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

Bill Zebub said:

I took it in the sense of it a being a more simplistic, i.e. less sophisticated, model. Which I would interpret the other way: that leaving decisions to RNG ("because you can't play a character") is a simpler way to resolve things. But I can also see how, if by the "model" one means specifically the mechanics of the game, leaving out some aspects of play (e.g. social interaction) is the simpler form.

Click to expand...

I look it as the simplest model is simply playing yourself, with the character as a game piece, and you play to beat the combat/module in the way that will keep your character alive and progressing.

More complex than that is creating a more detailed model of a character, with a personality, motivations, and backstory, and then taking actions and narrating within the game using that model as your guidance. That's what I think most of us like to do when we play, no matter what "side" of the current argument we're on.

Where I differ from you, I believe (and there are more than 2 sides to this discussion!), is that I prefer the mechanics to create situations (not every situation, but situations with stakes) wherein my character might be impacted in their emotional state or decision-making, and I portray the result of the roll or check in a way that respects the result, while still aligning with my character.

Narrating a reason why a normally mild-mannered character might lose their cool when challenged (as the result of a failed check), as an example, is a part of roleplaying I enjoy. Whereas I think you might enjoy more being able to portray your mild-mannered character as NOT losing their cool, so as to demonstrate the concept of them as mild-mannered.

Crimson Longinus said:

Not everything, but there certainly are games where the NPCs can influence the characters in ways that reshape their wants and goals and there are games where the characters traits force certain sort of behaviour. Various White Wolf games (Exalted 2e being the worst,) Burning Wheel, Pendragon, etc. It is not a strawman.

Click to expand...

I totally agree that happens. (Although I agree with @hawkeyefan that just because a game places limits on agency, it doesn't mean the game will become a game with no agency.)

But that works for those games! It might not work for you or some of the others who share your preferences, of course. But it doesn't mean the game would be better if they had designed it without those agency limitations. A game in which my vampire only gives into bloodlust when I, as a player, want them to isn't a game which is supporting the themes of V:tM.

TwoSix said:

Narrating a reason why a normally mild-mannered character might lose their cool when challenged (as the result of a failed check), as an example, is a part of roleplaying I enjoy. Whereas I think you might enjoy more being able to portray your mild-mannered character as NOT losing their cool, so as to demonstrate the concept of them as mild-mannered.

Click to expand...

What I find cool is there to be such a fictional situation that elicits the losing temper response from my internal mental model of my mild-mannered character. But what I absolutely do not want to ever happen is the mechanics to say that they lose their temper when my internal model says they do not (or vice versa.) That sort of thing is the worst immersion killer I know and I absolutely hate it.

Crimson Longinus said:

I liked @soviet's approach as it left the mind of the PC to the player and the consequences were about how the rest of the world perceive the situation. I have zero issues with that and I've done similar. But the point you are saying that the NPC was so convincing that the PC is now second guessing themself, then you are telling the player what their character thinks and I am way less cool with that.

Click to expand...

Any successful social roll against a character tells them, to some extent, how they thing. There's nothing else I can see a successful social roll meaning here. It doesn't necessarily tell them the whole picture (I can see someone's point but still decide its not enough, but the seeing of their point is bound to some extent to change how I view things related to that going forward, especially if it bears on a fairly immediate event.) Again, if someone thinks they're completely immune to that sort of thing, I think they have a mistaken impression of what influence can and can't do.

Crimson Longinus said:

The thing is, in RPGs the player's say what their chracters want to do, then the mechnics and the GM determine how well that succeeds. But when the mechnis or the GM start to tell the players what their chracter wants, then you short circuit this whole process.

Click to expand...

"Wants" is doing heavy lifting. They can "want" to do one thing and still have reservations about it. If its your position that has no effect, then A) We fundamentally disagree on how people interact with each other, and/or B) You're unwilling to allow a social roll to have any impact at all on someone unless they permit it, and if either of those is the case, I can't follow you there.

hawkeyefan said:

I don’t believe that’s exactly correct… though it is possible I’ve missed some posts.

Mostly, I think people advocating for any kind of rules that dictate character behavior in some way are talking about something more nuanced than reversing D&D’s PC to NPC dynamic RE social skills.

Click to expand...

Well, in my case it doesn't hurt that I think a lot of social skill systems are overly simpleminded in the first place. That's just as true if they're targeted at PCs or NPCs.

TwoSix said:

I look it as the simplest model is simply playing yourself, with the character as a game piece, and you play to beat the combat/module in the way that will keep your character alive and progressing.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'd argue in full-blown token play, you aren't even playing yourself; you're probably making utilitarian decisions different than you'd make if you were in the situation because its all about the game play and "winning".

That's why I use the "token" and "avatar" terms separately. In the latter case you're playing as essentially yourself and while the character may have no distinction from you, it at least has a discernable personality and probably some motives other than just "winning".

Thomas Shey said:

Any successful social roll against a character tells them, to some extent, how they thing. There's nothing else I can see a successful social roll meaning here. It doesn't necessarily tell them the whole picture (I can see someone's point but still decide its not enough, but the seeing of their point is bound to some extent to change how I view things related to that going forward, especially if it bears on a fairly immediate event.) Again, if someone thinks they're completely immune to that sort of thing, I think they have a mistaken impression of what influence can and can't do.

Click to expand...

Yes, people can be influenced. And the GM has to actually present the case. A joking roll 28 does not make me laugh and persuasion roll 28 does not make me believe that an idea that is blatantly stupid is actually great. Just present the argument, if the NPC has good social skills make it a convincing one and let the other NPCs react like the speaker was a prophet. And then the players either buy it or not.

Thomas Shey said:

"Wants" is doing heavy lifting. They can "want" to do one thing and still have reservations about it. If its your position that has no effect, then A) We fundamentally disagree on how people interact with each other, and/or B) You're unwilling to allow a social roll to have any impact at all on someone unless they permit it, and if either of those is the case, I can't follow you there.

Click to expand...

The roll can inform what information the player receives, like a good deception roll vs poor insight roll might deny the player the obvious clues that the speaker is lying. But yes, I want the players to be deciding the mind of their character, not the dice. That's why I have the players there.

Crimson Longinus said:

Yes, people can be influenced. And the GM has to actually present the case. A joking roll 28 does not make me laugh and persuasion roll 28 does not make me believe that an idea that is blatantly stupid is actually great. Just present the argument, if the NPC has good social skills make it a convincing one and let the other NPCs react like the speaker was a prophet. And then the players either buy it or not.

Click to expand...

I've presented my problem with that before; I don't see any point in repeating it again.

Crimson Longinus said:

The roll can inform what information the player receives, like a good deception roll vs poor insight roll might deny the player the obvious clues that the speaker is lying. But yes, I want the players to be deciding the mind of their character, not the dice. That's why I have the players there.

Click to expand...

And if I'm going to bother to have the rolls, I expect a success to mean something, even if its just a modifier. So here we are.

Thomas Shey said:

Actually, I'd argue in full-blown token play, you aren't even playing yourself; you're probably making utilitarian decisions different than you'd make if you were in the situation because its all about the game play and "winning".

That's why I use the "token" and "avatar" terms separately. In the latter case you're playing as essentially yourself and while the character may have no distinction from you, it at least has a discernable personality and probably some motives other than just "winning".

Click to expand...

Sure, I'd agree with that.

And there's nuance here too; I've definitely known players who will roleplay a hearty personality during the relatively stakeless, "color" roleplay sections of intra-PC and PC-NPC chatter, but switch to purely gamist decision making whenever something that actually impacts gameplay.

Thomas Shey said:

I've presented my problem with that before; I don't see any point in repeating it again.



And if I'm going to bother to have the rolls, I expect a success to mean something, even if its just a modifier. So here we are.

Click to expand...

And we come again to the continually derived conclusion of "different people play different and like very different things, even when playing the same game."