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

[Committed Hero]

First, the failure in world building wasn't that the DM isn't making everything interesting everywhere all at once. It was that outside of his line he is making NOTHING interesting, which is far more unrealistic than your Batman example.

It's BS that a GM not only has to plan for a session, but also plan for the contingency that the players might find the session boring (this is like a quantum ogre setup but the party takes the unguarded path and complains they didn't get XP). They have some responsibility to elucidate what they or their characters will find interesting, whether it's through mechanics or back story.

Interest becomes a rather subjective standard at some point - and typically just the GM has the information to gauge what is and isn't interesting. If you make them responsible for entertaining you, you need to give them some leeway and trust their instincts.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I usually create dynamic situations where something is eventually going to happen even if the PCs do nothing. Not that such inaction commonly occurs in my games in the first place. But failing that, I think it would be perfectly fine to invent some sort of an event that prompts a reaction from the players, even if you had not preplanned it. It is not like the world is a static place where everyone just politely waits for the PCs to do something.

The genuine problem you can run into in a few cases if you've over-emphasized the players choosing their own path is that their reaction may be "run away". This is often an indication somewhere along the way there's been a breakdown in expectations, but it still happens.

 

[Committed Hero]

The genuine problem you can run into in a few cases if you've over-emphasized the players choosing their own path is that their reaction may be "run away". This is often an indication somewhere along the way there's been a breakdown in expectations, but it still happens.

A lot of times people want choices, but only good ones.

 

[Thomas Shey]

« Something » in this case being substituting their judgment for that of the person actually playing the character.

If you want to play a character as smart as you are, pick an appropriate Intelligence. There can be room for disagreement, but when they guy making all the detailed plans is the one with a D&D INT of 8, I think I'm going to question whether the player is actually playing the character in the first place. As I said, if you want to do token play, play a game without mental and social attributes.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm agnostic about the right way. I just note that in some parts of the hobby actually making mental stats matter seems to be seen as a terrible imposition for various reasons (watch the kerfluffle any time discussion of social or mental skills comes up).

The problem here is "matter" does a lot of work. I personally don't think "matter" should be "other players have the right to police how I declare actions for my character".

 

[billd91]

If the GM required an Intelligence check would that satisfy you?

I'm not sure I would be happy with that either because it's the GM deciding whether or not a particular idea/tactic is subject to an Intelligence check (not to mention setting the DC) which is tantamount to policing the role play of the character.

 

[Maxperson]

It's BS that a GM not only has to plan for a session, but also plan for the contingency that the players might find the session boring (this is like a quantum ogre setup but the party takes the unguarded path and complains they didn't get XP). They have some responsibility to elucidate what they or their characters will find interesting, whether it's through mechanics or back story.

That isn't what anyone said.

Interest becomes a rather subjective standard at some point - and typically just the GM has the information to gauge what is and isn't interesting. If you make them responsible for entertaining you, you need to give them some leeway and trust their instincts.

You've gotten hung up on something nobody is arguing. This isn't about whether or not Tom, Dick, and Harry find going into the Temple of Elemental Bubbles interesting. It's about there not even being anything like a Temple of Elemental Bubbles anywhere in the world outside of where the DM wants the group to go.

If they leave the rails, there's just woods and other boring stuff without even an encounter to liven things up until they walk back to the rails and get back on board the train.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the group is having fun, it's not a problem. If the GM is not having fun, they are within their rights as a player to express this. Obviously, there are ways to do so that are less confrontational than others, but no reasonable player having spent that long already should balk at "decide your course of action in the next X minutes and let's play."

It isn't even a given that all the players are having fun in that situation. It isn't uncommon for either some people to be very cautious and some not, or the players to be viewing all the options with suspicion so they're trying to see if there's a way to take more control over the situations than are presented. Like a lot of things, this could be addressed with better communication, but as I note when that comes up, good communication isn't a given in all kinds of parts of life, it should be no surprise that gaming is going to automatically have it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's the players who decide what, if anything, their PCs are going to do. If the players want to spend the whole session discussing what to do, that's up to them. I as GM don't feel the need to "spur the heroes to action" because I don't feel that it's my job to do so. At most I would insist that the discussion be had in character (ie, roleplayed) and if in a public place and overheard by NPCs, said NPCs might interject with suggestions. But I also absolutely love games with lots of political intrigue and interpersonal relationships so a whole session being dedicated to a single scene of deep conversation is something I enjoy, especially if it's the players roleplaying amongst themselves.

Not everyone feels its interesting and fun to spend time in an extended argument about what to do next. Some of those are players; some are GMs. Especially when it happens repeatedly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

While I have no problem with character stats or traits being involved in how things play out, I’d much prefer it be in a direct way… like a penalty to a roll… rather than some indirect interpretation… such as a GM saying “your character isn’t X enough to do that”.

Like I said, its a suboptimal way to address the issue at best, but I can understand how the motivation can occur and be held honestly.