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

[Micah Sweet]

You don't need immersion to play a role; that's the core distinction between a lot of our perspectives. Fitting a mechanical prompt seamlessly into my character's next statements and actions is just as much roleplaying.

Honestly, I'd much rather be immersed in the setting and play the character in a way that I think fits with it than immerse into the character directly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I don't really think so. Though he needed to unpack it more, the same general situation could come up in almost any trad game, and there are plenty of those that aren't D&D.

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."

I'm just saying I don't think his lack of limiting it to the D&D foras was a particularly meaningful mistake, which seemed to be where you'd gone. If that's "argument mode", well, okay.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

The only cases where its not the best solution, I usually don't see it as the best for, well, anything (which to be clear, is most of the time). There's very little that a D20 does that some other die combination doesn't do as well or better.

But at least in a resolution mechanic (as compared to, say, damage or a table) I'm hard pressed to picture a situation where I'd want a D20 for some and 4D6 for another.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, it’s you. That’s what having absolute agency over your character’s mental state means. Your character never feels or acts in a way that you don’t desire them to.

I think "desire" is doing some heavy lifting there. Let me explain.

As I've commented before, I played in purely decision-making MUSH based games back in the day for a fair while, playing, in fact in what's been called Deep IC/Immersive in some circles over time.

And there were absolutely cases where the internal model I'd developed made it clear the proper decision was something I very much didn't want them to. But it would have required wrenching myself out of that model and violating what, as best the model told, was the proper responses to events and stimuli.

I think calling that what I "desired" them to do is a kind of odd usage there; sometimes what they did made me distinctly uncomfortable, and once or twice outright upset (since I wasn't immune to what I've seen called "bleed" when the character's feelings transferred back to me).

(I again want to note I've never tended to play in this sort of hard-core Deep IC mode face to face for a number of reasons, and I don't even really find it a good idea for reasons I've expressed. But I think I do understand it and calling it "playing your character as you desire them to behave" is, I think, a sign of not quite getting it).

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

I think magic typically gets a pass in these situations because it’s not the game telling a player how a character feels so much as how they’ve been compelled to feel.

“Because magic…” is an answer that for some reason makes it okay. I expect because it doesn’t perturb the player’s conception of the character.

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

I mentioned Spire earlier in the thread. It’s a game that has all kind of consequences for characters. Characters accumulate Stress along different tracks, and when it gets high enough, Stress becomes Fallout, which is a specific consequence. Depending on the type, you could break a limb, lose an asset, or lose social status. Or maybe Mind Fallout… going insane, becoming weird, breaking and running, developing a phobia… all kinds of things.

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.

But only those you choose. When you don’t want, you can pick another plausible result.

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.

Okay… so this is all good.

All I’m saying is that some of us like when in such a situation, we don’t get to choose the outcome.

 

[TwoSix]

I think "desire" is doing some heavy lifting there. Let me explain.

As I've commented before, I played in purely decision-making MUSH based games back in the day for a fair while, playing, in fact in what's been called Deep IC/Immersive in some circles over time.

And there were absolutely cases where the internal model I'd developed made it clear the proper decision was something I very much didn't want them to. But it would have required wrenching myself out of that model and violating what, as best the model told, was the proper responses to events and stimuli.

I think calling that what I "desired" them to do is a kind of odd usage there; sometimes what they did made me distinctly uncomfortable, and once or twice outright upset (since I wasn't immune to what I've seen called "bleed" when the character's feelings transferred back to me).

(I again want to note I've never tended to play in this sort of hard-core Deep IC mode face to face for a number of reasons, and I don't even really find it a good idea for reasons I've expressed. But I think I do understand it and calling it "playing your character as you desire them to behave" is, I think, a sign of not quite getting it).

No, I get it. I’ve done it before. But I think the distinction here is I perceive that external model as still being you. A set of mental heuristics you apply to “model” a fictional character is still, at its core, you.

 

[bsss]

No, I get it. I’ve done it before. But I think the distinction here is I perceive that external model as still being you. A set of mental heuristics you apply to “model” a fictional character is still, at its core, you.

I'd go so far as to say that it's either the player or it's just an auton or script. This hypothetical internal model suggests that all actions are clear from its design, but even then, there is a choice made to follow the model or reject it or rewrite it on the fly. To ignore any player involvement is, ironically, the opposite of player agency.

 

[pemerton]

I think magic typically gets a pass in these situations because it’s not the game telling a player how a character feels so much as how they’ve been compelled to feel.

“Because magic…” is an answer that for some reason makes it okay. I expect because it doesn’t perturb the player’s conception of the character.

This is why, upthread, I wondered about Goading Attack and Menacing attack:

D&D "solves" the cops-and-robbers problem in the social domain by more-or-less arbitrarily making nearly all the silver-tongued characters, fearsome characters, etc sorcerers - like the Mummy's Dreadful Glare that I mentioned upthread - and thereby bringing them into the framework of saving throws vs spells/magic. I say "nearly all" because there are exceptions in 5e, like the Battle Master manoeuvres Goading Attack and Menacing Attack. I don't know how the critics of social mechanics handle these, but I suspect that they are treated as if they were mind-control sorcery: for instance, once the mechanical effect of Menacing Attack wears off, I doubt that many D&D players would portray their PC as still scared of the menacing attacker, even though whatever it was about them that was menacing won't have changed.

 

[thefutilist]

No, I get it. I’ve done it before. But I think the distinction here is I perceive that external model as still being you. A set of mental heuristics you apply to “model” a fictional character is still, at its core, you.

The salient point is that it brings out the unwanted. There is a conflict between what the fiction demands and what you the player would prefer to have happen.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, it’s you. That’s what having absolute agency over your character’s mental state means. Your character never feels or acts in a way that you don’t desire them to.

Uhh...yeah. No.

First, it's not "absolute" control because there are game mechanics that override it.

Second, my choices frequently result in negative consequences.

So really neither statement is accurate.