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

[Bill Zebub]

Agree with all of that. It's why I generally prefer to use Wisdom as a the stat for general awareness, which can be both physical and supernatural, rather than "common sense".

The "supernatural awareness" makes sense (as much as anything "makes sense" in a fantasy RPG) because it's the spellcasting stat for Clerics and Druids, right?

But....kinda weird that creatures always have the same base talent for both physical and supernatural awareness, huh? That it's not possible, as a fundamental rule of the universe, to have an innate gift for spotting wildlife without also having a gift for casting healing magic. (And detecting lies.) I'm not sure how to roleplay all of that. /wink

 

[Thomas Shey]

More seriously (not that I'm not serious about the 5 Int Genius)...

Is there another stat, other than Intelligence, in which characters with a low value are expected to be roleplayed in a way that prohibits participation in some aspect of the game? Meaning, finding and proposing solutions to challenges is core to RPGs. The argument seems to be that if a character has low Int, the player should be roleplaying that by not proposing "smart" solutions to challenges.

Participating in per se, no. Participating in in a way they might want to? Charisma is the clear poster boy. If you've got a 5 Charisma and want to use the fact you're personally personable and smooth to bypass it, I have exactly the same problem.

(Note: with all these I'm assuming you're deliberately not dependinng on associated skill rolls, in which case the point is moot).

Could somebody explain to me what sort of "contributions" would be frowned upon based on low scores in the other five attributes? Or is the expectation for Int singularly punitive?

In some cases Wisdom might be a problem too, far as that goes, but as I've indicated I consider Wisdom a weird attribute anyway (and as I've noted you almost never see it used as an attribute away from the D&D sphere).

Most of the physical attributes it doesn't come up, because people can't substitute their own Strength or Dexterity for their character's.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I like the idea of a low-Wis character that warns the party away from threats that don’t exist.

Me, too! That's exactly how I might roleplay a low-Wisdom character.

Which might seem contradictory, but I'm not against roleplaying low attributes, I am just against it being a requirement.

And I strenuously object to being told I have to limit my contributions to planning, if my character has low Int. As I just posted above, that seems specifically punitive to Int in a way that doesn't apply to other stats.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Participating in per se, no. Participating in in a way they might want to? Charisma is the clear poster boy. If you've got a 5 Charisma and want to use the fact you're personally personable and smooth to bypass it, I have exactly the same problem.

What might that look like, that could be compared to a low-Int character having the solution to a puzzle?

The only case I can imagine is if the GM is foolish enough to be manipulated by a smooth-talking player.

(Note: with all these I'm assuming you're deliberately not dependinng on associated skill rolls, in which case the point is moot).

But that's EXACTLY the point: when the player of the low-Cha character tries to smooth-talk the GM, the solution is to say, "Ok, roll a die."

Which you can also do with analogous Int checks in many cases: "I try to decipher the runes, because I'm a 5 Int Genius!" "Ok, roll the die, smart guy."

So, yes, I AM assuming you depend on associated skill rolls.

But there is no analogy for the other five stats that compares to a player suggesting a plan of action.

EDIT: The dice aren't even needed, because the GM can just say, "Nice speech. Doesn't work." The distinction, I think, is whether or not there is an associated in-game action that can be adjudicated, with or without dice. The smooth-talking performance still correlates to such an action.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What might that look like, that could be compared to a low-Int character having the solution to a puzzle?

The only case I can imagine is if the GM is foolish enough to be manipulated by a smooth-talking player.

If that wasn't a risk, they wouldn't be a smooth-talking player. That's virtually the definition of a player that's charisma higher than his character: he makes a good impact and is good at selling people (including the GM) on things. Maybe he resists it. Maybe he doesn't. I think people are always prone to thinking they're more resistant to influence than they are.

But that's EXACTLY the point: when the player of the low-Cha character tries to smooth-talk the GM, the solution is to say, "Ok, roll a die."

Which you can also do with analogous Int checks in many cases: "I try to decipher the runes, because I'm a 5 Int Genius!" "Ok, roll the die, smart guy."

So, yes, I AM assuming you depend on associated skill rolls.

Except these are exactly the places people don't want to let dice get into frequently.

But there is no analogy for the other five stats that compares to a player suggesting a plan of action.

As you can see, I don't agree. Deciding on an approach to a negotiation or seduction attempt seems quite analogous to me. (I've already said why this doesn't apply to physical stats; everything you do with those is dependent on die rolls when at the level they matter at all in a way many people wouldn't tolerate with the mental stats.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

If that idea isn't possible, my backup character concept is a genius who is cursed by a god (through no doing of his own...it is all his great grandfather's fault). Most of the time he's brilliant and knowledgeable, except when it really matters this god often, but not always, causes him to get confused.

In game terms this is modeled by his 5 Intelligence.

Whaddya think?

Is this a character you plan to actually play, or just a rhetorical point?

 

[Micah Sweet]

More seriously (not that I'm not serious about the 5 Int Genius)...

Is there another stat, other than Intelligence, in which characters with a low value are expected to be roleplayed in a way that prohibits participation in some aspect of the game? Meaning, finding and proposing solutions to challenges is core to RPGs. The argument seems to be that if a character has low Int, the player should be roleplaying that by not proposing "smart" solutions to challenges.

Could somebody explain to me what sort of "contributions" would be frowned upon based on low scores in the other five attributes? Or is the expectation for Int singularly punitive?

Not everyone accepts your premise about what constitutes the core of RPGs. To me, exploring an imaginary setting through your character is more important.

 

[Micah Sweet]

He tends to charge into physical danger because his experience has always been that getting hurt doesn't really hurt all that much. Kind of like Evil Knievel.

But he has a phobia about germs because he tends to get sick easily.

You can't get hurt in D&D. You can only fall down and maybe die. That's a huge part of the problem with hit points.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You can't get hurt in D&D. You can only fall down and maybe die. That's a huge part of the problem with hit points.

"I noticed as a kid that when falling out of trees, my friends tended to go unconscious a lot, and sometimes die, but it didn't affect me as much."

 

[Bill Zebub]

Is this a character you plan to actually play, or just a rhetorical point?

Well I usually roll first and then "discover" my character over time, so...no...it's not specifically a character I want to play. But I do want the freedom to be creative in how I define/roleplay my characters, and if I ended up with 5 Int I wouldn't want there to be an expectation that I "act dumb".