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

[hawkeyefan]

Yes. It doesn't mean the feeling is not there or that it being there is immaterial. Again, that the player and character experiences never perfectly match doesn't mean we would not aim for it or intentionally create more disconnect.

Sure. This was all I said. Sounds like you agree?

No, I don't believe I can.

I believe in you! You can pretend whatever you want!

I hope you figure it out one day.

Way to dodge the question. Twice!

I mean, ideally they'd have a say, but I don't think this works in all games. I believe in Pendragon the virtues just compel certain sort of emotion on the character for example.

My understanding… which I will say is limited… is that the player is involved in setting the virtues and vices. And that they can change them over time.

I mean I have played such games. But given that I know what I dislike, I try to avoid it now, and I cannot recall specifics from some ancient WW game I played back in the stone age.

Why don't you tell some example of situations where you flet such mechnic worked well?

I had a player in Spire who incurred many Fallouts, which are consequences of different kinds that can happen as a result of play. The PC was a Knight, which are basically orders of warriors associated with different pubs. The PC’s background was that of a hired killer. He’d been forced into this life and it was all he knew. He was a hardened killer with no fear and very capable of violence.

Becauae the player was open to the game and how his character evolved over time, the character changed drastically. He had a squire who was young an optimistic, and he let the squire die after he was wounded in a battle. He could have saved him by allowing the authorities to obtain him, but he didn’t want that to happen… so the Knight ran off with the dying squire, and let him die.

He then started seeing the squire’s “ghost” because he received the Fallout “Permanently Weird”. We decided that seeing and hearing his squire in moments of stress made sense. He could suppress this at the cost of some Mind stress.

Later, the Knight suffered fatal Blood Fallout, which has a few possible outcomes. He can take one final act with an additional die, and then die, OR he can face death and somehow return to the world of the living… changed, always changed.

We decided that, based on the prior events, the fact that he was literally haunted by his dead squire, and some of the class abilities that he chose, we decided that he came back as the squire reborn in the Knight’s body. That the squire’s ghost took over.

This fundamentally changed the character. Gone was the hardened killer, replaced by an optimistic dreamer tempered by the experience of “dying”. Whether this was all true or just some kind of mental breakdown, we never really determined for sure in play.

However, it was one of the most memorable characters in one of the most memorable campaigns I’ve ever seen. And it never would have happened if the player wasn’t willing to go with the game… if he instead insisted on maintaining his conception of the character.

What more elaboration can there be? The mechanics say that the situation is such that my character gets traumatised, and my internal model says it is not.

Well, I find it strange to resist being traumatized in this way because it represents something that the character can’t control. So controlling it as you’re doing… and doing so in the name of character… seems… I don’t know. Paradoxical? Oxymoronic?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, if that example....the difference between genuinely wondering why the troll scary monster keeps regenerating, and knowing exactly why but pretending you don't...doesn't explain itself, I don't know if I can.

Unless you are specifically referring to the word "artificially", in which case I guess I can offer two clarifications:

1. "Artificial" in the sense that I am pretending to not know the solution, rather than genuinely not knowing the solution
2. But also artificial in the sense of it being a problem (if one sees it as such) of the DM's own creation: it would be trivial to switch things up...modify the monsters...to make the feeling authentic

Yeah… there are few scenarios in RPGs I’d rather see less than a bunch of players pretending not to know trolls are vulnerable to fire. I wouldn’t advocate for that at all.

I’m not sure what made you think I might…?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, I find it strange to resist being traumatized in this way because it represents something that the character can’t control. So controlling it as you’re doing… and doing so in the name of character… seems… I don’t know. Paradoxical? Oxymoronic?

I'll try not to speak for that poster, but for myself I don't see it as "resisting" being traumatized. It's more akin to reading a story, or watching a movie, and when a character has a strong reaction to something it feels...fake. Your understanding of the character doesn't mesh with that reaction, and it's jarring. Makes the character feel less real.

And maybe it perfectly fit with the writers's/director's intention for the character, and for other viewer/readers it totally works. But your perception of the character is that they wouldn't react that way.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah… there are few scenarios in RPGs I’d rather see less than a bunch of players pretending not to know trolls are vulnerable to fire. I wouldn’t advocate for that at all.

I’m not sure what made you think I might…?

In my mind it's in precisely the same category of pretending to be deceived by an NPC that you (the player) actually believe is lying, or pretending to be traumatized about an event you don't actually care about.

EDIT: And, even then, it's fine if it's what you choose to do. It's the idea that other players at the table frown at you for not playing your character as deceived or traumatized that makes me roll my eyes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'll try not to speak for that poster, but for myself I don't see it as "resisting" being traumatized. It's more akin to reading a story, or watching a movie, and when a character has a strong reaction to something it feels...fake. Your understanding of the character doesn't mesh with that reaction, and it's jarring. Makes the character feel less real.

And maybe it perfectly fit with the writers's/director's intention for the character, and for other viewer/readers it totally works. But your perception of the character is that they wouldn't react that way.

I suppose. To me, it feels more like when someone explains how they feel or how they reacted or responded to a situation and you hear them and then say something like “sounds like you overreacted to me!”

I mean, as stress mounts in Blades, it’s in response to things that happen. Things that aren’t really easy things… they tend to be very dangerous and/or harmful things.

I mean… for lack of an easier analogy, it sounds to me the same way a D&D player would sound if they said “I know I just lost all my hit points, but it seems really silly for my guy to go down to an orc’s arrow after killing those giants and the lich!”

Um, you’re out of hit points, dude… you’re down!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. This was all I said. Sounds like you agree?

We agree on that emotions caused by an imagines situation are likely to be less strong than ones caused by a real situation because that is blindingly obvious. But then you seem to conclude that because there is already some distance creating even more distance doesn't matter and I don't.

I believe in you! You can pretend whatever you want!

No, no I can't. Like my actual play bit about my character deciding to kill the NPC. I could not pretend that they decide not to do it, because that is not the output my mental model gave. Nor I van significantly rebuild a mental model whilst inhabiting it.

Way to dodge the question. Twice!

We could discuss it, but it is pointless. How can we know anything about though processes of anyone? Same answer. Like in this thread the participants have certainly learned about how each other think.

My understanding… which I will say is limited… is that the player is involved in setting the virtues and vices. And that they can change them over time.

Sure, but not at the moment. At the moment they create a compel and the player needs to honour it.

I had a player in Spire who incurred many Fallouts, which are consequences of different kinds that can happen as a result of play. The PC was a Knight, which are basically orders of warriors associated with different pubs. The PC’s background was that of a hired killer. He’d been forced into this life and it was all he knew. He was a hardened killer with no fear and very capable of violence.

Becauae the player was open to the game and how his character evolved over time, the character changed drastically. He had a squire who was young an optimistic, and he let the squire die after he was wounded in a battle. He could have saved him by allowing the authorities to obtain him, but he didn’t want that to happen… so the Knight ran off with the dying squire, and let him die.

But the player chose that the character does that, right?

He then started seeing the squire’s “ghost” because he received the Fallout “Permanently Weird”. We decided that seeing and hearing his squire in moments of stress made sense. He could suppress this at the cost of some Mind stress.

Later, the Knight suffered fatal Blood Fallout, which has a few possible outcomes. He can take one final act with an additional die, and then die, OR he can face death and somehow return to the world of the living… changed, always changed.

We decided that, based on the prior events, the fact that he was literally haunted by his dead squire, and some of the class abilities that he chose, we decided that he came back as the squire reborn in the Knight’s body. That the squire’s ghost took over.

This fundamentally changed the character. Gone was the hardened killer, replaced by an optimistic dreamer tempered by the experience of “dying”. Whether this was all true or just some kind of mental breakdown, we never really determined for sure in play.

Obviously it changed the character as it literally was a different character!

However, it was one of the most memorable characters in one of the most memorable campaigns I’ve ever seen. And it never would have happened if the player wasn’t willing to go with the game… if he instead insisted on maintaining his conception of the character.

But the player being in charge does not mean the character does not grow or change. It means that the player chooses if that happens and what it looks like. Though of course the experiences the character has will be informing that.

Well, I find it strange to resist being traumatized in this way because it represents something that the character can’t control. So controlling it as you’re doing… and doing so in the name of character… seems… I don’t know. Paradoxical? Oxymoronic?

Because how the mechanics work means the character can be traumatised by stupid things. I explained this in more detail in another post.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I suppose. To me, it feels more like when someone explains how they feel or how they reacted or responded to a situation and you hear them and then say something like “sounds like you overreacted to me!”

Which, of course, is an entirely natural and common thing to feel and think. It's just rude to say it out loud.

But we are talking about the person's own player character in an RPG. If anything, it's rude for other people to say, "I think your character over- (or under-) reacted.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean… for lack of an easier analogy, it sounds to me the same way a D&D player would sound if they said “I know I just lost all my hit points, but it seems really silly for my guy to go down to an orc’s arrow after killing those giants and the lich!”

Absolutely! And they can depart for that long good-night believing it to the very last. The player controls what their character believes.

Likewise, they can absolutely refuse to believe the orc chieftain is intimidating, despite the nat 20 the orc rolled. They might realize their mistake when they are lying there having failed 2/3 death saving throws and the orc hits them again with his axe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But I don't believe rules can do that.

I do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I said upthread, to me it feels like forcing a kid to apologize to his brother when he's not actually sorry.

Which to me is fine because you're acting like your character, not possessing them body and soul.