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

[Maxperson]

But why would a character choose the unwanted in a truly inopportune time in their world? And why would you, as the player controlling that character and supposedly making decisions based only on the character’s goals and desires, choose the unwanted when it might really impact their goals or those of others?

This premise is fatally flawed.

The character isn't choosing the unwanted, and the player does in fact make decisions outside of the character's goals and desires. The player DOES pick CHARACTER ACTIONS according to the character's goals and actions. However, the character reacts to that which is outside of character control based on what the player thinks is appropriate, even if that wouldn't be what the character wants.

Because there are usually multiple plausible outcomes for player decisions.

That's true. The player chooses the one he thinks most likely for his PC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a solution that has no problem. They don't have to make that choice at all and it's not your job, my job, or the job of the D&D rules to force that on them.

Those players who would play that way will. Those who don't play that way won't, and that's just fine. It's not our business what they do at their tables. Your desire to change the social rules to match how you like it smacks very much of One True Wayism. They just plain don't need any changing.

Are there any rules in any game you play that you don't like, or want to be different? I'm not telling people they have to play my way. I'm talking about my preferences, which are not served by the current published social rules in games I play, and speculating about what could be changed to better suit me. Why would I care how you play, other than to respond to your stating playstyle to say that doesn't work for me? At what point have I stated my preferences as objective fact? Seriously, please let me know and I'll apologize and correct myself. That is never my intent.

 

[Maxperson]

Are there any rules in any game you play that you don't like, or want to be different?

Absolutely. And I change those for my game via house rules. I don't ask for the game to change to match my desires so that everyone else has to play that way as the default position of the game.

I'm not telling people they have to play my way. I'm talking about my preferences, which are not served by the current published social rules in games I play, and speculating about what could be changed to better suit me. Why would I care how you play, other than to respond to your stating playstyle to say that doesn't work for me? At what point have I stated my preferences as objective fact? Seriously, please let me know and I'll apologize and correct myself. That is never my intent.

The bolded is the problem. What better suits you, doesn't better suit someone else. Just make the changes for your game so that the rules that better suit you are happening at your table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This premise is fatally flawed.

The character isn't choosing the unwanted, and the player does in fact make decisions outside of the character's goals and desires. The player DOES pick CHARACTER ACTIONS according to the character's goals and actions. However, the character reacts to that which is outside of character control based on what the player thinks is appropriate, even if that wouldn't be what the character wants.

That's true. The player chooses the one he thinks most likely for his PC.

Ideally, yes. But I've seen a lot of counterexamples where the Player chooses whatever will inconvenience their PC the least if possible, and social mechanics can help with that if it's a problem for anyone at your table. Apparently for you, @Crimson Longinus , and @Bill Zebub , it isn't, either because you never deviate from your PCs and the setting's perspective or you don't care if others at your table do. That's fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Absolutely. And I change those for my game via house rules. I don't ask for the game to change to match my desires so that everyone else has to play that way as the default position of the game.

The bolded is the problem. What better suits you, doesn't better suit someone else. Just make the changes for your game so that the rules that better suit you are happening at your table.

So you're against any speculation of what rules in an existing game you would like to be different?

 

[Maxperson]

Ideally, yes. But I've seen a lot of counterexamples where the Player chooses whatever will inconvenience their PC the least if possible, and social mechanics can help with that if it's a problem for anyone at your table.

So what. Who cares if Joe Shmoe in South Dakota chooses whatever will inconvenience him the least?

Apparently for you, @Crimson Longinus , and @Bill Zebub , it isn't, either because you never deviate from your PCs and the setting's perspective or you don't care if others at your table do. That's fine.

That's a False Dichotomy. There are also the options that in my experience occur more often. We find people of similar outlooks to play with, and/or we play with friends and we just play to enjoy the social experience, so who cares if Tom plays that way, Dick and Harry don't play that way and everyone is happy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So what. Who cares if Joe Shmoe in South Dakota chooses whatever will inconvenience him the least?

That's a False Dichotomy. There are also the options that in my experience occur more often. We find people of similar outlooks to play with, and/or we play with friends and we just play to enjoy the social experience, so who cares if Tom plays that way, Dick and Harry don't play that way and everyone is happy.

"Who care if others at my table play that way" is literally one of the options I presented.

You seem to be looking for offense here (and I know that behavior very well from what I do). No one has to change anything if they don't want to. But this sort of thing has been indicated as a potential problem for some, and using social mechanics to help is a possible solution. That's all. Enjoy your play.

 

[Maxperson]

So you're against any speculation of what rules in an existing game you would like to be different?

It's the way you are going about it. I haven't seen you say...

"I'd like the social mechanics to change, because the temptation is too great for me to just pick what's best for my character, instead of the most likely choice that's bad for him."

Instead you keep pointing to how other people play the game as the reason for the change. How other people play isn't your business and shouldn't play into how you want the rules to be. Let them play the way they like. You play the way you like.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's the way you are going about it. I haven't seen you say...

"I'd like the social mechanics to change, because the temptation is too great for me to just pick what's best for my character, instead of the most likely choice that's bad for him."

Instead you keep pointing to how other people play the game as the reason for the change. How other people play isn't your business and shouldn't play into how you want the rules to be. Let them play the way they like. You play the way you like.

How others play the game at my table affects me, but that's not really the issue. There are other people in the gaming community who see the value of social mechanics, and other tables where they may be helpful. You're demanding I not discuss that because you don't see any value in it, and are taking the existence of such speculation and advice personally from what I gather. It isn't. I'm not making anyone do anything.

If the published rules for something in a game I play change in a way I don't like, I'm allowed to lament that. Why can't the opposite be true? To wit, desiring an addition to existing rules, both for personal reasons and for the potential benefit of those who experienced potential problems in their own play?

And also, added mechanics we don't like can be ignored, even in published rules. People do it every day.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This premise is fatally flawed.

The character isn't choosing the unwanted, and the player does in fact make decisions outside of the character's goals and desires. The player DOES pick CHARACTER ACTIONS according to the character's goals and actions. However, the character reacts to that which is outside of character control based on what the player thinks is appropriate, even if that wouldn't be what the character wants.

That's true. The player chooses the one he thinks most likely for his PC.

But the character and player being in alignment has been mentioned as incredibly relevant. So the player making a decision that the character wouldn’t would seem to disrupt that alignment , no? Seems to come from outside the character rather than from within as has been claimed.

Because if that’s not what’s being said, then I’m not sure how this is any different from mechanics informing such things. They are, like the player, separate from the character.