Station Squatting (Player Railroading)
- Thread starter Alikar
- Start date
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
It ends up with the DM telling you that you can't run a bakery?
joe b.
Touche.
Life's tough. Get a [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Kryptonics-Multi-Sport-Helmet-Large-X-Large/dp/B000GFT94M/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1229793513&sr=8-4"]helmet[/ame].
jgbrowning
Hero
That's not a helmet!
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-WHITE-KNIGHT-HELMET-Knight/dp/B000GK4CGM/ref=pd_sim_dbs_hg_2"]This[/ame] is a helmet.
joe b.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
So. . . uhm. . . what about the earlier examples that had nothing to do with bakeries. Again, what's wrong with playing free traders and buccaneers, for example? That sounds pretty adventurous to me. Earlier in this thread, wanting to deviate from pre-scripted plot (by being free traders and buccaneers, or anything else) was station squatting. Six pages later, only wanting to indulge mundane trades or "not adventure" (which still seems to be a clever turn of phrase for "not following my plot" from DMs) is station squatting. So, which of the many definitions so far offered in the thread is the 'correct' definition?
Last edited:
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
I'd go with the first definition offered, in post 1.
It's got a nice ring to it, and is sufficiently vague as to invite bickering about the very definition on an Internet message board.
/M
"Station Squatting is the act of a player or group of players to ignore plot threads and instead focus their time on frivolous activities."
With this definition, there will be bickering for ever, because "ignore plot threads" and "frivolous" are subjective....
i can only advise
DMs: be honest about the metagame assumptions will be.
- If youve got a railroad, dont hide the tracks !
- If youve got a sandbox, dont expect a 'story' !
Players: once you agree to the campaign, give it a fair chance.
- If you agree to train travel, dont complain youre not driving!
- If you agree to a sandbox, then play !
Both: communicate!
- Say you want to get off, rather than sabotaging the train!
- Say you want to see more toys in the sandbox!
Everyone: take it in turns to DM!
With this definition, there will be bickering for ever, because "ignore plot threads" and "frivolous" are subjective....
i can only advise
DMs: be honest about the metagame assumptions will be.
- If youve got a railroad, dont hide the tracks !
- If youve got a sandbox, dont expect a 'story' !
Players: once you agree to the campaign, give it a fair chance.
- If you agree to train travel, dont complain youre not driving!
- If you agree to a sandbox, then play !
Both: communicate!
- Say you want to get off, rather than sabotaging the train!
- Say you want to see more toys in the sandbox!
Everyone: take it in turns to DM!
howandwhy99
Adventurer
There is no "correct" definition for station squatting. The OP is attempting to make up a term for something that already exists. It's the players not playing their Roles. When players choose not to play their roles, either consciously or unconsciously switching to some other role, then they are no longer playing the agreed upon role. This agreement is something you do either when choosing to play a roleplaying game or engage in a roleplaying exercise or when choosing to play a specific role offered within a RPG with support for more than one.jdrakeh said:
I'd go with the first definition offered, in post 1.
It's got a nice ring to it, and is sufficiently vague as to invite bickering about the very definition on an Internet message board.
/M
The other definition of station squatting I've read in this thread is not doing anything at all, which is essentially failing at the roles the participants are playing. Well...
tangent: ...barring some game about playing roles where roleplaying actually is act of doing nothing. Like a hermit I guess, or a meditating monk might be better. Of course you might roleplay to be a monk when training at a Buddhist temple for instance, so it's not like that activity doesn't already exist. That's gotta count as a sort of roleplayed action versus an inaction. On the other hand, Hermits may not even count as roles as they have no place in society. You're not around anyone to play a role and it's hard to believe anyone qualified would roleplay with another person to teach them. Besides, the definition of hermit is basically "not in a role" isn't it? So that's a weird one to peg. Can one roleplay a hermit? Rhetorically speaking I'd say yes, but I am open to hearing other opinions.
Alikar
First Post
No! If you read my posts, I clearly have said that there is nothing wrong with running a business:
"I'd have no issues with them trying to start up a village or protecting their business from a local crime lord, but I don't think they should care about making muffins when the local cult is trying to assasinate the city rulers."
"I have nothing against businesses in a game, things like mercenary companies and protection guilds offer great center points to a game."
"No, those are all fine and great ideas and if the players go out to adventure, to run their bakery, then all is well."
Station Squatting is not ignoring the DM plot, its refusing to be adventures in a game about adventuring! I fail to see how that is not a simple to understand concept.
Desdichado
Hero
1) Because all of your examples can be interpreted more than one way, and fairly, meaning that your "simple" definition isn't as simple as you make it out to be, and 2) who said D&D is about adventuring? I agree that most games are, but there's nothing inherent in the game that forces it to be about adventure, 3) rather than coming up with cute labels for this and complaining about it on the internet, isn't it relatively easy as the DM to come up with better hooks that they can't ignore? So they don't care about a cult assassinating the city's leaders---then have the cult set out to poison the cities food supplies. Now they're more invested in the story.
This is where I continue to have issues; every single plot hook you've thrown out, with the implication that "goshdarnit; why won't my stupid players follow this hook?" kinda have me shrugging and saying to myself; "I dunno; it's not necessarily so unreasonable that the players not care about that hook, is it? If they don't, then come up with one that they do care about rather than continuing to ram that one down their throat."
This is where I continue to have issues; every single plot hook you've thrown out, with the implication that "goshdarnit; why won't my stupid players follow this hook?" kinda have me shrugging and saying to myself; "I dunno; it's not necessarily so unreasonable that the players not care about that hook, is it? If they don't, then come up with one that they do care about rather than continuing to ram that one down their throat."
In a situation like this the DM can either make an honest attempt at finding out what the players are actually interested in --and then make an honest attempt at providing it-- or graciously admit defeat and let someone else DM.
Inventing terminology to mask what is fundamentally a communication problem within the group isn't particularly helpful.
