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

[Bill Zebub]

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.

What does that...what can that...possibly even mean, "that the character wouldn't"? Variations on that phrase are what drive me totally bat$#it crazy in all of these debates. How does one determine what they would or wouldn't do? Who, other than the person who plays that character, is best equipped to decide such a thing? Upthread value was placed un "unexpected" and "surprising" outcomes. How does that happen if characters only do what we think they "would" do?

 

[hawkeyefan]

What does that...what can that...possibly even mean, "that the character wouldn't"? Variations on that phrase are what drive me totally bat$#it crazy in all of these debates. How does one determine what they would or wouldn't do? Who, other than the person who plays that character, is best equipped to decide such a thing? Upthread value was placed un "unexpected" and "surprising" outcomes. How does that happen if characters only do what we think they "would" do?

Via the process of play.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Via the process of play.

You'll have to explain what you mean by that. Do you mean that "via the process of play" what the character "would" do emerges?

That still seems so vague as to be meaningless to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You'll have to explain what you mean by that. Do you mean that "via the process of play" what the character "would" do emerges?

That still seems so vague as to be meaningless to me.

That in some cases or for certain areas, when things are uncertain, we look to the dice or other rules to guide us.

The most basic example is from a game like Call of Cthulhu, when a character encounters an otherworldly being or something similarly beyond understanding, the player does not simply get to decide that they’re unfazed… that they’ve imagined their character as an unflappable person, capable of keeping their cool no matter what, and so they choose the character’s reaction.

Instead, we let the dice tell us, using the Sanity of the character to help.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That in some cases or for certain areas, when things are uncertain, we look to the dice or other rules to guide us.

The most basic example is from a game like Call of Cthulhu, when a character encounters an otherworldly being or something similarly beyond understanding, the player does not simply get to decide that they’re unfazed… that they’ve imagined their character as an unflappable person, capable of keeping their cool no matter what, and so they choose the character’s reaction.

Instead, we let the dice tell us, using the Sanity of the character to help.

Applies in a slightly more refined way to Eclipse Phase too, for similar reasons.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That in some cases or for certain areas, when things are uncertain, we look to the dice or other rules to guide us.

The most basic example is from a game like Call of Cthulhu, when a character encounters an otherworldly being or something similarly beyond understanding, the player does not simply get to decide that they’re unfazed… that they’ve imagined their character as an unflappable person, capable of keeping their cool no matter what, and so they choose the character’s reaction.

Instead, we let the dice tell us, using the Sanity of the character to help.

So horror is a difficult genre to run, but I have never found these sort of sanity mechanics to improve it. Horror to work at all requires that the players buy into it and try to take it seriously. It also requires a lot from the GM, they really need to be good at describing things in a way that evokes the right atmosphere. And it absolutely requires that the players genuinely get at least a bit scared, like if watching a horror film. None of this really is enhanced by mechanics, quite the opposite. Numbers are not scary (except perhaps irrational numbers,) but well described things when the atmosphere is right quite easily can be. You don't want disturb the flow by evoking the rules, calculating the mental hit points etc. Just focus on the fiction. I find horror the be the genre that most benefits from running it basically freeform.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That in some cases or for certain areas, when things are uncertain, we look to the dice or other rules to guide us.

The most basic example is from a game like Call of Cthulhu, when a character encounters an otherworldly being or something similarly beyond understanding, the player does not simply get to decide that they’re unfazed… that they’ve imagined their character as an unflappable person, capable of keeping their cool no matter what, and so they choose the character’s reaction.

Instead, we let the dice tell us, using the Sanity of the character to help.

Ah, ok: so in this case "process of play" means "because the rules define it."

I, personally, find it to be a leap...or perhaps just a tautology...that "what the character would do" is "because the rules dictated what they must do". But I could see others interpreting that differently.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So horror is a difficult genre to run, but I have never found these sort of sanity mechanics to improve it. Horror to work at all requires that the players buy into it and try to take it seriously. It also requires a lot from the GM, they really need to be good at describing things in a way that evokes the right atmosphere. And it absolutely requires that the players genuinely get at least a bit scared, like if watching a horror film. None of this really is enhanced by mechanics, quite the opposite. Numbers are not scary (except perhaps irrational numbers,) but well described things when the atmosphere is right quite easily can be. You don't want disturb the flow by evoking the rules, calculating the mental hit points etc. Just focus on the fiction. I find horror the be the genre that most benefits from running it basically freeform.

Yeah, this is how I feel about it, too. If I'm not horrified, but merely describing the actions that I think a horrified character would take, then I'm not really all that engaged.

But...as has been revealed in this thread at least forty times already...that's exactly the kind of play experience that others enjoy.

I'd rather the hair on my own arms was actually standing up.

 

[pemerton]

What does that...what can that...possibly even mean, "that the character wouldn't"?

I think that here, and in subsequent posts, you have misunderstood @hawkeyefan.

Hawkeyefan, in the post you quoted, was pointing out what he takes to be a tension between:

(i) the notion that social/emotional mechanics are bad, because they dictate that the PC does something other than what they "would" do (as conceived and authored by the player);

(ii) the notion that players will sometimes author PC responses other than what the PC themself would prefer (eg the player will sometimes have the PC make irrational decisions);

(iii) the player should have the same decision-making process and motivation as the PC, in order to preserve "alignment" between player and character.​

This tension is only a problem if the same person is advocating all 3 of these things: but it seems that some posters in this thread are doing just that!

@hawkeyefan has then suggested that - contrary to the assertions of those posters - the use of mechanics to help shape PC emotional/social responses is no more of a problem for (iii) than is (ii). And the sanity mechanic in CoC has been offered as a simple illustration of the point.

I will add something that I don't think @hawkeyefan has, but that I suspect he may agree with (at least in a broad/general sense): If we use mechanics to sometimes establish or shape or constrain the PC's social/emotional response, then we actually do a better job in relation to (iii) than if we rely on (ii) - because in the case that mechanics are used, the PC's social/emotional response is experienced by the player as well as by the PC as something that is not under the PC's control.

 

[hawkeyefan]

None of this really is enhanced by mechanics, quite the opposite. Numbers are not scary (except perhaps irrational numbers,) but well described things when the atmosphere is right quite easily can be.

I disagree quite a bit. Not that horror can be difficult… it can be. But rules can help.

Yeah, this is how I feel about it, too. If I'm not horrified, but merely describing the actions that I think a horrified character would take, then I'm not really all that engaged.

But...as has been revealed in this thread at least forty times already...that's exactly the kind of play experience that others enjoy.

I'd rather the hair on my own arms was actually standing up.

Right, but as you’ve both pointed out… that’s very difficult to achieve. I mean… so much of what Lovecraft is about is how inconceivable the threats are! That merely witnessing them can break one’s mind.

That’s a pretty high bar to set for a GM!

What if, instead of hoping for that to happen, the game functioned in a way that could result in something unwanted? Some kind of loss state that the player might fear?

I mean… the player fearing loss of control would seem to promote alignment between player and character, which has been brought up quite often. And what is horror, really, except the loss of agency? That doom is inexorable… that the guy in the mask is going to catch you no matter what… that the universe is rules by uncaring gods… that we are not in control of our own fate.

I think you both likely find horror so difficult to pull off because of your unwillingness to put control of character at risk in play.