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

[GrimCo]

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 view it trough that lens also. You can do only what is explicitly stated in the rules. That's the way bureaucracy works. Problem is, there are bunch of very rules light systems that have very little rules. So, what is or isn't allowed is mostly up to table to decide.

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.

Common sense and table courtesy applies. If you say you are building machine gun in game set in ancient Greek, that wouldn't be against rules ( if game in question doesn't have rules about it), but it would be considered poor form to do it. Same with building Enterprise in non Star Trek game. Although, some tables are cool with things with that.

Point is, when game doesn't have rules, it's up to table to make them once situation arises that is not covered by existing rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You can view it trough that lens also. You can do only what is explicitly stated in the rules. That's the way bureaucracy works. Problem is, there are bunch of very rules light systems that have very little rules. So, what is or isn't allowed is mostly up to table to decide.




Common sense and table courtesy applies. If you say you are building machine gun in game set in ancient Greek, that wouldn't be against rules ( if game in question doesn't have rules about it), but it would be considered poor form to do it. Same with building Enterprise in non Star Trek game. Although, some tables are cool with things with that.

Point is, when game doesn't have rules, it's up to table to make them once situation arises that is not covered by existing rules.

"Gunpowder" is often used for this hypothetical example. I see two general responses from groups who don't wish the game to go this way:

1. That's bad roleplaying and we're not going to let you do it.
2. Funny...after all that effort it seems that your formula doesn't actually work in this universe...

 

[Maxperson]

In any regard, being able to ignore social actions for out-of-setting reasons is a problem for me, spell or no spell.

I've never done that, though. When I ignore something, it's because it's what my character would do. Otherwise I wouldn't ignore it.

 

[Maxperson]

I read them. I just found them unsatisfying if you believe the reverse is true.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how satisfying you find them. They are in fact proof that it's not mind control. Mind control doesn't allow for the DM and players to just decide that a social interaction has no effect on NPCs and PCs. The reality of our explanation does allow for the DM or player to say yes or no without a roll, and therefore is objectively not mind control.

 

[Maxperson]

What reasons though? I would want both sides to do it for in-character reasons, but I've seen to many folks on both sides of the screen use Player self-interest as their motivator instead.

Both sides do do it. For what reasons? Lots of them. It will vary depending on the PC or NPC.

Can you persuade an ultra greedy NPC merchant to give you stuff for free? No. Why? Because of the in-setting reason that the merchant is super greedy. There no amount of persuasion that can work. Can you persuade the same merchant to give you a 5% discount? Maybe. If you can explain how he will make a lot more money by doing it, then you are likely to succeed. Make a persuasion check.

Can you persuade my PC to let the orc prisoner go free? No. Not a chance. He despises orcs and would just as soon stab one in the eye than even talk to it. He's not going to let it go. Can you persuade him not to murder the orc, but turn it in to the authorities? Maybe. Make your argument and I will decide if it's good enough to overcome his in-setting hatred of orcs.

What other people do doesn't matter. It's entirely irrelevant if that table over there uses self-interest instead of in-setting reasons. That's not a reason to change social skills. Your table and mine aren't bothered in the slightest by their decision to allow self-interest to be king.

 

[Maxperson]

You can view it trough that lens also. You can do only what is explicitly stated in the rules. That's the way bureaucracy works. Problem is, there are bunch of very rules light systems that have very little rules. So, what is or isn't allowed is mostly up to table to decide.

You still don't seem to be understanding. So let's keep it all in genre. We're playing 5e D&D and my fighter wants to call on the god of death to intervene in this fight and cause my enemy to die.

The rules don't allow that. Divine Intervention is a cleric ability. However, the rules also don't forbid it. By your argument, since it's not forbidden, it's allowed and he can do it. By my argument it's not allowed, but the player can ask and see if the DM will allow it.

The default state of everything not written as allowed is that it's not allowed unless the DM, DM and table, or table(depending on game and rules), says that it is.