Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4736628" data-attributes="member: 15538">Show me your market data. I think my definition is very good for describing most of the things people describe as railoarding, and very few things people describe as not-railroading. And I've been at this a while, so &quot;people&quot; involves dozens of acquaintances, hundreds of people on the Internet, and any number of writers of article. While it's possible that your experience is very different than mine has bene, my inclination is to suggest you are arguing from assertion and trying to make your facts more different than mine than they probably. However, if you can find some good evidence that railroading has a well-codified, generally accepted meaning, and I am using it in a different way, please share links.So what? Simon Cowell says people's performances are &quot;horrible,&quot; but I've never seen anyone die from listening to them.I am not quite what you are saying here, but it sounds like you are saying that planning a scenario to take into player choice is equivalent to simply pulling stuff out of your portable hole. If so, I disagree entirely and completely.If you have gotten that impression, I am sorry I did not cleary communicate my opinion to you, because that is not at all what I inteded to convey. I don't care if something is believable, although that would be nice. What I care about is that it things are logical and follow from a meanginful way from the GM's design and the player's actual choices. Whether the overall result is &quot;believable&quot; or not is something else. You could have a game session that consisted entirely of the GM narrating Caesar's war against the Gauls, which would be very believable but absolutely impervious to player choice.That is not how I am defining it. My definition: Railroading: GM actions that negate meaningful choices simply because of what was chosen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 4736628, member: 15538"] Show me your market data. I think my definition is very good for describing most of the things people describe as railoarding, and very few things people describe as not-railroading. And I've been at this a while, so "people" involves dozens of acquaintances, hundreds of people on the Internet, and any number of writers of article. While it's possible that your experience is very different than mine has bene, my inclination is to suggest you are arguing from assertion and trying to make your facts more different than mine than they probably. However, if you can find some good evidence that railroading has a well-codified, generally accepted meaning, and I am using it in a different way, please share links. So what? Simon Cowell says people's performances are "horrible," but I've never seen anyone die from listening to them. I am not quite what you are saying here, but it sounds like you are saying that planning a scenario to take into player choice is equivalent to simply pulling stuff out of your portable hole. If so, I disagree entirely and completely. If you have gotten that impression, I am sorry I did not cleary communicate my opinion to you, because that is not at all what I inteded to convey. I don't care if something is believable, although that would be nice. What I care about is that it things are logical and follow from a meanginful way from the GM's design and the player's actual choices. Whether the overall result is "believable" or not is something else. You could have a game session that consisted entirely of the GM narrating Caesar's war against the Gauls, which would be very believable but absolutely impervious to player choice. That is not how I am defining it. My definition: Railroading: GM actions that negate meaningful choices simply because of what was chosen. [/QUOTE]

Verification