Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="happyelf" data-source="post: 2961951" data-attributes="member: 40394">But he is still limimting choices. Nobody is saying that. Likewise, under no circumstances should the unwelcome reduction of player choice be justified via semantics. 'Legitimate' is a matter of opinion, instant death is a pretty obvious example of this. Some people might claim that it's legit to kill a PC by gating a balor onto them, but it's hardly self-evident, and if the player still has a big problem with it, that's still a bad thing!No. The Gm comes up with the circumstances, the reality, and if the player doens't like it, that's a problem. The Gm may feel it's perfectly legit for the PC's to be mind-controlled by their petNPC for a couple of sessions, but it doens't matter if the players don't like it. They still don't like it, it's still a lack of  choice they don't like.Doesn't matter. It's still the GM making the call, and it's still a matter of wether the players are enjoying the game, and the way the GM is effecting their choices. And it sucks if you roll up a first level character and elminster appears in their house, chokeslams them through the table, and then sets their groin on fire. Too bad! It's by the rules!Any GM can rationalise any decision they make, or action they take. A good GM realises that all their actions impact the fun of the game, and that their rationalisations are not sacrosant or self-justified.What matters is how the players feel about the game- there are no doubt a vast number of players who would not enjoy a session in wich they were paralised or helpless for most of the action, and only a poor Gm brushes that off if it occurs 'by the rules' or for a logical reasons. That has nothing to do wiht anything I said.There is something opposed to the term- choice. The whole issue here is the balance between the player's choice, and the GM's choice. That is the issue here, what people want, what happens in the game, and how the two interact. Focusing on semantics neglects the fact that this issue is inherenlty one of prefernce, wich varies from player to play, GM to Gm, group to group. There's nothing meaningless about discussing the real issues.One does no such thing. If I think somethig is tacky, does 'tacky' have to be universal? Of course not. It's a matter of preference.No, it's not. My definition is more accurate than your own, or at the very least, they have equal merit. Railroading is not limimted by the criteria you guys are setting out, wether they be based on charm spells, campaign setting, or any other distinction you may seek. Railroading is simply when a player has a choice taken away, and doesn't like it, then they go complain on the internet and call it railroading. That's railroading.This only proves my point. You ignore the real and common usage of the term, and instead try and implant your own.The reality is that railroading relates to any loss of power or choice wich the player finds objectionable. That is how people use the term. There is no universal standard for legitimacy, it's a matter of preference, and the tastes of the individuals involved.And even more, different players can be proactive in different ways.That's not the case at all. The GM's prefernces matter, but so do those of the players. There are a lot of ways to run less linear games, but at no point is the idea to enslave the GM. Actually I find that a lot of improv methods, and games with more player input end up reducing the workload of the GM.</blockquote>

Verification