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

[Bill Zebub]

It was meant to address this question from the post to which you were responding:

Since you prioritize exploration of the setting over more challenge-oriented play (focusing on exploration of situation), I was suggesting an expectation might exist that PCs with low Wisdom would be considered unfit vehicles for allowing their players to fully participate in a game with those priorities. It was meant to set up an equivalency between not being free to make decisions for a low Int character in a given situation and not being able to imagine the setting in which a low Wis character finds themselves because their low score prevents the player from acquiring information through play about the when, where, and who of the game world.

This made me think that the way to express this is for the GM to give the player of the 3 Wisdom character different information than the rest of the party gets. (This is just a thought experiment and would be a pain to do...except I guess online.). I wouldn't advocate for it, but in my mind that would be a good "simulation" of the low Wisdom.

And likewise with Intelligence: if the GM thinks that 3 or 5 or 7 Intelligence represents a specific level of understanding, then give that player different information!

But that's a very different beast from giving the player full information, and then expecting them to "roleplay" that stat according to somebody else's opinion about what the number represents.

 

[Hriston]

My wife often claims she has a low wisdom, but for her that really means that she makes rash decisions, not that she is not perceptive of her environment. We represent this by having a lowish stat but proficiency in appropriate skills (and expertise dice in specific areas in my game). Wisdom is an exceptionally fuzzy stat, but we do our best to represent our scores in a way that makes sense to us. That's all I want, for attributes to be a recognizable part of the mix.

Okay, well, for you, what ability does a character depend on to explore the setting, and what is the minimum score needed to do so?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, well, for you, what ability does a character depend on to explore the setting, and what is the minimum score needed to do so?

I don't understand what you mean. The GM describes the situation, and the Player responds, and the GM responds to that. At what point did I say anything about needing a minimum score in any attribute to explore? This is about roleplaying the stuff on your character sheet. Why are you apparently making up a new argument?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't understand what you mean. The GM describes the situation, and the Player responds, and the GM responds to that. At what point did I say anything about needing a minimum score in any attribute to explore? This is about roleplaying the stuff on your character sheet. Why are you apparently making up a new argument?

As I was alluding to up ahead, more as a thought experiment although the bolded part makes me wonder if it really is: it seems a bit perverse to me that the GM should give the player of a low Wisdom or low Intelligence character as much information as they would give a high Wis/high Int character, and then ask them to basically pretend they don't have the information, according to criteria that might not be shared by the player.

 

[Fenris-77]

As I was alluding to up ahead, more as a thought experiment although the bolded part makes me wonder if it really is: it seems a bit perverse to me that the GM should give the player of a low Wisdom or low Intelligence character as much information as they would give a high Wis/high Int character, and then ask them to basically pretend they don't have the information, according to criteria that might not be shared by the player.

Well that obviously sounds like crap, yeah. I think (and I'm sure there will be shouting to the contrary) that a line needs to be drawn between character and player. Sometimes the players need the knowledge and that gets filtered (in some cases) through ability scores, but you can't just tell the table things if it's all based on stats. Sometimes I'd just prefer to unlimber the knowledge to the players and let them sort out how to talk about it as players and how to roleplay it via their characters.

The fact that players talk as a group, as players and not as characters, is something that some versions of how this works simply misses. Vanishingly few tables play in character 100% of the time, and talking about this issue using that as the normative behavior set is silly. I have all the respect in the world for that kind of play but it simply isn't even common, never mind the norm.

 

[Scott Christian]

The fact that players talk as a group, as players and not as characters, is something that some versions of how this works simply misses. Vanishingly few tables play in character 100% of the time, and talking about this issue using that as the normative behavior set is silly. I have all the respect in the world for that kind of play but it simply isn't even common, never mind the norm.

True. I have never even seen a table do it! And personally, I even have a kind of hard time believing it exists or has ever existed.

 

[Fenris-77]

True. I have never even seen a table do it! And personally, I even have a kind of hard time believing it exists or has ever existed.

Oh it exists, have no doubt about that. I think that @Micah Sweet is that kind of player if I'm not mistaken. Like I said, I have no issues with the play style, and in some ways I admire it, but it's not how most people RPG.

 

[Scott Christian]

Oh it exists, have no doubt about that. I think that @Micah Sweet is that kind of player if I'm not mistaken. Like I said, I have no issues with the play style, and in some ways I admire it, but it's not how most people RPG.

100% of the time. Like, no one player ever leans over to another player and says, "Can I get you some coffee?" or "Did you take that spell when we levelled?" or "This is too easy, I think the DM has a trick up their sleeve," or "Nice roll!"

I am not doubting it, and definitely do not disparage it, it just seems hard to comprehend.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well that obviously sounds like crap, yeah. I think (and I'm sure there will be shouting to the contrary) that a line needs to be drawn between character and player. Sometimes the players need the knowledge and that gets filtered (in some cases) through ability scores, but you can't just tell the table things if it's all based on stats. Sometimes I'd just prefer to unlimber the knowledge to the players and let them sort out how to talk about it as players and how to roleplay it via their characters.

The fact that players talk as a group, as players and not as characters, is something that some versions of how this works simply misses. Vanishingly few tables play in character 100% of the time, and talking about this issue using that as the normative behavior set is silly. I have all the respect in the world for that kind of play but it simply isn't even common, never mind the norm.

Yeah. A playstyle I have zero interest in is “if the players are talking then the NPCs can hear you.” $&#% that.

 

[bsss]

Well that obviously sounds like crap, yeah. I think (and I'm sure there will be shouting to the contrary) that a line needs to be drawn between character and player. Sometimes the players need the knowledge and that gets filtered (in some cases) through ability scores, but you can't just tell the table things if it's all based on stats. Sometimes I'd just prefer to unlimber the knowledge to the players and let them sort out how to talk about it as players and how to roleplay it via their characters.

The fact that players talk as a group, as players and not as characters, is something that some versions of how this works simply misses. Vanishingly few tables play in character 100% of the time, and talking about this issue using that as the normative behavior set is silly. I have all the respect in the world for that kind of play but it simply isn't even common, never mind the norm.

Even in character, it's entirely reasonable the majority of the time that the knowers and not-knowers are talking such that someone is able to explain what's going on to the rest, such that I don't think character secrets are a real thing (someone intentionally withholding information aside), let alone player ones, unless you're in initiative or playing mega old school where the characters in the back of the marching order can't communicate with those in the front. So I think 99% of the time it's just not worth distinguishing as long as someone figures it out.

My longest-standing groups all would say "I tell the rest of the party what I learned" until we realized there was no point in distinguishing, because why do otherwise.