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

[Micah Sweet]

I think the original point has drifted somewhat. I was proposing (facetiously) that a single failure to pick a lock would remove the desire to open the door. @bsss turned that into a conclusion not only that the lock can't be picked, but that the door cannot be bypassed by any means.

But even the conclusion that the lock can't be picked is, in my mind, going too far. You're right...people try, fail, try, fail, try fail (and in fact the "skill" that seems to be most lacking in our schools is perseverance). But too many games model it as "you try and fail and so you give up after one attempt." At which point the other characters, even with zero skill, chime in, "Can I try?" Which wouldn't make any sense if the expert deemed it beyond his/her skill.

This is why I prefer rules like Shadowdark, where it is assumed that you will eventually succeed if there's no time constraint (or other complication).

That's how some games I like do it too. That rule from AD&D about having to level before you can try again always rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The way I see it, the reaction roll exists to ease the burden of the GM and to allow for the unexpected while still having most results go the way you would expect under the circumstances. Both are laudable goals, but serve little purpose for Players who are portraying their characters as creatures within the setting.

Which I find strange because this is almost exactly the answer I give to the social skills question, but on that one we end up with opposite conclusions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And part of the problem is that most game systems only model success/failure, but not false positives or false negatives, and certainly not multiple outcomes with different probabilities.

The only way I could think to do it would be to:
1) Have the GM roll secretly for the player, which for a lot of people is a non-starter
2) The result generates a probability table: as far as you can tell, it's possible but unlikely that the NPC wants A, it's more likely that he wants B, but probably it's C.
3) The player then factors in their character's skill at these things and makes a choice.

Once upon a time I tried to generate rules just like this for navigating abstract (meaning, not mapped in detail) Moria-like dungeons. I never came up with anything I liked.

If my GM wanted to make all my skills rolls so I don't know if how close I was to success or failure, I could get behind that. It would be fun to try out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That rule from AD&D about having to level before you can try again always rubbed me the wrong way.

Yeah that kind of thing is a ham-handed attempt to make up for a flaw in the premise of the rules. IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which I find strange because this is almost exactly the answer I give to the social skills question, but on that one we end up with opposite conclusions.

If you choose to use reaction rolls, you're still beholden to the results, even if they lead to a negative conclusion. As a GM I'm fine with that, because all the results available are possible within the setting. I think it should be the same way with Players.

 

[bloodtide]

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

If they work for you, that is great. They don't work for everyone.

1. I think requiring all social and mental tasks to be, fundamentally about the player and not the character (i.e. having no PC skill involvement in the process) is tying the hands of too many character concepts to be tolerable. I don't fault if other people prefer to play that way (that's the way D&D handled them for decades after all) but I'm not at all interested in going there.

I agree, just from the other side. The vast majority of players are unable, or sometimes just unwilling, to play a character concept. I just flat out tell such players that it is impossible and have them pick something else. Those few that are willing to do the hard time consuming work, I'm willing to help.

*Fun Update: AI can really help here! A player that needs to role play high mental scores or really just common sense can ask AI! It works out fairly well.

If my GM wanted to make all my skills rolls so I don't know if how close I was to success or failure, I could get behind that. It would be fun to try out.

I do this for my more Hard Fun game types.

The players never know DCs or rolls. For table top I will have the player roll the dice inside a box or such so they can't see the result.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you choose to use reaction rolls, you're still beholden to the results, even if they lead to a negative conclusion. As a GM I'm fine with that, because all the results available are possible within the setting. I think it should be the same way with Players.

I'm confused. Do you mean that you think players should be required to make reaction rolls?

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, when it comes to RAW, there is always legal stands. Quod lege prohibitum non est, permissum intelligitur ( what isn't prohibited by law, is considered allowed). Since there is no direct and explicit rule that prohibits use of social skill from NPCs on PCs, one can interpret it that is allowed. And as i said in my previous post, social pillar in D&D sucks and outside few spells and abilities it's largely left to table to decide how they are gonna handle it.

That fails miserably when applied to RPGs, though. RAW doesn't prohibit long swords from setting off a secondary nuclear explosion after the d8 damage is dealt. Find me a single table where that would be considered allowed.

That's an extreme example, but there are many, many, many lesser examples that are similar. When it comes to RPG rules, if it's not written it's not allowed unless the DM chooses to allow it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think the original point has drifted somewhat. I was proposing (facetiously) that a single failure to pick a lock would remove the desire to open the door. @bsss turned that into a conclusion not only that the lock can't be picked, but that the door cannot be bypassed by any means.

But even the conclusion that the lock can't be picked is, in my mind, going too far. You're right...people try, fail, try, fail, try fail (and in fact the "skill" that seems to be most lacking in our schools is perseverance). But too many games model it as "you try and fail and so you give up after one attempt." At which point the other characters, even with zero skill, chime in, "Can I try?" Which wouldn't make any sense if the expert deemed it beyond his/her skill.

This is why I prefer rules like Shadowdark, where it is assumed that you will eventually succeed if there's no time constraint (or other complication).

5e does have take 10 and take 20 doesn't it? just that people don't tend to remember they exist, or am i mistaken?

the thing about not allowing multiple attempts on the same check is because why wouldn't someone be giving their best shot to make it, if they had the time to make as many attempts as they desired that's when you'd use take 20, so unless circumstances change like levelling up or getting a new piece of equipment to assist, why would your second 'giving your best' attempt be any better than your first one?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm confused. Do you mean that you think players should be required to make reaction rolls?

No, I think Players should make choices for their characters based on what their characters are experiencing and are capable of, not what the Player wants to happen (if there's a conflict), and I want the results of mechanics from either side to affect both PC and NPCs in some fashion.