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

[Micah Sweet]

Gosh the username escapes me now, but there is a prolific poster on Enworld who plays 5e and PbtA games and mentioned that if a character rolls well on a non-proficient skill (and possibly succeeds) the GM may ask the player to elaborate on why the character succeeded, which the player can then take on the opportunity to expand on the character's background/experience to justify the good roll.
i.e. character succeeds on a boating check (which he had no business succeeding on) and player explains in his character's youth his beloved grandfather would take him out fishing quite often for several years before one day he passed away rather mysteriously when he never returned from a fishing weekend he had gone off alone.

Now I love the implementation of that idea and you can apply in this INT discussion too.

If say player Jeff comes up with a brilliant idea that his character thinks off, the GM can ask the player if he could justify how his character with an 8 INT came up with that idea by expanding on his background/experience or TIBF's.

Now yes you can argue this isn't in the rules but it makes for a pretty good compromise and the table wins as a result. Hell let the whole table offer input to make sense of the roll.
1. Player does not feel restricted;
2. Character lore expanded on; and
3. GM has more to draw on to challenge and surprise the players.

Sounds good. What happens if the GM asks for an explanation and the Player says, "I rolled an 18. I don't have or need any other reason"?

 

[Bill Zebub]

If say player Jeff comes up with a brilliant idea

How does one determine if an idea is brilliant, terrible, good, so-so, crazy, etc.?

 

[Micah Sweet]

How you play your character. Not how the DM thinks you should play your character.

My point is, it should help guide your decisions. You shouldn't be able to ignore them in your character choices because it's inconvenient, and I see no problem with the GM bringing an apparent discrepancy in that area to the Player's attention.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a great, fun idea -- unless jeff says "not really" and then the GM decides to punish them telling them they couldn't then.

If a player has a PC with a low dex and no proficiency grab a bow and try and hit an enemy, we don't ask the player to justify it. We just have them roll with the mechanical, system based penalties for taking such an action.

Maybe we should.

 

[Micah Sweet]

...and when the player of the Wizard with 18 Int comes up with an idea, and makes the same roll but with +4 instead of -1, and still fails...that means the party can't use the idea?

If they're playing true to the characters and the setting, in that situation they shouldn't, no.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Who said I refuse to let it influence behavior? I mean, penalties on rolls certainly influence behavior. And that’s before we even consider how the player chooses to portray it.

All I said is I don’t think having other people dictating how the player needs to portray the character.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So if I've got say a 6 Intelligence, and I choose to play my character as highly articulate and well educated/knowledgable, but prone to being forgetful and absentminded at key moments ("I HAVE TROUBLE MAKING DECISIONS UNDER STRESS!!!!"), are you good with that?

That is a reflection of the stat, so yes. It's ignoring the stat because it's inconvenient that I take issue with.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Sounds good. What happens if the GM asks for an explanation and the Player says, "I rolled an 18. I don't have or need any other reason"?

Well...I would not want to play with a table or a player that is not open to new ideas, is GM antagonistic, immature or selfish.
In the same way, my players would not want to play with a GM who is tyranical, possessive, close-minded and combative.

I'm assuming you have a good table culture. Discuss this novel idea as friends.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think you're confusing situations.
The argument is, character 8 INT comes up with a good idea (no roll needed). Player needs to expand on character lore.
If you have a character with 18 INT and they come up with a good idea (again no roll needed), it just happens.

Why are you demanding justification from one player but not the other?

And what good does it do? Let's say Jeff is the kind of player who would resort to low-down stinking cheating by coming up with ideas that his moronic character (defined by the -5% penalty to Intelligence checks). So we police his thinking by demanding he justify how his character could possibly have thought to let air out of the tires of the truck stuck under the bridge. If he's the kind of player who destroy everybody's fun so callously, then he's just going to make something up. "Uhh....I was in my remedial Walking & Chewing Gum at the Same Time class, and the teacher told us about it. I wrote it down on a piece of paper so I wouldn't forget, and it's been in my pocket for the last 11 years."

What's next? Do the other players then police the justification, and vote on whether it's good enough?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who said I refuse to let it influence behavior? I mean, penalties on rolls certainly influence behavior. And that’s before we even consider how the player chooses to portray it.

All I said is I don’t think having other people dictating how the player needs to portray the character.

You can't ignore it on die rolls without cheating. Not the same thing.