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

[Bill Zebub]

Its a variation of the carrot to the stick I've been talking about, honestly.

Yeah, absolutely. Here I was about to agree to take Disadvantage on rolls* for not letting my character be intimidated, and now instead I get offered XP!!! Glad I held out for better terms. Is it too late to get medical insurance with that?




*Just kidding again: I also agreed that the stick version was totally fair.

 

[Maxperson]

That type of discovery might be absent in a method closer to yours. I'm able to both advocate for the character and make decisions on her behalf, and still be surprised by her. This is not really based on any kind of social mechanic results, which The Between doesn't really have specifically, although players can introduce such things as potential complications, which the GM can then inflict.

So no, I don't think it really has anything to do with author stance. All it takes is relinquishing some amount of control over the character.

This is not intended to be a slight on your style of play here, but I get the bolded portion without relinquishing control. I don't need to relinquish to experience that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yeah, absolutely. Here I was about to agree to take Disadvantage on rolls* for not letting my character be intimidated, and now instead I get offered XP!!! Glad I held out for better terms. Is it too late to get medical insurance with that?

Oh to iron out something here.
The system I provided as an example for NPC use of Persuastion and Intimidation has absolutely ZERO to do with the TIBF/XP system.
These are mutually separate systems.

Essentially an interesting situation arises, more often than not I will scan a characters TIBFs (of which they have plenty) and see if any can be applied. If we are fortunate and one can be applied which also requires a sacrifice on the part of the character, then I make the proposal and the player decides if they wish to have their character lean into the specific TIBF or not.
They can initiate the proposal themselves but they still run pretty traditional so it doesn't come easy.

My players very much like these dilemmas as they arise. This is but 1 of 3 systems to level up one's character. The other two are variations of milestones - (a) X number of goals successfully acquired and (b) a certain storyline check point.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I wouldn't have even needed XP to do those things. I love to roleplay my characters. All of the character, good and bad.

Some players naturally lean that way some do not.
The XP system keeps things fair.

 

[bsss]

If you want to talk about heavy-handed carrots and sticks, in Cypher System, the GM is encouraged and expected to "intrude" on the course of the game by giving some XP out to the players to say "this happens" solely in the interest of telling an exciting story. The player can instead give an XP of their own back to the GM to refuse, but in practice players almost always accept.

There is no limit to what the GM can intrude on or with. It implies heavy trust in the collected storytelling of the table, and it works very well. (CS is also a game where the GM doesn't roll for actions ever, so GM Intrusions are their main dramatic lever outside of simply presenting the game world.)

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yeah...no. Nobody knows what a PC "would do" as well as the player.

i wouldn't say you're incorrect there BUT think the point is more nobody else has as strong opinions on what the character 'should be' as their player either, they have a perfect idealized picture of them in their head, they don't tend to imagine them failing, except in certain specific, narratively-appropriate circumstances, like, they wouldn't loose this debate with the clergy about how things ought to be solved! they're strong willed, well-spoken and put forth a coherent well-reasoned argument! they should be convincing them right now not rolling an 8!

 

[pemerton]

Yes. Based on what you write it seems like you just enjoy that approach more, instead of having to offer a reason why it's necessary.

I enjoy lots of different RPGs! I can't think of one that doesn't have some sort of social aspect (even AD&D has reaction rolls, loyalty etc); and most have social aspects that affect PCs, but they're all different. (Even some fairly similar one - eg Burning Wheel has Steel; Torchbearer doesn't.)

I don't think the argument that PCs need to have abilities that their players don't is very strong. But equally I don't think the characterisation of social systems as making the player irrelevant are very strong: the only RPGs I've played which seemed to be built around a presumption of railroading tend not to include especially robust social systems (eg AD&D 2nd ed).

 

[AnotherGuy]

If you want to talk about heavy-handed carrots and sticks, in Cypher System, the GM is encouraged and expected to "intrude" on the course of the game by giving some XP out to the players to say "this happens" solely in the interest of telling an exciting story. The player can instead give an XP of their own back to the GM to refuse, but in practice players almost always accept.

There is no limit to what the GM can intrude on or with. It implies heavy trust in the collected storytelling of the table, and it works very well. (CS is also a game where the GM doesn't roll for actions ever, so GM Intrusions are their main dramatic lever outside of simply presenting the game world.)

I am always in awe of the amount of varied systems which exist.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As the DM I am playing multiple NPCs, monsters, describing areas, answering questions, etc. It's very rare that I can immerse myself in a character, and when I do, it's usually when I'm playing a single important and/or recurring NPC that is currently involved in a fairly lengthy RP session.

As a player I am only ever playing one PC, so immersing myself is really easy and is my ultimate goal and major reason for playing RPGs. This is probably one of the main reasons that I am so vehemently against social skills working on PCs. To inhabit my PC to the point where I am thinking and playing a character that is unlike me, struggling with hard decisions that the PC would struggle with, I need to know and understand the character very well.

As soon as some mechanic tells me that my character thinks or feels some way other than he would think or feel, I'm booted out of immersion and it is an incredibly hard and lengthy process for me to achieve that same level of understanding with this new thing in his character, and such immersion will likely never occur again, since by the time I can do it, more social mechanics will have altered him further starting the whole process over again.

Social skills vs. PCs destroys one of the main reasons I play roleplaying games.

Yes, this, absolutely this! And people who do not get it simply do not play in this way. They look their character from outside, make detached authorial decisions about them. Which is fine, but it is a fundamental difference in approach, so games designed to do one approach might not work with the another or might even be destructive to it.

And to me what @hawkeyefan describes too, is still much more authoring the character than inhabiting the character. Of course a decent author takes into account what a character would do, but when you are rewriting their background on the fly it does not sound like inhabitation to me, it sounds like authorship.

And these things can certainly overlap. Like when I am playing a character I'm immersed in, there is still some part of my brain that thinks of the game and story etc, and those certainly can influence the character. But it is very important to me that I am in control what of such external influences I onboard to the character, because only I can know what will match my internal model of the character and what will not.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A PC sat down to negotiate with an NPC in Sigil. The NPC attempted to read the PCs mind and find some specific tidbit of information.
The character, who had foreseen this and protected himself somewhat from this, has the Flaw of not being able to keep secrets very well.
I offered an XP to the PC if he let that information slip.

Another PC was meant to attend an extremely important meeting (Council Meeting, ToD) along with his party. However he received an opportunity (the help of Elminster's ward) to covertly gain some valuable information from the personal library of someone (Elminster) attending that meeting. The information related to a topic his PC had an interest in. One of his Bonds is lore being more valuable than ABC. I offered him an XP if he skipped on the meeting (at great cost to his party) to lean into his Bond and use the opportunity to acquire lore from Elminster's library.

A PC had a Bond that considered a certain NPC (previously a PC) his brother and would do anything for him. Well that NPC was caught in a city being pulled into Avernus (Elturel, DiA).
He purposefully split from the party to attempt rescue this NPC earning himself an XP.
I'm essentially running 2 campaigns now (1 the main group and 1 for him, separate sessions).

These are just a few examples of how we leverage the TIBFs to truly test the core of the character. Player has full control over the decision to lean into their TIBFs or not.

I think this sort of bribery with XP is fineish, and it is the sort of middle ground I would be willing to accept, as the player still gets to decide and the reward is pretty much meta so the offer does not need to imply anything specific about the character's state of mind.

Though I have to say, it is a bit "training wheels" to me, and as player I would feel mildly insulted that the GM thinks that they need to bribe me to play my character properly. Blades in the Dark has this sort of thing, and sometimes it feels a tad forced how the players try to trigger the XP rewards. Oh, we have not triggered "inner conflict" crew XP trigger yet, better start an argument!