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

[pemerton]

the 5e rules state that when the DM has uncertainty, they should roll a die.

Here's what it says here <Using Ability Scores>:

The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class.​

It clearly states that the GM decides which ability is used to make the check, and what the difficulty is. But it doesn't say that the DM calls for a roll if the DM has uncertainty. It says that a roll is to be called for, by the GM, when an attempted action has a chance of failure and [thus?] the action's outcome is uncertain. (The wording is a bit unclear: I assume that it is meant to imply that the chance of failure must be less than 100% for a roll to be called for. Although the rules don't seem to preclude setting a DC which makes the chance of failure 100% - eg a DC 20 for a check being rolled with a -1 penalty for having an 8 in the relevant ability score and no other modifiers.)

It seems to me to leave it open how the table decides that the outcome is uncertain.

It also refers a monster attempting an action. So what happens if an Orc warlord tries to drive off a PC with a fierce bellow? Who decides if the outcome of that action is uncertain? Is the GM allowed to decide that it is, and therefore make an ability check for the Orc to see if the action succeeds?

This is why I posted upthread that

To me, the 5e D&D rules on what skills are for, and how they relate to the fiction - both fictional positioning, like Am I free to just declare that I cut down my friend without consequences? and fictional consequences, like Am I just free to declare that my PC is unpersuaded by the charlatan, although the charlatan has hoodwinked everyone else they've ever dealt with? - seem pretty unclear.

 

[pemerton]

This is were mechanical social skills fail in RPGs.

I play a lot of RPGs with mechanical social skills. They don't fail.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It also refers a monster attempting an action. So what happens if an Orc warlord tries to drive off a PC with a fierce bellow? Who decides if the outcome of that action is uncertain? Is the GM allowed to decide that it is, and therefore make an ability check for the Orc to see if the action succeeds?

Micah has argued many times for PC <--> NPC symmetry. ("What's good for the goose...")

So if the GM decides what chance a PC action has of influencing an NPC, shouldn't the player decide if an NPC action has a chance of influencing their character?

 

[Maxperson]

You just said there are no rules about it, just no examples supporting my view.

RAW = What is written. There is no RAW that says those skills can be used against PCs. There is tons of RAW showing those skills being used against NPCs by PCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

RAW = What is written. There is no RAW that says those skills can be used against PCs. There is tons of RAW showing those skills being used against NPCs by PCs.

There's also no RAW saying it can't, and given how the PCs are (pretty much) all people who came from a community of NPCs, why should things that affect those NPCs not affect them? Bob the Fighter is just as human as his parents and a bunch of other people from his home village. Why is he somehow completely immune to a Persuasion roll and they aren't?

Look, this just a preference. You don't want PCs to be affected in any measurable way by social skills used by NPCs. I do. The fact that it's likely more people align with your view than mine is irrelevant.

 

[Maxperson]

There's also no RAW saying it can't

That's not how RAW works. (W)ritten actually means something. If it isn't explicitly written, it isn't RAW. The only RAW for social skills deals with PCs using it against NPCs. Not one word about NPCs using it against PCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's not how RAW works. (W)ritten actually means something. If it isn't explicitly written, it isn't RAW. The only RAW for social skills deals with PCs using it against NPCs. Not one word about NPCs using it against PCs.

Ok, fair enough. Guess how much that affects my game or my opinion on the matter?

 

[pemerton]

Micah has argued many times for PC <--> NPC symmetry. ("What's good for the goose...")

Given that we're talking about the rules of the game, and how declared actions are resolved, I don't think that PC vs NPC is a very helpful framing. The question concerns what the players and the GM are expected (or required) to do, in order to establish the shared fiction.

So if the GM decides what chance a PC action has of influencing an NPC, shouldn't the player decide if an NPC action has a chance of influencing their character?

Well, I'm reading the rules. They say that the GM sets the difficulty, and chooses what ability/skill is used to make the check. They set two criteria for when the GM should call for a roll, and the two criteria aren't co-extensive (which I noted in my earlier post):

*That the action being undertaken has a chance of failure.

*That the outcome of the action being undertaken is uncertain.​

The rules (at least, the ones that I found on DnD Beyond) don't really say how the obtaining of one or both criteria is to be worked out, or by whom. If, as you have posted, it is by the GM, then I don't see why that would change just because the action in question is a NPC Orc warlord trying to drive off a PC by way of a ferocious and intimidating bellow.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, fair enough. Guess how much that affects my game or my opinion on the matter?

I'm not going to bother. Your game isn't really relevant to discussions of RAW. Nor is mine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not going to bother. Your game isn't really relevant to discussions of RAW. Nor is mine.

True. RAW isn't really relevant to any given table anyway. If I don't like a rule, I change it.