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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Yeah… that is an insanely high bar to set.

Okay GM… accomplish what professional writers accomplish! Oh, and do it for multiple participants involved in a social activity as opposed to an individual reading. Oh! And do it in real time, without revision or editing to really hone things!

And sure, this is a whole other medium… but you have to ignore what it offers because some people may not like it! So instead, intentionally limit yourself to oral narration!

It’s simple!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Seems the civility in this thread is taking a turn for the worse.

 

[bsss]

Maybe so and maybe people are just digging in on their preferences, but I do find it incredulous that someone would have expectations of reaching fear in a completely different context than reading a book, and then when faced with a GM saying "I need some tools and buy-in on those tools to help you play that role in this game", would go "no, there are no rules imposed upon my nonexistent in-world identity when I consume books, so I will not tolerate them here, in this roleplaying game".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe so and maybe people are just digging in on their preferences, but I do find it incredulous that someone would have expectations of reaching fear in a completely different context than reading a book, and then when faced with a GM saying "I need some tools and buy-in on those tools to help you play that role in this game", would go "no, there are no rules imposed upon my nonexistent in-world identity when I consume books, so I will not tolerate them here, in this roleplaying game".

Yeah, as I've said before, stories and games are different things, and while I don't need mechanics that push narrative in my game, I have no problem with mechanics that facilitate logical reactions to events.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, as I've said before, stories and games are different things, and while I don't need mechanics that push narrative in my game, I have no problem with mechanics that facilitate logical reactions to events.

Sounds like pushing narrative to me. You think there is the "correct way" everyone should react to things and want mechanics to enforce that narrative.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Yea, definitely still a relevant distiction. I haven't seen those specific terms before, but I've definitely referenced the idea of preferring to develop my character during play, rather than have a detailed sketch of the character before play starts (although some systems prefer the latter strongly enough that's it simply easier to lean in).

I generally view a RPG sessions as a series of improv sketches, with a starting point and then a bunch of guided prompts, and we'll see what comes out at the end.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sounds like pushing narrative to me. You think there is the "correct way" everyone should react to things and want mechanics to enforce that narrative.

No, I want reactions that people don't completely control in real life to not necessarily be under the complete control of the Player in the game. That's sim to me, not narrative.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah… that is an insanely high bar to set.

Okay GM… accomplish what professional writers accomplish! Oh, and do it for multiple participants involved in a social activity as opposed to an individual reading. Oh! And do it in real time, without revision or editing to really hone things!

And sure, this is a whole other medium… but you have to ignore what it offers because some people may not like it! So instead, intentionally limit yourself to oral narration!

It’s simple!

Yes, it indeed is! Humans have been telling stories that evoke emotional reactions in others as longs as humans have existed, so it is indeed simple. So simple that a literal caveman could do it! And with a roleplaying game where the listeners are immersed in the viewpoint of a character in the story and get to make decisions for them it is even simpler, as this creates a far better connection to the events than just passively reading a book. And of course that it is done live with people setting next to you, means you can read the room and adjust things to maintain the atmosphere.

But of course you can just decide all this is too hard and not even try, and reach for the dice instead. But that's not the choice I would make.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, it indeed is! Humans have been telling stories that evoke emotional reactions in others as longs as humans have existed, so it is indeed simple. So simple that a literal caveman could do it! And with a roleplaying game where the listeners are immersed in the viewpoint of a character in the story and get to make decisions for them it is even simpler, as this creates a far better connection to the events than just passively reading a book. And of course that it is done live with people setting next to you, means you can read the room and adjust things to maintain the atmosphere.

But of course you can just decide all this is too hard and not even try, and reach for the dice instead. But that's not the choice I would make.

Games and stories are different things, and storytelling is not necessarily the primary goal of RPGs. It may be for you, but you can't make that assumption generally or expect every GM to meet it.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, it indeed is! Humans have been telling stories that evoke emotional reactions in others as longs as humans have existed, so it is indeed simple. So simple that a literal caveman could do it! And with a roleplaying game where the listeners are immersed in the viewpoint of a character in the story and get to make decisions for them it is even simpler, as this creates a far better connection to the events than just passively reading a book. And of course that it is done live with people setting next to you, means you can read the room and adjust things to maintain the atmosphere.

But of course you can just decide all this is too hard and not even try, and reach for the dice instead. But that's not the choice I would make.

I have played with amazing DMs, some of whom are professional actors, directors, and script writers. None of them have ever been able to scare me. They've been amazing at evoking a horror atmosphere in the game, but no fear. But then no horror book or movie has ever scared me, either. Other than the surprise jump "scares" which aren't really fear but just an involuntary reaction to surprise.

Expecting the DM to be able to evoke fear in players isn't in my opinion a reasonable position to take.