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

[Bill Zebub]

Clearly this approach has to have limits, though. If a monster has, say, a fear aura, as a player it is your agreement to acknowledge it and have your character act within those bounds if they are hit by it. You can't (within agreeable play) go "nah, I'm not terrified, so my character doesn't take that penalty". That's incoherent with the nature of the game. An absurd example would be saying "well, I know that I don't die in real life because my character took damage, so it's pretend and I ignore it". So why does a skill-based rule in the same book as fear auras and hp get to be vetoed?

Of course, if Intimidate is not a thing that exists as a general rule for NPCs or an ability of the orc, the answer to the question is plainly no. So within many ststems, the skill-centric reading here is irrelevant. However, if that was a rule that existed, the player is expected to play their character within that "contract".

"Because magic."

If there is a rule in the game that overrides the basic premise that players make their own decisions, it needs to be clearly defined. A "fear" spell (or aura) must have such a definition. "The affected character must move directly away..." etc. etc.

The Intimidation skill has no such definition. I would be totally ok with a character class or monster having an ability called "Intimidation" that defined how it works (even if non-magical). I'm not ok with a player or GM announcing, "I use Intimidation" and expecting it be magic mind control.

As for players saying they control their character's thoughts, and "I'm not frightened" that's fine. But your body is going to be moving in a line directly away from the caster, and your rolls are going to have Disadvantage (or whatever the effects are), because that's what the rules explicitly say.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Right. When the PC is trying to figure out whether a NPC is lying, the player doesn't usually know the answer either. Thus the player and character decision spaces are aligned, and the player can just inhabit the decision process of the character. However if the NPC is trying to figure out whether the PC is lying, the same process doesn't work, because the GM usually already knows whether the PC is lying! Thus it makes sense to let the mechanics inform that decisions, as the GM simply cannot genuinely try to sus it out like the player can. In general I am in favour of PC/NPC rule symmetry, but here using the rules differently is perfectly justified, as the information the participants have access to makes approaching it similarly impossible in the first place.

Exactly. Underlying all the social skills is uncertainty about intentions and capabilities but the asymmetry of information means the GM isn't really uncertain much of the time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

@CreamCloud0 What part of that earned me a frownie face?

I'm guessing it's the part about the player saying "my character isn't frightened" and the GM saying "ok but you still have to run away". Which I agree is....weird, and probably wouldn't happen. Anybody I have ever played with would play their character as frightened. But it doesn't really matter, unless we want to get our undies in a knot over what is going in another player's head. And I don't want to go there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, not at all. The character still has to implement the player's plans. If I come up with an idea that I think will persuade a guard, it's still my character who has to make the Charisma roll. If I come up with a brilliant plan to build a giant wooden horse and leave it in front of the Steading of the Hill Giants, the characters still have to build the thing (and hide inside, presumably.)

Likewise, I decide where to position my character to have the maximum effect in battle, but my character still has to swing the sword.

Well, that's all I'm recommending for.

There was a thread some time ago about whether an orc chieftain should be able to "use Intimidation" on PCs. My response was that if a GM wants my character to be intimidated by an orc chieftain, they should start designing monsters and encounters that are a real threat. If I don't know what the orc can do, but I know that fights are deadly serious in the game, then I'll be plenty intimidated, which means I'll play my characters that way. Which is much more fun than pretending to be intimidated.

That seems to be a critique directed at Intimidate as a skill in general, which I'll flat out say I don't buy into; there's a difference between "This situation/individual is intrinsically intimidating" and "This individual knows how to present themselves/what they're saying in an intimidating fashion even if they otherwise might not be" and if your position is that the second isn't real, we again part ways.

I play with asymmetry between PCs and NPCs (meaning that, for example, a PC can "use Intimidation" on an NPC, but not vice versa) because GMs have perfect information, players don't.

And to be clear, I don't find that a good idea. Obviously you do as you will in whatever game you run.

 

[Thomas Shey]

can you imagine the rage if GMs RP'd NPCs with anywhere near the same level of 'free will' against checks as the players do?
"but i rolled a 31 deception!?"
"yeah but they still decided they don't trust you and are going to have you arrested, because of their gut feelings."

Well, there are simply game systems and GMs that don't use social rolls at all. Not what I want, but they do have the virtue of relative consistency.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You don't roll persuasion against PCs in D&D 5e. That's not what it is for.

Are you under the impression I care about what D&D 5e does here (or really anywhere)?

And as the thread is about railroading, the GM controlling the PCs via social skills of the NPCs certainly counts as such.

In regard to what I'm talking about (note my "thumb on the scale" note upthread) only if your defintion of "controlling" is very broad. I'm talking about things like "They made a successful Intimidate roll; you can do what you want but you'll take a penalty on attacks at this point if you decide to get into it anyway". If that's "railroading" to you I really don't know what to say.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Exactly. Underlying all the social skills is uncertainty about intentions and capabilities but the asymmetry of information means the GM isn't really uncertain much of the time.

On the other hand the GM is expected to do a lot of firewalling of NPC intentions and his awareness anyway, and if he can't do that this isn't going to be the only place there are problems.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That seems to be a critique directed at Intimidate as a skill in general, which I'll flat out say I don't buy into; there's a difference between "This situation/individual is intrinsically intimidating" and "This individual knows how to present themselves/what they're saying in an intimidating fashion even if they otherwise might not be" and if your position is that the second isn't real, we again part ways.

What do you mean by "real"? I'm all for the GM roleplaying the orc chieftain as ferocious and, well, intimidating. Maybe describing how various NPCs, including both his own allies and maybe some henchman of the NPCs, cringe and cower.

But are you suggesting there is a certain way the players are supposed to "play along" the result of the NPCs Intimidation roll? And if they don't accept that they are wrong?

Imagine that the orc chieftain rolls a natural 20 on his Intimidation, and the players laugh at him. There are 3 ways this plays out:

1) The orc chieftain was bluffing. I guess the players were right, regardless of the roll.
2) The orc chieftain enrages and attacks with his followers. The players lose. Next time the GM describes an NPC as intimidating maybe they'll pay attention!
3) The orc chieftain enrages and attacks with his followers. The players win. I guess they were right to not be impressed.

In other words, other than assisting the GM in determining how to describe the environment, the roll doesn't need to have any impact on the players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What do you mean by "real"? I'm all for the GM roleplaying the orc chieftain as ferocious and, well, intimidating. Maybe describing how various NPCs, including both his own allies and maybe some henchman of the NPCs, cringe and cower.

That gets back to the "you can only get on the ride if you're this tall" approach, which is, if you can't properly do intimidating yourself, you don't get to play characters--or NPCs--that can. I think by now I've made it pretty clear where I stand on that.

But are you suggesting there is a certain way the players are supposed to "play along" the result of the NPCs Intimidation roll? And if they don't accept that they are wrong?

To a point? Yes. I don't insist on a particular way for them to act but I do expect acknowledgement that the intimidation was successful in some fashion.

Imagine that the orc chieftain rolls a natural 20 on his Intimidation, and the players laugh at him. There are 3 ways this plays out:

1) The orc chieftain was bluffing. I guess the players were right, regardless of the roll.

Except they weren't "right"; they were ignoring how it came across because they just didn't wanna.
.

In other words, other than assisting the GM in determining how to describe the environment, the roll doesn't need to have any impact on the players.

"Need to" is in the eye of the beholder. Like I said, I think I've made my position clear.

 

[CreamCloud0]

@CreamCloud0 What part of that earned me a frownie face?

I'm guessing it's the part about the player saying "my character isn't frightened" and the GM saying "ok but you still have to run away". Which I agree is....weird, and probably wouldn't happen. Anybody I have ever played with would play their character as frightened. But it doesn't really matter, unless we want to get our undies in a knot over what is going in another player's head. And I don't want to go there.

it was more that 'magic abilities have special privileges to influence characters in ways mundane skills can't'