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

[Fenris-77]

So the rules can make people roleplay characters instead of doing the best thing for the player by forcing them to act? How can they force people to act?

I was joking.

 

[Maxperson]

I was joking.

Micah liked your post, so I thought it might actually mean something that I was missing.

 

[Fenris-77]

Micah liked your post, so I thought it might actually mean something that I was missing.

It was a very vague reference to an old Saturday Night Live sketch, not a shot at anyone.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But that is taking away agency!

It is wilful by the player that that agency be limited. In the same way one can choose to fail a saving throw or be persuaded.
They decide on the scores of their traits, passions etc. That is a knowing risk decided by the player.
In the same way that you decide your scores in D&D, it is a knowing risk what you will likely fail at or be worse at abc.
As it is an Arthurian game it focuses more on the passions, traits (virtues/vices) as opposed to all the combat related details of D&D.

You decide how that die roll reflects in the fiction based on the result.
i.e. The die roll says you fall deeper in love, how is that expressed in the fiction? You have that creative control on how that will play out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You keep saying that like it means something to the D&D rules. The D&D rules have never been about forcing people to remain true to their character, or even have character. What you are describing are table choices, not rules issues.

And you still haven't answered the question about how changing the rules is going to force players to do what you want them to do, rather than play the game how they like.

Not a D&D thread, first of all. These ideas can be applied to many games, including a D&D derivative. You already won the, "the rules don't say that" argument regarding D&D.

I believe adding a disincentive for ignoring the social situation in setting will remind Players that their characters do not necessarily have the same knowledge, capabilities, and personalities as they do. My hope is that this reminder will encourage them to think about what their character would do, rather than what they want to have happen or not happen their PC. It won't dissuade everyone from acting in their self-interest, but I still think it will lead to increased fidelity to the imaginary world, which is what I care about.

Best I can do to answer your question without trying it out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It absolutely is forcing the PC to feel certain ways. Let's take intimidation. If you succeed at an intimidation roll against my PC and I say he isn't intimidated, but you still enforce a -2 penalty against the intimidatory, you are forcing my character to feel intimidated and/or afraid. Otherwise there could be no penalty for being intimidated. That's what intimidated means.

No, I'm not forcing you to do anything. That's what you want, right?

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't think there should be a "penalty for acting in a way", but I do agree with "mechanics that reinforce the fall of the die."

So, Orc Warlord example with Intimidate, ideally the mechanical result shouldn't be based around the assumed "correct" PC reaction to the Intimidate roll, but on the warlord's success at it. Maybe it just alters the trajectory of the conversation: if the PCs don't act sufficiently obsequious he becomes even more difficult and intransigent, or maybe it means that he becomes more mechanically powerful/dangerous, or his followers all get a boost because they are so inspired, etc.

These too are nice ideas for the use of social skills by NPCs! Like I have been saying this space is very unexplored in D&D.
I'm likely to poach and find a way to incorporate this thinking for a social encounter. Thanks!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think there should be a "penalty for acting in a way", but I do agree with "mechanics that reinforce the fall of the die."

So, Orc Warlord example with Intimidate, ideally the mechanical result shouldn't be based around the assumed "correct" PC reaction to the Intimidate roll, but on the warlord's success at it. Maybe it just alters the trajectory of the conversation: if the PCs don't act sufficiently obsequious he becomes even more difficult and intransigent, or maybe it means that he becomes more mechanically powerful/dangerous, or his followers all get a boost because they are so inspired, etc.

I don't really care which way the mechanic goes, so long as it reflects the situation in the world. I'd like to put together a list of possible consequences that the GM can choose from in these situations, made up of effects that include potential penalties.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Far worse than any mechanical consequence would be a dread silence falling across the table as, feeling the tension in the air, I look to where Micah sits behind the GM screen. His face is coldly impassive as he peers at me over the top of his glasses, one eyebrow arched in a bone-chillingly understated display of quizzical critique.

"Uh....no," I stammer nervously, "...that's not what I meant. I meant to say, 'My deepest apologies, Sir Orcish Warlord, for intruding upon your domain..."

See? This way we both win! I play according the fall of the die, but as the player I am truly terrified.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, sorry.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is wilful by the player that that agency be limited. In the same way one can choose to fail a saving throw or be persuaded.
They decide on the scores of their traits, passions etc. That is a knowing risk decided by the player.
In the same way that you decide your scores in D&D, it is a knowing risk what you will likely fail at or be worse at abc.
As it is an Arthurian game it focuses more on the passions, traits (virtues/vices) as opposed to all the combat related details of D&D.

You decide how that die roll reflects in the fiction based on the result.

I wouldn't be averse to importing something like Pendragon's Virtues & Vices system to a D&D style game wholesale, just to see how it would run. Heck, the rest of Pendragon's mechanics play pretty traditionally, so it's not like it can't fit.