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

Micah Sweet · 2026-03-04T18:33:34+0000

Bill Zebub said:
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.

Influence, not control. I still maintain some amount of mechanical influence is helpful in avoiding the temptation to make PC choices based on Player self-interest.

Thomas Shey · 2026-03-04T18:34:42+0000

Crimson Longinus said:
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.

Then you don't. But I don't believe its either of our tasks to tell other people how to play, per se. Both of our positions are fundamentally based on the impact said people have on the play of the group as a whole, and within that I'd say we just have different places we place priority.

Micah Sweet · 2026-03-04T18:35:20+0000

Crimson Longinus said:
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?

You are IMO skipping the process because you assume you know the end.

Crimson Longinus · 2026-03-04T18:39:50+0000

Micah Sweet said:
You are IMO skipping the process because you assume you know the end.

Explain the process to me then.

Bill Zebub · 2026-03-04T18:39:54+0000

Thomas Shey said:
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.

100% agree.

I just don't find censure from other people at the table who think I made the wrong decision to be "mechanical". As long as we're not talking about that I think we're in agreement.

Crimson Longinus · 2026-03-04T18:44:13+0000

BTW, the GM is in control of how the NPCs are presented and how the world at large sees them. If they want to make some NPC to appear scary, legendary, wise, kind, etc. they can do that, no mechanics needed. Though of course the mechanics of the NPC could (and should) inform how they are presented.

Bill Zebub · 2026-03-04T18:46:08+0000

Crimson Longinus said:
BTW, the GM is in control of how the NPCs are presented and how the world at large sees them. If they want to make some NPC to appear scary, legendary, wise, kind, etc. they can do that, no mechanics needed. Though of course the mechanics of the NPC could (and should) inform how they are presented.

That's basically what I was arguing for upthread: if the players trust that the portrayal of NPCs correlates to their abilities and actions, then dice rolls aren't really needed.

Thomas Shey · 2026-03-04T18:51:46+0000

Crimson Longinus said:
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?

The fact you don't see the difference between mechanics that encourage and those that force isn't making your argument look less extreme.

If you fail to resist an intimidation check against your character mechanically, and that means you'll take a penalty to hit, unless the penalty is so extreme its making it impossible to hit in practive, that doesn't "force" you to do anyting; it does however "encourage" you to find a different set of actions. If you can't see that distinction, I'm not sure how any further conversation here can proceed forward.

CreamCloud0 · 2026-03-04T18:53:36+0000

Crimson Longinus said:
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?

i feel like it does already apply to most everything to some degree besides social checks.

Thomas Shey · 2026-03-04T18:55:56+0000

Bill Zebub said:
100% agree.

I just don't find censure from other people at the table who think I made the wrong decision to be "mechanical". As long as we're not talking about that I think we're in agreement.

The only time I see censure as more appropriate there is when someone doesn't consider the impact on the group and/or game as a whole. If I was GMing and someone seemed to be consistently playing against a defined personality trait they've indicated (or in games where such things are taken as a partially mechanical process and people are expected to pay attention to them) I'd probably quietly take them aside and ask what was going on (and it may well be once they unpacked their thought process I'd nod and move on).

But I don't particularly like doing that, and I stopped paying attention to "roleplaying awards" in games' experience systems years ago for that reason. I've explained how I expect to handle it, and then if people still want to do other than what the social skill result would suggest, that's on them.