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: 2968851" data-attributes="member: 40394">Railroading is a removel of player choice and/or control, wich the player finds objectionable. Different players object to different kinds of restructions on their actions, wich is why so many people have different takes on what railroading is- they're all right, for them. I mention charm spells for two reasons, first because they are 'by the rules', but still have obvious potential for abuse by the GM. Many would defend such a method but but it's a pretty obvious case of a completly 'legit' or 'logical' action by the GM wich could still be used to control the PC's actions in a pretty blatant fashion. And of course if the GM takes to using charm spells a lot, they effectivly render the player's control of the character meaningless. Overuse of charm spells and other kinds of mental manipulation are a pretty obvious instance of something many people would see as railroading.Second, even in cases where charm spells are used sparingly, some players will still hate them. I've observed this kind of mindset in players several times. Some players have a loatthing of stuff that takes the character's will away from them. Many of these players don't mind if their character is attacked, even killed, or subdued and imprisoned, but they draw a line between that and effects that warp the character's mind. That's a matter of preference, and some people may not see that as railroading, but if you keep dumping charm spells or geas onto a player with that mindset, they're quickly going to grow frustrated, no matter how 'legit' a GM may claim such actions as being. Actually that's a pretty commonly recognised instance of bad GMing according to some sources. Setting up an adventure that doesn't let the player use their character's abilities is something some people would see as a big no-no. Other people think it's no big deal. Either way I don't think it's nesecarily railroading since it's not clear how choice acts in the situation, but it's definitly a matter of preference. Some groups will be fine wiht situations like this, others will object quite strenuously. That's not how I define railroading. I think any definition wich ignores player desire is utterly worthless. I don't just think that, it's obviously, blatantly true. Yup! Yes it is, and more to the point, it's vastly better than the otehr definitions being offered, wich are not only useless, but potentially damaging to a group. Yes we can. As I've already said, the key to avoiding railroading is to comunicate with your players, figure out what they do and do not like, and what kind of control they're ok wiht yo having over the plot. Sometimes that may lead to ireconcilable differences within the group, or (more likely) some kind of compromise, but the issue remains the same. This is much better advice than the alternative, wich is to simply ignore the problem if the definition doesn't define it as railroading. Actually that is the onyl type of definition that isn't going to be a bad definition. No it's not, i've been defining it for several pages now. All i'm doing 'to railroad' is giving it a useful, functional definintion, rather than letting people off the hook for doing something they're players may have a problem with.Yes after all what do complaints or negative remarks have to do with anything? I mean just because a player is complaining about a game, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it!Yes it is. There's a difference between obejective and arbitary. My definintion is objective. The definitions others are putting fourth are arbitary, not objective. They are indeed more subjective than mind, since they rely on the subjective assumptions people armaking about, for instance, what a legitimate form of control is. Yes and you do this based on your own prefernces as a GM, and your unwillingness to accept that some of the things you may do reside in a category you do not wish them to reside in. Yes, you can advise them to ingore their player's, you can advise them to trick them or lie to them, and, to take an example above, you can advise them on how best to avoid that horrible scourge, players entitlement!I am not convinced that any of this advice you speculate about would be even remotely positive. No you don't. You jsut lose the ability to give one kind fo bad advice, that being "ignore what your players want!"Where's your baseline? You clearly have no idea how widely playstyles vary in this hobby. Again, you're talking about a less robust method, not a more robust one. No it doesn't, it just doesn't define it in a way you find gratifying. Definitions wich ignore player preference are the ones doing the side-stepping. Yes that's right, people can't discuss something unles they first define their terms. That's how it works. This is news to you?No it does't, in actual fact it stopps being pointless. No it's not. The issue of player choice and input is one of the core issues relating to running a game.</blockquote>

Verification