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

[hawkeyefan]

It is wilful by the player that that agency be limited. In the same way one can choose to fail a saving throw or be persuaded.
They decide on the scores of their traits, passions etc. That is a knowing risk decided by the player.
In the same way that you decide your scores in D&D, it is a knowing risk what you will likely fail at or be worse at abc.
As it is an Arthurian game it focuses more on the passions, traits (virtues/vices) as opposed to all the combat related details of D&D.

You decide how that die roll reflects in the fiction based on the result.
i.e. The die roll says you fall deeper in love, how is that expressed in the fiction? You have that creative control on how that will play out.

I think discounting all of this and instead focusing on the loss of agency in the moment of play as the sole indicator of how this kind of game actually works is a bad idea.

Players playing Pendragon are going to be aware (or should be, at least) that the choices they make are going to matter to play. When they come up, it should be interesting to them… they’ve chosen for this thing to matter and they know it’s likely to be tested… this should be an exciting moment, not a source of frustration because someone’s character isn’t the bestest the way they thought.

 

[zakael19]

I think discounting all of this and instead focusing on the loss of agency in the moment of play as the sole indicator of how this kind of game actually works.

Players playing Pendragon are going to be aware (or should be, at least) that the choices they make are going to matter to play. When they come up, it should be interesting to them… they’ve chosen for this thing to matter and they know it’s likely to be tested… this should be an exciting moment, not a source of frustration because someone’s character isn’t the bestest the way they thought.

@pemerton has probably harped on the divide between “agency to shape how I think my character’s internality can or can’t be affected” vs “agency to through the play priorities my character was built to highlight shape the themes of play” the most.

I make a character in a way that I want to see them have to struggle to control themself (ref: making a Stormblessed heavy in Stonetop who gets huge combat power but the player has to turn “do they calm down after a fight and what happens if they don’t” over to the dice), because I’m choosing to see that struggle where I don’t have authority on screen. So the play then makes that happen.

 

[CreamCloud0]

And a NPC that convinces the PC that there is nothing worth seeing behind the wall?

social checks don't 'convince' PCs of things like that unless the rules are being misapplied, you're under a misconception.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

social checks don't 'convince' PCs of things like that, you're under a misconception.

In D&D they don't. But there are several people in this tread arguing that they should. Like that is literally what started this leg of the debate.

Now if you are not one of those people then we do not disagree on this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In D&D they don't. But there are several people in this tread arguing that they should. Like that is literally what started this leg of the debate.

Now if you are not one of those people then we do not disagree on this.

I think there is a definitely a disagreement on what constitutes "convincing", "forcing" or even "influence".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think there is a definitely a disagreement on what constitutes "convincing", "forcing" or even "influence".

Can you elaborate?

 

[Maxperson]

No, I'm not forcing you to do anything. That's what you want, right?

Then what is the -2 penalty for if it's not to represent my character being intimidated due to successful intimidate against him? And I don't know how you missed my saying a zillion times that forced actions, FEELINGS and THOUGHTS are what I don't want to happen. If it's forcing my character to think or feel something, that social mechanic should be taken out behind the barn and shot.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because the GM thinks it is a situation where there is chance of the character being afraid and the player doesn't!

It would seem to me that in such a case, there would seem to at least be the possibility of fear being an issue.

Again, this is why talking about a specific game would be best. Usually in games where this stuff matters, there tends not to be such a gap between the GM and player’s conception of what’s going on.

Sigh And your way is unimmersive roll playing. The risk exist in charged situation in which there is no obvious right choice, and this creates a real weight for the player who is genuinely making that choice. If the GM is incapable of creating such situations and/or if the player is incapable of immersing to the point of view of their character so that they feel that weight, then that cannot be fixed by rolling some dice.

If you get to choose the outcome, then it’s not a risk.

Again, look at combat. There’s risk in combat because you’re not just free to decide the outcome. It’s out of the player’s control.

And a NPC that convinces the PC that there is nothing worth seeing behind the wall?

I don’t know. Again, this doesn’t sound like something that happens in play. Is this some kind of situation where there’s like a bluff or deception check by the guard? Again, I don’t know of any games that work this way… but I’d just tell a player “he says there’s nothing beyond the wall… and he seems sincere”. No need to tell the player what their character believes beyond that.

Stop saying that. That you are incapable of immersing in mental model of a character is such a way that it gives clear outputs does not mean I am incapable of it.

I didn’t say you were. I’m saying that you, or any other player, absolutely can opt to ignore what they think is the clear output and instead go with something else for any reason they like.

I mean… I’ve done this as a player. It’s obviously possible. In my experience, when I’ve done this or other players have said they have, the reason is to go along with the party. To not cause complications for the group.

Yes, because the emotional output will be modulated by the mental model of the character. A mental model of brave and brash character placed in dangerous fictional situation will give different outputs than a mental model of a cautious and nervous character.

But this is futile. At this point I must conclude that you simply do not understand what I am talking about as it is not something you have experienced. This is like trying to explain colour blue to a blind person. And this is not meant as a slight. You do you. But I am tired of my personal experience being dismissed.

Oh you haven’t been dismissive? Gotcha.

My point is that you are capable… any player is capable… of ignoring their personal response and crafting a response for their character that’s different.

 

[Campbell]

In D&D they don't. But there are several people in this tread arguing that they should. Like that is literally what started this leg of the debate.

Now if you are not one of those people then we do not disagree on this.

No one is arguing that they should. Some people have expressed a preference for games where the internal state of the characters is part of the shared fiction and influenced by both the mechanics and GM situation framing. Also, that there is agency involving managing your character's internal state in such games, particularly when designed in a comprehensive way.

It's fine to have a preference for games in which the internal state of the characters is entirely up to the players' own internal models, but one in which it is part of the shared fiction is no way antithetical to the medium. To argue that such games basically play your character for you is silly and bears no relation to these games as actually played.

Also, the idea that they are universally antithetical to embodiment of the characters we play is also silly. They might be for specific individuals, but that is a them-thing. The idea that a singular method is the only way to get there is inane. It's the same sort of limited thinking that followers of Stanislavsky's The Method in acting show when there are plenty of other approaches to acting that work for other actors.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@pemerton has probably harped on the divide between “agency to shape how I think my character’s internality can or can’t be affected” vs “agency to through the play priorities my character was built to highlight shape the themes of play” the most.

I make a character in a way that I want to see them have to struggle to control themself (ref: making a Stormblessed heavy in Stonetop who gets huge combat power but the player has to turn “do they calm down after a fight and what happens if they don’t” over to the dice), because I’m choosing to see that struggle where I don’t have authority on screen. So the play then makes that happen.

Exactly. I mentioned an example from Stonetop in a previous similar discussion, with the Storm-blessed Heavy having to roll to get their rage under control. It’s a really straightforward example.

Leaving the outcome up to the result of the dice makes it feel like something out of the character’s control because it’s out of the player’s. And that’s how trying to control such rage should feel.

Let the player decide and it takes away that lack of control… which is the whole point, and, I expect, a big part of why a player would select such a playbook.