Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 3681418" data-attributes="member: 3929">You had said something about a strawman? Perhaps you refer to my T-intersection metaphor? Where the DM controls the environment and the PCs must react? How is that telling the PCs what they have to do?If the DM controls how his team will react, would you mind telling me how the players will know what the DM's team would have done differently had they chosen differently? What is the difference in game experience for the players?Oh. Huh. My DMG must have left out that page. Would you mind citing it for me?Oh, you mean BADWRONGFUN. Right, right. Is there anyone besides yourself who knows you hold the divining rod to what is Real Gaming(tm) and what isn't? You should call WotC.Yeah. Because stories with villains that have certain goals... like a goal to bring the world under the domination of undead, I don't know, Centipedes for an age... that's not real gaming. It's not possible.I mean, how stupid would a linear story line and adventure hook after adventure hook keeping you on task to make sure that you avert the coming of the undead Age of Centipedes be? Who would play that? Pfft. <a href="http://www.2kgames.com/railroads/railroads.html" target="_blank">Some people think it does.</a>The players would not know the difference based only on play experience, no. Suckers walk away from Three-Card-Monty games thinking that they were beaten because the dealer's hands were quick. To them it didn't matter that the fix was in: they thought they were playing a straight-up game, and their experience was of a game where they had full control of things. Do you suggest that simply because someone loses at a game of cards, they'll be justified in crying foul? Because if all it took was to lose to know that you had been set up, then nobody would deal card games because if the dealer won, they'd be branded a cheater.Kinda like how you're branding every DM who conducts clown acts, blights the game in general, and viciously deceives his not-playing-a-gamers into thinking they're having a good time. I imagine with being that busy running not-a-game, he'd be hard put to find the time to twirl his mustache.You suggest you didn't do this? You didn't propose an example of railroading (1); you didn't quickly follow that showing how that railroading ruined the game (2); you didn't conclude your argument with a generalized theory based on one specific example (3)?Let's dig more closely shall we? Here's what I said you did:Here is an example of bad DMing. (1) It is railroading. (2) Therefore all railroading is bad. (3)Right. Now here was your proffered argument:A low-level party is approaching the tower of an evil magic-user. The tower is nothing special, nor is the evil magic-user for that matter. But the DM has already made up his mind that they will find a secret entrance and sneak in because he thinks a game should be pre-programmed. (1) The party decides "Screw that! Half of us will scale the tower and attack from above while the rest assaults the main entrance." The DM then starts making one excuse after another as to why the party can't climb the walls or attack the main entrance. (2) Railroading is a symptom of poor DMing, period. (3)So... strawman?When you watch WWE, do you see empty seats?I'm still waiting for your explanation of how railroading is a blight on the game and, heh, "not real gaming" but only a clown act when the only thing you can support that with is your misdirected passion. You don't like railroading in your games? Ok. Go nuts playing "real games" over there. But you have some damn inconsideration to come into my game and tell me I'm ruining the game and staging a clown act. Who do you think you are?</blockquote>

Verification