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

[Campbell]

As an aside for what it's worth I personally do not have an issue with setting group standards for roleplaying choices, and I actually adore games like Pendragon where the GM is expected to call for rolls that block on the level of intent. I just do not think that applying the standards of one game and/or table to another is worthwhile.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What’s the difference?

In a group where everyone feels that way it is probably highly unlikely that the GM would actually need to veto anything, as the players already take the ability scores into account.

 

[FrogReaver]

In a group where everyone feels that way it is probably highly unlikely that the GM would actually need to veto anything, as the players already take the ability scores into account.

Okay.

I thought @Reynard meant it was different in respect to railroading. Was I mistaken?

 

[Gradine]

Fiction is filled with examples of "dumb" characters having moments of clarity and insight and coming up with solutions that catch everybody off guard. I call this the "Jason Figured It Out?" moment and it can be a huge amount of fun when it happens organically at the table. I absolutely wouldn't ever tell a player, in the moment, "no, your character is too stupid to think of that".

Now, if the player of the low Int character is always the one coming up with the solutions and the plans then I think that becomes a thing we talk about either individually or with the group (really depending on levels of comfortability) about what the stats mean from a roleplaying perspective, but I also don't see it as necessarily a game-breaking or immersion-breaking thing (there's lots of way to express a low Intelligence that allow for the occasional exception; this is kind of what having a skill proficiency does)

 

[Reynard]

In a group where everyone feels that way it is probably highly unlikely that the GM would actually need to veto anything, as the players already take the ability scores into account.

Okay.

I thought @Reynard meant it was different in respect to railroading. Was I mistaken?

Sorry, I was not clear. I meant the question of whether certain people at the table were bothered by that sort of "breaking character" was a different issue than whether it was appropriate for a GM to veto an action.

As to whether the GM vetoing an action because of such a reason qualifies as "railroading" -- I don't think it is, but mostly because I think of railroading more about the path than any given solution. As evidenced by this very thread, folks feel differently about that and some might call it railroading.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I meant there isn't necessarily a correlation. Somebody with low charisma could still speak eloquently.

So what does that mean Charisma is? Just a die modifier? I don't think so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not up to you to accept the way other people and designers choose to design/play. You can handle your table however you want to, but like insisting people who handle things differently are not playing roleplaying games the right way is a bizarre choice for someone who spends most of the time on these boards lamenting that their playstyle is not getting the respect it deserves.

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm saying ignoring your stats in terms of roleplay makes zero sense to me.

 

[Reynard]

Ways to have a low Int without being dumb:

The character has a learning disability.
The character is from a faraway place, maybe even a different Prime altogether.
The character is disconnected from the source of wizardly magic.
The character is impulsive and distracted.
The character suffered a traumatic brain injury.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ways to have a low Int without being dumb:

The character has a learning disability.
The character is from a faraway place, maybe even a different Prime altogether.
The character is disconnected from the source of wizardly magic.
The character is impulsive and distracted.
The character suffered a traumatic brain injury.

All of these assume the only purpose of Int is to provide modifiers to certain dice rolls.

 

[Reynard]

All of these assume the only purpose of Int is to provide modifiers to certain dice rolls.

No. they acknowledge that Int modifies certain die rolls, so those aspects must be relfected. But that isn't the only thing these examples do.

None of the D&D stats are simple or one dimensional. They are by their natures very broad and abstract. That means we have lots of room to interpret what any of them mean.

You can't demand people incorporate their stats into their personality and then also limit how they might do that.