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

[Thomas Shey]

I agree. I am just saying, since we understand that railroading might be viewed differently based on what game is being played, and the OP specifically used his D&D game to ask the question, it seems more appropriate over there.

This operates on the idea that even within one game system there's agreement what consitutes railroading. Not only this, but many past threads shows that's far, far from true.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm kind of in the middle on this one.

I don't think homebrewing is intrinsically a mistake, but I do think casually adding on new subsystems without looking at how they integrate with the current ones can have unexpected, and malign effects. You need to really look at how they're going to integrate with the extent systems.

(Of course, I'm also not a fan of games put together from a bunch of not particularly related subsystems in the first place, and those are likely to be most tolerant of that kind of thing. I want a very limited number of systemic approaches (often ideally one), and then specialized applications of that for various purposes. Those make it a little harder to bring new things in, but if you're willing to work with the core system(s) in how you do it, usually less likely to blow up).

Whereas I care far more about how well the subsystem models it's subject than I do about unified resolution systems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Baker uses the descriptions "unwelcome and unwanted" and "would reject" in a particular sense. Because it's obvious that, in a certain sense, the outcomes he's talking about are wanted: that's why people are playing a RPG that generates them - they want these compelling moments. He makes it clear what the sense of his phrases is, by way of his glossing of them in what I've quoted.

The only thing I question here (because I believe I understand what he's getting at) is that I have a suspicion that the whole business is based on their being a zone where players and the GM would not chose the decisional outcome if allowed to do so freely, but would find it interesting if the mechanics made it happen. I believe you referenced it in another post.

I'm going to suggest that for some people that zone does not exist; whether because their willingness to explore the actually unpleasant is greater, or (usually but not always in the case of different people) their tolerance for it is less, there's no such zone; mechanics are either incapable of producing any result they find credible for their character that they wouldn't do themselves, or they produce results they find intolerable no matter how they got there.

This, of course, does not say this applies to everyone, nor that there can not be a range here (where the width of that zone varies without it being completely nonexistant).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Whereas I care far more about how well the subsystem models it's subject than I do about unified resolution systems.

I just consider non-unified systems to be a problem unto themselves, and am unconvinced they every actually serve a desirable result that a subset of a unified system can't. Sometimes they're harmless or operate in such different an unrelated areas that its not clear it would be beneficial to combine them, but seeing a modern game that doesn't seem to have an obvious reason to separate out those systems is a red flag to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What I mean is that if the reaction is plausible, then certainly it is something someone could choose, no? Or do we want implausible reactions now?

No, nothing implausible.

But why would a character choose the unwanted in a truly inopportune time in their world? And why would you, as the player controlling that character and supposedly making decisions based only on the character’s goals and desires, choose the unwanted when it might really impact their goals or those of others?

Because there are usually multiple plausible outcomes for player decisions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm sure that isn't as derogatory as it sounds. Perhaps the phrase is a kind of "term of art" of which I'm unaware?

I’m not using it as a term of art… just as a descriptor of some RPG play. And as I said, there’s a little of that in most games. But I think there’s even more when the player maintains the total control being described.

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to suggest that for some people that zone does not exist; whether because their willingness to explore the actually unpleasant is greater, or (usually but not always in the case of different people) their tolerance for it is less

Baker talks about this in the blog post that I linked to.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’m not using it as a term of art… just as a descriptor of some RPG play. And as I said, there’s a little of that in most games. But I think there’s even more when the player maintains the total control being described.

I agree that people who crave power fantasy probably also want 100% agency. But the inverse is not true.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, nothing implausible.

But why would a character choose the unwanted in a truly inopportune time in their world? And why would you, as the player controlling that character and supposedly making decisions based only on the character’s goals and desires, choose the unwanted when it might really impact their goals or those of others?

Because there are usually multiple plausible outcomes for player decisions.

Same answer than always: because the internal mental model of the character says that this is what they'd do.
How many times it need to be repeated before you believe people can do this?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree that people who crave power fantasy probably also want 100% agency. But the inverse is not true.

Not 100% agency. You’re rephrasing what I said.

Absolute control of their character’s mental state and decisions. To never have to suffer any unwanted negative consequences of that sort.