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: 2963018" data-attributes="member: 40394">It is quite right, even if you don't accept it. When a player says "this is railroading!" that is why they are saying it. Look, i'm not opposed to objective or universal terms when discussing roleplaying,. I've argued on their behalf on other forums. And I can think of may types of problem player/GM who's behaviour might lead them to railroad, independant of the preferences of players- likewise there are many type of problem player who are unable to accept the role of the GM in the conventional mode*, and will rail against that no matter what, unless they get their way. But the reality is that roleplaying is a vastly subjective and variable process, collectivly it includes many, many variations of play-style, preference, areas of interest, and so on. And something like railroading is a perfect example of that in action. One player's challenge is another player's killer DM. One group might welcome a campaign where the orders are given by an NPC in a position of authority, another group might recoiol at the very thought! And while there are many models for 'legitimate usage of power' by the GM, ALL of them are primarily a matter of preference and habit. That doesn't mean they're bad, or wrong, it just means that they're not universal, and they are far less broadly applied than railroading itself. Applying railroading exclusivly to one instance or set of power-norms or another is an error. It is flat out wrong. Now, you are stuck on your definition, and nothing is going to change that, so i'm not going to try and convince you any further. But the fact remains:Railroading is when player choice is removed in a manner wich the player finds inapropriate or otherwise objectionable.*These problem players are distinct from non-problem players who simply do not enjoy the conventional type of RPG and prefer other types of play such as freeform or shared control, ect.It's not that simple but that's the basic reality that you're all ignoring. Railroading is a matter of preference.No, he can't. If he finds his options in the game limited, that is a problem. That is THE problem we're discussing. People not having fun at the table is priority #1 for any game worth playing. Brushing that off is absurd. There is no way such a claim can be "100% wrong".You're just using circular logic. "These are examples of non-railroading because they are". Wrong. Those are examples of railroading.When a GM takes choice away from the player, in a way the player finds objectionable, that is railroading. Again, this sounds like you just brush off terminology you don't like. 'Carries no weight'? How so? It carries a hell of a lot of weight when a GM is left with no players, or players waste months of time on a game that the GM claimed would not have railroading in it, but really, really does, despite the GM's reading of wikipedia or a thread on an internet forum. Those events carry real weight. All this talk and semantics is weightless compared to that. Again, there's no point this continuing if you just brush off any argument you don't like with empty rebuttal like "It carries no weight", or "It's so broad it's useless, like half the words in the english language".Wrong again. The definintion obviously, undeniably has value as a critical term, unlike the other definitions being bandied about, wich are all about letting the GM off the hook from criticism.</blockquote>

Verification