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

[Micah Sweet]

Or Dungeon Crawler Carl.

Heard of it, but know nothing else.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, I wanted to eliminate me as the arbiter of what is good. I do not want that responsibility. I want to stay far away from that as possible.

I prefer setting up the dilemma as it ties to their TIBFs and then offer the XP to lean into them (obviously with the fictional or otherwise cost). Therefore for me the word fairness works.

It's really semantics.

XP as an incentive is the same as XP as a reward. It all amounts to XP when they play contrary to their character's best interests.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The emotions that the mental model interacting with the fiction outputs are real, even if weaker than ones a real situation would elicit. There is some distance, but there is a clear correspondence. But a mechanic dictated by the mechanic is not real. "Scary 32" does not feel even least bit scary, so there is greater distance to the reality.

What? What’s Scary 32?

What? You describe how the mechanics force the character to feel in certain way and then you think the player has a say in that? The mechanic dictated it, just like you said, they did not have a say.

The player decided to rank his Lust vice at a certain ranking. The player then decided to have the character go into the brothel. The player most likely knows how the game works… he knows that going into the brothel will require a test. But, for whatever reason he may have, he decides to go in.

How is that the player having no say? How is this not the kind of tough decision you said you wanted to see?

I mean they chose the actions that lead to the squire's death in the first place?

Some of them, yes. There were several factors that led to it. But the player chose to not leave the squire to be saved by the authorities. He decided this because the Knight was a ruthless bastard, and even though he was fond of the Squire, he wouldn’t place that over his mission.

I think it is pretty wild to me that you don't think this is an important distinction. Like the player literally does not know whether they switched characters or not.

It’s not that I don’t think it’s an important distinction. I didn’t want to be the one to decide which was true. I left that up to the player. He never actually confirmed it in play one way or the other, not definitively. He played it earnestly, but left it open to be interpreted either way.

But like I have said to you the internal model interacting with the fiction can generate unexpected outcomes, just like you as real person interacting with the real world can generate unexpected outcomes.

Like if you believe that your real brain you use to make your real decisions can generate unexpected reactions when interacting with real events, why you think that the same brain interacting with fictional events would not do the same?

Because if we’re going to talk about “real brains”, as in the way that humans function psychologically, then the idea of complete control just seems misplaced.

Yes, sure. But it is both dramatically unsatisfying and psychologically questionable. The game mechanics really do not differentiate between big traumatic life changing events and minor inconveniences. Resisting a consequence in either can net you five stress and take you out of the scene. And in latter case it will just come across as silly an implausible. And the designers of the game seemed to think it too, as they changed the trauma timing in Deep Cuts.

Well, no, Deep Cuts offers alternate rules, not corrected ones.

Of all the complaints I’ve read about Blades, this is the first time I’ve read this one. It seems so idiosyncratic that I won’t try to address it.

 

[Maxperson]

That's a pretty extreme example, but I can still think of many Players I've gamed with who would ignore their PC's desire for vengeance in favor of a more game-positive result for their PC and the party. That's what the kind of rules I favor are for: to help encourage people to act the way you did.

They don't encourage the player to act, though. Rules don't do squat for that purpose, just like rules to limit DM power in an effort to curb bad DMs are doomed to fail.

You have a few choices. Some of those choices are, 1) you can not play with people that play that way. I choose not to, or 2) you can add incentives like XP for them to act that way.

 

[Maxperson]

I do.

How?

 

[Fenris-77]

How?

Acting!

 

[CreamCloud0]

What? What’s Scary 32?

i believe they mean something like 'there is a scary thing in your way/they make an intimidation check, it requires a save DC of 32 to not be frightened', that the scaryness of the thing is only dictated purely by the number on the dice rather than actually describing a creature or circumstance that would make them believe their character is frightened.

honestly it feels like they think we don't roleplay because we choose to use dice to decide situation with an unexpected character reaction

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What? What’s Scary 32?

Intimidation roll result or such. And I think you understood the actual point.

The player decided to rank his Lust vice at a certain ranking. The player then decided to have the character go into the brothel. The player most likely knows how the game works… he knows that going into the brothel will require a test. But, for whatever reason he may have, he decides to go in.

How is that the player having no say? How is this not the kind of tough decision you said you wanted to see?

They have no say on the moment of how the character reacts. Also this is rather poor example of sort of loss of agency Pendragon virtues cause. Yes, going to brothel in the first place probably already indicates certain intent. But the rules cause the knights to fall in love with specific individuals, and they can compel all sort of quite specific things. Like the literal point of these rules is that the player is not in control, so it is bizarrely to argue that they have a say. The purpose of these rules is that they do not!

Because if we’re going to talk about “real brains”, as in the way that humans function psychologically, then the idea of complete control just seems misplaced.

Right. And the player uses those same brains to use decisions in the game too, thus they are not in complete control in the same way they are not for the rest of the time! Like we cannot choose how fiction affects us. Like sure, an intentional buy-in and going with the flow helps and is expected in RPG play, but like you do not choose whether a scary movie scares you or a sad movie makes you sad. And the mental model of the character is a lens via which we look the fiction, and it will modulate those reactions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Intimidation roll result or such. And I think you understood the actual point.

No, I didn’t. @CreamCloud0’s post actually made it clear. The reason it wasn’t clear is again that’s not how this kind of stuff works. Just as with your preference, the emotion we’re going for is already present in some way. Dice don’t simply replace the entire process of roleplaying and the GM describing the scene.

They have no say on the moment of how the character reacts.

So what? That doesn’t mean they have no say at all! They set their virtues. They know where they’re weak or strong. They knowingly put themselves in a situation where their weakness might be tested. Why did they do it? Maybe something important. How important?

Is it important enough for the knight to put themself in a situation that will test their virtue?

Also this is rather poor example of sort of loss of agency Pendragon virtues cause. Yes, going to brothel in the first place probably already indicates certain intent. But the rules cause the knights to fall in love with specific individuals, and they can compel all sort of quite specific things. Like the literal point of these rules is that the player is not in control, so it is bizarrely to argue that they have a say. The purpose of these rules is that they do not!

The purpose of the rules is not to take away player agency. It’s to portray Arthurian fantasy where knights would be struck with love at first sight and were otherwise compelled by their virtues all the time.

It also creates emotional strengths and weaknesses for characters, much like physical stats. If a physically weak character can’t climb over a wall, do you cry about loss of agency? No… this is a consequence of the character’s low strength. There’s a chance he won’t be able to do things that require physical strength.

Right. And the player uses those same brains to use decisions in the game too, thus they are not in complete control in the same way they are not for the rest of the time! Like we cannot choose how fiction affects us. Like sure, an intentional buy-in and going with the flow helps and is expected in RPG play, but like you do not choose whether a scary movie scares you or a sad movie makes you sad. And the mental model of the character is a lens via which we look the fiction, and it will modulate those reactions.

But you absolutely can control the character’s response. Your response is not the character’s. You’re at that removed state I mentioned.

 

[bsss]

I will bang on about player agency all day, but "there are things modeled in the game, and those models create surprising situations to react to" is far afield of an agency concern.