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

[hawkeyefan]

It seems very much the same thing, to you.

A pretty clear indication that we experience the games very differently, no?

Well, if my PC is removed from play… either for a couple rounds or maybe something longer… then my PC is removed from play. My feelings about it may differ a bit depending on how it happened… but I mean that more from a gameplay aspect. Like, did I make a bad call that led to this, or was it purely bad luck with the dice, and so on. That kind of thing may influence how I feel about it… but the in game reason being something like a Sanity Check or Dragon Fear as opposed to my PC losing all hit points or being Banished or Forcecaged doesn’t really affect how I feel at all.

They’re simply potential consequences of playing the game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, if my PC is removed from play… either for a couple rounds or maybe something longer… then my PC is removed from play. My feelings about it may differ a bit depending on how it happened… but I mean that more from a gameplay aspect. Like, did I make a bad call that led to this, or was it purely bad luck with the dice, and so on. That kind of thing may influence how I feel about it… but the in game reason being something like a Sanity Check or Dragon Fear as opposed to my PC losing all hit points or being Banished or Forcecaged doesn’t really affect how I feel at all.

They’re simply potential consequences of playing the game.

Well, the distinction has been explained ad nauseam in this thread. I don't have any more new words to use to try to clarify. So I guess we'll leave it at that.

Happy gaming!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, the distinction has been explained ad nauseam in this thread. I don't have any more new words to use to try to clarify. So I guess we'll leave it at that.

Happy gaming!

Hm I don’t think that distinction has been addressed all that much… but okay!

 

[thefutilist]

I find this a challenging proposition - not necessarily because I disagree with it, but because it asks me to think about RPGing in a particular sort of way which I don't typically do.

I’ve created a bit of a knot in what I’m saying, I’ll try and unravel it.

My first point is that interpretation of the meaning of the fiction differs dependant upon mechanics.


Imagine Scrag, the low down thug scum. Scrag once ran away when his best friends head was being kicked in by Becket and Downy. On the other hand, when Lunky and his crew insulted the Queen, he took on all six of them. He got his ribs broke and a few teeth knocked out and didn’t really do any damage himself, but he couldn’t let the insult pass.


Three scenarios:

The player made the choices in both those instances and we as a group, understand this as an expression of Scrag’s priorities. He may well have been feeling fear both times but that’s beside the point. The fear itself isn’t a ‘character’.

We’re playing Burning Wheel and Scrag fails his steel test when his friends head is being kicked in but passes it when Lunky insults the Queen.
We, as a group, understand this as showing us what his priorities are. Established by the fact of the dice roll.

We’re playing Burning Wheel and Scrag fails his steel test when his friends head is being kicked in but passes it when Lunky insults the Queen.
We as a group, understand this as having to do with Scrags relationship to his fear (and more thematically the relationship between fear, hardship and trauma). To the extent it expresses Scrags priorities, its within the initial choice he made (did he try and help his friend and then fail the steel test and run away or did he just run).

 

[thefutilist]

One thing that I personally have found works with CoC Sanity is that it gives a type of permission, in the context of the play of the game, to depart from what would be normal/rational for one's character. It authorises a type of portrayal - easily drifting into the lurid at a table of hammy RPGers! - of "nervous breakdown" in the literary sense of that phenomenon. And because it's not (entirely) under the player's control, and it does pertain to the fate of one's PC in the game context, the play-acting is not just or entirely play-acting: it corresponds to a type of concern for one's piece/place in the game.

Yes I agree with that. We understand, as a group, that the character isn't themselves in some sense. Same as with the darkest self mechanic in Monster Hearts if you're familiar with it. Really this boils down to my much preferring a prompt here than it being just player choice.

 

[thefutilist]

So there's an idea of the character having priorities that are authored/established in some way, and then the idea of authoring action declarations in a way that is expressive of those priorities. But how, then, do we establish that the PC's priorities have changed to - say - ones that would warrant the sort of responses that the butler PC had in my Cthulhu Dark session?

This is probably group and system dependant. I'll often outright narrate changes in my characters priorities happening, normally as part of outcome narration. I think it's so group dependant because of how these priorities are established in group understanding in the first place and how attentive the group is to them. It's one thing I've noticed a lot of OC players are good at. Of course certain systems like Burning Wheel or Dungeon World flat out have you write them down.

Although I've still got a nagging feeling we might be talking past each other given the Burning Wheel example. Do you establish something akin to beliefs in all games, even if they're not formalised? I think I do for most of them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’ve created a bit of a knot in what I’m saying, I’ll try and unravel it.

My first point is that interpretation of the meaning of the fiction differs dependant upon mechanics.


Imagine Scrag, the low down thug scum. Scrag once ran away when his best friends head was being kicked in by Becket and Downy. On the other hand, when Lunky and his crew insulted the Queen, he took on all six of them. He got his ribs broke and a few teeth knocked out and didn’t really do any damage himself, but he couldn’t let the insult pass.


Three scenarios:

The player made the choices in both those instances and we as a group, understand this as an expression of Scrag’s priorities. He may well have been feeling fear both times but that’s beside the point. The fear itself isn’t a ‘character’.

We’re playing Burning Wheel and Scrag fails his steel test when his friends head is being kicked in but passes it when Lunky insults the Queen.
We, as a group, understand this as showing us what his priorities are. Established by the fact of the dice roll.

We’re playing Burning Wheel and Scrag fails his steel test when his friends head is being kicked in but passes it when Lunky insults the Queen.
We as a group, understand this as having to do with Scrags relationship to his fear (and more thematically the relationship between fear, hardship and trauma). To the extent it expresses Scrags priorities, its within the initial choice he made (did he try and help his friend and then fail the steel test and run away or did he just run).

So I think this is the sort of example which highlights why I don't like randomising these things, and why a lot of people feel randomising mental stuff like this is different than randomising the physical stuff. I tried to explain it earlier, but people ignored it.

How Scrag behaves tells us what sort of person he is. This in turn probably informs what his wants and goals will be. This I feel is pretty significantly different than randomising whether Scrag manages to open a door with a crowbar or something like that.

And some people might like randomising the nature of the character. I get that, good for them. But there nevertheless is significant difference between that and randomising just tasks, and it is perfectly rational to not want to randomise the former whilst being fine with randomising the latter.

 

[thefutilist]

So I think this is the sort of example which highlights why I don't like randomising these things, and why a lot of people feel randomising mental stuff like this is different than randomising the physical stuff. I tried to explain it earlier, but people ignored it.

How Scrag behaves tells us what sort of person he is. This in turn probably informs what his wants and goals will be. This I feel is pretty significantly different than randomising whether Scrag manages to open a door with a crowbar or something like that.

And some people might like randomising the nature of the character. I get that, good for them. But there nevertheless is significant difference between that and randomising just tasks, and it is perfectly rational to not want to randomise the former whilst being fine with randomising the latter.

I much prefer example one and three because the player is retaining some kind of alignment with their characters expression of priorities. Example two can work really well but I find it jarring in the standard model (games in the same broad family as trad games).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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



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!

Yet by reading Lovecract's books one might get at least a bit scared, and that is achieved via narration. So I expect the GM to do the same. And it easier in a RPG in a sense that if you have players willing to immerse, there will be stronger sense of "being there" than can usually be achieved by reading a book.

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.

That sort of substitution can have some effect, but personally I don't feel it is terribly good in this instance. Like in in most RPGs the rules can cause the character to die, and this is something the players usually try to avoid and in very limited sense could be argued to simulate the fear of death. But as this already is a routine part of most RPGs, I don't think just doing the same with "mental hit points" really makes the game any more horrific than fighting orcs as low level character in D&D is. Survival certainly can be part of horror, but survival is part of most RPGs. I think weird and disturbing are better ways to instil horror than just survival.

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.

I did not say I find it particularly difficult to pull, it merely is universally acknowledged as a difficult RPG genre. And it certainly is something where I need to be much more conscious about maintaining the right atmosphere than with most other genres, and it also requires players who are willing to go along with instead of trying to break the tension with jokes or other OOC talk.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It occurs to me--and this could be dead wrong in some people's case--that some of this divide might be related to an old distinction I remember coming up during the r.g.f.a. days that seems to have largely fallen away over the years as far as at least use of the terms, but even, far as I can tell, discussion of it conceptually much.

This was the distinction between Design At Start (DAS) and Develope In Play (DIP). The idea is that some people come into play with a character that is fairly fully formed from the get-go in regard to personality, priorities and ethos, and some that are to one degree or another, kind of a tabula rasa when started, and the player develops what they're all about by watching them in play.

At one time this used to be pretty purely a matter of player choice, because early games might have a bit about the character's background, but not in a degree that told you much about them internally. With some modern games this is less possible, but some still only primarily establish external m things and don't care much about internal ones (or even some history elements) in any pre-establishment way.