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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2962771" data-attributes="member: 18280">There is obviously a breakdown in communication here somewhere.  Either you're not reading what you're responding to, or I'm not writing effectively.Of course these issues are relative to preference.  Hence my long argument with rounser that simply being linear does not constitute railroading.  If the players agree to play an advenutre path, they are not being railroaded.  If they agree under duress, different story.  If they think they are playing a free-form game, but are instead playing an adventure path, different story.  A linear game may be evidence of potential railroading, but is not in and of itself proof of railroading.The same applies to constraints on player choice and player power.  One player may want to start at 20th level in a party of 5th level characters; telling him "no" is not railroading.  The players may really want a natural "1" to hit the BBEG; saying "no" is not railroading.  A player joining an ongoing group in a world with no warforged ninjas is not being railroaded because he is disallowed a warforged ninja.  Again, constraints to player choices may be evidence of potential railroading, but are not in and of themselves proof of railroading.How you could have read the posts you responded to and thought, "Gee, in every post this guy says I'm not taking enough into account with my definition of railroading.  With every post he claims my definition is too broad.  He keeps claiming that I am not being accurate because I am not taking circumstances into account.  Obviously, his view is that these things are NOT relative." is beyond me.Again, maybe I wasn't being clear.Yes, but this does not make every control abuse.  Nor does it automatically make every allegation of abuse true.Look at your next little bit, with emphasis added: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. Each of those examples meet the criteria for railroading, because there is a usurpation of player power that leads to linear play.  However, if you remove the emphasized bits, claiming that any of the examples is railroading becomes ludicrous.Your other exampleYes, even when some guy's pet npc wizard charms the party, that's railroading. may or may not be railroading, depending upon what is meant by the emphasized words.  If you are implying what I think you are, then I would agree that a usurpation of player power is taking place, leading to linear play, and hence railroading.Everything in the game can be used to potentially railroad players.  That doesn't make everything a railroad.  If the players and the DM are at odds because the DM is abusive, either the players are going to quit or the DM is going to win.  Simply put, the scale of powers that a DM has relative to those of the players is of a much higher magnitude.  Those powers can easily be abused, especially when the DM is inexperienced or immature (which has nothing to do with age).  All examples of DM abuse are abuse.  Not all examples are railroading.Which is why I quoted Humpty-Dumpty from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass earlier.  If you ignore any useage which you do not agree with, no matter how overwhelmingly it is supported, you are stuck, like Humpty-Dumpty, declaring that words mean what you want them to mean, nothing more and nothing less.  Which creates a clear limitation on anyone's ability to communicate rationally.But your earlier definition leads to claims that, for example, all paralysis is railroading, as well as several other weird examples that were brought up by Hussar and myself.  If they are not railroading, as you then claimed, your definition could not have been complete.  So, you revised your definition.  When I parsed out the difference between your earlier and later definition, the later definition (not surprisingly) had moved closer to "Usurpation of player control + linear play = railroading".It means that the outcome of action is foreordained regardless of player input.  It can be foreordained by months or years (the DM decides the final encounter at the start of the game, and by hell or high water the BBEG will live to see it) or foreordained by 30 seconds (you took the last Coke from the fridge and now your character is going to die, die, die). This linear action doesn't have to be long-term, but it does have to exist.  In the beginning of the WLD, for instance, [SPOILER]the moment you enter the dungeon the exit disappears.[/SPOILER]  There is no way to detect or avoid this.  That is definitely linear, it definitely usurps player control, and it is definitely a railroad.  (There, Hussar, now you can have something to argue with me about.)  Once inside the dungeon, teleportation spells do not work to get you outside the dungeon, but play is no longer linear.  You have lots and lots of options; you do not, however, have every possible option.  Some player control has been usurped, but many options abound.  The railroad is over; linear play has ended; reasonable choice has resumed.I am somewhat confused why they should not make such distinctions.  Surely, figuring out why you didn't enjoy something is the first step to avoiding similar things in the future?Nor do I see any clear indication that a lack of parsing out the reasons for dissatisfaction implies that there are no reasons, or that those reasons are not determinable.  Finally, if you go back to this sort of "because the players don't enjoy it" type definition, then why isn't a PC death automatically railroading?  If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that there is no objective assessment that can be made regarding railroading, that the only criteria required for subjective assessment is how the player feels about something that occurs in the game, that there must be some removal of player choice or power so long as the caveat that only how the player feels determines whether or not there was removal of player choice or power and/or whether such limitations were legitimate, and that this is the most commonly accepted useage of the term "railroading".  Have I got that quite right?</blockquote>

Verification