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

[zarionofarabel]

It does have virtues and flaws, however, which can still force players to play their characters in ways they wouldn't, which was my point. "Only the player should decide how their character decides things" is a position any number of games do not share in various places; they aren't usually about attributes, but they're still things that can entirely be cases where the GM, the mechanics, or both are overriding the player. So if you want to say that this sort of thing is entirely off the table, you have to limit that argument to some games, or make an argument why a low mental attirbute is intrinsically different from a psychological disadvantage or the like.

Oh, yeah, totally, sorry. I love Pendragon, it's my favorite game! The Personality Traits are what make it such a great game. I have met a fair number of people though that utterly refuse to play Pendragon because they absolutely will not allow their PCs actions to be dictated by the system.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Since 5E (the rules) is silent on the subject, we should come up with a list of things that PCs can't think of if their Int is lower than a certain threshold.

Like: Minimum Int 6 required to stop pushing the pull door.

That sort of thing.

Oh man I already fail IRL.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

If the low score is something a player wanted to lean into with the roleplaying, it could be portrayed as somebody who speaks floridly and eloquently, but somehow manages to really annoy everybody while they are doing it.

Likewise, a high charisma character could play it as somebody who speaks like an uneducated lout with an especially annoying accent and terribly grammar, but somehow they way they "speak to the common man" still ends up working on a surprisingly large number of people. (Not naming any names here.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's an issue of Charisma being too broadly defined to make logical sense,

All of the stats (maybe Strength least so) are way too broadly defined for there to be any rules/expectations about how certain numbers are supposed to be portrayed.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Then why are stats given descriptions in every RPG rulebook, if there isn't an answer?

To give GMs and players an idea of the range of actions to which....wait for it...you would apply a die roll modifier.

 

[Bill Zebub]

unfortunately, the mental stats lend themselves to actions and situations expressed through roleplaying, which too often end up bypassing making any checks in the first place, so those modifiers end up being a bit of a non-consequence.

Not if the DM/GM doesn't allow them to bypass the checks.

In general I don't really buy arguments that depend on "...and then imagine what will happen if bad players and GMs start playing this way!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

To give GMs and players an idea of the range of actions to which....wait for it...you would apply a die roll modifier.

How depressingly abstract. I prefer more world modeling in my RPGs then you do, apparently.

 

[Thomas Shey]

These things are not remotely the same. In Hero, a player chose a disadvantage, giving the GM explicit permission to include elements of that disadvantage insofar as the rules allowed (frequency being a MAJOR component here). A player rolling a low Int is not the same thing.

I'll note you've hopped systems and made an assumption I was never making in my posts ("rolled"). I again ask, how intrinsically is a Hero player who takes a Disadvantage and one that sets an attribute low different? In both cases they've supplied themselves with more points for some things at least theoretical disadvantages them, and even if you're ignoring the attributes, the universalized statement "The player should be the one that decides what their character does" is clearly not a universal, including in a game you've played.

Again, deliberately setting an attribute low and taking a disadvantage is different in what way? As far as I can tell, both are about taking a handicap in one area to have more resource elsewhere. And both carry some roleplaying expectations. At the very least, someone taking a weak Psychological Disad in Hero would expect if they ignored it a lot to either have a discussion with the GM, take an experience hit, or both. I'd expect the same thing would have happened to someone sidestepping a low Characteristic That doesn't seem to be placing player primacy in how the character is played as the highest priority.

If you want to claim "different games are different" here, fine. But "not remotely the same" is a declaration, not an argument.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not if the DM/GM doesn't allow them to bypass the checks.

In general I don't really buy arguments that depend on "...and then imagine what will happen if bad players and GMs start playing this way!"

Well, in some cases, its not a hypothetical. People trying to sidestep their in-character social or intellectual lacks has not exactly been a massive rarity in the hobby. At least in my case, those are the only cases I'm really talking about.

 

[Bill Zebub]

How depressingly abstract. I prefer more world modeling in my RPGs then you do, apparently.

Huh. I find it dull and colorless to consider the six attributes the most important determinants of a character.

If I were to describe what’s interesting and unique about the people I know well, very little (none?) of it would involve things that resemble the six D&D attributes.

Or, to express it another way, do you also expect people to roleplay their HP?