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

[Crimson Longinus]

And what I'm saying is that if NPCs cannot use social skills to hyperbolically "mind control" PCs, then I think the reverse should also be true. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

1) the PCs and NPCs are not the same.
2) The GM can ignore such effect if they want.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Does the contrary also apply? Eg a first level fighter can't Intimidate a pit fiend?

But what about bluffing? Perhaps a first level fighter can bluff a pit fiend into thinking they're a more powerful fighter. And maybe an Orc can bluff a high level PC into thinking that the Orc is a threat.

Once again, I think the solution to that is:

1) The player doesn't actually know what the NPC is. Leverage that doubt to try to intimidate them! If they fail to be intimidated, well, that could turn out bad for them.

2) In the other direction, the GM knows exactly how powerful both the PC and NPC are, so making a decision as if they are the NPC is tough. The GM is still free to make that decision if they want to, but outsourcing it to dice is also a good solution.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And what I'm saying is that if NPCs cannot use social skills to hyperbolically "mind control" PCs, then I think the reverse should also be true. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yes, the reverse is also true. Attempts to intimidate are not fear spells. Attempts to know if somebody is lying are not detect lie spells. Attempts to persuade are not charm spells.

The GM does not have to assign a probability and roll a die; they can just decide whether or not it works.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, they are not. The player's sole focus is on their character, they probably have a elaborate backstory, they have been played for several sessions. Meanwhile Count Mustel of Weaselton, was invented by the GM couple of hours ago, and is played by the GM who has to juggle dozens of other NPCs, not to mention all the other stuff the GM has to think about. Furthermore the "player" of the Count Mustel is basically omniscient, whilst the players of the PCs are not. It is completely different thing.

You are assuming both that there is a minimum amount of time required before anyone can be "invested" in a character, PC or NPC, enough for their agency to override circumstances in the setting (that PCs meet and NPCs don't), and that all games are Neo-trad affairs where Players run their OCs with elaborate backstories and a special "main character" destiny, and therefore deserve special treatment in the "story" (at least that is the impression I'm getting from your post). Not every game is like that, and not every player places such investment in their PC that they can't allow them to be intimated, persuaded, or deceived, even if the circumstances in the setting strongly suggest otherwise, because the Player doesn't want them to be. To me, that violates the spirit of a game where playing your character as your character is supposed to be a big focus.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But GM can ignore such effect when it suits them too. The GM can just decide, that Lord Dreadskull of the Death Knights of Inconvenient Doom cannot be indimitated, and that's it.

Not if the GM is playing the NPCs true to their knowledge, personalities, and capabilities within the setting. Even Sauron was intimidated by the Men of Numenor at one time. He just eventually turned the situation to his advantage. That's what I'm asking for from the Players.

 

[Bill Zebub]

i very much disagree with this playstyle of 'my character will always think exactly and only what i want them to think, that i have perfect control over what they do, regardless of whatever situation and circumstances they are in' nobody has that much self control against the world, we all have a ton of involuntary responses that catch us unawares and your adventurer shouldn't be different.

In my experience most players lean into the story and voluntarily have their characters make at least some bad decisions, without being required to because of dice.

But let's assume you've got a player who doesn't do that, who never roleplays anything but a superhero with no weaknesses or fears or doubts. Are you going to try to "fix" that by badgering them into submitting to your preferred style of roleplaying? What's the point of even trying that? Why do you want them to comply? Does your fun depend on it?

If it's a matter of game balance, you (as GM) have infinite tools at your disposal. Want them to be intimidated? Use a fear spell, or more dangerous foes. Want them to be persuaded? Use a charm spell, or increase the offer.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not if the GM is playing the NPCs true to their knowledge, personalities, and capabilities within the setting. Even Sauron was intimidated by the Men of Numenor at one time.

Well, yes, that's because they were actually a threat at the time, and he knew it. They weren't first level fighters and he rolled badly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You are assuming both that there is a minimum amount of time required before anyone can be "invested" in a character, PC or NPC, enough for their agency to override circumstances in the setting (that PCs meet and NPCs don't), and that all games are Neo-trad affairs where Players run their OCs with elaborate backstories and a special "main character" destiny, and therefore deserve special treatment in the "story" (at least that is the impression I'm getting from your post). Not every game is like that, and not every player places such investment in their PC that they can't allow them to be intimated, persuaded, or deceived, even if the circumstances in the setting strongly suggest otherwise, because the Player doesn't want them to be. To me, that violates the spirit of a game where playing your character as your character is supposed to be a big focus.

I suggest no such thing. Your character can be a rat-catcher that dies at the next kobold fight. But the player still has only one character at the moment and the GM has the whole world to worry about. And the GM is omniscient. It just is not the same and it is bizarre to think that it would.

And absolutely nothing suggest that the characters could not be tricked, convinced etc. Of course they can! It is just that because the fictional situation that is presented is such that it happens, not because the dice said so.

Not if the GM is playing the NPCs true to their knowledge, personalities, and capabilities within the setting. Even Sauron was intimidated by the Men of Numenor at one time. He just eventually turned the situation to his advantage. That's what I'm asking for from the Players.

But the GM gets to decide what the NPC can be convinced of, just like the player gets to decide what their character can be convinced of.

 

[Micah Sweet]

1) the PCs and NPCs are not the same.
2) The GM can ignore such effect if they want.

1) The PCs and NPCs are IMO the same in the setting, and who's playing them shouldn't change their need to respond to setting effects, although the specifics of how this is accomplished through the rules can vary.

2) the GM shouldn't ignore these effects any more than the Players can IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Once again, I think the solution to that is:

1) The player doesn't actually know what the NPC is. Leverage that doubt to try to intimidate them! If they fail to be intimidated, well, that could turn out bad for them.

2) In the other direction, the GM knows exactly how powerful both the PC and NPC are, so making a decision as if they are the NPC is tough. The GM is still free to make that decision if they want to, but outsourcing it to dice is also a good solution.

Results available through the dice are fine IMO, provided those results are filtered through the character of the NPC and that NPCs circumstances in the setting.