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

[Maxperson]

See, the problem I have with that is that I don't believe PCs and NPCs are significantly different, and thus they shouldn't IMO be treated any more differently than is necessary for play. I'm aware that many people feel differently though, and that's fine.

I sit down to play my character, not play dice. PCs and NPCs are treated differently because PCs are played by players who only(generally) have the one PC to play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed. But what I've been hoping to illustrate is that what that looks like...what any one sentient creature is going to do in response to some set of stimuli...is so varied and unpredictable that nearly any response can be justified. Which is why I think any attempt to police actions, or mind-read the intentions of players, or enforce "good roleplaying" with rules, is quixotic.

So, sure, if the GM likes to roll to see if NPCs "succeed at using social skills" (god that phrase makes me vomit, but anyway...) then go ahead, and announce the result, and let the players do with it what they will.

It's the implication that there are "good/correct" and "bad/incorrect" responses to that information that I can't abide.

And I would accept that, if the response by the PC didn't so very often end up avoiding anything detrimental to the PC's situation. Place a PC in an intimidating situation and have them be intimidated at least a little, and I'll accept that there are many possible responses.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I sit down to play my character, not play dice. PCs and NPCs are treated differently because PCs are played by players who only(generally) have the one PC to play.

Not relevant to my mind. Why should that matter? How does that justify ignoring the situation your PC is in because the Player doesn't like it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

And I would accept that, if the response by the PC didn't so very often end up avoiding anything detrimental to the PC's situation. Place a PC in an intimidating situation and have them be intimidated at least a little, and I'll accept that there are many possible responses.

But what if it's objectively NOT an intimidating situation? What if the player is thinking that if violence breaks out the NPCs don't stand a chance?

It's so easy for the GM to create a situation where the NPCs really are a threat, and so easy to signal that to the players. Why make everybody pretend?

And the amazing part is that after you "train" your players this way, you could actually sometimes use NPCs that really aren't as strong as the players, but if you decide (maybe through rolling a die) that they "succeed at Intimidation" you could drop some subtle signals....raise an eyebrow and look amused when the players don't take the threats seriously...and they'll think, "Oh, crap, we're gonna die...."

These are rhetorical questions because I know this isn't how you play. But....I just don't get it. :-/

 

[Thomas Shey]

But what if it's objectively NOT an intimidating situation? What if the player is thinking that if violence breaks out the NPCs don't stand a chance?

Then they'd presumably have made the resistance roll.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Then they'd presumably have made the resistance roll.

Yeah, the appeal of that approach/philosophy is completely alien to me. That a scenario which is not dangerous becomes "intimidating" because a d20 landed a certain way.

It's why I stopped playing The One Ring: there are too many places where the dice dictate the story and the players' job is just to narrate what the dice say. Not interested. I want to be immersed in the story myself, and feel the things my character would be feeling.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, the appeal of that approach/philosophy is completely alien to me. That a scenario which is not dangerous becomes "intimidating" because a d20 landed a certain way.

It's why I stopped playing The One Ring: there are too many places where the dice dictate the story and the players' job is just to narrate what the dice say. Not interested. I want to be immersed in the story myself, and feel the things my character would be feeling.

And if the orc used Intimidate on your character, wouldn't your feel intimidated just as much as the orc would if the situation was reversed?

Please explain the apparent double standard here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, the appeal of that approach/philosophy is completely alien to me. That a scenario which is not dangerous becomes "intimidating" because a d20 landed a certain way.

That's because you don't fundamentally believe in Intimidation (or I'd assume most other social skills) as a real thing. Without that, of course its going to be alien to you. If you did, you'd presumablyt accept that sometimes the way characters react to things is not in their, or really even their player's hands.

Without reaching that place, or convincing us its not real, this is an unbridgable divide.

 

[Maxperson]

Not relevant to my mind. Why should that matter? How does that justify ignoring the situation your PC is in because the Player doesn't like it?

It's not about like. It's about what the PC thinks is going on. I control that, not the dice. Not the DM. Not any other player. Short of magical mind control, it's my decision who he trusts, doesn't trust, suspects, or doesn't suspect. That's not a decision I make based on what I like or not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And if the orc used Intimidate on your character, wouldn't your feel intimidated just as much as the orc would if the situation was reversed?

Please explain the apparent double standard here.

If I "used Intimidate" it would look like this:

1. The player describes a goal and means, which might be "I want to intimidate the orc so that he'll back down and give us what we want, and I'll do it by casually playing with my dragon-tooth necklace and talk about how I got them by strangling the dragon with my bare hands."
2. The GM figures this might plausibly work, but since he knows all the stats of both the orc and the PCs, and furthermore knows that if the orc does give the players what they want it will lead to consequences the orc cannot know about, all of which leads him to conclude that he just can't put himself in the orc's head well enough to know what the orc would do, wants to rely on a dice roll.
3. Needing a negative consequence if the dice roll fails, the GM tells the player: "You're going to have to give me a Charisma check with a DC of X. If you have proficiency in Intimidate you can add that modifier. But if you fail the roll, the orc is going to think worse of you, and any further attempts to influence him are even more likely to fail. Still want to do it?"
4. The player agrees and makes the roll, or doesn't and passes.

But the important thing to note is that, because the Orc "belongs" to the GM and the GM knows things the player does not, in step #2 the GM could have said, "Yeah, that story happens to be true, and the orc suddenly realizes that the story is about you" and ruled it an auto-success.

Alternately, in step #2 the GM could, based on some information that only he knows, have said, "He doesn't seem impressed."

Ok, now, let's reverse that, with that perfect symmetry you value:

1. The GM wants the orc to intimidate the PC into giving up the McGuffin, so he describes (I don't know, insert something).
2. The player, who both knows his character's inner thoughts better than the GM does and controls the character, has three options:
   1. He can conclude that it would probably work on him and decide to be intimidated
   2. He can conclude that it probably would not, and respond accordingly
   3. He could conclude that he just doesn't know what his character would do, and make a deal: "I'll need a Charisma check with a DC of X. If he succeeds I'll give up the McGuffin. But if he fails I'm going to call his bluff and attack him."
3. The GM now agrees and makes the roll, or doesn't and passes.

I would be 100% fine with the Orc "using Intimidation" this way and would agree that the player should be bound by the results in scenario 2.3.