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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Yup. And some people avoid games with psychological disadvantage mechanisms for the same reason.

I think I'm going to present my position on this clearly because it may have gotten lost in the weeds along the way.

1. People who have extremely low attributes in an area (lower than some games permit these days) but play like they aren't on a consistent basis are doing bad roleplaying. Further, they may well be gaming process, depending on the specifics and how much the low attribute otherwise impairs them. I don't think simply taking control of the character is the proper way to address this, but I do think its legitimate to address it in some fashion (the ideal way is to ask them just what the hell they're doing and discussing the matter).

2. A claim in this thread (which is, notably, a general RPG thread) that in no game is ever taking control of the player's character from them when they're not playing properly is legitimate is only a sound position if you also indicate up front that you're limiting your argument to a subset of RPGs; as I noted there are plenty of games where that's not only permitted but expected under at least some circumstances (and in some of them arguments based on those traits being "voluntary" looks a little disigenuous since at least some in that range approach universal on player characters. A Champions superhero without at least a psych limit or two is vanishingly rare in the wild, and as noted, every Pendragon character has Virtues and (is it Flaw? Or Vices? Its been too long).)

That's pretty much the only arguments I'm making here, and with the qualifications given.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I don't even know what you are talking about here. The Hero example doesn't make any sense in context. D&D is not a point based game. What does Hero have to do with low Int in D&D?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't even know what you are talking about here. The Hero example doesn't make any sense in context. D&D is not a point based game. What does Hero have to do with low Int in D&D?

What in the world made you think I was only talking about D&D? And as far as that goes, its not like no D&D edition has never done a point purchase for attributes; both 3e and 4e did. I gather 5e has at least arrays, which are a more rigid point distribution.

 

[Bill Zebub]

1. People who have extremely low attributes in an area (lower than some games permit these days) but play like they aren't on a consistent basis are doing bad roleplaying.

Ah, there we go.

See, I don’t think there is such a thing.

There is roleplaying…lots of it, really…that I don’t appreciate, and much that I find annoying. But that’s because I have different preferences. I 100% believe that it’s not my business how others choose to express their characters, or how they make decisions for their characters.

 

[Reynard]

What in the world made you think I was only talking about D&D? And as far as that goes, its not like no D&D edition has never done a point purchase for attributes; both 3e and 4e did. I gather 5e has at least arrays, which are a more rigid point distribution.

I must have misunderstood your point. My apologies.

That said: S&D having attribute point buy does not in any way make it a "point based" game, especially in a way that makes talking about those choices relative to Hero make sense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah, people do that all the time. It's hard as a player not to push for every advantage, whether or not it's true to your PC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Never said it was the most important, just a factor that should be considered. That's from you.

And HP comes into play when you take damage, of course.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And HP comes into play when you take damage, of course.

How is that a different case from attributes coming into play when you make ability checks?

 

[Micah Sweet]

How is that a different case from attributes coming into play when you make ability checks?

HP is intentionally very abstract. It doesn't matter until you get hit, and barely matters until you hit zero. Attributes are supposed to represent something.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok, let's say I roll up a character and end up with a 3...a three...in Charisma.

I come up with a story about my character, about her fears and worries and desires and quirks and her obsession with the history of potion bottle design and how she absolutely can't stand being cold and how deep water terrifies her and a bunch of other stuff.

And the GM says, "Hey, what about the three charisma? What's that about?" And the player (somehow this turned from first into third person) kind of shrugs and says, "I don't know. I guess she's not very good with people. Maybe all her little obsessions turn people off. It's not a big deal; I'm not planning on relying on Charisma."

And, sure enough, when social situations come up she mostly avoids declaring actions that might require a Persuade/Deceive/Intimidate/Perform roll, knowing her odds aren't good. The GM, for his part, has his NPCs react to her character the way he envisions people reacting to a three Charisma. It's not how the player would do it if she were the GM, hey, she's not the GM, and the NPCs belong to the person who is the GM, so whatever. She rolls with it.

And when a situation comes up where she has to make a Charisma roll, even though in general she tries to avoid it, she gets her -5 penalty.

So she doesn't really play "three Charisma" as much as accept the consequences of having a low score and try to play around it. But otherwise her character concept is fun for everybody at the table. Her weird thing with the potion bottles has caused some problems and some wasted potions, and her bad decision-making in cold weather and near deep water....and on one notable occasion both at once...has likewise caused some issues that had everybody at the table facepalming but laughing.

What's wrong with any of that? Why does she have to lean into that one kind of roleplaying, even with the worst possible Charisma score in the game (of D&D), in order to be a "good" roleplayer?