Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8582525" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Whether players have fun with a style should not be the determining factor of whether it is a different style or not.Whether the players are on board for it or not should not be the determining factor of whether it is a different style or not.These are just more refined ways of saying the players are happy about it. In the previous section, it is whether the players find it reasonable (meaning, they accept the justifications; they would balk, aka be not happy, if the justifications were insufficient). In this section, it is whether the players have consented&nbsp; to it or not...which means they're having fun, which means they're happy.Like...you are literally saying that it's a different style based on whether the group is on board, vs not on board. That's not a stylistic difference. That's a question of group acceptance.Now, you could argue that &quot;railroad&quot; is supposed to be a term only for badly-handled linear campaigns/modules/etc. That's not presenting &quot;linear&quot; and &quot;railroad&quot; as completely different things, but rather saying that railroads are a (poor-quality) subset of linear campaigns/etc. And the main rebuttal would simply be that it doesn't really matter whether that's what the term was &quot;supposed&quot; to be for, because people actually use it to describe what you call &quot;linear&quot; campaigns/etc. all the time: campaigns/etc. that require that players be willing to not make choices that point outside of the pre-planned content. And others understand it similarly.Of course it's true that &quot;railroad&quot; has some...baggage, shall we say. But it's also a useful metaphor. Sort of like how WoW-type MMOs are often called &quot;theme park&quot; games, because it's like going to Disneyland or whatever. You can only ride the rides so many times (on a given trip, anyway) before you've basically seen and done it all. Yet millions of people go to them all the time (pandemics notwithstanding), while the contrasting option (not-so-coincidentally also called &quot;sandbox&quot;) is metaphorically a dime a dozen unless the people playing therein bring something special, or the sandbox itself offers something that can't be had elsewhere (e.g. Minecraft, though it's not really an &quot;MMO&quot; proper.)...then what makes it different from a railroad?You're literally saying that the only choice the players have is to stop playing the game. That's literally the one and only choice offered by a railroad. It's not like the DM can somehow trap the players in her house for each session!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8582525, member: 6790260"] Whether players have fun with a style should not be the determining factor of whether it is a [I]different[/I] style or not. Whether the players are on board for it or not should not be the determining factor of whether it is a different style or not. These are just more refined ways of saying the players are happy about it. In the previous section, it is whether the players find it [I]reasonable[/I] (meaning, they accept the justifications; they would balk, aka be [I]not happy[/I], if the justifications were insufficient). In this section, it is whether the players have [I]consented[/I] to it or not...which means they're having fun, [I]which means they're happy[/I]. Like...you are literally saying that it's a different style based on whether the group is on board, vs not on board. That's not a stylistic difference. That's a question of [I]group acceptance[/I]. Now, you could argue that "railroad" is [I]supposed[/I] to be a term only for [I]badly-handled[/I] linear campaigns/modules/etc. That's not presenting "linear" and "railroad" as completely different things, but rather saying that railroads are a (poor-quality) subset of linear campaigns/etc. And the main rebuttal would simply be that it doesn't really matter whether that's what the term was "supposed" to be for, because people actually use it to describe what you call "linear" campaigns/etc. all the time: campaigns/etc. that require that players be willing to not make choices that point outside of the pre-planned content. And others [I]understand[/I] it similarly. Of course it's true that "railroad" has some...baggage, shall we say. But it's also a useful metaphor. Sort of like how WoW-type MMOs are often called "theme park" games, because it's like going to Disneyland or whatever. You can only ride the rides so many times (on a given trip, anyway) before you've basically seen and done it all. Yet millions of people go to them all the time (pandemics notwithstanding), while the contrasting option (not-so-coincidentally also called "sandbox") is metaphorically a dime a dozen unless the people playing therein bring something special, or the sandbox itself offers something that can't be had elsewhere (e.g. Minecraft, though it's not really an "MMO" proper.) ...then what makes it different from a railroad? You're literally saying that the only choice the players have is to [I]stop playing the game[/I]. That's literally the one and only choice offered by a railroad. It's not like the DM can somehow trap the players in her house for each session! [/QUOTE]

Verification