Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5402661" data-attributes="member: 15538">IME, objections to the pejorative term &quot;railroading&quot; arise from a desire to uphold story as an unalloyed good. Further, there is a confusion between story and plot. All RPGs have stories, whether they are paint-by-numbers quests or meandering slaughterfests, whereas a plot is an artificial purpose, one which may not be relevant to RPGs. The PCs must be free. Telling the GM's preferred story may be, well, preferred, but is definitely not necessary. RPGs with less real freedom are not necessarily poorer experiences, but they are lesser examples of roleplaying. The argument that &quot;railroading is good&quot; necessarily involves a different definition of railroading than I use. My definition of a railroad is a game which has become degenerate BECAUSE of insufficient player freedom and further the loss of the illusion of freedom where it normally exists. Not only are the players thwarted in pushing their PCs down a desired course, but they realize that deviating from the GM's course is futility. While games may vary on a continum from programatic to freeform/sandbox, a real railroad is degenerate on nearly all levels. Social contracts are violated, player freedom is restricted, no emotionally satisfying events occur, and uncertainty evaporates. I object to redefining the term &quot;railroad&quot; as something else, because there must be a term for such a game, and railroad is the historically preferred one. There are other terms, like programmatic, linear, plot-driven, or event-driven scenarios, that adequately describe less freeform games in a non-pejorative sense. A traditional plot-driven game is more like a &quot;highway&quot; than a railroad; it does not start and stop according to the conductor's whim, and the possibility exists, however disasterous it may be, for the players to deviate from the course. If deviation is impossible, it's hard to argue that you are actually playing an RPG at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 5402661, member: 15538"] IME, objections to the pejorative term "railroading" arise from a desire to uphold story as an unalloyed good. Further, there is a confusion between story and plot. All RPGs have stories, whether they are paint-by-numbers quests or meandering slaughterfests, whereas a plot is an artificial purpose, one which may not be relevant to RPGs. The PCs must be free. Telling the GM's preferred story may be, well, preferred, but is definitely not necessary. RPGs with less real freedom are not necessarily poorer experiences, but they are lesser examples of roleplaying. The argument that "railroading is good" necessarily involves a different definition of railroading than I use. My definition of a railroad is a game which has become degenerate BECAUSE of insufficient player freedom and further the loss of the illusion of freedom where it normally exists. Not only are the players thwarted in pushing their PCs down a desired course, but they realize that deviating from the GM's course is futility. While games may vary on a continum from programatic to freeform/sandbox, a real railroad is degenerate on nearly all levels. Social contracts are violated, player freedom is restricted, no emotionally satisfying events occur, and uncertainty evaporates. I object to redefining the term "railroad" as something else, because there must be a term for such a game, and railroad is the historically preferred one. There are other terms, like programmatic, linear, plot-driven, or event-driven scenarios, that adequately describe less freeform games in a non-pejorative sense. A traditional plot-driven game is more like a "highway" than a railroad; it does not start and stop according to the conductor's whim, and the possibility exists, however disasterous it may be, for the players to deviate from the course. If deviation is impossible, it's hard to argue that you are actually playing an RPG at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification