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

[Bill Zebub]

And my reaction as always is "If I wanted to only play characters that can do what I can, I'd be LARPing." (Though that's probably even unfair to LARPing).

Edit: That was a little blithe and snarky on my part. But it still adds up to "If you're not good at judging liars, and/or the GM isn't good at properly displaying tells, good luck." Which seems at least as poor a play cycle as being dependent on die rolls.

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.

At the end of the day, they really just think they know; they don't actually know. And uncertainty is good.

And, for those who like simulation, that's how the world really works. We think we know somebody is lying or telling the truth, but we don't really know.

 

[bsss]

At the end of the day, they really just think they know; they don't actually know. And uncertainty is good.

But would you not agree that addressing the uncertainty --- where play proceeds down one path or the other --- by having the players read into your performance of the liar/truth-teller is at least coming to the same "think they know or not know" decision point as if they made Sense Motive checks? They go down a branch in the story either way, is how I see it, without the need for the GM to be a good performer.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But would you not agree that addressing the uncertainty --- where play proceeds down one path or the other --- by having the players read into your performance of the liar/truth-teller is at least coming to the same "think they know or not know" decision point as if they made Sense Motive checks? They go down a branch in the story either way, is how I see it, without the need for the GM to be a good performer.

Sure, but in my opinion "roll dice and do what they tell you regardless of what you believe" is the less fun way to choose a branch. I feel like I'm just playing a board game at that point.

This is really the same disagreement as the trolls-and-fire question (and a bunch of other debated points). Personally I don't think it's any fun to pretend I don't know about trolls and fire. That will never, ever replicate the experience I first had playing D&D 40 years ago when the troll wasn't dying and I was genuinely afraid for my character.*

Other people feel very, very differently about this, of course. They think the very definition of roleplaying is to perform the character as you believe they would act, and if you are unsure then to roll dice to see what they would do.


*Caveat: if there is a new player at the table who doesn't know about trolls and fire, then I will play along and act clueless so that the new person can have that awesome experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

At the end of the day, they really just think they know; they don't actually know. And uncertainty is good.

And, for those who like simulation, that's how the world really works. We think we know somebody is lying or telling the truth, but we don't really know.

Right, but the character thinks that in an RPG, based on the input from the setting they receive, not the player.

And your plot point comment only works if you're trying to tell a specific story. Obvious we don't all do that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Right, but the character thinks that in an RPG, based on the input from the setting they receive, not the player.

Only if your play loop is that the dice roll determines what the character thinks. If your play loop is that the player determines what the character thinks,* then the above statement is false.

* In before, "But what about CHEATERS?!!?!?!"

And your plot point comment only works if you're trying to tell a specific story. Obvious we don't all do that.

False. Or, you are misunderstanding me.

If the GM thinks its really important that the players believe a lie, it's because they are trying to protect their plot/story. I'm saying the opposite: if they don't believe my NPC and do something unexpected....well, /shrug.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Only if your play loop is that the dice roll determines what the character thinks. If your play loop is that the player determines what the character thinks,* then the above statement is false.

* In before, "But what about CHEATERS?!!?!?!"

Then why are there rules about determining motives, or interacting socially with other characters at all, if the players can just override the results if they don't agree?

False. Or, you are misunderstanding me.

If the GM thinks its really important that the players believe a lie, it's because they are trying to protect their plot/story. I'm saying the opposite: if they don't believe my NPC and do something unexpected....well, /shrug.

If I want the characters to believe a lie, it's because none of them saw through it, using the rules of the setting in which we are playing. It has nothing to do with "plot points" on either side of the screen.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Then why are there rules about determining motives, or interacting socially with other characters at all, if the players can just override the results if they don't agree?

Well, the first question is "which game?"

But assuming we are talking about D&D 5e, it requires extrapolation and ignoring counter-evidence (especially the part where it says that players make decisions for their characters) to conclude that NPCs can "use social skills" to force PCs to believe things. I challenge you to show me otherwise. Give me a direct, clear quote and I'll start a whole thread acknowledging the error of my ways.

If I want the characters to believe a lie, it's because none of them saw through it, using the rules of the setting in which we are playing. It has nothing to do with "plot points" on either side of the screen.

Then you should play those characters instead of letting other people play them.

Sometimes I want my characters to believe lies, too, in which case that's how I declare my actions. When somebody else is playing the characters, though, then I trust them to make their own decisions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then why are there rules about determining motives, or interacting socially with other characters at all, if the players can just override the results if they don't agree?

They can give information on which the players can base their decisions if they want and they can be used to determine the reactions of NPCs which serve a different role in the game than the PCs.

If I want the characters to believe a lie, it's because none of them saw through it, using the rules of the setting in which we are playing. It has nothing to do with "plot points" on either side of the screen.

Ultimately if the rules decide what the PCs think then the players are not needed.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, the first question is "which game?"

But assuming we are talking about D&D 5e, it requires extrapolation and ignoring counter-evidence (especially the part where it says that players make decisions for their characters) to conclude that NPCs can "use social skills" to force PCs to believe things. I challenge you to show me otherwise. Give me a direct, clear quote and I'll start a whole thread acknowledging the error of my ways.



Then you should play those characters instead of letting other people play them.

Sometimes I want my characters to believe lies, too, in which case that's how I declare my actions. When somebody else is playing the characters, though, then I trust them to make their own decisions.

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.

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.

 

[jolt]

I think there's also a difference between railroading and an adventure just being linear. Most dungeons are going to be linear - you go in, clear out the rooms, and then fight BBEG. There aren't a lot of decisions to be made. If the GM says, "I'm going to run the Tomb of Horrors next week" then bring a character that you don't mind sending in there. That, in and of itself, isn't railroading. What is railroading is when your group had previously been engaged in a taut political thriller and, no matter what you do and without warning, you end up in the Tomb of Horrors.