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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 2967442" data-attributes="member: 9053">Well I certainly didn't mean to imply that there wasn't an interesting thread to be had here, far from it. What my concern is that I've seen this sort of thing way too many times where the participants in a debate can't come to the basic meeting of the minds that's necessary to have a proper discussion. That's the stage where you get a lot of post that basically say 'no, that wasn't what I meant" and arguing over the most basic points.To my mind, a definition of a term needs to be both specific and general enough so that it can have some meaning. If railroading is any time the players don't have complete 100% freedom to do absolutely anything and have the GM instantly ready for it, then about 99.9% of all RPGs are railroads. Similarly, if the only time you railroad is when the players say "okay, we go through the door," and the GM answers, "you can't do that, at least not now," (like an old text adventure game) you almost never have railroading.The interesting discussion is between those two lines (again, in my opinion, obviously). To give an example: I've played the Call of C'thuhlu adventure "Masks" on three different occasions, one time with an amazing GM, and the game ended each time because it is a tightly scripted scenario. At the point where it ended, we knew that the world was going to end, but we felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do to stop it, even in a "you can go and valiantly sacrifice yourself to save everyone" sort of way. It didn't seem like we had any room to move the direction the game was going!That's the problem, I think: the definition isn't at the point where either side can wrap their head around it in such a way that a discussion can be had beyond a definition.For me, I would use this definition: Railroading is a term, within the context of the agreement that the players and the GM have come for the kind of campaign that will be played, where the actions of the players have no impact on the outcome of the game.I think that's a functional definition that allows for a lot of different types of games to run based on the preferences of the players and their GM. If the GM is running the Slavelords or Against the Giants adventures, the players have to buy into a campaign with those enemies or you're going to be stuck. For some, both of those campaigns are going to be rail-roadish (and the Slavelords are much moreso in my opinion) but the real point is to get all of that discussion out of the way before the game starts. Johnny Carson used to say that "if you buy the premise, you'll buy the bit," and I think he was right.If the kind of game you're looking for isn't one where the GM has preconceived notions of adventures and has a plot or theme for the game in mind, you're not going to enjoy either of those campaigns, nor would you most likely enjoy Age of Worms or Shackled City. I guess my point is, where we are at in terms of this discussion, is the fact that you should probably not play in that kind of a campaign if it isn't what you want to do.Once we agree on the first part (the definition) we can discuss the merits of, say, the Slavelords adventures against the Giants adventures. In my opinion, the Giants modules are significantly better because they provide a framework and common enemies for the campaign, but then leave what to do ultimately up to the players. An interesting discussion would then be how to take the Slavelords and make the series more open-ended.Again, just my $.02.--Steve</blockquote>

Verification