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

[Micah Sweet]

It depends on how it’s implemented. I mean, taking D&D as an easy example, I’ve seen people who consider an Intelligence of 8 as being an utter imbecile instead of being a little below average. As if the character is just walking around like “Duuurh what’s dat ting dere?”

A little below average doesn’t mean a person can’t figure things out or have intelligent thoughts. We all know people we consider to he pretty dumb who, at times, seem anything but… and we also know people who are incredibly smart who will upon occasion do really stupid things.

I’d personally rather not leave something like that up for interpretation given how drastically it’s often interpreted. Instead, it’s a penalty on certain rolls… and other than that, it need not serve as an indicator of the character’s overall Intelligence (or Charisma or whatever other stat you want).

That's your choice, but I really question the value of the attribute as it is presented if you refuse to let your score influence your behavior.

 

[Hriston]

The issue in this case seems to be that the expectations have not been properly communicated and agreed upon beforehand.

That could prevent the railroading, yes, but my assumption, because it's a game I've agreed to play in, is that expectations have been communicated and agreed upon, and then the GM pulls this. Railroading, yes or no?

 

[Hriston]

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

Up-thread I posted this:

You mean like calling for an Intelligence check to see if it [the action I declared] was a good idea? I'd be fine with that. (Eta: provided other characters are subject to the same types of checks.)

Edit to clarify what "it" was.

 

[zarionofarabel]

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.

Good for them?!?! If the players want to try to force other players into taking action then that's something they need to do themselves. As a GM I don't feel that it's my job to force the players into doing anything. If you as a GM want to do that, go ahead. We as GMs and players have different preferences, and none are objectively better than others. As I said in my previous post, I am fine with players spending an entire session discussing what to do. If one of the players at my table feels it's time for the discussion to end and the doing of things to start then it's up to that player to do something about it. I'm one of the GMs that does not feel obligated to provide a fun time for the players. My job as GM is to run the setting and NPCs and to adjudicate rules. If a player isn't having fun during a game, they are obligated to do something about it themselves, not expect me to do something for them. I don't do the coddling or hand holding thing. I expect adults to act like adults and take responsibility for their enjoyment of the game. When I am a player I do not expect the GM to provide a fun time for me, I am responsible for my own enjoyment of the game. If I as a player feel that the other players are wasting too much time on something, I will speak up or take action myself, rather than waiting or expecting the GM to do it for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That could prevent the railroading, yes, but my assumption, because it's a game I've agreed to play in, is that expectations have been communicated and agreed upon, and then the GM pulls this. Railroading, yes or no?

No. Players still have lots of setting to explore, and plenty of choices to make through their PCs (including looking for another way out if they wish).

 

[Hriston]

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).

I have no problem with non-physical stats mattering, and, the way I play, they do, but I think enforcing certain decisions by the character by force is a terrible way to make them matter (if you feel like they don't for some reason).

 

[Reynard]

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.

I don't think there should be mental attributes, because they measure something against the player, rather than separate from the player like physical attributes. Those scores and the mechanisms they impact are fine, just call them something else and it won't be a problem anymore.
No one should tell a player they can't try something "because your character isn't that smart."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think there should be mental attributes, because they measure something against the player, rather than separate from the player like physical attributes. Those scores and the mechanisms they impact are fine, just call them something else and it won't be a problem anymore.
No one should tell a player they can't try something "because your character isn't that smart."

But what if their character isn't that smart?

 

[TwoSix]

That's your choice, but I really question the value of the attribute as it is presented if you refuse to let your score influence your behavior.

I, personally, choose how to narratively justify my characters’ stats in 5e. But no else at the table has any standing to decide whether or not I’m doing it right.

 

[billd91]

I don't think there should be mental attributes, because they measure something against the player, rather than separate from the player like physical attributes. Those scores and the mechanisms they impact are fine, just call them something else and it won't be a problem anymore.
No one should tell a player they can't try something "because your character isn't that smart."

I don't have a problem with mental attributes and using mental attribute terms - as long as they are used for execution of actions when checks are made and not as gatekeepers for playing a certain way.