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

Thomas Shey · 2026-03-04T01:24:06+0000

Fenris-77 said:
I have no interest in making players roleplay basic skills deployed by NPCs like that. In a lot of games there are enough other magical/tech options that will force them. IDK, maybe I'm just old? It's just not how I play.

Its a profound split in the hobby, but it doesn't have anything to do with age, since I'd be willing to put a bet I'm older than you.

Thomas Shey · 2026-03-04T01:26:06+0000

TwoSix said:
It depends on the game. I'm more prone to want avatar-stance play in an OSR-style game focused on problem-solving, whereas I'm more interested in character portrayal (and letting the resolution engine guide that portrayal) in something like a Pendragon or a PbtA game.

I mean, this isn't some new play style division; I can remember complaints about Willpower checks forcing characters into choices their players didn't like in games like Vampire back in the '90s.

Yup. This is miles away from a new argument. Its one reason I've had a very long time to decide the very precise position I hold in the discussion.

Thomas Shey · 2026-03-04T01:27:52+0000

Bill Zebub said:
I think this is another version of what I was just saying: it is possible to have the outcome of the social interaction modify the game state, without any expectation of how the PCs are "supposed" to respond to that changed game state. But if they take actions that aren't aligned with that state it may prove more challenging than otherwise.

That's why I suggest thumb-on-the-scale options rather than take-control options.

Maxperson · 2026-03-04T01:32:06+0000

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

No. I test their convictions myself. I know my character's personality and what other aspects might come to bear. I know his background. I know his game play up to this point.

If my character has sworn an oath never to lie, that matters. If during the game it comes to pass that if he tells the truth about something, a little girl will be killed, that creates a dilemma. Looking at him, I also know that he is a kind and caring person, so how do I reconcile those two aspects that are in conflict. Doesn't hold true to his oath, or does he lie to save the girl. I don't know, but I will struggle with it and eventually come to a decision, but until I make that final decision based on all the information I know, it could go either way.

If I leave it to a die roll, there is no struggle. None at all. Some 20 sided die made the decision independent of the character, taking absolutely nothing into consideration about who he is.

Bill Zebub · 2026-03-04T02:12:54+0000

Thomas Shey said:
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.

Wait...that seems like a different, even opposite, argument from the one I've been seeing. That seems to make two possible objections:

If a player is smarter (wiser, more charismatic) than their character they might cheat by not acting as their character "would" and therefore they should be required to comply with the dice.
Alternately, if a player is dumber (more foolish, less charismatic) than their character they might not be able to act as their character would, and therefore the most inclusive thing to do is to let them use dice.

Is that it?

Bill Zebub · 2026-03-04T02:21:14+0000

TwoSix said:
It depends on the game. I'm more prone to want avatar-stance play in an OSR-style game focused on problem-solving, whereas I'm more interested in character portrayal (and letting the resolution engine guide that portrayal) in something like a Pendragon or a PbtA game.

That makes sense to me. When @pemerton writes about their experiences in the context of Torchbearer it also absolutely makes sense. Not my cup of tea, although it's interesting to read,* but I can see how a character's thoughts/reactions being driven by the game mechanics is part of the design.

*I'm intrigued enough that I'd like to try it sometime, with an experienced GM, but I doubt I would replace my more traditional games.

TwoSix · 2026-03-04T02:46:16+0000

Bill Zebub said:
That makes sense to me. When @pemerton writes about their experiences in the context of Torchbearer it also absolutely makes sense. Not my cup of tea, although it's interesting to read,* but I can see how a character's thoughts/reactions being driven by the game mechanics is part of the design.

*I'm intrigued enough that I'd like to try it sometime, with an experienced GM, but I doubt I would replace my more traditional games.

There’s a lot of games out there, with wildly divergent play styles. My preference is to try as many as possible. And I think you get a better experience out of a game if you understand what it’s trying to do and embrace its differences, even if they’re unfamiliar and a little uncomfortable at first.

Micah Sweet · 2026-03-04T03:02:45+0000

Maxperson said:
No. I test their convictions myself. I know my character's personality and what other aspects might come to bear. I know his background. I know his game play up to this point.

If my character has sworn an oath never to lie, that matters. If during the game it comes to pass that if he tells the truth about something, a little girl will be killed, that creates a dilemma. Looking at him, I also know that he is a kind and caring person, so how do I reconcile those two aspects that are in conflict. Doesn't hold true to his oath, or does he lie to save the girl. I don't know, but I will struggle with it and eventually come to a decision, but until I make that final decision based on all the information I know, it could go either way.

If I leave it to a die roll, there is no struggle. None at all. Some 20 sided die made the decision independent of the character, taking absolutely nothing into consideration about who he is.

How would you feel about the "thumb on the scale" theory, like what @Thomas Shey was talking about, or @soviet 's idea?

Thomas Shey · 2026-03-04T03:09:56+0000

Bill Zebub said:
Wait...that seems like a different, even opposite, argument from the one I've been seeing. That seems to make two possible objections:

If a player is smarter (wiser, more charismatic) than their character they might cheat by not acting as their character "would" and therefore they should be required to comply with the dice.

Alternately, if a player is dumber (more foolish, less charismatic) than their character they might not be able to act as their character would, and therefore the most inclusive thing to do is to let them use dice.

Is that it?

I wouldn't describe the first as automatically "cheating" (though I do think it easily can be gaming process), but yes, I think having all the weight in a game be on the player's descriptive skills and other skills that port over to the game produces both of your situations, and as such its not desirable.

Note, however, I'm not suggesting purely dice roll based resolution; I think there is benefit to a hybrid approach. If I was limited to all one way or the other, would I choose purely die rolls? Maybe. I've played in a purely randomless RPG environment (with largely self-defined traits to boot) when MUSHing, and while sometimes it was really good, the failure states weren't exactly appealing), so it might be the lesser evil, but I won't say it wouldn't be an evil.

Thomas Shey · 2026-03-04T03:12:05+0000

TwoSix said:
There’s a lot of games out there, with wildly divergent play styles. My preference is to try as many as possible. And I think you get a better experience out of a game if you understand what it’s trying to do and embrace its differences, even if they’re unfamiliar and a little uncomfortable at first.

That's why I ran a couple games of Fate at one point, but concluded "uncomfortable" was a vast understatement to how it made me feel as a GM.