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

[Bill Zebub]

You are generating a binary when I am asking about a spectrum (why do people keep doing that?). I am asking you if you require zero mechanical influence on your character in social situations in order for the game to be enjoyable for you. Not complete control outside magic, but rather some degree of influence on your actions based on the circumstances of the moment. If zero is your requirement, to me that does sound like the kind of avatar play @Thomas Shey referenced earlier.

You didn't ask me, but my requirement isn't "zero" it's that if there's a mechanical impact, then the effect should also be mechanical. Mechanics determining permissible roleplaying is just too vague. So I'm totally fine with "the outcome of the NPC's social roll is the following modifier to dice rolls...". What I'm not ok with "we rolled dice so now you have to roleplay your character as if you believe X."

That's why things like mind control spells, or a Dragon's fear, are ok in my book.



The reference to avatar play suggests you don't think it's possible for somebody to roleplay without the mechanics telling them what to do. I would argue that other players might have their suspicions, but only the player knows if they engaging in avatar play or not. I find it insulting not because there is anything wrong with avatar play, but rather the implication that some of us are not capable of anything else, or at least that when we don't want mechanics dictating our actions it is so that we can engage exclusively in avatar play.

 

[bsss]

Sure. That's fine.

Cool. That's the idea, then, basically; PC actions, be them purely from roleplaying or from failing a Diplomacy check or losing a whole debate of back and forth actions and reactions (the "social encounter") end not in a compel for your character to follow, but rather, things in the world got easier or harder to take certain courses of action on. Keeping those state changes away from your character's mentality, etc. (magic like charm aside) seems like a fair agreement to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the players are to have agency, they need to be able to make decisions that matter with their own brains. You cannot eliminate that and have a game. We are not here just watch how rules simulate characters we have no control over. If I want to do that, I can watch a move or read a book.

And I still maintain that they ought to be able to get by if that's what they want to do, even if its suboptimal. There are people who, in combat, just want to pick a target and hit it. I'd find that boring, but I'm not them, and I don't feel the game system should utterly force them to do more (even if they'd get more out of doing more) if that's all they want to do. I consider the same applies here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The reference to avatar play suggests you don't think it's possible for somebody to roleplay without the mechanics telling them what to do. I would argue that other players might have their suspicions, but only the player knows if they engaging in avatar play or not.

I'd say over time, especially when watching someone play multiple characters, it can be abundantly clear when someone is doing that if they're doing it on a consistent basis. This isn't a completely occult process with no visible outer signs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And I still maintain that they ought to be able to get by if that's what they want to do, even if its suboptimal. There are people who, in combat, just want to pick a target and hit it. I'd find that boring, but I'm not them, and I don't feel the game system should utterly force them to do more (even if they'd get more out of doing more) if that's all they want to do. I consider the same applies here.

That seems like an argument for allowing players make decisions by rolling dice to "see what my character would do." Which, as I've said, I think is totally fine.

But that's very different from an argument that players can't be trusted to make "correct" roleplaying decisions without the dice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the players are to have agency, they need to be able to make decisions that matter with their own brains. You cannot eliminate that and have a game. We are not here just watch how rules simulate characters we have no control over. If I want to do that, I can watch a move or read a book.

Your statement is somewhat extreme IMO. No one is suggesting the Player never makes decisions, at all. I honestly don't know how you reached that conclusion.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That's less horrible, but it would still ideas onto my character that are not there. Harder to swallow convictions are something I sometimes decide for my PCs, but sometimes the situation doesn't do that. If it's forced, it's still dictating to me what my character thinks and feels, which is loss of agency. It's just not a 100% loss of agency.

my big issue with your complaints is that you seem to view agency as such a binary thing, that you think if you fail a check that means your character's heart and mind and goals have been erased and rewritten by the NPC's desires, soviet made a very nice post earlier about how your character hasn't had their mind or opinion changed when they loose such a check, but they have 'lost' the social battle, they will look unreasonable if they continue on the argument, they cannot put forth a worthwhile argument why they shouldn't do the thing, the crowds have been swayed to the other side, and you can express their reaction to loosing the check in any of a variety of ways that fits your character that isn't just outright 'No, i reject that i lost that.'

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And I still maintain that they ought to be able to get by if that's what they want to do, even if its suboptimal. There are people who, in combat, just want to pick a target and hit it. I'd find that boring, but I'm not them, and I don't feel the game system should utterly force them to do more (even if they'd get more out of doing more) if that's all they want to do. I consider the same applies here.

I don't believe games should be designer for people who do not want to engage with them, nor have I desire to play with such people, so I really don't care about solutions for that problem.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That seems like an argument for allowing players make decisions by rolling dice to "see what my character would do." Which, as I've said, I think is totally fine.

But that's very different from an argument that players can't be trusted to make "correct" roleplaying decisions without the dice.

If you check, you'll see I've never criticized someone because they're doing token or avatar play, per se. That's a playstyle like any other.

But I think there ought to be at least some mechanical motivation for people to pay attention to what NPCs (or PCs from the other end) are doing, to show it had some effect, and if that bothers some people, so be it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Your statement is somewhat extreme IMO. No one is suggesting the Player never makes decisions, at all. I honestly don't know how you reached that conclusion.

That's the logical end point of this. If the player cannot be trusted to play their character "correctly" and there must be mechanics that force their hand, then why would this logically not apply to everything?