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

[bsss]

In my opinion, this is the part that makes it not a "magic abilities have special privileges" reading:

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.

1. a system can allow NPCs to have access to an Intimidate thing.
2. it can be magical or non-magical.
3. the effects of it must be defined in the rules.

I find all of that agreeable. My fear aura hypothetical is magic, it also gets a pass as it satisfies all of those conditions, as would "Orc Intimidate: the orc boasts about the skulls they've collected and adorned their armor with, which may remind characters of their own mortality in face of an imposing threat: a PC who fails at a X defense takes a blah blah blah penalty to attacks or their relationship blah blah blah drops five steps or whatever game thing exists".

Sometimes it's magic, sometimes it's not. What is not acceptable is "Orc Intimidate: the PC is intimidated; GM, play the character for a couple rounds" (the "mind control"), or even worse "[void in the rules, Orc Intimidate doesn't exist]" and the GM is just fishing for uncodified "mind control". Wrapping back around, what is acceptable is "[void in the rules, Orc Intimidate doesn't exist]" but the GM describes the skull thing and the player can react how they want.

That's how I read the post anyway.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Wait...what? There's some deep misunderstanding of what I'm saying here. The DM doesn't have to literally act intimidating. He can just say, in a very soft voice, "The orc chieftain growls threateningly at you, and all eight of his guards tremble in fear. Jim, your pet wolf also cowers and whimpers."

If the players are not intimidated by that, it is because the GM has taught them that his encounters are always winnable.

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.

What does "successful" mean, though? Does success describe how good of a show he puts on, regardless of how people respond to it? or does success mean how it is received. If the latter, I can't possibly see how that is determined by a single roll. There's a very popular politician who I should probably not name, and when he speaks approximately half the country thinks it is divinely inspired wisdom, and the other half thinks it is unintelligible garbage. And it's pretty much the same halves every time, so it's not a function of that politician's skill roll.

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

They were right. It was just a show, and they knew it.

I don't understand what is gained by forcing players to pretend to be intimidated by an adversary they believe doesn't pose a threat, when the GM...who has "infinite dragons", as the saying goes...can easily create a situation where the players will genuinely worry about their characters' safety* and act accordingly.

How is failing to design intimidating encounters and then requiring that players act intimidated not forcing a story upon the players?

*Caveat: if the players know that the GM always designs encounters that can be won, then it is going to be pretty hard to actually intimidate them. They might think, "Ok, he's describing a scary dragon but he always balances encounters, so clearly this dragon isn't really a threat..." So then we've got a situation where the players assume they can win every confrontation, so the solution is to roll dice and expect them to pretend to be intimidated, but it is entirely a problem of the GM's making.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In my opinion, this is the part that makes it not a "magic abilities have special privileges" reading:


1. a system can allow NPCs to have access to an Intimidate thing.
2. it can be magical or non-magical.
3. the effects of it must be defined in the rules.

I find all of that agreeable. My fear aura hypothetical is magic, it also gets a pass as it satisfies all of those conditions, as would "Orc Intimidate: the orc boasts about the skulls they've collected and adorned their armor with, which may remind characters of their own mortality in face of an imposing threat: a PC who fails at a X defense takes a blah blah blah penalty to attacks or their relationship blah blah blah drops five steps or whatever game thing exists".

Sometimes it's magic, sometimes it's not. What is not acceptable is "Orc Intimidate: the PC is intimidated; GM, play the character for a couple rounds" (the "mind control"), or even worse "[void in the rules, Orc Intimidate doesn't exist]" and the GM is just fishing for uncodified "mind control". Wrapping back around, what is acceptable is "[void in the rules, Orc Intimidate doesn't exist]" but the GM describes the skull thing and the player can react how they want.

That's how I read the post anyway.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

This is clarifying for me. If we were talking about D&D I would find that interpretation of the skill....the invention of that rule...a little squirrelly, but at least it's not constraining action declarations.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

Yeah, @bsss explained it well above:

In my opinion, this is the part that makes it not a "magic abilities have special privileges" reading:


1. a system can allow NPCs to have access to an Intimidate thing.
2. it can be magical or non-magical.
3. the effects of it must be defined in the rules.

I find all of that agreeable. My fear aura hypothetical is magic, it also gets a pass as it satisfies all of those conditions, as would "Orc Intimidate: the orc boasts about the skulls they've collected and adorned their armor with, which may remind characters of their own mortality in face of an imposing threat: a PC who fails at a X defense takes a blah blah blah penalty to attacks or their relationship blah blah blah drops five steps or whatever game thing exists".

Sometimes it's magic, sometimes it's not. What is not acceptable is "Orc Intimidate: the PC is intimidated; GM, play the character for a couple rounds" (the "mind control"), or even worse "[void in the rules, Orc Intimidate doesn't exist]" and the GM is just fishing for uncodified "mind control". Wrapping back around, what is acceptable is "[void in the rules, Orc Intimidate doesn't exist]" but the GM describes the skull thing and the player can react how they want.

That's how I read the post anyway.

It's not that "magic" abilities have special privileges, it's that exceptions to the rule that players decide what their characters think and say and do should be spelled out explicitly. The exceptions don't have to be "magical" they just tend to be (at least in a fantasy genre.)

EDIT: The effects also need to be explicit and mechanical. "Character can not move." "Character suffers disadvantage." Whatever. "The player must roleplay being intimidated" is far too vague to be useful.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yeah, @bsss explained it well above:

It's not that "magic" abilities have special privileges, it's that exceptions to the rule that players decide what their characters think and say and do should be spelled out explicitly. The exceptions don't have to be "magical" they just tend to be (at least in a fantasy genre.)

EDIT: The effects also need to be explicit and mechanical. "Character can not move." "Character suffers disadvantage." Whatever. "The player must roleplay being intimidated" is far too vague to be useful.

then i think all skills should have a good comprehensive list of spelled out uses, because otherwise what's the point of having them?

 

[Bill Zebub]

then i think all skills should have a good comprehensive list of spelled out uses...

You do you. Obviously I disagree.

because otherwise what's the point of having them?

Umm....for "resolving uncertainty when there's a negative consequence to failure for a declared action" I mean, it works pretty darned well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Wait...what? There's some deep misunderstanding of what I'm saying here. The DM doesn't have to literally act intimidating. He can just say, in a very soft voice, "The orc chieftain growls threateningly at you, and all eight of his guards tremble in fear. Jim, your pet wolf also cowers and whimpers."

If the players are not intimidated by that, it is because the GM has taught them that his encounters are always winnable.

It doesn't have to be him, and it doesn't have to be any specific reason beyond "Heroes are not intimidated".

What does "successful" mean, though?

It can be a lot of ways. It has to be some change in behavior though, and it probably shouldn't be to their advantage.

Does success describe how good of a show he puts on, regardless of how people respond to it? or does success mean how it is received.

A bit of both. Not specifically how its received, but that it has an impact that they don't just shrug off.

They were right. It was just a show, and they knew it.

I don't understand what is gained by forcing players to pretend to be intimidated by an adversary they believe doesn't pose a threat, when the GM...who has "infinite dragons", as the saying goes...can easily create a situation where the players will genuinely worry about their characters' safety* and act accordingly.

Because it demonstrates they've introduced doubt into them by their skill or how it happened to come out that time. If you don't see a value in that, you don't.

How is failing to design intimidating encounters and then requiring that players act intimidated not forcing a story upon the players?

Its forcing an effect on the players. If your definition of story is that broad, how is turning someone to stone not "forcing a story upon the players"? You're just drawing the line in a different spot.

*Caveat: if the players know that the GM always designs encounters that can be won, then it is going to be pretty hard to actually intimidate them. They might think, "Ok, he's describing a scary dragon but he always balances encounters, so clearly this dragon isn't really a threat..." So then we've got a situation where the players assume they can win every confrontation, so the solution is to roll dice and expect them to pretend to be intimidated, but it is entirely a problem of the GM's making.

Being balanced doesn't assure an encounter can be won. It makes it more likely, but the fix is not on in most systems, and in some its at best an educated guess. The more dice rolls actually matter, the less you can make an encounter both any kind of challenge and lacking in actual risk.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is clarifying for me. If we were talking about D&D I would find that interpretation of the skill....the invention of that rule...a little squirrelly, but at least it's not constraining action declarations.

To be clear, I'm talking broadly, though something similar should be possible to implement in most games.

And yeah, I don't consider demanding specific actions desirable; but I do think making there a price to failing against social rolls whether from other PCs or NPCs should have a cost, and ideally the cost should incline the player toward the action the NPC intended. My suggestion may be too mechanistic for some people, but that's not my problem.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If your definition of story is that broad, how is turning someone to stone not "forcing a story upon the players"?

Well, it is forcing a story on the players. But that's because there is a mechanic (or various mechanics) for turning characters to stone, and presumably those mechanics were followed in order to get to that point.

This is, of course, the General TTRPG thread, and there are lots of games other than D&D and its derivatives. So if the style of play you describe is based on a game where there is a explicit mechanic for social skills...something like "Intimidate: as an action a character may make an opposed Charisma:Wisdom check against other characters. Any targeted characters failing will be unable to take offensive actions against the originating character" or something like that...then I would agree that in that particular game this is a specific action.

EDIT: On the other hand, I'm not sure I would persuaded by "She yells Then be turned to stone! and starts chanting and waving her hands. She's not actually a wizard, but her Performance check was a Nat 20, so you believe you have been turned to stone..."