Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2967092" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yes, there are conceptual litmus tests that we can do.&nbsp; It's based on communal experience.&nbsp; Sure, there might be disagreement, but, there are generally elements that we will almost always agree on.&nbsp; Using the &quot;reasonable person&quot; standard is an accepted practice for many things.&nbsp; Simply accepting the player's views of things is not terribly useful.I do define railroading as &quot;a bad thing&quot;.&nbsp; Those things that are generally accepted as part and parcel of a DM's job - adventure design for example - I would not label as railroading.&nbsp; As Dr. Simon pointed out, a given situation might be a railroad or it might simply be a DM doing his job.While, by a broad definition of railroad, both examples Dr. Simon gives are railroading, as he says, the first is really shepherding.&nbsp; Or, rather, it's not railroading because it's a generally accepted action by a DM.Thus I reject Rounser's definition of railroading.&nbsp; Part of a DM's job is to provide adventures.&nbsp; If the DM says to the players, &quot;Hey, let's play Shackled City&quot; he's not railroading.&nbsp; Granted, if he's springing it as a surprise to the players and gives them no choice in the matter, it would be railroading.&nbsp; It's perfectly acceptable for the DM to ask the players if they want to play in a particular campaign.&nbsp; It is not so acceptable to bait and switch.Thus, asking the players if they want to play in Campaign X is not railroading because it's acceptable.&nbsp; I really do like the term shepherding.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Conversely, we can apply an objective standard to the situation of the DM and Players in game.&nbsp; If we open up the DM's adventure and see that everything is planned and the players have no real choices, that's railroading.&nbsp; That's above and beyond the duties of the DM.&nbsp; It is not acceptable.&nbsp; However, if the DM does something that the players don't happen to like, but, is well within the bounds of the campaign setting and is fairly consistent, then it is not railroading.&nbsp; It's simply part of the DM's job.Sure, there's lots of grey in the middle.&nbsp; I have no beefs with that.&nbsp; But, brushing off the entire thing and simply saying, &quot;Well, it's railroading if someone says that it is&quot; makes the definition of railroading very difficult to use.&nbsp; Is Dragonlance a railroad?&nbsp; Perhaps.&nbsp; Depending on your point of view.&nbsp; There are certainly some elements I would say are, such as plot protection for certain NPC's.&nbsp; That is generally not considered a valid use of DM's authority to make invincible NPC's.&nbsp; OTOH, the set up of DL1, with the invading army and the quest to get the disks of Mishakal (sp), is perhaps not so much railroading as rather firm handed shepherding.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2967092, member: 22779"] Yes, there are conceptual litmus tests that we can do. It's based on communal experience. Sure, there might be disagreement, but, there are generally elements that we will almost always agree on. Using the "reasonable person" standard is an accepted practice for many things. Simply accepting the player's views of things is not terribly useful. I do define railroading as "a bad thing". Those things that are generally accepted as part and parcel of a DM's job - adventure design for example - I would not label as railroading. As Dr. Simon pointed out, a given situation might be a railroad or it might simply be a DM doing his job. While, by a broad definition of railroad, both examples Dr. Simon gives are railroading, as he says, the first is really shepherding. Or, rather, it's not railroading because it's a generally accepted action by a DM. Thus I reject Rounser's definition of railroading. Part of a DM's job is to provide adventures. If the DM says to the players, "Hey, let's play Shackled City" he's not railroading. Granted, if he's springing it as a surprise to the players and gives them no choice in the matter, it would be railroading. It's perfectly acceptable for the DM to ask the players if they want to play in a particular campaign. It is not so acceptable to bait and switch. Thus, asking the players if they want to play in Campaign X is not railroading because it's acceptable. I really do like the term shepherding. :) Conversely, we can apply an objective standard to the situation of the DM and Players in game. If we open up the DM's adventure and see that everything is planned and the players have no real choices, that's railroading. That's above and beyond the duties of the DM. It is not acceptable. However, if the DM does something that the players don't happen to like, but, is well within the bounds of the campaign setting and is fairly consistent, then it is not railroading. It's simply part of the DM's job. Sure, there's lots of grey in the middle. I have no beefs with that. But, brushing off the entire thing and simply saying, "Well, it's railroading if someone says that it is" makes the definition of railroading very difficult to use. Is Dragonlance a railroad? Perhaps. Depending on your point of view. There are certainly some elements I would say are, such as plot protection for certain NPC's. That is generally not considered a valid use of DM's authority to make invincible NPC's. OTOH, the set up of DL1, with the invading army and the quest to get the disks of Mishakal (sp), is perhaps not so much railroading as rather firm handed shepherding. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification