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

[hawkeyefan]

Same answer than always: because the internal mental model of the character says that this is what they'd do.
How many times it need to be repeated before you believe people can do this?

And how do you pick among multiple plausible outcomes?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Absolute control of their character’s mental state and decisions. To never have to suffer any unwanted negative consequences of that sort.

Huh. I wouldn't describe my own stated desires that way. I don't know if this is a hypothetical person, or if somebody else in this thread has expressed themselves that way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And how do you pick among multiple plausible outcomes?

Ideally I don't really pick, I just know how the character would react.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And how do you pick among multiple plausible outcomes?

Ideally I don't really pick, I just know how the character would react.

You know that scene from Critical Role, where that one player (I don't follow it so I can't remember who is who) cuts off his own hand, takes the Hand of Vecna, and teleports out. And everybody else looks like they've been tased, jaws hanging open, stunned?

That's my goal. Leave the rest of the table speechless.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Huh. I wouldn't describe my own stated desires that way. I don't know if this is a hypothetical person, or if somebody else in this thread has expressed themselves that way.

Crimson Longinus has described his desire as such.

Ideally I don't really pick, I just know how the character would react.

What about in less than ideal situations? If the ideal is that you don’t have to pick, what about when you do? How do you decide between two plausible options?

You know that scene from Critical Role, where that one player (I don't follow it so I can't remember who is who) cuts off his own hand, takes the Hand of Vecna, and teleports out. And everybody else looks like they've been tased, jaws hanging open, stunned?

That's my goal. Leave the rest of the table speechless.

I’m not super familiar with specifics of Critical Role. But I do know that was Joe Mangianello (sp?) and that he was a guest star. Much easier to do that kind of thing in a D&D-esque game when you don’t have to worry about the consequences.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Crimson Longinus has described his desire as such.

Pretty sure they're ok with defined mechanics (e.g., charm and fear spells) breaking the general rule.

I’m not super familiar with specifics of Critical Role. But I do know that was Joe Mangianello (sp?) and that he was a guest star. Much easier to do that kind of thing in a D&D-esque game when you don’t have to worry about the consequences.

Curious what that means. (Most of my gaming has been D&D-esque games.). What kind of 'consequences' would there be in other games?

 

[Scott Christian]

This operates on the idea that even within one game system there's agreement what consitutes railroading. Not only this, but many past threads shows that's far, far from true.

That's not the assumption you should make from my comment. The entire thread is full of babble, in part, because the OP used the wrong words - and worse yet - used vague words regarding the "railroading" or "not railroading" experience. Perhaps, if there was more clarity, such as what ruleset he was using, you might have more agreement from the posters.

But I can see you guys are in argument mode. So that's ok. It belongs here, along with the dozen definitions of "railroading," and the dozen definitions of "player agency."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just consider non-unified systems to be a problem unto themselves, and am unconvinced they every actually serve a desirable result that a subset of a unified system can't. Sometimes they're harmless or operate in such different an unrelated areas that its not clear it would be beneficial to combine them, but seeing a modern game that doesn't seem to have an obvious reason to separate out those systems is a red flag to me.

Well, I don't think rolling a d20 is the best solution to every problem, or the best model for every situation, but I'm going to be rolling a lot of them if I'm using a D&D-derived system as a base, so for me if I see a better model for some particular thing, I don't care what dice it uses to get there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Same answer than always: because the internal mental model of the character says that this is what they'd do.
How many times it need to be repeated before you believe people can do this?

I believe you and probably some others (like @Bill Zebub ) do this. I'm not convinced it is all that common, therefore I don't see it as a good reason for much mechanics not to exist.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Crimson Longinus has described his desire as such.

I don't need mechanics to assign negative mental consequences. Faithfully roleplaying a character to whom all sort of horrible things happen to already creates negative mental consequences.

What about in less than ideal situations? If the ideal is that you don’t have to pick, what about when you do? How do you decide between two plausible options?

Then I choose something that makes sense and fits the character.

And yes, sometimes such choices might be motivated by what is beneficial, but as long as that is the character making the choice, that makes sense. People often (though not always) choose to do things that are beneficial to them.