me have a Wisdom(Insight) check...". Some people feel that the player should have to abide by the result.

But let's run a thought experiment: suppose the player says, "Eh, never mind." Do they still have to roll?

Or, what if the player never asks? What if the player just listens to the GM and nods. The GM might say, "Do you believe him?" And the player says, "Not sure." Should the player be forced to roll, anyway, because the GM wants to know what the player (and the character) are thinking? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I would not call for a roll there, since the player is not asking to determine anything of consequence.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And my response is that there are some situations you might like to present in a movie or book that just don't work in RPGs. One of those is gating an important plot point behind the requirement that the players either believe or disbelieve an NPC. If I have an NPC lie to the players and they know I'm lying because I'm a bad liar....that's ok. Or if I'm having the NPC tell the truth and the players think I'm lying...that's ok, too.

And I don't think its okay that its completely disconnected by the abilities of the characters and instead based entirely around the abilities of the player and GM. So here we are.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And I don't think its okay that its completely disconnected by the abilities of the characters and instead based entirely around the abilities of the player and GM. So here we are.

I mean, it's the same issue as solving in-game puzzles, right? You either let the players actually solve them, or you roll dice and pretend that the puzzle has been solved. Potato, potato.

(I would never misspell the second 'potato' because that would suggest that one pronunciation is correct and the other is wrong...)