Perhaps. Thing is, though, the moment in a discussion when one tries to explain or define railroading is the moment when that discussion jumps off its previous track and instead devolves into a long drawn-out argument over that explanation or definition; which defeats the point of having the original discussion.
My understanding from what I have read of GNS is that it does not claim that there are only three creative agendas, only that they were three of the most prevalent. That does not mean that GNS is correct about those three broad general categories or creative agendas, but I think that the claim is a little less extraordinary or absolute as you make it out to be.
Yeah, I totally agree. I am in no way an agenda-snob. I've tried every sort of RPG there is. There are a few cases where I think an RPG is basically dated to the point where there are simply much better choices, but in terms of the type of game play? I enjoy a lot of things. Some I'm better at than others, but I also find that doing things I'm NOT so good at are generally the more rewarding ones, at least up to a certain point. I mean, I would not now play Call of Cthulhu, there's just MUCH MUCH better games for that genre, and likewise better games which do the core agenda too (not the same game, as I think CoC's mix of agenda-related features and genre is a crummy mix).
But it most certainly wasn't the origination point of the RPG concept, as far as I experienced it. That came from a combination of open-ended adjudication and the focus on single characters. While we were certainly aware of role play as an element of game, as in Actor Stance RP, we didn't consider that to be pivotal to the idea of an RPG at all. Instead it was the directing the character through a scenario where we selected actions from an unlimited palette of possibilities. In a board game you climbed the ropes, slid down the chutes, moved down the road and landed on Atlantic Avenue and paid rent, etc. Even in classic war games you still only had limited options, move or reload your muskets (or whatever the rules said you could do). All of a sudden we could decide to open the door, nail it shut, listen at it, leave it alone, burn it down, knock on it, or ANY OTHER THING we could describe in words, as long as we could explain how it could be accomplished.
And I suspect, heavily, if you were to talk to Ron Edwards right now today, he'd probably say something similar. In fact I think there was some discussion of that not too long ago in one of the other threads where he was quoted saying something about mixing approaches. I know it is tempting to always put your rhetorical targets in a box and ascribe specific definite traits to them, which you can then make points against. Reality, at least in this case, is not so clear cut. I don't know if I agree with Ron or not, exactly. I think if you were to say "mixing X, and Y works if you do A, B, and C, and can lead to Q, P, and R interesting results" I can get behind the idea that those things may well exist and make such a statement valid. I don't think that conflicts with the 'incoherent' observation though. Some things don't easily mix, and some maybe not at all.
My understanding from what I have read of GNS is that it does not claim that there are only three creative agendas, only that they were three of the most prevalent. That does not mean that GNS is correct about those three broad general categories or creative agendas, but I think that the claim is a little less extraordinary or absolute as you make it out to be.
Consider the article that you linked about the reasons why people roleplay. It provides five categories or reasons. Does that mean that these are the ONLY reasons because the author grouped their findings into broad categories?
My personal opinion is it is less at a detailed level of, say, rooms, and more at a general level. The classic AD&D A series 'Against the Slave Lords' modules (A1-A4) follow this pattern and are VERY linear in that you go from the first module in the series to the 2nd, etc. There's no bypassing one, no real 'branches' at all. The structure of each module attempts to insure that the PCs are shunted into the opening sequence of the next module correctly. Within each module things vary. Generally speaking they're fairly linear internally, but IIRC some of them are closer to a set of options or could even be approached almost as a random series of encounters, though again, progress to the next one requires certain things to happen. If the PCs go 'off the rails' somewhere in, say, A2, it could be pretty hard to get back on track.
Sure, one is an academic who is required to demonstrate research methodology and one is an enthusiastic hobbyist making generalizations based on amateuristic observations.
This reminds me of sitting in classes where students were more concerned about their feelings regarding a political theorist or whether they thought the theorist was right/wrong rather than what the political theorist actually said in the text, which was what we were supposed to be discussing. Moreover, it's a bit irrelevant to the point that I was making, as this part of my post may have escaped your notice:
The credence of GNS's categories is not the issue in my post, but, rather, your claims that GNS states that there is ONLY three reasons why people play roleplaying games. As far as I'm concerned, you can both be wrong. Edwards can be wrong about GNS while you can be wrong about what they said, especially if neither of you properly did your homework. These aren't mutually exclusive options.My understanding from what I have read of GNS is that it does not claim that there are only three creative agendas, only that they were three of the most prevalent. That does not mean that GNS is correct about those three broad general categories or creative agendas, but I think that the claim is a little less extraordinary or absolute as you make it out to be.
This is why I took pains to say "at some level of granularity". Several times, in fact!
