Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="happyelf" data-source="post: 2969299" data-attributes="member: 40394">I was being sarcastic.  That said . . .You're still missing the point here. Just because one player isn't having fun with a game, doesn't mean the game is objectivly bad. This is the reality that you are willfully ignoring- fun is not objective. There are any number of situations in wich a specific player might find a game utterly infuriating, boring, frustrating, even offensive, but other players, with different preferences and play style, might find the very same game to be inspiring, entertaining, and challening. This is what you are failing to get through your skull- that reality isone of the key issues that any group must deal with, and any definintion with as common a usage as 'railroading' must be based on that reality.I've said this, it must be a dozen times on this thread. When are you going to accept it? You completly ignore it again and again, but ultimatly it cannot be ignored. Ask 10 gamers what railroading is, and what railroading is not, ask them to be spcific, and you'll get 12 different answers. And they're all correct, for them.No, it doesn't. It jsut articulates the balance of power wich already exists. Furthemore, I repeat that your critiera for 'rationality' or 'reasonable justification' is extremly dubious. It's easy to use words liek that, but when you put it into action, all that results is the player complains to the GM, the GM claims their complaint is not 'rational' enough, and then, at best, they have an argument like the one we're having now. That is not constructive, nor is it rational.Your'e acting like the definition of railroading is the be-all and end-all of the entire group process. That's absurd. It's a piece of terminology that can be used by a player to help them express a greviance or complaint. There is nothing thay follows from the definintion, that says the player then has the right to 'imbalabce the game', or set the table on fire, or any other apocalyptic outcome. Rather, the definintion simply recognised the reality that is in play- if the player is not having fun, that's a problem. It's an issue that needs to be resolved.There isn't. Again, you're being arbitary, not objective. The idea is to amke things as un-unpleasant as possible, not make excuses and defend such a situation. There is no valid criteri for fair, when we talk about issues at this point. You're just giving people another word to argue over. Far better that they have the real discussion, but they can't if you're obscuring the real issues by inserting a bunch of arbitary jugements that everyone in the entire hobby is supposed to agree on. Any group can arrive at a resolution and a fair balance and compromise may be possible for whatever conflicts that arise- but that process isn't going to be served by stapling it into the definintion of railroading, and lumping on a pile of worthless and arbitary standards for what 'fair' is. Again I repeat, I am a believer in some level of objective standards about gaming. There are universal norms across all groups within the hobby. I think there are quite a few universal 'rules' that can be applied to positive ends. But there is also vast diversity of different styles and preferences and goals forplay, and rule #1 is to recognise that diversity, and deal with it apropriatly. There is no maturity to be had by ignoring the reality that we are speaking about matter of preference. Nor is there any maturity in the aplication of arbitary terms of little worth.No it does not. Simply because you present another definintion, does not make mine any less valid. The 'player test' stands because it is relevant, while the other criteria presented are not. Again, not true. It speciffies the nature of the complaint, and the type of problems that result, as wel as other information, such as a possible motive for the GM's actions, and a potential solution. This is also completly untrue. Just because one player does not like something, does not mean all players will dislike it. Again, if you ignore this, you ignore the basic reality of the games we play. Feel free, but you're only fooling yourself. They are correct isofar as they have a problem with the situation, and to the best of their ability they identify the problem as relating to control issues within the game. That is the best genuine information we can gain from such terminology. No, your problem is that my definintion is different from yours and you don't like that. You've been going on and on for pages and pages but all this is really pretty obvious if you just take the blinkers off. But that's exactly what you are saying. All they have to do is use a code-word like 'logical' or whatever and they're off the hook. The difference is that my definintion disguises nothing. We are talking about subjective preference, as defiend by a greviance made by players specific to the power dynamic in the game. This, it is for the player to define the problem. Yes, the problem is that it's the correct definition and you can't accept that because you're unwilling to recognise the reality of the situation. No, that is far more like the kind of arbitary test you are proposing, where two situations, both of them potentially railroading, are defined as railroading or not based on whatever dodgy critera you set up for the term.This is particularly true for the worst(IMO) railroading GMs- GMs who really want to control the plot, take it away from the players, are bound to find a device to do so wich you define as 'not railroading'. Go ahead, give me a list of things you would not consider railroading, and i'll show you how a GM can dictate the whole game using them. And if you can't see how that qualifies as railroading, then that only proves my point.</blockquote>

Verification