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

[wizard71]

Wizard71,

The OP has backtracked and said he used all the wrong words to describe the scenario. This was after much criticism that it was railroading by quite a few people. Take it for

Wizard71,

The OP has backtracked and said he used all the wrong words to describe the scenario. This was after much criticism that it was railroading by quite a few people. Take it for what it is.

I will definitely take it as a win.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't have a problem with people not wanting to play in a game I'm running though. If someone is unwilling to get on board with how I as GM like to run games, then it's probably better they game elsewhere, is it not?

The problem in this sentence is you're using "unwilling" when "unable" is just as likely to apply, and I don't think the loading on those two words is the same.

If a negotiation that takes twenty minutes can be decided by a single dice roll, why can't a combat encounter that lasts less than 60 seconds be decided the same way.

There's no reason it "can't"; if death is on the table, one can question whether the same degree of risk is present in both situations, and thus whether a single roll is equally appropriate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yea, and even in D&D sphere, not all editions are equal. From personal experience, 2ed combat runs very fast, specially if you modernize it a bit with ascending AC, to hit bonus instead of thac0, static initiative. Goes smooth as a butter. Even basic 5e ( pre xanathar and tasha) is rather fast up to late tier 2. 3.x and 4e, well, those were never fast, but for different reasons.

Any combat system that A) Doesn't have a lot of meaningful decision making and B) Doesn't supply a lot of different outcome results will run quicker than those that do. The question with all such things is whether the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

[zarionofarabel]

The problem in this sentence is you're using "unwilling" when "unable" is just as likely to apply, and I don't think the loading on those two words is the same.

Hate to say it, but there are some people that are "unable" to keep up with me in conversation. My solution to that is to not have conversations with them. I apply the same mentality to gaming. I want to enjoy my game time, not use it as social care, or to provide therapy, or anything other than an enjoyable experience for myself. If that means some people literally can't play in a game I'm running, oh well. I know it's a harsh stance, but I only get so much "happy fun time" and I want to spend all of that time being happy and having fun. There are other games and other tables that can provide a game for folks that are unable to function the way I require them to be a good fit for my table. I'm sure there are tons of folks that would have zero interest in having me at their table for all kinds of reasons. It's just part an parcel of doing things that involve other humans.

There's no reason it "can't"; if death is on the table, one can question whether the same degree of risk is present in both situations, and thus whether a single roll is equally appropriate.

Well, I'm a "fates worse than death" kind of guy, so the degree of risk can easily be the same, or worse!

 

[Scott Christian]

I will definitely take it as a win.

No offense, I am not sure it's a win or lose thing. It's a situation where, I believe, the OP learned that the definition of "railroading" is broad, and it can be interpreted in many ways.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hate to say it, but there are some people that are "unable" to keep up with me in conversation. My solution to that is to not have conversations with them. I apply the same mentality to gaming.

That's fine; that's your choice. I just think acting like its a choice on their part is in some cases pretty off, and you shouldn't do that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

VTTs have definitely changed the calculus for how picky we can be about the people we game with.

I mostly only play live, so the reality is that different play styles and philosophies have to learn to get along. Sometimes when I'm a player, not a GM, some of the opinions I express here have to be tucked away.

"Wait....the NPC rolled high on Deception and therefore I have to believe him? Ummm....ok. I guess I believe him....."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Wait....the NPC rolled high on Deception and therefore I have to believe him? Ummm....ok. I guess I believe him....."

That, BTW, is the sort of thing I very much do not like and what I do not do when I GM. If the NPC's deception beats the PC's insight that means that the PC does not detect signs of lying, but this doesn't mean they have to believe them. After all, the PC certainly knows that some people are very good liars!

 

[FrozenNorth]

VTTs have definitely changed the calculus for how picky we can be about the people we game with.

Which is ironic, because though I definitely consider VTTs a good thing, particularly as it allows people to find groups in otherwise challenging circumstances, as someone who does both, roleplaying in person remains preferable to roleplaying by VTT.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is ironic, because though I definitely consider VTTs a good thing, particularly as it allows people to find groups in otherwise challenging circumstances, as someone who does both, roleplaying in person remains preferable to roleplaying by VTT.

I'd think (but could be wrong) that what they're suggesting is VTTs can allow you to be more picky about who you play with, because you're not as confined to the limited set of people spatially available to you.