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

[hawkeyefan]

This argument is often made....and indeed I have asked this same question...with the assumption that combat is the part of the game that is done well, and we need to bring social encounters up to the same level.

But maybe it's the other way around? Maybe we have no choice but to handle combat with rules and dice because most of us are not familiar enough with, say, fighting giant centipedes using edged weapons and magic, and we would enjoy it more if we could resolve it all narratively through roleplaying in a way that everybody found satisfactory.

It all comes down to three things: player input, GM input, and rules input. These three things interact in different ways in play, and that’s what creates the results.

The amount of each or how they are implemented will vary by game, and what’s preferred will vary by person or group.

But, preferences aside, I don't think there’s any reason that these three things can’t be combined in a satisfactory way for either combat or social-based scenarios.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, aside from Pendragon, and the very specific role of bloodlust/rage in Vampire and Werewolf, what are all these games that apparently have dice rolls that control how PCs think and act?

"Think" I don't necessarily agree with, but almost any game with psychological limitations as part of character construction can control how you act under some circumstances. You've bought into that by taking them, but sometimes its pretty unattractive not to have a couple at least.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, and I think you had plenty of good ideas for teeth that do not do that. But some people specifically wished for compels or at least incentives in form of sticks rather than carrots.

I gather you don't consider a significant difference between those two?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I buy that. Or Torchbearer or Scum & Villainy or....etc.

But I was responding to a post claiming that that by choosing my attributes I was agreeing to give up agency. I think this might have been a reference to "if you are going to dump Int then you are bound to play by that" (and even that I would push back against) but by itself it was a pretty sweeping claim.

Ah, was someone I'm not seeing so I was missing context.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This argument is often made....and indeed I have asked this same question...with the assumption that combat is the part of the game that is done well, and we need to bring social encounters up to the same level.

But maybe it's the other way around? Maybe we have no choice but to handle combat with rules and dice because most of us are not familiar enough with, say, fighting giant centipedes using edged weapons and magic, and we would enjoy it more if we could resolve it all narratively through roleplaying in a way that everybody found satisfactory.

As I've noted, I've played in a context where the latter was true (superheroes rather than fantasy, but the principal wouldn't be radically different). As I said, it had some virtues, and when it went well was golden, but I think was waaaay too dependent on the whole on people being on the same page in a pretty tight way.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It all comes down to three things: player input, GM input, and rules input. These three things interact in different ways in play, and that’s what creates the results.

The amount of each or how they are implemented will vary by game, and what’s preferred will vary by person or group.

But, preferences aside, I don't think there’s any reason that these three things can’t be combined in a satisfactory way for either combat or social-based scenarios.

The funny part is that I’ve always wanted social interaction mechanics that were as satisfying as combat (or, as satisfying as the combat in games that have satisfying combat) but I've never seen anything that works for me.

 

[Maxperson]

Interesting. Is that true, @Maxperson ?

Not even close. I have never argued the other side. I have a vague recollection of someone doing that, but it wasn't me.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, because sometimes you find yourself facing an unexpected temptation. Happens to me in real life every time I peruse Kickstarter.

Yep! But there are theories that we are in a simulation/program. There could be someone somewhere making those choices for you.

 

[pemerton]

So, basically frame tests of character as true judgment calls, exactly like what I said. A choice has to be made two or more options of moral weight.

I'm talking about tests of temptation or will, things like "Can my character be goaded into a fight?" or "Will I resist a bribe?" or "Can I be charmed by a skilled manipulator"? Places where the right choice as a player are obvious, but a character in a story might make substandard decisions.

I want players to have agency over judgement calls, where there are two or more options uncertain options that need to have a choice be made between them. But fighting temptation, or exerting willpower, isn't a choice between two uncertain options (generally, I'm sure there are use cases where it can be framed that way), it's a test of character makeup and concept. It's a challenge with stakes, and those should generally be resolved via mechanics.

These posts prompted some thoughts.

A couple of them also relate to this post:

All that we have heard of this situation is that the character has a conflict --- get information vital to his quest vs. avoid triggering his lust, and that he decided (however he decided) to go into the brothel. That sounds like "a choice, a hard one" to me.

How is it decided (i) what the quest is, and (ii) where the information is? More generally, how does the game generate this choice, about whether or not to expose one's PC to the risk of temptation?

Different ways of doing that are more or less railroad-y.

And following on, it might be interesting to drill down a bit more into "the right choice as a player is obvious". Does that mean the most expedient choice? The choice that is most likely to progress the "quest"? (Which also brings us back to the first question, of where the quest came from.)

Thinking back to the example of my Steel test when Aedhros tried to stab the innkeeper: the "quest" - that is, the goal of killing the innkeeper - was decided by me, playing Aedhros. Given that goal, stabbing is the right choice. But It's not as if Aedhros hesitating sets me back as a player - it's not comparable to, say, losing all the treasure down a chasm in a classic D&D dungeon. So the function of the Steel test, at least in that context, is not to put to the test my ability to complete my goal.

It does test "character makeup and concept" - how ruthless is Aedhros?

A further thought, a bit different from those above: what counts as a "judgement call"? This is heavily shaped by the system. In my Prince Valiant play, for example, it was a judgement call (by Sir Morgath's player) to have Sir Morgath climb down the castle wall on a rope and rescue Lady Lorette. The player realised there was a risk that Sir Morgath might be smitten by the lady, but he made the decision anyway. (Why? In part because daring rescues are the sort of thing you do when playing Prince Valiant; in part because it was what he though Sir Morgath would do; in part because he knew that it would earn Sir Morgath Fame, which is the "XP" of Prince Valiant, similar to Glory in Pendragon.")

In Classic Traveller, by way of contrast, there is no risk that a daring rescue might result in this sort of consequence. That already tells us something about the different experiences the games aspire to: Prince Valiant is romantic and a bit pulp-y; Classic Traveller takes itself fairly seriously and is more focused on logistical and administrative operations than on Star Wars-esque daring rescues.

But in Classic Traveller, if you choose for your PC to enter a fight then you are choosing to risk Morale checks. And those moral checks are influenced by a commander's Leader and Tactics skills. So Classic Traveller, as part of its seriousness, foregrounds small unit cohesion and resolve in a way that Prince Valiant doesn't. (In Prince Valiant's mass combat rules, an individual can be defeated, or can triumph, independently of what happens to the army as a whole.)

These differences are important (from the point of view of RPGing): they are part of what means that different RPGs give rise to different play experiences.

 

[bsss]

These differences are important (from the point of view of RPGing): they are part of what means that different RPGs give rise to different play experiences.

Yeah, I believe the same, and like your analysis of it. The system in use at the table defines a lot, in terms of what the game's stories will (or "should") treat in, at least to be effective uses of the system.

That returns me to asking, what is an overreach of that system, when does a person at the table start to work outside the lines, at least in a way that doesn't come with table consent?

In the vein of this question,

What about die rolls and mechanics? That's not the opinion of other people.

...if the system is structured in a way where checks or defenses or social encounters can have an effect, is that not the system having a valid --- by the system being a participant on play --- opinion?

We have been kind of oscillating, in my observation, between debating the problem in D&D-ish contexts and undefined game system absolutes, and maybe that latter approach is a fool's errand. That we can't speak to a valid approach without being specific, that the system's opinion is as important as the player's or the GM's (noting that of course, the system's opinion is the easiest to change). This post wraps that up in a bow, I feel:

It all comes down to three things: player input, GM input, and rules input. These three things interact in different ways in play, and that’s what creates the results.

I see systems much like a contract, in the sense of "this, at least, is allowed". That Pendragon does social things way X or that D&D does them way Y is part of the agreement. Those may be unsatisfying ways, of course, but I think when we wonder about where agency lives and pick our lines to defend, we need to be more specific in the system contract in use. Pendragon allows the dice to test a character's vice directly, and D&D does not, yet D&D allows the dice in general defintions of skills to affect... someone. I think I know, but it doesn't seem like everyone here has had the same experiences as me. How much is that getting in the way for everyone, I don't know, but some of these situations being debated seem unmoored to me in a way that I have not been able to form an opinion.