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

[Maxperson]

But with this I cannot disagree more. I want my characters to put in situations which test their convictions, which force them to make hard decisions. But I want actually to be able to make that decision, or it seems utterly pointless to me.

This. There have been many times that I didn't see in advance which way the PC would go when push came to shove on one of his convictions. And I made the choice.

 

[Maxperson]

I want players to have agency over judgement calls, where there are two or more options uncertain options that need to have a choice be made between them. But fighting temptation, or exerting willpower, isn't a choice between two uncertain options (generally, I'm sure there are use cases where it can be framed that way), it's a test of character makeup and concept. It's a challenge with stakes, and those should generally be resolved via mechanics.

Having dice or some other rule system decide which way my character will go isn't a test of the character at all. It's a test of a die roll or rule system. For me the only real test of character is struggling with the dilemma myself and having to navigate it based on many factors and then come to a decision.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm talking about tests of temptation or will, things like "Can my character be goaded into a fight?" or "Will I resist a bribe?" or "Can I be charmed by a skilled manipulator"? Places where the right choice as a player are obvious, but a character in a story might make substandard decisions.

I've chosen those substandard decisions if that's what my character would ultimately do. I've never needed dice or rules for that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, that was largely why I asked “what does authentic even mean?” Like, earlier in the thread we had people saying that a GM may say that a player isn’t playing their character “correctly”. But I don’t really even know what that means other than “differently than I expected”.

Maybe. i don’t want to speak for anyone else.

The reason I like to involve dice in some character-defining elements of play is because I think that the risk involved is meaningful. And I also like to be surprised. I like to watch my character develop much as a person would… and that doesn’t involve total control.

I am 100% for players wanting to use dice to give themselves cues to roleplay off of.

It's the "players can't be trusted to make in-character decisions" I object to.

 

[Maxperson]

In many cases where there may not be an easy choice for the character, there very clearly is one for the player. So what makes this choice difficult from a player standpoint? Why trust the player to make an “authentic” decision. And I use quotes because what does authentic even mean in this kind of situation?

Because he's roleplaying his character. If the choice is hard for the character, it will be hard for me. That's the entire point of creating a character with background and personality to roleplay.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, that was largely why I asked “what does authentic even mean?” Like, earlier in the thread we had people saying that a GM may say that a player isn’t playing their character “correctly”. But I don’t really even know what that means other than “differently than I expected”.

Authentic means to me that the action taken is true to the players vision of the character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Having dice or some other rule system decide which way my character will go isn't a test of the character at all. It's a test of a die roll or rule system. For me the only real test of character is struggling with the dilemma myself and having to navigate it based on many factors and then come to a decision.

Well, is a roll in combat a test of the character in any way? I mean, I could see the argument that a 14th level fighter with high strength, weapon focus, and a magic sword has a +12 to hit… which is indicative of his fighting skill, right?

I am 100% for players wanting to use dice to give themselves cues to roleplay off of.

Sure. I’m talking about something generally a bit more involved than that.

It's the "players can't be trusted to make in-character decisions" I object to.

I almost never question my players’ choices when it comes to character decisions. I don’t worry about their motivations for doing so… so “metagaming” and concerns like that, I just don’t have them.

My enjoyment of having dice involved in some or certain character-related moments of play isn’t about not trusting the players. It’s about creating a risk… the chance for the unwanted to happen.

Because he's roleplaying his character. If the choice is hard for the character, it will be hard for me. That's the entire point of creating a character with background and personality to roleplay.

I don’t think that’s true. There are many, many decisions I make as a player that are not difficult at all that would be incredibly difficult for a character.

Authentic means to me that the action taken is true to the players vision of the character.

Perhaps. My point is not to actually define it, but rather to point out how we really can’t question such a thing.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

You are right. Based upon the original post, it meets your definition of railroading. Certainly not the OP's, nor some others. It does meet several other posters here though.

So you win.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because there are other players? Because the DM doesn't know. I know what my character would do. That doesn't mean that the DM knows how strongly my character feels, nor does how my character feels have any direct bearing on how other party members feel about the situation.

I also enjoy testing my characters, but that doesn't mean that there aren't aspects of the character that aren't going to be swayed in X circumstance.

Then how do you test them if you have 100% complete control over every action they make. Are you just talking about physical tests?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Apparently...according to the argument I see...that creates a "minimum height to ride" constraint where GMs need some basic communication/acting/poker-face skills, and for some reason I don't fully understand that means all of us, even those who have those skills, should use dice.

The same reason I don't tell people playing a fencer that I just get to have my NPCs fight effectively, and the fact they don't know anything about it means they don't.

I don't expect there to be no weight from knowledge in an area, but if all the weight is in that area, you've effectively told people "You don't have the ability to do X so you can't play anyone who does."

No. Just no.