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

[Crimson Longinus]

No, I didn’t. @CreamCloud0’s post actually made it clear. The reason it wasn’t clear is again that’s not how this kind of stuff works. Just as with your preference, the emotion we’re going for is already present in some way. Dice don’t simply replace the entire process of roleplaying and the GM describing the scene.

But are they present? What if they aren't? What if your mental model says that the character feels one way and the rules say they feel another way? And of course, if the description sufficiently evoked the emotion already, you don't need the rules to say the same thing.

The purpose of the rules is not to take away player agency. It’s to portray Arthurian fantasy where knights would be struck with love at first sight and were otherwise compelled by their virtues all the time.

But that is taking away agency!

And I am quite familiar with Arthurian stories. Lancelot is in love with the wife of his king and best friend, and eventually will betray him for that reason. But to me it loses its pathos if that is not a choice by Lancelot, if he is just some automaton driven by his passions. And in agame I don't think "can I roll the right number" is an interesting test of virtues and values.

It also creates emotional strengths and weaknesses for characters, much like physical stats. If a physically weak character can’t climb over a wall, do you cry about loss of agency? No… this is a consequence of the character’s low strength. There’s a chance he won’t be able to do things that require physical strength.

Because it is not the same thing! The weak charcter can still want to get otherside of the wall, and can now devise other methods to get there. But rules that dictate the mental state of the chracter affect what they want. This will short cirquit the whole playloop.

But you absolutely can control the character’s response. Your response is not the character’s. You’re at that removed state I mentioned.

The point of character immersion is to lessen that distance, and go with the flow of what the inner mental model of the character says. So no, you cannot fully control it, just like you cannot fully control your real life responses. Like my play example from Blades earlier, I could not have chosen other reaction and remain true to the character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I will bang on about player agency all day, but "there are things modeled in the game, and those models create surprising situations to react to" is far afield of an agency concern.

The issue arises when the rules also decide how the character reacts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But are they present? What if they aren't? What if your mental model says that the character feels one way and the rules say they feel another way? And of course, if the description sufficiently evoked the emotion already, you don't need the rules to say the same thing.


But that is taking away agency!

And I am quite familiar with Arthurian stories. Lancelot is in love with the wife of his king and best friend, and eventually will betray him for that reason. But to me it loses its pathos if that is not a choice by Lancelot, if he is just some automaton driven by his passions. And in agame I don't think "can I roll the right number" is an interesting test of virtues and values.



Because it is not the same thing! The weak charcter can still want to get otherside of the wall, and can now devise other methods to get there. But rules that dictate the mental state of the chracter affect what they want. This will short cirquit the whole playloop.



The point of character immersion is to lessen that distance, and go with the flow of what the inner mental model of the character says. So no, you cannot fully control it, just like you cannot fully control your real life responses. Like my play example from Blades earlier, I could not have chosen other reaction and remain true to the character.

But you could have chosen not to remain true to the character, at zero consequence. Any Player in any game that works the way you want can ignore their mental model and the circumstances in the setting to do something else instead, with zero consequence, and sometimes that out-of-character choice will involve less risk and/or more likely success for the character's or the party's goals. I know a lot of Players who would go with the more "goal-positive" choice.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But you could have chosen not to remain true to the character, at zero consequence. Any Player in any game that works the way you want can ignore their mental model and the circumstances in the setting to do something else instead, with zero consequence, and sometimes that out-of-character choice will involve less risk and/or more likely success for the character's or the party's goals. I know a lot of Players who would go with the more "goal-positive" choice.

The consequence would have been ruining the game for me, which is way worse consequence any mechanic could provide.

And I just do not believe you can legislate this. If the player does not care about immersion into their character and honest portrayal of of them, I don't think you can force them to.

That being said, I think there are mechanics that can deter people from playing their character honestly and caring about their inner life, and ironically some of those mechanics are exactly the sorts of people on "your side" of the debate are suggesting. If I know the game will force my character to react or feel certain ways, it tells me not to construct an immersive mental model of the character, as that could conflict with those mechanical outputs. In other words in a game with such mechanics there should not be an internal model that produces reactions, as the mechanics already do that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The consequence would have been ruining the game for me, which is way worse consequence any mechanic could provide.

And I just do not believe you can legislate this. If the player does not care about immersion into their character and honest portrayal of of them, I don't think you can force them to.

That being said, I think there are mechanics that can deter people from playing their character honestly and caring about their inner life, and ironically some of those mechanics are exactly the sorts of people on "your side" of the debate are suggesting. If I know the game will force my character to react or feel certain ways, it tells me not to construct an immersive mental model of the character, as that could conflict with those mechanical outputs. In other words in a game with such mechanics there should not be an internal model that produces reactions, as the mechanics already do that.

I don't believe a mechanical penalty for acting in a way not indicated by the determined social situation in the setting counts as forcing your character to react or feel certain ways. We're not going to agree on this.

 

[Maxperson]

Acting!

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?

 

[Maxperson]

But you could have chosen not to remain true to the character, at zero consequence. Any Player in any game that works the way you want can ignore their mental model and the circumstances in the setting to do something else instead, with zero consequence, and sometimes that out-of-character choice will involve less risk and/or more likely success for the character's or the party's goals. I know a lot of Players who would go with the more "goal-positive" choice.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't believe a mechanical penalty for acting in a way not indicated by the determined social situation in the setting counts as forcing your character to react or feel certain ways. We're not going to agree on this.

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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But you could have chosen not to remain true to the character, at zero consequence. Any Player in any game that works the way you want can ignore their mental model and the circumstances in the setting to do something else instead, with zero consequence, and sometimes that out-of-character choice will involve less risk and/or more likely success for the character's or the party's goals. I know a lot of Players who would go with the more "goal-positive" choice.

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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't believe a mechanical penalty for acting in a way not indicated by the determined social situation in the setting counts as forcing your character to react or feel certain ways. We're not going to agree on this.

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.