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

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s not that I don’t get it. It’s that “it” is an extreme that doesn’t exist. You don’t feel things the same as your character would. You may feel similar feelings, maybe even quite strong at times, but not to the extent as a person going through the events of play would feel them.

There is always some distance between player and character. Necessarily, and thankfully, so.

Yes, like watching a horror movie about people being chased by axe murderer will make you scared, but probably not quite as scared than actually being chased by an axe murderer would!

But that the core feeling is real, and that is the tether that guides the character.

Not at all. I think you’re quite wrong about this. As an actual person, what I have are ideas about how I might react or behave in some proposed situation. Some of those ideas are stronger than others. Few, if any, are certain, much as I may like to consider them such.

And the same uncertainly exist with the mental model of the character interacting with unexpected fictional situations! The fictional person is real in this sense, thus they will have "real" unexpected reactions! This is what me and Max have been trying to tell you. But it simply seems that you do not have such internal model of your characters that would make this possible, so you need the rules to tell you how the character reacts.

So what?

If it’s all internal, then it’s not even certain. You could change your mind about the character and decide whatever you wanted. You could “rewrite” whatever you wanted to yourself if you wanted to, and I expect you’ve done so.

No not really. You cannot rewrite the model whist inhabiting it. It is like trying to rebuild a car whilst driving it. IN any case, the model exist in my head, not in the GM's, thus only I can truly know what sort of reactions the model produces.

How can you infer it?

You cannot tell a token player and Nordic LARPer apart?

Again, this is where you are wrong.

I am not wrong. I am telling you how it feels to me, I am not wrong about that, and it is pretty disrespect for you to imply otherwise.

When I'm properly immersed in the persona and perspective of the character, they can surprise me, just the same way than I can surprise myself in the real life. Which is not to say that I play in deeply immersed state always and 100%; I unfortunately don't. But that's the goal. However, the way you talk about these things simply implies to me that you just do not get the whole internal perspective thing. I am sure my approach is moulded by my LARP background, which focuses sort of method-actor-like inhabitation of the character.

But again, I think this is because there is no specificity in what’s being discussed. What game and rules are you talking about? Most games that I know of that use methods like those we’re talking about, the player has a big part to play.

Can you provide a specific example?

Not sure I can, as I try to avoid games and practices that do this. Latest I can think of is how I am rather anxious about managing the stress in Blades because I don't want to trigger trauma in a moment that would seem inappropriate by my internal model of the character. And overall, that game has things that pushes things to the author stance which I'm not the biggest fan of.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We're not going to agree. I can't see any part of this conversation as "destroying your character".

The internal model of the character says the character dislikes the NPC, the dice say your character likes this NPC. Immersion ruined.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@TwoSix @thomas Yeah, these different perspectives can to a certain degree cohabit at the same table. I think a game system that would best facilitate this, would generate suggested character reactions, accepting of which would give meta rewards (XP, inspiration, etc.) but the player would have full control whether to accept these or not. Then the players who want such mechanical prompts would have them, and players who would feel that the given prompt does not align their model of the character would be free to ignore them.

 

[TwoSix]

@TwoSix @thomas Yeah, these different perspectives can to a certain degree cohabit at the same table. I think a game system that would best facilitate this, would generate suggested character reactions, accepting of which would give meta rewards (XP, inspiration, etc.) but the player would have full control whether to accept these or not. Then the players who want such mechanical prompts would have them, and players who would feel that the given prompt does not align their model of the character would be free to ignore them.

Sure. I mean, this isn't dissimilar in style to Fate, where a player can accept a compel on an Aspect to get a Fate point, but isn't required to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sure I could play at your table, I'm ultimately pretty flexible. I just probably wouldn't play a character focused on social checks (or geniuses with 5 Int!), since I understand your outlook.

And since it's all internal, it's pretty hard to distinguish between "playing the character" and "playing to create story" as long as you're decent at the thespian aspects of the game.

I mean, that's ultimately why I like to discuss playstyle preferences; I try to be a playstyle "chameleon" that can play any system with almost any kind of players.

And vice versa. I'm not sure I'd want to play a game where I don't immerse myself in a character long term, but I could definitely have fun with a one shot or short campaign.

 

[TwoSix]

And vice versa. I'm not sure I'd want to play a game where I don't immerse myself in a character long term, but I could definitely have fun with a one shot or short campaign.

All my campaigns are short, so no worries there.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I think it's all in how it's presented. Certainly, "Now, Billy-Bob, I want you to think carefully about that response. Are you sure that's what you want to do? I'll give you 10 XP if you act intimidated..." (Followed by, "Who's a good roleplayer? Yes, you're a good roleplayer!" with a pat on the head.). That's not what we want.

But if the players know that leaning into their character's personality, even when...or maybe especially when...doing so creates complications, can result in XP rewards then that just feels like a positive incentive to pay attention to that. I don't mind it at all.

However, thinking about it more I realize it still leaves the main problem unsolved: when others at the table disagree about how a character should be played. I might think I'm doing exactly what I just described, but the GM (and other players) might be thinking, "That's NOT what a wood elf would do in this situation." And if that tension exists (and the others believe their view about the other person's character are "correct") then XP rewards aren't going to solve anything.

 

[Bill Zebub]

How exactly are you "surprised" by the actions of your PC over whom you have full control at all times, with zero influence of any kind from anything outside yourself?

You didn't ask me, but I definitely am surprised to "discover" new facets of my character while playing. I don't work out my characters' entire personalities and backstories ahead of time; usually I just have a vague sketch, with a couple of key characteristics. Then, in the middle of play, it hits me what unexpected thing my character would do, and how that fits into what I've developed for them so far, and suddenly my character is richer and more complex than they were a minute ago. Sometimes it generates a whole new chapter of backstory. I love those moments.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It’s not that I don’t get it. It’s that “it” is an extreme that doesn’t exist. You don’t feel things the same as your character would. You may feel similar feelings, maybe even quite strong at times, but not to the extent as a person going through the events of play would feel them.

There is always some distance between player and character. Necessarily, and thankfully, so.

But why artificially increase the distance?

I enjoy thinking, "Oh my god, why can't we kill this thing? We already tried fire and that didn't work. Do we need acid? I hope not, we don't have any. Freezing it? Pouring alcohol on it?!?!?" I'm not actually in danger for my life, unlike my character, so I'm not that close, but there's still some authentic tension there. I am certainly feeling closer to my character than if I know we need to use fire but I'm just pretending to be a character who doesn't know that.

 

[soviet]

Yes, like watching a horror movie about people being chased by axe murderer will make you scared, but probably not quite as scared than actually being chased by an axe murderer would!

But that the core feeling is real, and that is the tether that guides the character.



And the same uncertainly exist with the mental model of the character interacting with unexpected fictional situations! The fictional person is real in this sense, thus they will have "real" unexpected reactions! This is what me and Max have been trying to tell you. But it simply seems that you do not have such internal model of your characters that would make this possible, so you need the rules to tell you how the character reacts.




No not really. You cannot rewrite the model whist inhabiting it. It is like trying to rebuild a car whilst driving it. IN any case, the model exist in my head, not in the GM's, thus only I can truly know what sort of reactions the model produces.



You cannot tell a token player and Nordic LARPer apart?



I am not wrong. I am telling you how it feels to me, I am not wrong about that, and it is pretty disrespect for you to imply otherwise.

When I'm properly immersed in the persona and perspective of the character, they can surprise me, just the same way than I can surprise myself in the real life. Which is not to say that I play in deeply immersed state always and 100%; I unfortunately don't. But that's the goal. However, the way you talk about these things simply implies to me that you just do not get the whole internal perspective thing. I am sure my approach is moulded by my LARP background, which focuses sort of method-actor-like inhabitation of the character.



Not sure I can, as I try to avoid games and practices that do this. Latest I can think of is how I am rather anxious about managing the stress in Blades because I don't want to trigger trauma in a moment that would seem inappropriate by my internal model of the character. And overall, that game has things that pushes things to the author stance which I'm not the biggest fan of.

Method acting isn't the only form of acting, nor is it inherently a superior form of acting.