Railroads (wooh! wooh!)

[Piratecat]

I played in a 7th Sea game at a con recently, and the GM must have said "your character wouldn't do that" three times. I was furious. I don't mind being dropped into a particular situation, especially in a one-shot game, but I can't stand the GM playing my character for me.

 

[Rel]

I played in a 7th Sea game at a con recently, and the GM must have said "your character wouldn't do that" three times. I was furious. I don't mind being dropped into a particular situation, especially in a one-shot game, but I can't stand the GM playing my character for me.

Honestly, after the second time, I would have been sorely tempted to say, "Since you obviously know how to play this character and I obviously don't, I'll just let you take it from here." and left the game.

 

[Henry]

I played in a 7th Sea game at a con recently, and the GM must have said "your character wouldn't do that" three times. I was furious. I don't mind being dropped into a particular situation, especially in a one-shot game, but I can't stand the GM playing my character for me.

Yeah, it always gets to me that some GMs forget that EVERYONE will behave contradictorily at times -- it's part of being human (or in fantasy, mortal. ). Even a mean guy displays a selfless streak now and again, or a sweet girl can become a raving hellion for seemingly no reason; so who's to say that "so-and-so wouldn't do that?" By itself, it's a wrong statement if applied to a flesh-and-blood human being.

 

[Jack of Shadows]

I played in a 7th Sea game at a con recently, and the GM must have said "your character wouldn't do that" three times. I was furious. I don't mind being dropped into a particular situation, especially in a one-shot game, but I can't stand the GM playing my character for me.

Heh,

I've run into this before. After about the third time they say "What do you do?" and you reply "I don't know, what do I do?" they start to get the point.

Now that said I can understand what the GM is trying to do. But it works better in the phrase of a question ("Do you really think Bobarian would do that given x, y, and z?"). If they still say yes then let them go ahead. I seen more than a few players walk their characters boldly and determinedly to their graves.

Jack

 

[Heathen72]

I played in a 7th Sea game at a con recently, and the GM must have said "your character wouldn't do that" three times. I was furious. I don't mind being dropped into a particular situation, especially in a one-shot game, but I can't stand the GM playing my character for me.

They seem to think that because they wrote up the character they have a right to dictate how it should be played. That can be the problem with con games. It is Role Assumption as opposed to Role Play...

 

[Rel]

They seem to think that because they wrote up the character they have a right to dictate how it should be played. That can be the problem with con games. It is Role Assumption as opposed to Role Play...

Of late, I've started adding some "roleplaying guidelines" to the PC's I give out for my games (ironically this was at the urging of Piratecat ) to give the players a baseline to work from. However I make these suggestions very loosely and I don't consider them a straitjacket. Some of the most fun and hilarious circumstances have arisen from people not playing the characters in the way that I'd have guessed.

I'll cite reveal and QueenD's "slapfight through the dungeon", making Attacks of Opportunity every time one passed the other's character, while the rest of the party was up there fighting the BBEG. It was hilarious if unforeseen.

 

[dragonhead]

do it like a movie. make sure the story is laid, but make sure it is as "real life" as possible, the players should know that they are being "pushed" in the right direction, btu they should feel they are in control (for the most part).

 

[wayne62682]

The easy way to avoid it (or at least try to) IMO is to set the framework for the campaign beforehand. I mean, most of the "railroading" complaints I've seen is because there doesn't seem to be any real plot to the campaign; it's more like Law & Order (unrelated stories featuring the same cast) than 24 (related plots, each show adds another piece to the puzzle).

I personally like one large plot to the campaign, so I have made it a point from now on to inform the players of this before starting. This way, they know beforehand what type of character they should make, and thus it's not my fault if they ignore the campaign's theme. For example, if I make a campaign where Undead is the major theme, it's not my fault if a player makes a PC with maxed-out Sneak Attack and then is upset that it never works. They knew what the campaign would be, and chose to ignore it.

In short, it's not railroading when you hint to them it's going to happen. Now if my group just would ENJOY making characters that fit a theme, I'd be good to go!

 

[Henry]

I'll cite reveal and QueenD's "slapfight through the dungeon", making Attacks of Opportunity every time one passed the other's character, while the rest of the party was up there fighting the BBEG. It was hilarious if unforeseen.

Another that comes to mind to me was several years ago, Lola's portrayal of "Thog" in your "Orcses" game as more like "Whiny Teenager of rich kid" than "dumb orc" to Mugnutz' exasperated tutor. Wouldn't have thought of that one.

 

[Arnwyn]

That is one of the reasons I never run them or bought the hardcover. They are nothing but 20 levels of railroading, and lots of people are loving it! Shocks the heck out of me!

Because they're not railroads.

Heh. The irony of complaining about the word's useage.