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

[Thomas Shey]

"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...

There's a variation of #1. "Why is it you think your character could to that, other than 'I want to'?"

 

[Bill Zebub]

And I'd respond "Not everyone wants to do avatar or token play."

I've always found those labels very....odd. It has always seemed to me that the version where you have to roll to be told how to rollplay is more "token" like. At least, I associate tokens with board games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a variation of #1. "Why is it you think your character could to that, other than 'I want to'?"

Yup. And #2 should have been established in session zero or it's IMO a cop-out on the part of the GM.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yup. And #2 should have been established in session zero or it's IMO a cop-out on the part of the GM.

Eh. You can't be expected to establish every bit of out-of-context business in sessions zero. They probably should have told them up-front when they started trying to do it, though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've always found those labels very....odd. It has always seemed to me that the version where you have to roll to be told how to rollplay is more "token" like. At least, I associate tokens with board games.

That's why I mentioned avatar as an alternative. With token play you're just doing whatever suits you with the "character" (and yes, the scare quotes are deliberate) without being concerned about their actual properties at all; with avatar play you're effectively playing yourself since your character can do or not do everything you can.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Eh. You can't be expected to establish every bit of out-of-context business in sessions zero. They probably should have told them up-front when they started trying to do it, though.

Yeah, fair enough. I just don't like the way #2 is phrased.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, fair enough. I just don't like the way #2 is phrased.

Its a gotcha response likely evoked by someone who thought the player should have known better. Even in those cases I don't much like gotchas.

 

[bsss]

Isn't this sort of thing potentially a problem anytime party members have radically different views about what to do, no matter how they arrived at those?

The problem isn't the debate over differing views, that's interesting. The problem is that they arrived at those views with the implicit compel of a certain course of action for their characters, when the party dynamic in- and out-of-game is an immediate "out" for following that compel. It feels pointless. Now there's not only individual reasons to rationalize ignoring the die result, there's also practical group reasons.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yup. And #2 should have been established in session zero or it's IMO a cop-out on the part of the GM.

Or maybe not session 0, but certainly once it is understood what this player is up to. "Hey, look, I'm not going to say you can't gather those ingredients and mix them, but I'll warn you up front there's no guarantee that chemistry works the same in my gameworld as it does in the real world...."

The gunpowder case is so...egregious?...that it's maybe not the best example, but let's play out #1 anyway:

"Why would your character do that...other than 'because I want to'?"
"Because it would be awesome!"
"You've never before played this character this way...."
"It says right here on my character sheet that my goal is to spread the glory of my god across all the nations. Gunpowder would definitely help me do that."
"Why would your character even know how to mix up an explosive?"
"I read it in a book, back at the temple."
"No, you didn't, because it hasn't been invented in this world, so it wouldn't be in a book."
"Maybe it's a lost book, and I discovered it."
"Look, if you want to go back to your monastery or temple or whatever and search the library, I'll tell you what books are there. But it's not that book."
"Ok, fine, then I had a dream and my god told me to mix these three ingredients, in exactly this proportion. Maybe I'm the inventor!"
"Errr....when did you have this dream, exactly?"
"It's recurring. That's why I can't ignore it."
"No, it doesn't work that way. If you're going to have a dream that reveals information like that, it has to come from the GM."
"What? I can't have a dream without your permission?"
"Not this dream."
"WTF?"

Now, I wouldn't want this particular player at my table, and I doubt you would either. My goal is to illustrate that trying to impose a certain style of roleplaying by demanding that players justify their choices is quixotic. Against any sort of determined resistance it will eventually dead-end at "Because I told you so!" (Or you accede and let them have their way.)

If I really don't like the way somebody roleplays, I stop playing with them. But if am going to play with them, I don't waste time critiquing their roleplaying (except maybe in my head). That way lies madness.

 

[wizard71]

No offense, I am not sure it's a win or lose thing. It's a situation where, I believe, the OP learned that the definition of "railroading" is broad, and it can be interpreted in many ways.

I disagree. You can move the goalposts but it’s a win for me based upon the original post.