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

[Bill Zebub]

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

Yeah, that's fair.

That said, I don't see how keeping ideas to oneself contributes to exploring an imaginary setting my character.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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".

I, on the other hand, would be fine with it. Played plenty of low Int characters, like they had a low Int.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, that's fair.

That said, I don't see how keeping ideas to oneself contributes to exploring an imaginary setting my character.

It does if those ideas don't make sense coming from your character. Would you use out of character knowledge at the table, for example? I try very hard not to do so.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.)

I think you are combining two very different things. I believe there are two different categories of "come up with a solution" to a problem:

1. It's simply a plan that may or may not succeed. "I know! Let's build a giant wooden horse..." Similar to the Wisdom examples discussed above, I don't know how it's possible to describe a plan as "smart" or not. Whether or not it works is going to be up to how the GM adjudicates it, and whether or not it does or does not work doesn't necessarily mean it was or was not a good plan.

And, yes, that becomes subject to all the risks you describe: maybe the GM is more likely to adjudicate it positively because it's his best friend's idea? Maybe the player thinks it's a stupid idea, and they are proposing it because they are roleplaying? How on earth do you judge things like this? I don't think you can.

Similarly, maybe the player of the low-Cha character believes their grandiloquent speech is exactly what an overconfident schlub, blind to their own toxic personality, would do?

I just don't know how you determine any of this, or decide what is good roleplaying and what isn't. If the GM is too easily persuaded by player personalities that's not a problem with the game.

2. The challenge HAS a specific solution, such as the "code" to a puzzle, or where to look for the McGuffin, and the player of the low Int character figures it out. There isn't a probability of success: it was correct.

That second category is where I was saying that I don't think there's an analogue with the other stats.

Except that I just thought of one: lie detection and Wisdom. About which I feel just a strongly. (That is: using Wisdom/Insight to "detect lies" is not at all how I want to play RPGs.)

 

[CreamCloud0]

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?

we've had more than enough threads 'discussing' how some people think it's their right to bypass making CHA checks and speeching directly to the GM because doing otherwise would be infringing on their right to RP their character as they see fit, all while having a dumped CHA score.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It does if those ideas don't make sense coming from your character. Would you use out of character knowledge at the table, for example? I try very hard not to do so.

If by "out of character knowledge" you mean things like how to make gunpowder, or stuff you know because you have GM'd the same adventure, then no. (I once had a character in a module I had GM'd. I told the GM, and then during the sessions I intentionally suggested bad ideas. It was very funny.)

But if I don't necessarily know what knowledge is "out of character" then I don't spend too much time worrying about it. Would my character know the vulnerabilities of werewolves? Maybe? I mean, I know IRL and werewolves aren't even real, so....? If the GM doesn't want me to know, he/she will change those vulnerabilities in their world, right?

Similarly, even if I did try to "make gunpowder" the GM can always just say it doesn't work in that universe, or the formula is a different one I don't know, or whatever.

 

[Bill Zebub]

we've had more than enough threads 'discussing' how some people think it's their right to bypass making CHA checks and speeching directly to the GM because doing otherwise would be infringing on their right to RP their character as they see fit, all while having a dumped CHA score.

So? I guess I don't understand why that's a problem even if they think it's "their right". Ignore it.

And if the GM can't ignore it, why are we blaming the player?

 

[GrimCo]

I think it comes from some assumptions.

In the early days, game was played to challenge Players, not Characters. Stats were there just for rolls. Also, there was way wider distribution between penalty, no bonus no penalty and bonus. For instance, in 2ed, Str is mainly to hit and damage stat. You don't get bonus/penalty to hit if your Str is 8-16, and get no bonus/penalty to damage if your Str is 6-15, weight allowed difference between 8 and 15 is only 20 pounds. In game play, having Str 8 or 15 has no real difference, you hit and damage are the same. Most stats are like that, where they have wide gap where low or high stat doesn't change much if anything in game play.

If the game assumes that primary challenge is to player, mental stats are irrelevant in role play. You rely on your (player's) stats to come up with clever solutions. If game assumes that primary challenge is to characters, than there could be argument for mental stats mattering, since you rely on game mechanics to come up with solutions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think you are combining two very different things. I believe there are two different categories of "come up with a solution" to a problem:

1. It's simply a plan that may or may not succeed. "I know! Let's build a giant wooden horse..." Similar to the Wisdom examples discussed above, I don't know how it's possible to describe a plan as "smart" or not. Whether or not it works is going to be up to how the GM adjudicates it, and whether or not it does or does not work doesn't necessarily mean it was or was not a good plan.

And, yes, that becomes subject to all the risks you describe: maybe the GM is more likely to adjudicate it positively because it's his best friend's idea? Maybe the player thinks it's a stupid idea, and they are proposing it because they are roleplaying? How on earth do you judge things like this? I don't think you can.

Then I don't think we can continue this discussion. While like most things, there are muddy cases, but if you don't believe there are dumb plans and smart plans we're coming from this from such different premises that there's unlikely to be able to make any common ground.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So? I guess I don't understand why that's a problem even if they think it's "their right". Ignore it.

And if the GM can't ignore it, why are we blaming the player?

Because it wouldn't be an issue if they weren't doing it in the first place.