Abe.ebA said:
When the players say there's a problem and they don't like the game, there's a problem and you're going to have to either change the game or end it. That's pretty much cut and dried and I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree.
WEther they disagree or not, the other kinds of definintions people are tossing around would onyl help the GM to ignore that problem.
We aren't (or at least most of us aren't, or at least I don't think we are) talking about that.
But we are. We're tlaking about a parricular subset of that issue.
When someone posts a thread like that, you can't just say "I dunno, man. Ask your players."
There's a lot more to it than that, but at some point, the GM has to comunicate wiht their players.
Because:
case 1) The players haven't said there's a problem, so they apparently don't have a problem. If the board's general consesus is 'yeah, that's railroady' then he should probably bring it up in case they're not speaking out of a lack of confrontationalism or something but if everyone says it's in his head then why not just leave well enough alone?
Well for one thing, if railroding is a matter of preference, asking a forum about it gives the GM a sample of preference and gives them angles on the issue they may not have considered. For instance, to use my aexample above, some GM's don't realise how muhc some players utterly loathe the idea of their PC's minds being tampered with. If anything, asking for opinions from a forum is going to best serve a defininitions wich is subjective and varied based on prefereance.
Second, if the GM has a concern, they should avoid leaving well enough alone. There's nothing stopping them from asking the players if they're having fun and feel the adventure is going well- lots of players have a problem articulating their opinions, bringing up a particular issue can help with that. Even if the players give the 'all clear' or the GM chooses nto to press the issue, they can make a point of observing the playrs and how they respond to the factor in question- another thing such a thread is going to offer, potentially, is advice on what to watch for. Are the players, slumping back and becoming passive in theri decision-making at some point in the session? Or, are they doing disruptive things wiht their PC's, wich could signal a frustration wiht the game? There are a lot of sighns that things may be amiss, evem if nobody realises it straight away.
case 2) Telling the players what he's planning could ruin an otherwise cool surprise
AGain, it's not just a matter of 'ask your players', but 'watch your players'. I can think of a lot of 'gambles' and suprises that might clash with player preference- and I personally would not argue for an extreme state of GM disclosure wich would ruin such suprises. BUT, the GM can still A)consider what they know about the player's preferences, and the type of 'power pet peeves' they may have, and B)when they spring the suprise, look at how the player react, and (possibly) plan a contingency if the players really don't like the suprise.
case 3) It's just a couple of the players who have a problem, not the whole group. And they have a problem because their playstyle doesn't jive with the rest of the group, not because of railroading.
I define railroading as relating to play style, so that can't happen. Not every player suits every game. And some players do not suit
any game.
That said, there may be any number of details to such a situation, for instance if the guards are ever-present, the players may be mighty sick of seeing them, especially if thye planned to play less-than-legal characters.
OTOH even if the player has a guard-killing fixation, that's still an issue, it relates to player power issues, and as a result, I feel the definintion is correct. However, there's nothing in the definitions to say the GM must alter the game to suit a player, as i've said before, somtimes ireconcilabe differences arise. In many such situations, the onus is on the players to change their expectations for the game. But the core issue is still the same.
Raven Crowking said:
The last time I heard this sort of diatribe, it was coming from door-to-door salesmen pitching salvation.
I'm not the zealot here. My definintion is inclusive and conciliatory.
OK. If that is true, what do you believe about objective standards so far as defining terms goes? Do you believe than anything objective can be said about railroading? If so, what?
As we've already discussed, my test for railroading is objective, even if you deny that it is. It's a very simple proposition.
Why is the player test more valid than the DM test?
Because the term 'railroading' has always been something the GM does to the player. Furthemore, because in the conventioal mode the balance of power is with the GM, dramtically so, and as a result issues of power relate to their actions in a particular way. Only the GM has fiat, only the GM has final ruling.
You actually feel that you can tell me what I do and do not object to?!? 
If the Bridle fits. . v
v
No wonder your responses don't actually answer other people's objections!
But they do. I've sunk huge amount sof words into these things, often repeating the same points, and you're still at square one, making the same basic arguments in different ways, unwilling to listen to what i'm saying.
We seem to have a real disconnect about what is meant by a "useful" or "valid" definition.To my mind, a definition must communicate something specific in order to be of any value.The Lewis Carroll bit quoted earlier speaks to this; if a word communicates nothing in and of itself, where does the value of the word lie?
Like all terminology in this hobby it's a starting point. It comunicates plenty of useful, specific information, and from there, the player can state details about thir prefernces, and, for instance, give examples. This is the process whereby truly specific and useful information is imparted, not some arbitary test wich renders the term meaningless.
Using my definition, if a player says "I think you're railroading me" he is specifically telling me that he thinks I am taking power that is legitimately his (usurpation of power), and that as a result he has lost the capacity to make choices (resulting in linear play). This may be a valid criticism or not.
And if it's not jusged valid, then what? Is his grevience simply ignored, or do we need to create, an additional, redundant definintions to handle those cases?
In any event your definintion is bunk- how do you define legitimate power? Does the player have the power to define when the city watch is going to be patrolling a street? No. But if the GM just happens to have the city watch turn up in force on a 'routine patrol' whenever the PC's do anything illegal, is that not railroading? I'd say a lot of people would find such an outcome frustrating and problematic, and with good cause.
It could be that we differ on whether or not the choice is legitimately his (I think any DM has the absolute right to say "no warforged ninja in this world", for example).
Nonetheless, a player still has the right to say "well i want to play a ninja so i'm not playing in your game, because I find it too restrictive in this way". And that essentially is the dialogue inherent in all clahses of this sort. You might argue that railroading is specific to plot, but that's an abstraction and not nearly as concrete a line as people might think. For instance, if the GM says 'everybody has to play a cleric', that might not seem to have a constant effect on plot, but it does if the GM uses the 'voice of god' and the ethos rules to constantly step on their choices.
It could be that we differ on whether or not the usurpation results in linear play (I might decide to run the campaign in Thunder Rift, for example, and the player wanted Greyhawk).
Again, it's still and issue of power, and inherent in various campaign choices is an impact on player choice. For isntance, the WLD is going to take power away from the player in a pretty obvious way. The GM has to accept that this is what they are doing, and accept that players may object to such a premise, or grow frustrated or bored with it over time.
These things at least give me some criteria to examine in order to determine whether or not the complaint is justified.
There are any number of critiera as to wether a complaint might, for istance, prompt a GM to amke chages. But setting up an arbitary test for that is only going to further confuse the issue.
Sometimes a complaint is justified, and requires action to rectify. Other times, not.
I agree that someties the GM should take steps, and other times less so (such as the guard-killing example noted above). But this false critiera for justification is only going to cause problems for groups who's play style or assumptions do not match your own. At worst, it coudl mislead a GM into thinking that he can safely dismiss a greviance, despite it potentially being quite valid.
Now, for the sake of argument, let us say that I accepted your definition of "railroading" (although I do not). So, I'm running a game, and a player says I am railroading him. What does that communicate to me, other than that he is unhappy?
It comunicates that he is unhapy because of control and power issues, and tells you you need to discuss the issue in more depth, and generally determine the specifics of the situation.
I could ask why he feels that way, he could say "I dunno" and I am stuck with "because the player says it, it is true for him". How does that help me? How does that help him?
It helps you because at least you have determined that there is a problem. And it's nto as if your defiintion fares any better in such a situation- wether his greviance tests as railroading or not, you're stil left with a player who hgas a problem they can't articulate. At least my definintion recogises that such issues can be caused by many factors, even ones the GM may find perfectly legitimate.
IMO, railroading is one of a plethora of bad behaviors a DM can engage in. Having seperate terms for them based on some form of shared criteria means that when a player says, for example, "This seems sort of Monty Haulish" we both have some sort of starting point for communication.
Yes, i agree. But the blanket term for control issues is still railroading. To get more specific than that, you need to talk details, examples, and so on. Terminology will not get you far in such a diverse hobby.
I believe that you mean what you say. I believe that you certainly are not alone in believing that this sort of definition is the way to go. But I also believe that your argument is built on false assumptions: false assumptions about the nature and value of logic, false assumptions about the motivations of others on this thread, and false assumptions about the nature of language itself.
I disagree. The false assumptiosn are yours, my definition is about avoiding assumptions as muhc as possible.
But if I am wrong, It's because of something that's either hidden deeply in your diatribe (so that I missed it) or that you haven't actually said, such as an assumption that you are making that you view as being so basic that it doesn't need to be stated.
No, you're wrong because you're stuck on the idea that your preferences and criteria are more commonly aplicable than they are, in ways wich they are not.
Actually answering questions that are put to you (and the sort of yes/no questions Quas proposed on the other thread ought not to be too taxing) without trying to insult the person asking you those questions might be a good place to start.
I'm not going to answer questions set up to be a trap, especially with a yes/no answer.
Lanefan said:
Depends what they think they're entitled to. To design and run their PC's as they see fit within the rules and premises of the game, yes.
See, right there a lot of people would disagree. For instance I run mainly with the core rules. It varies group by group. A lot.
To change basic premises or rules of the game (e.g. "You designed in Greyhawk but we've decided we're playing in FR instead") unilaterally, no.
Ok so what does the GM do in such a situation? If the players are sick of ravenloft, the players are sick of ravenloft! If the players come to the table execting the Forgotten Realms(relativly generic and inclusive adventure fantasy), and instead find the GM is running the 'Forgotten Realms' (staggering around waterdeep being abused and bullied but uber-powerful signiature character like Elminster), then again,there is a greviance.
To have a game where nothing bad ever happens to them, no.
Nobody si arguing for that.
To have a game where they have a reasonable chance of having their PC's last past the first combat, yes. After those, it gets rather gray, and varies from group to group.
It's grey way bebfore then, esecially when we consider that problems players and GM's are rarely effective in their comunication.
And fortunate indeed (and rare!) is the DM who has players whose preferences and enjoyments agree beyond the most basic "we wanna play D+D". Mine sure don't!
Yeah but if people aren't up front with what they want, or argue about it, then that's only more reason to have preferences in mind as much as possible.
I do things my players don't like every bloody session! I see it as part of my job as DM to sometimes upset the comfort zone, to see if they can hit the curveball.
There's a difference betwen a curve-ball and a brawl on the pitch. I'm not talking about a boring game, i'm talking about a game wich gives the players what they want, the kind of challenges they enjoy.
)
