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

[bsss]

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.)

I would say they are at least sometimes unnecessary for it, at least insofar as any mechanic is necessary. In the same way we could cops and robbers our way through every TTRPG combat, but don't, because there are interesting situations that come out of being surprised by a tougher-than-usual foe or a stray crit or what have you, the same holds true for the social. Drawing out the surprise and discovery could be natural for a group of roleplayers to the point they play essentially systemless, but that is the exception rather than the norm --- most groups need (if not enjoy) some kind of structure. The question for each game then is, I think, what is the agreed upon structure, what does the table want help with?

 

[Hriston]

I think it's pretty well established anecdotally that an author, in a non-RPG context, can be surprised, in the process of writing, by what their character(s) do(es), so I don't think that's what's at stake here. I think it's more about mechanics vs player having (some) authorship over the character's various mental states. There doesn't seem to be any objective reason why this is different from allowing mechanics to have a say in what a character does physically. It's just a matter of preference. My preferences are informed by the games with which I'm most familiar, which is mostly D&D.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would say they are at least sometimes unnecessary for it, at least insofar as any mechanic is necessary. In the same way we could cops and robbers our way through every TTRPG combat, but don't, because there are interesting situations that come out of being surprised by a tougher-than-usual foe or a stray crit or what have you, the same holds true for the social. Drawing out the surprise and discovery could be natural for a group of roleplayers to the point they play essentially systemless, but that is the exception rather than the norm --- most groups need (if not enjoy) some kind of structure. The question for each game then is, I think, what is the agreed upon structure, what does the table want help with?

Yeah, that's fair. Differences in playstyle has been mentioned many times in this thread, but underneath that I think there's also a difference in goal, in the sense of what kinds of stories somebody wants to explore, that probably drives 'playstyle'.

 

[bsss]

Yeah, that's fair. Differences in playstyle has been mentioned many times in this thread, but underneath that I think there's also a difference in goal, in the sense of what kinds of stories somebody wants to explore, that probably drives 'playstyle'.

Totally agreed, and in the context of that goal and going back to the root of the where the railroad topic turned into this one however many dozens of pages ago, I still believe that if we are talking about a game without strong social mechanics such as D&D, where there's no clear explicit goal like modeling character beliefs or virtues, it is an overreach for a failed Sense Motive or whatever roll to assert "this is what your character believes and now does X in reaction to", or so on for Intimidate, etc.. So back to the system being part of the "contract" of agreed upon play. If a different system was the one welcomed at the table instead, the goal would probably be affected, too.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it's pretty well established anecdotally that an author, in a non-RPG context, can be surprised, in the process of writing, by what their character(s) do(es), so I don't think that's what's at stake here.

Yes!

I think it's more about mechanics vs player having (some) authorship over the character's various mental states. There doesn't seem to be any objective reason why this is different from allowing mechanics to have a say in what a character does physically. It's just a matter of preference. My preferences are informed by the games with which I'm most familiar, which is mostly D&D.

I think mental states are different for two reasons.

First, they can more directly affect the characters wants and goals. The player deciding what their character wants and what their goals are is an important form of agency, so mechanics that can interfere with that are different than those that merely determine whether a specific way of attempting to achieve a goal succeeds.

Secondly, who we trust, who we find appealing, what we find scary, and what upsets us tells a lot about what sort of person we are, probably in a way whether we are we able to dodge blows well doesn't. And those things are way more subjective. That a skilled warrior was hit by a lucky shot by a mook does not really mean they are not a skilled warrior, it is something we can imagine happening to anyone. But I don't think everyone could be scared by spiders, seduced to betray state secrets by a beautiful woman or being swayed by a fascist demagogue. How one responds to those things is way more nuanced and subjective than most physical stuff is, and it also is something all of us emotionally understands pretty well. Now in theory there could be a super complicated personality/social system that would take all this subjectivity and nuance into account, but that does not sound practical.

Now some people certainly might be open to having all sort of things about their character's nature to be determined by the dice, (oh, this actually was a character who finds fascism appealing,) but it also is not surprising that a lot of people find this to be different than the dice determining whether the character manages to jump well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Totally agreed, and in the context of that goal and going back to the root of the where the railroad topic turned into this one however many dozens of pages ago, I still believe that if we are talking about a game without strong social mechanics such as D&D, where there's no clear explicit goal like modeling character beliefs or virtues, it is an overreach for a failed Sense Motive or whatever roll to assert "this is what your character believes and now does X in reaction to", or so on for Intimidate, etc.. So back to the system being part of the "contract" of agreed upon play. If a different system was the one welcomed at the table instead, the goal would probably be affected, too.

Yes! It's just as much of a mistake to try to bolt those kinds of deterministic social mechanics onto D&D as it would be to play, say, Torchbearer, and ignore those mechanics.

 

[TwoSix]

I think it's pretty well established anecdotally that an author, in a non-RPG context, can be surprised, in the process of writing, by what their character(s) do(es), so I don't think that's what's at stake here. I think it's more about mechanics vs player having (some) authorship over the character's various mental states. There doesn't seem to be any objective reason why this is different from allowing mechanics to have a say in what a character does physically. It's just a matter of preference. My preferences are informed by the games with which I'm most familiar, which is mostly D&D.

Agree with this. To my mind, it’s similar to preferences between rolling for a character’s stats and doing point-buy.

Some people have a preference for being in control, and others have a preference for giving up control. And some people enjoy both at different times.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not completely on topic, but the OP's question seems like it should be in the D&D thread, not TTRPG General. As I was thinking that, I thought, "Would players consider railroading different based on what edition of D&D they were playing?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes! It's just as much of a mistake to try to bolt those kinds of deterministic social mechanics onto D&D as it would be to play, say, Torchbearer, and ignore those mechanics.

I don't agree. By that philosophy, homebrew is a bad idea. If you want to add a new subsystem to your D&D-style game, who are any of us to judge that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not completely on topic, but the OP's question seems like it should be in the D&D thread, not TTRPG General. As I was thinking that, I thought, "Would players consider railroading different based on what edition of D&D they were playing?"

I can't tell you how glad I am that it's not in the D&D forum. There are so, so many thread topics that can apply to far more games than WotC 5e (which is what the D&D General thread is for). Like, for example, non-WotC versions of 5e. Or other D&D-style games. Or earlier editions of D&D. Or many other RPGs that have nothing to do with WotC's game. I personally feel that unless a topic is exclusive to WotC 5e it should be in another forum.