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: 2961844" data-attributes="member: 40394">Once again, some people are fine with railroading or linear plots. Most people are fine withe GM fiat in some form.But that doesn't mean everyone is, or that the people who aren't are being 'unrealistic' or overly demanding. I run a reasonably non-linear style of game. I do that. I improvise a lot, I base future adventures on PC actions and motives and agenda. I do that. It is not impossible, far from it. A lot of people in this thread are denying that this style is possible, but lots of GM's do it all the time.That assumes they do, and that is often not the case. And another common variation is that they 'like the game fine', and only realise they weren't having much fun when they find another game more to their liking. All of this comes from GM's unwilling to look at what they're doing and consider that maybe they're leaning on player choice a little too hard for the group they have.I completly disagree. I have run a lot of games in my day and I find the 'false choice' idea to be counterproductive at best. Real choice is important. Evne if the player isn't going to have much choice in the game, they should at least have a choice as to what kind of game they play in, rather than having the GM mislead them as to the game's contents and style.The GM has a say, but so do the players, and it's important to genuinly work their say into the game, both by accepting their preferences, and operating based on them if you agree to do so (explicitly or otherwise). That means if a player says 'I want choice', you not only accept that, but, if you choose to play with them, you should genuinly make their choices matter, not simply lie to them and pretend that they do. No matter how clever a deciever a GM is, there is a vast different in the social dynamics involved in real choice, as opposed to ilusory choice.I'm not saying there isn't an illusory or non-trasparent component to Gming, of course there is- but a player who really wants choice, wants their choices to really matter.I can do better. Wich tells me any other GM can do better, too.I disagree, and I think this is a pretty empty criticism. What does this mean anyway? Does the word 'water' or 'fluid' have no meaning? They're pretty broad words. They work fine. The real problem is that railroading is being defined too broadly for people who railroad to be comfortable with. They would rather say "I don't see X as railroading" and ignore the real issue, that being player choice. When people say things like 'charm spells are not railroading', they are saying "I can take player choice away, and not only is it ok, but I don't have to consider it part of this thing lots and lots of player complain about". Any decent GM should not let themself off the hook about issues like this. They should keep and eye on their style, and chek themself to see if they're going too far, in a way their players are not enjoying.No, it's not. People who run a ravenloft game must accept that they are taking away some of the player's choices. Potentially all of them, depending on how it's run. They might wish to brush that off with a semantic argument, but that doesn't change the effect that has on their players.Correct! And that is the definition. The more choices you take away, the fewer choices they have. Everyone does this to some degree, but each choice removed results in less choice. The problem is that when people dodge the idea of railroading, they are dodging the reality that some people will find that a big problem, even if the as the GM , "don't define that as railroading".Player: "hey our PC's keep getting charmed by every mage we meet, and we kinda don't like it-"GM: "Sorry! I don't see that as railroading! It's logical that a high level mage could cast charm person, and you agreed to play a game with high level mages in it, so it's not railroading! Now get back to doing what your new NPC friend tells you!"It can be more or less of a railroad, a game can involve more or less choice. But it's still a railroad if it goes too far, and it's still a railroad even if a GM who is in the habit of removing a certain kind of choice finds the term objectionable.That definition is every bit as general as any definition. After all the GM always has some kind of result in mind when limiting choice, even if it's a very broad one.People are playing semanatics here or trying to link railroading to a specific kind of control, but it's not- it's about removing too much player choice, where 'too much' is defined by player preference, overt or otherwise.How much choice-removel is bad, and what kinds of choice removal, these are issues of player preference. But that's the deal- railroading is when the GM takes 'too much' away.Ok, I'm sorry, I made poor assumptions about their level of information. Obviously I am not harper material <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />I agree, that said, 'logic' is a slippery slope. I can think of a lot of situations where the GM thinks something is obvious, but it's actually pretty arcane or difficult for the players to understand. Comunication is far from perfect at most gaming tables.Likewise, even if people understand that say, there are harsh consequences for going into the evil temple, they might not realise what that means. A party who are happy to die in glorious battle against evil, could instead find themself charmed into serving as baggage-porters in the legion of evil.Additionally, the GM might rule that something is a logical result based on some pretty dodgy 'logic', such as the rle of an uber-powerful NPC in the situation. I think a lot of bad GM's calim that their rules are quire logical based for instance on their reading of a setting(the oWOD setting springs to mind as an example of this), but that doesn't mean they're not taking away player choice, often unfairly so.</blockquote>

Verification