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

[Micah Sweet]

Like, in general (not in AnotherGuy's example above, where it's the orc rolling it)? I don't know, that's up to the GM. Maybe they're cool with one Persuasion check unraveling years of diplomacy or detente between tribes or whatever. That's not how I'd approach it, but it's their prerogative. There's a wide spectrum of success, which can be inexact, along the lines of what Bill Zebub said above.

"The DM has to believe it" also expands into the DM getting to call the shots on difficulty, so if they don't like it, they get to wave a magic wand and say this NPC is morally and ethically dedicated to their belief on the matter. (I argue that players largely have that same power, just different tools.) It's on the DM to use that power responsibly, of course.

For me, responsible use of that power is simply to have every NPC act according to their personality, capabilities, and knowledge, under the circumstances in the setting at the time. I would hope that the Players adhere to the same philosophy in regards to portraying their PCs, but I have a lot of anecdotal evidence that doesn't always happen.

 

[Bill Zebub]

New thought...

Some people might say, "You aren't allowed to use your own physical attributes to overcome physical challenges in the game, why should you be allowed to use your own mental attributes to overcome mental (or social) challenges?"

And I say, "Man I wish we had holo-decks so we wouldn't need any dice at all. But I'll take what I can get with mental and social challenges."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like I've said previously, if the player isn't sure what to do and wants help from the dice, they should by all means ask the GM to make a roll. Goose, gander, etc.

What if they are sure what to do, but what that is runs against what the PC would plausibly do, by the metrics I've outlined above? By your philosophy, there's nothing to stop the Player from just ignoring any social effect the Player doesn't like.

 

[Bill Zebub]

For me, responsible use of that power is simply to have every NPC act according to their personality, capabilities, and knowledge, under the circumstances in the setting at the time. I would hope that the Players adhere to the same philosophy in regards to portraying their PCs, but I have a lot of anecdotal evidence that doesn't always happen.

Does enforcing it through dice really fix what you want fixed, though?

Isn't that kind of like forcing a kid to apologize to their little brother, when of course they aren't actually sorry?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does enforcing it through dice really fix what you want fixed, though?

Isn't that kind of like forcing a kid to apologize to their little brother, when of course they aren't actually sorry?

Using dice helps people overcome their natural inclination to prioritize their own self-interest over what the character would plausibly do.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What if they are sure what to do, but what that is runs against what the PC would plausibly do, by the metrics I've outlined above? By your philosophy, there's nothing to stop the Player from just ignoring any social effect the Player doesn't like.

Literally anything is plausible...people do ALL KINDS of crazy, unexpected things. Sometimes those unexpected things signal the emergence of a long-latent personality trait (e.g. Bilbo going off with the dwarves) but sometimes it's just the circumstances. So I'm not sure that 'plausible' actually constrains the choices.

Look, I get it: some players will ignore the emerging story to do something optimal. A great example is when the party is split, and one group is listening to the other group get in trouble, and so they announce, "We go running back to join the others!"

That sends some people into conniptions of frothing anti-metagaming hysteria. And, sure, we all know that the real reason they are running off to join their friends is that the players, not the characters, know the other group is in trouble.

But...so what?

1. Coincidental stuff happens. There are all kinds of reasons that the characters (if they were real) might suddenly have decided to return. Sure, you could ask the players to name one of those reasons, but why even bother? (Unless they have a really good/funny one they want to offer.). This specific coincidence happens in stories and movies all the time. And it can make those stories better.
2. Wait...did they say they are running back? As in, not moving carefully and quietly? Oh, this is gonna be good....

In other words: I just don't worry at all about what is going on in other players heads and why they are declaring certain actions. It's all plausible, the GM has infinite dragons, and I just want everybody to have a good time.


edit: wow so many typos....

 

[Bill Zebub]

Using dice helps people overcome their natural inclination to prioritize their own self-interest over what the character would plausibly do.

Does it? Or does it cause them to work harder to deceive the GM?

 

[Bill Zebub]

134 pages in and one thing we've learned for sure is that @Micah Sweet and I both have too much free time.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO. In 5e the DM determines whether a PC even gets to make a persuasion check against an NPC and the DC and the results.

So as long as the player is given that power to determine whether an NOC even gets to make a persuasion check against the Pc and the DC and the precise results then I’m all for it.

But something tells me that’s not what those wanting persuasion checks against the PCs expect them to accomplish.

In a different game where the dm doesn’t get such a say, maybe I’d think differently but I’d need to understand she system in its entirety.

 

[Maxperson]

How is a successful Persuasion check by the PCs not "mind control"?

You should go back and read the many responses directly to you that explain just how it is not.