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

[Thomas Shey]

That's where these discussions always go, because it's pretty hard to defend one's thinking as logically correct when the negative consequence is just that we get annoyed. Gotta turn it into a big fat "But what if...?!?!?!"

Which is why I don't consider my own decision that someone is roleplaying badly particularly relevant most of the time. The legitimate answer to that is "So what?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, it's definitely game specific; any of my arguments against are entirely centering around D&D play. There are plenty of games where deciding if the character has the ability to even take a certain action is a central pillar of play.

Okay. As a general rule, the only time I assume in my points D&D is when D&D is directly what the thread is about (and even then I may reference other models, though I try to be clear that they aren't directly relevant). The only reason I've sometimes used D&D attributes in examples is they're at least somewhat of a lingua franca.

 

[Fenris-77]

This is also not the D&D specific subforum.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is also not the D&D specific subforum.

Yeah, I've got to say one of the things that can get a little annoying around here is the assumption that sometimes walks in that only how D&D does things matters. I mean, I can get not noticing where a thread is or what its about on occasion--I've done that one sometimes--but I occasionally get the feeling that the dominance of D&D focus here means people either don't care or don't really understand that D&D is neither the only model or the only one people care about on here.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, I've got to say one of the things that can get a little annoying around here is the assumption that sometimes walks in that only how D&D does things matters. I mean, I can get not noticing where a thread is or what its about on occasion--I've done that one sometimes--but I occasionally get the feeling that the dominance of D&D focus here means people either don't care or don't really understand that D&D is neither the only model or the only one people care about on here.

To be fair, when the conversation transitioned from railroading to Intelligence scores somewhere around post #500, an assumption of "D&Dishness" feels more warranted. The conversation about "low stats" and how they're roleplayed doesn't really crop up much outside the D&D-like sphere.

I also think that as a general truism, there's a ton of advice or opinions people hold that are true for certain subset of games but shouldn't be considered as general principles. There are opinions I hold for D&D where I hold completely contrary opinions for other games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair, when the conversation transitioned from railroading to Intelligence scores somewhere around post #500, an assumption of "D&Dishness" feels more warranted. The conversation about "low stats" and how they're roleplayed doesn't really crop up much outside the D&D-like sphere.

I also think that as a general truism, there's a ton of advice or opinions people hold that are true for certain subset of games but shouldn't be considered as general principles. There are opinions I hold for D&D where I hold completely contrary opinions for other games.

To be fair, I do feel any game that has statistics similar to D&D's attribute scores could have the potential argument. Stats like that exist in many games.

I agree with you about different opinions regarding different games. I have much less resistance to genre emulation in supers games, for example, and I'm willing to take a game like Star Trek Adventures as it presents itself (mostly because in both cases, I love the subject matter). But my opinions as stated stand for D&D and derivative games, and traditional games in general.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, when the conversation transitioned from railroading to Intelligence scores somewhere around post #500, an assumption of "D&Dishness" feels more warranted. The conversation about "low stats" and how they're roleplayed doesn't really crop up much outside the D&D-like sphere.

Uhm, I think I have to disagree. If you want to argue it doesn't crop up much outside the trad sphere I might agree.

I also think that as a general truism, there's a ton of advice or opinions people hold that are true for certain subset of games but shouldn't be considered as general principles. There are opinions I hold for D&D where I hold completely contrary opinions for other games.

That's entirely fair. I just think people made some generalisms earlier that probably shouldn't have been made in a thread in this subforum.

 

[saviirkad]

If you're using a system where stats explicitly aren't present or aren't representative of aspects of your character, or your don't have any extraordinary stats to roleplay, then of course your situation would be very different. But if the stats are there, and they're indicated as modeling something about you, then IMO that should be represented in how that character is played.

Honest question, you mentioned that they're there to model some aspect of the character, how do the other things that form the model of those aspects factor in for you?

In modern D&D terms, I'm referring not just to the Intelligence score but also the Intelligence modifier, the Proficiency Bonus, Expertise, and the d20.

In terms of determining this aspect of the character, their intelligence, do you see it as being modeled upon all of these mechanics in aggregate?

I ask because I'm just wondering if the use of Intelligence score as the example is being used explicitly just the score itself or as shorthand for this aggregate. In my eyes, of those various mechanics, the score itself seems the least involved. Each of the other mechanics have a greater impact on this aspect that they collectively model.

I had a character whose Int-based skills ranged from +14 to +24 by the end. If I drop the Int score from 18 to 8, the build is still viable, and it would have reduced that to range of +9 to +19. An Int 8 with a 50% chance to beat DC 30, that can never fail at DC 20, in Arcana.

I don't necessarily mean to say one shouldn't roleplay that Int 8 as a bit dumb. They may be really good at Arcana but a base Intelligence check, no proficiency or other bonuses, and they're out of their depth. This is more to gauge if the topic about Int 8 is more reductive than intended, that in practice the aggregate has greater effect.

 

[TwoSix]

To be fair, I do feel any game that has statistics similar to D&D's attribute scores could have the potential argument. Stats like that exist in many games.

I mean, any game that has stats pretty similar to D&D's I'm probably going to fold under the umbrella of D&Dishness for discussion purposes. I'm sure there are some weird counter-examples (Dungeon World?), but as a general rule it works.

Uhm, I think I have to disagree. If you want to argue it doesn't crop up much outside the trad sphere I might agree.

I generally equate trad with "D&Dish" at this point in time. If it was the '80s or '90s, sure, different story, but I don't see a lot of discussion as to how roleplay low Wits in Vampire nowadays.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, I've got to say one of the things that can get a little annoying around here is the assumption that sometimes walks in that only how D&D does things matters.

I know, right?

Clearly Shadowdark is the central point of reference.