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

[Fenris-77]

There's a reason I specified my game. After all rolls are said and done, the player can swap any two stat numbers. The only way for a PC to end up with a low intelligence in my game is to pick it, and if he picks it, I expect him to roleplay it.

It's still really easy to get stuck with the bad INT here and not have 'picked it'. People swap stats to move good stats into places they need them. Or do you mean I should swap out for a better INT instead of improving my fighters STR or CON because you have a bee in your bonnet about people needing to RP their crap stats?

I think that when you say 'roleplay' it there are going to be some fights. One, it sounds like you're being a bit of a jerk about it (could just be phrasing), and two, you sound like you think you get to pick what roleplaying looks like for other people, which is a bit sticky. I mean I guess you can kick people out of your game for failing your roleplay you worst stat or else test, but I don't think it's that important.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Some games give 3d6 down the line with no do-overs. I'm not busting a nut to lean into being an idiot when that idiotness was randomly assigned. If someone picks the low INT number that's different, then we're probably talking about an annoying white-room optimizer type.

See to me, you play what you roll, if that's the game you decided to play.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this discussion is actually about immersion for some folks -- the dumb PC coming up with smart ideas by way of the player breaks that immersion. I get that. Folks should definitely play with people that support their personal preferred playstyles, including immersion.

I played D&D for 20ish years with someone who probably had an 8 intelligence. It took him a long time to come up with ideas in new situations. One time we were fighting a demon lord and his character was literally dead on the demon lords next turn and no healer had a turn before then. My turn came up and I looked at my sheet and in just a few seconds I announced I was using a limited wish spell to move my Ring of Nine Lives unto his character's finger. The demon lord took him to 0, and the ring cast heal on him. It saved his life.

After the game he asked me if I came up with that on the spot(there was no other way to come up with it). When I told him yes he said, "If I could even think of something like that, it would take me days to figure it out." After that I started paying attention when I dealt with people. Smart people, slow people, and average people.

The biggest differentiator in intelligence was processing speed. The slow person can generally get to where the smart person got, but it usually takes a lot longer. I think that's why people(both the slow and the gifted) think that slow people can't think of things. Humans often quit when things are hard, and slow people will often give up before they reach the answer. If they persevered they'd have gotten there, but they didn't.

The above is why I have no problem with a low intelligence PC once in a while coming up with a good idea quickly. Someone who is slow has to consider the options and sometimes they will start with the right one. It's only when they are consistently roleplaying a slow PC as quick witted that I have an issue with the roleplay.

That said, I will never veto what a player has his PC do. If the roleplay is consistently above the PCs 8 intelligence, I will talk to the player privately outside of the game about his roleplaying of the stat. My group enjoys roleplaying the entire character, flaws and all, and someone flaunting a flaw like that is going to affect the group's enjoyment.

 

[Maxperson]

It's still really easy to get stuck with the bad INT here and not have 'picked it'. People swap stats to move good stats into places they need them. Or do you mean I should swap out for a better INT instead of improving my fighters STR or CON because you have a bee in your bonnet about people needing to RP their crap stats?

I think that when you say 'roleplay' it there are going to be some fights. One, it sounds like you're being a bit of a jerk about it (could just be phrasing), and two, you sound like you think you get to pick what roleplaying looks like for other people, which is a bit sticky. I mean I guess you can kick people out of your game for failing your roleplay you worst stat or else test, but I don't think it's that important.

The way we roll stats, it's just not the issue you make it out to be.

 

[Fenris-77]

See to me, you play what you roll, if that's the game you decided to play.

Yeah, and past a point you can kiss my lily-white goblin if you think you get to tell me how to do that. I'm playing the game for my own enjoyment, not to pass someone else's test about what the game is supposed to be. That's the real issue here, you both think you know best and that you get to tell people they are having their fun wrong. Sorry dude, it doesn't work like that.

That's not to say that people purposefully slotting low INT and then not roleplaying isn't annoying sometimes, sure it is. However, the decision each of gets to make is whom to play with. We don't get to tell people how to have their fun. Think for a moment how you would react if someone you were playing with got up in your face about how you were playing your character all wrong and needed to do X or Y (this is rhetorical, we all know you'd be pissed).

 

[Fenris-77]

The way we roll stats, it's just not the issue you make it out to be.

Not until you start jumping on people for not leaning into the parts of their character that aren't important and that they didn't pick. Which is exactly what you're doing. Maybe just stop trying to tell people how to play their characters and just worry about how you play your character?

 

[GrimCo]

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.

I've seen this numerous times over the years. Done it myself also numerous times. Problem is, in D&D from 3x onwards, average being 10-11, anything above is above average (duh), but what's the difference between say 12 and 16 in practical sense outside mechanics, is hard. To correlate to real life iq. For all intense and purposes, in everyday life, there is little practical difference between iq 120 and 140. Uneducated high iq person can sound dumb, and highly educated average iq person can sound smart, depending on the situation of course.

 

[pemerton]

I made the distinction between “a railroad” as a noun and “railroading” as a verb up thread. I think it’s an important one. Linearity in adventure design is often labeled as a railroad… but that doesn’t really say anything about the experience of play. Is that linearity an engaging experience for the players? Is it largely what they expected or signed up for? Is there enough freedom of choice within the overall path to satisfy whatever need or desire they have for such?

None of these questions are answered by the use of railroad as a noun.

But when we instead consider railroading as an action by the GM… that is the use of force to reach some predetermined state… then we at least begin to address those questions. The idea of “being forced” that railroading implies seems far less neutral. It hints at overriding choice, at subverting freedom… of removing decision making from the players.

To me, "linear adventure" seems like a description of the way a pre-written scenario is presented: as a sequence of "scenes" or "events" that the GM hopes to present, more-or-less in order, to culminate in some intended climax.

Whereas "railroad" seems like a description of an episode of actual play: how it unfolded at the table.

The relationship between the two might be that one way to actually successfully play through a linear adventure is to railroad the players.

Great minds, and all that . . .

So I think the best way to examine play to see if railroading is happening is to look at GM decisions and the reasons behind those decisions. And then to consider how this seems from a player POV… how do these decisions shape the play experience. Are the reasons for these decisions somehow a higher priority than maintaining player choice?

That’s what needs to be looked at and interrogated. How one feels about the conclusions will vary, I expect… but I think that examining GM choices is what’s necessary.

It seems that in some cases - even many cases - the GM's reason is to preserve a pre-authored conception of setting and events within the setting.

This can be a way of disclaiming decision-making. But if that stuff is mostly opaque to the players - so that they are declaring actions blind, to a significant extent at least; or are going to spend most of their effort in play learning that stuff rather than responding to it - then to me it still seems like GM-driven play. Because in those circumstances, the players certainly aren't driving it!

 

[pemerton]

In another thread, I identified something I would consider railroading if it happened in any game in which I agreed to play. I.e. if I declared an action for my character, and the GM said my character wouldn't have thought to attempt such an action because my character's Intelligence score is too low.

for someone who thinks the stats should be payed attention to in both cases, they're liable to do something.

I don't really see how it becomes the GM's prerogative to tell a player how to play their PC.

If (say) a low INT is an aspect of the character, then why can't the player play that? When we play Classic Traveller, we expect the players to play their PCs' INT and EDU. That's just part of what it means to play the game.

 

[pemerton]

I've noted before you can have GMs who are naturally good at some aspects of the role, and just terrible at others. One of the "others" is on-the-fly improvisation. Some people are just terrible at that sort of thing, but can still put together interesting situations, run good combats, and produce and operate intriguing NPCs. What they're going to do when someone runs off the path is probably not going to be terribly appealing to people who want really open settings, but that doesn't make them bad GMs, just limited in an area some people find crucial and others not-so-much.

I think by using really open setting as the contrast with railroad, you are building in an assumption that at least some RPGers - eg me - don't share.

When I play, and in most of the games that I GM, setting is not all that important. It is a backdrop, and a way of coordinating various events and entities in the fiction. But what really matters in play is not the setting, but the situation and the way that it resolves. What I consider railroading is the GM exercising control over the situation - content, purpose/rationale, theme, consequence, etc An open setting won't reduce the railroading if every situation that the players are able to activate in the setting is still GM-dominated in those sorts of ways.