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: 2966096" data-attributes="member: 40394">My problem with the 'logic' arugment is that it's arbitary. Many, many bad GM's defend their bad GMing as utterly logical and consistant. But that doesn't make it fair, or make it fair to control the players. You tell me: are endless charm spells fair? Are they not railroading? They're logical, from a certain point of view. But they're still instances of a loss of power, and that is an issue each GM must confront. GM's can't brush that off because it's 'by the book'. Is it a railroad if the GM arbitarily puts them in there. And who's to say he has not?Would you agree that many of the more abusive or fun-damaging cases of PC-to-PC agression have at their core, power issues? When one PC bullies another PC, in a way wich is bad for the game, I find it's often got to do with the player doing the bullying having issues and liking the idea of exerting power over others at the table. I think that's a mindset that has a lot in common with that of many railroading GM's- not all of them of course, railroading is caused by a lot of different motives. But Again, we're talking about power issues.I think that what a player wants is a vital issue in the game, and if a definintion touches on that, it's a good thing. Furthemore, when we talk about choice issues, power issues, we're talking about issues central to the game.And again, the hobby is imprecise. The enjoyment of the game is ambiguous and subjective. It would be imprecise to try and user terminology that does not take that into account.I think that power and choices have a lot to do with player happyness. The player of a constantly charmed or trapdoored PC is unhappy in much the same way as a PC stuck in whatever other predictament qualifies as railroading. Likewise, for a GM or group trying to solve that problem, much of the same broad advice applies. And because of this I feel the same, or similar, terms should apply when describing the problem.Yeah I totally agree that the 'empty game' or 'wasteland' is as bad as the railroad. I used to think the railroad was more widespread, but I think they're both very well-known. As an aside, what I find interesting is that despite the fact that they're on opposite ends of the spectrum, they sometimes have some odd things in common. For instance- ambiguity and miscomunication. In both a railroad, and a wasteland, the players often aren't sure what the GM wants from them. In a railroad, they get faced with a wall, and they're not sure wether the GM wants them to try and climb over, or turn around and go the other way. In a 'wasteland', they get faced with a setting, and they're not sure wether they're really supposed to just do what they want, or if the GM wants them to track down a particular plotline.In both cases I find that GM's leaning into such errors do better if they spend more time speaking to their players about what everybody actually wants out of the game. Sometimes this can be a problem because it results in ireconcilable problems with conflicting play styles, but I generally think such discussions are for the best.Yeah, this is my point. Different play-styles result in different kinds of game. In some games things are quite linear, and everyone is fine with that. In others, players won't abide by a lack of choice in an area they consider important (for instance some players are ok with their PC's being beaten up or captured, but they can't stand coersion-like effects like charm spells of 'social-fu', because they feel the mind of their character should be their turf alone.)All this varies, but the primary, the paramount factor is preference. Sure, preference isn't perfect- some players might have preferences or expectations wich are not realistic, or unfair on the GM. OTOH, there are variant 'freeform' modes that some people enjoy simply because they like makig choices in a way that the conventional player-GM model does not allow for.But in any event, preferences are still at the core of why players have a problem with this kind of stuff. They have this problem, because they're not getting to make the kind of choices they enjoy making. Not any loss, potentially any given instance of loss, as defined by the player's preferences.And franky I don't think some people are trying at all to undrstand what I mean. When I see people posting things like "Oh so you mean I can never use charm spells or vampires!", that tells me they're trying to misunderstand. I think i've been pretty clear, despite the typos.</blockquote>

Verification