Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 2968479" data-attributes="member: 12037">And I'm saying it isn't bad.I think that railroading defined simply through Player desire is a useless definition. Under your definition, DM A and DM B can be doing exactly the same thing, and one is railroading and the other isn't because of the way the Players feel. This isn't a useful definition. We can't even give the DM advice on how to better not railroad if he wants, because that's dependant on his group's playstyle.Any definition that involves a qualitative analysis of the group is going to be a bad definition. It means that whether something is a railroad is subjective and thus basically immune to being defined. It's like trying to define "good" or "bad," you can't strike out a positive definition of what it is. You can only say what you prefer and what you dislike. You're making the same true of railroad.And, yes, on a messageboard defining railroading as "bad" basically means that you're going to use it mostly as a disparaging remark or in a complaint, which makes it not so useful to determine what you're actually talking about.That's not the issue. The issue is an objective definition of railroad, which you don't believe exists. I do think it exists and I think I can quite surely say if something is railroading or not, despite the fact that the Players might love or hate it.You can give DMs lots and lots of advice without defining railroading as something inherently bad. Indeed, if you define railroading as something that can only be assessed by the Players in said game, you lose the ability to give advice. I prefer a baseline, and then when discussing you can point out that Option A is slightly railroading, but generally deemed okay, Option 2 is heavy railroading, and might be avoided if the Players don't like that, and Option 3 is more free form, with all the complications that come with that.Thus, we can talk about gaming in a more robust way instead of just saying "See what you're group wants. Here's a questionaire."That's my main problem with your definition. It basically sidesteps the whole question of what is railroading. It means DM A and DM B can't have a reasonable discussion on DMing involving railroading without them both agreeing on a standard to set. If there is no baseline of "this is railroading" then the whole discussion about it becomes pointless.If you want to talk about DMs making sure their Players like their games, that's admirable. But, that's a different discussion, IMO.My main problem with that, to repeat my position, is that two DMs can run a game exactly the same way, shoehorning PCs into doing what they want them to do to further the plot, but one is railroading because the Players aren't happy and the other isn't railroading because the PCs are happy.To me that's like saying that two DMs running a low power game with lots of moral ambiguity are running two different kinds of games: DM A's players are having fun so he's running grim 'n gritty, DM B's players aren't having fun so he isn't running grm 'n gritty. That makes no sense. But, replace it with DM controlling what the PCs do, and it fits railroading? And because it is acceptable, it isn't considered railroading? Why not just say it is railroading, but an accepted form and not necessarily a bad thing? Why not say that some groups are more comfortable with railroading at the beginning of a session in order to move along the action and get more game in? Why must the Players be unhappy with it for it to be railroading?DM A: You're sitting in a tavern when you see-PC: Hey! Why are we in a tavern? We ended the last game sleeping in bed!DM B: You're sitting in a tavern when you see your old nemisis Snake walk in.PC: Did he see us? I try to stay hidden and move toward the entrance.Why is DM A trying to railroad his group and MD B not? They both did the same thing!That I agree with, but it seems to go against the idea that the definition is subjective.</blockquote>

Verification