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

[Crimson Longinus]

And what happens to the game or to the people at the table if none of the options are "suitable" (and to whom)?

Then they presumably either begrudgingly apply one of them anyway or quit playing the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Exactly. What if your mental model says none of those options work for you? Do you get to pass? If you can, then there's no teeth and it's player fiat (your ideal). If you can't, then your mental model is compromised, which you have told us literally ruins the game for you. How do that thread that needle?

This is a compromise thus perfect satisfaction is not guaranteed. It merely lowers the odds of the game being ruined in comparison to fixed consequence model.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a compromise thus perfect satisfaction is not guaranteed. It merely lowers the odds of the game being ruined in comparison to fixed consequence model.

I don't see how that could possibly work for you, given what you've said. You would be walking a tightrope, where at any moment you may be faced with no options acceptable to your mental model, which ruins the character and the game for you. Unless you've changed your mind?

 

[Bill Zebub]

What I want is impactful consequences to meaningful social situations that can potentially be detrimental, whether the Player wants those consequences to exist or not, based on what happens in the game. I don't want what consequence occurs to be entirely under the Player's control, because that's not how it always works in real life (and you know where my gaming priorities lie). But having that stuff just be GM fiat isn't really fair either, which is where resolution mechanics come in.

What about having those consequences be external to the player?

I.e., the NPC rolls a nat 20 for an attempt to deceive, and the player narrates that their character refuses to believe them, and the NPC is so insulted that it causes problems?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What about having those consequences be external to the player?

I.e., the NPC rolls a nat 20 for an attempt to deceive, and the player narrates that their character refuses to believe them, and the NPC is so insulted that it causes problems?

Yes! At least some of the consequences can be such. So if there is always an option that does not affect the internal world of the character to choose, there is no problem!

 

[Micah Sweet]

What about having those consequences be external to the player?

I.e., the NPC rolls a nat 20 for an attempt to deceive, and the player narrates that their character refuses to believe them, and the NPC is so insulted that it causes problems?

Then there's no point in rolling for the NPC. Everything you just said on both sides is just free roleplay.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes! At least some of the consequences can be such. So if there is always an option that does not affect the internal world of the character to choose, there is no problem!

So the Player decides how the NPC feels? With no mechanical consequences (at least you didn't mention any)? Again, how is this a compromise?

 

[bsss]

Then there's no point in rolling for the NPC. Everything you just said on both sides is just free roleplay.

I think in this approach (which I like, at least in some contexts), to answer your subsequent question, it's not that there are no mechanical consequences or that the NPC's reaction/feeling is taken on by the player, but rather that the resolution of the conflict is in the "game state" rather than the "character state".

A context where I think this works is diplomacy --- the NPC is successful and the PC's position is weakened; even if the PC/player remains devout to their cause, their (NPC) allies retreat from the PC's position, plans are put in motion despite the PC, no one trusts the PC in further negotiations, whatever. Stuff like that. The PC (and by extension the player) have zero compels to do anything, but the world around them sucks for them more than it used to.

A context where I'm less sure if it works is the vices situation, because that's so internal to a character. But I could just be uninspired off the cuff.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fair.

Although I wonder if what's underlying the "because magic" belief is the same thing: it's specifically defined abilities with specific, mechanical effects. So although you "lose control" of your character, it's to something that feels neutral.

My stance on this hasn't changed, but I've only recently begun to elucidate it this way, so I wouldn't be surprised if others who have the same gut feel ascribe to the same thing.

I’m sure there are some people that would accept methods other than those caused by magic in the setting. But I think it’s a very common objection that the “because magic” bypasses because the player can maintain their character concept.

As I mentioned, Spire has Fallout that can change character concept in significant ways. And that’s deliberate. The game’s about revolutionary Drow living in a city that’s been usurped by High Elves. The PCs are fighting for that cause… what will it cost them?

If that question’s subject to player veto to maintain some sense of character concept… it rather defeats the purpose of play. It’s a really poor fit of player expectation and play experience.

This is why it really matters to consider the game in question. D&D… and don’t get me wrong here because I love D&D… isn’t concerned with “what toll does this lifestyle take on the characters”. It’s possible a given group could focus on this in play, or that play touches upon it at times. But it’s not something the rules are designed to deliver.

So… for D&D and similar games, it’s a poor fit. For Spire and similar games, it’s essential.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Then there's no point in rolling for the NPC. Everything you just said on both sides is just free roleplay.

Yeah, definitely. 100%

I mean, just like I think a player should feel free to ask the GM to roll for an NPC, if the player isn't sure what to do and would like to let the dice decide, the GM should feel free to do the same thing. When I'm GMing I like to do that when I'm not sure what my NPC would do, because I have so much information about both sides, and I'm juggling so many NPCs, that I don't want to have to worry about roleplaying the decision. But if I think I know what my NPC would do, that's what they do.