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: 2962593" data-attributes="member: 40394">That's completly wrong. If you can not bring yourself to accept the fact that these issues are relative to prefernce, then you are not going to help anyone. You're just giving people excuses to ignore the real issues.Any control byt the GM has the oppurtunity to be abused. ANY control. Yes, even your favorite way of controlling the game, or that guy over there, or some other guy. Yes, even when some guy's pet npc wizard charms the party, that's railroading. Yes, even when the GM over-used monsters with paralisis powers so he can take the PC's capitive for the umteenth time, that's railroading. Yes, even if the GM nods along when the player says he wants to do a more gritty crime-based game, but privatly resolves to force the game into his preferred heroic mode, that's railroading. All these things are potentially railroading. I'm sorry, i'm talking about the actual usage of the word, not the definitions given from sources every bit as flawed as those on this thread. When real people, players, complain about railroading, they don't specify 'linear' in some semantic manner- for instance i've never seen a player complain about a game that lacks real choice, but then say "However since this lack of choice was not caused by the GM's adherence to a linear plotline, it isn't railroading!" What does linear even mean? Does a GM have to write a plot down in advance, for it's to be considered railroading when he tries to enforce it? Distinctions like that serve no real purpose. They just let GM's off the hook for leaning on player choice in a way they should be cautious of abusing.And yet, that is the undeniable reality of what railroading is. I find that the statements made by players are of far more use when discussing terms used by them. Players make no such distinction, nor should they- for players, railroading is a lack of choice wich they do not enjoy. They may differ on the details, but that is a matter of preference.No, it's not. This is not true. Railroading is use in a very broad way, but not a meaningless way.Completly and utterly wrong. You are willfully ignoring what i'm saying, I guess because you're not conformtable wich what you percieve to be a challenge to your style of GMing. But that means nothing to me- the facts are clear. You've said that if railroading is too broad a term it is meaingless (false) and that if railroading can be applied to many different types opf control, then everything si railroading (false). I don't think you're making any effort to understand what i'm saying at all, wich is a shame because it's very simple and pretty obviously self-evident if you stop to think about it. Railroading is a loss of chocie that a given player does not like. No it doesn't. Your criticisms don't make any sense. Those are both potentially cases of railroading. I'm amazed that anyone can look at the first instance and ignore the posibility that it's railroading, that many players, dependent on their preferences, will no apreciating being forced down a path in that way. For one thing, how do they know it si random? For another, who's to say it is? How often does the gm roll to see if a cave collapses, anyway? Many GM's will only make such a roll (or an equivalent)when it suits them, and many who endorse this kind of mindset will fudge the roll if it doesn't come up as they wish. A 'random roll' is hardly a clear cut issue. For sintance, say there are two walls that the PC can climb. One the Gm wants them to climb, one thye do not. Wich do you think will have a higher climb DC? Wich will the GM make more checks for?Nothing is clear cut in GMing, everything is ultimatly effected by fiat, and a railroading GM can lean on fiat in many different ways, ways that many may or may not feel are legitimate.I've stated a clear crtieria for the term. Railroading is when player choice is removed in a way they find objectionable or inapropriate. It's a matter of preference. Your example s false, since as I have repeatedly said, IT IS A MATTER OF PREFERENCE. Different players will find different kinds of GM control to their liking. Some players will be happy to accept whatever adventure or session goal the GM puts in front of them- others will want to decide where they want the party to go. Some players will be happy to plough through as many monsters as the GM throws at them- others will have their own crtiera for what they consider a fair challenge, be it based on system balance, or the norms of the setting. Some players will accept their character being charmed of geased if they faila save, others will be hostile to anything they percieve as taking away an essential 'core' of their contorl over the character. And the list goes on. In the example, you and ernie are both right, potentially. While there may be such a thing as a super-power-tripping GM who commits railroading beyond all issues of preference, preference is still the primary criteia, and semantics like 'linear' have no role in any event. I agree, but the most commonly accepted usage is mine, not yours. Quite self-evidently, railroading is a removal of player choice wich the player finds objectionable or innapropriate.Yes, but it might be true, so ruling it out on semantic grounds is not valid. Player: "Hey, every time my PC bard tries to play his lute in a tavern to get some money, your uber NPC bard teleports in and does a much better performance and humiliates him. That's not fair!"GM: "Sorry! That is based on his personality, it's not a 'linear plot element' per se! Hence it is not railroading! You'll just have to get your money from this fedex quest I have written up!"It is railroading. It's a GM stomping on the player's choices. Because it's not a tactic, it's the GM running roughshod over the game. Why does every mage have charm memorised at just the right time? Why can't the PC's use endless charm spells, and don't pretend they can with the impunity afforded these NPC's? Why can't the PC's use other 'effective strategies', like using the geyser mode of a decanter of endless water to drown all the dungeons they come across? Many GM's are quite happy to run their monsters like swat teams, and then demand far different standards of behaviour from the PC's. But of course if they stop 'falling' for it, they will change tactics. Why do I get the feeling that if, after months of game time in wich the PC's get charmed over and over, once they get hold of say, some charm-resisting amulets, these once charm-happy npc wizards will immediatly switch to another strategy? Even if they've never met the PC's? Or are you saying that you'd continue to have your wizard NPC"s open with a charm spell in every encounter, waste their first round of casting, if that's what you were doing prior to the PC's picking up such defences? Wouldn't that be logical?The 'strategic option' argument works for some, but not for others. It's a matter of, yes, once again, preference. Some people will be fine with it, others will loathe it. And it's hardly the objective reality you claim. It doens't matter what you prefer, the reality is the same. The reality is that everyones preferences matter, not just yours. You may prefer to charm the PC's a lot and not suffer any flack for it, but it's still as lame thing to do in the minds of many players. It doesn't matter if your definition of railroading legitimised that strategy- many players will still feel it is inapropriate, and they have that right. If you want to help those players have fun, you will respect their preferences.</blockquote>

Verification