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

[soviet]

People keep repeating this sort of thing, and it frankly nonsense. That you have a defined mental model of the character does not mean they cannot be persuaded or affected or that you cannot be surprised. It if is just utterly bizarre to me that people would think this. The character will be subjected to situations beyond their control, and those will impact them and they will produce reactions, sometimes surprising ones. Just like happens to people in the real life.

When you say 'they' and 'them' here I don't know whether you mean the character or the player.

The character does not exist and so makes no decisions.

The player does exist and so makes all the decisions.

This means that the character cannot be persuaded by in-character conversation, only the player can (while assuming the role of the character). It means the character cannot react to anything, only the player can (while assuming the role of the character). Nothing can affect or persuade that character without first crossing the threshold of 'the player says it is OK'. Therefore, the player cannot ever be surprised by the character's feelings or reactions, because they have decided them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When you say 'they' and 'them' here I don't know whether you mean the character or the player.

The character does not exist and so makes no decisions.

The player does exist and so makes all the decisions.

This means that the character cannot be persuaded by in-character conversation, only the player can (while assuming the role of the character). It means the character cannot react to anything, only the player can (while assuming the role of the character). Nothing can affect or persuade that character without first crossing the threshold of 'the player says it is OK'. Therefore, the player cannot ever be surprised by the character's feelings or reactions, because they have decided them.

No, this just isn't true. I know it is not true for me. First, a lot of these reactions are not really decisions, in a same way than it is not a decision to get scared when watching a scary move or laugh when you hear a funny joke. And yes, the player is behind the character, yet they are not the same, like a method actor's character persona is not the same than their own. So when being properly immersed to the PoV of the character, the fictional events produce different reactions than if I were just viewing them as myself. To me doing this is what roleplaying a character is about. It is not easy, and I certainly am not always immersed in this way. But that's the goal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I do think demonstration of character concept has become a pretty central of play goal of OC/neotrad-style play, the type of play that D&D 5e is most closely targeting.

Of course, that's not the only way to play 5e, although at this point it's probably the most "popular" one. I usually just want the actions and reactions of the creatures in the setting to make logical sense within that setting. Social mechanics can "grease the wheels" for that, especially in situations where the logical reactions include unfavorable outcomes and unexpected events.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But we DO think this. (At least, I do.) I might arrive at a decision I didn't expect when play started over a particular scenario, when playing in your "full-mental agency" model, but it's still going to be ultimately what I felt to be right in the moment.

Thus it is authentic. The character must do what I feel is right at them moment, or I am not being true to the character.

It doesn't leave the possibility open that my character isn't actually who I thought they were, which is something that I'm chasing and you seem to have an aversion to.

There certainly still can be cases when you find the character reacting in surprising ways. But yes, you must know the character in the same way than you know yourself in real life, because otherwise you cannot be immersed in their PoV (or at least I can't.)

Now if we are looking from more detached perspective, like we are just directing the character rather than being them, this is not an issue. But I don't want to do that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No one said they are. No one (but you, misquoting) said that no one would ever choose such things. But no one would have chosen them, then and there, left to their own devices.

I guess I'll have to believe you, because I don't know your players.

 

[bsss]

I don't think an immersed player is a stand-in for a complete authentic personification, rather --- at best --- a mostly complete implementation of the character's consciousness. We are not 100% consciousness, and systems that attempt to model vices or whatever have something to say about that aspect of personification --- that it can be out of conscious control, how do we inject that into play?

Going back to my light grousing about Vincent Baker's theory, I don't believe TTRPG play is about the unwelcome and the unwanted, but rather about surprise and discovery. Social/personality mechanics intentionally don't leave them exclusively to player decision.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Also, I don't think we can make the assumption that of course all players would be fine with (and even choose) unpleasant outcomes and unfavorable events to occur to their characters if appropriate to the situation, because they're all hard core roleplayers like @Bill Zebub and @Crimson Longinus . Many players IME would simply not make that kind of choice for their PC on their own. Social mechanics can IMO help with these kinds of outcomes in practical play.

Oh, weird. I don't think of myself as hard core. The opposite, really. I just don't take it seriously enough to mind seeing my character get eaten by a gru or whatever. I like seeing stories go sideways.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't think an immersed player is a stand-in for a complete authentic personification, rather --- at best --- a mostly complete implementation of the character's consciousness. We are not 100% consciousness, and systems that attempt to model vices or whatever have something to say about that aspect of personification --- that it can be out of conscious control, how do we inject that into play?

Going back to my light grousing about Vincent Baker's theory, I don't believe TTRPG play is about the unwelcome and the unwanted, but rather about surprise and discovery. Social/personality mechanics intentionally don't leave them exclusively to player decision.

Yes, I agree with all of this.

I'm not saying social/personality mechanics can't result in surprise and discovery, just that they are unnecessary for it. Maybe there's a different flavor to the resulting surprise and discovery, and if so I guess that flavor is like...peppermint. Not to everyone's taste. (I would say 'cilantro' except I really like cilantro, but I detest peppermint.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, weird. I don't think of myself as hard core. The opposite, really. I just don't take it seriously enough to mind seeing my character get eaten by a gru or whatever. I like seeing stories go sideways.

I think that is perhaps less common around the gaming table than you imagine. A lot of players in my experience just want to be awesome all the time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This means that the character cannot be persuaded by in-character conversation, only the player can (while assuming the role of the character). It means the character cannot react to anything, only the player can (while assuming the role of the character). Nothing can affect or persuade that character without first crossing the threshold of 'the player says it is OK'. Therefore, the player cannot ever be surprised by the character's feelings or reactions, because they have decided them.

So....an NPC dies, and I am surprised to find that I am disappointed by that, more than I would have guessed. Does that not count?