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

[GrimCo]

You're conflating attempting to do things with things being allowed if they aren't explicitly forbidden by RAW. The former is fine. The latter doesn't exist in RPGs. At least not any that I've ever seen.

You can view it trough that lens also. You can do only what is explicitly stated in the rules. That's the way bureaucracy works. Problem is, there are bunch of very rules light systems that have very little rules. So, what is or isn't allowed is mostly up to table to decide.

You can tell the DM that you want to attempt to build a machine gun, even if the Top Secret rules don't allow it(don't know if they do). You can't just say that building one is allowed just because the rules don't forbid it.

Attempts can be made, but the allowance is up to the DM to admit whatever it is you are trying into the game. It's not assumed to be allowed unless the DM says no.

As an example, if I sit down at @Crimson Longinus's D&D table, I can't assume that my PC will be allowed to build the Starship Enterprise. I can ask him if he will allow it, but the default assumption isn't that it's allowed in his game just because the rules don't specifically say no.

Common sense and table courtesy applies. If you say you are building machine gun in game set in ancient Greek, that wouldn't be against rules ( if game in question doesn't have rules about it), but it would be considered poor form to do it. Same with building Enterprise in non Star Trek game. Although, some tables are cool with things with that.

Point is, when game doesn't have rules, it's up to table to make them once situation arises that is not covered by existing rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You can view it trough that lens also. You can do only what is explicitly stated in the rules. That's the way bureaucracy works. Problem is, there are bunch of very rules light systems that have very little rules. So, what is or isn't allowed is mostly up to table to decide.




Common sense and table courtesy applies. If you say you are building machine gun in game set in ancient Greek, that wouldn't be against rules ( if game in question doesn't have rules about it), but it would be considered poor form to do it. Same with building Enterprise in non Star Trek game. Although, some tables are cool with things with that.

Point is, when game doesn't have rules, it's up to table to make them once situation arises that is not covered by existing rules.

"Gunpowder" is often used for this hypothetical example. I see two general responses from groups who don't wish the game to go this way:

1. That's bad roleplaying and we're not going to let you do it.
2. Funny...after all that effort it seems that your formula doesn't actually work in this universe...

 

[Maxperson]

In any regard, being able to ignore social actions for out-of-setting reasons is a problem for me, spell or no spell.

I've never done that, though. When I ignore something, it's because it's what my character would do. Otherwise I wouldn't ignore it.

 

[Maxperson]

I read them. I just found them unsatisfying if you believe the reverse is true.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how satisfying you find them. They are in fact proof that it's not mind control. Mind control doesn't allow for the DM and players to just decide that a social interaction has no effect on NPCs and PCs. The reality of our explanation does allow for the DM or player to say yes or no without a roll, and therefore is objectively not mind control.

 

[Maxperson]

What reasons though? I would want both sides to do it for in-character reasons, but I've seen to many folks on both sides of the screen use Player self-interest as their motivator instead.

Both sides do do it. For what reasons? Lots of them. It will vary depending on the PC or NPC.

Can you persuade an ultra greedy NPC merchant to give you stuff for free? No. Why? Because of the in-setting reason that the merchant is super greedy. There no amount of persuasion that can work. Can you persuade the same merchant to give you a 5% discount? Maybe. If you can explain how he will make a lot more money by doing it, then you are likely to succeed. Make a persuasion check.

Can you persuade my PC to let the orc prisoner go free? No. Not a chance. He despises orcs and would just as soon stab one in the eye than even talk to it. He's not going to let it go. Can you persuade him not to murder the orc, but turn it in to the authorities? Maybe. Make your argument and I will decide if it's good enough to overcome his in-setting hatred of orcs.

What other people do doesn't matter. It's entirely irrelevant if that table over there uses self-interest instead of in-setting reasons. That's not a reason to change social skills. Your table and mine aren't bothered in the slightest by their decision to allow self-interest to be king.

 

[Maxperson]

You can view it trough that lens also. You can do only what is explicitly stated in the rules. That's the way bureaucracy works. Problem is, there are bunch of very rules light systems that have very little rules. So, what is or isn't allowed is mostly up to table to decide.

You still don't seem to be understanding. So let's keep it all in genre. We're playing 5e D&D and my fighter wants to call on the god of death to intervene in this fight and cause my enemy to die.

The rules don't allow that. Divine Intervention is a cleric ability. However, the rules also don't forbid it. By your argument, since it's not forbidden, it's allowed and he can do it. By my argument it's not allowed, but the player can ask and see if the DM will allow it.

The default state of everything not written as allowed is that it's not allowed unless the DM, DM and table, or table(depending on game and rules), says that it is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree that I don't like how this feels like "the dice decide" here, and there's also a meta-agency problem exposed there in that scenario that I think is hard to come to terms with: each member of the party individually sets a DC based on their stats, and I guess that means the orc's Persuasion check may succeed on, say, half of the party. The "Success" flow on those rolls is resolved, and... what happens next? What about the characters where the Persuasion roll failed? Are they forced into the deescalation path because half the party was Persuaded? Or do they fight the orc alone as the other characters are convicted in their deescalation? Do the still-escalated characters rush in and that convinces the deescalated to join the battle? Or do the players go back to the rest of the table with "crap, guys, what are we going to do?", negating the point of the Persuasion roll entirely?

Isn't this sort of thing potentially a problem anytime party members have radically different views about what to do, no matter how they arrived at those?

 

[Thomas Shey]

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."

And I'd respond "Not everyone wants to do avatar or token play."

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Oh, that could be applied to most regular posters (certainly me)...

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'll note that I've mentioned in the upcoming Eclipse Phase 2e game that I'm getting ready to run that people can set their own modifiers to social skill success directed at their characters. I'm admittedly reserving the right to consider it possible, but then as I've noted, I don't necessarily expect the result to force a particular set of actions.