Search results

Do you mean like describing them literally as “alternatives”? Like in the title of the thread. Good grief. Imagined ones. It’s amazing how easy it seems for many to simply deny the input of those with experience in favor of their own … imagined concerns. What you’re describing doesn’t...

Sure, but does anyone of us longtime folks not have a sense of what @Lanefan appreciates in play? Does anyone not understand what he means by campaign? Yes, someone new to the conversation would not know this... but I think @Lanefan would happily explain his preference. That's not...

Yes, that's true... I don't think anyone would tend to view the use of campaign one way or another as insulting. I think we'd probably all benefit collectively if we stopped looking to be offended all the time. If you think that people accepting someone's slightly different use of a word is...

Who said I didn’t accept your definition? I understand it and I accept that’s how many people view the concept and use the term. As I said, I am not demanding that people adopt my use of the term. I’m just explaining it so that it’s understood. Then, going forward we shouldn’t have any...

Well, no, I think intent always matters. And context matters, too. Again… I’m not trying to change anyone else’s use of the word railroad. All I’ve done is explain my thoughts on it, and why I don’t see a meaningful difference between railroad and linear. No one has to adopt my usage. But if...

Yes, I’ve described active force by the GM as feeling railroady. That’s more in line with the general usage, I believe. But again… any negative connotation I’ve presented in that way has been specific to me and my preferences. You guys are all approaching this from an objective standpoint… and...

I mean… just let the player play a half-orc. It’s not like Krynn is really defined by the absence of orcs. They still had goblins and similar creatures. (And, some of the broader stories had orcs, too, and the setting didn’t fall apart). I don’t know about that. If I know I can’t make any...

Not really. I haven’t really called anyone else’s game anything, have I? I’ve described my feelings about games that I’m in. I haven’t said “your game is a railroad because of X” or anything like that. I’ve said that, for me, the distinction between linear and railroad is one that doesn’t...

What courtesy? That you can want D&D to be more to your liking? Go ahead! How can I not afford you that courtesy? That's why I've made an effort to explain my thoughts on the matter and why I view it the way I do. That's literally communication. Yeah, that's generally the distinction people...

You’ve missed my point. You’re asserting that railroading is bad. Always and objectively bad. Yet there are people who play that way and enjoy it just fine. You’re insisting that a word that can be used to describe their game must be negative, and that insistence has implications… namely...

Yeah, absolutely. People are saying that railroading is solely the GM's fault... I think that's a really simple way of looking at it. As with most things in an RPG, it's a combo of the GM, the players, and the system. Like you said, some players really want to be led around. They don't want to...

But you don't care that there are people who happily play and run railroad type games and you're classifying their fun as offensive? Don't you think that's worse? Don't you think that's a flawed way to look at it? As for my use, I've explained how I use the term and I've explained some of my...

Well, I'm kind of looking at what the word alter means. As I explained, and which you seem to agree with per the below, it means something different than establishing something. When something is first introduced to play, that's when it's established. I don't think it's being altered...

Yes, absolutely. They are interchangeable to me. I am not describing anyone's games other than ones I've been in. If I'm playing an adventure path, it's not meaningfully different experience to me than a railroad. It's gonna be A followed by B which leads to C and then on to D and so on...

I suppose that’s what makes it linear? But again, a linear game that a player cooperates with and plays along will essentially have the same experience that the railroad would provide. This is why I don’t see that huge a distinction. Another reason is that I’ve experienced reasonable requests...

While I don't think it's rare... I mean, Paizo has built their entire business around it... there are plenty of times where it may make sense. You mention one... playing along so that a new GM can learn the ropes. Another could be to help new players learn the ropes. I've GMed for my kids a bit...

Well, if the GM alters reality, I may be annoyed by that. The setting and world should be reasonably consistent. This is why I think it makes sense to make a distinction between altering something.... taking A and making it B.... and establishing something... taking a blank spot and saying this...

Which was also the case with the runes. Again, I'm not talking about someone who controls every decision. I don't care about the caricature GM who's railroading everything every moment of play. I'm more concerned with instances of railroading during play. I'm more concerned with play that...

I don't see as strong a distinction between linear and railroad. They're metaphors... descriptors. And to me, they describe very similar things. Like... if I'm on an adventure path and I don't "get off the path" as you say, then my experience of play will basically be the same as a railroad...

No, I mean resistance to anything that doesn’t work as traditionally defined. Not D&D, and not leads… I said that trad play can enable railroading. I think there’sa meaningful difference. Like it's easier to railroad when target numbers aren’t known, stakes are unclear, GM authority is...