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

[Micah Sweet]

Ah, I wanted to eliminate me as the arbiter of what is good. I do not want that responsibility. I want to stay far away from that as possible.

I prefer setting up the dilemma as it ties to their TIBFs and then offer the XP to lean into them (obviously with the fictional or otherwise cost). Therefore for me the word fairness works.

I don't use TIBFs (they don't exist in my version of 5e. People make up their own versions of that stuff for themselves at my table.

 

[TwoSix]

when do the dice ever actually say something like 'you like this NPC' though? yes, they say things like 'they make a convincing argument that you can't really refute' and 'they display no signs of deception and appear completely honest' but the dice never mind control your character.

There are games where the stakes involved in a roll require the player to act in accordance, and rationalize, a decision that the player might not feel is in the normal interests of the character. I mentioned Pendragon as an example a few days back.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because there are some (many) games that you don't want to play in an immersive fashion.

To me, those kinds of complaints feel somewhat like "I don't understand why you would to play Civilization on your computer instead of Call of Duty; it doesn't test your reflexes or hand-eye coordination at all, and that's the point of video games!"

Not every RPG, or mode of RPG play, is about immersion. You can enjoy it, and still also want to do other things that aren't that.

I really appreciate this refreshing honesty in this thread. In the past there have been several long treads where people say that certain games or certain mechanics and techniques are bad for immersion and make the game feel more like collaborative storytelling, and they get gaslighted that this is not the case and they're just playing the game wrong etc.

That we can agree what is actually happening is amazing, even though we might disagree on whether we like it or not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, for me, assuming a D&D-like game, if I don't have at least one character die on me (as a player), I feel like I wasn't really playing my hardest.

I once had my character's plans foiled and was subsequently killed by another party member whom I had earlier betrayed and who had literally crawled back to the land of the living to get vengeance on me. One of my best experiences as a Player.

 

[CreamCloud0]

There are games where the stakes involved in a roll require the player to act in accordance, and rationalize, a decision that the player might not feel is in the normal interests of the character. I mentioned Pendragon as an example a few days back.

sure, i'll try find and reread that post in a moment, but just because they have been made to take an action doesn't mean they have to present as if they did so willingly, they can say circumstances forced their hand or suchlike.

 

[Bill Zebub]

when do the dice ever actually say something like 'you like this NPC' though? yes, they say things like 'they make a convincing argument that you can't really refute' and 'they display no signs of deception and appear completely honest' or 'you cannot parse their motive or intentions' but the dice never mind control your character.

I couldn't possibly count the number of times in my life that somebody has made a convincing argument I couldn't refute and yet I still believed in my heart was wrong, or the number of times somebody displayed no signs of deception and appeared completely honest and yet I still just didn't trust them.

The NPC roll only describes the italicized parts.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@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.

Though there's a reason I still prefer the stick to the carrot; it shows some impact from the social usage while not commanding specific actions. I understand why that still bothers you, but that's just a place where there's too much daylight between our wants here.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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!

I'm giving XP for a player to have his character ditch the main party, put the entire campaign storyline at risk, for him to attempt to save an NPC. He has had a dozen sessions separate from the rest of the group and they have had about 1/2 as much.
They have all levelled up, he has not. In the process of focussing on rescuing his friend and the city of Elturel he has also made a deal with the devil.
There is cost.

The player who decided that his character was to miss the Waterdeep council meeting to pursue a personal goal, witnessed the negative fictional and mechanical effects that hurt the party because of his absence.

The character who leaned into his I struggle to keep secrets, had not yet had any repercussions but that possibility remains when/if the party makes it to Sigil.

You could call this training wheels but what the TIBF system does right from my perspective is provide a concise list that one can continue to refer to. If it is all in a player's mind or in a background essay, things can get easily forgotten, glanced over.
Our system (not at all perfect), is likely to bring to the fore these character tests more often than most groups.

Just the other day, a player added two TIBFs thanks to a personal trial his character recently went through.
Flaw: I have died in more ways than I care to count and as a result have become numb to the threat of death.
(Cloned by Halaster he had become the Mad Mage's personal toy within Undermountain)

Bond: I have deeply wronged someone dear to me (Skyla) and will spend my life finding ways to atone for it.

 

[TwoSix]

I really appreciate this refreshing honesty in this thread. In the past there have been several long treads where people say that certain games or certain mechanics and techniques are bad for immersion and make the game feel more like collaborative storytelling, and they get gaslighted that this is not the case and they're just playing the game wrong etc.

That we can agree what is actually happening is amazing, even though we might disagree on whether we like it or not.

I mean, these terms are difficult to encapsulate; we're talking about a perceived experience that's probably different for everyone, in a medium that's intended to be creative. Small wonder it's challenging to achieve something like a consensus.

It reminds me in a way of aphantasia (the inability to perceive images in the mind's eye); that's almost certainly a state that has been around for all of human existence, but we've only had that term, and an understanding of what that means in the context of the way our minds work, in the past decade or so.

 

[CreamCloud0]

There are games where the stakes involved in a roll require the player to act in accordance, and rationalize, a decision that the player might not feel is in the normal interests of the character. I mentioned Pendragon as an example a few days back.

searchfunction found three posts in this thread (beside this one i'm replying to) where you mentioned 'pendragon', none of them appear like they are the post you might of been referring to? might you direct me to the one you were talking about?

The problem I have with this is that it puts a game like Pendragon, widely regarded as Greg Stafford's magnum opus, in the category of "eroding what RPGs are about" because of the system's need for Virtue/Vice checks.

I, personally, feel there's just as much creative artistry to be found in deciding how to portray a mechanical resolution, and create a narrative that captures that resolution in a way that's true to my character and the surrounding fiction, as there is in making the decision as to what to portray.

Not every game experience is enhanced by a dogged pursuit of maximal player agency over their character.

It depends on the game. I'm more prone to want avatar-stance play in an OSR-style game focused on problem-solving, whereas I'm more interested in character portrayal (and letting the resolution engine guide that portrayal) in something like a Pendragon or a PbtA game.

I mean, this isn't some new play style division; I can remember complaints about Willpower checks forcing characters into choices their players didn't like in games like Vampire back in the '90s.

I totally agree that happens. (Although I agree with @hawkeyefan that just because a game places limits on agency, it doesn't mean the game will become a game with no agency.)

But that works for those games! It might not work for you or some of the others who share your preferences, of course. But it doesn't mean the game would be better if they had designed it without those agency limitations. A game in which my vampire only gives into bloodlust when I, as a player, want them to isn't a game which is supporting the themes of V:tM.