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

[GrimCo]

That's reasonable. I was pushing back against the idea that if it isn't explicitly excluded, it's allowed. That's nonsensical, since 99.99999%(more actually) of everything that's possible isn't explicitly excluded from an RPG. The core rules could be larger than an Encyclopedia Britannica set and would still not include 99.999% of everything.

I would argue that is biggest difference between ttrpg and video game. In ttrpg, besides things explicitly proscribed by rules, you can try and do anything. Then you go into social contract territory where DM and table decide how to handle situation. In video game, you can only do what is explicitly allowed by rules (in this case, rules would be game code).

If it's not explicitly allowed, it's not allowed unless the DM, or table and DM, or just table, depending on your style of play, chooses to allow it.

And than we have huge amounts of rules light games with barebones of mechanics which leave most of game play to DM and players to figure out how to resolve as situation arises. Even D&D, crunchy as it is, covers very small portion of options with clear defined rules of what and how to do. Anything outside of those hard coded rules, you can try, but, it's up to DM and players to figure out how to resolve it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

5e goes with presumption that under those circumstances no roll would be necessary, you roll when result is uncertain or when failing check carries consequences (and you cant try again if you fail). You either auto succeed or auto fail. If DC is 30, you have +8, even with roll of 20, you fail. If DC was say 25, you auto succeed. Taking 20 was just that, you take your time and try and fail many times until you eventually get it right ( like you would if you rolled d20 again and again until you rolled 20).

Does any version of 5e actually say that anywhere? I wouldn't assume such a thing, especially if I was new and didn't have my own pre-conceptions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would argue that is biggest difference between ttrpg and video game. In ttrpg, besides things explicitly proscribed by rules, you can try and do anything. Then you go into social contract territory where DM and table decide how to handle situation. In video game, you can only do what is explicitly allowed by rules (in this case, rules would be game code).

And than we have huge amounts of rules light games with barebones of mechanics which leave most of game play to DM and players to figure out how to resolve as situation arises. Even D&D, crunchy as it is, covers very small portion of options with clear defined rules of what and how to do. Anything outside of those hard coded rules, you can try, but, it's up to DM and players to figure out how to resolve it.

At which point you can make a rule, and now there's a rule for that thing.

 

[Maxperson]

I would argue that is biggest difference between ttrpg and video game. In ttrpg, besides things explicitly proscribed by rules, you can try and do anything. Then you go into social contract territory where DM and table decide how to handle situation. In video game, you can only do what is explicitly allowed by rules (in this case, rules would be game code).

You're conflating attempting to do things with things being allowed if they aren't explicitly forbidden by RAW. The former is fine. The latter doesn't exist in RPGs. At least not any that I've ever seen.

You can tell the DM that you want to attempt to build a machine gun, even if the Top Secret rules don't allow it(don't know if they do). You can't just say that building one is allowed just because the rules don't forbid it.

Attempts can be made, but the allowance is up to the DM to admit whatever it is you are trying into the game. It's not assumed to be allowed unless the DM says no.

As an example, if I sit down at @Crimson Longinus's D&D table, I can't assume that my PC will be allowed to build the Starship Enterprise. I can ask him if he will allow it, but the default assumption isn't that it's allowed in his game just because the rules don't specifically say no.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The only problem I have with that is that it means, essentially, that what is supposed to be a skill roll is actually determining how complex a lock is. As GM, I think that's my job, and I will occasionally break my rule that a skilled thief can eventually pick any lock to just say, "This one is hard. You can try, but it's going to be hard, and each attempt takes a long time so I'll be rolling for random events/wandering monsters."

No, I was assuming the lockpick attempt just conveyed how difficult it was; I'm not assuming the "difficulty" changed by what they rolled.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, I was assuming the lockpick attempt just conveyed how difficult it was; I'm not assuming the "difficulty" changed by what they rolled.

Yeah...I don't know. There's some weird epistemology going on there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah...I don't know. There's some weird epistemology going on there.

Let me try to clarify.

You have a lockpicker who tries to pick a lock. Is it obvious up-front that its difficult? In many cases probably not (mechanical locks actually try to make that hard to assess as a consequence of making it hard in the first place). So how does the lockpicker determine this? The GM already pretty much knows the DC or modifier or whatever the system does to reflect difficulty, but at this stage the lockpicker doesn't. So he tries. Fails. At that point by the process of doing so that difficulty/modifier/whatever becomes obvious to him.

He's essentially made a lockpicking attempt and a lock difficulty assessment as one roll. There's no influence he's had on that; he'd have now known it was a difficult lock if he managed to succeed too (and there are a few cases where that might be instructive about the situation).

Is what I'm talking about clearer?

 

[bsss]

The only problem I have with that is that it means, essentially, that what is supposed to be a skill roll is actually determining how complex a lock is. As GM, I think that's my job, and I will occasionally break my rule that a skilled thief can eventually pick any lock to just say, "This one is hard. You can try, but it's going to be hard, and each attempt takes a long time so I'll be rolling for random events/wandering monsters."

Yeah, a form of the "fail forward" approach.

I thought about bringing up fail forward ideas with bluff and sense motive problems, but it's kind of orthogonal to the debates we've had here. It's another way to go with it, though, so while we're here? Skill check to sense the lieutenant's motive fails? You figure out his plans, but now he knows you know.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, a form of the "fail forward" approach.

I thought about bringing up fail forward ideas with bluff and sense motive problems, but it's kind of orthogonal to the debates we've had here. It's another way to go with it, though, so while we're here? Skill check to sense the lieutenant's motive fails? You figure out his plans, but now he knows you know.

Yes, exactly.

Although in general I prefer to have the PCs explain their approach, not just "I use Sense Motive." Like, "I say something disparaging about the Emperor, using a saying repeated by the resistance, and watch his reaction."

 

[bsss]

Oh for sure, I'm always just using the name as a shorthand. My favorite D&D-like is actually 13th Age (no coincidence I invoked it earlier), where there isn't a codified skill list at all, so all skill checks are the player describing what the character is doing or how they're approaching the situation, and trying to relate it to their background for a bonus.