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

[Micah Sweet]

I'm going to push back against you and @Crimson Longinus a bit. The DM does not always know that the PC is lying. If the PC is lying to an NPC about having the MacGuffin, I know it's a lie. If the PC is telling an urchin that he will give him 5 gold after he delivers a message, I have no clue if the PC is lying or not. The same if the group tells the merchant that if he pays half of the 500gp now, and half upon completion of the quest, that they aren't lying to him and are planning on running off with 250gp.

Not unless it's been discussed beforehand, no. Not even then, really.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I agree with that. I think maybe our main difference is that I don't want to spend my time trying to distinguish between those two things for somebody else. If they are playing in ways that I find surprising, well, people (both real and imaginary) will do unexpected, surprising, inexplicable things.



Yeah, again, I'm sure you're right but I don't want to police it or even think about it. Nor do I want other people telling me how to play.

Fair enough. Different tables are different.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You mean, as a mechanic in the game? If it's defined as such then, yeah, I "believe" in it.

No, I mean you don't believe its representing a real thing that has a real analog in the normal world. I think you've made it clear that at least as executed in the typical skill system that you don't.

So again, as long as that's the case and others do, there's no meeting of minds really possible here.

 

[Maxperson]

Then what is the social skill for?

It's not like we haven't said it 10+ times.

For PCs... Insight checks are simply to determine if you see signs of deception or truth in the NPC. Deception checks are to see if you can fool the NPC. Persuasion checks are to see if you can convince the NPC to do something that he might or might not do.

For NPCs, insight checks are to see if they believe the PC's truth or deception. Deception checks are to see if they can make it so that the PC can't tell if they are lying or not. Persuasion checks are for use against other NPCs.

 

[Maxperson]

No, the circumstances in that instance don't meet setting logic.

Neither does your NPC convincing my PC of something he can't be convinced of.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not the way it works in my game. The Players do what they believe their character would under the circumstances and within the limits of their capabilities. That's it.

And I'm not wrong. You just disagree.

Yes. I get that you house rule social skills to work on PCs. I would not play in your game.

From a RAW standpoint I am not wrong. Social skills aren't for use against PCs. You can't find one example under the social skill section of an NPC using a skill on a PC. Every example and all of the writing is for use by PCs against NPCs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, I mean you don't believe its representing a real thing that has a real analog in the normal world.

Uh, no? Intimidation is a real thing, and you can represent it in the game world by describing how a character tries to intimidate another character.

I think you've made it clear that at least as executed in the typical skill system that you don't.

Oh, yeah, I definitely think that just "rolling Intimidate" is a terrible substitute for Intimidation, especially when it is so easy for a GM to create a scenario in which players could actually fear for their characters. I think replacing that genuine feeling with play-acting based on a dice roll is...well, lame. And boring.

On the other hand, I recognize why a GM might want to rely on a roll to see if NPCs are intimidated. I know I prefer to do that, unless it's a really clear cut scenario.

So again, as long as that's the case and others do, there's no meeting of minds really possible here.

Oh, yeah, I think the odds of some of us arriving at a meeting of the minds are pretty slim. (Maybe we should roll for it, and the loser will agree with the winner?) But I still think it's a worthwhile discussion:

1. It's interesting to compare and contrast choices.
2. As I've said elsewhere, defending a playstyle is a great motivator to really interrogate one's own opinions.
3. While the principals in this debate seem unlikely to be swayed, there may be lurkers who are somewhere in the middle and find this illuminating.

 

[Maxperson]

Not unless it's been discussed beforehand, no. Not even then, really.

What do you mean?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Neither does your NPC convincing my PC of something he can't be convinced of.

And so long as the reason he can't be convinced comes from the character and the circumstances, not because the Player doesn't want their PC to be convinced, that's fine in my book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not like we haven't said it 10+ times.

For PCs... Insight checks are simply to determine if you see signs of deception or truth in the NPC. Deception checks are to see if you can fool the NPC. Persuasion checks are to see if you can convince the NPC to do something that he might or might not do.

For NPCs, insight checks are to see if they believe the PC's truth or deception. Deception checks are to see if they can make it so that the PC can't tell if they are lying or not. Persuasion checks are for use against other NPCs.

We have officially reached YMMV territory. I see no reason PCs and NPCs can't use social skills for the same things, and on each other.