Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="happyelf" data-source="post: 2958836" data-attributes="member: 40394">I think a lot of people try and re-invent or re-frame issues like railroading, and it think that's counterproductive. Railroading is a pretty common occurance in games, some people are fine with it, some people are not, and the key to managing that distinction is to be honest about what's going on the in game. That means GM's must try and be honest when speaking to players about the content of the game. All this 'X isn't railroading' stuff doesn't help that goal, it hinders it. Most of what people are talking about here is railroading, wether they accept that or not. Denying it only makes it harder for their players (and potential players) to figure out what the game is going to be like, and wether that style is one they are likely to enjoy.This is doubly true when we consider the kind of assumptions involved in railroading- many of them are not overtly aparent (see the 'script notepad' somebody metioned above for an extreme example), and so somebody could play in a game for some time before realising that the game is not what they're after. For instance to paraphrase one post I read on (IIRC) a thread on another forum, this guy was playing a Paladin, who had a vendetta against a liche who had killed his family or something. He put a lot of effort over a lot of games into that feud and his character's attempts to vanquish that foe. Then to his suprise, the game moved onto the outer planes, and went in a completly different direction to the one the player was expecting (and, more to the point, the path the character was on). After a few tries at talking to the GM about this, the GM finally came clean and said "You were never meant to fight the liche, he was supposed to be like an unbeatable villain". All along the player had had the premise that the DM (as was suggested) was taking the PC's actions and agenda into account and working them into the story, when in reality the DM had just been plotting them based on their own interests. The player was quite demoralised from all of this, and I can understand why. Now, people may claim they'd 'never do that', but as I said, these issues can be pretty subtle, and the kind of logic the GM uses can lead to this kind of outcome even if they don't intend it to. For instance, some people think that if you drop a charm spell on the party, that's not railroading. Well, suprise, it is! And if you charm the PC's a few times, those guys in your group who don't like railroading are going to get pretty frustrated!It doesn't matter if you "don't see that as railroading", because it still has the same results- you're taking choice away from the players, and players who like choice won't like that. Semantics won't matter to them, if anything it will only prevent them from expressing their preferences and the problems they're having with the game.Not only is this railroading, but I think it's pretty dodgy that you'd describe this as a result of 'player choice' when the players had no idea what consequences would result from their actions. They didn't choose the situation, the situation chose them, or rather, you did. Saying it was 'by their own choices' is as valid as saying that if a PC stops at at a roadside shrine to pray to their god, it's 'by their own choices' if they're killed when it suddenly explodes. You didn't force the PC to stop and kneel at the shrine, but that's hardly a relevant choice.They are if the only alternative is not playing, or not having anything happen in the game. If plot X is is the 'only game in town', X is a railroad plot.</blockquote>

Verification